\r\n
|
Column: 2169
\r\n
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
\r\nSINGAPORE
\r\nOFFICIAL REPORT
\r\n\r\nELEVENTH PARLIAMENT\r\n
\r\n| PART\r\nII\r\nOF\r\n\r\n SECOND SESSION | \r\n\r\n VOLUME\r\n87 | \r\n
\r\n\r\n
The House met at\r\n1.30 pm
PRESENT:
\r\nColumn: 2170
Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar), Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office.
Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast).
Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (Nee Soon East), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh).
Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio), Deputy Government Whip.
Mr K Shanmugam (Sembawang), Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan (Sembawang), Minister for Health.
Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah), Minister of State, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and Deputy Government Whip.
Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar), Minister of State, Ministry of Defence.
Dr Lam Pin Min (Ang Mo Kio).
Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio).
Dr Lee Boon Yang (Jalan Besar).
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang).
Mr Lee Hsien Loong (Ang Mo Kio), Prime Minister.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Minister Mentor, Prime Minister's Office.\r\n
Column: 2171
\r\nMr Terry Lee (Nominated Member).
Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast), Minister of State, Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Manpower.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah).
Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade).
Mr Lim Boon Heng (Jurong), Minister, Prime Minister's Office.
Mr Lim Hng Kiang (West Coast), Minister for Trade and Industry.
Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Aljunied), Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport.
Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat (East Coast), Minister for Transport and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Mr Lim Swee Say (Holland-Bukit Timah), Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Government Whip.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member).
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang).
Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol).
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang).
RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.
Mr Mah Bow Tan (Tampines), Minister for National Development and Leader of the House.
Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Sembawang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development.
Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade).
Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar).
Dr Ng Eng Hen (Bishan-Toa Payoh), Minister for Education, Second Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House.
Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines).\r\n
Column: 2172
\r\nMr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central).
Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines).
Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade).
Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol).
Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied).
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar).
Prof. S Jayakumar (East Coast), Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office.
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong (Tanjong Pagar), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade).
Mr Seng Han Thong (Yio Chu Kang).
Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines).
Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member).
Mrs Mildred Tan (Nominated Member).
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast).
Mr Teo Chee Hean (Pasir Ris-Punggol), Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence.
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang).
Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh).
Mr Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Minister for Transport.
Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member).
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Jurong), Minister for Finance.
Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member).
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (Holland-Bukit Timah), Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports.
Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong (Nominated Member).\r\n
Column: 2173
\r\nMr Wong Kan Seng (Bishan-Toa Payoh), Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security.
Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen (Nominated Member).
Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar), Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs.
Mr Matthias Yao Chih (MacPherson), Deputy Speaker.
Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah).
Mr Yeo Cheow Tong (Hong Kah).
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied).
Ms Joscelin Yeo (Nominated Member).
Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo (Aljunied), Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Holland-Bukit Timah), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh).
Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah).
Column: 2174
\r\n
1. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) whether the Ministry will review its policy and consider pre-blocking pornographic sites on the Internet even though the blockage may not be foolproof; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider directing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide the service of blocking pornographic websites for free.
\r\nThe Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has taken a practical light-touch approach to regulating the Internet.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Under the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) Class Licence scheme, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Singapore are required to block access to 100 websites, which include pornographic sites. This block on 100 sites is a symbolic statement of our community’s stand on harmful and undesirable content on the Internet. ISPs and Internet Content Providers are also required to remove objectionable content upon notification by the MDA.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In addition, ISPs provide optional opt-in filtering services that will filter out pornographic and other undesirable websites. I strongly encourage parents to subscribe to such filtering services to protect their children from undesirable Internet content. ISPs offer these filtering services at $3 to $5 per month and some filtering services are offered free of charge with certain subscription plans. There are also filtering software that can be downloaded for free from the Internet. The MDA is working closely with the \r\n
Column: 2175
\r\nindustry to raise greater public awareness of Internet filtering tools and services, and to make them easily available to the public.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In line with the recommendations by the recent Censorship Review Committee, the Government will require ISPs to actively market their Internet filtering services to consumers at the point-of-sale and renewal of their Internet subscriptions. This would be more beneficial than simply providing the filters for free by default, as parents can learn about and understand the benefits of such filtering services and exercise parental responsibility to protect their children.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We recognise that given the borderless nature of the Internet, it is not possible to block every undesirable website. As our hon. Member has pointed out, no blocks can be foolproof. Hence, in addition to regulatory protection and filtering services, public education is critical, especially for our children, on the proper and safe use of the Internet. The MDA has been working closely with partners from the public, people and private sectors to implement cyberwellness outreach programmes that promote the responsible and discerning use of new media. The Inter-Ministry Cyberwellness Steering Committee (ICSC) that was set up in 2009 has initiated and funded cyberwellness programmes to promote cyberwellness particularly among our youths.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
This multi-pronged approach of regulation and cooperation between the Government, industry and the public has worked well in promoting the responsible use of the Internet.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the hon. Member that MDA takes a serious view against those who distribute pornography and will not hesitate to take\r\n
Column: 2176
\r\naction where possible. In Singapore, it is an offence to electronically distribute or publicly exhibit any obscene materials.
\r\nRAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, the first question is how prevalent are such sites and how easy is it for a user to stumble onto such sites. It is really difficult to give the Member a direct answer to this. Our belief is that either people are sent the links to these sites or they search the links out themselves. My belief is that accidental access is more a rare than a common occurrence.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The second point is that MDA does scan the Internet. The 100 sites that I mentioned consist not only of pornographic sites but also those inciting hatred, terrorism, and so on. There are tens of thousands of such pornographic sites and more of them are being discovered every day. Where necessary, MDA will include these sites, especially the more prominent ones, on the symbolic list of 100 sites in order to remind the public periodically that there is material on the Internet not just pornographic but other material that is not wholesome and not edifying.
\r\nMr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah): Sir, I am sure if any user \"googles\" it, he can find a lot of these sites easily. I was just wondering if the Ministry has done any surveys with parents, for example, who wished that such controls be put in place. May I know the Ministry's position in terms of it not wanting parents to be \r\n
Column: 2177
\r\ncomplacent versus filtering all sites as a mandate? Is there a gap between public expectations and the Ministry's position?
\r\nRAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Sir, when the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) was convened last year, they did a public survey on a variety of issues, one of which was the use of Internet filters. The survey asked if respondents were aware of such filters and for those who are aware whether they subscribe to it, and if not, what are the reasons for not doing so. Our belief is that the filters can be a complementary tool to whatever it is that we are doing. The CRC survey results show that 71% of Internet users who are parents with young children aged up to 14 years are not subscribers of Internet filters. Thirty-seven percent of respondents (Internet users who are parents with children aged up to 14 years) are aware that there are filters, but decided not to subscribe to the filters. So, it is not due to a lack of awareness nor the cost of the service. Three main reasons were ascribed to this non-subscription: (i) they are already teaching their children the skills to navigate the Internet, (ii) they are already monitoring their children's Internet usage, and (iii) their children are given very limited access to the Internet. So, for this group, it is not due to awareness nor is it related to cost issues.
\r\nColumn: 2177
\r\n\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
2. Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in view of the rise in food prices at hawker centres (a) what are the Ministry's plans to moderate the rental rates of hawker stalls; and (b) whether the Ministry would stop the practice of allowing hawker stall lessees to sublet their stalls so as to mitigate the rising cost of cooked food at heartland hawker centres.
\r\nThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob \r\n
Column: 2178
\r\nIbrahim): Mr Speaker, Sir, rental is one of several factors that affect cooked food prices. Other factors include costs of utilities, labour, raw materials and market competition.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
About half of the 6,258 cooked food stalls in our hawker centres are subsidised. The subsidised rent ranges between $160 and $320 while the market rent ranges from $275 to $2,900. My Ministry currently has no plans to further moderate rental rates, as market rents are re-assessed at the point of every tenancy renewal. The rates may rise or fall, depending on the prevailing market conditions.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Currently, only stallholders paying tendered and market rents are allowed to sublet their stalls. The subletting of these stalls encourages longer operating hours for the stall and, in doing so, increases consumer choice and the vibrancy of the hawker centre as a whole. It should not increase the cost of cooked food in the hawker centres.
Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like some clarification from the Minister. Currently, there are three types of rentals in the cooked food centres in Singapore: (i) subsidised rental, (ii) market rental, and (iii) subletting rental that the National Environment Agency (NEA) would not know about as this last rate is agreed upon between those that had already tendered market stalls and their sublet tenants. In Kovan, for example, the market was recently upgraded. The subletting rental is $5,500 per stall. This is compared to the subsidised rental by NEA of $350. Sir, the discrepancy is very large. In such a case, the food prices will definitely be increased. Can the Minister explain why the Ministry is not monitoring the subletting rates as well as the market rental?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My second question relates to subsidised rental in the markets. As the \r\n
Column: 2179
\r\nMinister said earlier, 50% of the hawker stalls enjoy subsidised rental. The reason for this subsidy is that they were the original tenants. Can I ask the Minister: over the next five to 10 years, the number of such subsidised stalls will be reduced, as the current hawker stallholders will be older and may give up their stalls. In view of this trend, we can expect the subsidised rental to revert to the market rental. How severe will this be? How will it affect the food prices?
\r\nAssoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Sir, on the second question, the hon. Member is right. As and when the subsidised rental owners are prepared to give up their stalls, these will then be given out to the market. At which point, really depends on when they exit the trade, whether this is within five or 10 years, as mentioned by the hon. Member, is not clear. We really do not have the numbers but the hon. Member is right. Once the stall is given up, it is either tendered out or rented out at market rent. This is not something that is new. As I mentioned in my reply, we have been doing so progressively. This is why only half of the 6,000-odd hawker centres are all subsidised. Will it have an impact on the food prices? As I mentioned in my reply, food prices are affected by many different factors. Currently, electricity prices have gone up and, obviously, the market will adjust. I do not think it is possible for us to pre-determine ahead of time. Our role is really to ensure that there is a proper mix, that our hawker centres continue to be vibrant.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n On the Member’s first question as to whether or not we monitor, the answer is we do. As I mentioned in my reply, subletting is a private arrangement. It is what the market can bear. If the person who decides to rent the sublet stall at $5,500, he or she must have made his \r\n
Column: 2180
\r\n own computations based upon what is available in the vicinity. We will not be able to intervene at this point in time. As and when the renewal for the tenancy is up, then we can basically moderate. But at the end of the day, I think it is best for us to leave to the hawker stallholders to decide on the best arrangement given the dynamics of the set of factors around the hawker centres.
\r\nMr Speaker: One last short question.
\r\nMdm Cynthia Phua: Yes, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister not agree that the difference in rental will definitely be passed on to the consumers in the food prices? Sorry, Mr Speaker. Second question: since the Ministry monitors the rental rates, can the Minister give us an indication of the rate of increase for the last three years?
\r\nAssoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: I can, again, answer the second question first. Just to give the Member some data: for the tenancy details for the second half of last year, about 230-odd stalls came up for renewal. Out of that, 51% of the stalls whose tenancies were renewed had their rentals reduced while 19% remained the same. So, by and large, rentals have not really changed for the last round of tenancy renewals for the second half of last year.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n To the Member’s first question as to whether food prices will go up because of the rental – again, this is something in which you have to consider the multitude of factors affecting it. Factors affecting food prices are not only to rentals but also cost of utilities, and other things which will have an impact, for example, in terms of the type of food the particular hawker would want to sell. So, I leave it to the market to decide. And if supposing the price is too high for the patrons, they might go to another stall. So, they have to make their own calculations.
