Sia Kah Hui
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. Is the Minister not aware that times have changed and continue to change? There are already so many complaints from flat buyers against the sub-contractors. I have here just two samples, one from the Singapore Monitor and the other from the Straits Times.”
“To ask the Minister for National Development if he will justify the increase by the Housing and Development Board from $3 p.m. rent to $785 p.m.”
“Not a copy of the letter which your Parliamentary Secretary has sent because, as I have read earlier on, this letter is not clear. Because it says, "to discharge your (the developer's) obligation to clear the temple." The developer says, "Here you are. This clearly says so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister know that after I have written to the developer who had in writing assured the temple people that he would build them a new temple at the developer's expense, his reply to me was that Government had taken over his obligation.”
“Sir, I am not the one who is not clear and I am not the one who is involved in this. It just happened that the developer takes your letter to mean that you are freeing him from his obligation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what difficulty is there that he does not want to clear this up? It is not with me. I understand, but the developer does not. He sends the letter from the Government to the temple saying, "Here you are, you see, I paid this money and there is a receipt. I am free from my obligation.”
The complete record
Every one of 309 lines we hold for Sia Kah Hui, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“The Acting Minister for Culture and Senior Minister of State for Communications (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Sir, the rationalisation scheme in Jurong is the first of its kind to be implemented in the Republic and also in the region; I am not too sure if it is the first in the world. Being the first, some teething problems are to be expected. However, I understand the concern expressed by the Members for Jurong and Boon Lay. I wish to assure them that the main objective of the rationalisation scheme is to improve the level of bus service to commuters. Prior to the rationalisation scheme, Jurong had eight feeder services and 14 external services, with a total of 285 buses operating. With the introduction of the rationalisation scheme, there are now 14 feeder services and 12 external services, with a total of 322 buses operating. On the morning of 1st June this year, i.e. the first day of operation of the Jurong interchange, there was confusion among commuters. Buses were overloaded and schedules were not adhered to. Many workers had to wait up to about one hour for feeder services and were, therefore, late for work. The causes of these problems were, firstly, that many people were unaware of the new feeder services they had to take to their destination. This was so, despite the many announcements and press conferences made by SBS. This had therefore disrupted the smooth flow of passengers transferring to new feeder services at the interchange. Secondly, the commuter demand at the interchange and its surging effect during the peak hours was greater than expected. However, steps were immediately taken then to overcome the confusion and to ease congestion. Over the last two weeks there have been improvements at the Jurong interchange.”
“But now they have to take one hour to reach their destination. Sir, I feel that the Department concerned and the SBS not only have not consulted the residents in these particular constituencies but they also have not given due considera- tion to the views of the Members of Parliament of these two constituencies. I feel that we have been neglected. So I hope the Government and the Minister concerned would look into this matter immediately and take remedial measures to improve the bus service in question and the situation there. This calls for immediate action, so that workers will not be inconvenienced and will not be late for work and there will be no more complaints from the people concerned, particularly from the Minister for Finance who has said that the workers' productivity has dropped. Sir, the SBS has become a public company now. I believe many commuters have acquired shares in this company through their CPF funds. Since it is a public company, it should provide better services, and this is what the Minister has promised. However, as soon as the shares were subscribed, the first move it has taken was to implement a feeder service in Jurong Town. From the results that we can see the SBS has failed. According to my understanding this feeder service is an experiment, and the Government intends to introduce it in the other housing estates. In that case, I feel the Minister should take immediate remedial action about the matter and I hope he can now give us a satisfactory explanation of the whole situation.”
“This will minimise the inconvenience to commuters in Jurong Town and Boon Lay Gardens of having to change buses. Mr Speaker, Sir, since there is such confusion at the present time when the schools are closed for the holidays, you can imagine the confusion and chaos at the interchange if conditions are not improved by the 26th June when the schools reopen - students and workers will be scrambling for buses. Sir, I hope the Minister will see to it that senior Government officials posted to the SBS make a real effort to improve the rationalisation scheme before the next semester begins, so that it will meet the demand of the broad masses. Sir, whether such a major scheme will be successful or not, I reserve my views for the time being. However, this bus interchange scheme that has been implemented for the last two weeks most surely needs urgent and positive improvement. 3.45 p.m. Mr Ngeow Pack Hua (Boon Lay)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Boon Lay, a neighbouring constituency of Jurong, I am always faced with similar problems. Therefore, I must support the views expressed by the Member for Jurong. Though the new rationalisation scheme in Jurong Town has good intentions, it appears that the task has not been given close scrutiny and careful planning. The SBS has not actually given careful consideration to preparatory work or to the actual needs of the commuters. The original plan was to facilitate communication and to shorten travelling time. But on implementation, in fact, the commuters are subjected to more inconvenience, having to wait longer and to change buses and to pay more. According to what I understand, before the feeder service was put into effect, commuters in Jurong and Boon Lay needed only 10 minutes to reach their destination.”
