Tan See Leng
Singapore
“We are aware of the Singapore Workplace Report 2026, produced by the Singapore Institute of Directors and Gallup, and we are studying its findings.”
“The Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation (Taskforce) actively reaches out to all retrenched local employees. In 2025, 77% of Mandatory Retrenchment Notifications (MRNs) were submitted at least seven days ahead of the employee's last working day and 73% of MRNs were submitted at least two weeks ahead.”
“From 2022 to 2025, vacancy rates for technical maintenance roles in the real estate services sector, which includes facilities management, have been lower than the overall job vacancy rate, except in 2025 (see Table 1).”
“The Skills and Workforce Development Agency (SWDA) works with sector agencies to determine the courses which are required by the respective industries. The SWDA currently funds more than 100 courses, spanning a wide range of mental health-related fields.”
“In the first quarter of 2026, the profile of retrenched residents aged 50 to 59 was broadly similar to the profile of all retrenched residents, predominantly comprising professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) and were mainly from wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, financial and insurance services and profession…”
“In 2025, around 4,200 resident professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) aged 45 to 59 were retrenched, higher than 3,200 in 2024 and 3,500 in 2023. Their six-month re-entry rate remained stable at 48.5% in 2025, compared with 48.9% in 2024 and 50.1% in 2023.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,238 lines we hold for Tan See Leng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 45.
“The mean and median number of hours worked per week for full-time resident employees aged 25-64 have decreased across almost all income groups between 2019 and 2023. For employees earning below $2,000, mean hours worked decreased from 45.2 hours to 43.2 hours per week, while median hours worked decreased from 44 hours to 42 hours per week. For those earning between $2,000 and $4,999, mean hours worked decreased from 45 hours to 43.9 hours per week, while median hours worked decreased from 44 hours to 43 hours per week. For those earning $5,000 and above, mean hours worked decreased from 45.8 hours to 44.5 hours per week, while median hours worked remained the same at 44 hours per week.”
“CareersFinder was introduced on the MyCareersFuture portal in July 2023. It harnesses Government data and artificial intelligence to help jobseekers to identify adjacent occupations and training opportunities based on their skills. As of 30 June 2024, over 35,000 individuals have used CareersFinder. The feedback on CareersFinder has been positive. Based on surveys and engagement sessions, users appreciate the data-driven insights on jobs and training opportunities. Users also go on to explore a wider range of opportunities. On average, jobseekers applied to 50% more occupations after they used CareersFinder. In response to user feedback, we have enhanced CareersFinder with new features, such as allowing users to filter course recommendations based on skills for quicker identification of relevant courses. CareersFinder has been out of beta since March 2024. We will continue to take an iterative and agile approach to improving CareersFinder.”
“We do not track the number of Singapore Citizens or Permanent Residents who are working on digital nomad visas offered by other countries, as these digital nomad visa schemes are operated by foreign jurisdictions.”
“Earlier this year, organisations across Singapore simulated power, water or food supply disruptions as part of Total Defence Day activities. We will continue to find new ways to engage the public on our energy story as well as support business continuity planning. Let me now conclude. Like every nation on this energy transition journey, Singapore is grappling with the “energy trilemma” – how to realise an energy future that is secure, that is cost-competitive and sustainable. For our beloved country Singapore, the stakes are even higher. But, then again, the stakes for our little red dot have always been higher. Energy is an existential challenge that defines this generation. This Bill, Members of the House, takes us closer to securing our clean energy future by ensuring that our energy system is resilient, adaptable and ready for the transition and transformation ahead. This is not something that the Government can do alone. So, let us all work together. Let us all work together with businesses, to innovate commercially viable low-carbon solutions; and with our consumers to support our energy story, use energy prudently and even as all of us in Government seek to keep costs in check. We all know, we have heard so many Members of the House speak earlier on, about our Water Story. We all know our Water Story well and how Singapore turned scarcity into strength. Now, I call upon all of us: write the net zero chapter of our Singapore Energy Story. This is not just my story. It is your story, it is our children’s and grandchildren’s stories. Let us innovate, let us adapt and work towards our clean energy future together. Once again, I thank Members for your strong support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] 4.00 pm”
“An emergency is defined in the Bill as a situation where, an electricity shortage has occurred or where EMA assesses that a shortage is likely or if no measures are taken, the secure operation of our power transmission system will be threatened. For example, a severe fuel shortage could trigger such an emergency. Mr Mark Lee and Mr Neil Parekh asked for timely communication with companies about the initiation, duration and cessation of these measures. EMA will strive to notify affected parties through various channels before implementing power rationing, so that they have time to safely reduce or power down operations. However, our priority during an emergency would be to implement power rationing expeditiously to ensure system stability. The duration may not be known upfront, as it will depend on the nature of the emergency. But EMA will lift power rationing once it is no longer required. Mr Don Wee also asked how EMA will ensure that rationing measures are proportionate and do not unduly disrupt economic activities. MTI and EMA intend to establish a prioritisation framework, outlining clear guidelines for EMA’s intended order of load reductions. We have started preliminary consultations with some stakeholders on this and further consultations will follow. The intent of the prioritisation framework is to minimise the impact of power rationing on society. As I mentioned earlier, we will give priority to services that are critical to Singapore’s security, economic and social needs, such as medical and telecommunications services. We will also give priority for residents to have access to power for daily needs. We appreciate Ms Carrie Tan and Mr Neil Parekh's suggestion to run power rationing simulations.”
