Zaqy Mohamad
Singapore
“Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable questions for oral answer to continue until the completion of Question Nos 7 to 29, including relevant supplementary questions, until 12.45 pm?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister Tan See Leng's speech, please?”
“I think on the hawker front, we keep our rentals as low as possible to sustain our hawkers. But for food prices, we continue to monitor. My colleague, Minister of State Gan mentioned about how we are monitoring food supply of food prices, and I think that we will continue to do so.”
“I thank the Member for his question. On seafood specifically, we do not see immediate risk. We have diversified our food imports. We have also got local production of seafood readily available. At this point, as both the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister have shared, our main risk for agriculture lies in fertiliser.”
“Mr Speaker, as I shared, we are monitoring the situation. The Government is monitoring at this point. There is no need at this juncture, because we have not seen the price hikes hit the hawkers in the same way as yet. There will be downstream impact. I think that is quite sure.”
“For us to also look into buying local produce, that helps our farms to increase capacity at this point, helps them build resilience over time and should there be disruptions or should there be a need for us to divert supplies or look to ramp up local production, I think they would be in a better position if we do what we can today to supp…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,752 lines we hold for Zaqy Mohamad, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 36.
“Mr Speaker, today, reporting is required for all work injuries resulting in medical leave of more than three days, consecutive or otherwise, or hospitalisation for at least 24 hours. This is in line with the reporting criteria in other developed countries, such as those in the European Union. We are studying the possibility of making it a requirement to report all work injuries resulting in any instance of light duty or medical leave. This has been included in the public consultation on amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) which was launched just this year in January. It will allow us to have a more comprehensive picture of the extent of work injuries and will help improve the targeting of prevention efforts. We will share more details when the proposed amendments to WICA are finalised this coming April.”
“This goes up to 22% of wages for employing someone with special needs who are more senior. So, to a certain extent, overall, there is support, but what I hope is that we can get more enlightened employers on board. We want employers to be enlightened. I think Members of this House have friends, neighbours, industry contacts, employers who can help and join this inclusive workplace initiative or aspiration for all of us. Certainly, we can all do more. But I hope that we can get more employers on board because the engines are there, the schemes are there. Certainly, we can all work together towards this aspiration.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary question and, certainly, as an aspiration, we are both aligned. We want to see more inclusive workspaces here in Singapore. Specific to that article, I think much of the data was picked up from data available in the public space. However, in recent years, the Government has also started to collect more comprehensive data on persons with special needs. So, in the meantime, just bear with us because we will be releasing more accurate estimates of the employment and unemployment rates for persons with special needs later this year, once we have a better picture of the situation. But overall, if you look at where we are today compared to, say, four or five years ago when we first set up SG Enable, then subsequently we developed WSG to come in to support, we have worked quite closely to look at how we can improve employability. I think the situation has improved, as I have mentioned. Today, we have got 1,600 being placed in the last three years. Certainly, we can do better. But if you look at the schemes out there, are there enough schemes? Perhaps, it can be improved. But what are the schemes like? If you look at the Open Door Programme, for example, we give training grants of up to 90% to employers to employ persons with special needs. And if you look at the Job Redesign Grant, for example, we also support up to 90%, capped at $20,000 per special needs worker for employers to redesign jobs to employ them, to modify their work environment and processes to be more inclusive for persons with special needs. On top of that, if you look at the Special Employment Credit, the Government provides up to 16% wage subsidy to employers to employ persons with special needs regardless of age for those above 65.”
“Under the Third Enabling Masterplan, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has been actively engaging persons with special needs and their caregivers to better understand their aspirations, needs and challenges. The Government is also working closely with social service agencies and other partners in the private and people sectors to improve education, training and job placement for persons with special needs and identify suitable employment opportunities for them.”
“Mr Speaker, under the Adapt and Grow (A&G) initiative, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and its partners provide job matching services and programmes to help jobseekers overcome mismatches in skills, wages or job expectations. Persons with special needs can tap on these services too, as well as the programmes to find suitable employment, particularly the Open Door Programme (ODP) and Career Trial. In the past three years, more than 1,600 persons with special needs have been placed, that is, found jobs, found placements, through these programmes. The ODP, which is administered by SG Enable, provides dedicated support for employers to hire, train and include persons with special needs in the workplace. The programme provides employers with recruitment and job support services, as well as grants to redesign jobs for persons with special needs to upgrade their skills and even train co-workers to work better together with persons with special needs. Some employers may be unsure whether a particular person with special needs would be suited for the job, while persons with special needs may also be unsure whether the job and work environment are suitable. Therefore, we have the Career Trial programme which offers an opportunity for jobseekers to train and work for employers for a short stint of three months, during which time the jobseeker receives a training allowance from Workforce Singapore (WSG). Since April 2018, all persons with special needs who are hired after the trial will receive retention incentives and their employers will also receive salary support.”
“When I talk about adverse conduct, when we talk about moneylending, it applies to unlicensed moneylending. If it is unlicensed, certainly, that is adverse conduct and so, it will go into the record without the need for the employer to report this.”