“This shows that the bus interchange scheme may not be suitable to residents of Jurong Town and Boon Lay housing estate. However, the residents in Jurong area welcome this new bus service, and they believe that such link service should be increased to service the residents between their homes and the huge industrial areas. With this direct bus communication, transport will be more convenient and faster. Secondly, before the full implementation of this scheme, the frequency of Services 240, 242, 244, 246 should be increased during peak hours and the buses should observe fixed schedules in order to shorten the waiting time of commuters. Thirdly, the extraneous Service 209 has been a heavily used service. It should not have been abolished. The frequency of Services 197 and 198 should be increased so as to provide residents travelling out of or into Jurong Town with adequate bus services. Fourthly, the traffic conditions at Corporation Circus should immediately be improved so as to alleviate the serious congestion there. Fifthly, at exchange sections in the interchange railings should be erected to enable commuters to queue up for their buses. SBS employees should politely render assistance and guidance to those commuters who do not know what buses to take. Sixthly, at route-terminals in the interchange buses should punctually leave according to schedule so that commuters at some routes need not have to wait for an unduly long time. Seventhly, bus services such as Nos. 183 and 197 which come from areas outside Jurong Town should stop at the interchange to allow commuters wishing to change buses to alight and then proceed to Jurong Town and Boon Lay housing estates and finally going back to the interchange.”
“During peak hours, if the residents should take a feeder bus to the interchange, they have to board a bus heading for Boon Lay Gardens, which takes a big loop back to Jurong Town before reaching the interchange. Commuters who fail to board a bus after a long wait simply walk to the interchange. Previously, one needed to take only one bus to town or the factory. Now one has to spend more bus fares and more time and even to walk a distance to reach one's destination. May I ask the Minister whether this so-called rationalisation of the Jurong Town bus services has brought any improved service to the people, or has it caused more inconvenience to them? Sir, the bus is a means of transport for the lower income groups. It affects their livelihood to a great extent. The Government has sent a team of senior officials to the bus company. They should perform their supervisory task earnestly and not to try to relate their performance merely to the criterion of whether or not the company is making money. What is more important is that bus services should be improved in accordance with the wishes of the people. As the SBS has declared, it would provide an enhanced level of service at the lowest possible cost. I am not an expert but a layman on bus and transportation. However, I would like to reflect the views of my constituents and to make certain observations which are based on what I have actually seen on various occasions. First, yesterday, from what I have read in an English newspaper, in order to relieve the pressure at the interchange, the SBS intends to introduce a new Service 249A during the peak hours to link up the residential areas in Jurong with the industrial areas.”
“Some of the staff of the bus company therefore acted as "traffic police", regulating the traffic at random, without actually knowing what they were doing. I wonder why the experts when planning the scheme had not thought of these defects that would arise. Perhaps their calculations had been wrong. Sir, even up to today, I am receiving complaints from the residents. They complain that to reach the factory or to go downtown, they have to spend double the amount of time waiting for buses and also the inconvenience of changing buses, not to talk about spending more money on bus fares. Factory operators have also complained that since the implementation of the scheme on 1st June, many of their workers could not arrive for work on time, thus affecting their production schedule in the long run. I have also heard that some companies are considering buying their own buses to transport their workers in order to solve this problem for good. Furthermore, executives and other road-users have also complained that during peak hours traffic congestion is even worse, thus much of their valuable time is wasted. Shopkeepers and hawkers in Jurong Town have also complained that because of the inconvenience of transport in Jurong Town, there are fewer and fewer customers. So their business has declined very badly. All in all, the introduction of the new bus interchange has brought about complaints by the people from all quarters. Sir, the rationalisation of Jurong Town bus services was originally intended to improve the transport system in Jurong Town, thereby enabling the residents to reach their destinations faster. However, we have seen only the weaknesses of the scheme so far, even before we can think of any benefits to the commuters.”
“But no one is able to realise how bad the confusion and the crowd is during peak hours at the interchange unless he is there to experience it himself. Under the circumstances in the rush for a bus, the old, the weak, the women and children, and those who were courteous found it very difficult to squeeze their way into the bus. If the SBS wanted the passengers to queue up, they had not put up any railings to guide them. One could only see SBS staff clad in white yelling at the crowd through loud hailers and gesticulating or driving the commuters away like cattle. At times when commuters squeezed into the wrong queue through ignorance, they were discourteously pulled away and even scolded by the staff. Commuters are mainly citizens in the lower income groups. Their only means of communication is the bus. So they had to stomach this scolding and rough handling by the staff, much to their discomfiture. Along certain isolated routes leading to some factories, commuters had to wait for a very long time because SBS officials would send a bus to such routes only when there were enough commuters waiting. The original schedules had not been adhered to. I am just quoting these instances to show how the scheme has brought about inconvenience to the commuters right from the very start. Sir, I have already described the situation inside the interchange. The situation outside the interchange was no better because the exit and entry points are situated close to each other. Both points are sited on one same road and they are also very close to Corporation Circus, thus restricting the smooth flow of vehicular traffic. During peak hours, the congestion along Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim was even worse.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. BUS SERVICES IN JURONG TOWN 3.32 p.m. Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as from the 1st of June, 1978, the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd, introduced a bus interchange scheme in Jurong Town. In the initial stages of its implementation, it caused great confusion and inconvenience to the commuters in Jurong Town resulting in a lot of complaints from all concerned. As a Member of Parliament for that area, I have to raise this matter in this House, or I would be failing in my duty. Sir, according to newspaper reports before the implementation of this interchange scheme, the SBS had engaged experts to study and to make a research into statistics over a period of years before coming up with the so-called bus rationalisation scheme. I am not knowledgeable in this matter and, therefore, I cannot claim whether or not this is a reasonable scheme. But I can say that in this matter of a major readjustment and changes in a public communication system, I as the MP for that area, and even the Citizens' Consultative Committee and the people of Jurong were not informed of the proposed scheme in advance. As a representative of the people I do not seem to have a say in a proposal that affects the livelihood of my constituents. How contemptuous of public opinion and how arbitrary the SBS has been. Sir, in the first few days of the implementation of this new rationalisation scheme, the press reported on the confusion at the bus interchange together with the many complaints made by the residents. I myself visited the place on different occasions. I observed that during non-peak hours, the interchange appeared to be able to cope with the situation. Of course, there is still room for improvement.”
