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 38 of 46.
“I want to categorically assure Members of this. Indeed, this new framework will require MOM to devote more resources to safety, as it must have. MOM will increase our enforcement force and build new capabilities. This is related to the third point that enforcement will have to keep pace with changes within the industry. MOM currently has 100 inspectors, regulating about 16,000 workplaces. I know some Members will be very quick to say, "Why do you not increase to 10,000 inspectors and create jobs at the same time?" We will increase it to what is practicable. But work processes have become more complex as we dig deeper and build higher and as technology and manufacturing and services advance. The range of chemicals, biological and other hazardous materials in use has also increased. So in line with the new framework, our new enforcement philosophy will not only focus on non-compliance with technical requirements, instead we want to raise the overall standard in partnership with industry, by helping workplaces identify their systemic weaknesses. We will also upgrade training of safety officers within the industry. We will need to set new performance benchmarks to professionalise this industry to help in our enforcement. MOM officers will leverage on the network of safety officers to extend our reach to workplaces. 1.15 pm But, as always, appropriate penalties can help shape behaviour. We should not only wait until an accident has happened before we impose hefty penalties or jail negligent offenders. This would put employers out of business, or cause employees to lose their jobs. While this may still be necessary to punish negligent persons, it occurs after the damage has been done.”
“The Workplace Safety and Health Council will be tasked to identify the sectors that require this and recommend how it can be done effectively. Third, more responsibilities and powers for safety officers. MOM inspectors will leverage on the current system of safety officers to help detect and prevent safety problems. We will give safety officers more powers to stop work. If you think that it is really unsafe, stop it. Duty will also be placed on them to report certain lapses to the Ministry. So if they are fearful of stopping, tell us and we will stop it. Step up training and evaluation for workers on safety. I agree that this is integral. MOM will work with industries and unions to enable both foreign and local workers to have appropriate skills and knowledge to do their jobs safely. I want to make it clear because Mdm Halimah has asked whether this means that we are pushing responsibility. The answer is an unequivocal no. I want to make it very clear that strengthening self-regulation and moving towards a goal setting legislation does not mean that we will leave it to industry to independently set up their own standards and practices. MOM, in consultation with the Workplace Safety and Health Council will have to set high standards in order to meet our aims of reducing fatalities. We will set the target and even the pace in consultation with them. But as much as Government wants or wishes to, we cannot improve safety standards alone. We have to get industry practitioners to take ownership and under this new system, management and workers must show proof that their safety plans and systems have adequately addressed and reduced risks at their workplaces. Neither will self-regulation mean that MOM's involvement will be reduced.”
“The pace and timing will be decided in consultation with industry partners and unions and, sensibly, we will start with the sectors that have the most fatalities and accidents. Second, self-regulation is the main tool to instil ownership. In order to build and ingrain a safety culture it would not evolve spontaneously. No country has seen it where businesses say, "Let us be safety conscious." You really need a framework to ingrain this. And we will put in place the following structures to strengthen self-regulation: First, a Workplace Safety and Health Council with executive powers. The Council will comprise industry practitioners and it will set, continuously update health and safety standards and practices for each industry sector. It will evaluate accidents when they occur and suggest new ways to improve. It will make safety records of employers available to the public and insurance companies. The Council, as I have said, will produce regular safety reports, provide more information to industry for their own self-regulation and track Singapore's progress in reducing our occupational fatality rate. Once we have set those targets, they will not be forgotten because there will be someone putting up a report card every year, every quarter or every month. Second, we will mandate risk assessment safety management systems and health and safety plans. Workplaces will have to specify their safety outcomes, identify the risks, set out customised plans, systems and resources to mitigate the risks. Mdm Ho Geok Choo has called for legislation for safety management systems to be reviewed, to include workplaces other than those currently covered under the Factories Act. I agree.”
“This new Act will clearly define responsibilities and, more importantly, accountability. Simply put, those who create the risks will be held responsible to reduce the risks. The present liability regime is centred on the occupier of a factory or the main contractor of the construction worksite. And liability is only incidentally placed on other workplace parties such as employers, designers, suppliers, etc. When we change the law, we will expand this accountability framework following the regime in other developed countries. Every person at work then becomes responsible for his own safety, for those under his charge and those he affects through his work. Let me just say that safety, after we change it, cannot be relegated to an after-thought or a staff function. It will become integral to every person's work and has to be part and parcel of the line functions. The construction industry, in particular, poses unique challenges to health and safety as each site involves many contractors, suppliers, designers, etc, for each phase of work. To further reduce and mitigate risks along the whole process chain, from design to maintenance, we will begin with the construction industry where we will require health and safety plans. The health and safety plan is an actionable plan. It tells me what you are going to do, with specific targets, taking into account the operational schedules of the project. These plans will be checked by qualified safety professionals to ensure comprehensiveness and compliance even before your project can get started. Mr Yeo has urged me once again to extend the scope of the legislation to cover more industry sectors. I agree and the new Act will allow us to extend the coverage to all sectors in phases.”
“Dr Amy Khor mentioned about what it does to business cost. This tells us that incorporating the safety aspect into a business model does not make a company less viable. In any case, it may not impact on the business cost of the company if it does not have high safety standards. That cost has to be borne by others. It affects employees as the morale dips, workers delay, property is damaged, bad publicity affects future contracts. For example, take the Nicoll Highway collapse. Did it not cause disruptions to our routines? Did motorists not have to go through other ways and pay ERP? That cost was absorbed by others, perhaps not by the companies. We need companies to internalise that cost. Our local companies need to take this on-board and learn from them on how a progressive safety culture can be achieved. Did these companies that we visited always start with this premise? The answer is no. They were no different 10, 15 or 20 years ago, ie, the framework changed the culture. If you like, it is like our anti-littering laws or queues in bus-stops. After a while, we internalised that culture and we have to start. Mdm Ho Geok Choo is spot-on when she says that the rate of industrial accidents would only fall significantly if all stakeholders in the work process have a safety culture. And this new framework will foster a change in culture and mindsets. It will take time but it can be done. The new framework will get all players moving in the right direction. First, the legislation will facilitate this culture change. Members have asked how does the framework work. Legislation will facilitate this cultural change. It is not a paper exercise. We will replace the current Factories Act with the new Workplace Safety and Health Act later this year.”