Column: 2181
\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
3. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he would provide an update on the fight against high-rise littering; (b) how many complaints were received and how many summons were issued for such offences in the last three years; and (c) whether stronger measures are needed to further reduce high-rise littering.
\r\n4. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if he would provide an assessment on whether existing laws are effective in tackling high-rise litter; (b) whether the current law limits the effectiveness of enforcement by requiring enforcement officers to identify the offenders in person and if the Ministry will consider changing the law to hold the household responsible; and (c) whether the Ministry would consider using surveillance tools to make enforcement more effective as manpower is limited and cannot be committed over long periods of time.
\r\nThe Minister of State, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos. 3 and 4 together.
\r\nDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: To combat high-rise littering effectively, NEA adopts a two-pronged approach, namely education and enforcement. Education helps to mitigate the problems by raising awareness on the dangers of high-rise littering and the need for greater social responsibility by dwellers of high-rise buildings. This is supplemented by enforcement action to punish and deter offenders.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2182
\r\n
Our laws against high-rise littering require the witnessing of the offence being committed before prosecution can take place, as enforcement action and prosecution need to be substantiated with evidence. On receiving feedback, NEA and the relevant Town Council will identify the unit from which the litter may have been thrown. If there is sufficient evidence, NEA will proceed with enforcement action. Otherwise, letters are served to residents of the suspected unit and those in the same column, advising them to refrain from committing such acts. A warning letter will follow if the acts persist. Surveillance and monitoring operations will also be conducted in the area when necessary.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Apprehending high-rise littering offenders is manpower-intensive and involves long hours of staking out to catch the offender in the act. Despite the best efforts of our enforcement officers, it is not always possible to catch the offenders as most of the offences are committed at night which make it a greater challenge to identify the offender clearly.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The number of feedback on high-rise littering is on the rise, from 2,499 in 2008 to 3,475 in 2009, and 4,449 last year. During this period, NEA took enforcement action against nine cases of high-rise littering, where the offenders could be identified. High-rise littering offenders are sent to Court where they may be imposed with a Corrective Work Order (CWO).
\r\n
In addition to CWO, repeat offenders may face a fine of up to $5,000 upon conviction. In the majority of other cases, the offenders either could not be identified or the littering stopped after warning letters were issued.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
High-rise littering is a challenging problem in Singapore because of our urban landscape. We will continue to study ways to tackle this challenge. For instance, NEA has experimented with the \r\n
Column: 2183
\r\nuse of surveillance devices in their stakeouts. However, the use of such technology is limited by costs and physical considerations at the site.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As part of the anti-littering campaign, our Litter-free Ambassadors will share anti high-rise littering messages with residents during their house-to-house visits. Ultimately, we need the support of the community to provide information on the high-rise litterbugs so that NEA can take action against the culprits and send a strong message that such unsafe and irresponsible acts will not be tolerated.
\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, notwithstanding the statistics given by the Minister of State on the number of cases and so on, I think on the ground, when we visit the residents, we know that there are many cases of high-rise littering that go unreported and hence not captured in the data that the Minister of State has just revealed. My first question to the Minister of State is: should there be more and even stronger measures to deal with high-rise littering and perhaps more resources allocated to this? Secondly, the problem of high-rise littering in HDB estates cuts across a few agencies – the HDB, Town Council, even the Police, in addition to NEA – it seems that there is no clear ownership and accountability of this problem. So I would like to ask the Minister of State whether NEA should be the agency that takes ownership of this problem and that will coordinate with the other agencies so that we can deal with this problem decisively.
\r\nDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Firstly, I note the Member's concern about the problem of high-rise littering. Let me assure him that we are equally concerned, and we will continue to study and look at how to tackle this challenge more effectively. As regards the coordination among the different agencies: since October last \r\n
Column: 2184
\r\nyear, NEA has formalised arrangements with the various agencies, including the Town Councils and HDB to step up the engagement and education efforts to residents as well as to conduct joint operations, surveillance and enforcement actions when feedback or complaints are received regarding high-rise littering.
\r\nMr Zaqy Mohamad: Sir, concerning the statistics put forward earlier, I think having just nine cases that were brought to Court is an under reflection of the situation today. If Members look at the estates today, there is a lot of litter on the ground. I think it is not a question of effort, but it is a question of the lack of proper regulation or ineffective regulation today. Hence, the person throwing the litter makes it quite ineffective for a lot of officers even though NEA deploys a lot of manpower on the ground. I would like to ask if the Ministry will continue to experiment with the surveillance tools until we get the right formula so that we actually save costs on manpower resources. It is also ineffective because most of our manpower resources are deployed during the day and no one is at home during the day most of the time. At night, they cannot see as clearly.
\r\nMr Speaker: Mr Zaqy, your questions are getting longer now.
\r\nMr Zaqy Mohamad: Thirdly, would the Ministry consider changing the regulation like the way we enforce vehicle speeding, for example, where you make the House accountable and identify the perpetrator from the home?
\r\nDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Just to share with Members regarding the use of surveillance tools, CCTVs, and so on. Last year, NEA carried out two preliminary trials with Certis CISCO and ATOS, using different mix of surveillance cameras. The trials revealed several constraints in the use of surveillance cameras, including the placement of cameras, lighting, \r\n
Column: 2185
\r\nzooming capability, weather conditions, presence of physical obstruction like trees and availability of sites for the mounting of cameras. These factors actually affect the quality of the video clip and hence their admissibility as evidence for prosecution. Cost, of course, as I have mentioned earlier, is another consideration as more than one camera may be needed for every stakeout. So the use of CCTV and other surveillance cameras has been limited to trials but, nonetheless, we will continue, as suggested by the Member, to try and test out different surveillance tools with a view to using some of these to help us in our enforcement action. As regards looking at amending legislation, as I have noted, we will continue to look into ways to more effectively tackle the challenge. We will take the Member's suggestions regarding the amendment and enhancements of legislations into account in our deliberations.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Related to the littering issue is that of a dog poo issue. There has been a rise in pets being kept in HDB estates and many a time, it is not just the owners who take their dogs out but sometimes the domestic helpers will take their dogs out for a walk and to do the necessary call of nature. They do not pick up after the dogs, leaving not just unsightly poos but also giving rise to hygiene issues. I think for the Muslim population, it could also be quite offensive. So my question to the Minister of State is whether the Ministry has considered some by-laws to nab those who leave dog poo behind and whether they could consider working with MOM in training the domestic helpers in ensuring that they will pick up the necessary poo after walking the dogs.
\r\nDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: First, I would like to comment that the train of questions show that ultimately we need all residents to play an active role in tackling this littering problem, including dog poo. We need the residents to refrain \r\n
Column: 2186
\r\nfrom committing such socially irresponsible acts, to spread this message to their family members, friends, neighbours as well as to alert us if there are such litterbugs or irresponsible people around. As regards by-laws, if I am not wrong, I am quite sure the Town Councils already have by-laws with regard to littering – not picking up dog poo is also a littering issue. If the offender is caught in the act, enforcement action will be taken against him. But like I said, ultimately, we really need the community to be socially responsible. We need all residents to play an active role in tackling such issues.
\r\nColumn: 2186
\r\n\r\n\r\n
5. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) if he could provide (i) an update on the number of Singaporeans who have applied for Casino Exclusion Orders; and (ii) a profile of those who are under the Casino Exclusion Order; and (b) if the Minister is satisfied with the measures in place to alleviate problem gambling in Singapore.
\r\n The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three types of Casino Exclusion Orders, namely, Voluntary Self Exclusion, Family Exclusion and Third-Party Exclusion. As at 31st December 2010, there were 3,519 Self Exclusion Orders, 297 Family Exclusion Orders and about 27,500 Third-Party Exclusions in force.
\r\n
\r\n I have asked for some charts* to be circulated to hon. Members which will contain the profile of the persons placed on Casino Exclusion Orders, and in the meantime, let me highlight a few points.
\r\n
\r\n For Self Exclusion Orders, 78% of the applicants were male and 92% were
Column: 2187
\r\nChinese. 36% of them were in their 30s while 25% were in their 40s.
\r\n
\r\n For Family Exclusion Orders, the pattern is very much similar – 81% were male and 95% were Chinese, and 31% of the respondents were in their 40s and 22% in their 30s. Slightly more than a third of the respondents had \"N\" level or lower education, and another third had \"O\" level or ITE qualifications. Thirty-seven percent of the applications for Family Exclusion Orders were actually made by the spouses, 24% from parents, 20% from children and 19% from siblings.
\r\n\r\n
Third-Party Exclusion covers persons who are on public assistance and all undischarged bankrupts, hence the high number. They are automatically barred from the casinos. As of 31st December 2010, there were about 27,500 individuals who were excluded on this basis.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The hon. Member has also asked if the Government is satisfied with the measures currently in place. As both casinos have been operating for less than a year so far, it would be premature to draw a conclusion of the impact the casinos has on the local problem gambling situation or on the adequacy of our social safeguards. But what I can say is that we will continue to enhance the safeguards in order to protect vulnerable Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners residing here, if necessary.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Both the operators of the casinos have also been reminded that they are not to target the local population.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
There have been concerns raised about foreign worker patronage at the casinos. The Casino Control Act currently allows for Voluntary Self Exclusion to be made for foreigners. Thus, these foreign workers may also apply for Voluntary Self \r\n
Column: 2188
\r\nExclusion. The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) is working with various community and social organisations to facilitate the Voluntary Self Exclusion for foreign workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The NCPG is also looking at ways to enhance the convenience of applying for Casino Exclusion Orders. In fact, just a week or two ago, the NCPG announced that it has shortened the family exclusion process from six weeks to two weeks. It is currently looking into making the applications available online in order to facilitate the process further. More details will be announced in due course.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
MCYS will continue to monitor these trends, and I will give Members the assurance that we will take appropriate action, if and when necessary.
\r\n\r\n\r\nAssoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Sir, may I ask the Minister two supplementary questions on this issue. Will the Ministry consider allowing friends of low-wage foreign workers to invoke an exclusionary order, for example, our foreign domestic workers (FDWs). I think given their wage structure, most of them should not be able to afford to gamble. My second supplementary question has to do with the very positive news buzz that we get around the Intergrated Resort (IR). Can the Minister update us on the efforts taken to educate school kids and youths on the ill effects of addictive gambling?
\r\nDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I share the Member's concern for low-wage foreign workers, especially those who are living in our own homes, and the risks that they will be subjected to if they access the casinos. However, our current regime provides for Voluntary Self Exclusion. So I would encourage employers of foreign domestic workers to get them to sign the Voluntary Self Exclusion, and my Ministry together with the Ministry of Manpower\r\n
Column: 2189
\r\nwould facilitate their process. But at this point in time, it has to be voluntary. You cannot impose it. Although you can apply for Family Exclusion Order for your own relatives, you cannot apply for that type of order for your employee. On the other point about the positive buzz, I think she is referring to the positive publicity which the Integrated Resorts obviously would like to project in order to increase their patronage. She is quite right. We need to continue with it and, in fact, we need to step up our efforts to educate our local population and, in particular, our young in schools about the very real risks of gambling, the propensity to addiction, the avenues to seek help and also the early warning signs and the terribly corrosive and destructive effect it can have on family relations. This is going to be ongoing work. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Education, together with the voluntary welfare organisations running the Family Service Centres
\r\nas well as other organisations providing family education in schools. This has to be work which we will continue and we will need to increase.
