Raj Joshua Thomas
Singapore
“I hope the Minister will consider eventually extending the obligations and penalties under the Bill to buyers of outsourced services. One way, Sir, that we can immediately deal with this would be to issue tripartite guidelines or amend existing guidelines to specifically proscribe such practices by service buyers.”
“I ask this because there are news reports that the deal is already off. But the reason for today’s Bill is precisely because MAS does not have a basis to reject the deal for reasons other than prudential aspects. I would just like to ask the Minister for clarity on the process.”
“Mr Sapari championed and led the implementation of the earlier PWMs and Ms Lim continues to lead the secretariats. It is without exaggeration to say that these two people are probably the two people, in Singapore who have contributed the most to the success of the PWMs, and through the PWMs, the uplifting of the lives and livelihoods of t…”
“Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State how will FWAs interface with the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)? For flexi-load, for example, where a worker in one of these sectors requests to work less days, that may bring his gross wage to below the PWM prescribed wage floor.”
“In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister what efforts MCCY makes and will be making to educate co-op members of their rights under the Act, what they will be doing to educate COM members on their duties, including efforts taken in cooperation with the Singapore National Co-operative Federation.”
“Sir, no, that is not what I was saying. I was, essentially, asking why is it that the Member stopped at a certain point, because in the example that he used, the UK, it was not only Ministers who declared their assets, but all members of parliament had to declare their assets. So, that was the point that I was making.”
The complete record
Every one of 260 lines we hold for Raj Joshua Thomas, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“I hope the Minister will consider eventually extending the obligations and penalties under the Bill to buyers of outsourced services. One way, Sir, that we can immediately deal with this would be to issue tripartite guidelines or amend existing guidelines to specifically proscribe such practices by service buyers. This will enable us to increase protections for our outsourced workers, and I hope that the respective tripartite partners can look into this urgently. Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join the debate today. I support the Bill.”
“The Security Association Singapore has publicly called out several MCSTs and managing agents over the past few years who have imposed discriminatory requirements and affected the workplace fairness of workers. Such contractual requirements then trickle down to the employment practices of service providers, which become inherently discriminatory in order to meet their commercial contract obligations. While this may open the service provider, who is the employer by law, to penalties under the Act, the service buyers get away scot-free and can continue to stipulate discriminatory deployment practices pursuant to the service contract with the service provider. Many service buyers also impose liquidated damages on service providers if they do not comply with the discriminatory deployment requirements. It is also not uncommon for service buyers to exercise, often in arbitrary fashion, the ability to axe the deployment of these workers at their site, often with immediate effect. This affects workers' security of employment and peace of mind. It also creates an environment in which outsourced workers work perpetually in terrorem of the service buyer or managing agent at the site they are deployed to. There is therefore a significant lacuna in workplace protections that affects hundreds of thousands of outsourced workers. While I raise this, Sir, I am also aware that it is legally complex to place obligations under law on such service buyers and I can understand if the Minister adopts an incremental approach to possibly eventually impose obligations on such service buyers because they are essentially de facto employers and controllers of the workplace fairness of outsourced workers.”
“Sir, today's Bill is, as many of our Parliamentary colleagues have reiterated, a landmark legislation that will go a long way to create fairer and more equitable workplaces. I support the Bill, notwithstanding the points I will be making in this speech. I am of the view, Sir, that this Bill is a missed opportunity to extend protections to outsourced workers. By way of explanation, outsourced workers are workers whose nature of work requires that they work on a permanent basis at a different location from their employer's premises. These workers include cleaners, landscape workers and security officers. Outsourced workers' actual workplaces are therefore the external site that they are deployed at and the terms of deployment are subject to agreement between their employer and the service buyer, for example a Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). These workers often take instructions and are subject, to a large extent, to the management and instruction of service buyers or their managing agents. Because this Bill covers employer's responsibilities, service buyers are therefore not subject to the obligations and penalties under this Bill. This presents a gap in the protection regime for outsourced workers because the key determinant of their workplace conditions are actually site owners and not their employers. I can cite examples I have seen myself. In a contract for the deployment of cleaners between an MCST and a cleaning company, a particular MCST had prescribed that the cleaners be of a particular race. I have also seen many security service tenders and contracts between MCSTs and security agencies that stipulate that officers must be younger than a particular age.”
“I ask this because there are news reports that the deal is already off. But the reason for today’s Bill is precisely because MAS does not have a basis to reject the deal for reasons other than prudential aspects. I would just like to ask the Minister for clarity on the process. Would it be that, after the passing of this Bill, that the Income-Allianz deal would be subject to the Minister’s approval and that the Minister would then not approve? If this is the process, as had been raised by the hon Member Ms He Ting Ru earlier as well, would there be any issues of retroactive or retrospective application of the law, given that the filings were done prior to the enactment of the relevant statutory provisions? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“As such, does this elicit that Income and NE were cognisant that the Income-Allianz deal did not live up to the commitments that Income had made to MCCY? Furthermore, did Income approach MCCY after Minister of State Alvin Tan’s speech to own up that the deal contradicted its original representations to MCCY? As raised in the August Sitting, the Chairman of Income is also the Chairman of the deal’s financial advisor. Did the financial advisor point out to Income the potential conflict between the planned initiatives and Income’s representations to MCCY? Furthermore, was legal advice sought on the potential conflict, and did the legal advice point out this contradiction? I also note that the NTUC President and Secretary-General issued a statement on 5 August 2024 stating, amongst other things, that: “In this fiercely competitive environment, it became plain that Income can only continue to fulfil its social mission if it has access to additional resources and the ability to scale”. So, this begs the question, whether Income had briefed the NTUC leadership of the proposed initiative to reduce share capital? Second, Sir, given that Income’s move to corporatise which included the exemption under section 88 was premised on it finding it difficult to compete and to fulfil its social mission, I think it is important that the Government require Income to explain how it is going to leverage on its current corporate structure to do so, given that the Allianz deal may be off. So, Sir, I think that Income has quite a bit of explaining to do. Finally, Sir, I note that Minister Edwin Tong said that the Government has made a decision to intervene. This does not appear to mean that the Government has actually blocked the deal.”