“For example, one UK company informed us that on their own, they initiated a comprehensive safety programme in the 1990s called "incident and injury free", not "fatality free". Incident and injury free which does not tolerate any level of accidents, no matter how minor or infrequent. Their company, not only for themselves, also requires similar levels of commitment of their sub-contractors by making a good safety record an important aspect of the tender requirements. When they sub-contract, their sub-contractors must also adopt this zero incident and injury free record. In addition, this company's policy is to seek a commitment of their safety philosophy from clients as well, not only of those whom they put out contracts to. They say to their clients, "If you want us to work for you, you too must adopt this policy." So that there is a buy-in and support from their developer. If the developer says, "I want you to tender for this project." They say, "I have to build in a safety margin." The developer says, "No." They would say, "Then I would not tender for it." That is that. They are still profitable. In fact, they are one of the leading companies in the world. Because of ownership and a correct mindset that respects life, they have gone beyond the prescribed law. Another company we visited shared with us - this was a clear and unequivocal commitment that was exercised daily. It tested their commitment. They just basically said, "We will withdraw the bonus of the manager of any site with a fatal accident." That is it. There is no need to give reasons. As long as there is a fatality, bonuses are withdrawn. And yet, these companies are profitable and secure a significant market share of contracts. This tells us they are serious about incorporating a safety culture.”
“This New Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) framework will get industry to think more fundamentally to achieve the outcome of zero falls, which some Members have called for. Instead of just complying with regulations which say that you must have sufficient barricades, harnesses, scaffolding requirements, developers and contractors should be instead asking: in the first place, why does the worker have to work higher above than the ground to do his job? Is he doing something that can be done on the ground, then hoisted up? Has he been given the proper training in a language which he understands? Is the safety equipment adequate to protect him and enable him to do this job? These questions I have asked go beyond prescriptive legislation by the Government. To be more effective, we will have to involve all stakeholders and get them to take ownership of outcomes and reduce the risk at source. Some Members have painted a rather not so charitable view of employers. Is this wishful thinking? Can we get employers, management and workers to behave like this? Are we just over-shooting these airy-fairy ideas? Not at all. I mentioned about the last study trip to a few countries. During our trip, my delegation spoke to leaders in the construction industry. I was completely impressed by their safety records and their attitude to safety. Many of them, on their own, have gone beyond the law. They operate what we call zero tolerance policies towards accidents, not because the law requires it, but because it is being internalised, even though in some circumstances, it means that they have to increase the operating costs.”
“An explosion is caused and deaths have occurred. Without that ingrained safety culture, that is the reason why our fatalities will reach a particular point - we need to move beyond that. 1.00 pm A second example - this time it is not of a big company. Some may say big companies have good systems, so if you prescribe laws, they will follow. Let me give a second example of a small company. This time, one that dealt with making signs. It happened in Toa Payoh Industrial Park in January last year - four died, two injured. The operator was using an oxy-acetylene torch that had an oxygen cylinder contaminated by flammable gases. The gases mixed, went back into one tank and blew up. A flashback occurred which led to the explosion of the oxygen cylinder, because an effective safety device to prevent this was not used. Again, this is a risk commonly known. It makes sense that you do not mix the two. Clear written regulations, you can have laws, but until all workers take ownership for their own safety, accidents will occur. Would it have helped if we had regularly said that we want to inspect that safety device, every six months? It might. But what about in between the six months? How about three, two or even one month? Even if we inspect the device, if you do not use it properly, are you sure that accidents can be prevented? It cannot, unless it is internalised by workers, until they recognise that there is a safety culture that is required. I agree completely with Members who have said that we need a framework that shapes the correct mindsets and behaviour. If I may use the problem of construction workers falling from heights, which is one of the leading causes of on-site injuries in Singapore.”
“(1) We must involve all stakeholders to reduce the risks at the source; (2) Industry must take greater ownership of safety outcomes; and (3) There will be higher penalties for poor safety management, not only after accidents occur, but even before accidents occur, so that you are encouraged, facilitated and incentivised to bring your safety systems up to the mark. Past accidents are clear examples why the old framework has its limitations. Take explosions arising from hot works in oil tankers that come for repairs, as an example to start. We have very strict systems, and you can well imagine why - to prevent explosions when they are doing welding works and when they are trying to clean the inside of an oil tanker. But ask yourself this: do we really need laws or regulations to tell you - the worker or the management - that you might cause an explosion when you are operating a naked flame in an enclosed space that was just previously filled with oil? It is intuitive. Any company and its workers with an ingrained corporate culture that really puts safety first would take all necessary precautions because they recognise the inherent risks. Some would sensibly even choose to go beyond the prescribed regulations. To protect themselves and their colleagues, the workers themselves would take all steps practicable to ensure their own safety. They would certainly exercise self-protection and make sure that the oil sludge has been cleared before starting hot works. Or an innovative company would seek new ways and technology to reduce the risks, ie, can you weld with other techniques or under different circumstances? We can have laws, regulations, prescriptions and inspections, but out of a thousand times, if you do that work and you slip in vigilance once, that is it.”
“Sir, because the Occupational Safety framework which I announced is important, I would like to restrict my first reply specifically on that subject. I thank Members who have spoken during the COS as well as in response to the Ministerial Statement and, in the light of their comments, let me elaborate on some of the changes and answer their specific queries. I agree completely with Mr Yeo who said that we need to take a new approach to create a safer working environment for our workers. If you remember, in the chart that we have distributed, Chart 1 clearly shows that our current approach has reached a limit in improving the accident frequency rate. In other words, our improvements have tapered off. We cannot break through that floor if we just do more of the same. This has been the experience of other countries and they too had to change their framework before they saw improvements. Their experience is consistent with our present situation, where continuing with what is commonly known as a prescriptive legislative framework and one dependent predominantly on the regulator will have diminishing results. In other words, you wait for me to tell you what to do before you do it, it will have diminishing results. You can get very good results when you started on a very low safety base, low standards, and you need this prescription. But up to a point when systems have been in place, it really is about ownership. Therefore, we need to put in place a radically different framework based on the three principles which I had earlier outlined in the Ministerial statement.”
“, presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2005 TO 31ST MARCH, 2006 (Paper Cmd. 2 of 2005) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head S - Ministry of Manpower 12.40 pm”
“Let me thank Mdm Halimah for allowing me to have the opportunity to clarify. She is quite right. Self-regulation should not be misconstrued as saying, " I now leave it to your employers to decide on how to do it." That is absolutely the converse of what I am saying here. My Ministry, through legislation and enforcement, will continue to set standards. Self-regulation means that you must take ownership and say how you are going to achieve these standards. And as I said, safety plans must be involved. You must show concrete steps to implement this. There will be qualified safety professionals who will audit these plans, both for adequacy and compliance. So rest assured that self-regulation increases; not decreases, management responsibility. In terms of education of foreign workers, Mdm Halimah has quite rightly pointed out that most countries with a high proportion of foreign workers do have a harder time in achieving safety standards. That is so even for European countries. So if you compare Spain and the Netherlands, or Spain and Sweden, Sweden has a more homogeneous workforce, Spain has higher fatalities. It is more difficult, but it is not impossible. Even in Singapore, we have companies with the same population of foreign workers who have achieved higher safety standards. So I think culture is important. Yes, we have to ramp up education so that all our foreign workers and local workers can understand what it means to have safe habits. We need to really work harder at this. But it can be done. BILL INTRODUCED NURSES AND MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL “to amend the Nurses and Midwives Act (Chapter 209 of the 2000 Revised Edition)�?”
“Sir, we will need both hard skills and soft skills, hard tactics too. Hard tactics would be the harsh penalties that we will put into place. What Mr Seng Han Thong quite rightly means are the soft skills, in other words, to change our enforcement. Yes, we do need to build the capability. We will be sending safety officers for a longer attachment to countries which have better safety records so that they can learn these soft skills.”
“Sir, I am cheered by Mr Leong's comments. He represents employers, and all that he has said makes good sense. He represents the group of employers who are enlightened and realised that safety must be internalised through business processes and costs. But we will certainly take his suggestions to heart, in terms of Government taking the lead, and I think that is the right stance. In principle, I agree. Should we also build in systems where insurance companies' premiums can incentivise those with good safety practices and, as a corollary, these incentivise or penalise those with poor performances? I think, yes. France has a very complicated system where they actually compute based on the number of accidents and workmen's compensation. We want to start by putting out the information there. As I said, the Workplace Safety and Health Council can do this at regular intervals. In other words, it should publish to all and sundry, what your workplace safety performance has been. This will impact on the insurance, this will impact on the employees wanting to join the company, and this will also impact on the developers who want to give them contracts. That will make sense. Should we aim for zero fatality? For sure. Let us do it. If we can do it, the faster the better. But, as I said, this is a realistic target. If I fall short of this target, I would ramp up the system. But this is the base. If we can move faster, let us do it. In terms of compensation for workmen's injuries, yes, we do need to look at it. The compensation is higher, but the figure is always relative. So if there is a need for review, we will do so.”
“I think one key area is for the Workplace Safety and Health Council to put out information into the market about the good as well as those with not so good safety records. In terms of business costs, I take it this would impact companies who have not taken time to build up the safety systems. And indeed, that is the right thing to do. Those who invested time and effort and resources into building up their safety practices need not fear that this will increase costs disproportionately.”
“Why 10 years to halve the rate? It is an important question. I fully agree with the Member that one fatality is one too many. But in setting targets, it is important for us to be realistic. The European countries took about 20 to 30 years to reach their current level. As I will explain later during the Committee of Supply, we have reached a stage where you require every individual to participate. I will provide some examples of previous accidents that had occurred. It will take about two years for this framework and message to reach down to the lowest level. If we can do it faster, I will be the first one to cheer and be glad. It took us about 10 years to halve our fatalities to reach this new base, as provided in the figures. We have achieved good safety standards and, in Asia, apart from Japan, our safety standards are the next best. But looking at the experience of other countries, it would take this amount of time for us to reach to the last level before workers can internalise the safety culture. Do I hope that we can do it faster? Of course. And if we can aim for zero fatalities, all the better. But I want to set realistic targets and milepost so that we can gauge our efforts. If we find that, within this framework, we are achieving our goals, I think it would be a good problem if we can accelerate our targets. How do we put in incentives for our sake? Indeed, incentives already exist. For example, under BCA or HDB's planning tender contracts, or LTA's contracts, they do put in place incentive systems where someone shows a good safety record, particular incentives are given. I agree that more needs to be done there and we will look into ways that we can incentivise that.”
“Let me thank the hon. Member for his questions. I know that Mr Yeo has been at the helm of pushing for a safety review, and for good reason. Yes, I agree that employers need to hoist this in, and that is why this framework squarely puts in place the responsibility to evolve safety plans to show that they have concrete steps to put these plans into action and that they have provided for materials to be bought, for equipment to be provided, to have trained their personnel. That is the gist of this new framework. Is this a paper exercise? This is the crux of the question that Mr Yeo asked. If anybody thinks that this is a paper exercise, I would advise them to think through this, because this will be enacted into law - harsher penalties for those who do not meet the mark, more rigorous standards and achievements. But the big stick, as Mr Yeo has pointed out, has been applied before. So I think the second element, which I have talked about, is to instil ownership, and this is where the Workplace Safety and Health Council plays an integral part. This will take us some time to implement, but we should do this together. We will work with our stakeholders to make sure that this framework delivers the targets that I have set.”
“If the Nicoll Highway Collapse had occurred at the peak of rush hour with many more cars on the road, or led to the collapse of surrounding buildings, the devastation would have been too horrendous to imagine. These high profile accidents are timely wake-up calls to firm and decisive action. To achieve better safety standards will require the unstinting support of all stakeholders, including regulators, employers, safety personnel, professional associations, unions, and every individual. We will consult all stakeholders as to how we can implement this new framework effectively to quickly achieve our goals. If we are determined in our collective efforts, we can make Singapore, our home, a safer place to work.”