“In fact, EMA is working with gencos to develop a mechanism that incentivises them to refer competitively-priced gas supplies to the Gasco for evaluation and potential incorporation into its portfolio. Lastly, Members raised concerns on power rationing. Singaporeans and businesses are understandably concerned about the prospect of power rationing, even though most recognise the need for doing so during emergencies. This is understandable, since electricity is crucial for our daily routines and for the economy. I want to reassure Members that power rationing will only be as a last resort. We have existing measures to mitigate the impact of gas supply disruptions. Our LNG terminal can support our natural gas demand even if piped natural gas is disrupted. We also maintain a SLF. We have sufficient generation capacity, including a 27% reserve margin which provides for planned and unplanned outages. These measures, combined with voluntary power conservation, can meet all our demand in most potential disruption scenarios. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. Singapore must prepare for worst-case scenarios. The disruptions to the Nord Stream gas pipelines connecting Russia and Europe in September 2022, highlight the vulnerability of energy infrastructure to geopolitical tensions and how quickly energy supplies can be disrupted. These amendments for power rationing are, therefore, necessary for the worst-case scenario as a matter of national security. Mr Don Wee, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Neil Parekh asked what constitutes an emergency that justifies power rationing.”
“Centralisation and scale therefore give the Gasco room to negotiate for more favourable gas contracting terms, as well as to explore co-procurement with other major gas procurement entities, such as JERA of Japan and KOGAS of Korea. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked who the Gasco will be and how it will be run. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how gas prices for gencos will be determined. We expect to set up the Gasco as a fully Government-owned company by the end of this financial year. The Gasco’s primary objective is to procure and supply gas to meet Singapore’s power generation needs, not to maximise profits. The Gasco will be staffed by professionals who will take a long-term, systems-view to guide the gas procurement. It will also align its gas portfolio to national needs, accounting for our electricity demand growth and decarbonisation plans. The Gasco will price gas on a cost-plus basis, with gencos charged for the gas they purchase, plus a regulated fee to cover the Gasco’s operating costs. To Mr Liang Eng Hwa's question, this regulated fee will be approved and transparently published by EMA. EMA will regulate the Gasco to ensure that the gas procurement framework improves the security and the resilience of Singapore’s natural gas supply to the power sector, while keeping prices competitive. This will be a delicate balance and it will require the Gasco to be structured, to be resourced, incentivised and assessed accordingly. I hope this addresses Ms Jessica Tan’s question. We appreciate Mr Saktiandi’s suggestion to give gencos the flexibility to source for gas supplies.”
“While gencos are well-contracted for the immediate future, EMA will impose a standardised minimum gas contracting level under this framework, to ensure they continue to contract sufficient fuel from the Gasco. Second, the Gasco will support supply diversification. Our gencos, currently, import most of our gas from neighbouring countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia. With the Gasco, we will seek to broaden our sources of supply. To Mr Saktiandi’s question, instead of capping the amount from any single source, we seek to have a well-diversified gas portfolio. This diversity in terms of sources and contract length increases our protection against supply chain disruptions, and mitigates the risks of over-centralisation and a single point of failure, something which Mr Don Wee spoke about. Third, the Gasco allows us to enter into long-term contracts that provide more stable prices and certainty of supply. Our current market-based approach does not sufficiently reward gencos that commit to long-term contracts. For example, let us say Genco A signs a 20-year contract for gas. If gas prices come down, other gencos can undercut Genco A by using cheaper gas. Genco A will be at risk of making large losses. So, you can appreciate why our gencos are reluctant to enter into such long-term contracts. Moving forward, because our gencos can only buy gas from the Gasco and will be required to buy sufficient amounts of gas, this reduces the risks of any genco being undercut by other gencos as a result of long-term contracts. Singapore’s power sector currently needs around six to seven million tonnes of natural gas annually, but with six main gencos each contracting, on the average, for only one million tonne, they do not have economies of scale.”
“No particular incident sparked concern about repurposing key energy assets but we have to plan for such a possibility, especially due to Singapore’s land constraints. Next, Members asked about the need to centralise gas procurement under a central gas entity, which we will call Gasco for now. During the 2021 and 2022 global energy crisis, governments struggled to secure fuel supplies and manage price spikes. Beyond crisis measures, EMA subsequently strengthened our market structure by centralising the process for new generation investments, enhancing regulatory protections for consumers and implementing a Temporary Price Cap to curb wholesale market volatility. The Gasco builds on these efforts. Allow me to reiterate what we seek to accomplish by establishing the Gasco. First, the Gasco enhances our gas supply security. Our current market-based gas procurement system does not provide sufficient assurance of adequate gas supply to meet our needs at the national level, especially during volatile market conditions. During the energy crisis, gencos were unwilling to contract more gas because of the highly volatile prices. We were, therefore, at risk of being short of gas. In October 2021, when a whole confluence of factors caused the prices of natural gas to spike, we quickly set up a SLF. Members of the House, that proved prescient, especially when the Russian-Ukraine war broke out in February 2022 and it threw the global gas market into turmoil. To Mr Louis Ng’s question, around 75% of Singapore’s gas consumption is by the power sector and will be procured by the Gasco in the steady state.”
“If access is deemed critical to system needs and no agreement is reached, EMA will issue a directive for the shared access and give both parties a 30-day period to agree. This is to prevent prolonged negotiations. If agreement is still not reached, an Appeal Panel will independently determine the terms on a case-by-case basis, considering industry practices, prevailing market conditions, the nature of the infrastructure and case-specific circumstances. The Minister will appoint Members with relevant expertise to the Appeal Panel. As far as possible, the Minister will appoint Members who are accepted by both parties to the shared access agreement. To Mr Louis Ng's query, the shared access agreements entered into by both parties are legally binding contracts. These should include provisions for compensation in case of losses that are mutually agreed to by both parties, or determined by an Appeal Panel. Mr Don Wee asked if EMA's powers to approve the repurposing of electricity and gas assets might limit companies' agility in responding to market changes. EMA will only reject requests if repurposing undermines energy security and reliability. EMA will strike a balance between the commercial needs for the potential repurposing, while ensuring that energy security and system reliability in land-scarce Singapore will not be compromised. Specific approvals timelines are not set in legislation, due to the different circumstances for each case. Companies should engage EMA early, on any potential repurposing, and EMA will assess the cases promptly. To Mr Saktiandi’s questions, the approval obligation for repurposing of key electricity and gas assets applies to relevant facilities and installations which are specified in legislation.”