\r\nMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I just want to ask the Minister a supplementary question related to IRs. I noticed of late that the IRs publicised the wins of some of their patrons. They would do something on the website which says so and so has won $x and asked them to come back or thank them for their patronage. Is that something which we would want to encourage? Is that legal? I am not sure but certainly I think this may go somewhat towards encouraging others, who may not have gone, to possibly enter these places. This is something which is of concern to me. I would like to hear the Minister's views on this.
\r\nDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I share the Member's concern and we are taking steps to put a stop to that type of very asymmetrical publicity. While they would \r\n
Column: 2190
\r\nwant to publicise the wins, you will find that they would never publicise the losses and the consequences of those losses on the gamblers and their families. So, MCYS is taking steps to put a stop to that sort of asymmetric and unfair publicity which the IRs are embarking on.
\r\nColumn: 2190
\r\n\r\n\r\n
6. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan asked the Minister for Home Affairs: (a) if he would provide (i) the number of youths arrested for loanshark and related harassment activities in 2010; and (ii) the profile of these youths; and (b) if the enhanced penalties provided for in the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill passed in January 2010 have been effective in curbing loanshark harassments.
\r\n The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, 15,991 cases of harassment and loanshark cases were reported between January and November last year. This is a drop of 8%, compared to the 17,374 cases reported over the same period in 2009. Police arrested 1,443 persons for loansharking and harassment activities from January to November last year; an increase of 66% from the 868 persons arrested over the same period the year before.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, of the persons arrested for loansharking and harassment activities between January and November last year, 159 were youths aged 19 years and below. This is an increase from 142 youths, which is about a 12% increase arrested for the same period in 2009. The majority of youths arrested were between the age of 16 and 19. Those arrested who were below the age of 16, dropped from 27 persons to 16 persons.
\r\n\r\n
Of the youths arrested, about one third were students and one third were unemployed. The youths were involved \r\n
Column: 2191
\r\nas runners or harassers or in activities such as opening or allowing their bank accounts to be used by loansharks. While some youths did this to pay off their own debts, the majority of youths were enticed by the lure of extra pocket money.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The involvement of young people in any crime, including loansharking activities, is a concern. The Police has been working with schools and the community to educate our youths on the dangers of taking part in crime and reminding them of the price they will have to pay for committing crime. The Police and the community have jointly developed a variety of Police-Youth programmes to educate youths on the pitfalls of engaging in crime. For example, Police actively works with the National Committee on Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation (NYGR) to organise the annual Youth Crime Prevention Roadshow in our schools.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Police also works closely with the Honorary Volunteer Special Constabularies and Discipline Masters and Operation Managers in schools to identify and monitor \"high-risk\" students. The sharing of information from the school staff enables Police to quickly intervene against loanshark recruitment activities and steer students away from the slippery slope. Sir, these early intervention and public education efforts are important in preventing youths from falling into crime.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Assoc. Prof. Straughan asked about the effectiveness of the enhanced penalties following amendments to the Moneylenders Act in January last year. I had covered this area comprehensively when I shared with the House on 23rd November last year on the loansharking situation. We believe that the enhanced penalties is one of the reasons why the number of cases has dropped. In the context of young offenders, I should add that we had amended the Moneylenders\r\n
Column: 2192
\r\nAct to specify as an offence any person of or above the age of 21 years causing or procuring a youth under the age of 16 years to commit unlicensed moneylending or acts of harassment. The early signs indicate that the amendments have helped in dealing with the loansharking and harassment situation. We will continue to monitor the loansharking situation and not let up in our efforts in tackling this scourge.
\r\nAssoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Of the 159 youths who were arrested in the period stipulated, how many of those cases were the Police able to trace back to the original perpetrators? My second question is: for the youths who have been arrested and dealt with – the 159 youths – could the Senior Minister of State give us an insight on the rehabilitative efforts that were spent on these youths for us to be able to receive them back into the mainstream society?
\r\nAssoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Assoc. Prof. Straughan, in fact, has made an interesting comment in her question, which is something I touched on when I moved the amendments last year to the Moneylenders Act, which is the layering effect of these loansharking syndicates. It is not just a matter of youths but any runner who is recruited. We may catch them but very often it is not the case that we can then trace back to those who recruited them. Having said this, I want to assure the Member that we will make all efforts to do the tracing. The real test is to tackle the syndicates. I want to assure Assoc. Prof. Straughan and the House that a lot of the arrests that have been made – there has been a surge in arrests – are a result of co-ordinated efforts, not just by the Police, but also Police Land Division, CID and the community groups to tackle these syndicates. In fact last week, there was a big operation lasting 55 hours and 62 arrests were made in relation to this manhunt.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2193
\r\n
The other point is the rehabilitation of youths. I think that is a key point too. I have mentioned the prevention efforts. We have to continue getting youths to realise that this is no easy money. It may look easy but once you are recruited, you are sucked into a system where money may seem to come easy at the beginning and when you do more, you will ultimately be caught. I understand that in terms of harsher punishments for these youths, quite a number of them are now sent to the Reformative Training Centre (RTC), where previously they were given probation. So a stint in RTC will be good for them. Certainly, they have been noted for their propensity to be lured by easy money. In the RTC, I am sure there will be programmes that will help to rehabilitate them.
\r\nAssoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on what goes on in the RTC?
\r\nAssoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Basically the RTC is a reformative centre regime which caters to youths generally aged from 16 to 21. Below 16 years, there is the Juvenile Court, and the youth offenders will be sent to the Boys' Home. The RTC is a tougher regime than the Boys' Home.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
It is basically a centre in which you spend at least 18 months. There are various programmes that are run in the centre to help rehabilitate these youths. They are eligible to be out in the community after 18 months on licence. In all, it is a three-year regime. They are amongst boys of their age and, because of this, discipline can be maintained and various counselling and other help programmes can be mounted to help these youths.
\r\nColumn: 2193
\r\n\r\n\r\n
7. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the average \r\n
Column: 2194
\r\nwaiting time for a place in a subsidised nursing home; (b) how many percent of the current cohort of elderly will need nursing home care in the future; (c) whether there are plans to improve the quality and standards of care provided in the nursing homes in Singapore; and (d) whether the Government would consider expediting the building of new nursing homes which was announced recently.
\r\nThe Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): The waiting time for a subsidised nursing home bed is, on average, 49 days. Currently, 2% of our elderly population above 65 years requires nursing home care. The figure may grow in the future but we must try to keep it low as all seniors prefer to age at home, rather than in an institution.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
It is our priority to raise the standard of care in nursing homes. We have discussed these plans before in this House. Last month, we have also set up an Expert Panel on nursing homes to improve the rehabilitative capabilities of nursing homes so that patients can benefit from effective rehabilitation and be able to return home eventually. The Expert Panel will be advising the Ministry of Health on how we should go about achieving this objective.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Meanwhile, we have started building six new nursing homes. They are at different stages of planning and construction. Three of them should be ready by early 2013. Of the three, two are in the west.
\r\nMdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Sir, the two key concerns of Singaporeans taking care of the sick elderly parents are, of course, the affordability of nursing home care and access, meaning securing a place as quickly as possible after the need arises. The Minister mentioned that the average waiting time is \"49 days\".
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2195
\r\n
Unfortunately, anecdotally on the ground, for the different cases I have handled, the time period seems to be longer for a subsidised place in the nursing home. That is the reason I asked that question. We have six nursing homes being built. The question to ask is: what are some of the more immediate plans to ensure access? I am not quite sure why the average waiting time and the practices on the ground seem to differ? I do have actual cases with that.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The other issue which has not been posed to the Minister is affordability. Could the Minister also give a response to that point?
\r\nMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, \"49 days\" is an average figure but I suppose it varies from nursing home to nursing home. Some nursing homes are more popular than others and if some patients insisted on going to those nursing homes, the waiting time can be longer. It was reported in today's newspaper on Nanyang Kindergarten. There are kindergartens and there are kindergartens. Likewise, there are nursing homes and there are nursing homes. At my level, I look at it from the macro point of view and we try to make sure that the average figure is manageable. \"49 days\" is a bit long. My own personal target is: I would like to shave off 20 days, so that it is within a month. But let me explain that whether it is 29 or 49 days, it does not mean that the patients are not being served. What it means is usually, they are kept waiting in an expensive setting, which usually means in an acute hospital.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I have an interest to reduce the waiting time and we have been reducing it over time. Building more nursing homes will help but, at the same time, it is a balancing game. We also do not want to make nursing homes so accessible, so easily available that we encourage a \r\n
Column: 2196
\r\ndifferent trend which is that children may be encouraged to refer their elderly to institutions which I think we do not want to see it happen. My personal view is if the waiting time is about a month, that will be a reasonable figure to target.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Affordability of healthcare is always an issue and is always my priority. We try to make sure that healthcare, whether it is at a nursing home or at the hospitals, is affordable. My own view is: they are affordable but provided we all cooperate in this. For example, our 3M system is very good but you must be in it. If you choose to be out of 3M, then I think it is troublesome. By that, what I mean is when you work, do save in your Medisave. For employees, no problem, but the self-employed must be encouraged to save. And when you have enough money in Medisave, then do buy insurance. In the case of nursing homes, ElderShield is important. ElderShield today is still rather basic and I would like to further enhance the ElderShield programme so that they can play a more effective role.
\r\nThat is something that we would do in the next few years.
\r\nDr Lam Pin Min (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that with the rapidly ageing population, the demand for nursing homes and step down care will increase. However, I would like to caution that we should not send the wrong message to Singaporeans that sending the elderly sick parents to a nursing home is a desired choice. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister if homecare services are being looked into, and whether MOH should consider homecare as the first option before granting places in nursing homes.
\r\nMr Khaw Boon Wan: The answer is \"yes\". I totally agree with the approach as proposed by Dr Lam Pin Min. All surveys, whether in Singapore or outside Singapore, point in the same direction. All seniors do want to age at home. Our job\r\n
Column: 2197
\r\nis to try to facilitate that. Homecare is something that I have been looking at for the last couple of years. I think Members will hear a lot more about these during the next few years.
\r\nColumn: 2197
\r\n\r\n\r\n
8. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Finance (a) how much additional revenue will the Government be receiving as a result of the good financial performance of the two Integrated Resorts; (b) what is the breakdown of the revenue attributable to the casinos and other operational units; and (c) what are the likely ways in which this additional revenue will be utilised.
\r\nThe Second Minister for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) (for the Minister for Finance): Sir, the two Integrated Resorts (IRs) collect casino entry levies on behalf of the Totalisator Board. They also pay betting taxes and GST on their business receipts to the Government. However, the entry of the IRs has also led to a restructuring of the gaming industry as a whole. Hence, while the IRs have brought in new revenues, collections from other gaming activities such as lotteries, horse and sports betting, and fruit machines operated by clubs have fallen.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Taken together, the net increase in collections by the Totalisator Board with the entry of the IRs was about $130 million in the eight months between April and November 2010. Likewise, the net increase in revenues to the Government with the entry of the IRs was about $420 million over the same period.
