Murali Pillai
Singapore
“Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim1, 2, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member Ms Poh's third question on jet fuel. We are working with the aviation stakeholders to monitor the fuel supply for aviation hubs carefully to ensure that it remains stable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Dennis Tan's question on maritime hub, I just want to say that for the now, for the current, port operations have been stable. There are no significant fuel supply shortages, and we have adequate fuel and bunker supply.”
“Sir, I would like to answer the hon Member Shawn Loh's question on the status of the aviation hub. There have been some flight disruptions. Apart from the disruptions, most of Changi Airport's flights have been operating normally. The disruptions have been limited to some Singapore-Middle East passenger and cargo services.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Chia for his kind words about the efforts we have made thus far to attract young talent. On the specific issue about the GRIT programme, that involves traineeship, the good thing about the maritime sector is that we have jobs available.”
“It was John Harrison's invention of the chronometer, highly accurate even at sea, that allowed longitudes to be plotted and journeys to be precise enough to chase a nimble whale. Likewise, Singapore must remain alive to the transformational power of new technologies, to master new tasks and chart new journeys through untested waters.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,219 lines we hold for Murali Pillai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 25.
“He was unwell, at the last leg of his life, and yet he took the trouble to spend his time talking to me about some issues our nation faced. A few weeks later, when I learnt Mr Nathan slipped into a coma, I wrote to Mrs Nathan thanking her for the bottle of savouries. I also recounted my discussion with Mr Nathan. It was my way of conveying to her my resolve to do my best on the matters he spoke to me about. I feel honoured and privileged to have had received Mr Nathan's wise counsel. As a country, we are indeed fortunate to have had the benefit of giants like Mr Nathan who, to almost his last breath, always thought about Singapore. I would like to wish Mrs Nathan and her family the strength to cope with their loss, our loss.”
“Mdm Speaker, permit me to speak in Tamil. (In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Two months ago, our former President Mr SR Nathan asked to see me. First, he asked to see me at his house but, due to his health reasons, I had to meet him at the hospital at that time. For the two hours that I met him, he spoke about Singaporeans' problems. He asked me to look at some issues and find a solution. I told him that I will do my best. Upon hearing that, he said "My job is done". I understood the deeper meaning of what he said. I told him he must continue to guide us. In response, he smiled. He was a good guide for us. Even when his health was deteriorating, all his thoughts were about the people of Singapore. He is a great guide to all of us. For that, we are thankful. (In English): Mdm Speaker, I spoke in Tamil just now about my meeting with the late Mr SR Nathan just two months back. Prior to that meeting, I did not know him personally. When I met him at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH), the first thing he asked me was, "How much time do you have for me?" I have never seen anyone else with such humility. I told him I was in his hands, and he could take as long as he liked. After I sat down, he presented me with a bottle of savoury Indian bites. He told me Mrs Nathan specially prepared this for my wife, Gowri, whom she learnt was a fellow teacher. I was put immediately at ease by his kind gesture. I then noticed that, to his right, he had a two-page handwritten note entitled "Points to cover with Murali". He had obviously made preparations in advance of the meeting. This was a man who has spent the better part of his life serving Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the hon Minister for providing very detailed explanations. I have one short clarification to make in relation to his answer about a claim under the RRA. The Minister mentioned that the employment eligibility criteria are set by the Ministry. The thrust of my question is not that. It is in relation to the fact that the defence of the employer can only be raised if the employer had raised it in the course of mediation. The problem with that is that mediation is usually seen as a "without prejudice" kind of a discussion where there is a certain level of candour expected. Perhaps, as a halfway point, one way to deal with this issue is to provide, under the regulations, that the employer would be raising this defence on a headline basis that the employee did not satisfy the criteria, without really going into the facts and details so that it is highlighted at the mediation stage and, later on, if it proceeds to the tribunal stage, the tribunal can take cognisance of whether or not the employer had declared that this would be a defence to the employee's claim.”
“Finally, given that legal representation is disallowed at such mediations pursuant to section 5 of the Bill, the representative of the employer attending at the mediation may not be an individual who is well-versed with the provisions of the RRA, and who may not be aware that he or she would have to expressly rely on the defence afforded under section 7 of the RRA. In conclusion, notwithstanding my comments on the Employment Claims Bill, I agree the Bill will facilitate expeditious and affordable resolution of employment disputes. I support the Bill.”