“It will specify liabilities for a wider range of stakeholders, strengthen personal accountability of stakeholders and key personnel, and focus more on occupational safety and health goals and systems. Safety plans will be mandated and safety officers given more responsibilities and powers. We will table the Act later this year after consulting all stakeholders. My Ministry will also set up a new Workplace Safety and Health Council to promote self-regulation and instil ownership in safety outcomes. The Council will involve senior management to oversee sector-specific committees to set standards and drive reforms. The Council and its committees will comprise experts and representatives from leading companies in safety and health, professional bodies, insurance companies, employer associations, unions, academics, and relevant Government agencies. As we catch up with the leading countries, they will also advance in their occupational safety and health practices. We need to keep abreast of international developments to achieve our target of being among the top 10 safest places to work. I will therefore establish a standing International Advisory Panel to tap expertise and experience beyond our shores. The Panel will inject fresh and objective views, review and critique our regulatory regime, practices, and standards, and provide international benchmarks. This will identify our strengths and shortcomings, and enable us to continuously improve our systems and laws. A call to action The accidents in the Nicoll Highway Collapse, Fusionpolis, and the oil tanker blast at Keppel Shipyard last year serve as stark warnings that we tolerate safety lapses at our own peril.”
“But self-regulation must mean that practitioners who are the most knowledgeable about the hazards that occur in their particular situation must be held responsible to develop safe work procedures. Each workplace must design and be required to put into place a safety system to adequately respond to specific hazards identified. These systems must include concrete steps for implementation to put into place safe work practices, machinery and equipment and training of personnel. Qualified safety professionals will audit these systems for adequacy and compliance. However, there will still be prescriptive guidance for clearly defined high-risk hazardous sectors and practices. This will be helpful for small and medium enterprises that will need time to adjust to this new framework. The third principle is that we should prevent accidents through higher penalties for poor safety management. Safety lapses resulting in mishaps are severely punished, but the penalties for offences in the absence of mishaps are comparatively lower. For example, composition fines are limited to $2,000 per offence. This encourages the industry to tolerate sub-optimal safety practices until accidents occur. MOM will impose greater financial disincentives and penalties on workplaces with unsafe systems, before any accident has occurred. Key measures to facilitate change To effect the new framework, I will, by the end of this year, introduce a new Workplace Safety and Health Act; set up a new Workplace Safety and Health Council; and establish an International Advisory Panel for Occupational Safety and Health. This new Workplace Safety and Health Act will replace the current Factories Act. It will articulate the three principles I have outlined earlier into law.”
“Instead, under the new framework, those who create risks must be responsible and held accountable to reduce, or better still, eliminate the risks to prevent accidents. We will therefore require assessments to identify the source of risks at workplaces, the actions to reduce these risks, and the parties responsible for doing so. These responsibilities will involve persons along the whole process chain including top management. As examples, architects and engineers must ensure that their construction projects are safe to build and maintain. Manufacturers and suppliers must ensure that the machinery they supply or maintain is safe to use. Workers have a responsibility to adopt safe work practices. In other words, all persons at work must accept responsibility for their own safety, the safety of those under their charge, and those they affect through their work. The second principle is that industry itself must be required to take greater ownership of safety outcomes. They must self-regulate to reduce the loss of life and injury to workers under their charge. Our current Factories Act is prescriptive. This encourages a mindset among management and workers to follow the “letter of the law�? and not address safety aspects outside prescribed legislation. Ownership for their workers' safety is lessened as some wait for new regulations before taking action. But it will be difficult for legislation and enforcement to always keep pace with the rapid technological changes in existing and new industries. My Ministry, through legislation and enforcement, will continue to maintain standards and set goals for industry to attain our safety targets.”
“These developed countries have been able to significantly reduce accidents and deaths only after they evolved new principles and legislation to cope with changing practices. They recognise that if we just do more of what we have done in the past, improvements, if any, will only be incremental. Overhaul framework to accelerate a safety culture To achieve higher safety standards will require a change of mindsets of all stakeholders to be intolerant of safety lapses. Accidents can only be prevented if all individuals have embedded deep within them a safety culture. Government cannot improve safety standards alone. We have to involve all stakeholders and adopt new principles to accelerate change. We need an overhaul of our present system to ingrain good safety habits in all individuals at the workplace - from top management to the last worker. Having looked at other systems and exchanged ideas with experts in those countries with excellent safety records, MOM has formulated a new framework and roadmap to improve the safety culture and achieve a quantum leap in safety standards. While our ultimate goal must be to have zero fatalities, through this new framework, we aim to first reduce deaths at workplaces by a third in five years, and by half within a decade or sooner. If we can achieve this, then we would have attained current standards comparable to the top 10 developed countries in safety. New principles to ingrain safety awareness Three principles are fundamental to our new framework. First, we should reduce risks at the source by requiring all stakeholders to minimise or eliminate risks which they create. Accepting risks presented at the workplace leads to unnecessary loss of life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has been concerned about workplace safety for some time. Through various measures, we have reduced the number of accidents and deaths at workplaces over the past 10 years. But, recently, safety standards have stagnated. While our present record is better than Asian countries and regions like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia, we still rank below Japan and most EU15 countries. There is much room for improvement, especially at construction sites. Last year, three serious workplace accidents occurred at Nicoll Highway, the Fusionpolis complex and Keppel Shipyard. We lost 13 lives there. Only 2 1/2 months into this year, and we already have 12 fatalities from workplace mishaps. As Singapore becomes more densely populated with buildings and people, accidents will cause even more damage to life and property. We must take decisive actions now to avert future mishaps by raising safety standards. To achieve better results, my Ministry undertook a thorough review of our safety systems, which included a study tour to four European countries - Sweden, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Sweden and the UK are the top two safest places to work. In these developed countries, the thinking on occupational safety and health and how to make workplaces safer has advanced dramatically over the past three decades. I spoke not only to regulators, but also to leaders in international construction firms, unionists, academics and researchers working in private institutions. In terms of our development of occupational safety and health systems, we have not kept pace with the most advanced countries. Our Factories Act is based on the British Factories Act, but the United Kingdom has since revised their regulatory framework.”
“Sir, this is one of the aspects we will allow the Tripartite Committee to debate upon. We have already indicated that we want to raise the retirement age. But the point is that legislation can help but it is not a panacea. It will not solve all our problems. As I said, there are many things that we need to do, so let us get cracking, and retirement age will be one of them. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (Number of claims filed) 10. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many workmen's compensation cases were filed last year; (b) whether the number is increasing; and (c) how long does it take to process a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.”
