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 42 of 45.
“Paid sick leave is a basic protection under the Employment Act. MOM expects all employers to excuse their employees from work if they are certified unfit for work by their doctor. Employees should inform their employers promptly when they need to be on sick leave, so that the necessary covering work arrangements can be made. Employers should adopt fair and objective appraisal or performance management systems that take into consideration the employee’s overall ability, performance and contributions. The tripartite partners have consensus that using an employee’s consumption of paid sick leave as a key performance indicator for the whole year is inappropriate. Employees who are concerned about how sick leave is taken into account by their employer should approach the union for help. Employers who are unclear should also approach SNEF, NTUC or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for assistance. If employees or unions cannot satisfactorily resolve the matter with their management, they should approach MOM for further assistance.”
“Over 90% of migrant workers residing in dormitories are fully vaccinated, similar to that of the adult population in the general community. As we transit towards a COVID-19-resilient nation, we must not lift these restrictions too quickly and risk unwinding the gains we have so painstakingly made in the last one year. We are now also concerned, as with the general population, that high vaccination rates and earlier low infections from our testing and Safe Living Measures will not lead to complacency and a re-ignition of cases which would severely affect the workers’ physical as well as mental health. MOM’s strategy is to take a careful and calibrated approach to the easing of movement restrictions for migrant workers. We are very mindful of the well-being of migrant workers, but are also responsible for safeguarding their health. Both in the community and in the dormitories, the aim now is to slow the spread of infection so that restrictions can be eased without a sharp spike in infections. Let me explain the measures we have taken. First, we have substantially eased restrictions within the dormitories and have allowed a range of social activities subject to group size restrictions and safe management measures. Second, we will increase the frequency for workers to visit Recreation Centres (RCs). Concurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners to introduce programmes and new offerings to make RC visits more engaging. Third, we will pilot community visits with guided itinerary for vaccinated workers to places of interest. We will monitor and adjust the frequency and scope of these community visits.”
“Employers have been taking all reasonable steps to keep workplaces safe and minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission through implementing safe management measures. The Multi-Ministry Task Force has also announced on 6 September that we will ramp up testing at workplaces to detect and ringfence infections early to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission. A fully vaccinated workforce, together with a regular testing regime, ensures a safe workplace for everyone. There is currently no evidence to suggest that the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines cause harm to pregnant women or their foetuses. The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination has advised that pregnant women can be vaccinated. Pregnant women may discuss with their doctors if they have any concerns. Nonetheless, we fully understand that some pregnant employees may still prefer to defer vaccination till after delivery. The tripartite partners encourage employees to raise their concerns over workplace safety with their employers and work out mutually agreeable work arrangements. We also ask employers to be more accommodating to pregnant employees’ requests for alternative work arrangements where possible, including redeployment to a lower-risk setting or work from home. To-date there have been no complaints lodged from pregnant employees against their employers for ignoring workplace safety concerns. Queries from pregnant employees were, generally, resolved after our clarifications and advice. Pregnant employees should approach MOM if, after discussing their concerns with their employers, they still require assistance to reach a satisfactory outcome.”
“Under the Vaccinate or Regular Test (VoRT) regime, unvaccinated employees will need to undergo more frequent testing compared to vaccinated employees. This would help pick up possible infections so that they can be treated early and mitigate the risk of transmission to their colleagues and the public. As at 8 September 2021, about 90% of our workforce has already completed the full vaccination regime and we encourage medically eligible employees who are not vaccinated to do so as soon as possible. Under the VoRT regime, medically eligible but unvaccinated employees may be required by their employers to pay for any antigen rapid test that is in addition to that required for vaccinated employees, if any. Employers are encouraged to engage employees on the importance of being vaccinated and clarify the cost arrangements for test kits for those who are medically eligible but not vaccinated. In the event of a dispute, employers and employees are advised to approach MOM for advice and assistance. The Member may also refer to the Advisory on COVID-19 Vaccination at the Workplace, which was issued by the tripartite partners on 23 August for more details on how companies can implement the VoRT regime.”
“MOM calibrates the number of work pass holders entering from each country, based on MOH’s assessment of the COVID-19 situation in those countries, which is regularly updated. MOM does not differentiate based on the type of pass holder, because the exposure of an individual and thus the risk that they are incubating COVID-19 on arrival, is determined by the country of departure and not the type of work pass they hold. From January to August 2021, about 12,200 work pass holders entered Singapore each month. Over the same period, the total number of work pass holders actually declined by about 9,900. This is because the number of work pass holders leaving Singapore upon the cancellation or expiry of their work pass exceeded the number coming in. Among these work pass holders who entered Singapore, about 1% tested positive for COVID-19 upon arrival in Singapore or during Stay-Home notice. In total, only five of the work pass holders among the imported COVID-19 cases above required oxygen ventilators. None among them was warded in Intensive Care Units.”
“Third, we will pilot community visits with guided itinerary for vaccinated workers to places of interest. We will monitor and adjust the frequency and scope of these community visits.”