“It is a matter of public interest because, along with the corporatisation, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth had also granted an exemption to Income under section 88 of the CSA. This allowed Income to carry over approximately S$2 billion of surplus to the new entity, instead of it being distributed to members and, importantly, the surplus being transferred to the CSLA, which is applied for the benefit of the co-op sector generally. This means that monies that ought to have gone to a public fund have been denied. In this regard, I set out some questions that the Ministries should ask Income, and I would further suggest that Income's responses should be made public. I note that the Chairman and CEO of Income at the time of corporatisation and at the time of the announcement of the proposed deal with Allianz were the same persons. How involved were they and the senior management of Income in, on the one hand, making representations to MCCY and, on the other, arranging the deal with Allianz? Did they not see the contradictions? I note, in particular, that Income made the following representation to MCCY in June 2022 that: “We believe that, pursuant to corporatisation, the Co-op", that is, Income, "will be regarded to offer a more attractive proposition to investors and strategic partners. This would, in turn, allow Co-op to raise capital more easily and thereby grow and unlock value for existing and new shareholders and policy-holders and further its social mission through a sustainability agenda”. In contrast, a joint statement issued by NE and Income on 4 August 2024 was of a different tenor. There was no mention of raising capital.”
“It is simply not possible for regulators to look at all and sundry and everything under the sun when considering a specific application or filing before it. As Minister Edwin Tong pointed out, the viability of this particular deal went beyond prudential considerations alone. It is, therefore, commendable that MAS, having heard Minister of State Alvin Tan’s speech in August, realised that this could be an issue and shared the filings with MCCY. Sir, keeping in mind that this exchange of information had occurred before approval had been granted, I do wonder whether this would present itself as a breakdown of the sharing of information, as had been previously suggested, or is it instead evidence of the sharing of information that has now allowed and enabled the Government to make the correct decision. But this having been said, given the factual matrix that I have outlined above, and having had regard to Minister Chee Hong Tat's Statement earlier that parties had entered into the transaction in good faith, I still have a nagging feeling that someone was perhaps trying to pull the wool over the Government’s eyes and that it was lucky that this inconsistency was caught out and this deal blocked. In this regard, Sir, I have several questions. First, has the Government ascertained, or will it be taking steps to ascertain how is it that Income could negotiate, agree and attempt to execute a deal with Allianz that included initiatives that would have resulted in share capital reduction, the opposite of its representations to MCCY at the time of corporatisation. This is not a private matter in a private company.”
“This would strengthen Income’s capital base and allow it to have more access to capital. This is consistent with the representation that Income had made to MCCY at the point of corporatisation.” The Allianz-Income deal, however, in its filings with MAS, proposed instead to extract capital from Income, by way of reducing share capital and returning it to Income’s shareholders. Income’s shareholders, of which Allianz would be the majority amongst, would receive some S$1.85 billion. MCCY was alerted to Income and Allianz’s filings by MAS, because MAS had assessed after the August Sitting that it would be relevant to MCCY to look at the proposed reduction of share capital. The above having been said, I note that in his August speech, Minister of State Alvin Tan had said: “It is still a proposed deal, yet to be approved”. I also note that Minister Chee Hong Tat and Minister of State Alvin Tan were speaking in different capacities and, in fact, on different points. Minister Chee Hong Tat speaking on MAS’ role as regulator and the criteria that MAS looks at in approving such a deal, and Minister of State Alvin Tan addressing concerns as to whether Income would be able to continue to serve its social mission after the deal. I further note that Minister Edwin Tong said in his Ministerial Statement that MCCY had continued to do its due diligence on the deal after the August Sitting. To my mind, this would naturally be so, since as Minister of State Alvin Tan had stated the deal had not yet been approved. It was precisely in this exercise that MCCY’s concerns were piqued. I can understand the regulatory process. Minister Chee Hong Tat has emphasised that MAS looks at the prudential aspect of a deal. Regulators look at specific criteria that are set out by statute or regulations.”
“Sir, first, may I commend MCCY and MAS for taking this step to intervene in the Allianz-Income deal on the grounds stated by Minister Edwin Tong in his Ministerial Statement on Monday. The Government has chosen to do the right thing despite it being inconvenient and potentially politically inexpedient. I have closely read Minister Edwin Tong’s Statement and cross-referenced it with Minister Chee Hong Tat's and Minister of State Alvin Tan’s responses to Parliamentary Questions on the deal at the August Sitting. I set out the relevant facts as the basis for my questions later. In his August speech, Minister of State Alvin Tan said: “NTUC has explained the reasons for the deal with Allianz. Let me briefly reiterate the points that NTUC has made. The current situation for Income cannot be sustained and Income’s capital buffers have repeatedly come under pressure. NTUC Enterprise has supported Income with capital injections and will continue to do so. But NTUC Enterprise cannot do this on its own. That is why Income sought to corporatise in 2022, so that it could consider more options to access more capital”. In other words, as far as Minister of State Alvin Tan and MCCY were aware at that point, the deal would have put in more capital so that Income would be able to continue to fulfil its social mission. This is borne out in Minister Edwin Tong’s Statement. Minister Edwin Tong said: “MCCY had no prior knowledge of the proposed transaction before the public announcements. When we first saw the announcements, we accepted the intent of the transactions, which is to strengthen Income. We saw that Income would be engaged in a strategic partnership with a major reputable player in the industry.”
“Mr Sapari championed and led the implementation of the earlier PWMs and Ms Lim continues to lead the secretariats. It is without exaggeration to say that these two people are probably the two people, in Singapore who have contributed the most to the success of the PWMs, and through the PWMs, the uplifting of the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of low wage workers in Singapore. They are unsung heroes. To Mr Sapari and Ms Lim, thank you. To conclude, Sir, the PWMs have raised wages and skills in their respective sectors. This has contributed to the enhancement of the value of the work in each sector. As the PWMs mature beyond their 10th year, I am confident that we will continue to position the PWMs to raise wages, increase productivity, to improve the working conditions of our workers and to contribute to their sense of dignity and pride in their work. And I am hopeful, Sir, that one day, we will be able to call “low-wage work” just “work” or even better, “good work”. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. [Applause.]”
“And Sir, I can attest to this, because I am on the opposite side of the table, representing industry, and we come in with equally well-reasoned arguments. The Government bodies then come in with policy input and objectives, and we negotiate hard to come to a consensus. Truly, it is something that you cannot fully understand until you are involved in it. You can be arguing one day, even publicly, and hugging the next. This is because we have a shared objective, to achieve the best for our workers and our businesses. We merely differ on occasion, on how to get there. Sir, I am humbled and privileged to have had the opportunity to be part of the tripartite process. Our tripartism is precious and we must defend it against unfair criticism and strengthen when needed. Finally, Sir, I would also like to thank the many people from the unions, trade associations and government bodies who have contributed to the PWMs and to a process that has enhanced the value of work in these sectors over the past decade. I would especially like to thank the team from the NTUC U-Care Centre who are the Secretariat for all the PWM sectoral negotiations. I mention them specifically because theirs is not an easy job. They are the ones caught in the middle of these heated discussions, trying to reconcile positions between the tripartite partners and to actually draft the PWMs and statements of the tripartite clusters. Tripartite partners, including myself, can be very demanding and difficult and sometimes the secretariat itself comes under fire. And yet, they trod on, motivated to see through their mission. In particular, Sir, I would like to express gratitude to Mr Zainal Sapari and Ms Phyllis Lim.”