“Sir, the Member is a seasoned unionist and she attends these international forums, and she will recognise that even if we put in place legislation against so-called discriminatory practices, it is very hard to prove at the workplace. In other words, if someone does not want to hire you or someone fires you, there could be a multitude of reasons that they can put forth. So the solution, I think, needs to be beyond legislation. The retirement age, as we have already indicated at some point of time, will need to be raised to support these measures. But even in countries with a higher retirement age, the effective retirement age is much lower than the statutory retirement age, which means that at the marketplace it does not quite work flow-through, and this is where we need to focus. This is where the Tripartite Committee on Older Workers will have to work very hard to look at these factors. Yes, it would also involve, for some employers, the changing of mindset so that they are not biased against older workers. It will also mean job redesign. It will also mean certain financial aspects. It may mean certain incentives. We will look at all of these. The Committee is given a timeline of about six to nine months for it to complete its job. Let all the social partners come together to work out an adequate roadmap for us to change this, because this is a long-term problem. We are all growing older as a population. This will be with us for a long time. This is not a one-off exercise, and it is not a trivial exercise. It will significantly impact our competitiveness down the road. This is a major problem that we will have address, ie, how we can continue to be cost-competitive, even as our population ages.”
“We will redesign the jobs so that the older worker feels that he can do the job. And my officers on the ground tell me that is an important psychological aspect. Many of them leave the workplace not because the employer tells them that they are not doing the job properly but because they feel that they cannot contribute. So we need to redesign certain jobs, whether it is through mechanisation or review of work processes, so that the older workers feel that they can give the economic value-add and we will train them to be productive on the job as well.”
“Sir, all the above points that Dr Lily Neo has brought up are worthy of consideration. Let me just address them broadly. Yes, we need to improve our results, especially when there are employment opportunities that come about as our economy goes on an uptake. And as I said, there are many factors why the older workers have a lower re-employment rate, some of it may be due to a lack of skills, training or aptitude. We will address these. I do not think it is so much the financial aspects, which deter older workers from going for training. In fact, our data suggest that they do go for training. But the Member is quite right that some of them may not want to go for training because they do not see the benefit at the end of their training. And this is something that we want to address. In other words, we used to go towards what we call "Train and Place". We train you first and then place you in the job. We found that it is not as effective as "Place and Train". We put you into a job and you recognise your skills mismatch. There is more motivation because you know that there is a job waiting for you at the end of it. We think that is more targeted and that would be generally the direction which our programmes are placed. On top of that, as I mentioned, under the Re-Employment Assistance Programme, we will incentivise these workers to stay on the job by giving them adjustment allowances as they stay longer in their jobs, whether it is three or six months. The idea is that if we can get you over the initial hurdle, the psychological barrier, the workplace adjustment, over the first three months, you are more likely to stay and therefore reduce your retrenchment risks. So that would be the general direction that the REAP programme will go.”
“I do not think it is quite fair for the Member to tarnish all employers with a single brush. That is certainly not the case. But I do accept that older workers do have a lower re-employment rate. Our data suggest that they are not at a higher risk of being retrenched. In other words, of those who are retrenched - sometimes it works against us to say older or younger - if we use the age of, say, 50 and above, in terms of proportion of representation, it will be equivalent to what their share is in the workforce. So in terms of retrenchments, they are not more vulnerable. But they are more vulnerable to re-employment, in other words, once they lose their jobs they find it hard to get re-employed. And there are many factors for this, not necessarily, across-the-board, just employers' discriminatory practices. So the first point is that, on a systemic level, I do not think we should assume that employers are discriminating against older workers. We have to study in detail, and this is what the Tripartite Committee for Older Workers will look at, in other words, what are the problems they face. Sometimes, it is just work practices. For example, Members of the House will know that certain employers change particular practices. McDonald's did, for example, lower the shelves so that when people put the stored packages, it would be easier for them, and older workers applied for those jobs. It is multifactorial. It would be wrong and misleading and, in fact, it would work against us if we start from fixed assumptions. So let us examine the problem and let us look at why older workers do find it harder to get re-employed and come out with solutions that are workable.”
“Members will remember the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme (PJTP) which was launched and in that programme, more than 20,000 older workers benefited because this incentivises employers to employ older workers. As announced by the Prime Minister, we will replace this with a more focused programme on vulnerable workers called the Re-Employment Assistance Programme (REAP). Under REAP, the Government will spend about $35 million over the next two years to assist 15,000 unemployed, less-skilled Singaporeans, and these will include older workers, find new employment. REAP has two components - firstly, a national job redesign initiative spearheaded by NTUC and, secondly, re-employment assistance for job seekers who face the risk of structural unemployment. To study how the employability and job opportunities of older workers can be further enhanced, my Ministry will set up a tripartite committee, comprising key representatives from the Government, employers and trade unions, in the first quarter of this year, ie, next month. The committee will study workplace practices and relevant issues which include the restructuring of jobs, wage and benefit systems, and the changing of employers' perception towards the hiring and retention of older workers.”
“Sir, Mr Ong has asked whether my Ministry has any plans to encourage employers to employ and retain older workers as well as to increase their work opportunities. Let me, first, say that, as a matter of principle and this is a consensus from all three social partners - the tripartite consensus - that workers should be hired based on their ability to do the job regardless of age, gender, race or other attributes which are not related to their performance on the job. However, we also recognise that as our population grows older, we will need to facilitate opportunities for Singaporeans to work longer. Based on these two considerations, we, together with NTUC, have actively pushed for workers' skills upgrading and job redesign. In other words, the strategy is, yes, we need to be non-discriminatory in hiring practices and we need to skill up, especially those who are vulnerable. Between January and November 2004, the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) supported close to 35,000 training places out of which approximately 60% of the people trained under this programme were aged 40 and above. The Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) will continue to expand our targeted training and skills upgrading programmes to help older workers pick up new skills in order to stay relevant in the changing workplace. We will also continue to promote Flexible and Performance-Based Wage Systems that reward workers based on their output. The Seniority-Based Wage Structure works against older workers and makes them more prone to retrenchments in a downturn as they were relatively more costly to keep than younger workers performing the same job.”
