Lim Swee Say
Singapore
“The number of reports received via the Snap@MOM app, number of valid reports and number of companies issued with enforcement actions between 2015 and 2017 are shown in the table below: All valid reports have resulted in warnings or enforcement actions.”
“In the case of students from ITE, polytechnics or autonomous universities, employers do not need to contribute CPF if the student is employed by them for training that is approved by their institutions.”
“Together with our tripartite partners at the national and sector levels, we have to do our best to transform across all sectors, for our economy to transform and grow, pervasively, as One Singapore Unlimited.”
“Between April and December 2017, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) concluded 3,750 employee salary claims where the employer was ordered to make payment to the worker. Salaries were fully recovered in about 92% of these orders. The remaining claims involved 139 employers.”
“The number of employed residents aged 62 and over, and 67 and over has increased over the last five years (see Table 1 below). Of all employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 64% were males; 80% held secondary and below qualifications, 9% had post-secondary qualifications, while 11% were tertiary-educated; 52% of this group of older w…”
“The proportion of full-time resident employees earning below $2,000 who received bonuses, including the Annual Wage Supplement, has remained stable at about 50% over the last decade. Employers and unions share the flexibility in structuring staff remuneration together under our Flexible and Performance Based wage systems.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,231 lines we hold for Lim Swee Say, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 25.
“Mdm Speaker, the Member is right that the response to the PCP across the 50 PCPs is obviously uneven. In some cases, we have more supply than demand, meaning there were more jobseekers but fewer job openings from employers and, in some cases, the other way around. What MOM, together with our tripartite partners, is trying to do is to minimise this mismatch. Again, at the coming COS, we intend to make known further enhancements to the Adapt and Grow initiatives to minimise this mismatch between supply and demand.”
“We look at the number of PMETs who come to us and – I stand to be corrected – we were able to match 60% of them successfully to jobs. But it does not mean that the other 40% are jobless, because many of them will go through their own efforts, such as applying for jobs through the National Jobs Bank.”
“Mdm Speaker, firstly, in terms of the mix across the various age groups, I do not have the specific breakdown for the PCP alone. But, on the whole, of all the successful jobseekers we were able to place last year, as I can recall, about close to 40% were more than 50 years old. About one-third of those unemployed and managed to find jobs were unemployed for more than six months, meaning they are long-term unemployed. In terms of breakdown by PMETs and the rank-and-file, again, there is a good balance of about 50:50. Broadly speaking, our success rate, whether in terms of age breakdown or breakdown by PMETs versus rank-and-file or by long-term unemployed versus unemployed, I would say it has been fairly balanced and fairly inclusive. But, certainly, I would agree with the Member that for professional conversion, it is more likely that the more mature PMETs may find greater difficulties in going through this professional conversion. For example, one observation we made so far is that the majority of the PCPs start at the entry level. In other words, you move from one profession to another profession, but the majority of them end up starting from the entry level of the new profession. So, this may actually discourage the mature PMETs, because for them to start all over again at the bottom of the new career may be too painful. This is an area that MOM has looked into, whether we should strengthen and enhance the PCPs. You may hear something on this at the COS this year. In terms of the success rate, again, I have to recall from memory now. Broadly speaking, I would say that the success rate is about 60%. This is for all programmes; we do not keep track of the success rate by individual programme.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) was launched in 2007 to help our local PMETs acquire new skills to take on new careers. With economic restructuring and slowing local workforce growth, the risk of mismatches between jobseekers and jobs created in the labour market has increased. To overcome this challenge, we expanded the scope of PCPs under the Adapt and Grow initiative last year to allow for conversion to different jobs within the same sector, as well as to different jobs within the same company for sectors with high risks of redundancy. We also extended the coverage of PCPs to most sectors − with 50 PCPs at the end of 2016, compared to 22 at the start of the year. Last year alone, we increased the number of PCPs from 22 to 50, covering almost every sector of the economy now. The result of these changes has been encouraging, with more than 1,300 PMETs securing conversions through PCPs in 2016, which is 20% more than in 2015. Data on take-up by race is not available. However, based on ground observations from our career coaches from e2i and WSG, they have told us that the response across the racial groups is fairly balanced. In other words, there is a good mix of jobseekers from various racial groups. There remains much to do to support the manpower and skills needs of employers and, at the same time, to help our locals who may not have the relevant skills and experience to seize new job opportunities being created. MOM and WSG will continue to look at ways to strengthen our support for jobseekers under Adapt and Grow, including through PCPs, in close collaboration with our tripartite partners.”
“In other words, with the growth of the sharing economy, workers who have their primary employment are now taking advantage of sharing platforms to earn additional income, which may not be a bad thing. But as I have said, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our analysis at this moment.”
“Mdm Speaker, we have not done a comprehensive analysis. However, if you look at, for example, home ownership, between the freelancers versus the full-time employees, there is no significant difference in the rate of ownership. For the freelancers, we may ask them through informal surveys, "How do you prepare for your housing and retirement?" They will say, "Look, since I do not contribute to OA and SA, I have saved for it myself." If you ask the taxi driver, "Do you save enough to pay for your housing?" He will say, "Yes, I have." "Are you saving enough for your retirement?" He will say, "Yes, I am." This is based on the present situation. In a way, our concern about housing, medical and retirement needs of freelancers is not a new issue. It has been around for the last many years because freelancers have been around in the market for a long, long time. But what we are concerned about are the changes that are taking place in the employment landscape. Firstly, whether this number will grow and, secondly, how the market dynamics may change over time with more portfolio workers. And this is the reason why we thought it is timely now to start a new series of surveys to really go in-depth to understand the issues. We are not jumping to any conclusion at this moment because, firstly, we would like to know whether more and more of them are primary freelancers or secondary freelancers. Based on our initial findings from the first survey, it would appear that the number of primary freelancers did not increase significantly. Any increase might have come mainly from the secondary freelancers.”