“Certainly, Sir. HAIG ROAD HAWKER CENTRE 4. Haji Rahmat bin Kenap asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether the Housing and Development Board will consider (i) switching on the security lights along the footways of Haig Road Block 14 Hawker Centre from 7.30 p.m. till 6.00 a.m. like other market-cum-hawker centres in order to prevent undesirable persons from carrying out their evil activities there; (ii) providing more ceiling fans at Haig Road Hawker Centre as the wall oscillating fans are inadequate; and (iii) installing some fans at the Block 13 Market as there are no fans there.”
“Sir, I fully agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member, and we shall certainly do as he has requested.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at this moment I am not able to spell out the details because they are being worked out and an announcement will be made as soon as they are ready.”
“At the technician level, the ITB will ensure that the output from its various training institutions is sufficient to meet the demand of the industry. Likewise, the output of technicians from the Singapore Polytechnic and the Ngee Ann Technical College will be regulated by the Ministry of Science and Technology accordingly. Despite the plans worked out by the various Government bodies in anticipation of the manpower needs of our industry, the shortfall of manpower resources, vis-a-vis requirements of the industry, would invariably occur from time to time. There is also the wastage of manpower due to job choosiness among our own people. In the final analysis, so long as our own manpower resources are not adequate to meet the needs of our industries, we will still have to depend on the recruitment of foreign workers to make up for this shortfall. We all share the concern of the Member for Kim Seng over the continued dependence on foreign workers by our industries. So the measures I have outlined earlier will in some measure go towards meeting that need.”
“Yes, we had a word about it in the Members Room just now. The Members for Potong Pasir and Khe Bong were very agreeable to my suggestion that self-service in coffee shops should be a good idea. In the Western industrialised countries, self-service in restaurants and things like that are a very common sight. Even in the United Nations Office in Geneva, we find politicians, ministers, members, Speakers and so on, go and help themselves; self-service. If coffee shop owners would provide a reduction of five cents per cup and say, "Come, help yourself', I am sure our workers will be very happy to save five cents a cup. The shop operator could save on wages too. So there is no problem about employing coffee shop assistants. That is one way out. Perhaps the Member for Sembawang would like to tell his principals about it. Of greater importance is the problem posed by the Member for Kim Seng: the question of how can we attract skilled foreign workers to Singapore and how are we going to train our own people so that we are not so dependent on foreign workers. The plans to meet the demands are essentially in the form of educational programmes and training schemes so that the desired number and the type of workers required will be produced in time. The revised primary education system introducing the Junior Trainee Scheme is one such plan and serves to satisfy the manpower for the less skilled workers. The demand for skilled industrial workers will be met by the output from the various vocational institutes and the Industrial Training Board. The supply of skilled workers will also be complemented from the Economic Development Board Joint-Government Training Scheme and the various Industrial Training Board apprenticeship schemes.”
“Sir, I would just reply in general to the Member for Potong Pasir, because to go into details would be very time consuming and it would not be helpful at all. If there is any particular type of worker that he is interested in, I think that could be taken up as a separate issue. As Members are aware, the work permit policy as stated in this House on many occasions has always been geared towards fulfilling the manpower needs of our industry. Work permits are issued liberally to foreign workers who want a job in the manufacturing and construction industries and in all other areas where the pool of indigenous workers are insufficient and where the employment of foreign workers are desirable. This is very important. The employment of foreign workers is desirable from the point of view of our economic development. I think that generally could answer the Member for Sembawang too. The review of the work permit policy has to take place from time to time in the light of our changing manpower needs in order that our continued economic development will not be stifled by the lack of the necessary manpower. It is true that the Ministry is currently undertaking a review of the work permit policy. I am sure Members will agree that it will be premature for me at this stage to disclose any details on the subject. As to the Member for Sembawang, as I said, a general reply has already been given. He has quoted one or two cases of coffee shop assistants, which is the same story year after year. An hon. Member: There should be self-service for coffee!”
“Sir, of course, coming from a medical specialist I cannot quarrel with his statement. As I said in my answer, personally I think there is every justification for sick leave when a person goes for sterilisation or abortion. But to spell it out in the law, I am afraid, it takes a bit more time and I can assure the Member that we shall look into the matter and have it settled once and for all.”
“Sir, this question of treating abortion as hospitalisation leave is being looked into. If the Member has in mind a particular case where the medical certificate simply says that such a person is ill and the employer says, "No, you cannot take medical leave" he could bring this up and we will look into the matter.”
“In reply to the Member for Paya Lebar, the best way out of the situation is for the employee to tell the doctor to certify that he is sick or will be unfit for duty for so many days. And that is that. He only needs to produce just that certificate. I do not think the employer can then question him. "What sort of leave is this? or "What is wrong with you?" I do not think the employer can ask that kind of question. Mr Tan Cheng San( In Mandarin): Sir, there have been cases where a worker obtained a medical certificate indicating that he could not work. However, the employer says that the sickness ii not a natural sickness and therefore the worker is not entitled to sick leave.”
