Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 36.
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, my original Parliamentary Question really was a question seeking data. The Minister for Trade and Industry spoke of the local PMET share going up from 54% to 57%. My question really is, can we expect in future, either by way of Parliamentary Question or by the Government on its own accord, dividing that into Singaporeans and PRs? If the Government's approach is, "No, we are not going to provide that data", can the Minister please share that detail with us here? Because it is pointless for us to keep asking for the data if the Government is not going to provide it.”
“But will the Ministry in future, in going forward, present that data very clearly for each ITM, for example, PRs, this many; Singaporeans, this many? And there are obvious reasons for this. The conversation becomes more fact-based and you do not have a corrosive conversation about Singaporeans losing jobs to foreigners and so on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, a few supplementary questions for the Minister of State for Manpower. The first question pertains to the data that was shared. The Parliamentary Question seeks information for each of the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). I understand the Minister of State for Manpower said that the ITMs are launched in different years so it would be more useful to provide data in a certain manner. But there is information provided for Singaporeans, Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners between the years 2015 and 2018. Within these years, which ITM is the Minister of State referring to vis-à-vis the numbers of 39,000 Singaporeans, 8,600 PRs and 28,500 foreigners? So, which ITM is the Minister of State referring to? The second question is the statistics for Adapt and Grow regarding the 93,000 locals. I understand "locals" would mean PRs and Singaporeans. Can the Minister of State confirm that? Can he also share the number of Singaporeans and PRs on Adapt and Grow between these years? My third question pertains to how information on the ITMs is presented. The roadmaps are not consistent in terms of jobs for Singaporeans, PRs or foreigners, for example. I will give Members an example. Construction ITM, if you go on the respective YouTube channels and you see reference on construction, it is very clear, good jobs for Singaporeans, no two ways about that. You go to the Retail ITM, they talk about a future-ready workforce and a professional and skilled workforce. Ostensibly, this would mean a whole range, beyond Singaporeans. Infocomm and Media ITM talks about creating new professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) jobs, 13,000 new PMET jobs and it goes on. So, every ITM is different and understandably so.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to call for a Division, please.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister Desmond Lee, I think you may have misheard me. That is not my position. The position has been, as I had made in my speech, any question of a recusal could actually come up any time. If a town councillor at the next quarterly meeting in November brings this issue up and the Council determines that, yes, it is a recusal that is in order, then Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang, they will have to recuse themselves because that is what the Council decides. That must be how the system works.”
“I would just like to follow up on a point made by Minister Indranee Rajah on what happens when such an event occurs to a government official in future. Well, it depends. Is it a criminal matter? Is it a civil matter? What is the dispute? What is the substantive issue here? Those will be the considerations that will be relevant. So, I reject any suggestion that the Workers' Party will not have any moral authority to question an issue like that when it comes up. And we know one issue, for example, that came up, it was December 2016, if my memory serves me right, just a few days before Christmas, knowledge of a tri-factor prosecution involving Keppel Corporation, Brazil, the US and Singapore comes to light. Members of Parliament had slightly less than 48 hours to file a Parliamentary Question about this issue – slightly less than 48 hours. Not a single PAP Member of Parliament filed a question on the matter, probably one of the most serious corporate issues – corporate scandals – that had affected Singapore’s Government-linked company. So, if Workers' Party Members of Parliament will have no moral authority to file any Question on a matter like that, how sure are we that a PAP Member of Parliament will file a Question?”
“She is still in charge, yes. As Chairman of the Town Council between 2011 and 2015, despite challenging circumstances and under tremendous pressure, Ms Sylvia Lim led the Town Council to manage the estate without major disruption of service affecting the lives of residents. Ms Sylvia Lim, as Vice Chair, has contributed much over the years to the positive transformation of the Town Council today. For the information of the House, for the latest annual report, AHTC's auditors have submitted an unqualified audited report to the Council which has been forwarded to MND for onward tabling to Parliament. The accumulated surplus position and all other matters will be in that report. That said, any decision to consider a recusal for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang is for the individual town councillors to make and AHTC will act in accordance with their decisions. For Mr Low Thia Khiang, he is a member of the estate and community liaison committee (ECLC) and does not chair any finance-related committee. ECLC does, however, approve expenditure for estate-related work. Mr Low Thia Khiang’s depth of Town Council experience and perspective as a long-standing Opposition town councillor on estate matters is very useful for ECLC. Once again, it is only appropriate for the Town Council to take a collective decision on any recusal if it decides to do so and AHTC will act according to the Council's decisions. To conclude, Mr Speaker, the two words that have defined this Motion are "hurried" and "premature". The Workers' Party has read the Motion carefully and all the Workers’ Party Members of Parliament will unanimously vote against it.”