“Finally, section 16(7) of the Bill provides that where an employee has lodged a claim for an employment assistance payment under the Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA), the employer cannot rely on the defence that an employee does not satisfy the re-employment eligibility criteria set out in section 7(1) of the RRA if the employer did not raise this defence during the mediation required under Part 2 of the Bill. Could the Minister please clarify what is the rationale of this subsection? This provision, on surface, seems odd for a few reasons. First, section 16(7) of the Bill appears antithetical to the purpose of mediation. Mediations encourage amicable settlement of disputes by encouraging parties to speak freely about their issues. And it has been very successful, as the Minister observed earlier. Parties are usually assured that what is discussed during mediation will not be used against them in a subsequent claim. Further, parties are generally discouraged from relying on or referring to their strict legal positions at mediation. Second, Part II of the Bill which deals with mediation of employment disputes, does not require an employer to raise the defences he wishes to rely on at the mediation stage. If no such requirement is imposed, would it not be inconsistent for section 16(7) of the Bill to preclude an employer from relying on a defence that it is not required to raise the same during mediation? Third, given that mediation under the Bill is to be conducted in private and, in general, discussions between the parties during mediation are private and confidential, how would the Page: 98 tribunal be apprised of what was discussed during the mediation, given that it was not present at the mediation?”
“A way to deal with such a situation is to empower the tribunal, upon the application of a party, to order the second dispute to be heard without a claim referral certificate. This is what the UK has done by way of its Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014. Thirdly, whilst the creation of the tribunal to hear salary-related monetary claims would allow employees to resolve employment disputes more quickly, an unintended effect may be the added complexity because of the potential overlaps in the roles of the tribunal, Commissioner for Labour and the Minister. Section 16 of the Bill thus seeks to minimise such multiplicity of proceedings. In particular, in relation to the salary-related disputes under the EA, section 38(e) of the Bill will make consequential amendments to section 115 of the EA, to provide that the Commissioner must not inquire into or decide a salary-related dispute unless the dispute is of a type prescribed by regulations made under section 139 of the EA. Having regard to that fact, the tribunal is expected to take over the work of the Commissioner for Labour in adjudicating salary-related claims. Could the Minister please clarify what kind of regulations under the EA are contemplated and in what situations would it be permissible for an employee to make a claim to the Commissioner under the EA?”
“Second, I support the objectives of requiring parties to mediate their employment disputes first before their cases may be heard by the tribunal. In most cases, this would be the most efficient dispute resolution mechanism as highlighted by the Minister just now. The UK also has a similar procedure, under section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 Notwithstanding the benefits of mediation, I highlight that in one specific situation, the requirement of compulsory mediation imposed by the Bill may pose a disadvantage to the employee, by way of an example, where an employee has unsuccessfully mediated a specified employment dispute, such as leave entitlement. He has lodged the claim with the tribunal for that dispute, but before that claim is heard by the tribunal, the employer acts in a manner that gives rise Page: 97 to a second specified employment dispute, such as withholding salary. Under the Bill, the occurrence of the second specified employment dispute is one that the employee would have to submit a fresh mediation request. In such a situation, it appears that the compulsory mediation of the second dispute would lead to duplication of resources and be less cost-effective, contrary to the objectives of the Bill. It would be more cost- and resource-efficient for the tribunal to be able to deal with both disputes at the same time. In this regard, while the tribunal is empowered under section 18(5) of the Bill to hear the two claims together, this would result in a delay to the employee having to obtain redress for both claims as he would have to wait until the second dispute has been mediated.”