“Sir, I said at the beginning that the question of medical leave depends on the production of a medical certificate. Once a doctor issues a medical certificate, stating that a particular individual is sick and that he is to have a few days off-work, surely that should be enough. I do not see how an employer can say no, once the doctor has given a medical certificate. Mr Tan Cheng San( In Mandarin): Sir, some employers adopt the attitude that this sickness is not a natural sickness, but an artificial one, and will not give them sick leave. So can the Minister of State assure us that this sort of sickness comes within the interpretation of the labour law?”
“Sir, the Employment Act provides that an employee who has served an employer for a period of not less than 12 months is entitled to paid sick leave not exceeding 14 days in each year, if he is certified to be sick or unfit for work by a duly registered medical practitioner, be he a private medical practitioner or Government medical officer. The Act does not specify the type of sickness in respect of which an employee is entitled to paid sick leave. So it depends on the production of a medical certificate. The sterilisation of males, I am told, is a very simple operation from the medical point of view. No hospitalisation is necessary. In fact, male employees from the private sector who avail themselves of the Government sterilisation services are normally operated on on Wednesdays and return the following Monday for a check-up. The intervening period is treated as sick leave. On the question of stating specifically that the leave is an abortion leave, I personally think there seems to be justification to treat it as. hospitalisation leave. However, the medical aspects of this matter are now being considered by the Ministry of Health. When views from all parties concerned are received, a definite decision will then be made.”
“Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: In view of the not very satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, as I said earlier, if a formal inquiry is necessary, a lot of time will be required. I would agree that if a case is bad enough and that normal conciliation procedures are not effective, then by all means let us have a formal inquiry. I would say that the union can always request for one if it can make out a good case for it. As regards the motor firm retrenching its workers, I have not got the details of the particular incident. But I would say that the avenues for appeal and complaint are always open. I would strongly urge the trade union leaders to make full use of them. Do not forget that we are there to assist, particularly the workers. They can rest assured that our duty is clear. In fact, we have been accused on many occasions of being biased, that we are always for the workers. That is the complaint from the management side. But we have also heard from the trade union side that we sided the management. So we are right in the centre, being hammered by both sides. But we survive. And we will certainly continue to do our best. As to job-hopping, I do hot exclude big companies. But I think in most cases of poaching of staff, it is always done by newly established industries and by the smaller ones. The really big international companies, I think would not like their names to be tarnished. They would not like to be accused of poaching staff from some other reputable firms. As I say, there is nothing really that we can do to stop them from doing so, unless our workers themselves realise that they would not be able to achieve higher skills if they continue to change jobs. But if the Member for Toa Payoh has got some good ideas to put forward, we shall be glad to have them.”
“As regards overseas training courses for staff in the Ministry of Labour, particularly those in the conciliation section, it is true that in the past quite a number of officers were sent abroad on labour courses of one kind or another and invariably when they returned they did not really do the work for which they have been specially sent out to be trained. I do not think this is peculiar to the Ministry of Labour. I think other Ministries also have the same experience, I do not know who is to blame. I am sure the proper department or Ministry would take note. I do not think the people responsible to carry out the job will be happy with this kind of situation. But I can assure the Member for Toa Payoh that, with the introduction of the Labour Service, we would not have the same kind of situation again. If officers who opt to join the Labour Service am sent abroad for training, they will remain in the Labour Ministry when they come back. And I can assure him that certainly we would not want to see talents and the ability of the officers wasted on something which they were not trained for. 3.00 p.m.”
“Certain employers, particularly small establishments who do not plan their manpower requirements, are inclined to secure their needs in this way. To a certain extent, I would say that such practices are unavoidable because the long-term solution would be for management to actively plan its own manpower requirements and upgrade the skills of their workers, either on their own or jointly with the Industrial Training Board and the EDB through comprehensive apprenticeship programmes. Poaching of employees can be further curbed if management pays greater attention to career development prospects and thus ensure greater job satisfaction. But employees on their part must realise that craftsmen and technicians master their skills through years of endeavour and not through constant job changes. As I have said earlier, it would appear inevitable that a certain amount of poaching of staff, especially by small or even newly established companies, has been going on. Everyone concerned in this matter is not happy about it. The Economic Development Board is closely monitoring the situation. And I am sure employer's organisations, like the Singapore Employers' Federation or the Employers' Council, do not like to see their members indulge in this undesirable practice. But I am afraid there is no foolproof solution. At least I have not come across any foolproof solution to this matter. On the suggestion of taking punitive measures against managements for this undesirable practice, I am not so sure if the time is ripe for that.”