“Mdm Speaker, the answer is yes. Over the years, MOM has always been worried about the retirement adequacy of these freelancing workers. This is because besides contributing to their MediSave account, they do not contribute to their OA and SA. We will always be concerned for them in terms of their savings for housing and retirement. So, as I have said earlier, the tripartite partners intend to focus on this and see how we can reach out to more of them and, hopefully, put in place various measures ‒ maybe on the part of the freelancers themselves or their customers' service buyers ‒ to see how we can work together to strengthen their retirement adequacy.”
“Mdm Speaker, over the three-year period from 2014 to 2016, we looked at the median gross income of employed residents. On the whole, there is a broad-based real wage increase over the three years from 2014 to 2016 across all categories. One sector saw a drop of about 1% a year, and that was in real estate services. Another sector which saw a fairly stagnant median income is finance and insurance services. For all the other sectors, including transportation and storage, there was a broad-based real wage increase over the three years. But having said that, I think past performance may not necessarily be an indication of future performance. What we are concerned about is whether, in time to come, the growth of this so-called gig economy will have a greater impact on more workers. And that is the reason why we have decided to initiate this new series of annual surveys. I would only be able to better answer the question raised by the Member after the tripartite partners have had the chance to look at these survey findings for last year and, subsequently, on a year-to-year basis for us to analyse further in terms of what are the best practices, as the Member has proposed, as well as what we can do together to strengthen the retirement adequacy of these workers.”
“Mdm Speaker, in June 2016, there were about 180,000 primary freelancers who operated their own business or trade as their main work without employing any paid worker, accounting for about 8% of our working residents. Even though the share of these primary freelancers has remained relatively stable, at between 8% and 10% of the working residents over the last 10 years, their numbers could be growing in specific sectors, such as private hire car services, while dropping in other sectors, such as real estate. The emergence of "sharing economy" platforms may also enable more people to take up freelancing as a secondary source of income. We have, therefore, initiated a new annual survey, starting in September last year, to gather more in-depth statistics on the changes in the freelancing landscape. This will help us better understand the profiles of freelancers, including whether they take up freelancing as a primary or secondary source of income, as well as the sectors and occupations they are in. With the information from the survey, we will monitor more closely the workforce trends of the "sharing economy" and look into the issues that freelancers may face, including retirement adequacy.”
“Mdm Speaker, I share the concern of the Member. I spent many years with the Labour Movement and now with MOM. To the best of my recollection, this is the first time that an employer has conducted such a major termination exercise and to declare publicly and to label the workers as poor performers. This is something that, as the Manpower Minister, I do not find acceptable. If the performance of the employees is not up to the mark, there could be contributing factors on the part of the employers as well. In other words, performance management should be a joint responsibility of employees and employers. In most organisations, if it reaches such a stage whereby the employees and employers can no longer continue the working relationship, they will find a way to go separate ways, but you do not label the person publicly. The management realises this as well and that is why they publicly acknowledged that the way they conducted the exercise could have been much better managed. I hope to make clear to all employers out there that when it comes to performance management, do it responsibly and, at the same time, do it sensitively. I hope that we will not come across another case where a company does a major termination and labels the employees as poor performers publicly. At the end of the day, yes, it may be poor performance in one organisation, but it does not mean a person cannot do well in other places. As I had mentioned, the work environment, HR practices and so on are also contributing factors.”
“Mdm Speaker, certainly. The tripartite partners have been and will continue to issue various HR guidelines for progressive HR practices. We will continue to widen the scope. The tripartite partners are also in the process right now of formulating something beyond guidelines. Hopefully, come the time for the Committee of Supply (COS) debate, I will be able to share with this House on how we can strengthen progressive HR practices in our HR community. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister: for this case involving Surbana Jurong terminating the 54 workers, they were labelled poor performers. With this label, it is very difficult for them or it would be an additional challenge for them to find the next job. I would like to ask MOM: if they need help, is MOM going to help them to find their next job?”
“Mdm Speaker, firstly, there is no need for the employees to have access to the documented proof. As long as an employee feels that he has been dismissed unfairly, he can just come to MOM. In other words, he does not need the cooperation of the employer. Just come to MOM and we will require the employer to produce the documented proof, failing which we will rule it as an unfair dismissal. Secondly, termination exercises happen within the purview of the companies. MOM will come in only when either the union brings it to our attention or the affected employees come to MOM. This has been the approach because it is not possible for MOM to investigate whenever there is a termination exercise, big or small.”
“Mdm Speaker, I agree fully with the Member. As far as MOM is concerned, we expect all companies to behave in a responsible manner, especially the major employers, whether it is a GLC, MNC, large local enterprise or, for that matter, public services. MOM does expect all companies, but especially major employers, to conduct their HR practices in a responsible and progressive manner. In this particular case, we are certainly concerned that a major employer could commit such an HR practice lapse. Looking forward, TAFEP is stepping up efforts to engage the employers out there, including the major ones. Members may be pleased to know that, last year, I talked about our plan to set up a programme known as the "Human Capital Partnership Programme", which is to reach out to employers, especially the major ones, to work together to value our precious human resources in a more responsive, sensitive, constructive manner. That programme will be launched quite soon, within the next few weeks. I would hope that, in time to come, we can continue to reach out to more employers, especially the larger employers, so that mistakes such as this need not happen again in the future. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister. In the case of Surbana, was documented evidence given to the employees of their poor performance? And do the employees have recourse to ask the employers for evidence, if they are not given the evidence? Are the employers obliged to give the evidence? Thirdly, does MOM step in when it comes to this kind of mass terminations where you have large numbers of people being laid off due to poor performance? Do they come in to investigate even if there are no reports of unfair dismissal by the employees?”