“Not to return. So, I suppose the employers also have an option to blacklist them as well for such adverse conduct, for example, that they want MOM to take note of. We will certainly take note and mark it in the list. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Does it mean that the employers have to report to MOM so that next time, the maids would not be allowed to come back because they are involved in unlicensed moneylending? Definitely, for those cases that Police is aware of, the maids should be stopped from coming back automatically, without needing the employers to prompt MOM.”
“Generally, as part of policy, as foreigners who have infringed MOM's regulations, they will have their adverse record marked. For this case, if the maids' employers want to appeal, they can certainly appeal, but I am not sure if the Member is asking for them to return, or she wants them black-listed. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: Not to return.”
“Mr Speaker, apart from assessing work permit applications on whether they meet our Work Pass rules such as dependency ratio and source, the applicant will also be screened for any security antecedents and adverse records. This screening of applicants helps to minimise incidence where undesirable persons are inadvertently allowed to work in Singapore. Between 2016 and 2018, around 8,400 applicants were rejected per year, on average, as a result of this screening. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I have one supplementary question. Many residents expressed concern about their maids borrowing money from unlicensed moneylenders and some have been sent back. So, they are asking when these maids apply to come back to Singapore to work, do we issue them work permits or is it on the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) list that these maids are not allowed to come back?”
“I thank the Member for her query. Mr Speaker, based on the statistics reported, five of the children who had died were at pool parties. So, technically, the adults were also there. It is unclear for the others how the situation occurred. But in those cases that I mentioned, the provision of a child restraint barrier, even if mandated, would not have been sufficient in avoiding these incidents. What is important then would be adult supervision, which is still the most effective means in ensuring the safety of young children when they use the pool. We have to balance the risks as well as the obligations that we want to put on private and public pool owners, for example, in terms of putting up barriers. Ultimately, it is quite onerous for some of these pool owners, as the pools can be quite big in condominium developments, for example. Today, even without a mandatory requirement, Management Corporation Strata Titles and condominium owners could potentially pass a resolution to put barriers in place. Private pool owners could also do so, and I think mandating could be quite difficult to implement. Having said that, it could be something we can review. The cases have to be reviewed in more detail to see what the root causes are. But again, as I stressed earlier on, adult supervision is the most important aspect. Of course, as they move to primary school, we do have programmes in place to ensure that our students are well educated and have greater safety awareness when they use pools and water bodies.”
“Mr Speaker, for the safety of young children, the Code of Practice for the design and management of aquatic facilities recommends that toddler and learner pools be situated away from the deep areas of other pools, and this is done to prevent unintended use. There are also safety-related guidelines under the Code for warning signs, slip-resistant flooring, depth markings as well as providing adequate lighting. As an added safety precaution, private pool owners can install child-resistant barriers, and for strata-titled developments, the management corporations may make such improvements to their swimming pools, by passing a special resolution. Besides infrastructural measures, parents and caregivers should closely monitor young children when they are near swimming pools. I think that is most important as well. Water safety education is also as important. As part of the physical education curriculum, all primary school students are taught water safety knowledge and basic swimming skills. This is done through the SwimSafer 2.0 programme, in partnership with SportSG. SportSG has also been actively carrying out water safety outreach and education programmes to raise public awareness. Management corporations of condominiums that also wish to participate in these programmes, or seek water safety advice in general, can also contact the management team at SportSG directly.”
“I thank the Member for his question. Mr Speaker, as I had mentioned earlier, we do share with companies in general some of the cases and contextualise. And, in certain cases where the situation can be egregious, we actually name the companies. So, we are not shy from naming companies. But to name every single one, well, there are different considerations. One, there are different levels of egregiousness. Two, you may end up breaching the privacy of the employers, especially if it is just one targeted. So, we have to be quite careful about the kind of cases we put up. But generally, we do contextualise and put up case studies for other companies. But certainly, we will consider the Member's suggestion.”
“The Member's question relates to publicity, so I do not have the statistics from the time TAFEP was conceived. But as stated in my earlier reply, there has been 450 complaints a year on average between 2015 and 2017. So, that is the number we got.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary question. One thing that I wish to assure the Member and Singaporeans in general about is that TAFEP will assess every complaint that comes in, especially those that are based on facts, and certainly, where you have a formal complaint where the employee also identifies himself, puts a specific complaint on the employer. We will listen to both sides, the employer as well as the employee. In fact, to assure Members that action has been taken, from 2013 to 2017, MOM investigated, and we took action against 521 companies for discriminatory employment practices. Among the 521 companies, 300 or 58% received warnings, and 221 or 42% had their work pass privileges curtailed. So, to a certain sense, Members can see from the number of complaints and the number of companies that we have taken action against, it is quite substantive. So, to a certain sense, Members can see that there is action being taken. And certainly, we have to be fair to both employees and employers to make sure that the cases are dealt with fairly.”
“Employers can better understand and appreciate the need to adopt fair employment practices through such in-depth discussions.”