“After exhaustive investigations by the Ministry, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. We must realise that, for us to remain competitive, it is inevitable that redundancy will arise as the modernisation of our industries gains momentum. Be that as it may, the Ministry's guidelines on retrenchment with which the Member for Toa Payoh is well acquainted lay emphasis on the need to carry out retrenchment as a last resort. The Member is also fully aware that the Ministry closely monitors all retrenchment exercises to guard against abuse of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act by unscrupulous employers. As for the holding of formal inquiries, although the Member did not mention it, I take it that what we do not want is a court room type of proceedings where submissions of the case are made by both unions and employers and followed by cross-examination of witnesses. But what we have been able to achieve so far is that both parties concerned in the dispute are able to reach complete understanding and the case amicably settled. I think that should achieve the objective. But I am quite sure that the Ministry will give full support to the unions if a case can be made out that the management is abusing its right to reorganise and retrench. On the question of poaching of staff by management, I fully agree that we should not encourage it. In fact, we should actively discourage such practice. But very often it is the workers themselves who fall to this kind of bait as we see in the newspaper advertisements as quoted by the Member for Toa Payoh. All are agreed that job-hopping or poaching of employees is an undesirable practice, both in the long-term and short-term. It does not promote skill development and, worse, it escalates wage costs.”
“Sir, I recall that the Member for Toa Payoh did raise this subject of unjustified retrenchment last year. By and large, the reasons for retrenchment are to trim labour costs or to enhance productivity through reorganisation so as to sustain and improve the company's viability and competitiveness. The Labour Ministry's records show that 66 companies retrenched 3,447 employees in 1977 due to a decline in business, closing down of companies, termination of contracts or reorganisation. In the same year, 56 disputes over retrenchment benefits which involved unionised workers were referred to the Ministry for conciliation. Most of these disputes were settled amicably. A few of the unsettled disputes were referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court by the disputants for determination of the quantum of retrenchment benefits. Some of the cases are still under conciliation. In these 56 disputes, the unions concerned did not seriously question the justification of the retrenchment. However, in six other alleged victimisation cases filed with the Ministry during the year, the unions concerned claimed that retrenchment was used as a pretext to get rid of union members. Two of these cases were thoroughly investigated and it was found that there were valid grounds for retrenchment. In another three cases, the unions and management concerned subsequently reached an amicable settlement. The last case went to the Industrial Arbitration Court but the parties were able to reach an out-of-court settlement. In addition, the unions lodged a formal complaint to the NTUC alleging that a certain company resorted to unjustified retrenchment as a means of getting rid of long service employees who were on the top of their salary scales and replacing them with new employees with low salaries.”
“Mr Teong Eng Siong( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite relevant, in fact, a direct question because any applicant who wants to apply for permission to marry a citizen must first obtain a permit from the Ministry of Labour. There will then be an investigation as to whether the applicant has worked here for at least five years. If he has not worked for five years -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Work Permit Scheme for foreign workers is designed to meet our manpower requirements in our effort to sustain continued economic development. Under the policy, applications for work permits from technicians and skilled workers are invariably approved. For those who have acceptable training qualifications or have been certified as skilled by the Industrial Training Board, they will be issued with a 3-year work permit. These 3-year work permit holders will be eligible for permanent residence if they have completed at least two years of employment in Singapore. They may eventually be granted citizenship after satisfying the 10-year residential qualification. Applications for work permits from unskilled or semi-skilled workers will also be given if they are for jobs which will further the economic development of the Republic. Thus, applications for jobs in manufacturing factories, shipbuilding and repairing and construction industries will be favourably considered. Our work permit policy must be based more on our industrial and manpower needs than on considerations of family ties of the applicant. Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister of State consider withdrawing certain impractical conditions in connection with applications for work permit? One of the conditions is that any applicant, irrespective of whether or not approval is given, cannot apply for any permission to marry a Singapore citizen. I think it is not fair to impose such a condition. Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Member's question is relevant. He is asking a question about marriage policy which has got nothing to do with work permits directly.”
“Sir, there has been no change in the sterilisation scheme when it was first started right up to now. I think my Minister had explained the other day in this House why both parties had to be sterilised, rather than one party. I do not think I need to repeat. PULAU UBIN AND PULAU TEKONG (Provision of water and electricity) 2. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development and Communications what steps have been taken to provide the islanders in Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong with water and electricity.”
“Sir, in the majority of cases I would say that we do not give work permits for shop assistants because we consider such a job as extremely unproductive. Such manpower is required elsewhere. If we were to issue a work permit to a shop assistant so that he could bring a katty of sugar up the stairs to a buyer in a Housing Board flat, my goodness, we will have to issue thousands of work permits for shop assistants. If all these people come to Singapore to become shop assistants, what will happen to our factories? Nobody will go to the factories if they can get a soft job.”
“Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir will notice that in my reply I have quoted the number of work permits issued to exactly the kind of persons that the Member for Sembawang was talking about, that is, drivers, and the Member for Anson was talking about, that is, cooks. We do not say that we do not issue work permits at all. We do give work permits, but then each case would have to be considered on its own merits. We do not give a blanket approval; if somebody wants to employ a driver, we give him a work permit. No. We have to consider whether he really needs a driver and that it is absolutely necessary. We do give work permits. It is not that we do not give them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens did not have his premise right. When we say "five years", we do not say that a work permit holder must work for five years in one establishment. In other words, he can have more than one employer. But when this job-hopping question arose, there is a minimum period of two years - at the beginning it was three years - during which a work permit holder must work for one employer before he can leave. Therefore, logically one person cannot be working for more than two employers, or at the most three employers, within a period of five years. As long as he can work within this period for two or three employers, well, he has done his five years. We do not say that he must work for five years with one employer. That is not the way the period is calculated.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think he has missed my point about priority. If we have steel factories and productive establishments requiring manpower, and we have to go outside the country to get the workers, we must have these places filled first, But we cannot allow people from other countries to come in and take up unproductive jobs, when there are so many vacancies in factories requiring to be filled. Therefore, soft jobs and unproductive types of jobs cannot get priority. We do not issue work permits for such kind of employment. When I said that we had to pay higher wages to local people, I am just stating a fact that if we pay foreign workers less, and we just get hold of foreign workers to come into Singapore, then what is going to happen to our workers? We still need to have jobs for our people. Therefore, they must be paid. And as long as there are workers available, it is just a question of having to pay a bit more. There is no particular reason why we should bring in foreign workers just for that particular reason.”