“Mr Yip raised concerns about whether expanding EMA's powers could distort competition or create an uneven playing field. Allow me to explain why these powers are necessary and what safeguards are in place. To manage the uncertainties of the energy transition, we must empower EMA to plan for a net-zero energy future. Each energy source has specific requirements and limitations. Our amendments to facilitate shared access to critical energy infrastructure and introduce approval obligations for repurposing key electricity and gas assets will enable EMA to optimise the use of infrastructure in land-scarce Singapore. EMA's powers will be exercised sensitively and carefully. First, EMA will consult relevant stakeholders to understand their considerations before exercising its powers. Second, specific criteria that must be met before EMA can exercise those powers. Third, parties can appeal EMA's decisions to the Minister of Trade and Industry. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Don Wee asked how EMA's powers to facilitate shared access to critical energy infrastructure will be exercised. Shared access allows licensees to access or connect to critical energy infrastructure owned by others to carry out their functions. For example, electricity importers may require access to electricity infrastructure owned by others to bring imported electricity into our domestic grid. And yes, as Mr Mark Lee has asked, Battery Energy Storage Systems are also included as critical energy infrastructure. Infrastructure owners and licensees should first seek to reach mutual agreement on the terms of shared access, including fair compensation. EMA will facilitate these discussions.”
“Second, qualifying projects will undergo the same stringent evaluation and approval processes as any other Government infrastructure project, involving a careful evaluation of technological and commercial risks and the eventual costs of electricity generated through such low-carbon sources. Third, the Government will employ competitive processes where possible, such as tenders and price discovery mechanisms, to ensure that energy transition projects are value-for-money. Fourth, we will establish milestones to ensure that project timelines remain on track and that we have the flexibility to reduce abortive costs if circumstances change. Fifth, top-ups to the fund, balances and annual outlays will be included in EMA's financial statements, which are presented to Parliament annually. This Bill therefore reflects our careful and calibrated approach towards managing the costs of the energy transition, while supporting their investments needed to making it a reality. The Government will continue to plan and build infrastructure to meet energy needs and save up for these investments through the FEF to reduce the burden on future generations. Mr Yip Hon Weng pointed out the risks and costs of new low-carbon technologies. The FEF will enable us to moderate the steep costs that arise from investing in nascent technologies that are strategic for Singapore's needs. These are costs that consumers would otherwise have to bear. We will maintain fiscal sustainability by avoiding blanket subsidies, while continuing to help households manage electricity costs in a targeted and responsible manner. Let me now address Members' comments on shared access to critical energy infrastructure, on the repurposing of assets and centralised gas procurement.”
“In Singapore, electricity prices are not subsidised. This is to encourage efficient electricity use and prevent wastage. Subsidising electricity is not sustainable in the long run. Electricity prices should continue to reflect the cost of producing and supplying electricity. The FEF is not meant to fund such costs, but rather, it is meant to catalyse and seed support in strategic infrastructural investments for a low-carbon future. Mr Liang also asked if the fund could support nuclear energy projects. It is too early to say, because no decision has been made to deploy nuclear energy in Singapore. Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Neil Parekh asked if we have identified potential projects that are aligned with our larger energy masterplan. Potential projects include undersea cables to import low-carbon electricity as well as hydrogen terminals and pipelines, if we decide to adopt and scale up the use of hydrogen. The FEF complements, but it does not replace, existing funding initiatives for energy efficiency and research and development. These are worthwhile areas that the Government is already supporting. The FEF's mandate, and I want to reiterate, is to catalyse the deployment of low-carbon energy infrastructure, including some which would otherwise have taken a very long time to commission. So, I hope that this addresses Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms He Ting Ru's questions. I would also like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Carrie Tan that there will be strict oversight over the fund's use. First, we will ring-fence the use of funds to infrastructure development needed to decarbonise the power sector.”
“Where possible, EMA will implement such measures gradually, to allow time for adjustment. Mr Louis Ng asked about the operational flexibility EMA has in imposing cost recovery rates. The provisions allow EMA to recover costs based on "reasonable estimates" of costs payable, in addition to costs that have been paid. This is so that EMA can smoothen out the costs collected over time. EMA will seek to be as measured, sensitive and practical as it can, in its cost recovery measures, so as to minimise the likelihood and the magnitude of over- or under-collection. Mr Speaker, let me move on from costs to investments. Many Members have highlighted the importance of the FEF. And I have explained earlier how the fund would be used. Ms He Ting Ru asked about how we would measure the success of the fund. Ultimately, the fund's success is determined by whether we can achieve the energy transition in a cost effective manner while ensuring energy security. Ms He also noted that the fund can be used on energy security measures and asked whether that included fossil fuel plants. Members of the House, even as we decarbonise, we have to ensure that Singapore's energy security is not compromised. Therefore, we should be prepared to consider all options to support a secure and sustainable energy transition. This is also how we mitigate various risks from renewable electricity imports. Mr Louis Ng asked how the $5 billion amount was decided and how long it would last. The energy transition will be costly and is expected to cost far more than the $5 billion. This is precisely why we need to start setting aside monies for it, as and when we are able to. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if the FEF can fund EMA's initiatives instead of recovering costs from consumers.”