\r\n The Totalisator Board will pool collections from the casino entry levies with their recurrent surpluses, which go towards funding activities benefiting the community. Just to recap, these range \r\n
Column: 2198
\r\n from educational and health programmes to sports and arts and culture. Some of Tote Board’s ongoing commitments include the Tote Board Social Service Fund, the Tote Board Community Healthcare Fund, the Yellow Ribbon Project and the Community Chest.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n The revenues collected by the Government from the IRs, like those from the rest of the gaming industry, flow into the Consolidated Fund. They are not earmarked for specific purposes, but go towards funding of the Government budget as a whole. This allows Government the flexibility to channel funds to areas with the greatest needs and strategic priority.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Minister, for the response. In the report released by PricewaterhouseCoopers in December, it was reported that Singapore's slice of the global gaming industry will be about US$8 billion by 2014. Singapore is also anticipated to overtake Australia and South Korea to become the second largest gaming player in Asia Pacific, just after Macau. I wish to ask the Minister a few supplementary questions. Firstly, if this is indeed the intended strategy for economic development for Singapore? Is the Government happy with this \"achievement\"? Secondly, what is the total cost to the country as a result of this development? Lastly, what steps might be taken to protect Singapore from the ill effects of such an impact before it is too late? Is there any intent to reduce the casinos to one or none in the future, when the time is appropriate?
\r\nMrs Lim Hwee Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, the supplementary questions raised by Ms Denise Phua have actually been debated to some detail under the different heads, in terms of the intended strategy – why we are having Integrated Resorts and casinos in the first place. This has been \r\n
Column: 2199
\r\ndebated quite extensively by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. As for the safeguards, the House has just heard earlier about how we have in place the exclusion orders as well as the entry levies and so on. These are the different measures that we have in place to ensure that the industry will progress as intended. At the same time, the extra revenue collected by the Government will go towards funding the Government's programmes. As for those collected by the Tote Board, they will be added to the surplus for the benefit of the community at large.
\r\nMs Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the fact that the discussion of casinos has been going on for very long time. The recent development that we have done so well in the gaming industry, gives a lot of concern to a lot of Singaporeans, including discomfort in this House. That is why I raised the question on whether this was intended and what can be done, especially if the casinos are doing so well and the surplus is now channelled to even fund our social services and other important areas like sports and arts.
\r\nMrs Lim Hwee Hua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would encourage the Member to file a question for MCYS, if she would like to discuss safeguards further. What I would comment here is that at the outset when we conceived the whole Integrated Resorts idea, there were many business risks: whether it is country risk or the timing of the business cycle and so on. Many things could have gone very wrong too. But having taken the decision, we then planned for the best possible model. At the same time, we ensured that all the adequate safeguards are in place. We stand ready to move with additional safeguards should there be clear evidence that there is an increase in gambling addiction.
\r\nColumn: 2200
\r\n\r\n\r\n
9. Mr Arthur Fong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what would be the impact on unit business cost in Singapore as a result of the rising cost of Certificates of Entitlement in recent times.
\r\nThe Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Lee Yi Shyan) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent increase in the Certificates of Entitlement (COE) premium has had only a limited impact on overall business costs in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
First, land transport costs account for less than 1.5% of unit business cost for the manufacturing companies in Singapore. The larger cost components for the sector are labour, utilities, trading, financial and IT services costs, and these would have a more significant impact on business costs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Second, higher COE premiums will only affect firms which need new motor vehicles. As this represents a small percentage of the total existing population of vehicles for business use, the immediate impact of higher COE prices on business cost is small. However, should COE prices remain high over a longer time period, there would be greater impact on business cost as older COEs expire and are replaced by more costly COEs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
While the impact on overall business costs is small, higher COE premiums will have a larger effect on those firms, for which transport costs are a larger component of their total costs. This includes companies which rely on courier and land transport services to deliver their goods and services. The Government will continue to monitor business costs, with a view to identifying potential pressures early and taking the necessary measures to manage them.
\r\nColumn: 2201
\r\n\r\n\r\n
The following question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo –
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
10. To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total amount of administrative fees collected from applicants of new HDB flats for each year from 2008 to 2010; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider refunding the administration fee to unsuccessful applicants and, if not, whether the Ministry will consider carrying forward the administrative fees to the next and subsequent rounds until the applicant succeeds in selecting a flat.
\r\nMr Arthur Fong: Question No. 10, Sir.
\r\nThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB collects an administrative fee of $10 for each flat application. From 2008 to 2010, the administrative fees averaged $790,000 per year.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The purpose of the administrative fee is to defray the costs of conducting the sale exercises. These costs are incurred regardless of whether the applicants are eventually successful in their flat application. For example, for each application, HDB will need to verify the eligibility of every person listed in the flat application for subsidised housing. Based on the information gathered, HDB will then need to decide the priority scheme that the applicants are eligible for and assign them their due number of \"chances\" in the computer ballot. After the ballot to determine the queue order for flat selection, HDB will have to notify all the applicants of their ballot results.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
A recent survey by HDB shows that the administrative fee at $10 per \r\n
Column: 2202
\r\napplication is insufficient to cover HDB’s costs incurred in conducting flat sale exercises. Hence, HDB is unable to refund the fees for unsuccessful applicants.
\r\nColumn: 2202
\r\n\r\n\r\n
11. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the estimated number of motorised bicycles in Singapore; and (b) what regulations govern these vehicles to ensure safety for the riders, pedestrians and other drivers on the roads.
\r\nThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Transport): Sir, only low-powered models of motorised bicycles not more than 200 watts which are approved by LTA are allowed to be used on public roads presently. To date, and since October 2004, LTA has approved about 6,600 such motorised bicycles.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
These motorised bicycles have similar construction and performance characteristics as conventional pedal bicycles. For example, the electric motor of approved motorised bicycles can only provide assistance when the rider is pedaling. The motor power must cut off when the bicycle reaches a speed of 25 km/h or when the rider stops pedaling. These technical requirements were put in place by LTA for the safety of motorised bicycle riders and other road users.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To further enhance road safety, Traffic Police (TP) has required all riders of motorised bicycles to comply with the Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules. These rules require motorised bicycle riders to be at least 16 years of age and to wear a protective bicycle helmet when riding their bicycle. Motorised bicycles are not allowed on expressways and the rider must not cycle against the flow of traffic\r\n
Column: 2203
\r\nor in a manner that would compromise the safety of other road users. Cyclists who cycle in a rash or negligent way endangering the life of pedestrians or other road users are also liable to offences under the Penal Code.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To complement enforcement efforts against errant cyclists, LTA and TP have also stepped up public education efforts. For example, TP has been giving customised talks in schools and at community-level events to provide tips on safe cycling, a pre-riding checklist and case studies of traffic accidents involving cyclists, to illustrate the vulnerability of a cyclist on the road. Road safety exhibitions providing safety tips for cyclists have also been held at HDB neighbourhoods, schools and workplaces. LTA has recently also rolled out a public education programme to educate suppliers and cyclists on safety requirements of motorised bicycles and on how to identify approved models. Posters and brochures have been distributed to community centres, foreign worker dormitories as well as motorised bicycle retailers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
LTA takes a serious view of offences relating to the use of unapproved motorised bicycles on public roads and has worked with the Traffic Police Department to ramp up enforcement against offenders. Since 1st January 2011, LTA has imposed heavier penalties on cyclists and retailers of motorised bicycles that do not meet LTA’s technical requirements. Most of the fines instituted had been doubled for errant cyclists and suppliers. These cyclists now face a fine ranging from $100 to $500, up from the previous fines of $50 to $200 while retailers who supply unapproved motorised bicycles for use on public roads now also face more severe penalties, with fines starting from $500.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I would like to highlight that every road user is responsible for safety on the\r\n
Column: 2204
\r\nroads. Motorists should exercise extra care when cyclists and pedestrians are around, as they are more vulnerable road users, and should give way where possible. Cyclists and pedestrians should recognise their own vulnerability, and take extra care to be alert, obey traffic rules and give way where possible. Ultimately, everyone has a responsibility to keep our roads safe and I believe that an attitude of mutual accommodation will improve safety.
\r\nMs Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you very much, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, for your response. I am very grateful to the Ministry and especially LTA for looking into this topic swiftly, after the parliamentary question was raised last month. The number of riders using illegal motorised bicycles have increased more than three times, according to my research.
\r\nMay I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what he thought the root cause of this increase might be? Is it due to oblivion for which then enforcement is, of course, a strategy? Because I have seen cyclists riding right in front of me as I drove, without helmets, speeding along and really causing quite a lot of danger. In my Facebook entry, a lot of responses came in due to this observation. Or is it due to awareness for which I heard that LTA has done a lot of \"awareness\" campaigns? I ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could work together with LTA to ensure that more of these awareness campaigns can come to the ground, that is, out to the heartlands. Many of my residents are also asking me to appeal on their behalf because they have been booked recently.
\r\nMr Teo Ser Luck: As a cyclist myself, I can only offer my personal views as to what is the root cause. Having cycled for many years, I think it is still a culture that needs to be developed in terms of accommodating different road users, \r\n
Column: 2205
\r\nespecially those vulnerable ones like cyclists. Cyclists themselves must bear the responsibility when accidents occur. I know that sometimes they go at certain speeds that are not conducive to safety. I believe that it is not just LTA working on it. We need the community leaders; we need the Traffic Police department, and they must all work together. All these stakeholders are coming together. We should focus mainly on three areas: infrastructure, like dedicated bike tracks, which we are doing today, as well as education and public campaigns. All these efforts have to go to the heartlands as well. Lastly, the enforcement must come in because there will still be some cyclists who will disobey. We need to send a clear message and enforce it. Harsh penalties are necessary.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We have plans to go to the different communities and heartlands to educate the cyclists and motorised bicycle cyclists as well because I think this is necessary. As a continuing effort, I urge support from all the Members here.
\r\nMs Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that a clear distinction has to be made between motorised bicycles which ride on motors and pedal bicycles which ride on human legs? Because motorised bicycles go at a very high speed, they cause greater danger to pedestrians. Can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to clearly differentiate the rules and approaches to dealing with the two categories and have step-up enforcement actions against motorised bicycles on footways? Motorised bicycles are more like motorbikes rather than pedal bicycles. They should not be called cyclists because they are more like riders.
\r\nMr Teo Ser Luck: There is a difference – one is, of course, pedaling and the other one is motorised. When one pedals, one \r\n
Column: 2206
\r\nprobably cannot maintain a constant speed over a longer range of time. For the other, because it is motorised, one could maintain a similar speed over a longer range of time. We are looking into it. As you know, we have started to build infrastructure for bicycle lanes and dedicated tracks along the pavements. I do not encourage motorised bicycles to be on these dedicated bike lanes, as they should be on public roads. They should not be on bicycle lanes. There will still be a lot of pedestrians walking on footways and sometimes they could cross over to the bike lanes. So I do discourage motorised bicycles to be on those lanes. We will constantly review and look at what other rules that we could put in place for those bicycle lanes. This will be work in progress.