“As at the end of last month, there were 867 non-citizens on work permits working as cooks, and last year, there were 371 work permits issued to non-citizens to work in such employment.”
“This is because the Ministry is aware that few Singaporeans are interested in taking up such employment. For the past year, 45 out of 85 male applicants to be barbers as against 133 out of 282 female applicants to be barbers were approved. The majority of those rejected were found to be job-hopping, while a minority failed to pass the skill evaluation test as barbers conducted by the Adult Education Board. So in the circumstances, the Ministry will not relax the policy pertaining to barbers. The hon. Member for Anson brought up the question of certain types of jobs which are very difficult to fill by citizens because they are not available, We are aware that some professionally qualified women have been unable to take up employment or gainful employment and had to give up jobs because of the difficulty in obtaining domestic servants. The Ministry has, in fact, been quite liberal in the issue of work permits to domestic servants. As at the end of February 1977, there were 3,732 non-citizens on work permits working as domestic servants and last year. 1,702 work permits were issued to non-citizens to work in such employment. Householders who intend to employ non-citizens as domestic servants have little difficulty in obtaining work permits if both the husband and wife are in gainful employment or if the husband can satisfy the Commissioner for Employment that his wife would take up employment within a reasonable period of time upon being granted approval to employ non-citizen domestic servant. As for the employment of cooks who are non-citizens, their applications are favourably considered if they possess relevant experience, while applications for work permits from young and inexperienced workers are rejected.”
“The present system of processing work permit applications is satisfactory. Nevertheless, we are constantly on the look-out to cut out any red tape found unnecessary. As to his second point, I can see the hon. Member for Sembawang is very persistent indeed. This is the third consecutive year that he has brought up the subject of giving work permits to certain types of applicants. I do not think I can give a better reply than that given by my Minister on the last two occasions and I would invite him to read the reply given as recorded in the Hansard of the last two Budget sittings. With Singapore's continued policy of rapid industrialisation it is of vital importance that the manpower requirements of the industries should first be met. In line with this policy we have to continue to accord priority in applications for work permits from non-citizens seeking employment in factories and other industrial undertakings. So long as our economic objectives and manpower strategies remain unchanged, non-citizens wishing to pursue soft jobs and relatively unproductive jobs like shop assistants could not be given priority at all. I note that this year he has chosen to add drivers to the list of such occupations as barbers and shop assistants which have been brought up in the past. With regard to the post of drivers they can be filled by Singaporeans. So the employers will probably have to pay a bit more. Last month alone. 47 applications were approved. In fact, there are about 3,500 drivers on work permits at this moment. So each application is considered on its own merits. In the case of barbers, we have not been unduly restrictive in granting work permits to non-citizens engaged in this particular occupation.”
“We would like to find ways and means whereby the wish of young couples to get married is fulfilled and that they live happily ever after. The Member for Sembawang has stated that he has received complaints that the Work Permits Office took a month or more for a work permit application to be processed and he considers this to be a delay. Let me assure him that the Work Permits Office does not take a month or more to process and decide on an individual work permit application. The time taken is usually about a week or so from the date of receipt of a work permit application. In the case of an approved application, he must remember that the non-resident applicant will be asked by letter to undergo a medical examination, including X-ray and blood test at the medical centre in the Work Permits Office, and at the same time the applicant is informed that temporary permission for one month is granted to him to start work. So the Member for Sembawang will appreciate that given the thorough nature of the medical examination, it will take about two weeks for the result of the medical examination to be conveyed to the Work Permits Office by the medical authority. On the date of the expiry of the one month temporary permission, he will be issued a work permit if he has been certified medically fit. However, there are some cases which require verification or clarification of certain information which either has not been given or has not been clearly stated by applicants in the work permit application form. Because of this they are required to appear for an interview. From experience, more often than not, they do not turn up punctually or sometimes they do not respond at all. For this type of cases it would therefore take a much longer time to process.”
“I am still young at heart, that is right. The Member for Katong is very quick. He knows exactly.”