“We will also continue helping our businesses improve energy efficiency and in turn, lower their energy costs. And in doing so, we will continue to pay special attention to supporting SMEs, which is something that Mr Neil Parekh highlighted. But as Ms Tan and Ms He said, it is not just about energy efficiency, it is also about energy conservation, it is about using less. And I hope that we can make this a shared goal among all of us, Singaporeans. Members including Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Don Wee, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Mr Louis Ng have asked whether the new initiatives for energy security, market development and decarbonisation services will raise business costs, as well as affect the lower-income. Let me assure Members of this House that we closely monitor such costs and we have safeguards to ensure cost recovery measures are justified. First, the Minister for Trade and Industry must approve cost recovery rates. To Ms Jessica Tan's query on what will trigger this decision, new initiatives related to energy security, market development and decarbonisation will only be introduced if necessary for the power system. We will seek to be targeted in the implementation of these initiatives. For example, as some Members suggested, entities that benefit more from an initiative could pay a higher rate so that costs are allocated fairly. Second, a Cost Recovery Advisory Committee of non-Government representatives will provide the Minister with independent advice on EMA's proposed rates. As Mr Mark Lee suggested, the committee could include Members who can advise on the impact of EMA's proposed rates on businesses. Third, EMA will consult stakeholders and give reasonable notice before introducing cost recovery measures.”
“For example, while solar photovoltaics panel costs have fallen by 82% between 2010 and 2022, the costs of high-voltage subsea cables, or HVDC cables, that are needed to transmit electricity over long distances have risen significantly, with factories now facing production constraints. The Government has always been and will always be mindful of the impact of electricity prices on Singaporeans and on businesses. Many Members have encouraged the Government to continue supporting our lower- and middle-income households on utilities to ensure that no group is left behind in this energy transition. That is what we have been doing. For example, eligible households will receive 2.5 times the amount of regular U-Save, or up to $950, in this financial year. More than 950,000 Singaporean Housing and Development Board (HDB) households are expected to benefit from this. All HDB households are also eligible for $300 in vouchers through the Climate Friendly Households Programme to lower the upfront cost of purchasing energy-efficient appliances and in turn, allow households to achieve savings on utility bills in the long run. In addition to support for utilities expenses, the Government provides cost of living support for all Singaporean households through the Assurance Package, which includes Community Development Council vouchers for all Singaporean households. The Government understands Singaporeans' cost of living concerns and will regularly review our support measures. Ms Tan and Ms He emphasised the need to manage demand, even as we decarbonise our energy supplies. I fully agree. Advanced electricity meters will be rolled out to all HDB households by 2026. This helps our consumers track and make more informed decisions about their energy consumption.”
“In addition, our critical services such as hospitals and airport have diesel generators on standby in case there are disruptions to power supplies. Members have asked how our decarbonisation plans will affect the cost of electricity. We have a liberalised energy market. Our approach is to harness market forces and foster competition to drive efficiency. For example, power generation companies or gencos are incentivised to invest in more efficient gas turbines. This will bring down costs and thus lower electricity prices through the competitive bidding process in our wholesale market. Nonetheless, the cost of fuel accounts for the majority of our gencos' costs and is hence the fundamental driver of electricity prices today. Mr Saktiandi also asked about the trajectory of electricity prices in the near and medium term. This depends on which direction fuel prices move as well as on technological developments. In the near term, natural gas will remain the primary source of energy for power generation. Hence, electricity tariffs will continue to be driven by gas prices, which generally track global oil prices. Geopolitical uncertainties arising from the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Middle Eastern conflicts continue to pose risks to gas markets. In the medium term, the share of low-carbon energy sources in our energy mix will grow. Our electricity prices will increasingly depend on the costs of these low-carbon energy sources, including those we import from regional countries. It is thus difficult to predict the trajectory of these costs.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their strong support for the Energy Transition Measures and Other Amendments Bill. Their speeches centred around three key issues: first, electricity costs and how we will invest in our energy future; second, safeguards to EMA's powers; and third, the implementation approach for power rationing. Before addressing these questions, let me reiterate the purpose of this Bill. As Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Mark Lee and Ms Carrie Tan have noted, we need to continually review our legislation and our market structures to ensure they keep up with the changing landscape. This Bill is the result of our most recent round of reviews. To Ms He Ting Ru's question, MTI and EMA work on efforts to decarbonise our energy mix and transition our power sector to net-zero. EMA will also manage the FEF. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how our energy mix will change by 2050. I updated Members earlier on this. Our energy mix in 2050 and beyond will depend on a combination of commercial, technological and geopolitical developments. Mr Yip suggested focusing hydrogen research efforts on domestic production of hydrogen. Producing hydrogen domestically is unlikely to be feasible or commercially viable for now, given the need for significant amounts of domestic renewable energy resources, which we do not have. Our focus is therefore on technologies to transport and to use hydrogen or its carriers safely and cost-effectively. As for Mr Yip's query on phasing out diesel, we may still need fuels like diesel during an emergency. Our natural gas power plants can switch to using diesel if natural gas supply is disrupted. I think all of you know the chemistry. Diesel can be stockpiled more easily, it is denser and is more cost effective than natural gas.”
“I want to reiterate that this is not an unemployment insurance scheme. So, it is very different from what the WP has suggested. We have undergone numerous dialogues. We have engaged businesses. We have engaged employers. We have also taken feedback from our workers. The feedback that we have obtained is that there are cost pressures that are experienced by businesses and workers wanting to be able to have more take-home earnings. So, when we looked at the entire landscape and we also studied other countries' experiences, for a start, we felt that this is the most nuanced way forward – with the Government taking the burden of providing these jobseekers, who actively want to look for jobs, with the assistance to tide them over this particular period. The way the scheme has been sized up, 60% of the involuntarily unemployed workers will benefit. Today, about close to 60% of workers get back into a job within six months of being involuntarily unemployed. With the scheme, we believe that an even higher proportion of workers will be able to benefit and get back into a good job faster. How is this going to be funded? It will be funded through the Government operating budget. Depending on how the scheme continues to evolve, we will continue to review the parameters to make sure that it supports and it is sensitive to the needs of residents who are involuntarily unemployed.”
