Ng Eng Hen
Singapore
“I think we try to keep this virtuous state of affairs as long as we can to make sure that we can invest steadily. Year-to-year fluctuations would occur, whether it is economic, not so much in COVID-19, but remember the Global Financial Crisis? Everybody needs to take a haircut. If you have to take a haircut, you have to take a haircut.”
“Mr Chairman, as the World around us becomes more unpredictable and changes, the more we need to keep the strongest commitment to strengthen our own defences and, if needed, we must be willing to do more. Singapore celebrates 60 years of Independence this year.”
“MINDEF will continue to work with partners to encourage Singaporeans to raise their digital literacy, develop and maintain good cybersecurity habits, protect sensitive data and guard against scams, fake news and disinformation so as to make the digital domain a safer and more secure space.”
“The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) conducts regular mobilisation exercises (MOBEX) of our National Service (NS) forces. In a silent mobilisation, NSmen are notified through their personal contact numbers. Open mobilisations include the broadcast of unit code-words through mass media.”
“In 2020, the Ministry of Defence replied to a Parliamentary Question on this matter that the relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base (PLAB) would likely occur around 2030 or beyond, after Changi Air Base and Tengah Air Base have been expanded to house the existing assets at PLAB.”
“When incidents or near-misses happen, as it did where one Hunter armoured fighting vehicle rear-ended another during Exercise Wallaby in Australia, thorough investigations are conducted and lessons learnt shared across the units.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,266 lines we hold for Ng Eng Hen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 35 of 46.
“For training, I am agreeable to Members' suggestions that we should step it up. I agree that that is an integral part of the downstream event where workers need to know what their rights are, including welfare rights, because Members are quite right. If you make me work 16 hours a day and it is against the Employment Act, you should be able to complain to MOM and we will act. But I also want to know what the management must do to ensure that it is a safe environment. We have already begun thinking on this, engaging industries to move at a pace that is comfortable, together with the Council, how we can step up the training, as Dr Teo Ho Pin said, to have accredited training institutions, to also require certification, not only of foreign workers, but on all workers. In other words, if you do not know what basic safety rules are, then are you safe to be allowed in a particular industry - the chemical industry or the construction industry? And we have to think about that and we need to move along those lines. As we said, we also have to professionalise the industries. We have to see how to engage them. On the tender system, we agree that it plays a part, but I want us to be careful to always associate the lowest tenderer with the employer who cuts the most corners. On the ground, that is not always true. I have seen contractors who have been competitive, and yet, have the safest safety record. Even in Singapore, with our current restrictions of MYE and tender, I can show you many examples of good developers and contractors who have got excellent safety records and yet remain competitive. So I do not want to perpetuate this notion that you can only be competitive if you cut corners, and you are unsafe. If you choose to do that, that is fine. The law will catch up with you.”
“If the employer thinks that a performance-based system is a non-compliance based system, then I think they will very quickly run afoul of our law and our inspections. Because compliance is required to ensure that they minimise the risk. So in certain cases, our safety inspectors can go to a site and say, "Where is your report by a registered safety officer or registered safety inspector? This has been improved. Now, you, management, what have you done to minimise the risk?" Under the current Factories Act, if no accidents occurred, it was very hard to penalise. Under the current Bill, we can penalise you for not having taken action. As I have said, we will be reasonable in our enforcement. We will issue a Remedial Order. But if someone does not comply, and even if there is no accident, he can be penalised. That is the radical change in which other countries have adopted and that is what we are also doing. A performance-based system does not mean that I can just (1) delegate it away; and (2) have a written report but not act on this. In fact, this would have to be seen through. But while Government would lead, MOM will be engaged, as Members have asked for. I want to be realistic that industries must come aboard. If we cannot get management to be intricately pushing this, there will be a limit to what we can do. Because I can appoint 16,000 safety officers at whatever workplaces, one for each worksite, they will be scurrying around. We can stop all work and the only way you can stop work accidents is to stop all work. But that will grind our economy to a halt. So we have to do it at a pace which is reasonable and we will have to live, if you like, with the inefficiencies that Members talk about - the MYEs and the training - and tackle these problems at the same time.”
“The qualifications of safety auditors, which are mandated, are that they must have at least a recognised degree, ie, a degree holder in the relevant field or registered safety officer, with at least five years of related industrial working experience, at least three years of auditing-related practical experience and passed the MOM's accredited course, "Workshop for Safety Auditors", or its equivalent. We currently have about 20 approved safety auditor organisations and 100 approved auditors amongst them. So there is already a framework and we have to build on this framework. Then, there is a second layer of safety officers. These are officers registered by MOM to provide assistance and advice. Full-time safety officers are required. I am giving some examples - and this is not an exhaustive list - shipyards with 100 or more persons or factories where 500 or more persons are employed. Part-time safety officers are also required for certain categories and the qualification requirements are diploma in the relevant field and at least three years of practical experience. There are currently 2,000 registered safety officers. We will have to build this and we will have to professionalise it. I see the next few years MOM engaging industries, together with the Workplace Safety and Health Council, to steadily step up the engagement of this community of professional safety officers. They must play an integral role in this framework. Because I agree with Members that if you just have a performance-based system, and if management decides that they are going to just delegate this, there must be a system of checks-and-balances. And what Dr Teo Ho Pin said was correct.”
“For this framework to work, it cannot depend on 100 or so safety inspectors that I have. And, indeed, no system works as such. We will have, as many of the Members alluded to, both by Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Halimah, to professionalise the safety management system, which includes safety auditors, safety officers as well as safety and health management committees. It is akin to saying that we need a proper audit system and if you only have a couple of people at IRAS, it just does not work. You need a whole industry of safety auditors and safety accountants to make sure that your financial accounting is in order. Under the current legislation, safety auditors are compulsory. They must conduct mandatory safety audits for selected groups of industries and this is maintained. For example, for construction companies with worksites, a contract sum higher or equal to $30 million - I think Dr Teo Ho Pin brought up the point - we should have an independent audit. This is already mandated by law. Or shipyards hiring 200 or more workers or factories engaged in the processing or manufacturing of petroleum, petroleum products, petrochemicals, petrochemical products, or factories engaged in manufacture of fabricated metal products, machinery or equipment with a hundred or more persons are employed. It is already mandated. So you will need to leverage off this system. Some Members talked about qualifications.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me thank Members - Dr Amy Khor, Mdm Halimah, Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Alex Chan - for their full support on this Bill. Dr Amy Khor said that it was none too soon. Mdm Halimah said that it was timely. All of them gave full support to the principles. There is clear consensus that this framework will allow us to be more effective. This is the right direction to go. There is also clear consensus that there is a lot to be done. As I have said, the Bill that this House passes today is not the solution. It allows us the framework to step up our efforts and, indeed, there is a lot to do. There were many issues that were brought up as we talked about why safety was what it was, management, culture, entrepreneurialism, MYEs, worker training, worker welfare, and they are all correct. At the end of the day, all these aspects - any one of these factors - can lead to a safety lapse, because an accident occurs at that point. I read accident reports that come across my desk. You find that even though certain safeguards have been put in place, ridiculous accidents happen because there is a lack of attention, whether it is due to fatigue or a variety of other reasons. Therefore, MOM is quite clear on the magnitude of this task. I want to assure Members that we are fully committed. Many of you have said that MOM and Government should take the lead. And, indeed, we will. Indeed, we will step up our measures. I welcome Members' re-enforcement that MOM should be given more resources for this and I will remind the relevant agencies that you have also backed us when we ask for more resources. I want to clarify a point though where some Members touched on the number of safety officers that MOM has.”