“To ask the Senior Minister (a) what is the expected impact of the recent tightening of rules on malpractices in the financial industry with respect to churning, credit card/credit line auto-approvals and structured investment products on (i) the industry and (ii) the consumers; and (b) what is the recourse that the investing public can engage, should there be any suspicion of such malpractices.”
“Sir, I do not propose to go into technicalities. Mr Leong has asked for certain numbers in terms of employment change. As I have said, our total employment numbers are the highest in the last three years. So that tells us that the economy has created jobs. Let me give Members a sense of this. Mr Leong has asked for these numbers to be published. I will tell him that, yes, we do publish them routinely but he has to look at the right column. In terms of employment change, in the year 2000, for the total workforce, we created about 100,000 jobs. In 2001, we did not create any jobs for the whole year - no net growth. In 2002, the economy lost 23,000 jobs. In 2003, last year, we lost 13,000 jobs. And as I have mentioned to Members, in the last five quarters, we created 60,000 jobs. So that is the right number to look at. Mr Leong has also asked for the sectional unemployment rate plus structural unemployment rate. Let me just say that even as our economy grows, and assuming that we have 3-5% GDP growth per year, as we said, there will be a group that will have difficulty finding new jobs because of the skills mismatch. How large that number is, we estimate to be one, possibly two, percent of our resident workforce. And broken down to constituencies, that is about 200-300 residents in each constituency. It is not an unmanageable number. It is a number that, with concerted effort from various Government as well as non-Government agencies, we will be able to alleviate. So I think it is a manageable problem. If Members want more figures, I will be happy to provide them when they ask for specific queries. RULES ON MALPRACTICES IN FINANCIAL INDUSTRY The following Question stood in the name of Miss Penny Low - 5.”
“Sir, I do not have the exact data with me. But let me give some rough numbers to indicate what the Member is asking for. The final measure would have to be employment change for the total workforce - whether it is local or foreign. For our local resident workforce, it has grown. In other words, the majority of these jobs did benefit the locals. The figures that I have stated in terms of the resident unemployment rate for September 2004 was 3.5%. So the resident unemployment rate has also fallen. Let me make a point in terms of labour market flexibility. Over the last five years, foreigners have lost more jobs than locals proportionately. And this tells us that our foreign worker policy has been, in a sense, correct. Because when employers need to retrench, foreign workers have taken the brunt of the retrenchments. If there was not that flexibility to do so, I would have expected that more locals would have lost jobs. And when the economy turns around and businesses need to ramp up and if our employers did not have access to foreign workers who are readily skilled, they would not have that responsiveness to turn their businesses around. If I may use a medical analogy, it is just like a treadmill. You do not really know how your heart is until you are stressed up and down. And the fact that our economy was stressed by difficult circumstances gives us confidence that our policies are well placed and that our fundamentals are correct.”
“Sir, if I may, let me congratulate the Member for introducing questions by the side door and every other direction that she can! I would appeal to her to file specific questions because these are weighty matters that I should not address offhand, and I will do my best if she does file a question. I will just take one component of her many questions in terms of mature workers. The Member is absolutely right. Mature workers add considerable depth and give enhanced value, and many employers know that. Many companies that have employed mature workers have found it to their benefit, and some have done it counter cyclically and, in fact, employed mature workers when the job market was difficult. Let me also state one fundamental aspect. The best protection for a worker is a tight labour market. Members would have read in the newspapers that wages are going up and there is a scramble for workers. So, once we get our economic fundamentals correct, once we get our policies correct, then we could address small select groups. And to me, if you look at our data, that is what the recurring lesson is - that the best protection for anyone who wants to work is good economic performance and a tight labour market. It becomes an employees' market. But when the economy is down, then, of course, it is an employers' market.”
“I think there are other opportunities and we will see where we can create some more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise to Mdm Ho. I do not have the specific figures as this is a specific query. But let me use a proxy and take the tertiary educated as a rough indicator of jobs for what she called PMETs - professionals, managers, executives and technicians. As I said, the unemployment rate has fallen for all age groups and occupations compared to a year ago. In fact, for the tertiary educated, it fell from 4.7% in September 2003 to 3.2%, a drop of 1.5%, which means that when our economy recovers, it recovers across all sectors. It tells us, indeed, as we have been rated if not the most flexible labour market, that our fundamentals are right. Will there be groups within the PMETs who are also what we term "vulnerable" to structural unemployment? It is a matter of definition, not so much that they cannot find jobs, they are well trained, but compared to their last jobs, where the grade of the job was higher, the responsibilities and the pay they were getting, they may not be amenable to the new jobs. So I think we have to create more pathways - (1) entrepreneurship; (2) being self-employed; (3) we will have certain courses that are targeted for them. One of them which has been very successful, as I have mentioned in this House, is the Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme which allows mature workers/professionals to change and this particular programme is nursing. It has gone on very well. Hospitals are very happy to receive mature workers. Some of them have been architects and bank officers. They say that because they are more mature and have working experience, they come out being excellent nurses with a lot of empathy and they know more about life, as it were. Another area is teachers whom we have absorbed.”
“The problem is not that they are not available but, as she rightly pointed out, some of these jobs require less skills and with our open labour market policies and globalisation, there is a wage deflation for these jobs. In other words, the wages of a cleaner may have fallen, both in nominal and real terms and, therefore, sometimes our residents do not find them attractive and so we have to add premium to the jobs so that both the worker and company could justify the cost and product of the job. In line with this, NTUC would also look at certain aspects of job redesign. They are taking the forefront of this and we are looking at a number of sectors that are possible. It is a large undertaking and we will take a sector at a time. The third element that job counsellors have fed back to us is the mental attitudes of our workers. And this is where I think Members' help is needed to explain to our residents how the labour market has changed, to get them to adapt to the situation, to overcome their lack of confidence and the many barriers that prevent them from re-entering the labour market. We would roll out the programmes, redesign jobs and look at pay-scales. But, ultimately, at the end of it, it is up to the worker to have the right attitude to re-enter the labour market.”