“Skills and courses like these could be incorporated in the periodic review of the skills ladders to ensure continued growth in the value proposition of workers. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the PWMs would not be inactive, they would merely be dormant. If wages in a PWM 2.0 sector stagnate for some time after they are returned to the market, then the tripartite partners can step in again to prescribe wage increases. The PWMs in PWM 2.0 will be living, breathing creatures, vigilant and ready to take corrective measures if necessary. Finally, each tripartite cluster should also continue look at matters ancillary or related to the value of work in their sector. This would include factors like working conditions and workplace safety and health. In the security industry, we are trying to reduce working hours in a sustainable manner, while adhering to the prescribed PWM wages. Companies in each sector can also be encouraged to leverage on productivity-building initiatives like the NTUC's company training committees. In this way, we can continue to enhance the value of low-wage work through the operation of PWM 2.0. Sir, it would be remiss of me not to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the PWM this year and its many successes. The PWMs are a triumph of tripartism. It is unique to Singapore that employers, unions and Government agencies can sit down, negotiate and agree to very wide-ranging increases in wages, year-on-year. As Minister Tan said last month, there are many heated debates between tripartite partners behind closed doors, and the periodic PWM negotiations are probably the most heated of them all. This is because the unions make very robust representations and put up a good fight.”
“While increases in non-PWM job wages are of course a good thing, the question is sustainability and consequent effect on increases in costs and overall inflation in the economy. I have started to think about what an easing out of the PWMs would entail. My view is that it should not mean that the PWM would be removed or no longer apply. For sectors that are ready, I would suggest that they should instead evolve into a PWM 2.0 to preserve the wage levels already achieved and to provide a base from which the value of these jobs will continue to be enhanced. How could a PWM 2.0 look like? These are my suggestions. First, the respective sectoral tripartite clusters would no longer need to prescribe year-on-year wage increases over a period of a few years, which is the current practice. The prevailing wage floors at the point of moving to 2.0 would continue to apply and to be enforced as a form of sectoral minimum wage for each rung. This is important to ensure that wages do not make a u-turn. And a possible U-turn is a particular concern in the outsourced sectors, given that the profit of outsourced services companies is based on the difference between the wage of the outsourced worker and the charge out rate by the company. Second, the skill ladders should remain and should be periodically reviewed, including whether there is a need for further training or refreshers. This will ensure that skills remain relevant and productivity continues to grow. One example is how the security industry is looking to train our workers to be AI-literate. The AI Literacy Programme designed by Certis and the Singapore University of Technology and Design was launched by Minister of State Gan Siow Huang last week and aims to upskill 5,000 security professionals with AI knowledge by 2027.”
“Sectoral PWMs, once they have achieved their objective of correcting wages that were valued wrongly must at some point return the determination of wage increases to the market. This is critical, because otherwise, the PWMs may become a crutch to workers – who will only be able to achieve wage growth due to interventions by the tripartite partners and not through themselves showing the value of their work, nor negotiating for it. In this regard, it is absolutely critical that while the PWMs are in force, we empower workers in these sectors to realise the value of their work, to realise the value of their skills and training and to organically demand for higher wages as they grow in expertise and seniority. This will position them to be able to continue to grow their value and their wages even if their sector is eased out of the PWM. If we fail to do so, then these vulnerable workers will remain vulnerable forever. We must avoid this as one of the outcomes of the PWMs. It is also important to note that there are cost consequences of the PWMs beyond just the specific professions covered. Companies in PWM sectors will also have to review the wages of their non-PWM employees and to ensure they are commensurate with the increases of the wages of PWM-covered sectors. Hence, for example, Starbucks, which is required under the F&B PWM to increase the wages of its baristas, also increased the wages of supervisors and managers to ensure parity and fairness across all job levels. Each company, after all, will also have to reconcile the PWM job roles and wages with its own internal pay scale and advancement route for all its different types of staff.”
“Employers must therefore up their game as well, to offer services that are more cost-effective, more innovative and more productive. In the round, the PWMs have undoubtedly contributed to the revaluing of low-wage work, but this is just the beginning. The PWMs moving forward can do so much more. Looking forward and in the past few years, the Prime Minister has consistently called for a broadening of definitions of success, as well as for remuneration to be based on also on skills and not just academic credentials. The Prime Minister's vision is one which I support and share, including the Prime Minister's call to fairly remunerate jobs of the hands, which tend to be low-wage work. The PWMs have, fortuitously, been contributing over the past decade to precisely the Prime Minister 's vision of a labour market where the rewards of work are more fair and equitable. Looking forward, how can the PWMs continue to contribute to the reshaping of attitudes and perceptions towards low-wage work and consequently, its value? First, I think we should acknowledge that it is probably not sustainable nor desirable for the PWMs for all sectors to continue indefinitely. As I set out earlier, PWMs were first conceived to address market failures in wage growth or persistently stagnant wages in specific sectors. It would appear then, that once these issues are resolved, the PWMs could lose their purpose. Indeed, in this weekend's Straits Times article, Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad had entertained the possibility of sectors being eased out of the PWM, although there are no plans to do so as yet. This is a prudent approach.”
“There is a greater sense of professionalism and more importantly, of dignity. And Sir, this is not an academic take on the industry, or a survey, this is what I have seen myself. Pride, Sir, in one's work and dignity in your occupation is something that is truly powerful and it is priceless. Third, we must look at whether employers in these sectors have re-valued the contributions of their workers. There have been positive accounts. In the 2023 Straits Times article, Uniqlo said that "When we have employees who are happy working at Uniqlo (due to the increase in wages), that will translate into excellent customer services. To a certain extent, that will therefore boost sales". In another article, cleaning company LS2 Services said, that it recognised their cleaners as "valuable resources contributing to Singapore's clean and green city". LS2 Services strongly supported the PWM wages. However, many employers, especially in the outsourced sectors, still see workers as deployable assets rather than as their company's human capital. Buyers of outsourced services still complain that some companies are still just deploying manpower rather than providing a skilled service. They therefore justify a cheap-sourcing approach because services are indistinguishable – but for the price. Employers for their part also complain that some workers merely attend at the site to "mark attendance" – but the question is what we need to do to get out of this cycle of finger pointing? If a outsourced services company adopts a laissez-faire approach to quality and effectiveness of their manpower, it would invariably lead to a reduction in the perceived value of that occupation.”