“We have also provided workers assurance and care regarding their protection from COVID-19 and healthcare even if they do get infected. This helps to provide the workers with relief from worry, fear and stress from the disease. Since August last year, migrant workers residing in dormitories have been able to work, visit the Recreation Centres (RCs) for leisure and supplies. Migrant workers are required to apply for an exit pass via their SGWorkPass App to visit the RCs. For essential errands, employers will submit a request to MOM for approval. These requirements are clearly spelt out to both migrant workers and employers. Dormitory operators are also required to conduct checks when migrant workers leave the dormitories. MOM conducts checks for compliance. As we transit towards a COVID-resilient nation, we must not lift these restrictions too quickly and risk unwinding the gains we have so painstakingly made in the last one year. We are also concerned that high vaccination rates and earlier low infections in the dormitories could result in complacency and a re-ignition of cases. MOM’s strategy is, therefore, to take a careful and calibrated approach to the easing of movement restrictions for migrant workers. We are very mindful of the well-being of migrant workers, but are also responsible for safeguarding their health. First, we have substantially eased restrictions within the dormitories and have allowed a range of social activities, subject to group size restrictions and Safe Management Measures. Second, we will also increase the frequency for workers to visit RCs. Concurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners to introduce programmes and new offerings to make RC visits more engaging.”
“Many Members have filed questions related to the easing of restrictions for migrant workers. I would like to take these questions together. Over the past few months, there have been several active clusters in the community and in the dormitories, such as North Coast Lodge, attributable to the more infectious Delta variant. Based on phylogenetics analysis, we understand that the SARS-CoV-2 strain at North Coast Lodge is similar to that of the cluster at Jurong Fishery Port, which has resulted in other clusters seen in the community. Most of the infections amongst fully vaccinated persons have been mild or asymptomatic. The evidence suggests that fully vaccinated individuals recover faster and are protected against serious disease. There continues to be strong evidence that vaccination is protective against severe illness. We are thus in a better position to manage outbreaks as dormitories are now more resilient in a few ways. First, over 90% of migrant workers residing in dormitories are fully vaccinated, similar to that of the adult population in the general community. Second, we have instituted a multi-layer strategy to quickly detect, isolate and contain the spread of COVID-19 within dormitories. This includes surveillance using wastewater testing, ensuring compliance to Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) and surveillance on workers with acute respiratory illness (ARI) symptoms. Third, we have implemented Safe Living Measures (SLM) and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) audits to ensure that preventive measures are well adhered to. These measures have effectively limited the risks of transmission and allowed us to quickly detect COVID-19 cases which are mostly mild and asymptomatic.”
“Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, in the interest of time, I thank you for acknowledging that the Government has been making these transfers and easing this process of redistribution, through our policy refinements and tweaking and our constant improvement in the entire situation.”
“I thank the Member for that clarification. I would just like to also refer Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to an article that was published I think in CNA in February 2020, that the household income inequality at the end of 2019 was at its lowest in almost 20 years. We did not start the FTAs in 1965. We started the FTAs at the turn of this millennium. And at the end of the period of the FTA signing, the Gini coefficient, after transfers, is lower. So, I think, just to put some perspective into what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is talking about.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to have a point of clarification from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. He was talking about the provisions within CECA, that he would like to look at CECA and refine it. So, perhaps, can I ask him to elaborate on what he means by refining, which aspects of CECA does he want to review and change? Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Just to be clear, I was saying that it was time to evaluate the agreement. And my call explicitly was for additional information for us to actually better understand what the distributional implications of the agreement had been. I did not call explicitly for a refinement of CECA.”
“I am very mindful of and I am actually trying to understand the Member's question here. But the majority of the jobs created went to Singaporeans.”
“Ms Poa, I have said that the majority of the jobs went to local bred and born Singaporeans. Majority. That means more than 50%. So there is no reclassification. So, it is not like as if these PRs became naturalised Singaporeans. This majority is Singaporeans who are born and bred here. So, for that majority under that category, the statistics do not include those who are not born here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on I covered it; maybe I was too longwinded. I will just repeat it. During the 6 July Ministerial Statement, I had already shared that the majority of local PME growth over the last decade went to Singaporeans born in Singapore. I know you want a specific percentage, it is a majority, so, it is more than 50%. This is the same for PMETs. Some of the other data points we have published should make it clear that Singaporeans have benefited. We regularly publish unemployment rates for PRs and citizens. The unemployment rate of citizens has remained stable and low. Secondly, the PR population has also remained stable over the past decade at around 500,000 or half a million. So it is not, and it cannot be the case that most of the employment growth went to PRs.”
“Perhaps, I was not clear. The majority of the jobs created went to Singaporeans who are born and bred here. Not reclassified, yes.”