“Mdm Halimah has asked what percentage of the 3.4% of the unemployed would consist of those we term as "structurally unemployed". Once you are structurally unemployed, you fall out of the labour market. So that is not a good proxy. A better proxy in the transit would be "long-term unemployed", which means that someone who has been looking for a job, is still looking for a job, and is unable to find another job for six months. There are two interesting factors from our labour statistics. Last year, when we had an unemployment rate of 5.5%, the long-term unemployment rate jumped up to about 1.7%. Normally, it is 0.3%, a very small proportion of our resident workforce but this quarter it had dropped back to about 0.8%. So it is halved. So what the figures tell us is that when there is good economic growth and job creation, even though some of the jobs do require skills, our workers can respond and our labour market is able to absorb them. So I think we should continue in our efforts in terms of getting our fundamentals right, making sure that our labour market is flexible and that our businesses have the flexibility to respond, right-size or up-size, when business condition has improved. That is fundamental. But, for this particular group of workers, yes, we would continue to have programmes. Mdm Halimah has asked for some specifics. We are currently working with NTUC, as well as the CDCs, to see how we could shape and refocus our programmes. Basically, it would be on two main fronts. One is to increase the productivity and the premium that these jobs have.”
“And these, as Members would remember, were the CPF cuts as well as the wage restructuring and other aspects. Mr Leong also asked how we project further growth. Again, let me reiterate the point that the greatest factor for job creation is good economic growth, not rigidity and protective aspects in the job market. This had been a very striking lesson, even with the ups and downs of our economic performance over the last five years. But let us assume, and you have to assume some figure, that GDP is 3-5%, that would generate enough jobs for each year's new labour entrants. But there is an area of concern. Even if we have enough jobs, as many people have rightly pointed out, there would be some workers, especially those who are less skilled, mature worker who are displaced and who have a skills mismatch in terms of our new economic restructuring, the types of jobs that we are creating, that we now want to focus on in terms of our assistance and training programmes, to help them remain employable or to help them to return to the employment market if they are retrenched. This is a big challenge. I estimate this to be 1-2% of the resident workforce and we would need a combination of measures, as well as the help of all agencies, grassroots agencies and MPs explaining to these vulnerable workers the importance of skill upgrading to remain employable.”
“Sir, I have explained the changes that Mr Leong had asked for, but let me go back to the Table. The reason is that there is a lag between economic growth and job creation. Even when jobs were created, we have to soak up those who have left the labour market. To understand labour market statistics, you have to understand the denominator, which is the Labour Force Participation Rate. If one chooses not to be looking for work, then he would not be counted in the denominator. When the job market gets better, many people start looking for jobs, and that grows the denominator. So, even if you have more jobs, and you have more people employed, your unemployment rate may not shift and, therefore, you would notice it from the statistics that we have generated. I have asked my staff to change from focusing on "unemployment" to "employment change", which is a more accurate start. We really want to see whether our economy could add jobs because the denominator shift is based on definition, but in terms of employment growth, the number of jobs in the economy is a discrete number which people could better analyse and see. And, if you look at our labour market statistics for employment change, it is quite encouraging. It tells us that our economic fundamentals and labour market policies had been correct, because in the last quarter, we have now about 2.17 million people who are employed, which is the highest number for the last three years. And the fact that even during SARS, many of our sectors were devastated, our economy bounced back very quickly. Again, it gives us good reasons to be confident of our economic fundamentals and the changes that we undertook during those difficult periods.”
“Sir, while we are comforted by the improved job situation, we should reiterate the point that the less skilled workers remain more vulnerable to structural unemployment even as our economy improves. MOM, therefore, agrees with Members of this House that we should give more assistance to the less skilled workers, especially the more mature workers. We must help them remain employable or re-enter the job market. Members of the House have asked for specific figures on how our various programmes have worked. Let me name a few. As you would recall, we have the People for Jobs Traineeship Programme (PJTP), which is a scheme specifically for workers above 40 years of age. Nearly 20,000 older workers have benefited from PJTP since it was launched in November 2001. In addition, for Place and Train programmes, 41% were for workers aged 40 and above. The People for Jobs Traineeship Programme lapses at the end of this year. MOM is working with NTUC and the CDCs to re-focus our energies to help the less skilled workers adapt and remain employable. New programmes will be announced in due course. Sustained economic growth should lead to further employment growth. However, we still need to be wary of a slowdown in the global economy due to higher oil prices. Even so, unemployment rate is likely to end the year at, or slightly, below 4%. My Ministry would provide more details in the Third Quarter Labour Market Report to be released on 15th December 2004.”
“This explains why, despite our good economic growth for the first two quarters of this year, our unemployment figures did not improve earlier than the third quarter this year. The number of workers retrenched by private sector establishments also eased to 1,700 in the third quarter, the lowest since 1997. Workers and job seekers have also responded well to new job market demands and have become more realistic and adaptable to take on new jobs. Another factor for the improving unemployment rate is that the combination of policy changes which we have instituted, including CPF cuts and wage restructuring, have helped businesses turn around. These factors have led to an improved employment situation, for workers across all education and age groups. As a result, the overall seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 3.4% in September 2004, compared to 5.5% in the same period last year. Members have asked for figures for those aged 45 and Dr Amy Khor has asked for some figures. Sir, let me give some statistics. For residents aged 45 and above, the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 3.2%. This is a substantial improvement from the 5.9% compared a year ago. However, once unemployed, older workers still have greater difficulties finding a job. Older job seekers were unemployed for 16 weeks on average, compared to 8 weeks for their younger counterparts. For workers without tertiary education, these workers also experienced a higher resident unemployment rate of 3.7% compared with 3.2% for those with tertiary education. Again, there has been a marked improvement for both groups of workers compared to the same period last year. The duration of unemployment was 12 weeks for those without tertiary education, longer than the 8 weeks for the tertiary educated.”