“With regard to the Member's second point about how we ensure that employers do not then roll back or dial back on the retrenchment benefit, we have to work very closely with the Labour Movement and with our tripartite partners to make sure that this is not against the spirit of wanting to help our workers to bounce back. The good momentum that we have achieved thus far, in ensuring that there is a fair treatment for all workers, will continue to be honoured and followed through. I hope that addresses the Member's question.”
“I thank Mr Patrick Tay for the supplementary question. We acknowledge many Members in the House for putting up the scheme. I was looking back at all the notes, I think it went back to as early as 2014, about a decade ago. So, thank you to many of our labour MPs and Members of this House, some of whom are not here. There was a Mr Azmoon Ahmad, from before, who also proposed the scheme. And I want to thank them for proposing this. Indeed, when we sized up the scheme, we wanted to try to reach out to the lower- and middle-income group. We acknowledged the fact that the scheme does not cover everyone. But for starters, when we sized this to go up to just slightly above median, that means up to the $5,000 mark, it would reach and it would benefit about six in 10 workers who are involuntarily unemployed. We will continue to refine the scheme. Our starting point is to try to support the lower- and middle-income workers, who may face more financial pressures. While we acknowledge that some PMETs at the higher level could also face pressures as well, given their runway, given the buffer that they have, for a start, I think that they have a slightly better buffer compared to this group of lower- and middle-income workers. So, we want to make sure that the scheme gets off to a good footing. This will already cost us about $200 million a year to continue to run this. Like I said, we will continue to review it and to see how we can be even more sensitive to the needs of more workers.”
“I thank Mr Yip Hon Weng for his supplementary question. As I have alluded to, the Jobseeker Support scheme is not a social assistance scheme. It is meant to nudge our residents towards a positive behaviour of ensuring that they continue not to be disenfranchised, but to actively seek out a job. And this sits on top of other social assistance schemes that are administered by MSF and a host of other agencies that the Government has. On top of that, for residents who are mature workers aged 40 and above, who are already on the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme, this sits on top of it. Perhaps I can use this as an illustration. For a mature worker who is now undergoing the SkillsFuture Level-Up course, the training allowance cap is up to $3,000 per month. If he is drawing a salary of $5,000 and he is on this SkillsFuture Level-Up course, he draws an allowance of $2,500 a month. If he gets involuntarily unemployed, the Jobseeker Support scheme will be eligible for him. So, over that six-month horizon, he could, on top of getting up to $6,000 from the Jobseeker Support scheme, he could add on another $2,500 times six months, which is about $15,000 of the SkillsFuture Level-Up training allowance. And that comes up to an amount of up to, potentially, $21,000 over the six-month period. I wanted to give that archetype to illustrate to Mr Yip the potential amounts that an actively engaged mature jobseeker who is also upgrading himself will be able to access via these grants from the Government.”
“I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her supplementary questions. For her first point on PRs receiving similar treatment and quantum of benefits as SCs, I hope that the Member appreciates the fact that this is a Jobseeker Support scheme. It is to incentivise the jobseeker to actively go for interviews, update their resumes and go for courses to upgrade themselves to get employed back into the workforce. So, in such circumstance, PRs can receive the same treatment and quantum of benefits because such schemes, if we support them, it will enable them to stay employable and continue to contribute to Singapore economically. And it also encourages the individuals to take responsibility for their own retirement adequacy and their own income security and, with them gainfully employed, ultimately, we hope that they will also not burden the rest of us as a society. For the three-year window, this is to nudge and encourage our jobseekers to use this Jobseeker Support scheme to find better fitting jobs, and not rush into an ill-fitting job so as to get retrenched, displaced or unemployed within a short period of time. But having said that, exactly to Ms Poa's point, the pace of disruptions and change, indeed, they are both accelerating. For those who are involuntarily unemployed as a result of circumstances beyond their control, we are prepared to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I hope that addresses the Member's concerns.”
“I thank Mr Henry Kwek for his supplementary questions. I want to reassure the Member that we will consider individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria on a case-by-case basis. The first part on eligibility checks, as I have shared earlier on, based on whatever Government data we have, will be automatic. But for those who want to appeal, we will consider them on a case-by-case basis.”
“So, we have sized it for the lower- to middle-income worker earning up to $5,000 per month before becoming involuntarily unemployed. So, this is sized at just above the median monthly income of resident workers, as this is the group that is more likely to face some financial pressure. We also used the annual value of residential property as a proxy to determine households' wealth because this is, again, similar to other Government support schemes that provide higher benefits to individuals or households with lower means. This threshold of $25,000 for the Jobseeker Support scheme is aligned with other schemes, such as the GST Voucher scheme, and it covers about 75% of residential properties, including all HDB flats. And as I have said, for the six-month duration of payouts, we think it provides sufficient assurance for jobseekers to find good fitting jobs and at the same time, it encourages them to re-enter the workforce in a timely manner. So, this is the first step. I want to reiterate that we will regularly review the scheme to ensure that we provide the necessary and needed support for the involuntarily unemployed residents.”
“I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his two supplementary questions. Why is the scheme being introduced now? We started looking at it a number of years ago and, as a result of our Forward Singapore conversations, we have also sought feedback from many of our fellow Singaporeans on the design of the scheme. We have also learnt from many other countries, in terms of their own unemployment benefits for their respective citizens. And we eventually sized up the Jobseeker Support scheme, which is really about also renewing and refreshing the social compact. If we look ahead, the pace of change and disruptions will only accelerate. We may see a higher incidence of job displacements due to factors beyond an individual's control and even as they build their career health. So, because of the multiple dialogues we have had, we have heard calls from Singaporeans for greater assurance in dealing with involuntary job loss. So, the reset, as I have mentioned, is now. The scheme marks a paradigm shift for the Government. We have taken the time to study the scheme carefully to ensure that we avoid the pitfalls seen in unemployment insurance schemes overseas where it can lull individuals into a false sense of security by making it more attractive for them to stay unemployed. We took in the different feedback from our tripartite partners, businesses and the public in the eventual design of the scheme. And having said that, our assurance is that we will continue to review the parameters of the scheme. In our sizing of this scheme itself, we have targeted the scheme at the lower- to middle-income worker earning up to $5,000 per month. Our median monthly wage is about $4,500-plus.”