“Members will note that technical provisions in the Factories Act, such as those relating to cleanliness, ventilation, prime movers and so on, are absent from this Bill. These provisions have been updated and will be enacted by Regulations when the Bill comes into force. The Bill also effects some administrative changes. The Factories Act is administered by the Commissioner for Labour, with the assistance of the Chief Inspector of Factories. As I have alluded to above, the Bill establishes a new office of the "Commissioner of Workplace Safety and Health", who will administer the Act when it is passed and exercise the powers of the Chief Inspector. The existing scheme for the registration of factories will continue to operate under separate regulations, but will be simplified to reduce the administrative burden on companies. The current safety officer, safety committee and safety auditor schemes will be preserved, although we have changed the nomenclature to "Workplace Safety and Health Officer", "Workplace Safety and Health Committee", and "Workplace Safety and Health Auditor" in line with the title of the Act. This is reflected in clauses 28, 29 and 30. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the passing of this Bill will be a tangible expression that we have learnt from past mistakes. The Bill itself is not the solution, but it will put into place an improved legal framework to get all stakeholders to embed occupational safety and health into their daily operations. Although there is a lot more work to be done, it is a significant first milestone in our journey towards comprehensive protection for our workers and their loved ones. Together, we can make Singapore a safer place to work. I ask all Members of this House to support this Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.”
“The limit for composition fines has also been raised from $2,000 under the Factories Act, to half the maximum fine on conviction, or $5,000, whichever is lower. The Factories Act contains a stepped penalty regime based on the harm done. The inadequacy of this regime is that it does not allow for meaningful penalties in cases where there are severe lapses, but fortuitously no accidents have occurred. Under the Bill, a single maximum penalty is prescribed. However, the penalty, in any given case, will be applied taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the culpability of the offender, the potential harm that could have been caused, and the harm actually done. Moving enforcement from reaction to prevention is the way forward to reduce deaths and accidents. But I want to assure the House that my Ministry will be reasonable in its enforcement measures. In cases where safety lapses have been identified but where no accidents have occurred, we will first adopt an approach of positive intervention, rather than impose criminal liability. This is possible under clause 21 of the Bill where the Commissioner for Workplace Safety and Health is empowered to make a "Remedial Order" compelling a person to remove any workplace risk or comply with a safe work practice, whether or not any imminent danger is posed. We will also use Remedial Orders to require employers to improve the quality of their Risk Assessments if they are found to be lacking, rather than impose penalties upfront. Changes to technical and administrative provisions I have explained the main policy changes that will be brought about by this Bill. We are also making some structural changes.”
“As a start, we will be organising a series of seminars for industry and other partners to better understand the new requirements of the law. We will make our enforcement policies and expectations clear. We will help SMEs defray the cost of improving the OSH skills and capabilities of their staff. Beyond this, we will also be working on growing a larger body of competent OSH professionals to help businesses manage their OSH risks. These professionals, such as safety and health officers and auditors, should take on an expanded role in the longer term. Higher penalties for poor safety management and performance Even as we work with industry to build up their capabilities to improve safety and health at their workplaces, we need to ensure that the penalties for non-compliance are sufficiently high to effect a cultural change on the ground. Penalties should be set at a level that reflects the true cost of poor safety management, including the cost of disruptions and inconvenience to members of the public which workplace accidents may cause. The collapse of Nicoll Highway not only resulted in the loss of four lives, but also caused millions of dollars in property damage and led to countless lost working hours and great inconvenience to the public. The maximum penalty of $200,000 under the present Factories Act is therefore inadequate. This Bill contains a revised penalty framework in Part X. First, maximum penalties have been increased. This is reflected in clause 50. For individuals, the maximum fine remains at $200,000, but the maximum period of imprisonment is increased from 12 to 24 months. For corporate offenders, the maximum fine is raised to $500,000.”
“It will assist in promoting OSH to top management through identifying and sharing practical and workable models of best practice. The Committee will also help develop in businesses a mindset of ownership of OSH standards and practices. This has proven elsewhere to be successful in reducing workplace injuries and diseases without sacrificing competitiveness. In fact, leading companies operating in such environments have told us that investments in safety and health enhance competitiveness by improving morale, reducing accidents and enhancing the corporate image. MOM will also work with each industry sector to determine practical and realistic standards in the form of Codes of Practice or non-legislative guidance. Clause 39(1) of the Bill allows the Commissioner for Workplace Safety and Health to issue codes of practice, or to adopt any code of practice published by a third-party where suitable. Our intent is that within each sector, there should be published reference points to guide and shape behaviour. There are today some 90 Singapore Standards published by SPRING Singapore on safety. In sectors such as construction, there is already much legislative and other guidance. The Government will continue to work with trade associations and other stakeholders to develop reference points in other regulated sectors over time. But industry itself must take ownership of standards and drive better outcomes. Standards will not improve if industry waits for Government to tell them what must be done, or does the bare minimum to comply even though safety has not been adequately achieved. We will also help stakeholders build up their capabilities to better manage OSH at their workplace.”
“If there is inadequate wall space for windows, or if windows are not practical in the work environment, alternatives such as forced ventilation or suction fans can be used. The Bill adopts this performance-based approach in clauses 11 to 19. It requires stakeholders to take all reasonably practical measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers and the public. Under clause 47, the burden is on the party responsible to show that he has taken such reasonably practicable measures. To make sure companies internalise this, they will be required to conduct risk assessments, and take steps to eliminate or minimise identified risks, and disseminate this information. The requirement for risk assessments will be contained in new Regulations made under clause 65(2)(u) of the Bill, which will be passed when the Act is brought into force. To help industry undertake risk assessments, my Ministry, together with our industry partners, has organised seminars and workshops. MOM has also made available a set of Risk Assessment Guidelines illustrating the principles of conducting a proper risk assessment, and providing a basic template. Helping companies adjust to requirements of the new OSH framework MOM will ensure that there is sufficient guidance for companies to comply with the Act. Industry practitioners will play a central role in guiding this effort through the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee (WSHAC). This 14-member Committee, from a variety of disciplines, was set up in November last year and is chaired by Mr Lee Tzu Yang, Chairman of the Shell Companies in Singapore. This Committee will help develop and revise safety and health standards across different sectors, such as construction, healthcare and metal working.”
