Teo Yock Ngee
Singapore
“Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to expedite its review process. This is absolutely necessary as the workers in the lower income group would no doubt benefit more, not so much on the claims, but also the additional wages they could receive for their cooperation, support and hard work. Workers' Salary Claim Held on Trust”
The complete record
Every one of 20 lines we hold for Teo Yock Ngee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“For the record, to be fair, Sir, we have to acknowledge this in this House. We thank the Government for injecting more funds into these areas in this Budget. These schemes include the Job Recreation Programme for low-wage workers, the new ADVANTAGE! scheme for older workers, Workforce Skills Qualification System on training and retraining, ComCare Fund for the needy households and so on and so forth. There are, in addition, other measures to support the low-income families in the education of their children, CPF housing grants and Workfare Bonus ranging from $150 to $1,200 under the Progress Package. The list goes on. All in all, we understand the Government's good intentions to share the fruits of growth in the form of Growth Dividends. We understand its intention to reward low-wage workers for work through Workfare Bonus, and that the Government will help lower-income households with their living expenses through rebates. They will help the elderly meet retirement and healthcare needs through CPF top-ups and more. In conclusion, the Budget Statement is not just about comprehensive but also compassionate measures to help low-wage workers adapt to the global economy and a $2.6 billion Progress Package to share budget surpluses with all Singaporeans. I believe this will no doubt instill confidence in the minds of the people and at the same time warm the hearts of everyone as well in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. 4.08 pm.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to take part in this debate on the Budget Statement for the Financial Year 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007. First of all, I must say this is a Budget Statement that is too good to believe and yet it is very true that all Singaporeans will in some way or another benefit from the Progress Package announced on 17th February 2006 by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. We are indeed speaking under happier circumstances. Why? We are talking about how much to share and how to share. But more importantly, in my view, the Budget Statement 2006 is really about "Building on our Strengths, Creating our Best Home". The Statement has further detailed the strategies and approaches to upgrade and restructure the economy in Singapore, as well as helping Singaporeans move forward together. I am glad that while the Government is mindful of the economic performance and progress of our country, it is also paying special attention to the needs of the less fortunate people and lower-income workers. Sir, I choose to be more focused, brief and straightforward in my presentation. Therefore, I do not think there is a need for me to go into the various key initiatives and elements as they are already contained in the Budget Statement. However, my colleagues and I in the trade unions and NTUC are fully aware that all such actions and measures are ultimately aimed at enhancing job opportunities, job creation and, better still, job recreation for us. The unemployment rate has gradually eased to 2.5% now, which reflects that the employment and re-employment schemes have been successful. The creation of some 110,800 new jobs in 2005 is testimony of the concerted efforts of the Government and our people.”
“Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to expedite its review process. This is absolutely necessary as the workers in the lower income group would no doubt benefit more, not so much on the claims, but also the additional wages they could receive for their cooperation, support and hard work. Workers' Salary Claim Held on Trust”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I am requesting for an update on the review as regards the salary of employees in respect of the Workmen's Compensation Act and also Part IV of the Employment Act. This is an old question. It has been raised in this House several times. Nevertheless, it is worth looking at it. Prior to 1st July 1992, if a non-manual worker's total earnings exceeded $1,250 per month, he could not claim workmen's compensation under the Act. After the review, with effect from 1st July 1992, the salary of employees, for purpose of claiming the above-mentioned, was amended to $1,500, which was a 20% increase. Slightly more than three years later, effective from 1st November 1995, it was again raised to $1,600, an increase of 6.67% which, I believe, was based on the increase in the median salary of workers in Singapore. The respective provisions of the laws were again amended. It has been more than nine years since the last amendment. May I know what is the position of the Ministry? I am sure we are fully aware that this is also tied to Part IV of the Employment Act, which contains provisions on rest days, hours of work, holidays and other conditions of service. The provisions of this Part actually apply to workmen and employees who are in receipt of salaries not exceeding $1,600 a month, not including additional wages such as overtime payment, bonus payment, annual wage supplement and productivity incentive payments. Almost all the relevant clauses in the collective agreements signed between the employers and unions representing the employees are pegged to this salary of $1,600 for purpose of claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act and computing the overtime payment in accordance with Part IV of the Employment Act.”