\r\nMr Speaker: Mr Zaqy, last question, a short one.
\r\nMr Zaqy Mohamad: Thank you for the reminder, Mr Speaker. Again, on the effectiveness of enforcement – we had a lot of parliamentary questions on the effectiveness of enforcing bicycles. How effective is the enforcement for this kind of motorised bicycles?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My second point is this. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about riding on a bike lane. Should it be on or off? It cannot be both ways, or either/or.
\r\nMr Teo Ser Luck: Currently, there are no rules particularly specific to bicycle tracks or bicycle lanes that we have built so far. But we are definitely looking into it to see how the rules can be applied. As I have said, I do not encourage motorised bicycles on bike lanes because motorised bicycles are able to maintain a constant speed and, if they meet a speed of 20 km to 25 km, which is still within the speed limit, for me, personally, having been an experienced road user, I think that could pose a certain danger. So I do not encourage that. Whether or not to put in \r\n
Column: 2207
\r\ncertain rules, we will be reviewing it to see what are the things that we could do to help ensure the safety of all the pedestrians and passengers.
\r\nColumn: 2207
\r\n\r\n\r\n
12. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (a) what is the progress of the Ministry's content cross-carriage initiative for pay-television; (b) what are the Ministry's projections on the cost benefits to consumers; (c) whether the Ministry can share how it plans to address the industry's concerns on this initiative going against free trade; and (d) whether the investigations on service providers who inked long-term contracts to avoid cross-carriage regulations in the short term has concluded and, if so, what were the findings.
\r\nRAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member of Parliament for his question on Media Development Authority’s cross-carriage initiative. I will first revisit the rationale for introducing this initiative and provide an update on the developments.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The mandatory cross-carriage measure – which I shall refer to as the Measure in short – was effected on 12th March 2010 to address the severe degree of content fragmentation in the Singapore pay TV market, with most pay TV channels signed up on an exclusive basis by pay TV retailers. Such a situation resulted in increased inconvenience and attendant costs for consumers as well as significant barriers to entry for new entrants.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Since 12th March 2010, the Media Development Authority (MDA) has conducted two consultations to seek \r\n
Column: 2208
\r\nfeedback from the industry and to address their concerns on the implementation details of this Measure. In taking due care to address these concerns, MDA will be launching a third round of consultation in early 2011 before implementing active cross carriage by the first half of this year. MDA continues to engage stakeholders on this issue and will carefully consider all feedback in developing its policy and implementation positions for the Measure.
\r\n
\r\n With regard to the benefits from the Measure, consumers can expect to enjoy a wider choice of content without the inconvenience of having to switch set-top boxes and re-wire their TVs each time exclusive content changes hand. Various academics and analysts have expressed their belief that the Measure would positively impact the pay TV market and generate net gains for consumers as well as the industry. MDA has also engaged external consultants to conduct two economic modelling assessments, both of which concluded that content providers and retailers would benefit from a wider distribution of their content. With the Measure in place, we expect to have an even more vibrant pay TV market with more choices and convenience for the consumers.
\r\n\r\n
MDA has been in close contact and consultation with the industry since the announcement of the Measure. Some content providers were concerned that the Measure would force them to sell content to parties that they were not willing to contract with, or in a format that would have compromised their intellectual property rights protection, or a requirement to unbundle their channels. This is a misunderstanding which requires some clarification.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Measure does not in any way prohibit local pay TV retailers from entering into exclusive arrangements with content providers. Neither does it require \r\n
Column: 2209
\r\nthe exclusive licensee to sub-license or resell the exclusive content to other pay TV retailers. In addition, the Measure is designed to apply to content agreements in a prospective manner, and continues to provide retailers and content providers with the commercial flexibility to bundle or package content in ways that best meet consumer needs. MDA has clarified this in its subsequent consultations, and will continue to do so with the industry as necessary. I would like to assure Members that Singapore is fully committed to its obligations in intellectual property treaties and other international agreements, and that two external legal firms engaged by MDA had both advised that the Measure is not in breach of any of our obligations.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With regard to pay TV retailers who entered into long-term exclusive content arrangements before the Measure was effected, I understand that MDA had examined specific content agreements to assess if there were any evidence of misconduct. Upon careful review of the available information and evidence, MDA has decided that there is insufficient evidence to warrant any formal action. However, the retailers have now received clear warning that MDA will be looking closely at their exclusive arrangements in the future, and that there will be serious consequences if they are found to have flouted the Measure.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We believe the cross-carriage initiative will benefit both consumers and the industry. However, the full benefits will only come about in the longer term, as existing contracts expire and new exclusive contracts, if any, come under this Measure. MDA will work closely with the industry to effect a smooth implementation of the initiative to realise these benefits.
\r\nMr Zaqy Mohamad: May I ask the Minister what is the assessment of the risk that content providers will exit the \r\n
Column: 2210
\r\nSingapore market, given that we are too small a market to consider for cross carriage? Second supplementary question, what is the Ministry's opinion that cross carriage may discourage media service providers from generating their own content or working with production houses to package and bundle content?
\r\nRAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: On the first question on the risk that they will exit the market, we worked with a wide range of companies that have been in the Singapore market for a number of years and even though our market is a very small one, they have decided to operate out of Singapore and have established their regional headquarters here to serve the larger Asian market. The relationship we have with many of them, we believe, is a robust one.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Member's second question really deals with content arrangements. We believe that with the Measure in place, pay TV retailers in future will compete not on signing exclusive arrangements to package content for their customers only but devote more resources and time to service improvements as well as to creating and packaging more content for their channels.
\r\nColumn: 2210
\r\n\r\n\r\n
13. Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Minister for National Development if he would explain why the approval process for the White Sands New Market to start operating business took such a long period of time, causing inconvenience to residents in Pasir Ris.
\r\nMs Grace Fu Hai Yien (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, when Sheng Siong bought the White Sands New Market from the previous operator on 1st March 2010, it knew that it had bought the premises as a wet market as this was stipulated in the lease agreement. It had also confirmed with \r\n
Column: 2211
\r\nHDB in writing that it would operate a wet market at White Sands.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
However, until recently, Sheng Siong repeatedly submitted proposals which included supermarket features, suggesting that they were trying to operate the White Sands New Market as a supermarket. HDB had no choice but to reject these proposals as they were not in accordance with Sheng Siong’s commitment and did not meet the conditions for a wet market.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To expedite the re-opening of the wet market, HDB met with Sheng Siong over 10 times to discuss their proposals and impressed upon them the urgency to submit an acceptable wet market proposal. In the meantime, in consultation with the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) and grassroots leaders, HDB had also introduced interim measures to meet residents' marketing needs. They include allowing the supermarket operator in Elias Mall to temporarily expand its fresh food section, securing a private wet market operator to set up some temporary marketing facilities nearby and offering free bus shuttle services to a nearby wet market.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On 28th October 2010, Sheng Siong finally submitted a proposal for a wet market. After confirming that it met the basic conditions required of a wet market, HDB approved the proposal on 12th November 2010. Sheng Siong started renovation works in early December 2010, and we understand they intend to re-open the market as soon as possible.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n The terms of the White Sands New Market lease clearly stipulate that it is to be run as a wet market – it must have individual stalls operated by individual stallholders selling a variety of fresh produce. Lessees or tenants cannot unilaterally change the terms without the agreement of HDB and it is HDB’s\r\n
Column: 2212
\r\nresponsibility to ensure that the terms of the tenancy are complied with. HDB recognises that the needs of residents change over time and will review the mix of the shops in HDB estates from time to time to ensure that the needs of residents are met.
\r\nMr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. If knowing that the tenant has repeatedly submitted a tender proposal that was not up to the requirements of HDB, could HDB have gone to another tenderer and ask for an alternative proposal?
\r\nMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: There are certain terms and conditions that HDB will also have to fulfil as lessor of the place, so we have to respect the terms to be fair to the operator.
\r\nColumn: 2212
\r\n\r\n\r\n
14. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport with a daily average of 100 traffic-disrupting mishaps on the expressways (a) what are the main reasons for the occurrences of these mishaps; (b) what measures are being taken to reduce them; and (c) what is the Land Transport Authority (LTA) doing to ensure that traffic flow is not unduly disrupted when such mishaps occur.
\r\nThe Second Minister for Transport (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) (for the Minister for Transport): Sir, based on LTA’s records for the year 2010, an average of 100 incidents take place daily on our expressway network. These are mainly vehicle breakdowns, which number around 60 to 70 daily and traffic accidents at around 30 to 40 daily. Depending on the time and location, it is not necessarily true that all these incidents result in traffic disruption.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Traffic Police investigates traffic accidents involving injuries. Based on \r\n
Column: 2213
\r\nthese records, those that occur along expressways are commonly caused by motorists who fail to adhere to safe driving practices, such as keeping a proper lookout for surrounding vehicles and exercising due consideration when changing lanes.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Improving motorist behaviour and inculcating a safe motoring culture to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents requires a multi-pronged approach. Beginning with the training and certification of new drivers and riders, the Traffic Police works closely with driving schools to ensure that learner drivers and riders become competent, responsible and safe road users. Syllabuses are fine-tuned if necessary to remain relevant. One such adjustment was the recent introduction of the new Expressway Familiarisation Ride Course, which aims to give new motorcyclists the confidence of interacting with faster moving traffic along expressways before they take to the roads on their own. The Traffic Police also works with the community and LTA to conduct regular road safety campaigns to instil safe driving habits in motorists and routinely conducts enforcement blitzes as part of the ongoing enforcement effort to deter errant driving behaviour.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
When incidents do occur on our expressways, the Expressway Monitoring and Advisory System (EMAS) enables LTA to respond swiftly. LTA monitors traffic conditions on expressways round the clock through a network of EMAS detection and surveillance cameras. When incidents are detected, LTA despatches strategically positioned tow trucks and LTA Traffic Marshals to the scene within eight and 15 minutes to control traffic and to clear the roadway as soon as possible. Relevant traffic advisories are also displayed on electronic signboards along our expressways to help motorists make informed decisions about their route and avoid the congested areas if they choose to. These measures help to\r\n
Column: 2214
\r\nminimise undue delays and inconvenience to expressway users. We urge all motorists to drive cautiously on our expressways, and to act safely and to be considerate at all times.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Sir, I thank the Minister for her reply. I have two supplementary questions, one of which is what is the average disruption time or the clearance time required when a minor accident takes place when there is no injury versus one that has casualty involved? And, likewise, will the MOT consider rolling out more public education programmes to inform even existing drivers of the \"do\"s and \"don't\"s during an accident? Because, currently, it gets very congested and I find that people are very lost once an accident happens and there is a long delay.
\r\nMrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, based on the record last year, LTA's data shows that more than 85% of the expressway traffic incidents are cleared with less than 20 minutes of delay caused to affected motorists, so that is the experience so far. Where there is casualty, then it varies substantially depending on the scale of the pile-up or the incident.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As regards public education, certainly that is an area where it is, again, a multi-agency approach and that will continue with LTA working with the Traffic Police as well as with the school children because that is a main group of concern as well. Currently, we have the traffic management channel which provides \"live\" data and feed to motorists who use the navigational systems, so they can be informed, too, about which are the roads to avoid in the event of an incident.