“Shifting mindsets to comprehensive risk management systems The present OSH regulatory regime defines which workplaces and aspects of work are regulated, and also prescriptively fixes the methods of achieving OSH competency on the ground, in other words, the law tells you what to do and how to do it. Such an approach has led to a morass of legislative rules and regulations, which may be ill-suited to particular sets of circumstances but must be followed nonetheless. It promotes a mindset of simply following the letter of the law, without applying one's mind to how the measures should be implemented to be effective or if there is a better or more efficient solution. Over the past three decades, leading OSH countries, including the UK and Sweden, have realised that as work processes become more sophisticated and more customised, it is increasingly difficult for the Government or any central authority to prescribe standards which can be applied uniformly to all companies, across all industries. The speed of technological development means that regulators which try to micro-manage will always be playing catch-up. These countries have therefore changed their regulatory mindset. Rather than tell businesses how to run their factories or do their jobs, they have made businesses responsible for managing their own risks. Their legislation has moved from being prescriptive to performance-based. In other words, no longer does the law prescribe that your factory windows must be 10% of the floor size. The duty is simply to ensure that there is sufficient ventilation according to the number of people at work. You decide how to achieve this.”
“Such information should be documented and made available at the point of sale, not at the point of distribution. Under clause 17, persons who erect, install, modify or maintain the same high-risk machinery or equipment are placed under a duty to do so responsibly. This includes third-party maintenance contractors. To engender a strong safety culture, commitment of top management is critical. Hence, the Bill holds managers and directors of companies accountable for safety and health practices at their workplaces under clause 48, even though managers may not be able to police safety and health on the ground. This means that even though physical supervision of workers may be delegated, management must show that they have taken active steps to implement sound OSH management systems, including proper risk assessments and reporting systems, provide adequate resources, and ensure that full information is disseminated to workers and other persons exposed to risks. While management commitment is critical, it is not sufficient if employees ignore clear instructions. Under this new liability regime, responsibility for the safety and health of others will lie not only with employers, but also with employees, whether they be supervisors or rank-and-file workers. Clause 15(1) thus requires persons at work to use the personal protective equipment provided by their employer and cooperate with the employer on OSH matters. Clause 15(3) also imposes a duty to not wilfully or recklessly endanger the safety and health of themselves or others, with appropriate penalties in place to deter such behaviour. As I have said, this would greatly expand the liability framework.”
“If this were not the case, then the duties under the Act could be simply circumvented by a careful crafting of the legal relationship. The Bill also expands accountability for OSH risks to include risks posed to members of the public by employers, self-employed persons and principals. This is necessary as workplace accidents may have catastrophic effects, not only on their employees, but also on the public at large. Take, for example, an alarming case in July last year, when a contractor caused a gas leak because he wrongly mixed cleaning reagents for a swimming pool. In that incident, over 50 members of the public were exposed to toxic chlorine gas. It is fortunate that no fatalities occurred. Clause 16 covers manufacturers and suppliers of high-risk machinery and equipment specified in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill, which have been identified as generating more accidents. Companies who manufacture these products must ensure that they are safe for their intended use. The Fifth Schedule also contains a list of toxic and hazardous substances, including corrosive, flammable and explosive substances, which will be regulated under the same clause. This list is based on the UN's "Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for Hazard Classification and Communication", and thus represents an internationally accepted categorisation of dangerous substances. Most accidents involving dangerous machines and toxic chemicals are caused not by the inherent defects, but by ignorance of risks and inattention to necessary safety precautions. The duty under clause 16 therefore also requires manufacturers and suppliers to provide adequate and comprehensive information on use and the precautions to be taken.”
“For example, in the construction sites, employees from various specialist sub-contractors work together on the same project, but under the direction of their respective employers. In such a scenario, placing legal liability on the registered occupier alone may be unfair and ineffective. This is because the employees of the sub- contractors may choose to ignore the safety instructions of the occupier or carry out unsafe work practices, or introduce unsafe work practices without the knowledge of the occupier. Part IV the Bill effects a new and more direct liability regime which assigns legal responsibility to those who create and have control over safety and health risks. Clause 11 assigns liability to occupiers for dangers arising from the physical environment under their control. Clauses 12 and 13 assign responsibility for safety to employers and self-employed persons respectively. Clause 14 covers principals who engage contractors for specialised tasks or the services of workers from third-party labour suppliers. In such situations, there is no contract of employment between the principal and the contractor or the worker supplied. Traditionally, a principal who engages a contractor would be engaging the specialist services of the contractor, and would not be directing the contractor on how to do the work. However, today the situation is different. Principals often engage "contractors" and third-party labour not for their specialist expertise, but precisely so that they can avoid entering into a direct employment relationship, for organisational or other reasons. In such situations, the principal, in terms of supervision, takes on the role of an employer. The Bill thus places on him responsibility for the worker's safety and health as if he were the employer.”
“Clause 2(2) of the Bill allows the Minister to extend the scope to cover other workplaces in due course, which we intend to do over the next three to five years. We will engage and consult the industries concerned regarding the timeframe, and help prepare them for compliance with the legislative requirements. Certain occupational groups have been exempted, such as members of the Singapore Armed Forces, the Police and other members of the Home Team. These agencies need the flexibility to make urgent operational decisions without being encumbered by the legislative requirements. While the need is understandable, MOM will work with those exempted to ensure that their OSH management systems are comprehensive and up to date. Crew on international modes of transport are also exempted. This is because they are operating across international boundaries. Their safety and health will be protected by internal controls and other laws applicable to that sector. Better defined liability regime to reduce risks at source Next, the Bill will expand responsibility and better define persons who are accountable for safety outcomes. Under the present regime, legal liability in respect of all persons in the factory falls on the shoulders of the registered occupier. For a traditional assembly-line plant, this is comprehensive as the factory occupier is typically the employer of all the workers and has control over the risks to which they are exposed. However, today, with outsourcing, specialisation of work and more diverse employment relationships, workplaces will often have workers employed by third parties and other specialists.”
“Penalties should be sufficient to deter risk-taking behaviour and ensure that companies are proactive in preventing incidents. Appropriately, companies and persons that show poor safety management should be penalised even if no accident has occurred. This Bill will put into place a new and more effective framework to reduce accidents at the workplace - to bring about a quantum improvement in OSH standards and to achieve our intermediate goal of halving the present occupational fatality rate by 2015. Let me now give an overview of the Bill and explain its key provisions. I should start by thanking our tripartite partners, employers and unions, and also other key stakeholders - safety professionals, developers, designers, industry associations and many others who assisted in developing key ideas and regulatory concepts during the consultation process. Many insightful observations and comments were made, which have greatly improved the final product. During this reading, I will indicate to Members in this House changes in this Bill which are substantially different from the approach taken in the current Factories Act. Scope of the Bill First, coverage of all workplaces. Our current legislation only covers factories. This is of course archaic, as every worker deserves to be protected against safety and health risks. Occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation in other developed countries, including the US and the United Kingdom, has long moved on to cover all workplaces. We will extend coverage of the Act in stages in consultation with industry. Our immediate priority is to focus on the sectors with the highest accident and fatality rates: these are construction sites, shipyards and metalworking factories.”