“This was presumably to prevent mixing between residents and workers in the condominium toilets. There is therefore still some socio-economic stigma prevailing in some quarters, as regard this type of work and workers. Second, statistics show that the PWMs have significantly increased growth in wages in the respective sectors and therefore of the placing of a particular monetary value on work. Cleaners, for example, have enjoyed an over 70% increase over a decade. However, while of course workers will be happy with mandatory wage increases, have these workers re-considered the value of their own work? There are many anecdotal accounts of workers who now put more paid on training and upgrading themselves. A Union of Security Employees study published in 2022 found that over 90% of security officers were prepared to use more technology at work and to undergo training for it. But, these are not clear indications on whether they feel that the value of their work has appreciated. My own experience has been, at least for the security industry, that workers now value their work better and expect to be compensated better. By way of background, I joined the security industry the year before the PWM for the sector came into effect, some nine years ago. When I first looked at the wages of officers, I was appalled. Basic salaries were at $800 to $1,200. Today, security officers at the basic level must earn a minimum of $2,650, and by 2028, their minimum wage will grow to over $3,500. With this significant growth in wages and many having progressed above the basic rung, I have also seen over the years, officers understanding their functions better, taking more pride in what they do and asking for better wages and working conditions.”
“Value must be ascribed by someone or recognised by someone. In real terms, value would also suggest that a person is willing to part with something of a certain worth to enjoy the benefits of that item or service. So, in what ways has the value of work been enhanced in the PWM sectors and to what extent? First, we can look at the value ascribed to these jobs by consumers and society at large. A 2020 Sunday Times survey found that 78% of respondents were willing to pay more for essential workers, such as cleaners and security officers. Even better, they were willing to do so if the extra amount went to the workers themselves. And 55% were willing to pay at least 20% more. This suggests that at least for cleaners and security officers, there is significant value placed on the work that they do, such that consumers are willing to pay more for their services. The survey also made reference to the progressive wages in these sectors, so, there was a nexus between the progressive wages and responses in the survey. However, consumers have continued to raise concerns about costs. Cheap-sourcing continues to be the primary method of buying for the outsourced PWM services. Furthermore, while there has been improvement in the treatment of low-wage workers and in their working environments, there are still situations that underscore a continuing discrimination against these workers. I had raised in this House in one of my first speeches the absurd situation of a condominium in the Grange area that disallowed security officers and cleaners from using the condominium toilets. The Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) had instead installed temporary toilets for them at the basement carpark, which did not even have proper lighting nor running water on the weekends.”
“With the emphasis on meritocracy in Singapore's development since Independence, jobs of the hands were increasingly seen as unattractive and were relegated to occupations that people would only go into if they were not academically meritorious. In many cases, these became occupations of last resort. Because the emphasis has been on studying hard to get a good job, it seemed natural that for jobs that did not require academic qualifications, their wages should be low. In other words, these jobs were valued lowly in terms of how important they were and therefore, how much workers should be remunerated. They were also considered low socio-economic status occupations. Hence, wages in the first three PWM sectors – cleaning, security and landscape – had stagnated at a low level for a long time and required intervention. The PWMs have already started to challenge how work in these sectors is valued. First, because the PWMs stipulate not just wages, but skills and training, the idea that these are generic jobs that anyone could do has been chipped at. Workers now have to attend courses and pass assessments to be able to qualify for entry into the sector and for promotion to the next rung of the wage ladder. Essentially, there are now some barriers to entry and advancement. Second, the PWMs are wage ladders, that recognise increases in skills and experience and essentially create a career path. It would fall to reason therefore, that workers in the higher rungs of each PWM are performing work that is more valuable, for example supervisory work or work that requires specific skills. Third, the PWMs prescribe year-on-year wage increases over several years. This means that there is a compounded increase in value over time. Value, of course, does not exist in vacuo.”
“Sir, the first Progressive Wage Model (PWM) came into effect in 2014, 10 years ago. This was for the cleaning sector. The PWMs were introduced, championed and coordinated by the Labour Movement, and the nature of them is that they are interventions. They were introduced in sectors that had either seen market failure in terms of wages or that had wage growth that lagged increases in the costs of living. This is why PWM wage increases are generally higher than National Wage Council recommendations, in order to close the gap of wages in these sectors. PWMs have been implemented in seven sectors and for two occupations. The PWMs have significantly improved the wages of over 150,000 workers or 50% of low-wage workers. Statistics prove that this is so. But, of course, it is always easy to posit academic questions about what these statistics all really mean. I wish to offer the perspective of an industry representative who has been part of the process of one of the first PWM sectors and has close interactions with industry representatives from several others. I declare my interest, Sir, as President of the Security Association Singapore, which represents security companies. I sit on the Security Tripartite Cluster that formulates the PWM for our sector. My view is that the PWMs are not just a minimum wage plus scheme. The PWM has revalued the work that is done in these sectors, not only in terms of wages, but also in terms of career progression, in terms of perceptions of the jobs in these sectors and their contribution to our economy. More can be done as the PWMs advance. Most of these low-wage work are in jobs of the hands. Cleaning, waitering, landscaping, waste management are some of the examples of these jobs.”
“So, Sir, as a lawyer, I listen to many of the arguments that were made by Ms Hazel Poa and, very eloquently, by the Leader of the Opposition, where he had suggested that there be a commission or a committee which was independent because there is a judge that could chair it. I think if we look at civil servants and the neutrality of civil servants, I am compelled to agree, to a large extent, with what Minister Chan Chun Sing had said. I would also venture to suggest that, in fact, if the EBRC were to determine and, I am talking about the electoral climate right now; if the EBRC were to determine the new boundaries based on political considerations, Singaporeans will not be blind to this. Looking at the IPS survey and how there has been a shift towards looking at fairness, towards looking at more equity in the political system, I would say, ultimately, Sir, aside from all these theoretical debates, why not we just leave it to Singaporeans to decide? Because if it was overtly political, if there was overt gerrymandering, Singaporeans would see it and they would react accordingly at the ballot. So, I think, perhaps, that is the best test of whether the current system is a good system and whether we should continue with it.”
“Thank you, Sir, I thought that I would let the elected Members have their go on the Motion first before I offered a non-partisan view, because they actually have skin in the game. Sir, I think the underlying assumption of this Motion is that, all voters in a particular geographical area would vote a particular way across the elections. But, based on what Minister Chan had said, that is, that more than 200,000 persons change address every year, I think that diminishes that underlying assumption. Mr Speaker, this is also not borne out by an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey, which was updated in June 2024, the Post-Election Survey on the 2020 elections. In that survey, Sir, it was found that the number of swing voters had increased tremendously from 37.8% in 2015 to 59.2% in 2020. More than half of the voters. Swing voters were defined as voters who gave an eclectic mix of views of having somewhat conservative views and somewhat pluralist views. The number of pluralists went up as well. These were people who agreed that there was a need for change in the electoral system, checks and balances, and different voices in Parliament. That number went up by 18% to 22.4%. The only group that went down was the conservative voters. The conservative voters were those who disagreed that there is a need for change in the electoral system, checks and balances, and different voices. They went down from 44.3% in 2015 to only 18.5% in 2020. That shows that the voting patterns are unlikely to remain the same, whether is it geographical location or across the entire electorate.”
“Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State how will FWAs interface with the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)? For flexi-load, for example, where a worker in one of these sectors requests to work less days, that may bring his gross wage to below the PWM prescribed wage floor. Would the employer then be required to immediately reject this, so that he remains compliant with the PWM?”
“In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister what efforts MCCY makes and will be making to educate co-op members of their rights under the Act, what they will be doing to educate COM members on their duties, including efforts taken in cooperation with the Singapore National Co-operative Federation. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Co-operative Societies or co-ops are an interesting commercial vehicle. The principles of co-ops referred to in the Act have been elaborated by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to include, amongst other things, democratic control as well as members' economic participation and compensation. In this regard, co-ops allow a large number of people to participate in commercial activities. Indeed, the widespread involvement in co-ops is indicated by the fact that although there are only 80 co-ops, they have between them, over one million members. Sir, the proposed amendments will enable co-ops to have more flexibility in the use of their reserves. Importantly, Committee of Management or COM members can now receive honoraria as well as allowances. I think this is fair. While sitting on the COM may be a form of service to members, co-ops are, after all, economic-driven vehicles and COM members should be compensated fairly for the contributions to their co-op. In order for co-ops to avail of the new provisions under the Act, they must first seek approval from the Registrar and then the AGM of their members. The AGMs and members' involvement and scrutiny therefore becomes more critical. These members will range from those who are more savvy about their rights and some that may not be so. Some of the provisions in the Act can be quite technical. The present amendments also expand the scope of matters that may be brought to the AGM.”
“Sir, no, that is not what I was saying. I was, essentially, asking why is it that the Member stopped at a certain point, because in the example that he used, the UK, it was not only Ministers who declared their assets, but all members of parliament had to declare their assets. So, that was the point that I was making. I was not suggesting that this is something that we should do. In fact, if you look at the gravamen of my speech, it was really to say that it is not something that we need to do, within our system.”
“What is relevant is the actual work and impact of MPs on the ground, as I have mentioned earlier. But my concern today, is the effect of these suggestions on attracting persons to become MPs – both for the ruling party as well as for the opposition. Many of these people would have already had some success in their careers and understandably, they would have put their hard-earned monies into properties and other investments. Imagine now asking them to put this all up for public scrutiny. They are new candidates – there is no question of corruption at that stage because they were private citizens. This would be a huge deterrent. So, I think we must be careful when making such suggestions. We should not just pluck and propose without looking at the current system that we have and how effective it already is. That is taking it at its highest. But taking it as it appears to be, I think we should not propose mechanisms that have the effect of politicising the private lives of politicians and in this case, only a particular category. 1.30 pm Sir, I will end my speech. A budget is allocated to Parliament to carry out its functions with competence. Let us ensure that we build an environment where good people are not deterred from entering politics and contributing in this House and in Cabinet. Failing to do so will be to the detriment of Singapore and Singaporeans. [Applause.]”
“First, Ministers do have to declare their private assets to the President and on a routine basis. Second, I find it curious that the Member's suggestion stops at Ministers. In his own example – the UK – all MPs, including opposition MPs, have to declare their assets, not only Ministers. The inference I can make from the Member's reference to conflicts of interest in his speech, is that it is because Ministers oversee Ministry budgets and Ministries are involved in procurement tenders. But let us not forget that all our elected MPs, opposition MPs included, have a part to play in the running of Town Councils. Town Councils handle tens of millions of dollars of contracts every year, so the potential for conflicts of interest to arise for backbencher MPs is also quite possible. So, by that rationale, the Member’s suggestion should have extended to all MPs, opposition MPs included. But in many countries that have such declarations in place, there are problems with evasion, which becomes a political hot point. The content of the declarations themselves also become political issues. For example, the assets of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, which distracts from debate on real national issues like jobs, housing and the economy. The underlying anti-corruption intent is lost. Last year, we heard two Ministers explain their housing choices in Parliament. To be fair, let us look across the aisle – on my side of the aisle as well – I would not be surprised, given their past careers, that many opposition Members in this House live in private condominiums or landed homes. When made in declarations, these would also become part of the political debate and perhaps even elections issues. Is it relevant? I do not think so.”
“But just like anyone else, it does not harm to give them a pat on the back when they do a good job and I am sure they will appreciate it and be spurred on to do better. Sir, persons who take up public office must accept that there will be encroachments on their private lives. But this loss of privacy is, in my view, one of the biggest deterrents to persons entering into politics. It is not because they have something to hide, but it is simply because many aspects of private life are just not anyone else's business. In many other countries, this has been taken to an extreme; with the media and even government agencies probing into politicians' lives on things that have nothing to do with their official duties and often, with political intent or an intent to embarrass. Sir, it is absolutely critical that we do not allow the private lives of MPs to be politicised. As an absolute minimum, MPs' family members must be out of bounds in the political arena. Many new candidates would be in their 30s and 40s, with families and young children. Subjecting their families to the public glare would be foremost in their minds and could be the deal breaker. Sadly, it is not possible to prevent anonymous online vigilantes from making claims or spreading rumours about MPs' family members. But it is possible for political parties, whether currently represented in Parliament or otherwise, to have their own code of ethics to not exploit such things for political gain. The media, both mainstream and alternative, should also exercise ethical judgement in how these are covered. Finally, Sir, I have some views on Member Mr Louis Chua's suggestion that Ministers publicly declare their assets and the impact that such a policy would have.”
“There are a lot of complaints about MPs online. There are those that surface real concerns, but a lot of it is griping and sniping. I would like to encourage my fellow Singaporeans to also post positive accounts of their MPs. Let me give you an example. Someone approached me in July last year on a very urgent family matter. Seeing that this person was a resident in Minister of State Alvin Tan's constituency, I asked him if he could help look into it. On the day that I referred the matter to the Minister of State, he was moving a Bill and the Sitting ended at close to 9.00 pm. Despite that, the Minister of State rushed down to meet the resident and spent quite a bit of time with them to understand their situation. He helped to coordinate with the relevant agency over the next few days and sorted the matter out. I told the resident later – well, looks like he did a good job. But she said no. He is a rock star. That is what she said. And I have no doubt that there are many examples of the good work and effort our MPs, both ruling party and opposition, put in to serve their constituents. So, how do we better showcase the good work that our MPs do without an MP being accused of "ownself praise ownself"? Residents can consider posting such positive accounts online, akin to a Google review. But for many such cases, residents may not want to draw attention to their situations. In this regard, grassroots organisations could consider highlighting positive cases with the consent of the resident and properly anonymised, like my anecdote earlier. These would serve to show how MPs can help their constituents, as well as a form of accountability that their MPs are actually working and getting things done for them. I do not think that our MPs do what they do to get praise.”