“Sir, first of all, let me thank the Prime Minister, who is also the Minister for Finance, for sharing his concern on this matter. With that, I would just mention a few other points. In order to better manage, coordinate and monitor the implementation and progress of the above framework for the public service, why not have some form of check and control at the top level? May I suggest that a formal structure be put in place, such as a Steering Committee or Joint Taskforce, for this purpose? While it is fine to leave it to the individual union to deal with their counterparts, or vice versa, by bipartite level, certain standard procedures should be established for reasons of consistency in best practices, of which the Prime Minister had quoted the case of IRAS. Another reason is that it would appear that this is going to be an on-going process with the aim of a further budget cut of 3% and up to 20% of the non-core functions being market-tested. We have to be mindful of the lack of knowledge or information sharing among the employees as well and this would not be healthy and sometimes could cause the ground to be unsettling. Working together, between the unions and the management, I believe we could manage the framework and its implementation plans more smoothly and with better understanding. Would the Ministry of Finance consider my proposal for the common good of the Government and its employees? [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S Iswaran) in the Chair] 5.00pm”
“Disciplinary Proceedings Sir, I am proposing a review on the matter of interdiction to the Prime Minister's Office for consideration. The meaning of "interdiction" here is suspension from work. The interdiction clause in the Public Service Commission (PSC) Disciplinary Proceedings is archaic, outdated and should be reviewed. Currently, a public officer who is charged under the above Regulations could be "interdicted and may not receive such portion of the emoluments of his office for such period during the time of interdiction as decided by the Commission." This means that the officer concerned, while pending consideration and investigations by the Commission, may not receive his normal pay or only part of his pay. There have been cases of public officers under investigations and were interdicted without pay. During this period, they have not been convicted. These investigations were prolonged and, in the meanwhile, the officers faced hardship and were not able to support themselves and their families. Union officials representing them had to appeal to the Commission for consideration, but most of the times, were not successful. May I request that the Prime Minister's Office, or whichever authority, take a look again at the plight of these officers affected? Why be so unkind and unfair to the employees when they are not proven guilty as yet? And why is the Commission taking such a long time, sometimes as long as six months or longer, to close the case?”
“The Government, as the largest employer, should show the way and set a good example. Employment Adjustment Programme Sir, I am proposing a review on the matter to the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, for consideration. The Employment Adjustment Programme (EAP) is quite different from the new scheme that we have just introduced, ie, REAP. This exercise in the public sector is conducted for organisational renewal purposes. It is a voluntary scheme meant for officers who do not have a good job fit in the area of work or stagnating in their performance to leave the organisation. The Special Gratuity Scheme (SGS) is one of the schemes, besides the Early Retirement Scheme and Optional Retirement Scheme. It is now a voluntary scheme, unlike 2-3 years ago, which means that employees could apply for it subject to the respective employer's approval, which could either be the respective Ministry or statutory board. The employer has the right to reject the application. I have no question on the details such as the calculation of payment except on the practice and implementation of the Scheme, though it must not be confused with the Special Resignation Scheme (SRS) that is based on redundancy. Why are the employees still being offered to apply to leave under SGS? And to make matters worse, there have been cases where they were offered time and again each year. Why again? I think this is rather demoralising and tantamount to telling the employees that they are no more needed here and they can leave now. Why not just let the employees apply and the employer consider their applications? I certainly hope that the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, can do a review on this matter.”
“The Government has also since implemented the five-day work week, equal medical benefits for men and women officers, cut in maid levy, and an increase of paid maternity leave from 8 to 12 weeks. Could the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, confirm that employees under either contract or part-time employment will not be denied of such basic terms, conditions and these additional benefits? Extension of Service Beyond Retirement Sir, I am making the following request for public sector employees to the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division. May I know if the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, is studying the feasibility of allowing older employees to work beyond their legal retirement age of 62? This is in view of the longer life expectancy (about 80 years of age) of Singaporeans and their need to work longer. Although a tripartite committee, comprising the Government, trade unions and employers, has been set up to discuss and deliberate on the issues concerned, I would like to know if the Government is taking the initiative to look at the possibilities of some areas of work available. We were told that, at the moment, work beyond retirement or an extension of service, as we call it in the public sector, has been considered on a case-by-case basis. May I know what do they mean by this and how many are on such extension? In my view, would it not be better if the various Ministries start identifying and discussing with unions on what are the jobs that could be done by the older employees? Or would the Ministry consider redesigning and creating some jobs suitable for the older employees? I think we should be more proactive and constructive as the tripartite committee may take some time to work out its recommendations and so on.”