“Several technical and administrative factors contributed to the collapse. From the early stages €¦ there were failures to demonstrate the necessary level of care. A multiplicity of events led to the position where design, construction, instru mentation, management and organisation systems €¦ failed. Serious human errors were made. There were failures in defensive systems. The builder did not adequately deal with insidious warning signs. There were no proper and appropriate design reviews. There were inadequate contingency and remedial measures." In retrospect, we were extremely fortunate that more did not lose their lives in the accident. Following the tragedies of 2004, I informed this House in March last year that Government would undertake a fundamental review of our legislation to improve safety outcomes. Three fundamental reforms in this Bill will improve safety at the workplace. First, this Bill will strengthen proactive measures. Instead of reacting to accidents after they have occurred, which is often too little too late, we should reduce risks to prevent accidents. To achieve this, all employers will be required to conduct comprehensive risk assessments for all work processes and provide detailed plans to minimise or eliminate risks. Second, industry must take ownership of occupational safety and health standards and outcomes to effect a cultural change of respect for life and livelihoods at the workplace. Government cannot improve safety by fiat alone. Industry must take responsibility for raising OSH standards at a practical and reasonable pace. Third, this Bill will better define persons who are accountable, their responsibilities and institute penalties which reflect the true economic and social cost of risks and accidents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Manpower started work on reforming the Factories Act, this is the Act which regulates occupational safety and health (OSH) in Singapore in 2001. Three high-profile accidents in 2004 - the collapse of Nicoll Highway, the fire on the vessel "Almudaina" at Keppel Shipyard and the accident at Fusionpolis, which collectively claimed 13 lives, added new impetus and urgency to our efforts. While the passage of time may have lessened the pain, we must not forget the lessons learnt. If there can be any good from the tragic loss of lives, then let it be this - a constant reminder to us all that we ignore safety and health risks at our peril and to move us from platitudes to action, to create structures that will shape better behaviour and outcomes at the workplace. Our safety standards have improved over the years. Even after the three major accidents in 2004, we were within the top 20 developed countries and a leader in safety for Asian countries. But we must do better. In 2004, 83 people lost their lives in workplace accidents. More than 3,000 were injured in industrial accidents; 93 were permanently incapacitated. Most of these accidents were preventable. The reality is that on a day-to-day basis, safety may be the last thing on the minds of management and workers on the ground. There are deadlines to meet, monotony, apathy or lethargy to overcome, a lack of professionalism and training, unclear lines or no lines of accountability, and poor management. Any one of these factors can lead to an accident. A combination of them is often catastrophic. The Committee of Inquiry into the Collapse of Nicoll Highway noted: "The collapse did not develop suddenly.”
“The proportion of diploma and degree holders employed in the manufacturing sector increased from 14% in 1994 to 34% in 2004. The manufacturing sector recorded productivity gains of 68% over the period 1994 to 2004. This far outpaces productivity gain of the overall economy of 27% over the same period. As the Member noted, these trends reflect the rapid economic restructuring towards higher value added and more capital-intensive manufacturing activities, in response to global competition and rapid technological change. Column No : 2107 IMF AND WORLD BANK GROUP MEETINGS IN SINGAPORE (Contingency plans to deal with militant protesters) 24. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the police and security agencies have contingency plans to deal with militant protestors who may attempt to stage violent demonstrations or protests in Singapore during the upcoming International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group meetings to be held in Singapore in 2006.”
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if his Ministry will increase its compensation structure to make it more attractive to train, attract and retain good social workers, so as to help tackle the rising number of social problems and family breakdowns arising in our society especially when attitudes towards gambling become more tolerated in our society.”
“There were 108,800 part-time workers in June 20041 and this constituted 5.3% of all employed persons. Females made up 65% or 70,500 of the part-time workers. The share of part-time employment had increased moderately over the years from 4.7% (96,900 workers) in 2001 to 5.3% (108,800 workers) in 2004. There were 260 (0.43%) part-time workers in the public sector in June 2005, up from 178 (0.28%) in 2000. The relatively low take-up rate of part-time employment in the public sector partly reflects the availability of other flexible work arrangements and pro-family policies which help meet the varied needs of civil servants. For example, on average, about 1,000 female officers take no-pay childcare leave per year to look after their children. This makes up about 22% of the total female officers with children aged 4 years and below. The Government, together with the tripartite partners, will continue to encourage employers to introduce more flexible work arrangements, including part-time work, to better meet the needs of both companies as well as workers. Such arrangements will allow workers who have difficulty working standard hours to be economically active and increases their productivity. At the same time, employers will be able to tap on additional manpower, including highly skilled and experienced workers. 1 Latest available. Data from 2005 General Household Survey is not available yet. Column No : 1941 COMPENSATION STRUCTURE FOR SOCIAL WORKERS 10.”
“The Member's proposal to allow the student to use his CPF savings to repay the loan when he starts working would be tantamount to allowing him to make premature withdrawals from his CPF. This will compromise his own retirement adequacy in the long term. In recognition of the difficulty some students may face in repaying the loan immediately after graduation, repayment of the loan commences only one year after the student graduates or leaves the course. This gives him sufficient time to find a job. He is also given up to 12 years to repay the loan. This makes repayment affordable. The CPF Board will also consider deferment of payments on a case-to-case basis, such as when the student is serving NS, returns to full-time study, or is unemployed. MOTORCROSS RACING TRACK (Establishment) 7. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if his Ministry will consider helping youths in the community interested in motorcross racing, to set up a safe motorcross racing track in Singapore so that they will not risk their lives by going to the poorly maintained and unsafe motorcross racing tracks in our neighbouring countries.”
“Although reducing the CPF contribution rate of these workers may enable them to receive higher take-home pay, it will reduce the amount of savings they need for their medical, housing and retirement needs. Workers may end up worse off as a result. Workers have also expressed fear that if CPF contribution rates are lowered, some employers might make use of this opportunity to reduce their overall salaries. In view of these disadvantages to workers from lowering the CPF contribution rates, the Ministerial Committee for Low Wage Workers is considering other proposals to increase take-home pay. We will continue to consult with other stakeholders and will release more details when deliberations are completed. PRIMARY 1 REGISTRATION (Criteria) 19. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education with respect to the primary 1 registration exercise, (a) what are the factors considered; (b) what is the importance and priority given to the students' welfare, travelling time and expenses, with respect to other factors; (c) for the last three years, what is the number of primary 1 students who have to travel more than 1 km, 2 km and 3 km to their schools because they were not allocated a place in the schools in the vicinity of their homes; and (d) what are the measures taken to ensure that students within a certain radius of the schools can be enrolled in the schools, to ensure minimum travelling time, expense and inconvenience for these students.”