“For the first point, in terms of the reclassification, I do not have all the statistics here with me now. But the majority, I think I have shared that on 6 July in my Ministerial Statement. The majority of the local PME growth over the last 10 years went to Singaporeans born in Singapore – the majority. That is more than 50%. So, I would urge Ms Hazel Poa not to drive this kind of separation and segregation. Because I really do not think it is healthy for all of us, particularly when at some stage in our not too distant past, all of us, our parents, maybe our grandparents were immigrants.”
“On 6 July, it is 15 years from 2005 to 2020 and, at that time, we were talking about PMEs and EPs. When we have time, I can actually segregate and explain to you the difference between PMETs, which are the equivalent of the EPs and S Passes; and PMEs, which are just the equivalent of the EPs. So, today, the statistics quoted to you are for 10 years, from 2010 to 2020. And it is about PMETs and the EPs and S Passes. So, I hope that clears it up. It is different time horizon and also different categorisation.”
“Mr Leong has said that PSP has never said that it wants a closed economy. But our point in all of our speeches, I do not think the PAP has ever suggested that we want an economy that is open to every and any foreigner. We have always maintained that we want to select the right talent to complement us. So, I said, let us not talk in abstractions. Let us not hypothesise. What I had debated were your concrete suggestions and why it would not lead to the re-balancing that you asked for. To your point on the differences in data cited, it is a matter of differences in timeframe. Anyway, all of this data is published, Mr Leong. You can look it up. And, again, if you cannot find it, we are happy to point you to it, just as we have pointed Ms Hazel Poa, to where to look for that information.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Leong for his agreement with many of our policies, even though he thinks that all he is asking for is a rebalancing and I have said that we continually work to refine and tweak and improve our policies. So, we thank you at least —”
“MOM publishes this data regularly at fine granularity but the PSP has not made any mention of this. So, let me walk you through the numbers. With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I display some slides on the LED screens?”
“When it comes to data on our local workforce, we publish it regularly at a high level of granularity and this is in line with international standards. But it seems the PSP is not aware of this. In the 26 July Parliamentary sitting, the PSP filed a PQ asking for the annual breakdown numbers of local PMEs from 2005 to 2020. Parliamentary rules made it clear that a PQ should not ask for information that is already publicly available. Nevertheless, in my reply to Ms Hazel Poa, I told her where to look for such data. I also told her that the data stretches back to 1991 on the MOM's website, if she was interested. Notably, I have not heard the PSP use any of the data we have provided in its arguments. And instead of being bogged down by these unhelpful distractions, I want to speak about the anxieties of Singaporeans, workers and business owners alike. I acknowledge these anxieties – they are present, but they are not just present in Singapore alone. They are present all around the world. I oppose the PSP’s Motion because it does not provide the solutions that Singaporeans anxious about jobs and competition seek. The way to address Singaporeans’ anxieties about jobs and competition in a fast-changing economy, is to continue to invest heavily in developing our local workforce and ensure that foreigners complement, rather than displace, our locals. Minister Lawrence Wong has already shared some important perspectives on our strategy. I will share some of the facts and data that are relevant. Turning, first, to the jobs landscape. The PSP fixates on the increase in the number of foreign PMETs to argue that locals have been displaced and lost out. It has painted a picture of widespread displacement based on the anecdotes it has heard. But how have local PMETs actually fared?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a debate on jobs should be taken seriously. It is more than a hashtag. The success, livelihoods and well-being of millions of our fellow Singaporeans are at stake. I had hoped that the PSP would share this understanding. Instead, the PSP's approach has disappointed me. First, the PSP continues to equivocate about FTAs, claiming it does not have enough information. What further information does the PSP need? We have explained that all foreigners have to meet the same work pass criteria. The PSP has asked for data on ICTs over the years because the data cited was for 2020 – a crisis year. We did not go into these details further because the trends were similar. But since the PSP persists in this line of inquiry, here are the numbers over the last five years. The total number of ICTs in 2020 was 4,200. This is overall. In 2019, it was 4,400. In 2018, 3,200. In 2017, 2,600. And in 2016, 2,100. The total number of Indian ICTs in 2020 was 500. In 2019, 600. In 2018, 400. In 2017, 400. And in 2016, 300. These numbers have been consistently low. So, I would ask the PSP again, what further information does it need? Given the racial undertones on this issue, and this is acknowledged by all Members of the House, the PSP's equivocation is not only misleading but is also dangerous. Second, the PSP has fielded a slew of data requests via Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and it has made a sweeping statement that there is no credibility in any of our statements because we have not released all of the data it has asked for. It has equivocated that it cannot provide answers because it has no information. Let me be very clear.”
“To help employers manage the cost of stay for their migrant domestic workers (MDWs) at the Stay-Home Notice Dedicated Facility (SDF), MDWs have the option to share a room with another MDW at the SDF, subject to the availability of rooms. The cost of stay in a shared room at the SDF is $1,000, compared to $1,500 for a single room. MOM also considers appeals from Singaporeans and permanent residents and may waive the SDF cost of an MDW on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration household income and the financial circumstances of the employer.”