“Mr Speaker, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) already publishes aggregated statistics on complaints of unfair employment practices. TAFEP and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) received 450 such complaints a year on average between 2015 and 2017. The vast majority of complaints are claims of unfair consideration for Singaporeans or age discrimination. In investigating these complaints, TAFEP would engage the employers involved, and employers are generally cooperative. Most of the complaints arise because employers do not have a proper system to address internal grievances or are insensitive to the different needs and conditions of employees. For the former, TAFEP would help employers improve their internal practices and processes. For the latter, our priority is to resolve such complaints amicably in a way that allows both the employers and the employees to move on from the incidents. Some complaints result in sanctions. These involve employers who are not cooperative with TAFEP or who are found to adopt unfair employment practices. MOM takes enforcement actions against such employers, including curtailing their work pass privileges. MOM and TAFEP will consider publicising cases in situations of public interest or where the conduct is egregious, as we have done so in the past. However, while naming all errant employers publicly would serve as a deterrent, there could be unintended consequences, such as indirectly identifying the affected employees and breaching their privacy. To raise public awareness and prevent unfair employment practices, TAFEP develops case studies from actual cases and educates employers through focused channels, such as TAFEP's briefings and workshops, to share contextualised learnings from specific cases.”
“I thank the Member for her question. If you look at the informal worker today, the challenge is that because they do not have a formal contract and they are outside of the CPF system, it is very difficult to gauge what their monthly salaries are, for example, or if they are contributing. Our long-term goal is really to help them build up their retirement adequacy. Therefore, I think it is better that we move them into formal employment. But I hear the Member. It is something that we could look at. Generally, the long-term goal is to work through the other schemes and the SSOs, for example, today, where you have multi-layered support, not just in terms of Workfare. But you also have social support, you have formal employment search services that we could provide through WSG and e2i. That is where we are today. Certainly, for such workers, we know they are vulnerable and, therefore, I think the direction is still to move them towards formal employment.”
“The lack of stability also does not enable planning on the part of the individual and impedes his ability to build up his Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings for home ownership, healthcare and retirement. We should, hence, avoid unwittingly blurring the difference of such work arrangements for workers, or creating an avenue for employers to have reduced or no obligations for these workers with weak bargaining power. This is also why our focus is to help individuals access formal work arrangements. Through Workforce Singapore (WSG), we seek to bring informal workers back into formal employment. Those in need of financial assistance can also approach the Social Service Offices (SSOs). Members would be very familiar with these, as they have helped many of our low-income Singaporeans. SSO officers assess the needs of each family holistically and work together with WSG and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) to facilitate employment assistance where needed. In the meantime, informal workers continue to be eligible for other support, such as U-Save rebates, GST Vouchers and CHAS.”
“Beyond transfers, we also support skills upgrading. So, it is not about handouts and transfers. It is also about advancement. It is about advancing workers to be able to be more productive and higher skilled. With better skills, our workers can access better wages and better jobs. Government-funded programmes, such as the Workfare Training Support, Adapt and Grow initiative and SkillsFuture, provide active support to promote jobs and skills upgrading in all sectors of the economy, so that lower-income workers can progress along with the rest of the workforce. In fact, as a result of these efforts, real wage at the 20th percentile grew faster than at the median. Between 2012 and 2017, incomes before Government transfers at the 20th percentile of workers grew at 4.2% per annum, or roughly about 20%, over the last five years, faster than median income growth of 3.4%, or about 16%, over the last five years, in real terms. Like other Singaporeans, our lower-income also have the opportunity to build up assets. Among WIS recipients, 75% own their homes. That is a significant statistic. Because very few places in the world – in fact, I do not think you will find one – where low-wage workers own their own homes, are able to build up assets. We recognise that there are workers not in formal employment. Although their incidence in Singapore is generally low, we are concerned about the risks informal workers face. For example, they would have little recourse if their employers failed to make timely payments or compensation for work injury, or if their services were unfairly terminated.”
“The Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme was launched in 2007 as a broad-based measure that raises incomes of lower-income workers. WIS payouts are targeted at those with limited household support, with more going to older workers. For example, a 65-year-old earning $1,200 monthly would receive $300 more each month through WIS. In 2017, 407,000 workers received WIS payouts amounting to $650 million. WIS is regularly reviewed to ensure the target groups continue to be helped. Since inception, the qualifying income ceiling has been raised three times, with the most recent revision being effected on 1 January 2017. The Ministry of Manpower is conducting its regular review of the WIS scheme to ensure that it continues to provide meaningful support to lower-income workers. We will take into account the increases in income over the past few years and announce the results of the review when ready. Most WIS recipients also receive other forms of Government support to help meet their living needs. So, WIS is not the only mechanism through which we help our low-wage workers. Nearly all our WIS recipients receive U-Save rebates and over 90% receive Goods and Services Tax (GST) Vouchers. Nearly four in 10 also receive outpatient medical subsidies under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). Overall, a 65-year-old worker earning $1,200 a month would receive Government transfers comprising Workfare, Silver Support and GST Vouchers amounting to nearly six months' salary, or $7,000 annually. Those with children receive other forms of support if eligible, such as subsidies for childcare and student care. This approach of going beyond wage supplements, to provide further support based on the varied needs of individuals and families, is more responsive than any "living wage".”
“Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 30 and 31 together, please.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“On this note, BCA will be enhancing the current guide on the SOP Act on its website to make it easier for contractors to understand. BCA will also work closely with industry associations to provide firms with information on how adjudication can be used as an effective means to settle payment disputes. In addition, BCA will also conduct briefings to familiarise the industry with the amendments that are before the House today. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has also suggested to put in place measures to prevent funds meant for a construction project from being diverted for other uses. We have examined this issue as part of the review. One possible approach would have been to require the developer of a project to make payments into a project bank account, which parties can then draw down from for work done or goods supplied to the project. One example is Queensland. In October last year, Queensland amended its equivalent of the SOP Act to require head contractors to establish project bank accounts for government building projects worth between $1 million and $10 million. As such a move would affect many industry stakeholders and increase the administrative burden on companies, we will take more time to carefully study this approach and to monitor the effectiveness of Queensland’s model before deciding on the next steps. We will consult the industry when ready. Sir, let me conclude by thanking Mr Louis Ng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh again for their thoughtful suggestions, and their support for this Bill. By taking on feedback and views from the industry players, the revised SOP Act should help to create a more conducive operating environment for all parties in the construction industry. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to.”
“The purpose of the amendment is to encourage respondents to raise any objections to payment claims at the earliest opportunity to facilitate the fast resolution of payment disputes between the parties. Thus, belated objections from respondents must not be within the respondent’s knowledge or control. For example, if an adjudicator considers a claim for damage, loss or expense that is not supported by any document showing agreement of the parties, the adjudicator has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act in making the adjudication determination. In such an event, it would be considered a new circumstance beyond the respondent’s control, and he could raise this as a valid objection in a review adjudication or an application to Court for setting aside. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has rightly pointed out that parties further upstream in the construction value chain typically have more bargaining power in negotiating contracts with their subcontractors. In this regard, the subcontractors may prefer more amicable settlement of disputes before resorting to adjudication, arbitration or litigation. While the SOP Act cannot change such dynamics entirely, it has been useful in facilitating cash flow in the industry. By upholding the rights of parties in the industry to seek payment for work done or goods supplied, the Act has helped deter parties from delaying or withholding payment without valid reasons. But in order for this to be effective, claimants need to exercise their rights and apply for adjudication when required. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has also suggested for the Government to extend advisory assistance and to raise awareness amongst subcontractors on their rights to payment.”
“This is less than 1% of all adjudication cases. Mr Louis Ng also noted that SCT has jurisdiction to hear claims on damage, loss and expense that are not supported by written document and asked why adjudicators must disregard such claims under the SOP Act. As mentioned in my earlier speech, this restriction is to reduce delays in the adjudication process. For example, we have seen delays of up to 129 days due to the inclusion of such claims. Allowing such claims to be heard under the SOP Act clearly goes against the intent of the SOP Act to provide speedy dispute resolution and facilitate cash flow. There are also several key differences between claims under the SCT Act and the SOP Act. The quantum and corresponding complexity of the claims under both Acts are quite different. For instance, the claim limit for disputes brought to the SCT is $10,000, or $20,000 if all parties consent. When the SCT (Amendment) Act 2018 comes into operation, the claim limit will be $20,000, or $30,000 if all parties consent. But there is no limit on the claim amount under the SOP Act. It is not uncommon for damage, loss and expense in a construction contract to exceed millions of dollars. Adjudicators under the SOP Act are also required to meet statutory timelines and complete their determinations within set timelines. In this regard, it is reasonable for such complex claims to be dealt with outside the ambit of the SOP Act. Mr Louis Ng asked to clarify if the objections raised by respondents to a payment claim based on new circumstances must arise out of no fault of the respondents. The policy objective is, indeed, so.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and their support for the Bill. Let me address the issues raised. Mr Louis Ng asked whether it is possible to allow parties to consent to starting the review afresh when a majority of the review adjudicators have been replaced or, in other words, when two out of three adjudicators on the panel have been replaced. Presently, the Act does not set out the processes following the replacement of adjudicators. The amendments before the House provide clarity in situations where any of the review adjudicators are replaced. The intent is to ensure that the adjudication proceedings are not unduly delayed. In situations where the majority of review adjudicators are replaced, the remaining adjudicator that was involved from the onset can apprise the new adjudicators of the case, and there would be no need to start the adjudication review afresh. Should a longer period be needed to make a determination, the review adjudicators may seek an extension of time, subject to the consent of both the claimant and respondent, as Mr Louis Ng has rightly pointed out. The review adjudicators are best placed to decide on the period of extension required, depending on the needs of the case. This is, in fact, more flexible than starting the review afresh, as the extension could be shorter than 14 days, which is the default period should a review be started afresh. This would avoid unduly delaying payment to the claimant. I would also like to highlight that the appointment of a panel of review adjudicators is not common. This happens only when the adjudicated amount exceeds the response amount by $1 million or more. As such, we note that there have only been 15 such appointments since the introduction of the SOP Act in 2005.”