“Sir, I believe there is a real likelihood for the plaintiffs to vigorously challenge the findings of the judgment that are not in their favour at the Court of Appeal, as the plaintiffs, too, are within the one-month window to file an appeal. Sir, that the judgment referred to in the Motion is evidently a very live issue is stating the obvious. To that end, there is no reason for Parliament to be prematurely hijacked as a substitute for the judicial process when the window for appeal on the judgment has not closed. I hope all Members, not just Nominated Members of Parliament, consider this when they decide on the Motion later. Next, I wish to consider limbs (iii) and (iv) of the Motion. Natural justice dictates that any question of a recusal for Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang from their roles at the Town Council must surely be considered after the case is concluded. However, if Parliament passes the Motion, the councillors of AHTC, not the Workers' Party, will discuss the matter and vote on it, if that is the collective decision of the Council. In any such decision, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim will excuse themselves from voting on the issue and will not participate in any discussion of the matter. On my part, I have absolute trust and confidence in both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang’s leadership and their continued participation on the Town Council. I speak for myself when I say that I will not be voting for them to be recused from financial matters should it be determined so by Council even if this Motion passes. Why? Let me first start with Ms Sylvia Lim, who also chairs the finance and investment committee of the Town Council. All of you know that. Let us not fake ignorance and say, "Wow". It is in the judgment that has been read.”
“Mr Speaker, the timing of this Motion by Deputy Prime Minister Heng is highly unusual for a legal system that places an exacting premium on the rule of law as a defining characteristic of the country. As intimated by Workers' Party's Chair, Ms Sylvia Lim, insofar as the judgment referred to in the Motion is concerned, the window for appeal remains open and the PAP must explain truthfully what is its motive in hurriedly filing this Motion before the case is concluded. At the outset, I have heard it from a few speakers, and I think it is important to put the position on record – the Workers' Party does not disagree with the first limb of the Motion which calls on the House to affirm the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability. On that note, for the record, in 2015, I did not knowingly and deliberately mislead this House. On the second limb, I will not repeat the points made by Ms Sylvia Lim on the appeal process, but I will restate that grounds of appeal can cover both issues of fact and issues of law. However, I do wish to add that the judgment also raises the real prospect of the plaintiffs, namely, PRPTC or AHTC's Independent Panel, filing an appeal against the judgment identified in the Deputy Prime Minister's Motion. This is because the plaintiffs did not succeed in many causes of action, some of which were either rejected or dismissed by the Judge. One important example with significant repercussions for their case at the second trial on quantum being the plaintiffs' attempt to reverse the burden of proof and to put onus on the defendants to disprove loss.”
“Mr Speaker, I am awaiting for more speakers to speak first.”
“Mr Speaker, there is no need for an adjournment. We are proceeding with the Motion as planned. We had a break at 3.00 pm. We can continue.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer and particularly the answer to the supplementary question about the scoping of Flexi-MediSave and MOH's position on reviewing the absolute amount. I am just wondering if MOH can look at increasing the ability to withdraw a higher amount through the Flexi-MediSave scheme for people who have sufficient balances in their basic healthcare sum, for example, if you are in the upper tiers, let us say, you have from $40,000 to $50,000 in your MediSave account. I think the pain point is the fact that you have this sum in your MediSave account post the age of 60 and you need perhaps an additional $100 or $200 but the scheme has that ceiling. So, would MOH be able to look at it from a different perspective and to parse the problem a little differently?”
“Thank you for the indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am rising to follow up on a question I raised to the Senior Minister of State on enforcement of PMD bans at void decks with respect to Town Councils. Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) took a position previously, but in light of the Minister's announcement, we will align our rules to the Government's stand on the matter. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker.”
“Deputy Speaker, just one clarification on the point the Minister raised at the end about the position he took in 1990. Actually, I think it was an eminently sensible position. Of course, I do not have the benefit of 30 years of being in this House, and having been in MHA for many, many years now to take a different position. But I do distinctly remember in his speech, the Minister spoke about the concern of that individual in Pakistan, Qadri, who took advantage, basically, of that whole judicial process by bringing more attention to his cause. The Minister did mention in his speech in 1990 that there is always the prospect of modifying judicial procedures and processes to deal with that sort of a problem. It was just one sentence if I remember correctly. But I think the important point is the separation of powers doctrine, the idea that every man or woman in the country has the opportunity to go before a Court of law to examine what they have been accused of. I think that is important. And I hope as we move forward and the effectiveness of this Bill is assessed, that the Government consider that repeatedly at every stage because that is important.”