“As updated in Parliament in July, MOM is progressively scheduling the entry of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) who had their approved arrival dates postponed previously to reduce the risk of COVID-19 importation. The entry approval quota set by Multi-Ministry Task Force takes into account several factors, including the COVID-19 situation locally and abroad. The Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) started a pilot programme in July 2021 to facilitate the entry of migrant domestic workers (MDWs) while minimising the risk of importing COVID-19. Under this commercial initiative, the AEA(S) works with its overseas business partners to implement additional safe management measures prior to the MDWs’ entry into Singapore. The AEA(S) gives priority to households with caregiving needs to participate in the pilot programme. The pilot is still ongoing and is conducted on a small scale so the industry can better manage the risks involved, identify areas for improvement, and make refinements to the processes. As it has only been slightly more than a month since the start of the pilot programme, more time is needed by the industry to assess whether the programme can be scaled up to facilitate the entry of more MDWs. MOM is monitoring the results closely. If the pilot proves effective in reducing the risk of importing COVID-19, more MDWs will be able to enter Singapore under this arrangement.”
“A better way to do this, is for companies to adopt the pay model that best suits their company’s operations, taking into account the need to uphold safety, as recommended in the WSH Council Guidelines on Workplace Traffic Safety Management. Since 1999, TP has required all heavy vehicles with a maximum laden weight greater than 12,000 kilogrammes, to install speed limiters which impose a speed limit of 60 kilometre per hour. TP and LTA will continue to monitor the development of suitable technologies that can help to discourage speeding and ensure road safety. MOM has also worked with Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG) to provide grant support to adopt vehicular safety technology such as the Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) to improve the situational awareness of drivers and warn of collision risks, and the Driver Status Monitoring System (DSM) to detect fatigue and distractions such as handphone usage or not looking ahead for extended periods. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) can tap on the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) to install ADAS and DSM on their heavy vehicles.”
“To protect employees from fatigue and being overworked, there are restrictions on working hours under the Employment Act (EA). Workmen1, including drivers of heavy vehicles, earning up to $4,500 per month should not work more than 12 hours per day. Errant employers found to be flouting the EA can be prosecuted and fined up to $5,000 for each offence. In addition, the Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSH Council) Guidelines on Fatigue Management recommends that drivers take scheduled breaks, such as 15 minutes of rest for every two hours of driving. The Workplace Safety and Health Council regularly engages the industry to educate employers and drivers on the risk factors and share recommendations on the good practices that can be adopted to prevent fatigue. The number of accidents involving heavy vehicles2 resulting in fatalities or injuries declined by 45% from 776 cases in 2018 to 426 cases in 2020. Based on statistics from the Traffic Police (TP), for the past three years, the top five causes where heavy vehicle drivers were at fault in traffic accidents include: (a) failing to keep a proper lookout; (b) failing to have proper control; (c) failing to give way to traffic with right of way; (d) changing lane without due care; and (e) turning without due care. Based on MOM’s investigations into fatal work-related traffic accidents, there is also no evidence to show that long working hours or fatigue had been a key contributory factor for fatal traffic accidents involving heavy vehicles. We are aware and the industry itself recognises, that certain pay models could impact safety outcomes, but we have not seen a strong reason for the Government to intervene at the moment.”
“As it has only been slightly more than a month since the start of the pilot programme, more time is needed by the industry to assess whether the programme can be scaled up to facilitate the entry of more MDWs. MOM is monitoring the results closely. If the pilot proves effective in keeping the risk of importing COVID-19 small, more MDWs will be able to enter Singapore under this arrangement. Singapore’s vaccination coverage has allowed us to ease some community measures and take steps towards further opening up our economy. However, we must open our borders carefully and take into consideration countries or regions that have controlled the pandemic well and also vaccinated large parts of their population and adjust our measures accordingly. In our transition to an endemic status, adjustments may also be necessary as protection conferred by vaccines may wane with time and new COVID-19 variants may emerge that may be resistant to our current vaccines. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and do our best to facilitate the entry of MDWs in a safe manner.”
“From September 2020 to April 2021, an average of about 3,300 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) entered Singapore per month. With the increase in number of COVID-19 cases and emergence of COVID-19 variants locally and globally this year, the Government had to tighten the entry approvals so as to reduce the risk of COVID-19 importation. From May to August this year, the average number of MDWs that entered Singapore was about 800 per month. MOM is currently prioritising the entry of MDWs for families with very challenging caregiving needs and progressively scheduling the entry of those who had their entry approvals postponed earlier. We are aware that many employers are still waiting to bring in their MDWs. When the COVID-19 situation improves in the countries where the MDWs are from, we will be able to allow more to enter Singapore. Our priority remains for the risk of COVID-19 importation to be well managed to protect our public health and safety of the families that MDWs are deployed to. Meanwhile, to meet the demand for MDWs, the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) started a pilot programme in July 2021. Under this commercial initiative, the AEA(S) works with its overseas business partners to implement additional safe management measures prior to the MDWs’ entry into Singapore. The AEA(S) also gives priority to households with caregiving needs to participate in the pilot programme. The pilot is still ongoing and is conducted on a small scale so the industry can better manage the risks involved, identify areas for improvement, and make refinements to the processes.”