“This having been said, the bar of course must be set very high – not impossibly high – but very high because these are our national leaders after all. To me, the cardinal criteria are a genuine passion to serve and a high level of competence – not infallibility. I think this is also what is of critical importance to Singaporeans. MPs, like everyone else, have flaws, fears and doubts and will make mistakes from time to time. I think a candidate who admits and owns these mistakes and who shows he has learnt from them and has become a better person, can still be a good candidate as long as they meet the cardinal criteria. We can draw wisdom from an ancient Chinese idiom on governance: clear waters do not have any fish. A person who is perfect and devoid of failings will have a sterile mind and hold no interesting or useful ideas or contributions. Flaws, the impurities in the water, are what underpin character and experience. It grants a person empathy that allows him to connect with and to understand others. Of course, there are some impurities that are in fact, poisons. A corruptible character and a proclivity towards dishonesty are traits that are fatal to a good MP. Such persons should be weeded out as best as possible by each party's vetting processes. But otherwise, persons who have a passion to serve and who are competent, should step up to serve. They should not be deterred by an impossibly high bar set by party and public expectations. My second point is on the use of social media. The nastiness hurled at MPs on social media, often at a personal level, is something that, sadly, MPs and future MPs must come to accept. This is an inevitable outcome of an open society that is highly connected to the internet and a populace that is opinionated.”
“"It will be harder and harder to attract good people" "…it is a very serious problem". These were comments made by the Prime Minister in the book "The History of the PAP". The PAP has, for a long time, been very candid about the challenges it faces convincing good people to enter politics. On the other side of the aisle, the Leader of the Opposition has also said that the Workers' Party's (WP's) search for candidates was always an ongoing process. The quality of the Members in this House is of paramount importance. The Cabinet is drawn from amongst MPs and legislative debate is critical to articulate views on the ground, for transparency and accountability and to shape public opinion. But over the years, it is not only the demands on MPs that have grown, but also their exposure to toxic social media and encroachments on their private lives. Singapore is a small country with a limited talent pool and as a citizen, I am concerned that many of our good people who should be in Government will be deterred by these changing demands. How do we continue to attract the very best into Parliament? I would like to make three points on this in my speech today. First, I think that we need to be realistic about what makes a good politician. Do we expect that our politicians will be flawless individuals; who had hardly set a wrong foot; and who had not and will not make mistakes or missteps along the way. This is an impossibly high bar that will deter many good candidates from joining. What Singaporeans expect is influenced by how parties position themselves and their candidates. So, to a certain extent, if Singaporeans develop unrealistic expectations of their MPs, the problem is somewhat self-made by the parties themselves.”
“Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his Budget speech that societies across the world are becoming increasingly divided and nations more fragile. Despite our diversity, we have managed to build and maintain a strong and united society. This can aptly be described as an unusual modus vivendi. Amidst this, there are incidents that arise from time to time that threaten our balance and some incidents may result in a lingering sentiment, especially amongst our minority groups. Migrants may also pose challenges to our unity as they go through the process of integrating into our way of life. Maintaining our racial and religious harmony is therefore an ongoing effort. It is not a natural balance and significant effort must continuously be expended by the Government to steward our social harmony together with other stakeholders like community groups and religious organisations. Could the Minister update on MCCY's efforts to bolster our racial and religious harmony and its priorities in the coming year? 7.15 pm”
“Sir, Part IV of the Employment Act provides certain protections for more vulnerable workers, including provisions for rest days, hours of work and overtime pay. The Employment Act currently sets the threshold salary at $2,600 for non-workmen and $4,500 for workmen. As elaborated by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Budget speech, the wages of lower-income workers have grown faster than the median wage over the past decade. This is one of the impetus for the increase in the LQS. As the Part IV threshold was last amended in 2021, I would like to ask the Minister if there are any plans to review the threshold to reflect current wages and anticipated wage growth. It would be useful to give employers sufficient lead time to accommodate any intended changes. Adequacy of Workers' Dormitories”
“Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to clarify on my speech earlier. I think I said 580 cases out of 1,300 were ineligible. Actually, it should be 580 were eligible. Separately, I have got two clarifications. The Minister mentioned that there were about 440 cases that were handled by PDO and by CLAS as well. May I ask for clarification as to whether CLAS assesses cases on its own separately? What criteria does CLAS use and will the threshold changes apply to how CLAS assesses whether it should be giving aid as well?”
“Sir, I am grateful for your indulgence to allow me to take my cuts today. And I declare, Sir, my interest as a practising lawyer. Sir, the Public Defender's Office (PDO) commenced operations on 1 December 2022 and, as of September 2023, had received around 1,300 applications, of which close to 580 were assessed as ineligible. Could the Minister provide an update on the number of cases the PDO has taken up to date, as well as whether there would be a review of the means testing criteria, seeing as about half of rejected applications were because the applicants did not meet the prescribed means criteria? Supporting Small Law Firms My second cut, Sir, is on supporting small law firms. Sir, our legal industry generated $2.4 billion in nominal gross value in 2019 and Singapore has also grown to become one of the top international dispute resolution hubs in the world. Domestically, we have over 1,000 law firms, with over 80% being small law firms with five or less lawyers. These firms, however, contribute to only about 40% of value-add. Could the Minister elaborate on what the Ministry is doing to help small law firms get a firmer bite of the pie of the international work that is coming into Singapore? And second, would the Ministry consider encouraging consolidation in the industry, including through incentives, to help small law firms come together to form larger practices that are more full service and that would place them better to seize opportunities in the market?”
“Mdm Chairman, Ms Lim, I stand corrected.”
“Yes, I stand corrected. I think it was engaging PIs to do some of these works.”
“Madam, the SPF IOs are the first front in the criminal justice process. The whole investigation process can be complex and requires an eye for detail as well as skills in preparing and presenting evidence. As a lawyer who takes up criminal matters from time to time, I have seen that our SPF IOs are competent and do a good job collecting evidence and assisting the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). Sometimes, investigations take some time; but this is understandable given the increasing complexity of crimes, including cybercrimes. I note that the number of physical crimes has remained stable but that the number of scams has risen significantly. Could the Minister provide some insight into the workload of our SPF IOs as well as the average turnover of investigations from first information reports (FIRs) to making recommendations to the AGC? On a related note, I agree with the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim and I would like to join her in calling on the SPF to consider engaging private investigators (PIs) to assist in the work of SPF IOs. In particular, in collecting and organising evidence. PIs are trained and have experience precisely in doing so and their contributions have been invaluable in civil suits. Perhaps the Ministry could consider availing of their expertise in criminal investigations as well? And on a related note, perhaps the SPF can also consider engaging security agencies to outsource some of their functions – their security-related functions to them as well.”