“I am speaking for myself, Deputy Speaker.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was attempting to intervene to just make clear what the position has to be in Singapore, as a minority Member of Parliament for any party. You represent not just members of your own community. You represent members of other faiths. I think the only way to move forward is to accept that there has to be a certain degree of understanding towards other faiths and move forward in a way which accepts that we must be mindful of introducing religion into politics. I think where Mr Manap is coming from is faith. And in his faith, it is a value system; I believe the Christian faith is similar. But, ultimately, for a Member of Parliament of any political party in Singapore, I think it is important that you remember that you have to represent the interest of every community, not just yours.”
“I wish to clarify with the Minister, in the event a religious leader is slapped with an RO to remove an offending post from his or her Facebook page, for example, and he or she does not do so, what recourse, legislation or regulations will the Government turn to, to see that the offending statement or statements is/are speedily removed, particularly if it cannot be classified as a false statement of fact? In conclusion, Sir, the Workers’ Party notes the challenges presented by the interplay of religion and politics in a multiracial and multi-religious society like ours. Whatever our political views, religion can be exploited and the use of religion to split communities is a renewed concern, given the advent of fast-moving communications technology. A multiracial and multi-religious Singapore and the way our people accommodate differences and diverse views and display a genuine tolerance towards one another are a key strength of this country. Therefore, the Workers' Party supports these amendments, notwithstanding our concerns about the application of the underlying Act.”
“What the perception of such a one-way conversation or approach would ultimately do is to undermine and damage the Government’s case if it seeks to use the Act in future to move against elements that it deems to be mixing religion and politics. As we look towards tomorrow’s Singapore, and as we enter the fourth generation (4G) era, this House must ensure that the public space continues to be a secular and safe space for all Singaporeans, regardless of creed. While the terrain of religion and politics is not without its difficulties, it is critical that restraint, mutual respect and equanimity define how both politicians and religious leaders operate in Singapore where being a successful multiracial and multi-religious society is a significant value proposition in our neighbourhood and for our survival as one people. Mr Speaker, it is worthwhile to note that the original Act has not been employed since its passage into law and, to my understanding, no ROs have been issued in the last almost 30-odd years. I have one clarification on the Bill. One important change is the removal of a check on Executive power. Under the Act today, a 14-day notice period operates to inform PCRH about the impending issuance of an RO. Under the Bill before the House today, the Government seeks to remove any requirement to notify the Council, ostensibly because it seeks to move quickly against an offender.”
“Sir, perceptions, particularly when it comes to matters of faith, can take a life of their own and it behooves politicians of all stripes, and our religious leaders, to take a moment to reflect on how we should navigate this space in future so the House can ensure that this Government remains trusted as a neutral arbiter in matters of faith. Would more religious or quasi-religious invitations or relationships between the state and citizens be better managed through the unifying and ceremonial role of the President or some other platform? This is something the Government would need to assess and consider carefully. Sir, why is this renewed conversation in the context of MRHA relevant? Firstly, it is because the Minister and Cabinet have significant powers under the Act to slap an RO on anyone the Government deems to be moving in the realm of politics from the safety of the pulpit or under the garb of religion. With no prospect of judicial review to adjudicate the rationality of executive fiat, clarity in how the law is applied and impartiality from the Government is paramount, not just in words but in action. Secondly, it must not be interpreted or perceived that politicians are allowed to engage religious groups how they deem fit, but the faithful can only engage a political matter if, for example, they speak positively about the Government or its policies. But if they publicly raise objections or disagreements about Government policy, in line with the Second Reading of the Act in 1990, the MRHA portends that action could be taken against them.”
“Mr Speaker, I would argue respectfully that the selection of established and well-known religious and even community personalities – who are probably forces for good in their stead – in party politics in capacities, such as election agents, notwithstanding their secular appointments, muddies the already difficult distinction between religion and politics. Secondly, all political leaders must also be mindful of their signature when engaging religious events, such as large-scale prayer sessions and gatherings of any religion. Going forward, we should pause and consider the effect of politicians of all political parties attending places of worship of any faith as political leaders, as opposed to just lay congregants, visitors or well-wishers. For example, the imprudent timing of invitations by religious leaders and organisations to politicians, particularly in the run-in to elections, would inevitably have a signaling effect on the religious laity of any faith to support the politician in question. Thirdly, even events that take place in this House can be open to close scrutiny and test the long-held approach of the state as a neutral arbiter when it comes to matters of faith. In the first Sitting that took place in this House following the tragic mosque shootings in Christchurch in March this year, this House observed a moment of silence for the victims of that massacre. Only a mere month later, many Christians perished in Sri Lanka in a series of suicide bombings there. I am aware that some Christian Singaporeans privately wondered why Parliament did not observe a moment of silence for those Christians who perished in Sri Lanka as well.”