“Since the start of COVID-19, over 15,000 workers have been placed into public sector or Government-funded short-term roles under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, to support COVID-19 operations such as swabbing or quarantine operations, implementing safe management measures and providing patient services. At some point, the demand for such roles will taper down. For the moment, however, these roles remain in demand. About three in 10 of these workers were temporarily redeployed as part of the National Jobs Council’s effort to support workers in hard-hit sectors and most of them are expected to return to their parent companies when demand recovers. For the remaining workers, as well as those who are not able to return to their previous jobs due to reduced demand or who choose not to, our job matching services and ecosystem stand ready to help them. The SGUnited Traineeships, Mid-Career Pathways and Skills programmes also remain available.”
“The point at which kickbacks were collected, be it at the start of the migrant worker’s employment or at the point of work pass renewal, does not impact the enforcement action taken against errant parties. As such, although such information could be recorded as part of investigation, MOM does not track data on the point at which kickbacks were collected. Our broad estimate is that the number of kickback cases investigated is about evenly split between those at the start of the worker’s employment and those at the point of renewal of work passes. The collection of kickbacks as a condition or guarantee of employment is an offence under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). Migrant workers who have paid or been asked to pay kickbacks to anyone for employment should approach MOM for assistance.”
“I would like to thank Mr Murali Pillai for his supplementary question. Some additional statistics would demonstrate that. From the period from September 2020 to February 2021, the YRSG has assisted more than a third of the ex-offenders who have been released from Prison, out of which 96% of those assisted by YRSG have been placed in a job. Out of this number, 56% were eligible for JGI. The balance of about 40% of these ex-offenders who were placed in jobs but were not eligible for JGI was because the employers themselves did not meet the requirement of having increased their local headcount compared to the August 2020 baseline. 12.32 pm”
“However, employers’ business circumstances and manpower needs are constantly changing. Not all employers will be able to retain every single worker. Workers who need assistance can approach Workforce Singapore for career matching services. Ex-offenders can also reach out to YRSG, regardless of whether they are currently receiving YRSG’s assistance. I would like to give all workers the assurance that unfair treatment will be taken seriously. Any employee that experiences unfair treatment can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which will investigate into such complaints.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, good afternoon. Based on the latest available data, the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) has supported the hiring of more than 270,000 locals from September 2020 to February 2021 by 42,000 employers. Employers who have hired ex-offenders through the Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG), Industrial and Services Co-operative Society (ISCOS), or halfway houses engaged by the Singapore Prison Service will automatically receive the JGI of up to $54,000 for these hires. The JGI has supported around 780 ex-offender hires between September 2020 and February 2021. Environmental Services, Food Services, Logistics, Wholesale Trade and Construction were among the top five hiring sectors. They collectively accounted for almost eight in 10 of JGI-supported ex-offenders. The Member asked how we will ensure that ex-offenders will be fairly treated after the wage support of 18 months ends. The JGI is designed such that employers have to shoulder part of the cost of hiring of the worker. If the worker, whether an ex-offender or not, proves his value to the company, it serves and it is in the best interest of the employer to keep him on its workforce even after the JGI support has ended. Otherwise, the employer would have wasted expense and months of effort in training the new hire and risk losing a skilled worker to competitors. Programmes are available to support employers to train their new hires. With respect to ex-offenders placed by YRSG, YRSG provides additional support to them and their employers to facilitate their transition from prison to the work environment. A career coach is assigned to the ex-offender for up to 12 months. The career coaches work closely with ex-offenders and their employers to provide work-related support and resolve issues together.”
“I thank Mr Yong for his very pertinent question. It is important to note that, today, as I have shared in my earlier reply to the Parliamentary Question, there is no requirement for employers to-date to do so. However, Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management can step in to offer advice through, for instance, if the Labour Movement has collective agreements signed between the employees whom they represent and the employer. We certainly can step in to see how we can bring the parties together. But, today, there is no legal requirement for them to do so. We obviously aspire that employers continue to take a very enlightened, engaging approach in terms of dealing with the medical benefits and the coverage for all of their employees, particularly when it comes to collective agreements. And we hope that all parties would come together. But we understand the challenges because we are also in the situation whereby the cost of healthcare continues to increase. And, hence, the Government, on our part, has a slew of different initiatives to help our local Singapore Citizens and the Permanent Residents. But we are happy to work with the union looking at some of these collective agreements, to see how we can step in to advise and bring both parties to a middle ground. I hope that answers the question.”