“I would have thought that the husband rather than the wife should be the one. I must stress the point that the sterilisation bond is undertaken voluntarily. 7.30 p.m. It is not unreasonable in such circumstances where couples have been granted early marriage approval for the couple concerned to honour their undertaking. The undertaking can, of course, be withdrawn by the couples but then they must be prepared to face the consequence of disincentives being applied on them. The hon. Member suggested the abolition of this humane way out. He wants this sterilisation bond to be abolished. I think he has forgotten the feelings of young people who are bent on getting married. If he were to look back on his young courting days not so many years ago. I am sure he was no different from other young couples in love at that time. I am sure he would not suggest rejection of their application to get married immediately. Personally. though I may be old in age but I can assure -”
“Sir, the Member for Khe Bong is of the view that it is inhuman for the Government to allow marriages between Singaporeans and work permit holders unless both parties undergo sterilisation. The Member also added that the wife's agreement to go for sterilisation should suffice. The Member will recall that with effect from July, 1973, prior approval is necessary if the work permit holder wants to marry a Singapore citizen. Such prior approval is given if the work permit holder is a skilled worker. If the work permit holder is an unskilled worker, approval is given if he has worked for at least five years on work permit. In both cases no sterilisation bond is required. A work permit holder who contravenes the marriage policy will have his work permit cancelled. The citizen party will also be subjected to disincentives. He or she will not be eligible to apply for HDB flats nor will their children enjoy free education or their family subsidised medical treatment. The offer of the sterilisation bond is made in certain circumstances, like where the couple does not qualify for marriage approval but the female party is in the family way. It is a humane way out for couples in such a situation. The concept of a sterilisation bond is in keeping with the family planning ideal of a two-child family. The acceptance of the sterilisation bond is strictly voluntary. The couple is given medical counselling on sterilisation after which it is up to the couple to accept or reject the bond. On signing the bond the couple will undergo sexual sterilisation only after the birth of the second child. It is only fair that both parties be requested to undergo sterilisation. This is in line with our objective of a two-child family. If only one party is required to be sterilised.”
“In the job placement efforts, both the Employment Service of the Labour Ministry and the Rehabilitation Unit of the Social Welfare Department work in close cooperation with the voluntary bodies. Within the public sector, preference has already been given to the employment of handicapped persons in certain suitable light jobs such as caretaker, lift attendant, office attendant, telephone operator, tailor, typist and such like. In the private sector, the number of firms and factories willing to employ handicapped persons is increasing. A high percentage of disabled persons is being employed. Of the 4,603 handicapped persons in the working age group of 15-44 years, 1,285 are currently in gainful employment. 415 are either attending schools or undergoing vocational training geared to subsequent employment. Of the remaining 2,903, 477 are incapable of productive work, that is, they are unemployed because of severe disablement, 722 are not prepared to seek work and only a small number of 125 handicapped persons are actively seeking work and are awaiting job placement. The present arrangement of Government departments and voluntary agencies working together to assist the handicapped persons in securing employment is adequate. There is, therefore, no need for a special job quota scheme for the employment of handicapped or disabled persons at this moment of time. 6.38 p.m.”
“Sir, it makes no difference even if he is stateless. He is not a Singapore citizen and, therefore, according to the present law, a work permit is required of him. From CPF records, in the year 1974 there were 9,664 persons who reached the age of 55; in 1975 there were 12,820 persons and in 1976 there were 11,180 persons. Yet on the Labour Ministry's Employment Service live register, there are only 480 such people who are actively seeking employment, the majority of whom are unskilled. Out of these 480 persons, 430 are males. Apparently, older female workers are either staying with their families usefully engaged in helping their children in household duties or they have no difficulties in getting jobs. These figures suggest that quite a number of these older workers either do not want employment or do not need assistance in securing work. At present in both the private and public sectors, persons above the age of 55 years can continue gainful employment. In the public sector, although 55 years is the optional retirement age, those who are in good health and choose to continue employment, can do so up to the age of 60 years. Similarly in the private sector, collective agreements do provide for employment up to the age of 60 years. The situation does not therefore warrant the introduction of a scheme of reservation of jobs for those who are old but healthy. The hon. Member for Potong Pasir has proposed a job quota scheme for the employment of handicapped or disabled persons. Government, together with the voluntary agencies, have been actively promoting the employment of employable handicapped persons.”
“Member for Kallang has urged that serious attempts be made to find a solution to job seekers who are past retirement age. He has further suggested that certain light jobs in the public and private sectors be reserved for those who are old but healthy enough to work.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, in associating myself with all my colleagues in thanking our President for his Speech on behalf of the Government. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on some labour matters raised by hon. Members. The Members for Kallang and Telok Blangah have suggested that permanent residents should be allowed to be employed without having to apply for work permits. There are a number of reasons why the Ministry of Labour continues to require permanent residents to apply for work permits. Firstly, under the Regulation of Employment Act, all non-citizen employees and contract workers earning a monthly salary of not more than $750 are required to apply for work permits. Secondly, it is felt that from the manpower planning point of view, it is necessary for us to know the number as well as the deployment of permanent residents in the economy. I must assure hon. Members that usually permanent residents do not face difficulties when applying for work permit for their employment, The Ministry of Labour adopts a very liberal policy when it comes to issuing work permits to them. Furthermore, work permits issued to permanent residents are for two years instead of the usual one year. Hon. Members would recall also that in 1973 the Ministry of Labour made a public announcement that permanent residents who pass the appropriate skill test or who possess acceptable training qualifications will be eligible for citizenship if they satisfy the ten-year residential qualification. Holders of Singapore blue identity cards who are unskilled should therefore strive to upgrade their skill so that they can qualify for citizenship under this scheme. The hon.”
“With regard to the Non-Unionised Workers' Section, the labelling is simply for the convenience of workers who visit the Ministry with their problems, so that they would know where to go and to whom they should present their problems in the first instance. It must be pointed out that the staff in this Unit are competent to advise unionised workers as well as those who are not unionised. There are in this Unit one post of Administrative Assistant, four posts of Executive Officers and four posts of Certificated Interpreters who together cover all Chinese dialects, in addition to Tamil and Malay. The Member also mentioned the case of a few workers who, seeking reinstatement, had to wait for hours before they were attended to. This is most unfortunate. If the Member were to give me more details, the case could be looked into. 2.45 p.m.”