“Sir, I have the following questions and points to make for the Prime Minister's Office, specifically the Public Service Division. First, may I know what are the terms and conditions of contract employment in the public sector? And what is the number and percentage of public officers, in terms of divisional status, who are employed under such contract terms? Was there an increase over the years in the employment of contract employees and why? And how many have been emplaced on the permanent establishment eventually? Also, is there a limit to their renewal of contracts or are contracts renewed indefinitely? And is there a quota and cap on this? This must be of great concern to the Government as an employer because such terms of employment are insecure and lack prospects. Most of these employees could be neither executives nor professionals who have much higher qualifications and better job mobility in the labour market. Second, may I know how many public officers are on part-time employment? Could the Prime Minister's Office, Public Service Division, provide figures in terms of categories of staff, divisional status, age and gender? Would the Government consider making part-time employment more attractive to encourage those who are not working to return to the workforce? This may attract the economically inactive but able-bodied to be self-reliant and make a contribution to the economy of Singapore. The Tripartite Guidelines on Family-Friendly Workplace Practices were drawn up by the National Tripartite Advisory Panel to develop and promote the above at the workplaces in August 2004.”
“Certain provisions in the collective agreements and terms of employment are pegged to the definition of salary in these pieces of legislation. Sir, I happened to pick up a copy of last Saturday's Weekend Today. And I was attracted by an article in the column on Singapore news, which quoted Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan, as saying that "civil service needs collective approach to tackle problems". And I also happened to speak to the Deputy Prime Minister during the break. With his verbal consent, I would like to quote what he said. According to the report, Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Tony Tan, was speaking at the closing ceremony of the inaugural two-week National Security Course attended by 40 top Government officials. He pointed out that the problems are getting increasingly complicated and defying simplistic solutions. The Deputy Prime Minister cited Singapore's efforts in tackling structural unemployment, the ageing population and low birth rate. These involve several Ministries and non-Governmental agencies, such as trade unions. I am grateful to the Government for recognising the contributions of the trade unions in Singapore. Finally, in essence, there was a lot of emphasis too, by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, on the importance of cooperation and support for each other amongst the Government, employers and trade unions in the Budget Statement 2005. On that note, I support the motion.”
“Although they are mindful,they wondered how the further budget cut of 3% (except for MINDEF) would affect them, and its implications. As it would add up to a total reduction of 5% in the budget caps, how would thistranslate into the economic drive initiatives in the coming financial year? Sir, to recapitulate and for the benefit of some Members of this House, the tools for economy drive are as follows: economy in procurement;economy through energy saving;economy in discretionary expenditure;headcount management;salary adjustments andbest sourcing, which is the deepest concern of all. While I would like to congratulate the Ministries' success and achievements in meeting the targets and maintaining the service levels, I am of the opinion that there must be a more systematic, constructive and better coordinated approach. Currently, it is left to theindividual unions to deal directlywith their respective Ministries, departments and statutory boards. It is fine to have good and even bi-partite relationship at this level. But a formal structure of check and control at the top, involving both the managements and unions, could be more useful, when we talk about consistencies and best practices. I will further elaborate on this at the forthcoming debate in the Committee of Supply, in which there will be a sharper focus on these issues and other related matters. These are issues concerning Employment Adjustment Programme (EAP), contract and part-time employment, extension of service beyond retirement age, and so on. I will be touching on the salaries of employees in respect of workmen's compensation as well as Part IV of the Employment Act.”
“30 pm On a more encouraging note, the Straits Times, on Saturday, 26th February 2005, in its Insight report, has actually highlighted that, andI quote:"Handouts? For the jobless, it's real jobs that count." It also reported, among other things, the Government's programme (REAP), the job-matching efforts by the National Trades Union Congress and the services provided by other Community Development Councils. On a broader perspective, I fully agree with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance that we must continue to focus our longer-term goal of remaking Singapore to meet the challenges of globalisation and that, in the process, we must not breeda culture of entitlement,but, instead,we must foster a culture of opportunity. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would now like to turn to the subject of a lean and effective Government, which deals with the contents of a lean and efficient public sector and an effective Government. A few unionists have reminded me that my role inParliament should be for the working population, especially the lower income group, and not only speaking for the public sector employees. Well, I think I have been quite fair and balanced in addressing the concerns of the workers so far. They are the lower income workers, such as Division III and IV employees, andthe daily-rated employees in the public sector too. We all are very much aware that the public sector has been going through much more intensive restructuring and reorganisation in the last few years. The public sector employees were not spared and they are still being affected by the rapid changes, under these circumstances, in the globalised world. The union leaders understand the rationale and justifications.”