\r\nColumn: 2214
\r\n\r\n\r\n
15. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport following the recent errors in calculation of distances travelled by buses (a) how many commuters or EZ-\r\n
Column: 2215
\r\nLink card holders were affected; (b) whether there is a more convenient alternative for less literate commuters such as senior citizens, who may not know how to use the ticketing machine to receive their refunds; and (c) what are the lessons learnt from this incident and how can we prevent it from occurring again.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Minister for Transport (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Sir, the LTA and the public transport operators have completed a thorough review of all 6,600 bus stop pairs in the system. This review was undertaken after LTA found distance discrepancies in 13 bus stop pairs after the launch of distance fares on 3rd July 2010.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In this review, distance discrepancies were found in 68 bus stop pairs (about 1% of total bus stop pairs) which led to overcharging, and 30 bus stop pairs (about 0.45%) which led to undercharging. On a weekly basis about 6.9% of CEPAS cards were overcharged and 2.1% were undercharged. LTA and the bus operators have since apologised for the errors and for the inconvenience caused to commuters and have taken steps to refund commuters that were overcharged due to the distance errors.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In response to commuters' feedback received on the old refund process, LTA has made improvements so that it is now faster and more convenient for affected commuters to get their refunds. Commuters can get a full refund on the spot and at their convenience at any TransitLink Add Value Machine (AVM), TransitLink Ticket Office or Concession Card Replacement Office which are available at most MRT stations, bus interchanges and selected bus stops. Commuters need not remember the bus service numbers, nor fill in any form. They only need to present their CEPAS\r\n
Column: 2216
\r\ncards to receive the refund if they are eligible for one.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Senior citizens who are not familiar with the Add Value Machines can approach any TransitLink Ticket Offices with their cards. The staff at the Ticket Offices are trained to check the cards and refund the correct amount into their cards on the spot. To give commuters more time, a period of six months has been given for refunds. Affected commuters need not make a special trip and can get their refund when they next top up their cards. Unclaimed refunds will be contributed to the Public Transport Fund which will go to benefit needy families.
\r\n
\r\n Going forward, the Public Transport Council has put in place a framework to require bus operators to ensure that bus stop distances are updated correctly and on time following changes to the bus stop locations. Failure to do so could result in penalties.
\r\n
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how many commuters or how many EZ-Link card holders were affected in this particular exercise and currently, what is the percentage who have made claims for their overcharged fares. I understand that commuters are supposed to make their claims by 17th June this year. If by then the percentage is low, will the Minister consider extending the time for making claims by another six months?
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: I gave the Member the answer just now on the EZ-Link card. Through the CEPAS card, 6.9% were overcharged and 2.1% were undercharged. That is the first question –
\r\nDr Lim Wee Kiak: Percentage?
\r\nMr Raymond Lim Siang Keat: Yes, on a weekly basis.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The second question is how much have been claimed to date. We started \r\n
Column: 2217
\r\nthis on 18th December 2010. As at the end of last year 28th December, we have a total of about 169,000 transactions. We have refunded about $46,000. There was $300,000 overcharged and $46,000 refunded.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Would we consider extending the claim period? Right now, we have given six months. It is quite a long time. I think we can look at it closer to that day. Right now, six months is sufficient. We will see where it goes from here.
\r\nColumn: 2217
\r\n\r\n\r\n
16. Mdm Halimah Yacob to ask the Minister for Manpower if he would provide (i) an update on the measures that are in place to assist professional, managerial, executive and technical staff to upgrade their capabilities as well as in finding new jobs for those who have been displaced due to restructuring or retrenchments; and (ii) the number of people who have benefited from such schemes for the past three years.
\r\nThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Lee Yi Shyan) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, the training and upgrading of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) remain an integral part of our CET Masterplan. There are currently some 300 courses suitable for PMETs funded by WDA. In the first nine months of 2010, about 46,000 PMETs have undergone WSQ training.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We have also helped about 3,500 PMETs through our Professional Conversion Programmes to switch to new growth sectors. Today we have close to 50 conversion programmes in a variety of professions such as preschool teachers, aircraft engineers and occupational therapists.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Unemployed PMETs can also approach our Career Centres at the CDCs and e2i \r\n
Column: 2218
\r\nfor help with job placement and training. About 8,200 job placements were successfully made for PMETs through our Career Centres over the past three years. WDA is setting up an online career services portal later this year which will feature e-profiling tools for individuals, WSQ training listings, job vacancies as well as integrated labour market information on industries. This will further help workers with their search for training and employment opportunities.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In line with the Economic Strategies Committee’s recommendation, we are reaching out to more PMETs to deepen their areas of expertise and to broaden their knowledge of horizontal skills. For example, WDA is rolling out WSQ courses in Business Management skills to provide PMETs with skill sets such as Strategy Planning and Implementation and Business Continuity Management. More funded courses targeted at PMETs in different sectors, including green manufacturing, clinical trials, aerospace, precision engineering, adult training, etc, have also been rolled out. We will continue to fine-tune our training and career programmes to serve the needs of our PMETs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Speaker: Mdm Halimah, you have two minutes left.
\r\nMdm Halimah Yacob: There have been concerns expressed that older PMETs are finding it more difficult to get jobs and the oft-cited reason is that it could be because they are being displaced by foreigners. Could I have the Minister of State's comments on that, please?
\r\nMr Lee Yi Shyan: Sir, with the rapidly changing industry structure in the economy, I think it will work for everyone if we take training seriously and acquire the habit of life-long learning, and this applies to younger workers, older workers in different sectors of the economy. I think this attitude should help our people \r\n
Column: 2219
\r\nadjust to the new environment. So, under the CET master plan, we have plans to ramp up our current training capacity for PMETs to about 250,000 in 2015, and this a five-fold increase in about five years.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As we make available more training places, we will also provide learning opportunities, both for upgrading vertically as well as to switch over to new industries. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, there will be other services such as counselling and EQ-type of training that will help older workers to either switch to a new job or to make them more rounded and more desirable as employees.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question time.
\r\nColumn: 2219
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Order for Second Reading read.
\r\n
The Minister for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n
Sir, the average life expectancy of Singapore residents has risen steadily, from 68 years in 1970 to 76 years when the Retirement Age Act was enacted in 1993. The average life expectancy has increased further to 81 years in 2009. Sir, it is a good thing that we are living longer but as we live longer, many Singaporeans want to work longer. Working not only enhances their financial security in old age, but also provides an added sense of purpose in life. They can remain active while making valuable contributions to their organisations. Employers can also tap on this increasing pool of experienced and skilled older workers to supplement their workforce.\r\n
Column: 2220
\r\nOlder workers are a critical source of manpower, experience and skills to sustain our economic vitality. For these reasons, we need to create opportunities for our workers to work longer, beyond the current retirement age of 62. We have studied what other developed countries have done to enable their workers to work longer. Their experiences have shown that merely raising retirement age may not be the most effective approach. Japan, for example, is a country with an ageing workforce and yet enjoys one of the highest employment rates for older workers. It was the first to legislate re-employment in 2006.
\r\n
\r\n Re-employment provides both employers and employees the flexibility to make necessary adjustments to employment terms and conditions to meet their respective needs. This flexibility will help to allow older workers to work longer without imposing undue burden on employers. Therefore, we have decided to take a similar approach by introducing re-employment.
\r\n Sir, let me elaborate. First, the statutory minimum retirement age will remain at 62 years. This means that employers have the flexibility to stipulate a mandatory retirement age as long as it is 62 years or any higher age.
\r\n
\r\n Second, employers will be required to re-employ those who have reached retirement age but are willing and able to continue to work up to age 65 as a first step and later to 67 as provided for in the Act. Re-employment need not be for the same job or on the same terms. The employer and the worker have the flexibility to make changes to the existing job arrangements to suit their needs. For example, employers may have to consider their organisational needs, such as leadership renewal, and may have to re-deploy older workers. On the other hand, older employees may wish to take up a different job – a lighter one perhaps – so as to spend more time with their family. \r\n
Column: 2221
\r\nRe-employment allows both parties to consult each other and work out mutually agreeable arrangements.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, the tripartite partners have been preparing the ground since 2007 when the Government first announced our intention to introduce re-employment. We released a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees in March 2010 to help employers put in place re-employment practices. In addition to regular industry briefings and seminars, the tripartite partners have put in place a variety of resources and programmes such as the re-employment website portal, the ADVANTAGE! incentive scheme, training programmes and guidebooks to provide employers and workers with the support they need to prepare themselves for re-employment.
\r\n
\r\n We have made good progress since 2006. According to a survey done by my Ministry in 2009, nearly two-thirds of companies surveyed already allowed their employees to work past age 62, either on an existing employment contracts or through offering re-employment. Of those which had employees reaching the age 62, a vast majority – 92% to be precise – of their employees were allowed to work beyond age 62. The Public Service has also taken the lead to implement re-employment early. In November 2010, the Public Service Division released a set of guidelines to implement re-employment for eligible public service officers who turn 62 on or after 1st July 2011.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, we are now ready to introduce re-employment legislation. This Bill amends the existing Retirement Age Act (RAA) to introduce re-employment. The Bill seeks to achieve two objectives.
\r\n
\r\n First, it will provide opportunities for workers who are willing and able to continue working to do so beyond retirement.
\r\n
\r\n
Column: 2222
\r\n\r\n Second, it will provide flexibility to facilitate employers to retain their older workers beyond retirement.
\r\n
\r\n The RAA will be renamed the \"Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA)\". The Bill introduces a new Part III which contains the provisions on re-employment and a new Part IV which provides avenues for employees to seek recourse for re-employment disputes. We also took the opportunity to make technical amendments to update some of the existing provisions in the RAA.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, I will now elaborate on the key provisions in the Bill.
\r\n\r\n
The RRA will come into effect on 1st January 2012 and re-employment will apply to eligible employees who attain the specified age on or after 1st January 2012. The specified age is defined in section 2 of the Act as the minimum statutory retirement age of 62 or contractual retirement age if it is higher. Section 7 in the new Part III of the RRA spells out the two criteria for employees to be eligible for re-employment: i) the employee must have at least satisfactory work performance; and ii) the employee is medically fit to continue working.
\r\n
\r\n Employers should put in place appropriate performance appraisal systems to evaluate workers' performance. The law places the onus on employers to show proof that an employee is not eligible for re-employment. Open and early communication is also important to reduce misunderstanding and ensures smooth implementation of re-employment. Section 7A(8) requires employers to give reasonable prior notice to those who are not eligible. Section 7A(10) similarly requires employees to give reasonable prior notice to their employers if they do not wish to work beyond retirement. While \"reasonable prior notice\" is not defined in the law, the guidelines which I have mentioned earlier encourage \r\n
Column: 2223
\r\nemployers and employees to inform each other of their decision at least three months before retirement.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, certain groups of employees are currently exempted from the minimum retirement age under section 11 of the Retirement Age Act. This includes foreign employees holding work passes, employees whose job requirements are physically demanding and employees who before the enactment of the Act in 1993 are covered under retirement benefit schemes that are linked to a contractual retirement age lower than the statutory minimum retirement age of 62. With the introduction of re-employment, we have been reviewing these exemptions in consultation with the relevant employers and unions to examine whether the exemptions are still required.