“With a difficult subject – the mixing of religion and politics – at the heart of the Act, the signals a one-party dominant government and its politicians send on the subject will have a direct bearing on how the Act will be applied and deemed relevant in years to come. I will spend the first part of my speech to share some examples about how things can be perceived on the ground in Singapore, in spite of the spirit of the underlying Act which seeks to keep religions and politics separate. Firstly, the more visible appearance of religious leaders alongside politicians. A well-known leader of a religious group fronting many national initiatives, including being a very senior party member and highly visible leader of the IRO and separately with links to the People's Association was seen with Prime Minister Lee during the 2015 elections. While it is unclear if the individual concerned was the Prime Minister's election agent, it is nonetheless useful for the House to pause and consider the optics of a respected member of a religious group appearing to canvass support for a politician. To that end, how would some members of the same religious group with a different political view from that espoused by their religious leader or elder feel if they openly support another political party? Could it create or ferment tension within that religious group? Should another group or individual from within any particular religious organisation or faith rise in stature because of a disagreement or internal politics, would it be fair game for a politician from another party to canvass support for him or her? What can we reasonably foresee may happen next?”
“While the Marxist arrests clouded the passage of the Act somewhat then, this Government today is not similarly encumbered insofar as the amendments to the Bill are concerned. To that end, the Workers' Party does not find the amendments mooted in the Bill before the House objectionable. Racial harmony remains a critical and important national value that must be upheld alongside the spirit of tolerance among believers of all religious groups. Today, the confluence of the regional environment, social mores and the ubiquity of social media are perhaps of equal, if not more, concern in the maintenance of religious harmony than in the 1980s. For example, the political narrative that has been developing within our closest neighbours, Indonesia, Malaysia and even regionally in Southern Thailand, while strictly speaking is not our business, is nonetheless cause for concern. Only last week, a Malay civil rights group openly called for a Vote Muslim First campaign with regard to the upcoming by-election for Tanjung Piai in Johor. The recent Indonesian Presidential Elections also saw candidates speaking to burnish their religious credentials. Mr Speaker, the age-old problem of the mixing of religion and politics has not gone away. If anything, it has become more acute. And with social media, it has become a more sensitive matter. Going forward, this is something the Government and politicians and political party members of all political parties in Singapore need to keep an eye on as well in view of our unique context and political circumstances and consider whether there may be some things that have to be tightened.”
“Mr Speaker, amongst a number of reasons detailed by the Minister, the amendments to MRHA aim to make the Act relevant for the information age. The Bill updates what is essentially a preventive regime, albeit one that gives the Cabinet executive authority to endeavour that religion is kept out of politics. To that end, it is important to remember the sociopolitical context of 30 years ago, when the Bill was first debated in the House. Generally, that era was known to be a time of heightened religiosity. The Bill was mooted only about one month after the detention of some Singaporeans who were accused of being Marxists. It is important, if not critical, to note that the passage of the underlying Act in 1990 itself did not go without significant apprehension from religious groups and Members of Parliament, including differences of opinion amongst even Ministers. Even Mr Shanmugam's speech, in his capacity as a backbencher then, was noteworthy because it raised fundamental points about the separation of powers and the potential for an irrational exercise of Executive power. This was not the only difficulty. Prime Minister Lee, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry and the then-Minister of National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, both disagreed about the interplay between politics and religion in special situations where religious bodies would have no choice but to get involved in politics to overthrow a government, for example, in the event the government turns corrupt, oppressive, tyrannical. Sir, I raise the historical difficulty with the passage of the MRHA because the points and apprehensions expressed about the underlying Act continue to be of relevance today.”