“Union leaders are therefore cheered by the Government's move to top up the Lifelong Learning Fund by $500 million to $2 billion, nearer to the target of $5 billion in the long run. They are also happy that the Prime Minister has previously announced the introduction of a new scheme known as Re-Employment Assistance Programme (REAP). It is noted that this programme will help less-skilled job seekers transit successfully into new jobs and avoid falling into long-term unemployment. It will target to assist at least 15,000 job seekers through job re-designing and re-skilling over the next two years. Sir, our concern for the jobless and job opportunities are real and has never slipped or will never slip our minds as the representative voice of the workers. On record, my former labour NMP colleagues had in the past also repeatedly reminded this House the importance of training and retraining for workers. Please allow me to take a leaf out of the report regarding the debate on Singapore 21, then in May 1999, on the subject of "Opportunities for All". It was mentioned that, as a society, Singaporeans must be given a second chance to those who want to try again, andSingaporeans of all ages will always have opportunities to upgrade and renew their knowledge and skills. I am repeating this call here. Hence, in view of the vulnerability of such older or mature workers and their lower educational level, the Government, employers and trade unions have always worked together for the common good of Singapore as a nation. This is the right and proper approach we should take in today's context. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair] 5.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the Budget Statement for the financial year from 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006. The Budget Statement 2005 is about "Creating Opportunity, Building Community", said the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. In response, our unionists have praised this year's Budget, calling it generous and pragmatic, which was reported in the NTUC News in its issue on 25th February 2005. It added that the Budget is also fiscally prudent and poised to transform Singapore into a land of opportunity. Some people have also been trying to analyse whether this is an election Budget, saying that the Government was more generous in 1996 and 2001 in terms of direct benefits to individuals. Personally, I do not think it is a fair comparison, because the economic situations were different then, with relatively steady and higher GDP growth, but in 1998 it registeredonly 1.5% during the Asian financialcrisis. However, the mood is generally upbeat after the uncertainties of economic outlook we faced in the recent years, coupled with the various belt-tightening measures that ensued. I do not think there is a need for me to dwell into the details, as many Members in this House have spoken earlier and will be speaking on them for the next few days. So, I will be speaking mainly on the growing concerns of jobs, ie, job security, job prospects and job opportunities for Singaporeans. I have earlier mentioned quite a bit, during the debate on the President's Address, that we ought to look after the workers in need. Many Members of Parliament have raised this similar concern as well.”
“I propose that the Government introduce such programmes for people who need to do a mid-career switch, if not similar, then one somewhat like what the army has for its career soldiers. I want to reiterate the importance of having a closer rapport within the tripartite partnership. The Government's role here is critical. Constant communication through social dialogues, feedback sessions and consultation with each other is essential. While the Government has a good track record in this, it must be seen to be more committed and involved. The NTUC and its trade unions have always been very pro-active, but it cannot be left to them to do everything. The Government must take the lead. More could be accomplished if the Government stepped up its role and presence. For example, Government's intervention would become necessary if employers do not take heed or cooperate at all. Finally, in my own simple analysis, it was basically the pioneering spirit of patriotism and the philosophy of tripartism which have brought us to what it is today. And, looking ahead, with the renewed spirit of entrepreneurship, volunteerism and more, we could continue to prosper and progress in the years to come in our land of opportunity. I am truly proud as a Singaporean.”
“For instance, these are the people with young families and their concerns are real, like housing loans and other financial commitments. Workers in this age group need help to continue working into their 60s and to take advantage of the new avenues of employment. Many unionists have pointed out that, in times of restructuring and retrenchments, it is the middle-age group who tends to be the hardest hit. At this point, Sir, I would like to quote some figures from the publication by the Ministry of Manpower, just to remind Members of the House here. I am sure Members are aware that in the year 2003, the figure for the age profile of the labour force, aged between 15-19 was just 1.6%; 20-29, 23.9%. But if you look at those aged 30-39, who are on the way to the middle-age group, it was 28.7%, and those in the 40-49 age group, 26.4%, and 50-59, 15.2%. So I would say that easily 40% of this so-called middle age group are in this area, and we need to pay a bit more attention here because there is a tendency at times that we can go to extremes, with too much emphasis on the young and youthful, and the older people whom we have to look after, and we forget about those in the middle. As for the education profile of the labour force, I also have some figures to quote where we really need to help them. For those with "primary and below", it is just 18.4%. But, together with the lower secondary at 13.4%, they add up to about 30%, and these are the people who are very lowly educated and definitely deserve help. Sir, with more such workers facing these risks of being left out in the changing economy, my colleagues in the unions would like to see more incentives to be given to workers who go for training.”