“I thank Dr Tan Yia Swam for her questions. Indeed, education is going to be key in terms of how we advise our employees to navigate between the insurance plans as well as the Shield plans. And I believe that is something that we can look into under the auspices of Ministry of Manpower (MOM). However, we should be working with the tripartite partners, namely, the Labour Movement, together with the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), ourselves, and, perhaps, even bringing in the Ministry of Health (MOH) to work together to collectively come up with very clear communication and educational principles and discussion groups, so that we can communicate some of these policies fairly, clearly and effectively. On plans to look at third-party administrators, again, this cannot just be isolated to one or two Ministries. The third-party administrators have been in existence for quite a number of decades now. To work collectively to make sure that we find a more nuanced approach involves even the trade associations. In this particular setting, we need to involve professional associations, for instance, like the Singapore Medical Association, and if you want, to even extend it to the Primary Care Network, probably the College of Family Physicians and, perhaps, the Academy as well, to get them involved in coming up with a more nuanced and middle-of-the-path kind of approach involving the providers, third-party administrators, payers and also the patients who are, ultimately, the end-user of the entire system. So, it is not something that we can decide in one Sitting. Perhaps, it is something that the industry should come together and work towards.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, employers may choose to provide health insurance to their employees as an employee benefit. There is currently no statutory requirement for employers to do so. Where such benefits are contractual, any changes should be agreed to by both parties. Tripartite partners recommend that for employers who wish to provide medical benefits to their employees, they could adopt the Portable Medical Benefits Scheme (PMBS) and provide additional contributions to their employees’ MediSave accounts instead of insurance. These additional contributions can then be used by employees to purchase their own insurance plans. The PMBS makes healthcare costs more predictable and sustainable for employers. As the scheme's name suggests, employees can also enjoy portability of medical benefits where coverage continues with no risk of exclusions even if their employment situation changes. Regardless of coverage under employer-provided healthcare insurance, all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are covered under MediShield Life. MediShield Life provides lifetime protection against large hospitalisation bills and selected costly outpatient treatments such as dialysis and chemotherapy, without exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Singaporeans who face difficulties in paying for their remaining medical bills after Government subsidies, insurance and MediSave can approach medical social workers at public healthcare institutions for further assistance.”
“As of December 2020, excluding migrant domestic workers, the median fixed monthly salary of Work Permit Holders (WPHs) is around $1,100. Nearly all WPHs (about 98%) earn less than $3,000 per month. We would also like to remind the member that WPHs are subjected to quotas and levies, which vary by sector. In addition, employers are required to meet additional conditions, including source restrictions and security bond requirements. WPHs are also required to go for six-monthly medical examinations, and face marriage and pregnancy restrictions.”
“Based on the latest available data, the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) has supported the hiring of more than 270,000 locals from September 2020 to February 2021 by 42,000 employers. MOM has been providing the public with regular updates on the take-up of the JGI, most recently in the 22nd edition of the Jobs Situation Report which was released on 14 July 2021. We question the Progress Singapore Party’s fixation on drawing lines among locals. Permanent Residents may have spouses or dependants who are Singapore Citizens, and providing employment facilitation support allows them to continue supporting these Singaporean family members. In any case, the proportion of JGI-supported hires who are Singapore Citizens is similar to the proportion of Singapore Citizens in the resident labour force. The top hiring sectors were Food Services, Wholesale Trade, Professional Services, Retail, and Information and Communications. The median wage of JGI-supported hires between September 2020 and February 2021 ranges from around $3,900 in the Information and Communications sector, around $3,000 in the Professional Services sector, around $1,900 in the Wholesale Trade sector to $1,400 in the Retail and Food Services sectors. The median wage of JGI-supported hires in each sector was higher than the median wage of all new hires in the same sector, over the same period. As mentioned in the 22nd Jobs Situation Report, six in 10 of the JGI-supported hires earned the same or higher wages, compared to their previous jobs.”
“I refer to the reply to Question No. 29 for written answer standing on the Order Paper for 2 August 2021 filed by Mr Leong Mun Wai. It was already explained in the 6 July Ministerial Statements that the 127 professions listed under Annex 9A of CECA do not have any bearing on our assessment of work pass applications. In processing work pass applications, the Ministry does not ask if an applicant is seeking to enter under Annex 9A of CECA as there is no such route. All foreigners who wish to work in Singapore need to meet the prevailing work pass criteria before they are granted a work pass. As such, the Ministry does not track or report employment data based on the occupational grouping requested by the Member. Moreover, it is not meaningful to look at the number of non-Indian professionals belonging to any of the 127 professions, as requested by the Member. A foreign professional from any other country would be unlikely to have any link to India or CECA. Nevertheless, if the Member is interested to know broadly the share of work pass holders (all nationalities) amongst all workers under the much broader Singapore Standard Occupational Classification (SSOC) Group 2 (Professionals)1, the answer is that they make up less than one-quarter of all employed persons in SSOC Group 2.”