“I gather from the Minister today that he intends to allow union members to be represented by union representatives. Does he contemplate that these representatives would be legally trained and, if so, how would that reconcile with the principle of section 19 of the Bill? I understand that the tribunal will be limited to hearing employment disputes of up to S$20,000 for normal cases or $30,000 for claimants invoking mediation or conciliation under the IRA. The quantum of a claim per se is not indicative of the complexity of the claim. While the majority of cases before the tribunal are contemplated to be straightforward claims, there could be cases involving legal and factual complexity, for example, where a dispute requires an interpretation of terms or where an employment contract with a Singaporean is governed by a law other than Singapore law. In such cases, the tribunal would benefit from proper representation of parties' respective cases. A possible way to address such cases is to allow the tribunal to appoint an assessor on an ad hoc basis, somewhat analogous to section 33 of the State Courts Act which allows a District Judge to, if he thinks fit, on the application of any party, or his own Motion, summon to his assistance a person of skill and experience in the matter to act as an assessor. This is also similar to the approach adopted in section 60 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 which allows the tribunal to refer any question arising in any proceedings to a special referee for the purpose of procuring a decision or opinion which the tribunal may or may not adopt. This suggestion may, in part, at least, address an issue raised by the hon Member Mr Zainal Sapari when he highlighted the plight of employees suffering from certain disabilities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer with a practice involving employment disputes. The Employment Claims Bill seeks to establish an ECT within the State Courts to facilitate the expeditious resolution of certain specified employment disputes. In addition, the Tribunal will replace the Labour Court, which is a dispute resolution mechanism currently administered by the Commissioner for Labour to adjudicate on employment claims by employees who are covered by the EA. In contrast, the tribunal's jurisdiction will extend to adjudicating on employment claims of employees not covered by the EA, such as PMEs. Page: 96 Therefore, the tribunal will provide such employees with quicker and relatively cheaper options of dispute mechanisms than having to commence a suit in the civil Courts. I support these objectives. I take the opportunity to highlight and seek clarification on the following four areas. First, section 19 of the Bill requires that parties to proceedings before the tribunal must act in person. A similar provision exists for mediation under section 5 of the Bill. A body corporate may be represented by its officer or full-time employee, but parties cannot be represented by an advocate and solicitor. This is understandable given that the objective of the tribunal is to provide a cost-effective mechanism to resolve the specified employment disputes. While I acknowledge that the tribunal is likely to play a more inquisitorial role than the civil Courts in adjudicating the specified employment disputes, I am concerned that in certain situations, there may be an "inequality of arms" between an employer and employee before the tribunal. This would arise if an employer should be represented before the tribunal by a legally-trained employee.”
“A study by researchers from the University of California and Old Dominion University published in a seminal article on autism appearing in The Economist on 16 April 2016 reveals that the lifetime cost of supporting an autistic American is much lesser than the opportunity cost, referring to an estimate of the output lost when autistic people are jobless or underemployed or when their caregivers leave their jobs to take care of them. There is no reason to suggest that the situation in Singapore is any different. In conclusion, I wish to draw attention to a speech that the Prime Minister made in December 2015 towards the end of the SG50 celebrations about the need to build a more inclusive, fair and just society that respects and values all, including the disabled. He quoted the late Mr S Rajaratnam who famously spoke about building "a democracy of deeds" and that "ultimately, it is the quality and character of the individual citizens rather than the blueprints and programmes which decide whether a society is good or bad… a success or failure." We are dealing with an area which the Government cannot just decree a change in attitude. This must come from within our society. It depends on each individual and each family. Each of us has a part to play in treating the caregivers and their special needs children with empathy, providing them with the welcome, support and encouragement they so rightly deserve. Page: 66 5.18 pm”
“The support to be provided, I understand, is primarily two-fold: to provide better institutional support and bespoke job opportunities that would fit their circumstances. I do not propose to repeat what has already been said. I do, however, wish to update the House that the waiting time to get a place in one of the three Day Activity Centres for Autistic Adults stands at two years. This, in my respectful opinion, is too long. The caregivers will have to bear the brunt of the problem and they will be put under tremendous stress and anxiety. Also, the special needs children with moderate to severe forms of disabilities may unlearn what they have learnt in school. This results in a waste of resources. I further propose that caregivers of adult children with moderate to severe forms of special needs be given the same form of grants and concessions that caregivers of disabled or the elderly or the young enjoy with respect to employment of foreign domestic maids. This will, hopefully, give the caregivers some level of respite. I would also advocate that the Government look at providing more funding support to encourage the adoption of models that would enhance the employability of adult children with special needs within the Day Activity Centres; for example, in the horticultural or cafeteria arenas. Whilst these models cost more money to run, they may make more sense in the long run as it provides our adult children with a sense of purpose and enable them to contribute to society at the same time. There may also be an economic basis for this enhanced funding.”
“Gone are the days when people suffering from mental issues are just locked up in lunatic asylums. For the vast majority of our special needs children, we must take care of them within our community and provide them with the opportunities they need to lead fulfilling lives. I am not convinced though that legislation would be the right response. Rather, I would advocate that we do more to promote better understanding of special needs children and the challenges they face within our community. We could emulate what my Parliamentary colleague, Ms Tin Pei Ling, has been doing in MacPherson. I learnt that she conducted training lessons for her grassroots leaders so that they are better able to identify and deal with persons with mental disabilities. I do believe that by gaining a good understanding of special needs children and their challenges, our fellow Singaporeans and residents would change their attitudes towards special needs children, develop their empathy and provide better support for them and their caregivers. Page: 65 We should, perhaps, through relevant agencies like Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) promote among support stakeholders, such as childcare centres, kindergartens and even school bus operators, the implementation of a code of conduct or best practices to encourage them to take the extra step to help caregivers and their special needs children. Turning specifically to adult children with special needs, Members of this House have highlighted on previous occasions the need to provide more help to adult children with special needs after they turn 18 and graduate from the education system. We have also heard assurances from the Government that it would look at ways and means to enhance the level of support.”