“Mdm Speaker, employers who terminate employment contracts on the ground of poor performance have to be able to substantiate their claim of poor performance. The Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices make it clear that employers who wish to terminate the services of employees on the ground of poor performance are to apply relevant and objective performance criteria. The criteria should be made known to all employees. Employers should also keep records of their employees' performance and a decision to terminate the service of an employee should be based on documented poor performance. The key word is "documented". Where it involves a unionised employee, the union should also be consulted. If the employee files an appeal of unfair dismissal to MOM, we will first mediate. Should mediation fail, we will conduct an inquiry and require the employer to show cause and produce evidence to justify the termination. This remedy is provided under the Employment Act, as well as the Industrial Relations Act for union members. If an employer is unable to substantiate his claim that the employee's performance is poor, the employer may be ordered to reinstate the employee or to provide compensation. If the employer does not comply with the order, he can be prosecuted. In the case of Surbana Jurong's recent exercise to terminate the services of 54 employees, the company has acknowledged that the process could have been better managed. The management and unions have since reached an agreement on an ex-gratia payment which, in our view, is a fair outcome for the affected employees. This episode serves as a good reminder to employers that termination exercises should be conducted in a responsible and sensitive manner.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please.”
“We recognise that employees need our support during the time of bereavement. Already more than nine in 10 companies (92%) provide compassionate leave based on the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) survey in 2016. We will continue to work with our tripartite partners to encourage employers to voluntarily adopt such progressive workplace practices. The Government has introduced several family leave enhancements over the last few years. We should allow time for businesses to adjust and adapt. At this stage, we have no plans to make it mandatory for all firms to provide specifically for compassionate leave for their employees.”
“The number of private sector establishments4 that hire more than 100 employees5 and more than 1,000 employees is provided in Table 1 below. The corresponding number of employees hired by these private sector establishments is provided in Table 2 below. Data from 1965 to 1985 is not available.”
“Monthly Central Provident Fund (CPF) LIFE payouts are paid directly into members’ bank accounts by Inter-Bank GIRO on the fourth working day of each month, or to the CPF Ordinary Account if they do not have a bank account. The earliest that CPF LIFE payments can be made is the fourth working day of the month because (a) CPF Board credits interest on the first working day and deducts the monthly payments on the second working day to enable members to earn interest on the full CPF LIFE monies during the preceding month; and (b) the banks require two working days to clear and credit the payments into members' bank accounts. From 2011 to 2015, 99.98% of CPF LIFE payouts were paid out by the fourth working day. Payouts which could not be disbursed within the four working days were exceptional cases which required further verification. For example, for members who are mentally incapacitated, the CPF Board (CPFB) may need more time to check if there are new Court orders issued to ensure that members' payouts are paid out to a third party who is legally authorised to manage the member's monies. CPF LIFE payments are only made after the sixth calendar day in months where a public holiday and a weekend occur in the first week of the month. From 2012 to 2015, only 133 out of a total of 1.7 million payments were made after the seventh calendar day.”
“The table below provides the requested data: The number of employers prosecuted for failing to provide work injury insurance are as follows:”
“The tripartite partners have also stepped up our support for all retrenched workers through the Adapt and Grow initiative, providing job matching and career services for them. In addition, since 1 January 2017, it has become mandatory for employers to notify the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) of retrenchments so that we can reach more retrenched workers and offer them timely assistance.”
“For workers who have served more than two years, payment of retrenchment benefits is mandatory if it is specified in their individual employment contracts or the collective agreements negotiated by their unions. According to our survey on retrenchment benefits in 2015, it was not a widespread practice for employers to specify the quantum of retrenchment benefits in their employment contracts, except for the unionised sector where a majority of the collective agreements specify the quantum of retrenchment benefits. These establishments were mainly from manufacturing, construction and wholesale and retail trade. The same survey also found that around 90% of establishments which retrenched workers in 2015 paid retrenchment benefits to eligible workers. The tripartite partners have deliberated extensively on whether to make retrenchment benefits mandatory and to specify the minimum quantum in the Employment Act. We have concluded that it may not necessarily be beneficial for both workers and businesses. A mandated level of minimum retrenchment benefit will likely become the norm and would not benefit the workers in cases where the employers are able to pay higher amounts. If we set the quantum too high, companies may not be able to afford it, especially when they are downsizing under difficult conditions. Further, overburdening companies will also have a negative impact on the remaining workers in the company as they strive to restructure and turn around the business. Instead, the tripartite partners issue guidelines which stipulate the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefits quantum. These norms can be updated from time to time.”
“Termination of employment during maternity leave rarely occurs. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received one such complaint in 2016. The case involved an employee who was terminated as the employer's business had failed and ceased operations. With MOM's intervention, the employee was able to recover her maternity leave benefits. The employer has also been issued a stern warning. There is no indication that such cases are on the rise. Female employees are protected under the Employment Act and Child Development Co-savings Act. Those who have been unfairly dismissed during their pregnancy can appeal to MOM. If the dismissal is found to be without sufficient cause, MOM can order the employer to reinstate and/or compensate the employee. In addition, it is an offence to terminate the employment of an employee while she is on maternity leave. Such an offence carries a penalty of up to $5,000 fine and/or imprisonment of up to six months.”
“Mdm Speaker, currently, employers of foreign workers already have to place a security bond of $5,000 per worker. Last year, 115 foreign workers were owed salaries, unpaid and unresolved. Of that number, 28 of them were Work Permit holders with security bonds. We managed to get the security bond insurer to offer $2,000 to pay each of the workers. So, what Member Louis Ng mentioned is effectively already in practice today.”