“With these amendments, we believe that the Act will continue to ensure prompt payment practices in our construction industry, and also put our firms in a better position to thrive in both domestic and overseas markets. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“We have received feedback that interest rates set out in contracts can be as low as 1%, as subcontractors may have less bargaining power in setting the rates. Such a low interest rate is ineffective in deterring late payments. So, clause 4 will set a minimum interest rate based on the rate specified under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, which currently stands at 5.33%. A higher interest rate will be used if it is stipulated in the parties' contract terms. This amendment will encourage respondents to pay claimants on time. This amendment will also bring our SOP regime in line with practices in other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales and Queensland. Finally, we want to set out clearly the grounds under which an adjudication determination may be set aside by the Courts. This will allow parties to be more mindful about the dos and don'ts when preparing payment claims, adjudication applications and the relevant responses. In this regard, clause 17 will specify a non-exhaustive list of grounds on which parties can commence proceedings to set aside the adjudication determination. These grounds are consistent with those that have been developed by the Courts over time. For example, if a claimant repeats a claim that is subsequently found to have already been adjudicated on its merits, the determination for the repeated claim may be set aside. The intention is to stipulate a non-exhaustive list, so the Act will not bar the development of case law. Sir, when the SOP Act was first introduced, the intent was to preserve the rights to payment for construction companies. This remains the principle that underpins the amendments we are introducing today.”
“However, the Court noted that the failure to submit such an extract did not prejudice the respondent and should not invalidate the application. So, clause 10 will empower adjudicators to accept an adjudication application that lacks certain information or documents prescribed in regulations, if the adjudicator is satisfied that the respondent is not materially prejudiced. I will share another example where we have taken in the judgments from the Courts in our amendments. The SOP Act is meant to facilitate timely payment to claimants. At the same time, the Act gives respondents the opportunity to raise objections to justify non-payment to claimants. Currently, the Act only states that the respondents cannot raise objections for withholding payment in the adjudication stage if these objections were not flagged earlier in the payment response stage. However, we are concerned that payment to claimants would be delayed in the event that respondents raise objections late in the adjudication process. To that end, clauses 9, 11, 14 and 17 will make clear that any belated objections by respondents will be disregarded by adjudicators or the Courts, unless respondents can prove that their objections could not have been made known earlier. This is in line with comments made by the Courts in recent decisions and will also advance the intent of the Act to facilitate speedy dispute resolution. Respondents that are affected by this amendment can still seek recourse through other channels like arbitration or litigation after paying the adjudicated amount. We will also be making changes to improve the operation of the Act. Currently, the interest rate for late payment is often based on the interest rate stipulated in the contract.”
“We have also heard feedback from the industry stakeholders on the need for the Act to clarify the status of repeat payment claims. Clause 5 will clarify that claimants are allowed to repeat a payment claim even without additional work done or goods or services supplied. This will preserve claimants' entitlement to seek payment through adjudication so long as the payment claim is served within the limitation period, is unpaid, and has not been adjudicated upon its merits. The third set of amendments deals with changes to the adjudication process. Currently, the SOP Act only allows for respondents to apply for adjudication review if they disagree with the adjudication determination and wish to have it reconsidered. The SAL committee had proposed that claimants should also be eligible for adjudication review. This ensures parity between claimants and respondents. So, clauses 12, 15 and 16 will allow claimants to also apply for adjudication review. With the amendment, it is possible to have a scenario where both the respondent and the claimant are entitled to adjudication review. If both parties submit a review application arising from the same determination, only one adjudication review will be conducted. Regardless of the party that initiated the review, the appointed review adjudicators will consider submissions from both parties in arriving at an assessment. We are also updating the SOP Act to align it with Court decisions that were based on provisions in the Act. For example, there have been cases where claimants have made administrative errors in their adjudication applications, such as failing to provide an extract of the contract which was relevant to the payment claim when applying for adjudication.”
“So, clauses 11 and 14 will make clear that adjudicators are to consider claims on damages, losses and expenses only when the claim is supported by documents showing the parties' agreement on the quantum of the claim, or a certificate or document that is required to be issued under the contract. Parties that wish to dispute on complex claims should consider other avenues, such as arbitration or litigation. The second set of amendments will deal with the handling of payment claims and responses. Currently, the Act requires claimants to serve payment claims according to the contract terms. Typically, a contract will stipulate a specific date or fixed period for payment claims to be served so that employers can better manage payment claims from multiple subcontractors. However, there have been past cases where claimants unintentionally serve their claims on the wrong date. This technically invalidates the payment claim during adjudication. Such issues have also been raised before the Courts, leading to payment delays. To address this, clause 5 will provide that the payment claim will be valid even if it is served before the date or the period specified in the contract. In such cases, the payment claim will be deemed as served on the contract specified date or on the last day of the fixed period. To illustrate, if a contract specifies that the payment claim must be made on the 29th of the month, the payment claim will still be valid if the claimant serves it before the 29th of the month. However, the respondent's deadline for payment response will only start running from the 29th of the month. If the claimant serves a payment claim on the 30th of the month instead of 29th, his claim will be treated as being served in the next month.”