“Labour supplying of foreign workers by the employer to another company is only allowed within the construction and process sectors and not in the marine sector. The employer of the foreign worker continues to be subject to the dependency ratio ceiling (DRC). Companies that supply their own labour to another company are not required to obtain an employment agency (EA) licence, unless they perform EA work.1 EAs perform work to facilitate the recruitment and hiring of workers by their client companies. The EA Enforcement Digest was introduced in 2016 to share enforcement statistics on common EA infringements with the industry. The statistics provided in the Digest are for infringements across the whole EA industry, where the clients come from all sectors. They are not specific to the construction, marine and process (CMP) sectors. The most common infringements in the EA industry were contravening EA licence conditions and performing EA activities without an EA licence. In the CMP sectors, common offences committed by employers include illegal employment and unacceptable accommodation. Since 2019, instead of publishing the Digest, MOM has engaged the EA industry through small-group sessions involving the relevant associations and electronic mailers to the industry, such as EA alerts. These have been effective in ground sensing and updating the industry on compliance issues.”
“Their applications have to meet our prevailing work pass criteria. Similarly, all dependants who wish to enter are also subject to the usual prevailing criteria. It is, therefore, meaningless to ask how many of them entered through our FTAs.”
“Our records prior to 2014 do not distinguish between applications from overseas intra-corporate transferees (ICT) invoking provisions in the World Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO GATS) or other Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). For overseas ICT applications invoking WTO GATS or FTA provisions, they are exempted from the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) job advertising requirement introduced in 2014 because it would be illogical for a company to advertise a position intended for an existing employee. However, they are subject to additional checks to verify their eligibility under the WTO GATS or FTA provisions. These include their seniority, employment history and relevant work experience. They are also subject to more conditions in their eligibility to bring in dependants, as well as apply for permanent residency or future employment in Singapore. Under WTO GATS and all FTAs, the Government retains full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work and become PRs or citizens. Out of the overseas ICTs who have come in via WTO GATS or FTA provisions between 2014 and 2020, on average, around 30 persons a year have acquired permanent residency or citizenship. Between 2014 and 2020, on average, around 140 persons a year who initially came in via WTO GATS or FTA provisions subsequently obtained another work pass that was processed and approved under the prevailing criteria. This is a negligible share of the overall number of EP holders approved each year, under our prevailing criteria. As for foreign professionals, the 6 July 2021 Ministerial Statements already explained that the professions listed in the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) do not have any bearing on how we decide on work pass applications.”
“ACE officers deployed to the dormitories are also being trained to provide mental health support to MWs. MWs also have access to primary healthcare services, such as the regional medical centres and telemedicine, for mental health assessment, intervention and follow up. MWs who require specialist psychiatric services are also promptly referred, when required.”
“Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs) and Migrant Workers (MWs) attend their respective Settling-In-Programmes (SIPs) conducted in the workers' native languages and are educated on their employment rights, Singapore's laws and channels to seek help. For example, they are advised to call the Police if they are subjected to any physical abuse. The workers are also advised to seek help on employment issues and well-being matters using the hotlines set up by MOM, the Centre for Domestic Employees (CDE) or Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC). The SIP also covers topics related to mental well-being, such as relationship and stress management tips, to help workers adjust to working and living in a new environment. Apart from the SIP, reminders with mental health messages, such as adopting healthy habits to manage stress and identifying early signs of distress, are disseminated regularly to the MWs and MDWs via the FWMOMCare application and e-newsletters. MOM partners non-governmental organisations (NGO)1 to provide a range of assistance to the workers who are victims of abuse or violence. For example, MWC, CDE and HealthServe operate counselling hotlines to provide mental health support to MWs and MDWs in six native languages2 at any time and not only after an incidence of abuse. CDE also operates a shelter for MDWs where counselling services and legal advice are made available free of charge. MWC and CDE also worked with Law Society Pro Bono Services to offer free legal advisory services to MWs and MDWs. The Assurance Care and Engagement (ACE) Group of MOM is strengthening the mental health support ecosystem for MWs through Project DAWN. Under the programme, peer support leaders among MWs are trained to lend a listening ear and administer psychological first aid.”
“Employers are responsible for their Migrant Domestic Workers’ (MDW) medical expenses. To support employers in meeting their obligations, employers are required to purchase mandatory medical insurance of at least $15,000 coverage for inpatient care and surgery. This amount has been sufficient in covering about 95% of MDWs’ inpatient or day surgery bills. MOM is reviewing the medical insurance coverage for Work Permit and S Pass holders to strengthen the protection for MDWs and their employers while keeping costs affordable. To Dr Tan Wu Meng’s specific question about TB, all MDWs are required to be screened for active TB, including having a chest X-ray, within two weeks of arrival in Singapore. This is done prior to the start of employment, and another time upon two years of stay in Singapore. From 2018 to 2020, about 300 MDWs (0.1% of MDW population) per year were diagnosed with active TB after commencing employment in Singapore, that is, after their Work Permits were issued. Anyone diagnosed with active TB will be treated immediately to reduce the risk of further transmission. The large majority of TB cases are managed via outpatient treatment. In rare cases where the disease leads to complications, the MDW may need to be hospitalised for further treatment. Like for Singaporeans, the full cost of hospitalisation for MDWs referred under MOH’s National TB Programme is paid for. For outpatient treatment under the National TB programme, while the medication under Directly Observed Treatment is free, MDWs would, nonetheless, incur consultation and other testing costs. Employers who face difficulties paying for their MDWs’ medical bills may approach the medical social workers at the public health institutions for assistance.”