“Mdm Speaker, I think it is not quite possible for MOM to be able to assess the financial health of an organisation or a company to assess whether the company is able to continue paying salaries. What MOM does is this – we always encourage our workers, "The moment your employers stop paying you any salary, please come to us as early as you can". This is our message and that remains our message. Ms Lim may wish to advise her residents that anytime their employers stop paying them their salary, they can come to MOM straightaway. They do not have to wait for two or three months. The moment it is overdue, you have the right to exercise that option. That is the best way.”
“Mdm Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the debarment we impose on the companies also applies to culpable directors. What is meant by "culpable directors"? This refers to directors who deserve blame for not paying salary, regardless of whether it is due to negligence, intentional or otherwise. In other words, if you are a director of a company and you have contributed to the non-payment of salary, the debarment applies to this director as well. So, this director can go on to open and start a new company, the debarment will follow him to the new company until he pays up the outstanding salary to the ex-employees.”
“Nine out of the 10 workers accepted this because they were realistic; they know the situation the company is in and they accepted it. At least two of them are now still working in Singapore with new employers. This particular claimant rejected the partial offer by the employer. He wanted to recover the full sum, which comes to about $7,500. As a result, he declined the offer by the employer. We are now in the process of helping him to file the claim and enforce the Labour Court order, knowing that the chance of recovery is very slim. The company has already ceased operations. I want to assure the House that we do take every case very seriously. What the workers can do, the best thing the workers can do to help themselves, is to come to us early. Eleven months is too long to wait because by the time the employer has stopped paying you for 11 months, there is a high chance that the company is in deep financial difficulty. By and large, most workers will come to MOM after two to three months. As a result, we were able to resolve 95% of them. I also agree with Ms Denise Phua's point that we should step up more in terms of educating the employer, the workers and members of public that in Singapore, we do take the welfare of our workers − whether foreign or local − very seriously. Salary is hard-earned money. Compensation for work injury is very important because when the worker is injured, it may affect his ability to work. To not pay him the compensation is unacceptable. I want to assure this House that we will continue to strengthen the system. Yes, I think the system today, by and large, is working well; 95% percent for unpaid salary and 99.9% for work injury, but I can assure this House that we will come up with more measures to link them up with MWC.”
“We are keeping track of these five cases to make sure that we derive the best outcome possible. In the case of the foreign workers mentioned by the Member, the media reports may have created a few misperceptions. First, the media reports said that the employers could just ignore and refuse to pay. I want to assure this House that no employer can afford to ignore and refuse to pay. As far as MOM is concerned, if I assess that this employer has the ability to pay, we will pursue it to the fullest. I do not have to wait for the workers to enforce the order from the State Courts. As MOM, I am already able to prosecute the employers because non-payment of salary, in itself, is an offence. So, I want to assure this House, please do not go away with the impression that any employer out there can afford to refuse and ignore the Labour Court orders. I assure Members that this has never been the case and we will make sure it will never happen in the future. Second, in this particular case, we did try very hard to help the worker. The issue is that this worker has outstanding salary for 11 months. The employer stopped paying him in October 2015 and it took him 11 months to come to MOM. By the time he came to MOM, the company was already in serious trouble. Notwithstanding this, there were 10 workers involved. The employer made an offer − paid each and every one of them $2,000 as a partial payment and, through the MWC, we offered to pay an ex-gratia payment of another $1,000. Every worker affected is guaranteed of at least $3,000; that is, $2,000 of partial payment from the employer and $1,000 from MWC. The rest of it, the employer promised that he would pay up in instalments, through best effort.”
“Mdm Speaker, on the issue of insurance coverage for work injury, I want to assure the House that the compliance rate is high. And that is the reason why 99.9% of the cases had no problems. Out of the 16,000 cases, only five cases had problems. Having said that, we do take such non-compliance seriously. That is why for every single case of non-compliance and non-payment, even for the first-time offender, MOM would prosecute the employer. We do need to send a very clear message. Of course, some may wonder why MOM cannot ensure 100% coverage. Our challenge is that when a company purchases WICA coverage for its employees, the insurance policy does not go by name. It is a group insurance. Along the way, during the year, there are workers who leave the company and workers who join the company. As a result, the responsibility of making sure that workers are covered has to rest with the employer. It is impossible for MOM to comb through every WICA policy and to cross-check with the movement of staff, and so on. Having said that, we want to assure this House that the compliance rate is high. For the five cases, all of the five employers have been or are being prosecuted. I also want to assure the House that we take every of these five cases very seriously. For the information of this House, these five cases involve four foreign workers and one local worker. For the four foreign workers, we continue to pursue the cases, and one employer has just paid up and another case is now with the State Courts. We are also helping the workers to find employment in Singapore and, at the same time, continue to find ways to resolve their outstanding claims. In the case of the local worker, we have started actions to enforce the payment.”
“Workers can also apply to the State Courts Registrar to waive or defer the costs of enforcing the order or to recover these costs from the sales proceeds. Meanwhile, foreign workers with valid salary claims are also allowed to change employers. More than 2,200 of such requests were granted in the past three years. Mdm Speaker, while we are relieved that the vast majority of unpaid salary, or 95%, and work injury cases, or 99.9%, are successfully resolved, we are, however, concerned with workers who are unable to recover their claims because their employers no longer have the financial means to pay. We will continue to strengthen our support for them. Currently, foreign workers can already receive financial relief from MWC. Likewise, for local low-wage workers, as announced in this House in August last year, those with unresolved salary claims will be able to receive short-term relief from the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) when it comes into operation in April this year. As for workers with more serious injury, if they fail to receive their work injury compensation and are in financial difficulties, we will continue to assist them through the Workers' Fund managed by MOM. On the part of the workers, I urge them to bring their cases to MOM as early as possible. This will greatly improve the chances of successfully resolving their claims before the employers reach dire financial straits.”