“I asked the mother whether she had brought this matter up to the attention of teachers. She informed me that the typical response of the teachers – as the kindergarten does not have any allied professionals to help in such situations – would be to recommend that her child be enrolled in a special needs school instead. Another mother spoke to me about a problem which appeared, at first glance, a simple one to solve but turned out to be rather complex because of the positions taken by the relevant stakeholders. She drops her autistic son at a childcare centre every morning. She arranged for a bus service to have him picked up from the childcare centre at about 11.30 am and sent to a special needs school. She asked the childcare centre to help escort her son into the bus. The centre refused on account that it does not fall within their scope of work. They went on to highlight that the other parents would also ask for the same service if they were to make an exception for her case. The bus service staff also was not able to help and their explanation is understandable because they could not spare anyone else to pick him up because other special needs children in the bus also need tending to. As a society, we need to address this situation. We must change our attitudes towards special needs persons and their caregivers. We have always prided ourselves as being an inclusive society when it comes to race, language, religion, and social classes. Indeed, the caregivers I have spoken to have uniformly acknowledged that great strides have been taken in the past few years by the Government to enhance the support given to special needs children. There is absolutely no reason why a line has to be drawn within our society when it comes to treatment of persons with special needs.”
“She spends a lot of time and energy to help Amelia compete. In the end, Amelia completed both races successfully. She and her mother received a great reception from the audience who loudly cheered Amelia along. The organisers also decided to give Amelia a medal for her commendable effort. Mdm Yap was encouraged by this gesture. I am sharing this as a good example of how our community provided the empathy, encouragement and support for both the caregiver and the child with special needs in their endeavours. This does not appear to be a given, unfortunately. The Lien Foundation survey, results of which were published in the media last week on 4 July 2016, revealed, among others, the following results in its poll of the general public and parents of children with special needs: only Page: 64 28% of those surveyed agreed that Singapore is an inclusive society when it comes to special needs children. Whilst a great majority of parents surveyed, about 71%, supported inclusive education, only slightly more than half, 58%, will be comfortable with their child attending the same school as a child with special needs. Only 32% of the general public polled believed that typically developing children are comfortable interacting with children of special needs. Anecdotally, I have heard accounts that support the impression created by the numbers that Singaporeans are generally less comfortable when dealing with mentally disabled persons. A mother of a mildly autistic child told me that she enrolled her child in a mainstream kindergarten. The child would go to the school in the morning with a full pencil case, only to return home with just a ruler. Apparently, the child's classmates took advantage of her condition and helped themselves to the stationery.”
“Mdm Speaker, on previous occasions in this House, passionate speeches on this topic were made by Members, such as Ms Denise Phua and Ms Chia Yong Yong, who had long fought hard for better care for those with special needs, as well as that of their caregivers . I would not pretend to have the breadth and depth of their knowledge and experience in this arena. I am, nonetheless, driven to speak on this Motion as a result of a confluence of a number of factors, chief of which are as follows. Immediately after being elected, I received correspondence from Bukit Batok residents who have special needs children. They highlighted their plights to me. I also had the opportunity to hold in-depth discussions with affected family members and representatives from stakeholders involved in the provision of care to special needs children. The points I make today are primarily based on my observations from these discussions. In my speech, "special needs" is used interchangeably with "mental disability". On 26 June 2016, I attended the Bukit Batok Swim Meet co-organised by ActiveSG and the Bukit Batok Constituency Sports Club at the Bukit Batok Swimming Complex. There, I met Mdm Yap, a single parent with her 10-year-old daughter, Amelia. Amelia is a warm and charming girl. She even tried to cheekily plant a kiss on my cheek when I was not looking. Amelia suffers from Mild Intellectual Disability and Global Development Delay. Mdm Yap entered Amelia for two competitive events: the 50-metre freestyle and the 50-metre breaststroke. Amelia has physical coordination issues and did not always listen to instructions. Mdm Yap had to remind her which proper stroke to use and how to end the race, namely, to touch the walls with two hands for breaststroke and one for freestyle.”