“Mr Speaker, I have also asked the Clerk of Parliament to circulate one Table* to help me illustrate the employment changes. Members have asked for the reasons for the unemployment rate drop in the third quarter of this year. The labour market typically lags economic performance and this partially explains the improved numbers in the third quarter of 2004. Let me elaborate. Members will easily recall how SARS, starting in April last year, affected all sectors drastically, especially the services sector which accounts for the majority of jobs in Singapore. If you look at the Table, you will note that in the first half of 2003, in *Cols. 1149-1150 the midst of SARS, we lost some 30,000 jobs and if you take into account that each year's new labour entrants into our market is about 32,000, we basically lost in that six months a whole year's worth of jobs for new entrants. Yet the overall unemployment rate peaked not in June of last year but a quarter later in September 2003 at 5.5%, again illustrating that the labour market typically lags economic performance. By September 2003 when the unemployment rate went up to 5.5%, Members would also note that economic recovery was already on its way and net jobs were being created. In fact, from July 2003 to September 2004, about 60,000 jobs were created. The last four quarters were particularly strong ranging from 11,000 jobs to the last quarter where we had the strongest employment creation - 16,600 jobs. But even with strong job growth from September last year, unemployment figures did not improve as the labour market had to "soak up" many who had earlier given up looking for jobs, but now chose to re-enter the improved job market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together because they are related?”
“The Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) captures trainee data for those above or below 40 years of age, but not by detailed breakdown into age bands. Gender breakdown is available but only for some programmes. 36% of 637,000 overall training places that WDA supported in 2003 were for workers aged 40 and above. Specific programmes like the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP), which re-skills lower-skilled workers, supported the training of 46,155 workers of which 17,980 or 39% were aged 40 years and above. Similarly in 2003, 41% of the participants in WDA's Place and Train Programmes where workers are trained for jobs found were aged 40 and above. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 6. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he will give the number of families and spouses, where the mother/wife is a former domestic worker or work permit holder, who have sought financial assistance over the last three years.”
“As the changes in funding are not significant, there should not be a major impact on the training incidence. WDA will monitor closely the impact of these changes. The revised funding rates would still provide substantial support for employers to facilitate the continual training of their workers. WDA will conduct on-going reviews of the funding rates to ensure that they provide the appropriate level of incentives for employers to train their workforce. However good employers should see it in the interests of their companies and workers to support continual training of their workforce, and not train their workers only because there are high levels of funding support. TRAINING PROGRAMMES 5. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Manpower, in the last year, what is the number of women and men in the age groups of 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, who have undergone re-training to make them more employable for the job market.”
“Currently, the Skills Development Fund (SDF) supports employer-based training at the rates shown in Table 1. These rates were introduced in October 2001 as an enhancement over the then-prevailing rates, and formed part of the off-budget package to help Singaporeans and businesses cope with the downturn. These enhanced rates were originally scheduled to expire on 31st October 2003 but were extended for another 11 months as the economic recovery was then still in its early stages. Table 1: Summary of Existing SDF/SRP Funding Rates for Employer-Based Certifiable training Workers below 40 years old Workers 40 years old and above Course Fees Support 90% capped at $10/hour 100% capped at $20/hour Absentee Payroll $6.10/hour or 100% of monthly basic salary, whichever is lower $6.90/hour or 100% of monthly basic salary, whichever is lower Course Fees Support 90% capped at $10/hour 100% capped at $20/hour Absentee Payroll Full-time and Part-time Training $5.70/hour In August 2004, with the recovery of the economy, WDA decided that the enhanced funding should be restored to a more sustainable level. The current enhanced funding rate of 90% of course fees subject to $10 per trainee-hour will be adjusted to the pre off-budget rates of 80% of course fees subject to $8 per trainee-hour for workers aged below 40 years. However there is still a need to provide higher SDF funding to incentivise employers to upgrade the skills of mature workers. WDA has therefore adjusted the funding rate from 100% subject to $20 per trainee-hour to 90% of course fees subject to $16 per trainee-hour. To allow training providers and companies more time to adjust to these changes, WDA announced the new rates in mid September 2004 but they would take effect from 1st January 2005.”
“In the last five years from 1999 to 2003, there were four marriages that involved brides below 16 years old. No marriages involved grooms below 16 years old. POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES 5. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in the last five years, (a) what was the number of applications for polygamous marriages amongst Muslims; and (b) how many were successful. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Islam allows for polygamous marriages, but it stipulates certain conditions before polygamy is allowed. A man must be able to demonstrate his ability to provide for the financial, physical and emotional well- being of his wives, as well as prove that he can treat his wives equitably, before he is allowed to enter into a polygamous marriage. Over the last five years from 1999 to 2003, there were 340 applications for polygamous marriages among Muslims. Of these, 109 were approved. This translates to about 0.5% of the total number of marriages under the Administration of Muslim Law Act during the same period. APPENDICES”
“As at 31st December 2003, there were 417,166 unionised workers in Singapore. The breakdown of union membership by gender, age group and sector is given in the table attached below. We do not have statistics on union members by occupational types. Breakdown By Gender Male Female Total 228,531 (55%) 188,635 (45%) 417,166 Breakdown By Age Age Range Percentage Below 30 18% 30-49 63% 50 and above 19% Total 100% Membership of Employee Trade Unions by Sector Sector Percentage Manufacturing: 24% Construction: 5% Services: Wholesale and Retail Trade 14% Hotel and Restaurants 7% Transport, Storage & Communications 18% Financial Intermediation 4% Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities 1% Community, Social & Personal Services 15% Others: 12% Total 100.0% UNDER-16 MUSLIM MARRIAGES 4. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in the last five years, (a) what was the total number of Muslim (i) girls and (ii) boys under the age of 16 years who asked for permission to get married; and (b) how many were successful. Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Section 96(4) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act provides that no marriage shall be solemnised under the Act if, at the date of marriage, either party is below the age of 16 years. Section 96(5) further provides that a girl below 16 years old may in special circumstances be allowed to marry. As minors are usually not well prepared for married life, the Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) counsels such couples approaching ROMM and refer them to appropriate social service agencies for further counselling and other forms of assistance. Most couples do not proceed with marriage application after counselling. As such, ROMM does not record an application for marriage except when a marriage is to take place.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, just a point of clarification for married mothers. Married mothers, covered under the Employment Act, do have rights. They are entitled to 12 weeks of maternity leave and the first eight weeks for two confinements, they are entitled to be paid by their employer if they have served their employer for at least 180 days. 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 Vivian Balakrishnan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (Motion)”