“Sir, sometimes, MOM acts proactively and sometimes reactively. We do react to complaints. At the same time, in terms of intelligence capabilities, when our officers do identify certain syndicates, we act upon them. As I said to the Member, if she knows of any particular instances, please let us know and we will act on them. TAN TOCK SENG HOSPITAL (Shortage of beds and standard of care at A&E Department) 7. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Health whether there is a shortage of beds at Tan Tock Seng Hospital and, if so, (i) how long has the hospital faced a shortage of beds; and (ii) what is the solution to the situation. 8. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Health whether the standard of medical care at the Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) of Tan Tock Seng Hospital is compromised since patients deserving admission are being held at the so-called observation ward of A&E for a long time waiting for beds. 9. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Health (a) whether it is productive and appropriate that the first counter of the Accident and Emergency Department of Tan Tock Seng Hospital is manned by medical staff whose role is to counsel patients seeking treatment to go to other hospitals; and (b) what is the rationale for requiring patients who refuse to go elsewhere to sign a letter of indemnity.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Man Year Entitlement (MYE) trading involving a corrupt act or fraudulent applications are offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Penal Code respectively. Therefore, such cases are referred to the CPIB or Police for investigations. In the past five years, a total of 31 employers have been prosecuted. In addition, MOM would debar these contractors from future work permit applications. The Member asked if improvements have been made to the MYE system. Since April this year, we have also made several changes to enable the construction sector to better use their workers. Contractors can now renew the work permits of workers who have worked here for six or more years outside the MYE system. In other words, such renewals do not require MYEs. Contractors are also allowed to deploy their workers to work for other contractors, during lull periods.”
“This would require an overhaul of current systems leading to greater improvements of the operating systems, procedures and policies of the NKF. In the course of this entire exercise, the new Board will be able to learn from the experience and do an even better due diligence in the future. Therefore, it is important for the Board to go through this exercise of investigation and review without further interventions.In my opinion, it is not necessary to install further supervisory committees for the Board as it is already accountable to the Commissioner of Charities and so long as the Board itself is compliant with the code of conduct that I have expounded in my second suggestion, and,as the Board champions for such a culture in the NKF, we can be more assured of closing all gaps. In conclusion, Sir, Singaporeans should not be deterred to continue with their "spirit of giving" so long as they can be assured that there is transparency and proper accountability on funds raised and that they can breathe a culture of integrity in the behaviour and spirit of the people running charities and IPCs.It will be to our credit that charities and IPCs will continue to be able to attract the best and credible talents to work in their organisations hand-in-hand with our invaluable volunteers and supporters for the greater good of society.”
“It would be useful for the new NKF Board to consider initiating a job evaluation exercise of its key management positions and to benchmark its remuneration strategies for its key staff with other non-profit or charitable organisations. These findings could be made known to the public and the eventual salaries of key staff, as determined by the job evaluation exercise, will then be properly rationalised and justified. Sir, it is important that salaries of key staff who are working in charities and IPCs are properly rationalised for greater accountability.Nonetheless, it is the opinion of many Singaporeans (as pointed out by a reader) "that there is such a thing as public service where people, informed by their sense of civic-mindedness, offer their services not for high salaries but more for the satisfaction of a fulfilling life caring for the poor and needy."It is my hope that the new management team of the NKF are not only professionals but will embody these qualities as well. (4) To empower the new Board to carry out its duties Sir, the NKF debacle has uncovered many shortcomings in the current system and I urge that the new NKF Board pay heed to these lapses and the feedback of the public and to work on improving the effective management of the NKF.I hope we will no longer sensationalise and agonise further the NKF fiasco but to put all our efforts to support the new NKF team in regaining the confidence of donors and supporters for NKF.At the same time, we ought to confer our confidence in the new Board and empower it to proceed with the necessary investigations of the lapses and provide the recommendations to close the gaps.”
“Sir, I hope that this list will include indicators, such as the fund-raising target, number of patients or beneficiaries and the quantum of funds raised that would directly benefit patients vis-a-vis operational expenses (including executive compensation). Such KPIs should be audited regularly for proper accountability. This will help restore confidence amongst donors. Sir, I understand that speaking from the head (that is, right pay for the right person) is not the same as speaking from the heart. Many will argue that charity is a matter of the heart. To my mind, paying a competitive salary to a top-notch CEO is fair but, in the case of the NKF, the misrepresentation and lack of transparency are what bother many of us, especially since Singaporeans have been faced with retrenchments and pay cuts over the past few years. Sir, the remuneration of the CEO is often determined by the Board and it would be helpful to know the terms of employment and the key criteria or performance targets for incentive bonus before we can make any meaningful judgment on the CEO’s pay package. As a charitable organisation, the performance incentivesof the CEO should be related to various key performance indicators of the organisation such as providing quality care to its patients other than indicators of profit generated, donations collected or size of reserve. Senior staff of charitable organisations deserve competitive and reasonable pay packages and benefits. However, how does one go about determining the competitiveness and reasonableness of a compensation package?”
“At the same time, these young ones should be able to see the people, public and private sector agencies as model organisations exuberating qualities of integrity, responsibility, trust and respect. (3) To establish a compensation framework driven by KPIs for professionally run charities and IPCs Sir, my third point touches on key performance indicators, or KPIs, and the proper due process for establishing a compensation framework for professional staff working in charities, or IPCs.Minister Khaw had said, in his statement, that the varying needs and scale of operations of the various IPCs and charities will mean that we have varied needs. Sir, I am of the view that indeed there is nothing wrong to adopt the concept of social entrepreneurship which is akin to running a charity like a business.Such a model has indeed grown an outfit, such as NKF, from a small entity in the SGH premises when it first started, to a successful formidable charity organisation that it is today.Many have criticised NKF for adopting a business model in its operations. This is not its mistake. The mistake NKF made was its lack of transparency. It is unfortunate that the image of success, which NKF has painstakingly built up over four decades, was tarnished over just two days and the success factors abolished along with it. I agree that a system of checks and balances for due diligence on funds utilisation and accountability be instituted for regular audits by the Board.Therefore, it is good that the list of key performance indicators with regard to the leadership and performance of NKF has been set out for the next Board and management team.”
“Therefore, it is understandable when charities and IPCs are not too ready for an over-regulated and over-supervised system. In place, we should inculcate a culture of integrity and responsibility that will breed trust and respect for men and women who have stepped forward to serve the Board gratis and voluntarily. This culture of integrity, responsibility, trust and respect should prevail in the character of professional people working for the IPCs or charities. The debate that follows the salary of the NKF CEO has brought up another dimension (rightly or wrongly) and that is, the Government is no longer in touch with the feelings of the ground and the allusion that the NKF mirrors the culture and system of its operating environment. These ground sentiments have got to be corrected and to allay these misgivings, it is important that, going forward, the Government must setthe tone and expectations for IPCs and charities. It would be good practice to encourage charities and businesses to conscientiously work towards setting up a code of conduct and ethics befitting their respective operations. Such a code of conduct and ethics should be evolved into the culture and ethos of the operations and where compliance becomes second nature to the people of the outfit. Perhaps the Government should start a yearly campaign on code of conduct and ethics. Just as we have done so for our "Keep Singapore Clean and Green" campaign and the "Courtesy" campaign, such a campaign on "Integrity, Responsibility, Trust and Respect" will go a long way to build a gracious society where the greedy will not get greedier and where power will not corrupt power. We should start a campaign with our young in schools so that they can be moulded into the right values.”