“Just a last point, Mr Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. The point I am making is: this is a worker who has received the letter from MOM. If he had not gone for an additional recourse, seen his Member of Parliament, he could have well said, "Look, MOM has rejected me as being out of time. Number two, they are telling me that I cannot claim because it is not claimable under WICA since I wasn't injured in the workplace", confirming his own state of mind that actually this is not an injury he can claim for. What I am saying is: if you put yourself in the shoes of the worker, you would realise that actually the answer MOM gave was wrong. Not the one-year timebar, but the point about it not being a claimable injury. I think that is the issue which I am a bit concerned about.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick follow-up again on the first point about R's case. So, I understand the employer and the worker both did not believe that this was a legitimate claim under WICA. My point is that the Commissioner of Labour also felt that way at the first instance; and my concern is the law is quite settled on this issue and it is surprising that at the first instance, it was not picked up at the MOM level. Why not?”
“It was about whether MOM tracks private settlements and whether they are fair for the worker.”
“The third issue is a question I asked in my speech which was to give the House a sense of the numbers of all successful WICA claims by foreign and local workers over the last five years. I do not believe the Minister of State answered that question and the breakdown of workers who chose a Common Law remedy, private compensation and those who did not proceed with their claims respectively. I think those numbers were not provided. The final query I have, which was also in my speech, was about whether MOM follows up with private compensations, whether MOM inquires with employer, whether MOM takes a proactive view as to whether that compensation is fair vis-a-vis WICA.”
“Mr Speaker, I have four clarifications for the Minister of State. The first pertains to his remarks or the allusion that this is a subject that the Workers' Party has suddenly developed some sort of interest in. I have most of the Parliamentary Questions that were filed by Members on WIC for this term of Government. I am not going to make the argument that the Members of Parliament who did not file any questions have no interest in WICA. Having said that, the Minister of State also said that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament – and correct me if I am wrong – did not ask any question on it. I believe in 2017, there was a question filed and – I mean, not filed, sorry – a question filed by Members and Ms Sylvia Lim had supplementary questions for the Minister. So, that is just for the record. My first query pertains to R's case. I believe in his reply, the Minister of State said that it was rejected because it was out of time. But in the letter that was sent to R, the Commissioner of Labour stated that – and I will read out the paragraph, it is a short one – "We understand that you met the accident before you reached the training venue." That is the first reason and the second is, "You did not make a compensation claim under WICA within one year from the date of the accident." So, my question is: the first reason, it is settled law that if you are injured on your way to work from your workplace, that you can claim under WICA. So, I am not sure why that statement was made to R. I suggested in my speech that it could be because of the way R framed his claim, in the first instance, to MOM. So, can the Minister of State just confirm that?”
“Sir, the Workers’ Party supports the amendment Bill. In the main, the majority of workers should not face any difficulties with their claims. However, laws like WICA that are a critical expression of our social attitudes and shape our social compact – in this case towards manual workers and non-manual workers who earn less than $2,600 – are often judged on where they fall short and the cases which slip through the cracks. As the new WICA claims processing regime comes into being, I hope the Ministry not only puts the welfare of the worker first but puts itself in the shoes of our workers and their lived reality, as it operationalises the amendments to this Bill.”
“In one story last year, The Straits Times senior health correspondent, in a story titled, "Doctors reminded to give injured workers the rest they need", noted that the Ministry had reported three doctors to the Medical Council for not ordering the requisite rest or recovery period commensurate with the worker's injury. A doctor wrote to the Straits Times Forum page, in response to the story, to state that doctors cannot be site inspectors to verify if a company is in a position to extend the appropriate light duties to a worker, as the reality may be that the employer has no light duties it can reasonably offer the injured worker. Nonetheless, in view of the power imbalance between employer and worker, would the Commissioner of Labour consider giving effect to requests by workers to see a doctor of their choice, possibly one on a panel managed by the Ministry, as opposed to being restricted to choose a doctor of the employer's choice? An important condition could be that the consultation fees and medical costs are within a stipulated range so as not to disadvantage the employer. Sir, on this point, the prospect of injured workers not being able to sufficiently recover, partly because there are effectively no light duties for them to undertake, is something that needs to be watched closely, particularly since workplace safety can be compromised when a worker is not medically fit to return to work. Such ongoing scrutiny and prospective improvements will ensure our manpower laws are effective, fit for purpose and protect our workforce. I understand from the handout that the Minister of State has shared that workers can go to another doctor if they are not satisfied with the initial diagnosis. Can I just confirm who would pay for that second consultation?”