“No other financial assistance in contemplated. In our proposed section 6A, the wording is wider. Could the Minister please clarify, besides interest-free deposits which have been identified by the MAS in its explanatory brief, what other types of financial assistance are contemplated and will they likely be also drawn from MAS' reserves? In particular, does section 6A contemplate the giving of guarantees? If so, does this not engage Article 144(1) of the Constitution, such that the President's concurrence is required before the guarantee may be given? While I appreciate the need to maintain some flexibility as to the form of financial assistance to be provided, given that we have safeguards in the Constitution and the proposed Bill that would engage either or both the President and Parliament, would it not be better for the Bill to specify the types of financial assistance that may be given? In conclusion, it is right for Singapore to do her part in assisting other developing nations, just like she once benefited from such assistance. However, we must also balance providing financial assistance with exercising prudence when spending our reserves. Mdm Speaker, notwithstanding my request for the Government to review and clarify the safeguards, I support the Bill. 4.51 pm”
“Could the Minister please clarify whether this constitutional safeguard would apply to a loan or grant given to the IMF, given that it will be paid out of MAS' reserves? If so, in the context of grants, would MAS be expected to engage the President before or after Parliament is asked to provide approval? Third, where loans to the IMF are concerned, have we considered the possibility that such loans may not be repaid at maturity and may eventually be written-off? I highlight this, in particular, as the wording of the proposed section 6A of the Act contemplates that the financial Page: 57 assistance requested by the IMF may be provided directly to a recipient country. This approach of providing assistance directly to the recipient country is also contemplated in other legislatures, such as the Australian legislature. If so, Singapore would be taking on the direct credit risk of the recipient country and not the credit risk of the IMF. As such, if there is a loan default situation, what would be the treatment of the decision to write-off such loans? Would it be treated as an expenditure of MAS' reserves? Would a write-off require Parliamentary and Presidential approval under the proposed Bill or the Constitution? Fourth, I have a concern relating to the phrase "other financial assistance" in the proposed section 6A of the Act. Section 8C of the Australian International Monetary Agreements Act is similar to our section 6A in that it allows Australia to provide assistance to another country in support of a fund programme. The Australian Act is restricted in the scope of financial assistance that may be provided as it only allows the Treasurer of Australia to enter into an agreement to lend money or to enter into a currency swap.”
“While the intentions and motivations are commendable, given that this involves matters of our country's finances, I would like to highlight four areas of concern in respect of the applicable safeguards. First, the proposed new section 6A of the Bill requires that the MAS be satisfied that at least one other government has provided or intends to provide financial assistance in response to a similar request from the IMF to provide financial assistance. The hon Member Mr Liang feels that this is setting the bar too low. However, in the explanatory brief issued by MAS on 9 May 2016, MAS said that it would only agree to a request for financial assistance where there is a collective and broad-based response among IMF members. I would like to ask the Minister why the stance taken by MAS appears to be rather more stringent than what is reflected in the wording of section 6A? Second, the Explanatory Statement to the Bill states that any loan or grant to the IMF will be paid out of MAS' reserves. Loans are treated as monetary assets and are recorded as such in MAS' books. In contrast, grants are treated as expenses. For this reason, the proposed new section 6A(d) specifically requires Parliamentary approval on the quantum of the grant before a grant may be given. I agree that the Parliamentary safeguard is necessary. However, we have another safeguard in the form of the Elected President. Article 22B(6) and (7) of the Constitution requires the MAS and its CEO to inform the President of any proposed transaction of the MAS which is likely to draw on MAS' reserves and, the President, acting in his discretion, may disapprove the proposed transaction.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, when enacted in 1966, enabled us to become a member of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also known as the World Bank. As a country, we have benefited from our membership in the institutions, especially in our early years as a developing nation. As mentioned by the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Page: 56 Singapore received loans from the World Bank – about 14 loans between 1963 and 1975 – to develop our sewage, water, power and telecommunications infrastructure. Now, it is right for us to do our part to support the IMF in its effort to provide assistance to the development of low-income member countries (LICs), particularly under the IMF's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT). We live in an increasingly complex world, interconnected and interdependent, where no one country is really immune from developments in another. In this regard, I quote the President of the World Bank Group, Mr Jim Yong Kim, in a speech he delivered on 5 April 2016: "It has never been so painfully clear that the world is deeply interconnected. Major issues that evolve in a developing country now swiftly move to affect developed countries – and vice versa – more than ever before. Climate change, pandemics, refugees, terrorism and economic downturns all move seamlessly around the world." The above-mentioned impact applies all the more to an open economy like Singapore. The Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Bill proposes amendments to the Act to allow MAS to lend or give grants or to provide other financial assistance to the IMF to support its programmes. I support the amendments proposed in the Bill.”