“Sir, I feel strongly that these magnanimous workers ought to have a voice in the affairs of NKF, especially on how the funds are to be used since the bulk of donations are from these ordinary folks. Contrary to the call by Opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong, for Opposition Party representation on the NKF Board, I would propose for the ordinary workers to be represented on the NKF Board because they are a majority stakeholder of the funds and donations. Therefore NTUC, which represents several hundreds of thousands of workers, could nominate a representative to be on the Board of NKF. Coming from the NTUC, he would be one whom thousands of ordinary workers would be able to relate to. Sir, as my colleague before me, Dr Amy Khor, had said, if public disquiet over the many unanswered questionsis not fully addressed, it could lead to a cynical public with deep mistrust for charities and less giving.Giving a voice to the ordinary workers on the NKF Board is one way that we can regain the confidence of the public in the NKF as they can see themselves through the representation by being involved in seeking out the answers to the many unanswered questions and satisfy themselves with such involvement. Sir, I applaud the new Board and I have no doubt in their experience and competence. However, their composition and representation can be made even more robust with the inclusion of representation of ordinary workers. (2) To imbue a culture of integrity, trust and respect in our charities and IPCs over and above existing code of governance, regulatory framework and guidelines Sir, charities and IPCs are not Government entities and should remain as such. They thrive on thespirit of voluntarism and philanthrophy.”
“Sir, I agree with the Member that the demographic changes and fertility patterns will impact on retirement adequacy and the ability to draw from your other family members for retirement adequacy. Indeed, this is an issue that we are looking at. How are we going to achieve this will require a number of measures. And after we have thought through it, we will put to the House the various measures possible. The Member asked about sources of income for those who are aged 60 and above. The specific data that I have, again, is from the 1995 survey. It shows, for example, that if you look at sources of income for those 55-59, for children, it was about 41%. Actually, it rose with increasing age. So for 60-64, it was 57%; for 60 and above, it was 73%. So I think family members adjusted. In other words, when the retiree became older, more children contributed. I think this is a good sign. THE NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION Order read for resumption of debate on Question [20th July 2005], "That the Ministerial Statement on the National Kidney Foundation be considered by Parliament.". - [Minister for Health]. Question again proposed. Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to participate in this debate. Sir, my colleagues before me have spoken of their shock and sadness over the NKF saga. Many have also suggested ways to address the lapses. I would like to suggest four measures for adoption: (1) To give a voice to workers on the NKF Board Sir, thousands of donors to the NKF are ordinary workers whose altruism has led them to put the interest of charity before theirs. Even with a meagre income, they still fork out regularly in whatever way they could to give to charity.”
“We will have more detailed information about current trends when the National Survey of Senior Citizens 2005 is published early next year. To improve retirement adequacy for imminent and future retirees, various measures must be put in place. We must help workers work longer and retire later. This is the focus of the tripartite committee to extend the employability of older workers. Singaporeans must set aside larger sums to provide for longer life expectancy after retirement. This is the reason why we have raised theMinimum Sumto $120,000 (in 2003 dollars) to be reached in 2013. The CPF Boardwill continue to examine ways to protect and enhance members’ retirement adequacy. This may include measures to cover for longevity risk and ways to help older members monetise their properties and improve returns on their savings. Miss Penny Low: Sir, the Minister mentioned that family support remains an important pillar for retirement adequacy. With falling fertility rate and families having really small families of just one or two children, what does that imply for the retiree? Has the Ministry also done some studies to ascertain the adequacy of income received by people who have retired for more than 10 years or so, in other words, at age 65 and above?Would that income of $500-odd that he mentioned actually dwindle over time?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the main pillar of our retirement funding inSingaporeis the Central Provident Fund. Through the CPF, we emphasise personal responsibility as each member saves into individual accounts to provide for his housing, medical and retirement needs. The CPF system also facilitates financial support from family members who can help to pay for medical expenses or through top-ups into retirement accounts. Miss Low asked about sources of retirement income. Under the CPF, this is provided for by the Minimum Sum requirement which the member must set aside on reaching the age of 55 in his retirement account, before he is allowed to withdraw excess sums. Only about 40% of active CPF members met the Minimum Sum (MS) requirement through cash alone or with the property pledge on reaching the age of 55 in 2004. As the Minimum Sumis designed to finance only a basic standard of living over the average life expectancy of 20 years when members turn 62, most CPF members who retire now supplement their CPF payouts with other sources of income. And, indeed, this is the case as the National Survey of Senior Citizens showed in 1995. Other sources of income would usually be from family members, personal savings and employment or business income if they are still economically active. According to that Survey in 1995, the median income of senior citizens aged 55 and above from all sources was $518 monthly. 76% of senior citizens aged 55 and above received regular cash contributions from their offspring. 89% of these citizensconsidered what they were receiving as adequate for expenses. This indicates that family support has been a vital pillar for retirement adequacy, especially for those who have not built upsufficient CPF accounts.”
“Sir, Mdm Halimah Yacob has stated a very sensible view which unionists globally and even lay people would hold that, while it may be economically sensible and efficient to have an auction-like system, you are still dealing with workers, and it would be hard to explain to people why you are using this system. So, as I said, while, in principle, the theory that it is more economically efficient to use price may be attractive, in real life, you may bring on many more problems that you did not anticipate. So I think our current system is a robust one. It helps us to adjust from time to time what we need. And, as I have replied to the NMP, I think we have to make minor changes, but the system on the whole is quite sound. Column No : 997 INTEGRATED RESORTS (Eco-friendly and energy-saving requirements) 3. Dr Geh Min asked the Minister for Trade and Industry as the Integrated Resorts are intended to be iconic developments appropriate to Singapore's clean and green image, will the Singapore Tourism Board include eco-friendly technology and energy-saving requirements for these developments in their tender document.”
“Sir, we should not confuse enforcement with the primary policy tool. And indeed, if there are infringements, then let us deal with the enforcement. Contractors know that if someone spills the beans on them, they risk being put out of business because they will be banned from hiring any more foreign workers. It could be a lifetime ban. And if they do not have access, especially contractors who traditionally use a high proportion of foreign workers, if they are disallowed to have MYEs or employ foreign workers, it basically means that they are out of business. If they want to risk this, we will step up enforcement and if they are caught, then they risk that. So that is the enforcement aspect. Because they want to infringe on our rules, I do not think we should say that we should now change the whole system so that we will collect the revenue that goes to someone else. I think from time to time, we have to tweak the system in response. As Members may know, recently, we have allowed workers in the construction industry who have worked here for more than six years to be employed outside the MYE system. So, indeed, there is a recourse for contractors and subcontractors not to buy these MYEs. All they need to do is to find workers who have worked here for six years or more and they can employ as many workers as they like. So, from time to time, we will refine the system. But I think the primary system is a sound one. It helps us regulate the total proportion of foreign workers, and it also helps us meet our social objectives.”