“While the Jobseeker Support scheme is not designed as a form of social assistance for households with greater financial needs, beneficiaries are still entitled to receive support from the Government’s social assistance schemes where eligible, such as ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance and the GST Voucher scheme. Similarly to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's question, beneficiaries of the Jobseeker Support scheme can concurrently qualify for the SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme that supports mid-career individuals to pursue substantive upskilling and reskilling, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria for all of these respective schemes. So, we encourage jobseekers to actively explore ways to upskill, to reskill themselves to bounce back into better jobs. To conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Jobseeker Support scheme marks a paradigm shift for the Government and it reflects our commitment that we will always help and provide resources for those who step up and want to do more for themselves. The Prime Minister had said that a major reset is needed as we chart Singapore's way forward. This is a reset in the Government's policies and, just as importantly, a reset of Singaporeans' views and attitudes. We will regularly review the scheme to ensure that we provide necessary support to the involuntarily unemployed.”
“I want to stress that Singaporeans will always be at the heart of Government policies, even while we welcome those who can commit and contribute to Singapore. Our citizens receive the most support and benefit in several areas, including housing, healthcare, education and parenthood. But PRs have expressed their commitment to Singapore and contribute to our strengths as a society and economy. So, likewise, we should also support our PRs who fall onto hard times to get into good jobs so that they can support themselves and contribute to our economy. I will now move on to questions about the payouts. The payout quantum of up to $6,000 over six months is provided to eligible applicants who have demonstrated active job search efforts. Ms Hazel Poa asked why the payments are stepped down with time. We have designed the payout schedule to provide a higher payout in the earlier months to provide greater upfront assurance to jobseekers. These payouts are gradually reduced from the second month onwards to incentivise jobseekers to start work earlier if they find and land on a good-fitting job. We do not want them to delay their return into the workforce as it will diminish their employability. In addition, as the scheme is designed to encourage individuals to find a job with good fit and be retained in the job, those who have received payouts will not be able to make another application within three years of their last payout. I must emphasise that the total payout of up to $6,000 should not be viewed in isolation. It actually complements the Government’s broader ecosystem of support. Mr Henry Kwek had asked about whether beneficiaries of the scheme can also benefit from other financial assistance schemes. The answer is yes.”
“I will next answer questions on who will qualify for the Jobseeker Support scheme. To Ms Hazel Poa’s question, we have targeted the scheme at the lower- to-middle-income worker earning up to $5,000 per month before becoming involuntarily unemployed. This is slightly above the median monthly income of resident workers and it is the group that is more likely to face some financial pressures. With this income criterion, more than six in 10 residents who are involuntarily unemployed can benefit from the scheme. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how the condition “residing in a property with an annual value of $25,000” was determined. Annual value is used as a proxy to determine households’ wealth for various Government support schemes that provide higher benefits to individuals or households with lower means. The threshold of $25,000 for the Jobseeker Support scheme is aligned with other schemes, such as the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher scheme. This covers about 75% of residential properties, including all Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how applicants’ eligibility will be assessed. All Jobseeker Support applications will be assessed via a system that comprises automated checks using available Government data and further verification checks done by a dedicated Workforce Singapore (WSG) team. For individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria, appeals will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Ms Hazel Poa also asked why Permanent Residents (PRs) are eligible for the scheme alongside Singapore Citizens (SCs). This is no different from other employment facilitation programmes. For example, SCs and PRs receive the same support under WSG programmes, such as career matching services and Career Conversion Programmes.”
“Members have filed these Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relating to the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme. I will respond to these five questions together so that I can give and provide a more holistic reply. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked about the bases and the considerations in the design of the scheme. The Prime Minister and I have shared the Government’s considerations in designing the Jobseeker Support scheme. Let me reiterate the key points. First, we wanted to create a better alternative to unemployment insurance. We have seen from other countries how unemployment insurance can make it more attractive for individuals to stay unemployed. We have also heard feedback from employers about rising business costs and we do not want employers to offset the costs of an insurance scheme by cutting wages or by stopping the practice of retrenchment benefit. That is why we searched for a better alternative to minimise the negative outcomes that we have seen elsewhere. Our objective is to support involuntarily unemployed individuals to rebound into jobs that better match and fit their skills and experience, instead of rushing into ill-fitting jobs due to financial pressures. But at the same time, from the Forward Singapore exercise, we have heard Singaporeans share that personal responsibility should remain a cornerstone in our social compact. Hence, the scheme should minimise the potential moral hazard by supporting jobseekers to regain employment and not continued unemployment. Jobseekers will need to play their part, to take responsibility for their actions and make an effort to bounce back into work. On the Government’s part, we will continue to strongly support jobseekers through employment facilitation and training programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address oral Question Nos 9 and 10 for today, 9 September. In addition, I will address three oral questions scheduled for the Sitting tomorrow, 10 September 2024.”
“Complaints about alleged fraud in relation to Central Provident Fund (CPF) nominations are rare. On average in the past five years, there are fewer than 10 such complaints per year. No cases of fraud were established following CPF Board’s investigations. However, a minority of nominations were voided as our investigations found that they were not made in accordance with the instructions specified in the nomination form and by the Board. CPF Board also conducts pro-active verification checks even where there are no complaints. This is part of CPF Board’s suite of safeguards under the CPF nomination scheme.”