“The Member for Aljunied may wish to know that the Ministry is looking into the possibility of re-establishing a departmental service to deal with industrial relations and labour matters: provided, of course, that with such a service the Ministry can build up a corps of trained and experienced industrial relations and labour officers. With regard to the other matters raised, I would like to clarify the function of the Preventive Mediation Section. Briefly, the work involved would be to deal with brewing industrial problems, that is, problems of day-to-day relations which could escalate into serious labour disputes, and follow-up action in the form of advice to management on dispute cases which are known to have been caused by inadequate grievance procedure, poor management-worker communication and personnel mismanagement. In addition the Section also deals with alleged victimisation and wrongful dismissal cases as well as complaints of alleged unjustified retrenchment. Since the officers of the Preventive Mediation and Labour Assessment Section also come under the Industrial Relations Division, it has been possible for the assignment of work to be kept flexible and in no instance has there been any duplication of work between these two sections. The Preventive Mediation Section has consistently handled a case until its conclusion and has not handed any case to the Conciliation Section. Accordingly, when an impending dispute is handled by an officer in the Preventive Mediation Section, he will follow through the case until the dispute is resolved, even in the event that the dispute does escalate into industrial action.”
“The maintenance of industrial peace and stability in 1975 as in previous years was in large measure due to the good sense and reasonableness displayed by both management and trade unions and the hard work put in by the staff of the Industrial Relations Division. The Ministry is determined to improve and upgrade the competence and skill of the officers in the Industrial Relations Division. One of the objectives in reorganising the Division is to ensure that the staff are given an all-round training in the various aspects of industrial relations work. In this connection, the experienced staff in the former Industrial Relations Section are being retained to provide continuity, while new Administrative Officers are being trained in conciliation and mediation work. The initial training of these new officers in the Division consists of orientation, briefing and learning at first hand from actual conciliation proceedings. They are subsequently given close guidance and supervision in their duties. I am sure the Member for Aljunied, being a trained industrial relations man himself, will agree that in conciliation and mediation work no amount of formal training can substitute for on-the-job training. It takes time for a new officer to acquire the necessary specialist knowledge in order to become the skilful negotiator. mediator or assessment officer. It also takes time for the new officer to earn the confidence and respect of both managers and trade union leaders.”
“Sir, I do not know whether Members could recollect what the Member for Aljunied said last night, but I hope that my reply will throw light on it. The Industrial Relations Division reorganised last year comprises three sections: the Conciliation Section, the Preventive Mediation and Labour Assessment Section, and the Registry of Trade Unions. The Conciliation Section comprises two units, one for disputes involving unionised workers and the other for disputes involving non-unionised workers. The Registry of Trade Unions retains its old title as an integral section of the Industrial Relations Division. The Preventive Mediation and Labour Assessment Section is a new one. Despite the unsettling effect of the global recession and the resultant spate of retrenchments, there were only 1 8 minor work stoppages and seven strikes in 1975 as compared to 28 minor work stoppages and 10 strikes in 1974. The number of man-days lost in the strikes was 4,853 in 1975 as against 5.380 in 1974. Seen against the 709 labour dispute cases involving 92,339 unionised employees dealt with by the Industrial Relations Division, Members will agree that the number of industrial stoppages in 1975 is insignificantly small. This is primarily because most of these disputes were amicably settled through conciliation by the officers of the Industrial Relations Division. Only in 51 cases did the parties fail to reach agreement through conciliation, and the unresolved issues were referred to the Industrial Arbitration Count. For the whole year of 1975 the Division also handled 1,191 dispute cases involving 3,437 non-unionised workers. Of these, 1 .079 cases were settled resulting in obtaining a total sum of $202,473 for the workers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by and large, managements do cooperate. But, as in every organisation on establishment, there is usually a black sheep here and there. I do not think we want to bring in new rules just to deal with one or two cases of unfair treatment. But, as I have said, we would certainly investigate into specific complaints and deal with the matter in the interests of affected workers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I think I can summarise what the Member for Toa Payoh has said. His first point is his concern about certain unfair practices in retrenchment exercises over the last couple of years. His second point is that he is unhappy about the restrictive provisions in the existing legislation relating to retrenchment. As to his first point, we fully share his concern. The managements of firms which intend to retrench workers have been advised by the Ministry of Labour, and guidelines have been given by the Ministry for such an exercise. They have been told that efficiency, competence, industry, correct work attitudes, specialised training in key positions are the criteria as to who should be retained or retrenched. They have also been advised to inform the unions of the reasons for the retention of comparatively junior employees over senior employees as a result of the implementation of these criteria. The Ministry has been monitoring closely the retrenchment situation. We are satisfied that generally there have not been abuses by managements. But unions of workers with genuine grievances of unjust retrenchments could refer the matter to the Ministry, and I assure him that thorough investigations will be conducted. On his second point, in view of the general effectiveness of the present system of safeguards against abuses of retrenchment, the Ministry does not think that there is a need at this juncture to introduce legislation on the matter. However, let me hasten to add that we are not unsympathetic to the genuine plight of retrenched workers. especially those who have family responsibilities. We will certainly introduce amendments if the situation warrants it.”
“Sir, I would say that the employer should put in an application before promoting his employee. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr Sia Kah Hui]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 p.m.”