“9% of the approximately 16,000 injured workers had their cases successfully resolved. However, five out of about 16,000 cases did not because their employers had failed to purchase work injury compensation insurance and were unable to pay due to financial difficulties. MOM takes such offences seriously and prosecutes such employers under the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) and debars the companies and individual directors from hiring foreign workers, until they compensate their workers. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of $10,000, or imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both. In the last five years, 14 employers have been prosecuted for non-insurance and non-compensation or work injury. Madam, in most of the unresolved cases of unpaid salary or work injury compensation, the chance of workers recovering payments from their employers is slim. This is not because the employers could just ignore and refuse to pay up, but because they are mostly in deep financial difficulties, as I have explained earlier. For cases where there is still some hope of enforcing the orders for unpaid salary or work injury compensation, the workers are required to apply for the Writ of Seizure and Sale through the State Courts. This is the same process that applies to all unpaid Civil Court orders, including those made by the State Courts. In other words, the Labour Court orders are not less enforceable, compared to those issued or made by the State Courts. All civil claims have to go through the same process. For those who need help, MOM assists the workers by advising them on the process and preparing the necessary documents. Eligible low-wage local workers may seek legal assistance from the Legal Aid Bureau, whereas foreign workers may approach the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC).”
“Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received about 9,000 salary-related claims involving some 4,500 employers in 2016. So, 9,000 claims and 4,500 employers. Through mediation by MOM and adjudication by the Labour Court, we have been able to resolve more than 95% of these claims. The remaining 5% of the salary-related claims were unresolved because one of the employers has appealed the Labour Court order and the case is now with the High Court, eight are still in business but have yet to comply with their orders, while a vast majority − 199 out of 208 employers − had either ceased operations or faced impending business closure due to financial difficulties. Therefore, out of the 208 employers, 199 either have closed down or are going to close down soon. We are left with only nine employers, one of whom is appealing against the Labour Court order and eight have yet to comply with the orders. All these companies have been debarred from hiring foreign workers until they comply with the Labour Court orders. The debarment also applies to culpable directors even if they were to start new companies. We are also investigating those employers who are still in business because non-payment of salary is an offence under the Employment Act. While it is not our intention to criminalise every non-payment of salary, especially if it is the result of a business failure, we do prosecute serious or repeated cases for deterrence. In the last three years, 158 employers have been prosecuted and convicted for salary-related offences. Such offences carry a fine of between $3,000 and $15,000 per charge, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. Let me now turn to work injury cases. In 2016, over 99.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?”
“About 6,000 salary non-payment and short payment cases were lodged by employees each year in 2015 and 20161. For each year, the breakdown of the cases was similar and broadly as shown in the table below. Among the 1,400 Labour Court orders issued in favour of employees, the payment status is shown below. The 350 defaulted orders involved 200 companies which were mostly in financial difficulties or had ceased operations. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) took enforcement actions against all of them which included warnings, fines and restriction of work pass privileges. About 25 employers were charged in Court for more egregious offences each year in 2015 and 2016. Such offences carry a maximum fine of $15,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months per charge.”
“The Adapt and Grow initiative supports workers, including rank-and-file workers, in finding jobs. The initiative includes career matching services and programmes, such as Place-and-Train and Work Trials. In the first three quarters of 2016, more than 7,300 rank-and-file workers were placed by Workforce Singapore (WSG) and NTUC's Employment and Employability Institute through the Adapt and Grow initiative. For rank-and-file workers placed through the Adapt and Grow career matching services in 2015, about 10,000 or seven in 10 remained in employment for at least six months after their placements. The Ministry of Manpower, WSG and our tripartite partners will press on with efforts to support jobseekers to find and remain in employment through the Adapt and Grow initiative.”
“Nine workers were affected by environment-related injuries over the last two years and none of these injuries was due to the lack of personal protective equipment being used during harsh weather conditions. The Workplace Safety and Health Council has developed clear guidelines for employers and workers to adopt when harsh environmental or weather conditions are involved. These can be found in the Guidelines on Managing Heat Stress, and Haze Guidelines and Advisory for Work. For example, employers should first assess if outdoor work is necessary and develop a plan for working safely during harsh environmental conditions. When outdoor work cannot be avoided, raincoat and safety boots have to be provided during rainy weather and N95 masks whenever the air quality reaches the unhealthy levels. To mitigate the risk of heat stress, employers should provide short regular rest periods in between work and allow workers to rest in cool shaded rest areas with drinking water points. We will continue to work with workers, employers and unions to increase awareness of environment-related risks and the needed safety measures. Anyone who assessed that workers’ safety and health are put at risk because of exposure to harsh environmental conditions can report these situations to the Ministry of Manpower. We will investigate and establish if the safety measures are adequate. With proper risk assessment and preventive measures in place, we can provide a safe and healthy work environment for our workers.”