“When assessing domestic work permit applications, the Ministry of Manpower will consider relevant security antecedents and adverse records, to minimise the incidence of undesirable persons being allowed to work in Singapore. As part of the work permit conditions, employers are required to bear the cost of bringing in as well as repatriating their migrant domestic workers (MDWs). Employers are informed and are reminded of these obligations before their MDWs enter Singapore. This ensures that MDWs are not left stranded in Singapore without the means to return home upon termination of their employment. If the employment of an MDW is terminated within six months, the employment agency is required to offer a refund of at least 50% of the placement fees paid by the employer.”
“Central Provident Fund (CPF) LIFE premium will continue to earn the prevailing CPF interest rates. The interest earned is factored into members’ monthly payouts even after payouts have commenced. CPF LIFE payouts are determined by independent actuarial consultants and are dependent on the actual Retirement Account savings used to join CPF LIFE instead of the Basic, Full or Enhanced Retirement sums. Payouts are also dependent on other factors, such as gender, age, CPF interest rates and mortality rates. The assumptions used in deriving payouts do not differ according to choice of CPF LIFE plans.”
“In the last three years, about 1.3% of Home Protection Scheme (HPS) applications were rejected due to serious pre-existing medical conditions. The top reasons for such rejection is due to the applicant having multiple pre-existing medical conditions or cancer. There is no predefined list of pre-existing medical conditions that would cause an applicant to be rejected. In line with general industry practice, eligibility for HPS is assessed based on the overall severity, prognosis and control of the medical condition as well as the individual’s health risk profile. As I have shared during the Ministry of Manpower's Committee of Supply 2024 debate, the Government is reviewing ways to expand the coverage of HPS, taking into consideration the affordability of premiums across all HPS policyholders and the financial viability of the scheme. We will provide further details once the review has been completed.”
“The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and the Institute for Human Resource Professionals, as well as the Singapore National Employers Federation and the National Trades Union Congress have developed a suite of resources, including e-learning modules, FWA policy templates, case studies and sector-specific guides. TAFEP also conducts fortnightly briefing sessions on the guidelines. Employers can tap on grants, such as the Productivity Solutions Grant, to offset the costs of adopting FWAs, such as for consultancy services to redesign jobs or installing IT systems like shift-scheduling systems, to support their implementation of FWAs. With these efforts, we are on track to implement the Guidelines from 1 December this year.”
“In April this year, the Tripartite Partners launched the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA) Requests. The guidelines require employers to consider formal FWA requests by their employees and decide whether the requests could be supported based on business grounds. Some employers initially had the wrong impression that FWAs meant work from home and that they would have to approve all FWA requests by their employees. The Tripartite Partners have assured employers that they will have the prerogative to grant or reject requests, as FWAs must make sense for businesses to be sustainable. We have also made it clear that FWAs go beyond telecommuting and include flexi-hours and flexi-load. Another key concern among both employers and employees is the impact of the guidelines on workplace culture. Some employers are worried that their employees might use FWAs irresponsibly which might have adverse impacts on team productivity and business clients. At the same time, some employees are concerned that their performance could be unfairly appraised if they use FWAs. These issues underscore the importance of clear communication and setting the right expectations at the workplace. Employers should communicate upfront their expectations on how employees should use FWAs responsibly. Employers should also appraise their employees’ performance based on actual work delivered. We will continue to raise awareness and capability among employers on how to implement FWAs at their workplaces.”
“As of June 2024, 78% of the foreign worker dormitories are licensed under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act. The remaining 22% are smaller dormitories with six or fewer beds. They make up less than 1% of the total foreign worker dormitory capacity.”
“Currently, up to nine in 10 of full-time lower-wage workers1 benefit from the Progressive Wage Model (PWM)2, Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) and the Progressive Wage Mark accreditation scheme. In 2023, the nominal gross monthly income from employment (excluding employer CPF) of full-time employed residents at the tenth percentile was $1,800, a cumulative increase of 50% from $1,200 in 2013.3 Among full-time resident employees earning at or below $1,800 (that is, B10 workers), about five in 10 are covered by PWM. Another three in 10 are covered by LQS.4 From July 2024, the LQS was raised from $1,400 to $1,600. This means that B10 workers, who were previously earning below $1,600, would have seen their wages increase at least to $1,600. In a tight labour market, workers who are not directly covered by PWM or LQS should also see increases in their wages as firms compete for manpower. In addition to PWM and LQS, the Government provides lower-income workers with additional support through the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme. Eligible workers aged 30 years and older can receive WIS payments of up to $4,200 per year. As announced at Budget this year, the maximum WIS payment will be increased to $4,900 per year from 2025.”
“The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) approves appeals from employers to continue hiring their Work Permit holders beyond age 60 based on considerations, such as the workers' health, experience and skills. From 2019 to 2023, MOM approved an average of 610 appeals a year for migrant workers and 350 appeals a year for migrant domestic workers.”
“Today, the majority of members with pre-existing health conditions who are covered under the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) do not have exclusions imposed. In the last three years, about 1.8% of HPS applications granted coverage had exclusions imposed due to pre-existing health conditions. In line with general industry practice, the assessment of a member's eligibility for HPS coverage, including whether an exclusion is to be imposed, is conducted based on the overall severity, prognosis and control of the medical condition as well as the individual's health risk profile. The exclusions imposed on these members are intended to bring their likelihood of a claim to a level that is comparable to healthy members. As such, standard premiums are applied to them.”
“Employers can do so online and will receive the outcomes of their appeal within 15 working days after registering for the Open Door Programme and submitting the completed appeal documents to SG Enable. SG Enable will also work with these employers to provide the necessary support to assist their employees.”