“However, I agree broadly with the Nominated Member that it is possible even given these non-economic considerations to streamline our schemes to make them more economically efficient, which is to allow businesses to meet their manpower needs more flexibly, without compromising our social objectives. However, we have to do this carefully, so as not to cause any sudden increases in costs for employers or surges in the foreign worker population here. For example, we have recently allowed manufacturing and services sector companies to exceed existing dependency limits but up to again a higher limit with effect from 1st July 2005, provided they pay a higher levy of $500. We will continue to monitor and review rules controlling the deployment of foreign workers, and from time to time discard those that do not serve any useful purpose.”
“We generally allow Non-Traditional Source workers only in the construction and marine industries, because a large influx of less assimilable nationalities could impact our social rubric. Therefore, this is one instance where we do not apply only the price mechanism when we take into account non-economic reasons. We complement the foreign worker levy with the dependency limit, as another tool to regulate foreign workers. Why? From a purely economic point of view, the Nominated Member may say this is inefficient. So why do we set a dependency limit on top of our foreign worker levy? We use the dependency limit because it can and does shape recruitment behaviour within companies. In other words, what we are saying is that, even if you are willing to pay more for foreign workers, you reach the limit. It is a hard limit and signals to human resource managers that they must have some proportion of Singaporeans within their companies' workforce. Many Members in this House have said that we have to assure Singaporeans of jobs and the dependency limit is a tool that we use to ensure that. In other words, for example, in the manufacturing sector, it is now 50%. You can only hire 50 foreign workers if, and it is a hard "if", you have 50 Singaporean workers. If we did not have that mechanism and said, "Well, you could just bid by price", you could have many situations where many companies could have 100% foreign workers because they are willing to pay for it. The dependency limit also gives us useful reassurance to Singaporeans that the foreign workers that we allow in are helping to increase the number of jobs for locals, because for every foreign worker that the company has to hire, he needs to hire a certain number of local workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Nominated Member is essentially proposing a COE-like system for foreign workers. In other words, he has suggested why not the Government sets the national quota for the foreign workers that we want and employers can bid and trade their rights to employ foreign workers, through auction. From the purely economic point of view, such a free-market system using price as the only mechanism to distribute foreign workers is neater and more efficient. It is certainly simpler for the regulator. The Government decides the total number of foreign workers it can allow but leaves it to employers to decide how much they are willing to bid against others to meet their manpower needs. In other words, the one who bids the highest employs that number of foreign workers he wants. We do use the foreign worker levy as a price mechanism to ration the supply of foreign workers. But our foreign worker policies also have to take into account other non-economic considerations. In practice, we cannot always apply the same economic yardstick to different sectors and groups of workers. Indeed, this is so in all countries. In other words, no country that I know of practises or regulates foreign workers based on a purely economic point of view because it is too artificial and workers are human beings, and you are allowing them through social contacts. For example, in our system, we differentiate between Traditional Source (TS) and Non-Traditional Source (NTS) foreign workers, because Traditional Source foreign workers, for example, Malaysians fit more easily into our society and their social cost is lower.”
“The answer is of course yes. Indeed, this is the focus of our Work-Life Programme. The Member brought up the fact that even outside prescribed legislation, employers are not obliged to give maternity-related benefits because they are not prescribed in law, but because of union representation, the employers have decided to give on their own. I laud these efforts. I think it is fair for them and if we continue to work in these efforts, when and if we change legislation, that it will not result in greater discrimination against female employees. Column No : 992 FOREIGN WORKERS (Quota system of allocation) 2. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang asked the Minister for Manpower if he will consider changing the system of allocating foreign workers to one where the Government sets a national quota for each year and then auctions the rights to employ the foreign workers, and which also permits unrestricted re-sale of quotas and transfer of workers among employers.”
“Sir, I think those suggestions can be taken when we next review the larger issue of whether we want to prescribe in law greater protection and more benefits or whether it is shorter requirement before they can qualify for maternity-paid benefits or extending from three months to even longer. In other words, now it applies to someone who is six months' pregnant or more, should we reduce it even further? I think all these details can be considered. But I think the larger issue is one of balance. There is a trade-off. If the culture at the workplace and the hiring patterns in terms of mindsets of employers do not move, the trade-off is that they can discriminate against female employees. This is a reality. This is something that we should work to change over time but I think we have to accept that this is a reality because many employers, including female employers who have themselves moved up the ranks, tell us so. I think it will be wise for us to listen to them and we will have to see and judge through our facilitation methods as we work with the unions and other employer groups when we can enhance further benefits.”
“Sir, I do not disagree with the Member on principle and that we should try to prescribe maternity related benefits to both protect and help women at the workplace. The issue is one of balance. Currently, maternity benefits are prescribed three months before confinement. The Member has asked pointedly whether we should extend it. In other words, if a female employee is four months' pregnant and she loses her job, should we prescribe in law that she is eligible for maternity benefits? This is the point where I said that in our discussions with CEOs, many female CEOs cautioned against radical changes. Because what it could result - and this is realistic feedback from them unsolicited - is that if employers felt that the maternity benefits were too heavily prescribed in legislation, they may develop an inherent bias against employing all female employees of child-bearing age. This was the issue. I take the point that we need to take into account the social and cultural context. In other countries, there are more benefits for maternity-related aspects. In some other countries, they are worse. We are somewhere in between. My own sense is that we have just moved last year in terms of enhancing these benefits and we have to continue the facilitation methods before we can consider prescribing more benefits.”
“But my own sense is that, at this point of time, since we have just moved on a number of legislative aspects to promote marriage and parenthood, let us move on the facilitation aspects before we consider further legislation.”
“Sir, I agree with the Member that where the law clearly prescribes and if employers are shown to have acted contrary to provisions, the employee who is entitled to these benefits can seek recourse. They can seek recourse either through the union who will represent them or they can write to the Minister for Manpower who can address the issue and, as I have said, we do receive some complaints and the Ministry will act on their behalf to help them receive those benefits. But the point is: should we continue to enhance and increase these benefits and there is a balance, as the Member has rightly pointed out, to be achieved? My own sense is that we have just moved recently to enhance these benefits from eight weeks to 12 weeks plus a number of other aspects related to the Baby Bonus and we will have to work hand in hand with employers to help them incrementally accept that there is a business case and part of these facilitation methods will be what we are focusing on in our work-life harmony. As Members know, we launched the WoW (Work-Life Works) Fund and there are many enlightened employers and CEOs who have subscribed to this fund. The basic thrust of this fund is to have employers change the HR system to build flexi-work programmes into their companies. I think that if we help employers build this flexibility they will recognise that they want to keep good employees, including female employees and especially female employees who may, from time to time, need to have flexible work arrangements to meet their other social needs in terms of being parents and care-givers. So I take it that legislation and facilitation need to go hand in hand and that helps us to achieve the balance.”