“Mr Speaker, when the Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo spoke on the Bill as a backbencher about 10 years ago, the Minister sought to persuade the Government to review the WICA compensation limits once every three years, in effect allowing injured workers to receive a higher compensation payout by virtue of a more frequent review of the compensation limits. The proposal was agreed to by the then Minister for Manpower. Since then, I understand the Ministry has decided that WICA compensation limits will be reviewed once every four years instead. Would the Minister explain why this is the case and consider reverting to the three-year review window to give workers a higher payout, particularly those struck by permanent and debilitating injuries? The Minister would agree that even though the new limits may not differ significantly from one year to another, a few thousand dollars can make an important difference for workers or their families. Sir, the NGO, the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), in its feedback to the Bill, raised some useful feedback. Specifically, it raised clause 37 and medical examinations that a worker must surrender himself or herself to if injured in the line of work. A reality of Singapore's workforce is that much of the manual work is carried out by foreign workers. In the last few years, we have read about doctors falling far below the standards of their profession, ostensibly because they are beholden to a worker's employer. It is mind-boggling to wrap one's conscience around some of the headlines and the stories that have appeared in the local mainstream media on this matter.”
“To that end, over the last five years, I would like to enquire how many WICA claims were outside the one-year claims window and how many of these were successful claims. It is probable that R would receive a similar response from an insurer in the first instance, that of being out of time, under the new claims regime proposed under the Bill. Clause 36 of the Bill gives the Commissioner broad powers to process a claim. Under the proposed amendments, insurers will now also process death and PI claims, a function that was previously undertaken by MOM. In view of this, what new roles, if any, will MOM or the Commissioner of Labour play to support the claims process for workers? For example, would MOM consider all appeals that fall outside the claims window to be addressed by the Commissioner of Labour at the first instance, so that the workers can deal directly with the regulator for advice and assistance? This would give effect to the Commissioner of Labour's powers to override an insurer's assessment under the amended Bill. Furthermore, such a work process would support its objective of making the claims process as worker-friendly as possible and position the Ministry as a proactive intermediary for all WICA claims. Can the Minister share a broadly exhaustive list of the circumstances under which the Commissioner of Labour will take over the processing of a WICA claim as opposed to insurers leading the process as envisaged under the Bill?”
“Under the Bill, the responsibility shifts to the employer to file a WICA claim as employees now do not have to separately file a claim. This is a fundamental change in the claims framework and it requires a religious compliance commitment from employers to make it work smoothly. In 2017, the Minister of State for Manpower in a reply to a Parliamentary Question confirmed that it was mandatory and not voluntary for employers to report any work-related accidents resulting in an employee's death or hospitalisation for at least 24 hours, or medical leave for more than three days. In that regard, the Minister of State stated that MOM had taken enforcement action against errant employers for persistent late reporting of minor injuries after repeated reminders or delayed reporting of a serious work injury, with seven employers taken to task. Sir, in view of the new claims framework which makes the burden of reporting injuries on employers more acute, I seek more information on how the Ministry manages errant employers. Are they issued warning letters, stern warnings or reminders in the first instance? It would appear that the regime is escalatory and calibrated to deal with egregious employers. Can I confirm this to be the case and, if so, how many warnings has MOM issued to employers over the last five years, from reminders to warnings, amongst others, and finally, prosecutions? And in the case of R, what action would MOM typically take against an employer in his scenario under the new amendments? Sir, in R's case, when he sought to revisit his WICA claim almost two-and-a-half years after his accident, unsurprisingly, it was met by a rejection from MOM for the two reasons, one of which was that he was out of time as the claim had to be made within a year.”
“What R's experience suggests is that in spite of the various initiatives to make workers aware of their rights, much more can be done, and the modified claims framework that underpins the changes proposed under this Bill is a good opportunity to review how WICA is communicated to all workers and employers. Coming back this Bill, in view of the fact that most of the feedback on the public consultation to it came from insurers, I would like to ask the Minister how MOM will ensure that all employers adhere to the new WICA processing regime. In 2008, MOM committed itself to raising worker awareness of avenues for compensation through the community, union leaders and employers so as to create awareness among employers and workers. How does MOM plan to engage employers and workers to further improve compliance to the new claims reporting framework and to better protect workers' rights after the passage of the Bill? Sir, one critical improvement the Bill seeks to make to WICA is the requirement for employers to report all injuries resulting in any instance of light duty or medical leave to be reported to MOM. The amendments see that an injured worker will be compensated up to their usual level of earnings if they are given light duties by a doctor, principally because they would not be able to undertake overtime work to boost their wages while on light duties, hence a lower AME calculation for the purposes of their claim. This is a progressive move. The Ministry has stressed that such reporting will not be an administrative burden for employers and has provided for a simplified procedure for reporting injuries that result in less than four days of light duties or MC for the worker.”