“This will facilitate the enforcement of the adjudication determination in Singapore. Another amendment, also at clause 3, will make clear that claims for work done or goods supplied before contract termination are valid. This is to address any ambiguity on the point as to whether claimants can apply for adjudication upon contract termination. That said, we understand that it is common industry practice for contract terms to suspend payment until a later date if a contractor has defaulted, leading to the termination of the contract. When this happens, the SOP Act will pay heed to terms pre-agreed by parties. As such, clause 3 will require adjudicators to respect the contract clauses on suspension of payment for terminated contracts. This means that claimants that have defaulted on the contract will need to abide by contract terms, and they will be able to submit a payment claim under the SOP Act only after the conditions in the contract have been met. Another issue that this Bill will address is the lengthening of the adjudication process due to submission of complex claims. We have observed that some claimants have started to include complicated prolongation costs, damages, losses or expenses when applying for adjudication. This goes beyond the original scope of the SOP Act, which is intended to cover claims for work done or goods and services supplied. For example, one adjudication case took 129 days as the adjudicator needed more time to go through the claims for prolongation costs, which made up 70% of the total claimed amount. In contrast, a typical adjudication case takes only about 21 to 28 days from application to payment.”
“In doing so, we have tried to strike a balance between the interests of the varied stakeholders while ensuring that the amendments enhance the effectiveness of the adjudication mechanism as a low-cost and speedy dispute resolution mechanism for the construction industry. Broadly speaking, the amendments focus on three areas: first, expanding and clarifying the scope of the application of the Act. Second, handling of payment claims and responses. And third, enhancing the adjudication processes. Sir, let me go through some of the key features of the Bill. First, we are proposing amendments that will expand the scope for more contracts to be applicable under the Act. Singapore has been making a big push to raise productivity and quality in the built environment. The Construction Industry Transformation Map (ITM) launched in October last year set out the strategies to help our construction industry move up the value chain and capture growth opportunities in Singapore and abroad. The scope of the SOP Act will be amended to support the Construction ITM. Clause 3 will allow prefabrication works done overseas for local projects to be covered by the SOP Act. This is an important inclusion as our ITM envisages that by 2020, up to 40% of Singapore projects would incorporate productive construction technologies, and some of these may be sourced from overseas by Singapore builders. Internationalisation is also a key thrust of our construction ITM. Given our small domestic market, firms will need to venture overseas in order to grow in size. So, clause 3 will also cover prefabrication works that are carried out locally for projects overseas. The coverage for local prefabrication works for export will only be applicable when both contract parties are locally registered entities.”
“So, we initiated a review of the SOP Act and have consulted stakeholders extensively over the last five years. In all, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) conducted four rounds of industry consultations and six focus group discussions with stakeholders, including developers, architects, engineers, main contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, adjudicators and the Singapore Mediation Centre which administers the adjudication process. However, different stakeholders may have different views and perspectives. For example, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) Law Reform Committee published a list of proposed amendments to the SOP Act in September 2015. The Committee raised concerns that the current approach of allowing a limitation period of six years for claimants to submit a claim for work done was too long. In this regard, it suggested reducing the limitation period from six years to one year so that respondents would not have to manage claims for an unreasonably long period after works have been completed. But the feedback from the industry was that one year would be too short as settlement of final payments for the projects tended to take much longer. Finally, we landed on a limitation period of 2.5 years or 30 months. This is a reasonable period, taking into account the time to settle final payment claims and the defects liability period, which typically ranges from 12 to 18 months. This illustrates the approach that we have taken in coming up with the amendments that are before the House today. We have considered and incorporated feedback from stakeholders into our amendments where possible.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, or SOP Act in short, was introduced in 2005 to facilitate cash flow in the construction industry. The SOP Act introduced a fast and low-cost adjudication mechanism to deal with payment disputes. For a typical construction project, the developer pays the main contractor, who, in turn, pays its subcontractors or suppliers. As a construction project can take several years to complete, progress payments are made periodically throughout the project duration. Parties along the value chain often fund their own work first and collect payment thereafter. So, it is critical that parties are paid in a timely manner for work done or goods supplied. The Act has served the industry well. When the Act was first introduced, the industry was unfamiliar with how the adjudication process could assist them. Over the years, industry players are now more aware that adjudication is an effective mechanism to resolve payment disputes quickly, compared to arbitration or litigation which can be lengthy and expensive. In the initial years of administering the Act, there were less than 100 applications per year. This has now increased to more than 400 applications per year since 2014. We are happy to see that the industry is increasingly using the Act to resolve their payment issues. As of mid-2018, the adjudication process has facilitated payments of over $940 million. However, from time to time, there have been calls by stakeholder groups to amend the SOP Act to enhance the effectiveness of the Act in facilitating cash flow.”