“Thank you, Sir, and I thank the hon Senior Minister of State Sim Ann for her elaboration on our relations with the middle powers within the time constraints that she had. Our relations with the middle powers are increasingly more important as we navigate the complexities of today's global order. I have two clarifications, Sir. The first is as regards to the EU-Singapore Trade Agreement, there are two subsidiary agreements, the EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement and the EU-Singapore Partnership and Cooperation Agreement which have yet to be ratified. Could I ask the Senior Minister of State if she could give some updates on what is the status of that and when we can expect them to be ratified and come into force. The second is as regard our ties with Germany, Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Prime Minister issued a joint declaration in 2022 entitled Partners for a Resilient and Sustainable Future which included enhancing cooperation in various economic areas. May I ask if the Senior Minister of State could give us some insights into how we are pursuing cooperation with Germany in new and emerging areas such as renewable energy, the digital economy and cyber security.”
“" But another observation is that the initial few PWM sectors were all in the facilities management sector and were servicing mainly private condominiums and commercial buildings. The buyers of these services actually can afford the increases in prices, but unfortunately, many of these buyers still retain the mentality that these services are manual services and therefore ought to be cheap. They have therefore been reluctant to increase prices in recognition of value and have largely continued to adopt a cheap-sourcing approach. In this regard, I hope the Government will do more, in partnership with the respective trade associations and trade unions, to change buyers' mindsets. Hence, Sir, to summarise. I hope that our workers will continue to have a mindset that is cognizant of our innate vulnerability. We have to put in effort in order to maintain our way of life. The corollary is that those who are working hard, including in professions of the hands, are able to get their just rewards. I hope that we will collectively be able to enjoy the Singapore standard of living, regardless of our professions and educational background. The reality of maintaining Singapore’s competitiveness and our prosperity is that, if we want to continue to live well, we must be prepared to work hard. And those who work hard should expect that they will get the rewards and respect that enable them to live well. Sir, I support the Budget .”
“By 2028, an entry-level security officer will earn a minimum basic wage of $3,530 or more; security supervisors will earn $4,130 and senior security supervisors at least $4,430. I hope that the tripartite partners negotiating the security PWM beyond 2028 will consider my suggestion to peg the average wage of security officers across all the ranks with the average wage of fresh university graduates. While my proposal may be seen as bold in the Singapore context, it is in fact a norm in many advanced economies. My research reveals that the average wages of cleaners, security officers and waste management personnel are not far from the average wage of a fresh university graduate in Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. In fact, the average wages of waste management personnel and security officers, in particular, tended to be higher than that of fresh university graduates. So, it does appear that Singapore is somewhat of an anomaly amongst comparable advanced economies in the wages we pay our workers in these sectors. Finally, Sir, I would also like to ask the Government to make further effort to persuade consumers to support wage increases by being prepared to pay more for the services that the PWM sectors provide. As Deputy Prime Minister Wong said at the IPS Conference, consumers must be willing to pay more for certain goods and services to uplift the wages of those who provide them. I am on all fours with Deputy Prime Minister's observation that, and I quote, "We cannot demand for services delivered by our fellow citizens to be priced cheaply and in the same breath lament that their wages are too low. It is completely inconsistent.”
“I make this suggestion because although the Forward Singapore report addresses the matter of increasing rewards, it does not touch much on how to improve respectability, aside from encouraging it through some form of moral-suasion. Pegging average wages of professions of the hands with that of academically-inclined fresh graduates could provide a more tangible indication that both these categories of jobs are equally worthy of respect and hopefully, trigger a cultural shift in how our society views these jobs. I would also like to ask the Government and the tripartite partners to also accelerate the PWM wage increases so that our lower-wage workers can also live well and enjoy the fullness of the standard of living that Singapore should provide for its citizens. While the PWMs have achieved very significant wage increases that would have not occurred but for the PWMs, my view is that they need to go further. We can look at, for example, the prescribed entry-level security officer wage in 2024, which is $2,650. For, say, a 40-year old officer, after deductions for CPF, he would take home about $2,120 – a sum that would go into supporting his family and himself. I am not going to go into the various calculations, that have been aired in this House before, of what is a minimum living wage in Singapore. But let us just be honest with ourselves and ask ourselves if $2,120 a month is this sufficient. Will such a wage entitle that security officer to live the life of a Singapore worker that I envisioned earlier? Will he enjoy the good Singapore standard of living? If we are honest with ourselves, I think we know that it would not be sufficient. But the silver lining is that security officers will in fact see fairly rapid wage increases over the next four years.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies, instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications. The Deputy Prime Minister said it is not just about re-shaping the labour market, but also about shifting perceptions about work. I was further encouraged to see the Forward Singapore report include "respecting and rewarding every job" as one the objectives we would seek to achieve. It is important that we not only reward workers in these jobs, but that we also build respect for their professions, so that we can equalise how all jobs are viewed. The report also called for a further reduction of wage gaps across professions including through the PWMs. In this Budget, there are also measures to bolster the PWMs through the Progressive Wage Credit Scheme as well as to support Institute of Education (ITE) graduates through the Progression Award. It is quite clearly a Government priority, which I applaud, to achieve a mindset change so that all jobs in Singapore are viewed as good jobs, and that the gap in the compensation for workers of different professions is made smaller. The current PWMs look at closing the gap between lower-wage workers and the median income. I would like to call on the Government and the tripartite partners to go further so that we can achieve both the twin aims of reward and respectability. I ask that they consider setting as a long-term objective that the average wage of workers in each PWM sector rise to be on par with the average wage of fresh university graduates.”
“You are on your feet throughout your shift, walking from tables to kitchen or to the bar, carrying food and drink that can be heavy. There is a public relations element to the job because you should be pleasant with patrons and there may be some amount of entertaining that you may have to do as well. It is not as simple as some may make it out to be. Third, there are significant shortages in the manpower supply for these jobs. In the security industry there is an estimated shortage of between eight and 18,000 officers at any one time. The shortages become worse when there is a surge of demand for security officers during major events, like the Formula One (F1) Race. We therefore need to be able to attract more Singaporeans to enter these professions and to pay them well. Fourth, these jobs are important jobs that have integral contribution to what Singapore is and what Singapore aspires to be. If we look at the trademark physical attributes that Singapore is famous for – clean, green and safe. All of these are managed by PWM sectors. We are a food paradise. We want to be a shopping destination. All PWM sectors. The workers in these sectors may not hold very high academic qualifications but they are doing their part in the Singapore miracle and it is not a small part, and they need to be recognised and rewarded accordingly. I was very encouraged when I read Deputy Prime Minister Wong's speech at the IPS Singapore Perspectives Conference in January last year. Amongst other things, the Deputy Prime Minister said that we should embrace a broader definition of a good job and recognise skills and competencies instead of overly focusing on paper qualifications.”