“The difference between re-employment and retirement really is about mindset; about how are we going to be able to continue to address the concerns of businesses and, at the same time, also address the concerns of the younger workforce in terms of their career advancement; and, at the same time, address the concerns of the older workers for wanting to continue to be re-employed. So far, most countries still go for retirement age. To the best of our knowledge, Japan and Singapore are the only two on the re-employment model. The results, so far, I would say, seem to be more positive because the employment rates in Japan and Singapore are relatively higher compared to other countries. But the Member is right that this cannot be the only reason. It could be many other reasons and that is why in Singapore, we make sure that all the conditions are right, are conducive to be supportive of re-employment. It is not easy. Through tripartite efforts, I believe we can continue to make progress. 8.01 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the first point, the answer is yes. Currently, all complaints are investigated by TAFEP. Once TAFEP does the investigation, if it discovers that it is not an isolated incident but rather it is a more pervasive HR practice of the company, then TAFEP will watch the company more closely and we will continue to work with them to work through that. The answer is yes. Having said that, let me also assure Members that the incidence of discrimination of all forms, based on the cases we see at TAFEP, is still low. Of course, we will take every case seriously. The second point about the retirement age, as I had mentioned, the key difference between the retirement age and re-employment age is that retirement age involves same job, same pay. Re-employment age is not necessarily the same job, not necessarily the same pay. Let me give an example. I will not name this company but it is a company that I know. The senior management has been ageing. When we introduced re-employment up to age 65, the employees and the union asked the management how this would affect the renewal of the senior management in the company. The Chairman and CEO, in consultation with the top management of the company, about 20 to 25 of them, they came to a collective decision. They decided that in this company, all senior management of certain positions, on a voluntary basis, will exclude themselves from re-employment. They are very determined and said that leadership renewal for their company is critical to their sustained success. So, on a voluntary basis, they excluded themselves from re-employment.”
“Therefore, we have to find ways on the one hand, to make sure that the workplace becomes more age-friendly so that the older workers will be able to remain productive and help companies to remain competitive; at the same time, we must also take good care of our older workers in terms of employability and welfare. We believe that by working together, we can continue to ensure that employment rates of our people aged 65 to 69, 70 to 74 and above, will always be among the highest in the world. On that note, I beg to move.”
“Last but not least, I share the views of many Members here that at the end of the day, the true success of re-employment depends a lot on how we value our older workers and how we redesign their jobs. I am very happy to hear the Labour Members repeating the call for "ESS", or making our jobs "Easier, Safer, Smarter". We are 100% aligned on this. Last year, we enhanced WorkPro for job redesign. I am still looking for more ways to encourage greater adoption. Many countries have done something, so there is a lot that we can learn from. Mr Melvin Yong asked about whether the Public Service can take the lead on re-employment. The answer is yes. Actually, the Public Service was the first one to adopt the re-employment age of 67 way back in January 2015. It has been about two and a half years ahead of the law. I also agree with Mr Heng Chee How that we should look at different ways to make "progressive workplace practices" more prevalent across the board. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope I have addressed most of the issues brought up by Members. I also want to assure the Members that many of their good suggestions will be taken note of by the tripartite partners and will be incorporated in our implementation. At the end of the day, just because we have succeeded in re-employment in the first five years, from 2012 to now, it does not mean that the way forward will be smooth. The tripartite partners are concerned that as we raise the re-employment age, the higher the re-employment age, the more challenging it is going to be.”
“The guidelines dictate at least three months' notice for eligibility, and mutual consultation for at least six months prior to re-employment or extension of re-employment. We think that is sufficient but let us do more. On the payment of EAP, I agree fully with Mr Patrick Tay that we must have a safeguard in place to prevent abuse. As I mentioned, we watch it very carefully, and so far, so good. We will continue to monitor the situation. In terms of the review of the quantum of EAP, we just reviewed it this round. Having extended the re-employment period from three to five years, the EAP quantum would be higher now, in the event the employer is not able to offer re-employment. This is already in our guidelines. Business concerns are real. We take business concerns very seriously because we recognise that re-employment can only work if it is a win-win outcome. We have been in very close consultation through SNEF to take into account all the feedback. We will continue to provide support, not just through this scheme, but through the overall package that is coming up. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan asked what if a company in financial hardship is not able to pay EAP. Those cases can go to Employment Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal will then rule, after they have seen whether the company is, indeed, in such great difficulty that it is not able to pay the EAP. There is a mechanism to resolve this. Ms Jessica Tan asked whether we can do something to help and encourage employers to re-employ the older workers, including those not eligible for re-employment till 67. The answer is yes, we are actively looking into this. The decision on the extension, what form, what coverage of this additional wage offset will be decided soon, well ahead of the 1 July implementation date.”
“So, they asked if there is a way out for the second employer. First, I want to assure the Members that the consensus of the employee is a mandatory condition. If the worker does not feel comfortable, then he does not have to accept this offer. Once the offer is accepted, the second employer will have to fulfil all the obligations of the first employer. For example, a Member mentioned about what would happen after one year, the worker is subsequently not offered re-employment at 63, after having been offered re-employment at 62. At the point of 63, if the worker is not offered re-employment, the second employer would have to pay the worker EAP. No difference from the first employer. Before the second employer can offer to pay EAP, the tripartite partners will come in to scrutinise whether this is the last resort. Remember that EAP is a last resort. Mr Patrick Tay highlighted this. We will be monitoring very closely to ensure that there is no abuse of EAP. I am happy to say that in the five years of the Retirement and Re-employment Act, we have not come across too many cases; just a handful. The large majority does not have this issue of abuse of EAP. As such, we believe the second employer will be tightly bounded by these criteria and conditions. On the question about whether workers should be told much earlier if they are not eligible for re-employment, our tripartite guidelines stipulate that whether a person is eligible or not eligible for re-employment, he should be notified at least three months in advance, the longer the better. Mr Zainal Sapari asked if the notice period can be one year. The unionised sector can try.”