“In 2017, in a TODAY article, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), a well-known non-governmental organisation (NGO) reported that some lawyers pursue questionable practices with regard to foreign workers who are ill-informed about electing between a WICA claim on the one hand and common law remedy on the other. Separately, the Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People said foreign workers are sometimes "poorly informed about costs" involved in legal processes. To that end, one of the main purposes of the Bill, that is, to provide for a more expeditious process for workers to receive compensation for injuries suffered arising out of and in the course of employment is to be welcomed. In 1975, when this Bill's predecessor, the Workmen's Compensation Bill came up for Second Reading, the intention to introduce an expeditious compensation regime was a key purpose of the law. In those days, in the words of then Manpower Minister Ong Pang Boon, some employers even ignored the notice of assessment and, despite repeated reminders, would even delay the payment of compensation by disputing the extent of liability to pay compensation or the extent of the dependency of the claimants on the earnings of a deceased worker. Sir, the WICA regime has moved significantly from the realities of those days, thanks to both the commitment of not just employers, but the Ministry, too. But as this House has heard in the past, most recently when the Act was amended in 2011, the reality is that workers need enough information to assess how best to pursue their injury claims as not all are highly educated and informed or know of their rights and responsibilities.”
“While I am not aware if R falls under the category of those who chose private compensation, it is a relevant question whether the support or compensation received from employers is adequate in all of these 2,500-odd cases. To give the House a sense of the latest numbers involved, what was the percentage and absolute number of successful WICA claims by foreign and local workers over the last five years and, separately, what is the breakdown of workers who chose a common law remedy, private compensation and did not proceed with their claims respectively? To this end, does MOM follow up with employers and make the necessary enquiries with regard to private settlements and workers' decisions not to proceed with claims so that workers are not worse off than they would be under the WICA framework? If MOM does so, how do cases like R's slip through the cracks? More specifically, would MOM monitor private settlements between employers and workers under the amended Bill and would MOM consider a more activist approach in overseeing private settlements to ensure that workers get a fair deal? Sir, employer-worker relationships are almost invariably weighted in favour of the employer. A power relationship exists, one that can be incredibly lopsided, regardless of whether local or foreign workers are involved. Very often, discussions over workers' rights can gloss over this lived reality. Not all workers are vocal. Some may wish not to make trouble for their bosses for the fear of being ostracised or labelled or even sent home. Yet, some others may fear for their jobs and simply bottle things up. Other more specific issues for specific groups of workers can also come up.”
“It was originally rejected due to it being out of time and because, in the Commissioner of Labour's assessment, the accident he was involved in did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and, hence, rejected for the purposes of a WICA claim. This position was, in fact, wrong in law, but this initial conclusion by the Commissioner of Labour could have turned on how R framed the circumstances of his injury. An appeal was thereafter made to the Commissioner of Labour which was successful. After the submission of a medical report which was initially challenged by the insurer, R eventually received a payout of 25% of PI which amounted to $54,500. Sir, I seek a few clarifications on the Bill and the application of the proposed amendments. Where useful, I will refer to R's case in raising them. My first set of queries are general in nature. At the outset, a question that comes to mind in R's case is why he did not file a claim independent of his employer. I put the question to R to which he replied that the matter did not cross his mind. R could have been under the mistaken belief that since the accident occurred outside his usual place of work, it was not claimable under WICA. But even if R was labouring under that presumption, his employer should have known better, which then begs the question why the employer did not proceed in making a WICA claim for him. According to the former Minister for Manpower in a reply to a Parliamentary Question in January 2018, out of the 33,000-plus WICA claims in the two years from 2016 to 2017, about 2,500 claims were withdrawn either because workers received private compensation from their employers, chose to pursue a common law remedy or decided not to proceed with their claims.”