“Last October, when we launched the Tripartite Standard for Grievance Handling, the standard applied specifies a set of variable and actionable employment practices for companies to manage workplace grievances, including allegations of discrimination more effectively. Employers adopting this standard commit to put in place clear processes for handling employees' grievances to ensure that these are adequately dealt with. As at end August, about 750 employers with close to 430,000 employees have signed up for the Standard. MOM's focus is now to encourage more employers to adopt this standard and we will certainly support our Tripartite Partners in this endeavour.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. To help address discrimination against persons with disabilities, the Government takes a holistic and comprehensive approach through the Third Enabling Master Plan (EMP3) and this is done in collaboration by MOM with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and SGEnable to maximise the potential and opportunities for persons with disabilities. The EMP3 serves as a road map for Singapore to build a more inclusive society where persons with disabilities are empowered to contribute and realise their potential. Initiatives under EMP3 include the Workplace Disability Inclusive Index which is an online assessment tool that helps employers assess their readiness to hire persons with disabilities and to identify areas for improvement. The second one is the Job Placement and Job Support Programme which provides vocational assessment and job-matching in open employment and post-placement support for up to 12 months, and the Bi-annual Enabling Employers Award and Inclusive Business Forum which recognises and propagates progressive employment practices among employers. I am also glad that the Member asked about the involvement of the tripartite partners because, as I alluded to Member Rahayu Mahzam's questions earlier, in addition to supporting EMP3, MOM launched two Tripartite Standards to Promote Inclusive Hiring Practices and Manage Workplace Grievances. As part of the Tripartite Standard of Recruitment Practices, the Standard encourages fair, merit-based and inclusive hiring practices for persons with disabilities, among other groups. As at the end of August 2018, about 700 employers with about 375,000 employees have adopted this Standard.”
“I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Firstly, MOM takes a very strict view. We take every discriminatory practice, whether for persons with disabilities or otherwise, very seriously. But, in fact, recently, the tripartite partners have also launched two tripartite standards that will help encourage companies not to have discriminatory practices, including against persons with disabilities. One was launched last November when we launched the Tripartite Standards of Recruitment Practices. The other one was in October when we launched the Tripartite Standards on Grievance Handling. These efforts are complemented by more specific measures by MOM, SGEnable and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) to help persons with disabilities gain employment and support employers to hire persons with disabilities through programmes, such as the Open-door Programme. But, more importantly, the law today covers those who are disabled and those who are not under the Employment Act. Under the Employment Act, individuals who feel that they are wrongfully dismissed, including due to the disability, may appeal to MOM. If substantiated, MOM will take action against the employer, including requiring the errant employer to compensate the individual. Wrongful dismissal claims will be heard by the Employment Claims Tribunal in April 2019, after the Employment Act is amended later this year. We urge all individuals who feel that they have been wrongfully dismissed to approach MOM for advice and assistance as soon as possible.”
“For example, MOM supports employers through the Open Door Programme and Special Employment Credit scheme to improve employment outcomes for persons with disabilities. TAFEP also promotes fair and inclusive employment practices and contribute to better employment outcomes for persons with disabilities.”
“Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) takes a serious view of workplace discrimination, and this includes unfair employment practices against persons with disabilities. We expect all employers to abide by the principles of fair and merit-based employment practices outlined in the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP). In the past five years, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received about 1,600 complaints on workplace issues, of which, four complaints were allegations of discrimination against persons with disabilities. Upon investigation, TAFEP found no evidence of discrimination, but that the main reason for such complaints was due to poor communication and lack of sensitivity when working with persons with disabilities. All the four cases were closed after TAFEP provided advice to the employers to improve their employment practices. We urge all individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against to approach TAFEP for advice and assistance. MOM will not hesitate to take actions against offending companies and curtail their work pass privileges. There is no conclusive evidence that anti-discrimination laws necessarily improve employability of persons with disabilities. In fact, such laws may have the unintended consequence of deterring employers from hiring them in the first instance. This may happen when employers are fearful that workers cannot be dismissed even with legitimate reasons or that their actions would be misconstrued as being unlawful. The key to addressing discrimination is to change mindsets, and the effective tools for achieving this goes beyond legislation.”
“Foreign workers who have had their salaries deducted without their written consent, or beyond what is allowable under the law, should report this to MOM as early as possible. This point will be made clear through the Settling-in Programme which will be rolled out to all new non-Malaysian foreign workers in Singapore starting with those in the construction sector from this year in October 2018.”
“Mr Speaker, it is me again. Employment Agencies (EAs) operating in Singapore are not allowed to collect fees exceeding one month of a worker's salary for each year of contracted service here, capped at two months' salary. Between 2015 to 2017, MOM took action against 23 errant EAs for violating this rule. Three were prosecuted and had their licences revoked while the remaining were given written warnings or had composition fines imposed on them. MOM also helped the workers who were in Singapore to recover their excess agency fees in full. While the Ministry has prohibited the EAs in Singapore from charging workers beyond the stipulated fee cap, it is also beyond our jurisdiction to regulate agents in the workers' home countries. However, whenever MOM's investigations reveal suspicious or irregular fee practices, we do not hesitate to share pertinent information with the foreign embassies to enlist their help to combat any malpractices in their respective countries. When applying for Work Permits, employers are required to declare key salary terms, in particular, basic and fixed monthly salary, and salary deductions, to prospective foreign workers. These terms are stated in the In-Principle Approval (IPA) letters, which are available in the workers' native languages, and must be sent to the workers prior to their departure to Singapore. Employers are not allowed to increase salary deductions from what is stated in the IPA, unless they have obtained the workers' written agreement and notified MOM of the revisions. In addition, these deductions must comply with the maximum deductions allowable under the Employment Act.”
“He has helped at least two of them seek assistance from MOM and recover their salaries successfully. We were heartened to know that these two individuals signed up as Foreign Worker Ambassadors thereafter. To further his outreach, Raj started taking Mandarin classes in 2017 to connect with Chinese workers, too. MOM will continue to work with MWC to grow this pool of Foreign Worker Ambassadors to strengthen peer support networks amongst our foreign workers.”