“It applies to all workers, young and old. Whether you are 40 years old or you are re-employed and aged 62, all your employment contract terms depend on what is contained in there; it is a subject of direct negotiation between the employee and employer, or between the union and the management. This will continue. However, the tripartite partners are still concerned that the older workers, those who are re-employed, may not be in a good position to negotiate for fair terms and conditions. As a result, we have issued a set of tripartite guidelines. The latest revision will be issued later today. In these guidelines, we will highlight what are considered reasonable terms and conditions. These guidelines are very important because in the situation of any dispute, the employee can come to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for mediation and come to MOM for mediation. If the mediation is not successful, the case can go to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT). ECT will make reference to this set of tripartite guidelines. So, if the employer is, indeed, being unreasonable in terms of the terms and conditions and, after mediation, we could not succeed in a resolution and the case goes to ECT, ECT will make reference to this set of tripartite guidelines and rule whether the terms and conditions offered upon re-employment are reasonable. I want to assure Members of this House that the tripartite partners take this very seriously. ECT will come into effect on 1 April, before the re-employment age of 67 comes into effect. On the issue of a new option for a second employer, some Members are concerned about what would happen if the second employer is not able to fulfil the commitments of the first employer.”
“A worker may come to MOM to complain and say, "I have been working for this company for 10, 20, 30 years; everything went very well. But somehow, three years before I turn 62, everything turned negative." If this worker is a union member, we can ask him or her to approach the union. If he is not a union member, he should come to MOM. Let me also emphasise that the Retirement and Re-employment Act covers all local workers. There is no salary cap of $4,500. Re-employment is an entitlement that covers all local workers, regardless of whether they are PMETs, high-wage or low-wage workers, they can all come to the tripartite partners or MOM if they feel that they had been discriminated against under the Retirement and Re-employment Act. Regarding the employees' entitlement on re-employment, again, this is a trade-off between being pro-business and pro-worker. The tripartite partners negotiated and decided to strike a balanced outcome, which is that the core entitlement of workers provided for under the Employment Act should be protected. For example, paid sick leave of 14 days for outpatient consultation and 60 days of hospitalisation are protected. In the case of annual leave, the minimum seven days provided for under the Employment Act, again, is protected. Some other entitlements may no longer be relevant and so, they are removed. For example, maternity leave. It is unlikely that the re-employed workers would need maternity leave. This is removed. The question, really, is what about the contractual benefits: medical benefits and other benefits? Contractual benefits have never been part of the Employment Act. In other words, even the Retirement and Re-employment Act cannot protect your contractual benefits. Contractual benefits are bounded through contracts.”
“In other words, we are not depriving our CPF members from investing their own retirement sum, if they have anything above the BRS for those who have sufficient housing charge or pledge and above the Full Retirement Sum for those without sufficient housing charge or pledge. Therefore, this amendment Bill is about raising the re-employment age. It has nothing to do with the CPF PEA or payout start range which, as I have said, is already fixed at 64 to 70 this year, and 65 to 70 from next year. On eligibility for re-employment, some Members have expressed concern on whether the onus of proof is on the workers or the employer. I want to make it very clear that the onus is on the employer to show proof. If the employer says this worker is not eligible for re-employment due to poor performance, it is for the employer to show proof. If the employer says that this worker is not eligible for re-employment due to medical reasons, it is for the employer to show proof. Some Members asked, "What if this company has no performance appraisal system in place?" When that happens, we will tell the employer, "Since you don't have proof, you don't have a performance appraisal system in place, and you don't have proof that this person has not been performing well, year after year, and more than that, along the way, you had not been giving him feedback, suggestions and so on, these cases would be ruled as being unreasonable denial of re-employment". MOM will then come in to either reinstate re-employment or order compensation, based on the situation of the case. In the case of discrimination, I share the concerns of Members. This is something that we are always on the lookout for. For example, can the employer try to find ways to get rid of a worker just before 62?”
“Starting from 1 January 2016, CPF members will start their CPF payouts between ages 64 and 70. Come next year, it will be ages 65 to 70 even though the re-employment age is 67. Therefore, the relationship between re-employment age and the age of starting the CPF payouts has already changed. It used to be point-to-point, but now, it is a range. The CPF payout start range is now 64 to 70, and the re-employment age will be 67 by July, within that age band. Next year, the CPF payout start range will be 65 to 70, and again, the re-employment age at 67 is still within that band. There is no longer a direct point-to-point linkage. I think on this, we are all in agreement. But one point which we are still in strong disagreement is really not about the de-linking, but rather, it is about whether we should reset the PEA back to 60. For this Government, we think it will be the wrong thing to do, given that the life expectancy of our people is getting longer. Also on the point about letting our CPF members withdraw more money so that they can invest on their own. If Members have been following all the developments, many of the CPF members who had invested their money on their own through the CPF Investment Scheme, or CPFIS in short, have not done better. By putting their money under our CPF LIFE, they can earn an interest rate of at least 4% per year. Therefore, I believe that it is to the best interests of our CPF members for them to keep their CPF retirement money in CPF LIFE. Please also do not forget that CPF members can withdraw their savings above the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) if they already have got a sufficient housing charge or pledge in place.”
“Therefore, we will continue to evolve the re-employment model and, at the same time, make sure that our re-employment model in Singapore must be both pro-business and pro-worker. If we do not address the interests and concerns of businesses, we will eventually run out of jobs. But yet at the same time, if we do not take care of the interests of our workers, our people will eventually not be able to continue to pursue and live a "H2P2" life. With that as a backdrop, I will now address some of the points brought up by Members. A related issue is about the CPF Payout Eligibility Age (PEA). Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked whether we can roll back PEA from 65 to 60. For Member Louis Ng, he asked: with the increase in our re-employment age, does it mean that we are going to adjust the PEA to 67 as well? Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me explain the current situation. Up until 2012, the link between the retirement age and CPF PEA was direct and identical. It is a point-to-point linkage. So, when the retirement age was 60, PEA was 60. When the retirement age went up to 62, PEA was 62. But in 2012, something happened. The two are still related, but they are no longer identical. They are still related because both are related to the expected lifespan but yet at the same time, I think from 2012, you would notice that even though we raised the re-employment age to 65, the CPF PEA, in fact, went up much slower to 63 in 2012, 64 in 2015, and 65 only in 2018. The increase in our PEA is already something like six years lagging behind the re-employment age. Something happened again last year. I do not know whether Members noticed. At the recommendation of the CPF Advisory Panel, we amended the rules by which members can draw on their CPF payouts.”