“Sir, WICA is a critical piece of social legislation for all local and foreign workers in Singapore. Previously known as Workmen's Compensation, the concept of providing compensation against workplace injuries via legislative fiat dates back to the late 19th century. In Singapore today, manual workers are covered regardless of salary. With the changes proposed under this Bill, non-manual workers receiving a salary of up to $2,600 will also be covered in stages, up from $1,600, as is currently the case. Sir, the tabling of the public feedback consultation to this Bill early this year, roughly coincided with a compensation claim under WICA that involved one of my residents, who came to seek my assistance at a Meet-the-People Session. I will refer to him as R. R was employed as an Industrial Relations Officer by a union. He was injured when he was on his way to attend a labour workshop some years ago. At the time of the accident, he did not make a claim under WICA. His employer informed him that they would take care of the medical costs arising out of the accident. The employer did the needful and incurred medical expenses which included a surgical procedure that saw four screws inserted into R's spine. R returned to work after his hospitalisation leave. As he approached the age of 67 a few years after the accident, he was informed by his superiors that his employment would not be extended. The matter of his injury came up just before he left the employ of the union. His injuries had left him unable to find another employer who would hire him. And separately, in need of medical follow-up, R then decided to make a belated WICA claim to MOM.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just a quick question. Earlier on, there was a comparison about how high premiums could rise if we drop the qualifying criterion from three ADLs to two ADLs: that premiums will go up by one-third. Is there a similar calculation the Ministry has done if indeed there were gender-neutral premiums? How much more would men have to pay?”
“Just one supplementary question for the Minister. A few years ago, there was an initiative to increase the number of Singaporeans or work towards increasing the number of Singaporeans in leadership positions in the financial sector. Is there a similar parallel initiative that the Government has in mind for Tech@SG? I think the Minister raised some numbers about the number of students in our institutes of higher learning. But more upstream, in terms of taking on roles, since this is a long runway that we are looking at, does the Government have any plans in that regard?”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for that reply. My question pertains to the second part of the original Parliamentary Question – the three-year-long IT processes audit that was carried out in the public sector. Just two quick clarifications. What was it prompted by, such an extensive review? Secondly, were the issues, which have been repeatedly raised in Auditor-General's Office's Report from 2011/2012 right up to the current year, of vendor management, access rights – they keep coming up every year – actually raised in the first report which is identified in the second part of my Parliamentary Question? Were these issues brought up and was there a review of the Government Instruction Manual, for example, to ensure that access rights ought to be more heavily controlled?”
“Mr Speaker, just one quick supplementary question. I believe there is a factsheet online from NEA on the findings of the lifecycle assessment study on carrier bags and food packaging. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State following up from what Mr Perera asked: can the full study be made available by the Government on the NEA website?”
“Yes, I understand apologies usually are like that. We have had to deal with some of these as well; and it is always a small section somewhere and you wished it were larger. Generally, the larger point, of course, is about those numbers that the same reporter I believe you are referring to has reported consistently on SMRT issues. Thirty, I believe was the number for human resource-related resignations. And my concern is whether there is a deeper issue within SMRT that the public ought to be concerned about.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply. My question pertains to rail reliability. Over the last few months – April, May, June – we have had reports in The Straits Times about various resignations in SMRT. Can the Minister share with the House what has been the impact of this reported string of resignations on SMRT's plans towards sustained rail reliability for the long haul? The second question pertains to resignations from maintenance and engineering roles, functions which have traditionally been raised in this House as an area for improvement. Is that an issue of concern for the Ministry? Given the maintenance and engineering resignations from within SMRT, does it constitute a significant number such that Singaporeans ought to be concerned that we start slipping in terms of the targets that the Minister has set? Finally, given the number of corporate-related resignations from SMRT, is there any concern that the Ministry has about morale within SMRT and whether the system can continue to move forward reliably?”
“The last question was on the number of high-risk chemical factories at Pasir Gudang.”
“Mr Speaker, just a few supplementary questions arising from remarks in the mainstream media in Malaysia and contradictory comments by a Minister in particular about the quality of mop-up work done after the Sungei Kim Kim episode and then, a retraction thereafter. My first question is pertaining to the answer to a Parliamentary Question that the Minister gave in April this year with regard to the deployment of chemical gas detectors in the northeast area. Are there any plans that NEA has to make this deployment permanent in view of repeated environmental concerns that are raised in Johor, in particular about incidents that happen affecting school children and members of the public there? The second question pertains to whether the Ministry is conducting any studies on low, constant exposure to VOCs, given the large number of residential homes in the Sengkang, Punggol and Pasir Ris region, in particular, and the northeast in general. Is the Ministry pursuing any studies in this regard? Finally, we understand from local reports that there are 252 chemical factories in Pasir Gudang. Is the Ministry aware of how many of these are considered to be high risk by internationally accepted standards?”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to call for a Division, please.”
“Thank you, Chairman. [(proc text) Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, I wish for my dissent to be recorded.”
“Chairman, I would like to record, for the amendments proposed by the Nominated Members of Parliament, the WP's position is to abstain on them. I can abstain on each of them individually but Chairman can also take note that we will abstain on all the individual amendments. So, whichever way Chairman would prefer, I will proceed.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to call for a Division, please.”