“In 2024, across all Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors and occupations, about 1,200 employers hire about 3,500 employees with disabilities1. By default, employers should fulfill the PWM wage and training requirements for their employees with disabilities, as long as they are able to meet the job requirements. Some jobs may need to be redesigned for employees with disabilities to be able to perform them more effectively. Employers who need support to do so can approach SG Enable and register for the Open Door Programme. The Open Door Programme helps employers hire, train and integrate their employees with disabilities. Employers will be assisted by dedicated consultants and various grants, such as the Job Redesign Grant and the Training Grant. They can also tap on SG Enable’s recruitment programmes to hire persons with disabilities. In addition, employers currently receive a wage subsidy under the Enabling Employment Credit of up to 20% for each eligible employee with disabilities earning below $4,000 a month. Employers who hire eligible persons with disabilities who have not been working for at least six months will receive an additional time-limited wage subsidy of up to 20%. Notwithstanding these efforts, we recognise that some employers may need to adjust the roles of their employees with disabilities to better match their abilities. Their wages may also need to be calibrated to reflect their modified responsibilities. Employers can appeal to SG Enable to waive the PWM wage or training requirements for these employees. To date, the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Ministry of Manpower have not received feedback from employers with regard to seeking PWM exemptions for their employees with disabilities. The appeal process is made simple.”
“Firstly, for immediate employment facilitation, the Taskforce for Responsible Retrenchment and Employment Facilitation, comprising Government and union representatives, reaches out to all affected retrenched workers via their employers to offer career matching services and information kits. Second, there are a variety of reskilling programmes, such as Workforce Singapore’s Career Conversion Programmes and the Mid-Career Pathways Programme, to help workers transition into new jobs. Finally, we will be introducing a support scheme to help involuntarily unemployed jobseekers to bounce back into employment. We are close to finalising the scheme parameters and more information will be announced later this year.”
“The re-entry rate six months after retrenchment for retrenched resident workers dipped slightly from 61.5% in the fourth quarter of 2023 to 59.4% in the first quarter of 2024. The decline in re-entry rate was driven by residents retrenched from Information and Communications, Financial and Insurance Services and Professional Services. These sectors saw relatively higher retrenchments in 2023 and slightly lower re-entry rates due to their exposure to global economic headwinds. Re-entry rates of residents retrenched in most other sectors remained similar. Among residents who have yet to find employment at the six-month mark, some might still be looking for a preferred role, are undergoing training or taking a break. Given that many of the retrenched workers from these sectors possess in-demand skills, we expect re-entry rates to improve over time. The re-entry rates of previous cohorts of retrenched workers usually rises to around 75% at the 12-month mark. In addition, the majority of such workers receive similar or higher salaries in their new jobs. The long-term unemployment rate, which is associated with structural mismatches in skills, is a better indicator of structural unemployment. This rate has remained low at 0.8% as of March 2024, within the range observed during non-recessionary periods. At the same time, overall labour demand has remained strong. Resident employment growth was positive in the first quarter of 2024 and job vacancies continue to outnumber jobseekers. The Government will continue to extend support to local workers who are retrenched.”
“There are, on average, around one report per month of migrant workers found resting along the roads. Large dormitories have designated areas within their compounds for resident workers to consume food and alcohol. Nine recreation centres were also built to provide additional venues for dormitory residents to socialise. These recreation centres are located near large migrant worker dormitories. Free shuttle services are provided to and from the dormitories. Together with non-government organisations and commercial partners, the Ministry of Manpower has plans to improve the variety and quality of the offerings at the recreation centres to make them more attractive for our migrant workforce.”
“The proportion of resident employees in contract work has not increased. In fact, it has declined for the third consecutive year to a low of 6.6% in 2023, as more residents took up permanent jobs amid a tight labour market. For contract employees who require more support to find another job, the Government provides support through our employment facilitation and reskilling programmes. These workers may approach Workforce Singapore (WSG) and the National Trades Union Congress's (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute for career matching services. WSG's Career Conversion Programmes also provide generous salary support to employers who hire and reskill jobseekers for new roles. In terms of retirement adequacy, every successive cohort, which includes contract workers, has seen a higher proportion of Central Provident Fund (CPF) members setting aside their Basic Retirement Sum at age 55. Singaporeans can be assured that they will be able to meet their basic retirement needs as long as they work and contribute consistently to CPF. For those who have less in retirement, we will continue to provide targeted support. Contract workers receive the same treatment as workers in permanent jobs, in terms of their access to housing grants, HDB housing loans and usage of CPF for housing. The Government remains committed to help Singaporeans from all walks of life own a home.”
“From 2021 to 2023, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received an average of 670 complaints per year against employers regarding non-issuance or late issuance of itemised pay slips. MOM will engage and guide these employers to start issuing itemised pay slips within one month. If employers fail to do so and complaints surface again, MOM will issue caution letters to the employers and can further impose an administrative penalty of up to $400 fine for each repeated infringement.”
“In 2022 and 2023, about 98% of professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) were offered re-employment. PMET data for the years prior to 2022 is not available, as the data was not broken down by PMET and non-PMET. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not collect PMET-specific data on the reasons why workers are not offered re-employment. Amongst all senior workers who were not offered re-employment in 2023, eight in 10 did not want to continue working. The rest were not offered re-employment either because there was a lack of suitable vacancies, the employees did not meet work performance requirements or they did not meet requirements on medical fitness. MOM monitors the re-employment rate of eligible seniors annually. The re-employment rate for eligible senior workers has remained consistently high since the introduction of the re-employment policy in 2012 and does not vary much year to year. Where relevant, we will consider highlighting noteworthy trends in our annual publications.”
“As investigations are ongoing, we are unable to provide further details at this time. Under the Workplace Safety and Health (Confined Spaces) Regulations, workplaces must implement safety measures to mitigate risks associated with working in confined spaces. These measures include gas tests conducted by a competent assessor to ensure that the atmosphere within the confined space is free from contaminants, effective ventilation of the space, adequate training of workers, the use of protective equipment, and an emergency rescue plan. Detailed guidance for employers and workers is provided in the Approved Code of Practice Singapore Standard 568 and the Workplace Safety and Health Council’s Technical Advisory on Working Safely in Confined Spaces.”