“All of them, all these countries, even though they do not have a retirement age, their employment rates for workers aged 65 to 69 are all significantly lower than Singapore's 40.4%. What about workers aged 70 to 74? Eventually, what we hope is that our people can actually continue working for as long as they are able to, and as long as they want to. Looking at the employment rate for those aged 70 to 74, Singapore is 24%. Is that low? Is that high? Again, if we compare it to all these other countries, one country that is much higher than Singapore is Korea, which has 32.3%. I must really visit Korea soon to see how and what we can learn from them. Japan is again higher than us, 25%. But all the other countries are significantly lower. In other words, if we compare the employment rates of older workers aged 65 to 69, and 70 to 74, the tripartite partners in Singapore are very convinced that the way we are doing it is the right way. The re-employment model is the right model. At the same time, we are not progressing too slowly. In fact, compared to other countries, our re-employment age at 67 is comparable and in fact, higher than many other countries, either going by the re-employment age as in Japan, or the retirement or pension age in other countries. Therefore, I want to appeal for the support of Members: let us commit ourselves. At the end of the day, here in Singapore, what is our objective? We want to ensure that our economy can continue to grow. We all recognise that for economic growth, we have to support businesses. However, the main objective, the end outcome of economic growth must be translated into employment opportunities for people, young and old, all inclusive. Jobs represent the best welfare; full employment is the best protection.”
“There are countries that have no retirement age, for example, the UK, Australia, the US, Denmark, New Zealand and Germany. They have no retirement age, but yet at the same time, there are other countries − I am talking about the developed economies − they have a retirement age. For example, in Korea, it is 60; in Switzerland, 65 for males, 64 for females; Sweden, 67; Finland, 68; Luxembourg, 68. Some of them are about the same as us, some are lower, and some are higher than us. At the end of the day, we look at the employment rates. Yes, you can do away with the retirement age or have a higher or lower retirement age. The bottom line is: to what extent are we able to help the older workers to stay employed? We looked at the employment rates of those who are aged 65 to 69, and guess what? What we discovered is that, with Singapore's re-employment age of 65, our employment rate of those aged 65-69 is 40.4%, as of 2015. Of the developed countries, two countries are higher than us: Korea whose rate is 44.8%, and Japan whose rate is 41.5%. We learnt from them about the re-employment age but when it came to actual employment rates, they are still higher than us. These two countries are higher than us. And guess what? If we compare ourselves to all the other countries with a higher retirement age, for example, Luxembourg, their employment rate for those aged 65 to 69, is 7.1%, less than 10%. In the case of Finland, the retirement age is 68, but their employment rate for those aged 65 to 69 is 13.1%. In the case of Sweden, the retirement age is 67 and their employment rate is 21.9%. What about countries with no retirement age? The UK has no retirement age, employment rate for those aged 65 to 69 is 21%; Australia, 25%; the US, 31%; and Denmark, 15%.”
“They told us when we visited them in 2005, 2006 that, in Japan, under the Re-employment Act, no manager is allowed to be re-employed as a manager so that the position will be made available to a younger successor, and that person who is re-employed will provide value-add, maybe as a consultant, an advisor, or a staff officer to guide and help the younger ones to succeed. In some cases, if the corporation does not have a position opening for them, they allow them to be deployed to the subsidiaries. Why? Because they can actually help to bring their expertise and experience to the subsidiaries. We learnt from them. We thought it made a lot of sense. We invited the Japanese experts to come to Singapore to conduct workshops. And finally, we came to the conclusion that that is the best bet and the way to go ahead. As a result of that, we moved away from raising the retirement age towards the introduction of the re-employment age. I would say that, over the last five years since 2012, it has been proven that what we did was correct. The second point: are we moving too slowly? Have we wasted 23 years? Deputy Speaker, Sir, we learnt from Japan the concept of re-employment. Come 1 July 2017, we will be ahead of Japan in the adoption of the re-employment age. The re-employment age in Japan today is still at 65. We learnt from them five years ago and adopted the re-employment age of 65. Come July, our re-employment age will be 67, but in Japan, it is still 65. Our re-employment age at 67, compared to many other countries, is already among the higher ones. Of course, some many argue: why not do away with retirement age completely? Why not do away with re-employment age completely? We did a quick comparison.”
“I have been waiting for many years to take over the position of my boss. My boss is going to retire very soon because he is reaching 62 soon. Now, if you were to raise the retirement age to 65 and beyond, it means I have to wait a few more years." He asked, "How is the Government going to take care of the aspirations of the young?" The young employees objected. The older employees also expressed their concerns. They talked to NTUC. Every time we raise the retirement age, employers will demand a wage cut because of various considerations, and the older employees would object to the wage cut. So, we could not move. Employers did not want to move, young workers did not want us to move, and unions were pressured by senior employees not to give in to demands for wage cuts. So, we were stuck. How to find a solution? But we believe that instead of having all three parties looking at this as a problem, why not all of us work on a solution that can produce an all-win outcome? We went to Japan. We studied their model. Every country talks about raising their retirement age but, in Japan, they pursued the direction of re-employment age. The core difference between retirement and re-employment age is that when you raise the retirement age, the expectation is for same job, same pay. As a result, we may deprive the younger ones of career progression. Whereas when Japan introduced the idea of re-employment age, the concept is, not necessarily the same job, not necessarily the same pay.”