“They are in what may be called the professions of the hands, that is, jobs that are manual in nature and that do not have a high academic criterion for entry. Many of these are in Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors like cleaning, retail, F&B, security and waste management. I declare at this juncture, Sir, my interest as the President of Security Association Singapore, a trade association in a PWM sector. In the first instance, Sir, I think that we need to recognise that these jobs require that workers have certain skills. We must recognise and accept that these are skilled jobs. Last week, there was some online chatter about a SkillsFuture course on washing toilets, which is part of the mandatory training for workers in the cleaning industry. A post that was widely circulated commented that these skills could be learnt during National Service or at home. I think this misses the point. Just because one can grow a cactus on their office table does not make them an arborist or horticulturalist. This course teaches workers on how to clean toilets on a commercial basis. And there are many things that go into it, from safety elements like putting up a sign outside the toilet while it is being washed and when to remove it, to the use of various types of cleaning equipment, and chemicals, some of which may be dangerous if not used properly. It goes into basic custodial checking and time management because these workers have to manage the cleanliness of several washrooms in a day. So, let us not ridicule the work that people do or the training that they undergo. The second thing that we should recognise is that these are jobs that are physically demanding. I would challenge naysayers to wait tables at a restaurant. It is not easy. I have done it myself.”
“So, we must constantly work at it and we must guard against trends and ideas that can negatively affect our competitiveness. But at the same time, there is no point working hard to maintain the lead and then not enjoying it ourselves. So, we need to achieve that balance. We cannot just live well in vacuo. We should not just work hard. And it is not about working well either. It is about working hard and living well. This is the work culture we should seek to promote amongst Singaporeans. So, perhaps we can aim for our workers to have it all – and to put that forward as the ideal for our Singapore workers. My vision of a Singapore worker is someone who works hard and tries to do his best at his job. He is proud of his professional achievements and confident that he has the skills to take on future roles and to compete with foreign talent. He is compensated adequately to have a good Singapore standard of living, including spending quality time with his family and pursuing his personal interests. He is physically and mentally healthy. This is a vision of a holistic Singapore worker – one who does his best to work hard and is able to live well. In fact, I would like to encourage our workers to use this as a mantra and a hashtag online: #workhardlivewell. You do not have to fell "pai seh" posting about your leisurely pursuits or holidays with your family, or just having gotten or bought something nice for yourself. Why? Because you worked hard, you achieved it, and you deserve it. #workhardlivewell. Sir, all this having been said, and moving on to my next point, there are yet workers amongst us who work hard but who do not live as well as they should, primarily because they do not earn enough, and also for some, because of longer working hours and working conditions.”
“So, let us encourage those who want to work hard and who want to work more, in pursuit of whatever their dreams are and let us avoid a culture against work from forming in Singapore. On a related note, at the last Sitting, we had a lengthy and very important debate on mental health. I am glad that Deputy Prime Minister Wong has stated that mental health is a national priority and that there will be an expansion of mental health services. I am, however, troubled with some narratives that suggest that mental health and hard work are on polar opposites and that they are mutually exclusive. I have heard people say things like: "I'm not going to put too much effort into this job because I am prioritising my mental health". Yes, excessive work stress can lead to mental health issues. But I am sure that there are also many people who work very hard, who take on a lot on themselves professionally, who have difficult working hours – and who also have good mental health. I imagine that there are many Members in this House who would fall into this category. We should therefore avoid giving paid to such narratives even as we tackle very real mental health concerns amongst our workers. I am concerned that the Singapore worker may be becoming complacent in believing that our way of life is a given. Singapore is not invincible. In fact, as Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his Budget speech, we cannot afford to become complacent. We are vulnerable – if we have slow growth similar to what we saw in the previous year, Deputy Prime Minister said, we would be in trouble, and we would not be able to improve our collective well-being, and our standard of living would be affected.”
“He may be more likely to get the increment and the promotion because an organisation must reward those that are more valuable to it and that are more willing to do more than they have to. Third, there may be tensions that arise because the worker who exercises his rights strictly may have expected that he would have had spots as the worker who forewent his rights, who would in turn expects that he does better precisely because he had put in more work than is expected. The legislation in Australia gives the worker an actionable right to disconnect. So, this means more litigation, more labour discord on something that may ultimately not be easy to prove. Such legislation creates more questions, more tension that could be disproportionate to any good that could conceivably come out of it. I hope that such legislation does not come before this House. We should be careful as to what trends and fads we decide to champion in this House. They may have severe consequences on the productivity and competitiveness of our workforce. Let us not forget how the Great Resignation came and went as fair as doomed. There is a trend promoting an aversion towards material success, as if it was some form of scarlet letter, in favour of a more relaxed attitude to work. Being overly materialistic is, of course, not a good thing. But I hope that this does not trickle down to become an aversion to hard work, ambition or the pursuit of success because we have to face it that many successful people are motivated by material success, and that that pursuit of it may lead to the creation of successful companies and jobs and opportunities for Singapore.”
“" The quote, of course, continues to say that he is also a champion grumbler. But that it is fine if he has worked hard, then he has earned the right to grumble. Therefore it falls to reason that if our workforce weakens, our competitiveness and attractiveness as an economy weakens and this threatens our continued ability to sustain our way of life. As such, we should be very careful when we look adopting some of these trends and we should determine their sustainability for Singapore and the consequences of implementing them in legislation and in policy. Take for example, the right to disconnect legislation recently enacted in Australia. Amendments made to the Fair Work Act will allow workers to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact or attempted contact from their employer or a third-party outside of their working hours, without penalty. Let us look at the practical effect of this legislation. First, there will always be some workers who decide to forego their rights and to remain connected. These are people who simply do not want to disconnect for various reasons. And among these people, we may be likely to find the future leaders of organisations, future entrepreneurs, inventors, young lawyers who aspire to become senior counsel, workers who want to go the extra mile to delight their customers, administrative service officers who want to get their promotions. There is simply no alternative to hard work, putting in the hours, putting in the steps. And being in a global city in a super-connected world, a contactable and responsive worker is invariably a more valuable worker. Second, while the worker that refuses to be contacted would not be penalised, the worker that remains contactable may get a boost in his performance evaluation.”