\r\n\r\n
Employees who are recruited at the age of 55 or above are also currently exempted from the RAA. To ensure that their employability will not be affected, these employees will continue to be exempted from the minimum retirement age provisions. However, employers will be required to offer re-employment to these employees if they meet the eligibility criteria for re-employment and have at least three years of service upon reaching the age of 62. We will continue to work with the relevant unions and employers and complete the review before the implementation of the re-employment law.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, section 7A of the Act stipulates the re-employment obligations of employers. Re-employment is defined in section 2 of the Act as the employment of an employee by the same employer. This is because employers should not be allowed to discharge their re-employment obligations simply by transferring their older employees to another employer who is not obliged to keep the employees until \r\n
Column: 2224
\r\nthey reach 65. If the employee does not wish to be re-employed by his employer and chooses to work for another employer instead, then the previous employer is relieved of all re-employment obligations.
\r\n
\r\n Under section 7A(4), employers may offer a new re-employment contract upon the employee attaining the specified age. To provide re-employed employees with greater certainty and assurance, sub-section 6 of section 7A requires the re-employment contract to be of a minimal duration of one year at each instance or up to the point when the employee turns 65. Some employers, especially the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) may not have formal re-employment contracts but continue to employ their workers on the same job and terms up to the age of 65. They will be deemed to have fulfilled the re-employment obligations.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, a key feature of re-employment is the flexibility that it provides to allow employers and employees to make adjustments to employment terms and conditions. In designing jobs and remuneration for older employees, employers should exercise fairness in making any adjustments to terms and benefits of re-employment, such as wages, medical benefits and leave benefits. Similarly, employees should exercise flexibility and be ready to accept the necessary adjustments for re-employment including accepting a salary that is commensurate with the job worth and going for training to take up new job responsibilities.
\r\n
\r\n Section 7A(5) requires any adjustments to be based on reasonable factors such as the employees' productivity, performance, duties and responsibilities and the wage system such as seniority wage system applicable to the employee. The tripartite guidelines describe the principles on how this could be done. For example, taking into account the extent of seniority-based wage in the company, employers could adjust wages using the\r\n
Column: 2225
\r\nmidpoint of the salary range of the job as a reference while accounting for the experience and competency of the worker.
\r\n
\r\n Under section 7B, the period of service prior to retirement is disregarded to signify a fresh term of employment for re-employment. However, when an employer enters into multiple employment contracts with his employees, the period of service accumulated from employment under the various re-employment contracts will be considered as a continuous service.
\r\n
\r\n Section 7B(2) also stipulates that employees who are re-employed are not required to fulfil the qualifying period for sick leave and annual leave as they would have been working with their employers for a long time.
\r\n
\r\n While the main objective of the law is to create employment opportunities for older workers, we recognise that some employers may not be able to find suitable jobs for employees eligible for re-employment. As a last resort, section 7C of the Act requires employers to offer a one-off Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) to eligible employees who wish to work beyond retirement but are not re-employed because their employers are unable to find a suitable job vacancy for them.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, the purpose of the EAP is to help the workers while they look for alternative employment or undergo re-training. It is not meant as a compensation for loss of income or recognition for past years of service. Due to diversity in employment contracts we should not hardwire a formula or quantum for the EAP in the law. This will create rigidity in implementation. Instead, reference points for EAP amounts can be found in the tripartite guidelines. For example, the tripartite guidelines suggest that the EAP could be three months of the gross \r\n
Column: 2226
\r\n monthly salary, with a minimum amount of $4,500 and a maximum amount of $10,000. These reference points are carefully calibrated after discussion with the tripartite partners to ensure that it does not cause undue burden on employers or disadvantage low-income workers.
\r\n
\r\n Employers or employees with re-employment disputes may approach the Ministry for Manpower for conciliation and mediation under section 8A of the Act. If this fails, they may either appeal to the Minister of Manpower on grounds of unfair denial of re-employment or lodge a claim with the Commissioner for Labour for the purposes of claiming EAP. This is similar to the existing dispute settlement procedures under the Employment Act.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, we have also taken the opportunity to make technical amendments to update the existing provisions in the Act. Amendments are made to raise the penalty fine for non-compliance with the Minister's order, from $5,000 to $10,000, and to increase composition fine for offences from $500 to $1,000 to bring it in line with the Employment Act.
\r\n
\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill will provide more opportunities for older workers to continue to work. As I have mentioned earlier, our statistics show that the majority of the employers are generally able and willing to re-employ eligible workers given the flexibility that re-employment offers. Moreover, our experience during the recent economic recession shows that employers in general do recognise the value that older employees bring to their organisation. Many retained their older employees who bring with them the knowledge and experience needed by the company. As a result, the employment rate of older workers aged 55 to 64 held steady at 57.2% in 2009, and improved to 59% in 2010 as the economy recovered. While the recession did not have any negative \r\n
Column: 2227
\r\n impact on the older worker employment, it impeded our progress towards achieving the target of 65% employment rate for residents aged 55 to 64 by 2012. We will need to regain the momentum by pressing on with our efforts to encourage adoption of re-employment and promote the employment of older workers.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, we have had extensive consultations with the public and our tripartite partners – Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) and National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) – during the drafting of this Bill and have taken into account their concerns and feedback.
We have also updated the tripartite guidelines, and these guidelines will be released today. It contains more details on the implementation of re-employment. The tripartite guidelines will be published in the Gazette as it serves to complement the law and provides a basis for mediation and adjudication of re-employment disputes.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, the Bill balances the objectives of providing opportunities for more employees to work beyond retirement, with the need to maintain flexibility in implementation. This will allow employers to continue to tap on the pool of experienced and skilled older workers while remaining competitive. In the longer term, the introduction of the Retirement and Re-employment Act will help employees who are able and healthy to continue working and make valuable contributions to their organisation and the society. This will also help us better utilise our limited manpower resources and reduce the reliance on foreign workers to ensure sustainable economic growth for Singapore.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, on this note, I would like to thank all who have contributed to the process of introducing re-employment, in particular the NTUC and SNEF and members of the Tripartite Committee and Tripartite\r\n
Column: 2228
\r\nImplementation Workgroup on the Employability of Older Workers. They have provided valuable feedback and suggestions which helped us fine-tune our proposals. I seek the continued support of our tripartite partners to ensure an effective and smooth implementation of the re-employment law.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I beg to move.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Question proposed.
\r\n
3.16 pm
\r\n
Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Speaker Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Through the re-employment provisions enshrined in this Bill, Singaporeans will now be able to work until 65 years of age or even longer if their contract of employment allows them to do so. As the Minister for Manpower had said, there is a steady increase of older people working beyond 62 years of age, and this Bill will certainly empower and assist many more to do so. There is no reason why people cannot work for as long as they can or want to for whatever reasons; whether because they need the income, or of equal importance for many, to keep them productively engaged as their children have flown from the nest and they want to keep healthy in body and mind.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I notice that this Bill now clearly stipulates that the retirement age stipulated in it is the minimum, which means that there is nothing to stop any employer from employing or re-employing anyone for as long as they want to. I am in no doubt at all that the existing law already provides for this but in view of the confusion that has arisen, where many had erroneously assumed that the retirement age provision in the Retirement Age Act was an obstacle to employers offering a higher retirement age, it is useful for the Bill to now provide for this explicitly.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2229
\r\n
The other interesting feature of this Bill is the way it has provided extensively for disputes on re-employment to be dealt with. A worker denied of re-employment opportunities or dissatisfied with the terms of re-employment or quantum of employment assistance payment, can now refer the matter to the Commissioner for Labour for conciliation. Providing an effective mechanism for the settlement of re-employment disputes is important. Otherwise, as we have observed from a comparable Japanese legislation, the law will become a dead letter.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The most significant point about this Bill is that it will now give workers the right to work up to 65 years which is a significant benefit. Of course, this right comes with willingness to adjust to be flexible. But nevertheless, it is still a right to work after 65 years. The choice lies with the worker whether or not to continue working. But if he chooses to do so, then the employer has to make arrangements to accommodate him.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I would like to make a few points on this Bill. First, Sir, on the salary cut at 60 years of age. I wish to ask the Minister whether there is a need to retain the provision which allows companies to cut a workers’ pay by up to 10% when the worker reaches 60 years of age. As the new Bill allows adjustments in workers’ salary when re-employment is offered at 62 years, will this not amount to a double cut and is excessive? Would it be counter-productive to our efforts to encourage older workers to remain employed? I had expected this provision to be removed or modified in light of the re-employment provisions and in line with the established principle that a worker should be paid according to the value of his job, including an older worker.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On the same point, I also notice that the Bill has retained section 5(4) of the original Act, which allows an employer to retire an employee who does not agree with the company’s proposal to cut his \r\n
Column: 2230
\r\nsalary. Although the law also states that the cut should be based on reasonable factors such as productivity, seniority-based wages or performance, section 5(4) clearly states that \"if an employee does not agree with any proposed reduction in his salary, he may either retire or be retired by his employer on or after attaining 60 years of age notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Act\". This implies that the employer has the right and the discretion to decide whether or not to cut and how much to cut, and if no agreement is reached with the employee on this, the employer could retire him at the age of 60 years. There is nothing in the existing Act or the new Bill on what a worker or his union can do if they disagree with the cut.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
This provision can be contrasted with the new provisions on re-employment which provides that if the worker does not agree with the terms of the re-employment offered by his employer, he can refer the matter to the Commissioner for Labour for conciliation. Could the Minister clarify why this conciliation provision is not extended to disputes over the salary cut at 60 years of age? Will it lead to a situation where employers could circumvent the re-employment law simply by retiring a worker who is 60 years old if the worker disagrees with the pay cut since the employer has the discretion to do so under section 5(4) of the Act? What recourse is available to a worker who does not agree to the pay cut at 60?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My second point is on the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP). Whilst this provision is meant to help workers in situations where the company has no vacancy to re-employ them, there are concerns that employers would take the easy way out and pay the EAP instead of making every effort to find a job for the workers. Employees earning higher pay feel particularly vulnerable as they view the EAP quantum of $4,500 to $10,000 as too little to act as a deterrent to \r\n
Column: 2231
\r\nemployers. I urge the Ministry to monitor the situation closely so that the EAP will not become a convenient loophole for employers to avoid their re-employment obligations. The EAP should clearly be the last resort when really there are no jobs. There are cases where the employer claims that there is no job available but soon after retiring the worker, advertises for his position. In such situations, the inference is clearly that the employer has not made reasonable attempts to find a suitable vacancy and is a violation of the Act.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n My third point is on the requirement for workers to be medically fit to continue working before they will be offered re-employment. On this point, I am not clear on the meaning of section 7(2) of the Act. This provision says that an employee is presumed to be medically fit to continue working, which is very clear to me. But then it goes on to say that \"unless the employer of the employee proves on balance of probabilities that the employee is not medically fit\". My understanding is that whether or not an employee is medically fit to continue working should be decided by a medical doctor. This provision seems to imply that the final judge should be the employer and even if the doctor certifies the worker medically fit to work, an employer could on a balance of probabilities prove otherwise. I would like to seek some clarification from the Minister as to the meaning of this provision and how it would be applied in practice.