“The managements concerned should continue - I say "continue" because we are already doing it - to discuss with the unions on the results of these reviews and before any changes are made so that both parties have a common understanding and appreciation of the issues involved. Management-union cooperation and mutual trust are of paramount importance. In effect, with lower employment (or even full employment) - we have to be optimistic, we should not say that we will never reach full employment again - during our economic recovery, I hope Singaporeans could lead a better life and have more to share with their families and friends. This in turn will continue to foster community spirit, maintain racial harmony and political stability in Singapore. We all know these are necessary ingredients for attracting investments and economic growth. Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, I would like to make the following observations with reference to the contents of the President's Address and its Addenda. We must not, when implementing the planned programmes, overlook the middle-age workers' concerns and needs. Our unionists would not hesitate to point out that this group of workers needs special attention, to help them remain employable in the global environment today. I could not agree more that we have to engage the youth and help the elderly by making our programmes more attractive and effective, but please do not forget the middle-age group. They definitely need help to stay employable, and to take advantage of new jobs and new growth sectors as well. I urge the Government not to overlook the needs of this group of workers. You may call them the 40-something, or the 50-something, or simply the middle-age group, but they are the most vulnerable, in my opinion.”
“There is a need to focus our attention here on how to create opportunities or new avenues for the older workers in their 60s. I agree that, together, we have to find new ways to safeguard their income security through enhancing their employability and improving their competitiveness. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the public sector, the workers in the civil service and statutory boards are feeling the impact of globalisation and its effects on their career prospects, including job security. With the Government's aim of working towards a balanced budget, policies such as economy drive, waste management, management of manpower, the framework itself and the other policies have inevitably caused some anxiety amongst them. These policies must be explained and implemented with care and concern for the workers affected. There should be early discussions and sharing of information between the unions and employers. Both parties could then work out communication plans and manage the transition smoothly without causing much problems or trouble to the parties concerned. While employment or jobs for Singaporeans would be foremost in my mind when dealing with the concerns of workers, other matters could include the general terms and conditions, fair wages, rising medical cost and other forms of benefits. The Prime Minister's Office, in its Addendum to the President's Address, will ensure that salaries and benefits remain competitive through annual salary reviews and regular benchmarking. It added that Ministries would have more flexibility to decide on terms and conditions of employment, and to promote family-friendly practices, such as part-time employment and flexible work arrangements.”
“It is gratifying to know that the Government will work hard to overcome this problem with social partners, like the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and employer organisations. These are workers who really need help. Indeed, the media has recently given very extensive coverage to NTUC's Workplans for 2005. It aims to place at least 10,000 out-of-work Singaporeans in jobs and will continue with job redesign and wage restructuring efforts, among other things. It was also reported earlier that the Economic Development Board had unexpectedly exceeded its target for investments last year and it looked set to produce a bumper crop of 21,800 new jobs. But this year's projected investments are expected to bring in fewer new jobs, falling to 18,000. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government works with NTUC and its affiliated unions. At this point, in fact, I would prefer that the President had mentioned in its Address about NTUC and its affiliated unions because, as trade union leaders, we are very proud of NTUC and its leadership, rather than just simply mentioning unions and employers. It was also mentioned in the Presidential Address, as I said, and stressed in the Ministry of Manpower's Addendum. Yes, we must acknowledge the fact that the close tripartite partnership between the Government, employers and trade unions has been integral in our economic success. To this end, we should work together to strengthen this partnership and ensure that businesses can get the skilled manpower resulting in more jobs for the people. We should work together to help workers who are affected by restructuring to acquire new skills so as to maintain employable. Another area of concern is employability beyond retirement age in view of longer life expectancy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address in this House at the Opening of the Second Session on 12th January this year. I am particularly interested and concerned about the subjects on building the economy, investing in the people and ensuring that all Singaporeans benefit from our success as a nation. My contributions would certainly be matters concerning the welfare and interests of the workers and Singaporeans as a whole. I will focus my attention on Government policies that would affect and have impact on the working population, especially the lower income group. The various Ministries have also in the Addenda to the President's Address spelled out their policies and programmes in relation to the key priorities of the Government. I look forward to further details on the respective implementation plans, the Budget Statement and its debate in February and March this year. In the global economy, when we progress as a nation, there is a fraction of our population who could be left behind and requires the understanding and assistance of the Government. These people could be either less well endowed, not so fortunate and have not much education. I note that the Government will maintain a pro-business strategy so that we can generate wealth and jobs for the people through new businesses. It is heartening to know that the Ministry of Manpower, in its Addendum, has mentioned that it will work with employers to introduce a new National Continuing Education and Training framework to upgrade our workers with relevant skills. The Ministry stated that in higher value-added industries, there would be some workers who are vulnerable to structural unemployment due to their lack of skills.”