“This small surge indicates that we have to work together with our social partners - employers and unions - to change mindsets and facilitate work patterns so that employers and employees are able to meet both the economic needs of the company and the social needs of employees. This is the thrust of our Work-Life and other facilitation programmes. As Members may know, we launched the Work-Life Week yesterday. MOM will continue such efforts with our partners to help us remain economically competitive, as well as to improve work conditions to promote marriage and parenthood.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under the present Employment Act, female employees whose services are terminated during the three months before their confinement are entitled to their maternity pay. This does not apply to terminations due to retrenchments and misconduct, and in addition they have to satisfy the qualifying condition of having worked for the employer for a minimum period of six months. The Ministry of Manpower agrees with the Member that pregnant women should not be discriminated against at the workplace. In this regard, legislation can protect their rights and benefits. However, legislation is not always the complete solution. In consultations for the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package announced last year - and these were during dialogue sessions with employers prior to us formulating the M&P package - many employers, including female employers who have had families in their careers, gave us realistic feedback that if statutory benefits for pregnant employees are too onerous, some employers may choose not to employ married women. They told us that such employers might be fearful of having to adjust to and bear the costs of maternity related benefits, and that they might discriminate against all women who are of child bearing age. Indeed these female employers themselves counselled prudence and advised the Government to take an incremental approach in increasing legislated maternity benefits. This was borne out subsequent to our M&P package. When we increased maternity benefits from 8 weeks to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, there was a small surge in the number of pregnancy related complaints received over the first five months of 2005. We received 36 cases in those five months. The usual number of cases received from 2001 to 2004 ranged from 15 to 28 annually.”
“These include long-term commitments for policyholders who are already claiming from their private insurer. Clause 15 inserts a new section 56A(9) to provide for the transfer of any monies from the private insurers to the MediShield Fund to meet these long-term commitments. Withdrawal from the Medisave Account for approved purposes Sir, let me now turn to the remaining amendment, which is on Medisave account withdrawals. CPF members can withdraw their Medisave Account savings for approved purposes, which include medical treatments or services, and premium payments under approved medical insurance schemes. Such withdrawals are allowed even if members have not set aside the Medisave Minimum Sum in their Medisave Account. However, this is not clearly reflected in our legislation. Hence, clause 2 amends section 13 of the CPF Act to make it explicit that such approved withdrawals can be made, without members having to set aside the Medisave Minimum Sum in their Medisave Account. Conclusion In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments proposed in the Bill will enable the privatisation of the Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme and the MediShield Plus Scheme. These amendments will also facilitate other aspects of the MediShield Reform as announced by the Minister for Health. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT”
“To facilitate the appointed insurer to perform its functions, section 59 has been amended to allow the CPF Board to share relevant information relating to the MediShield Plus policyholders, such as their past claims history and medical information, with the appointed insurer. Strict rules will be set on use of the information to safeguard the interests and privacy of policyholders. The appointed insurer will not be allowed to use the information for any purpose, other than for those connected with the administration of the scheme. The information also cannot be provided to their insurance agents or other parties for any other purposes. To safeguard MediShield Plus policyholders' interest in the event of a possible failure by the appointed insurer to carry out its duties, clause 15 also inserts a new section 56A(3) to empower the CPF Board to require the transfer of liabilities under the MediShield Plus Scheme from the appointed insurer to another appointed insurer, if the need arises. Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from MediShield Plus, Singaporeans can also choose to take up other Medisave-approved private insurance plans for additional coverage for stays in Class A or B1 wards and private hospitals. As of 1st July 2005, MediShield has been repositioned as the basic insurance tier upon which the private insurers may provide additional benefits and coverage. These plans are integrated with MediShield as one single product, administered by the private insurers in a way that is seamless to policyholders. As policyholders under the new integrated plans will also be MediShield policyholders, CPF Board will take on the liabilities relating to the MediShield component for these policyholders without any further medical underwriting.”
“Clause 8 amends section 45 to clarify that, upon privatisation, DPIS premiums will be deducted from the insured members' CPF Ordinary or Special Accounts and paid to the appointed insurers. Sir, let me now move on to explain the amendments to facilitate the MediShield Reform. MediShield reform Sir, from 1st July 2005, the Ministry of Health has introduced various changes to MediShield and the Medisave-approved private insurance framework. These changes will prevent cherry-picking by private insurers, restore the integrity of the MediShield risk pool, and bring about a more competitive and dynamic private medical insurance market. The key changes pertain to the privatisation of the Medi Shield Plus Scheme operated by CPF Board, and the restructuring of the Medisave-approved private insurance plans. Sir, as part of the package of MediShield reform, the existing MediShield Plus Scheme operated by the CPF Board will also be privatised through a competitive tender. This will speed up the development of stronger competition in the Medisave-approved private insurance market. CPF Board aims to award the tender and transfer all MediShield Plus policyholders to the new insurer by October 2005. As with the privatisation of the DPIS, the existing liabilities under the MediShield Plus Scheme will need to be transferred from the CPF Board to the private insurer appointed to take over the MediShield Plus portfolio. Clause 15 inserts a new section 56A(7) to allow CPF Board to transfer part of the MediShield Fund to the appointed insurer to meet the transferred MediShield Plus liabilities, such as long-term commitments for treatments like dialysis and chemotherapy.”
“The Dependants' Protection Insurance Fund (DPIF) is established under section 46 of the CPF Act. DPIS premiums are currently paid into this fund, and DPIS claims are paid out from this fund. After privatisation, the fund would be dissolved, and the amounts standing in the fund would be transferred to the appointed insurers so that they can take over the insured CPF members' liabilities. Clause 9 will repeal section 46 and dissolve the DPIF established under this section. Clause 11 will insert new sections 49A(1) and 49B to allow for the transfer of CPF Board's liabilities under the DPIS to the appointed insurers as well as the necessary funds from the dissolved DPIF to meet the transferred DPIS liabilities. CPF Board will retain part of the dissolved fund to pay for liabilities incurred before privatisation. Clause 11 also inserts a new section 49A(3) to empower the CPF Board to require, when the need arises, any appointed insurer to transfer its liabilities under the DPIS to another appointed insurer. This is to cater for a situation where one of the appointed insurers becomes unable to execute its responsibilities. To enable the appointed insurers to administer the DPIS after privatisation, CPF Board will need to disclose certain information on insured members to the appointed insurers. Clause 11 inserts a new section 49C to empower the CPF Board to provide such information to the appointed insurers. To ensure that members' privacy and rights are protected, the appointed insurers will only be allowed to use the information provided for the purposes approved by CPF Board. Section 45 of the CPF Act currently provides for the deduction of DPIS premiums from the insured members' accounts.”