“Mr Speaker, the Foreign Worker Ambassador programme is a volunteer scheme introduced by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in November 2014 for foreign workers to provide peer support to one another. To date, in partnership with the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC), MOM has grown this pool of Foreign Worker Ambassadors from about 300 in November 2014 to 2,600 in September 2018. We are encouraged that more foreign workers have come forward to volunteer to be trained as Ambassadors. Many of our Foreign Worker Ambassadors have said that they wish to "pay it forward", having received help from MOM and other Ambassadors previously. Many of them have also expressed an interest to help their fellow countrymen after settling in Singapore. Having been briefed by MOM on employment rights and regulations, work safety practices and social norms, the Ambassadors act on their own initiative to reach out to fellow foreign workers. Here are some examples. (a) Mr Molla Mohammad Saifullah, or Saiful, conducts briefing sessions on employment rights and regulations for construction workers like himself. We understand that more than 1,000 foreign workers have benefited from his efforts so far. (b) Mr Sulthan Kabeer Sahib Bava Bahrudeen, or Bava, together with fellow Ambassadors from the same dormitory, has been going around from one dormitory room to another on weekends to raise awareness amongst foreign workers on a variety of issues. These range from employment-related matters to the prevention of dengue, adherence to traffic rules and how to save water. (c) Mr Veluchamy Muniapparaj, or Raj, voluntarily provides advice on salary issues to fellow foreign workers, having gone through a wage dispute before.”
“On the last item, the proportion of employers who issue itemised payslips, based on MOM's survey since its inception in 2016, the vast majority or 95% of private establishments provide itemised payslips to their employees in 2017. The survey was done for private establishments with at least 25 employees. So, it is quite substantial. We have seen 95% come on board. But we also recognise that there is some non-compliance, that last 5%. This is where MOM will continue to reinforce the requirement in our communication to employers through various channels, including proactive inspections. as part of our WorkRight Initiative. But going forward, we will also strengthen our enforcement against establishments that fail to issue itemised payslips. So, these establishments will be required to attend corrective clinics which will be conducted by TAFEP and the tripartite partners. Establishments which persistently fail to rectify their practices will be issued with relevant penalties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. On the first question, one of the most common reasons given to us in terms of those who are found to have contravened the regulation is that they have a lack of resources or expertise on the ground to implement itemised payslips. MOM has continued to educate by putting in more effort into education to help employers, especially our SMEs, to comply with the requirement. We have also worked with the likes of the Singapore National Employers Federation, Singapore Business Federation, Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and others, to include seminars and workshops to educate them on the requirement and provide, as I have mentioned earlier, blank basic templates that they can use and download quite easily. In addition, Enterprise Singapore has also appointed a pool of service providers that can help provide outsourcing of data processing and HR-related administration, and the aim is to help SMEs comply with the law as well. That is the first question. Second, with regard to whether MOM requires back-printing of payslips, at this point, we do not have that requirement. But MOM does get into details in the event of a dispute, in terms of asking the employer to provide various information, such as past payments, as well as other information, such as timesheets, long medical leave and other benefits that the employee may require. So, we do not make them print out and backdate the payslips. But in the event that they are required, the employee can ask the employer or come to MOM or the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management for mediation, if need be.”
“Mr Speaker, over the past two years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has received about 500 complaints against employers for not issuing itemised payslips. Through proactive inspections on employers, another 1,200 employers were formally informed to rectify their practices. Employers were given sufficient time to prepare with ample access to solutions and resources to comply. When the requirement was introduced, MOM worked with the tripartite partners and industry associations, such as the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) U Care Centre, U SME, Federation of Merchants’ Associations Singapore, and the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, to increase awareness and offer solutions. Guidebooks on complying with the requirements and templates for the payslips have been distributed to about 180,000 employers so far. In fact, these templates can be downloaded from the MOM website in four vernacular languages. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can also tap on the Human Resource (HR) Shared Services providers, such as those appointed under Enterprise Singapore’s HR Shared Services scheme, to help them to be in full compliance with the law.”
“I thank the Member. In short, any reduction in salary before the Work Permit issuance will constitute an offence. Technically, there is no need for them to submit any documentation because reduction in salary before Work Permit issuance is not allowed.”
“I thank the Member. I will take the second question first. Certainly, we are open to NGOs being consulted or taking their feedback. On the first question, certainly, I think that all the foreign workers have direct access to MOM if they want to make a complaint. At this moment, we do not take every written change at the point of application. But having said that, when there is a dispute, we will require the documentation to be provided. And the law protects the worker, especially when there is no documentation provided in terms of a written agreement on the change in salary.”
“In the past three years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) was notified of salary reductions affecting less than 2% of non-domestic Work Permit holders per year. From that number, less than one in 10 were within one month, and about four in 10 were within one year, after the Work Permit was issued. As explained in a reply to a Parliamentary Question raised by the Member on this topic last month, MOM is studying the issue and we will consult the relevant stakeholders to determine the best step forward for foreign workers.”