“The list is tightly-scoped and we have rejected many appeals from businesses to include more educational institutions on this list to augment labour shortages. This balanced approach has allowed us to guard against abuse, while maintaining a vibrant educational ecosystem in Singapore for top international students, who may stay on to contribute meaningfully to our economy even after graduation. Our own Singaporean students who venture overseas have also benefited from similar flexibilities accorded to them by their host countries to work during their studies. Given the strict requirements, we do not require foreign students who are eligible for work during term-time without a work pass to declare their undertakings. We take a firm stance against foreign students who work illegally. From 2016 to 2020, MOM and ICA took enforcement action against 73 Student’s Pass holders who were found to be working illegally. These students were not from the list of approved institutions. Student’s Pass holders found to be working illegally can face a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both, upon conviction. MOM and ICA will also cancel their Student’s Pass, deport them and debar them from future employment in Singapore. Employers will need to make sure that they are in compliance with MOM’s regulations when hiring foreign students. Employers who illegally employ these Student’s Pass holders, or abet these Student’s Pass holders in illegal employment, can face a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $30,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Their work pass privileges may also be suspended.”
“Foreign students who are accorded a Student’s Pass should be, primarily, here to study. To guard against potential abuse, Student’s Pass holders need a work pass in order to work, just like any other foreigner in Singapore. However, we do allow Student’s Pass holders to work during term-time without a work pass if they meet highly specific requirements. First, the work must not exceed 16 hours a week, or must be for an industrial attachment that is part of course requirements. The 16-hour limit allows foreign students to engage in part-time work to defray their living expenses, while ensuring that the bulk of their time remains dedicated to their studies, which is the primary reason for them to be in Singapore. Aside from defraying living expenses, some students also use the flexibility to gain practical experience that are relevant to their course of study or to take up volunteer work. Other educational hubs offer foreign students similar flexibilities to undertake part-time work during term-time – in the United States and the United Kingdom, the limit is higher, at 20 hours a week. Second, the Student’s Pass holder must be enrolled in an approved institution. These are institutions with stringent admissions criteria and where the intake of international students is controlled. There are currently, 20 approved institutions, 14 of which are MOE’s Institutes of Higher Learning, such as our local Universities and Polytechnics. The remainder are foreign universities and business schools with campuses in Singapore. MOM, together with the relevant supporting agencies, like MOE and EDB, assesses all approved institutions, and placement on this list requires approval from the Minister for Manpower.”
“I thank Mr Leon Perera for his question. For accreditation checks, we have maintained a database over the years as we screened the qualifications, whenever employers submit the respective to-be-hired employees' qualifications. Over the years, as we built the database, we have within our system and also, we compare them with the database from third-party verification agencies that we work closely with. I have also said earlier on that the list of these third-party verification agencies is available on our website. So, through the years, we have built that. We use a combination of data analytics; we screen them. And from that, we then ascertain a risk stratification strategy in which we match all of these applications when they come to us through this database that we have. To the Member's point about those from accredited universities, or even some of them, Ivy League universities, and whether they can fake these degrees, we do have, from time to time, verification, independent checks where we check with the university concerned. Obviously, we do not do this on 100% of all applications submitted, but based on our predictive analytics, when we find that there is reason for us to have suspicion – and we do have a very high index of suspicion – we then activate this other route where we actually call them for independent checks.”
“I thank Mr Gan for his supplementary questions. At MOM, we use a predictive fraud model and we stratify the academic institutions according to different levels of risk. For the highest risk, we require the employers to submit, as I have alluded to earlier on, verification proof from a third-party screening organisation as part of the work pass application process. These verification agencies have been pre-assessed by MOM and they are listed on our MOM website. If there is no verification proof that confirms that the diploma and degree qualifications declared are genuine, the application will be rejected. Of course, there are those on a lower-risk and those that are medium-risk. At different categories, we have a different response mechanism. I hope that answers the Member's question.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, good afternoon. From 2018 to 2020, 11 Employment Pass and S Pass holders working in the infocomm technology (ICT) industry were found to have submitted false qualifications to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Their work passes were revoked and they were permanently barred from working in Singapore. All employers have the primary responsibility to ensure the authenticity and quality of their candidates’ qualifications when submitting work pass applications. MOM also conducts additional checks by screening the qualifications submitted through our database of institutions. This database is reviewed regularly through our scan of open source reports and research from third-party screening organisations. For applications containing qualifications from institutions that are not in our database, we require employers to submit verification proof from third-party screening organisations to ensure that the qualifications submitted are accredited. We will reject applications containing fake or unaccredited qualifications. MOM takes a firm stance against foreigners who submit false qualifications to fraudulently obtain work passes. Besides revocation of work passes and debarment from employment in Singapore, we may also prosecute offenders for false declaration under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, which carries a fine of up to $20,000 or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.”