\r\n\r\n
My fourth point is on the exemption list which currently covers 26 categories of workers who are excluded from the Act. Could the Minister give an update on the outcome of its review of this list as too many exemptions would also defeat the purpose of the Bill, and currently how many workers are exempted from the Retirement Age Act? Even as we are \r\n
Column: 2232
\r\ndebating this Bill, we are also acutely aware that there are now more contract workers being employed in Singapore. Could this become a convenient loophole where employers could avoid the retirement and re-employment law completely by employing people on contract which could undermine the objective from the law? It is also important to make sure that those categories of workers who are exempted from the Act are also given support and assistance if they wish to work longer so that their retirement age will not be completely out of whack with the rest of the population. As I hear that there are workers in some companies that are exempted facing this difficulty, could I ask what kind of recourse these workers have if they need help?
\r\n\r\n
\r\n My final point is on the procedure for referring claims to the Commissioner. Under the Act, a unionised worker can be represented by an officer of the trade union that he belongs to. As not all unions have the expertise or resources to represent their members themselves in hearings before the Commissioner, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether an officer from the NTUC could be allowed to do so. That means to represent them before the Commissioner, if the union is affiliate to NTUC. In other words, whether the interpretation of an officer of the trade union could also cover an officer of the federation of unions to which the union is affiliated?
\r\n Sir, in conclusion, I would like to thank MOM for this far sighted legislation, and in working very closely with the tripartite partners to iron out some of the issues. This would now give workers the legal right to work up to 65 years and even to 67, if subsequently that it is decided once it comes into effect in 2012. Although the law comes into effect in 2012, I hope that employers will not wait until then to introduce re-employment. Our unionised \r\n
Column: 2233
\r\ncompanies have fared well, but the non-unionised ones are still lagging behind. I urge MOM and employers to do more so that more workers could benefit from re-employment. This will be a particular challenge for the SMEs, and the Minister has also acknowledged that. The Association of Medium and Small Enterprises (ASME) have estimated that only 357 out of their more than 6,000 members had adopted the re-employment policy. As SMEs collectively employ a huge number of workers, we need to have more concerted and targeted efforts to assist them.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I would also like to thank the Government for agreeing to implement the re-employment provisions including the EAP in the public sector in July this year, instead of waiting until January next year. This is a very enlightened move on the part of the public sector and will benefit many civil servants. I hope that this would lead the way for the private sector. Certainly, I am also very happy that we have worked very closely with the Government and particularly public sector division – more with the NTUC and public sector unions – in order to have the re-employment provisions in the public sector implemented in July this year.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, the key thrust of this Bill is flexibility, both for the employers and employees. For the employers: flexibility for the employers to continue to use skilled experienced workers longer and to adjust their cost. For the employees flexibility to adjust themselves for new jobs and opportunities and to learn new experiences. I think this element of flexibility for both parties is extremely crucial for the success of the re-employment legislation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.
\r\n
3.27 pm
\r\n
Mr Teo Siong Seng (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to \r\n
Column: 2234
\r\nAppendix A*.] Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) and the Managing Director of Pacific International Lines. I have two points regarding this Bill, from the perspective of the business community. First, the Amendment Bill will help ease the labour shortage problem, but we need to exercise flexibility in its implementation and, second, I hope the Government can put forward effective relief measures to reduce the burden for employers, especially SMEs.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
In recent years, the topic of re-employing older workers has been widely debated among the tripartite partners. Statistics from MOM show that the employment rate of workers aged between 55 and 64 had risen to 59% last year, thanks to a strong economy. It demonstrates that the labour market does need older workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
SCCCI recently did a survey to find out the views of its members. Among the companies surveyed, over 90% expressed willingness to hire older workers. Some already started to do so. Over 50% are SMEs. It shows that SMEs are more concerned with this issue.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Singapore companies have long been facing a labour shortage problem, although the Government has taken many steps to solve it. Under the multiple impacts of capital shortage, foreign labour reduction and an ageing population, SMEs are struggling. The Bill is very timely, and will deliver a clear message to both employers and workers. It will not only have a great impact on ensuring older workers' welfare but also help ease the ever pressing problem of labour shortage. We wholeheartedly support this decision.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
However, different industries have different characteristics, and the
Column: 2235
\r\nimplementation is not going to be smooth. Employers and workers must work together and make mutual adjustment for the Bill to be truly effective. For example, construction, electric and precision engineering, and marine operations require their workers to be either physically strong or have good eye sight. Older workers might find it hard to continue with such jobs. In this situation, employers and workers must try to reconcile and resolve their differences.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n I am pleased to see that the tripartite partners have drawn up a practical guideline. Currently, MOM is reviewing 26 categories of workers to be exempted from the Bill, with reasons such as physical demand. I worry that for those older workers who are not under these categories and whose performance is not up to standard, the employer will have to pay them between $4,500 and $10,000 employment assistance if he does not wish to re-employ them. This adds on to the labour cost and the financial burden of the employer.
\r\n\r\n
Undoubtedly, SMEs will face a two-fold cost challenge in the future. On one hand, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) recommends increasing Singapore workers' wage to $3,100 by 2020; on the other hand, companies cannot expect too much on production efficiency after employing older workers. Therefore, we must have effective measures to help companies reduce cost and grow.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Hence, I propose that the Government puts forward an incentivising mechanism similar to the Jobs Credit Scheme to encourage companies to re-hire older workers by giving out grants. During the financial crisis, the Jobs Credit Scheme proved to be very effective. It helped to retain workers' jobs and lower companies' costs; hence it was supported by both the employers and workers.
\r\n
Column: 2236
\r\n
While the new Act is being implemented, it will take some time for the older workers and the employers to make adjustments. From the employer's perspective, the company will have to re-design work processes to suit the older workers. If the type of work is changed, the employer also needs to encourage the older worker to undergo necessary training. If the Government can provide incentives to benefit both the employer and the worker, it will definitely raise both parties' enthusiasm.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Human resources form Singapore's precious capital. Older workers are experienced and can help train the younger generation. Re-employing them will not only solve the labour shortage problem but also improve the company's competitiveness. This, in turn, will help our economy's continuous growth.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n To conclude, the business community supports this Bill to re-employ older workers. However, the Bill must take into consideration the different characteristics of different industries. In the meantime, we hope the Government can put forward an effective incentivising mechanism to help companies to implement the changes as fast as it can.
\r\n\r\n
I support changing the Retirement Act to Retirement and Re-Employment Act.
\r\n
3.33 pm
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] When we debated the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill in September 2007, the Workers' Party objected linking the retirement age with the CPF draw-down age. We were also against increasing the draw-down age from 62 to 67. Although Singaporeans are living a longer life these days, longer life does not necessarily mean they still have the energy and health to continue working. What is more, whether
Column: 2237
\r\nthere are employers willing to hire people reaching 60 years is still a question. We were worried that the CPF policy will put people in an awkward situation whereby they cannot find a suitable job on one hand and, on the other hand, they cannot take out their CPF savings to maintain their livelihood. They might end up \"hanging in mid-air\".\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Now we are debating the Retirement and Re-employment (Amendment) Bill to try to solve the problems we have pointed out before. The Bill requires the employer to offer workers reaching 62 a new employment contract and re-hire them. However, we should take note that the Bill also gives employers the option of not doing so. Instead, they can offer the older workers a one-off employment assistance payment. If the employers are allowed by law to do this, then workers reaching 62 are likely to lose their job. If they cannot find a new job and are not allowed to take out their CPF, how can they make a living?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Bill also provides that if the employee's performance is not satisfactory, the employer has the option not to offer him a re-employment contract. While drawing up the new contract, the employer can also change employment terms and conditions including the wage, type and scope of work. In fact, under such circumstances, the employer can easily make the contract so harsh that it cannot be accepted by the employee.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In my view, this amendment is a half-baked Bill which seemingly can solve the employment issue before people are allowed to take out their CPF savings, yet in reality, it cannot guarantee that Singaporeans will continue to be employed until the age of 65, only by then can they take out their CPF savings.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The dilemma Singaporeans will face in the future is that they might lose their job\r\n
Column: 2238
\r\nwhen they reach 62, and yet are not allowed to take out their CPF – the money that has been saved all their life for retirement. Now, they have to wait till 65, 67 or even older!
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I think the Government should allow people to take out their CPF savings when they reach 60. Retirement age shall not be linked together with the CPF draw-down age. The Government can, through incentives, encourage people to continue working and delay taking out their CPF savings voluntarily.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSitting accordingly suspended at
\r\n3.36 pm until 4.00 pm.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
Column: 2238
\r\n
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
\r\nColumn: 2238
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Debate resumed.
\r\n
Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a few salient points with regard to the Bill.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Sir, neither the Act nor the proposed amendments provide for the re-employment of older workers who currently either wish to switch jobs or do not have a job but are looking for one. This is a gap in the legislation for the employment of older workers. This is clear from clause 4(d) of the Amendment Bill which defines \"re-employment\" as \"the employment of an employee by the same employer on or after the date the employee attains the specified age\".
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Speaker, we need to look at ways to protect the interests of all older workers, instead of just those who are content to continue working in their\r\n
Column: 2239
\r\nexisting jobs. Older workers do have a hard time job hunting. The media regularly carry reports of workers above the age of 50, finding it difficult to land a job, despite the requisite skills and qualifications.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Second, I notice that the Amendment Bill mentions three ages: 62, 65 and 67.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With reference to clauses 6 and 9, does this mean that an employer is obliged to re-employ an employee who is between 62 and 65 years old and if he does re-employ the staff, he has to continue to do so up to when the employee reaches 67?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I see ambiguity here because I feel that employers who want to continue hiring someone beyond 67 will do so anyway while other employers may simply stop re-employing a worker once he hits 65.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In this respect, I wish to highlight the need for intensified public education about why the retirement age has to be increased. To be candid, Sir, we need to educate Singaporeans that a higher retirement age benefits them more than the Government. The money earned from the additional period of time not only helps them to maintain their current living standards but also provides an extra buffer to their CPF and Medisave savings. In its public education, the Government should set out its case in a holistic manner, linking the need for Singaporeans to work longer to their desired retirement lifestyle, the remuneration older workers can attract, and their productivity. These elements need to be explained alongside yet another factor – the inflow of foreign manpower and how that can be managed alongside the employment of older workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, to motivate more to work till they are older, the Government could emulate \r\n
Column: 2240
\r\nthose countries which hand out more pension money to those who retire later. In this respect, I would like to ask the CPF Board if it has plans to give older workers a higher interest rate on their CPF contributions, received from the employment beyond the age of 62. Or does it intend to come up with other incentives?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, yet, winning Singaporeans over to the idea of working longer is only half the battle. No amount of legislation can completely meet the goal of getting employers to hire older workers unless employers embrace such workers. The right mindset has to be inculcated throughout the company, from the CEO down to the young Human Resource clerk.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, in this regard, I am heartened that the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) says that most of its members have no issue with re-employment. ASME president, Lawrence Leow, is quoted to have said that in offering re-employment, a company needs to look at how a person performs, instead of cutting his salary once he turns 62. Yes, I agree that an employee cannot have become less capable on his 62nd birthday than the day before when he was 61. The employee, on his part, has to accept that re-employment is likely to mean an eventual restructuring of his compensation package and job function. An employee, who has a positive mindset can appreciate that there is fair play in the way his re-employment has been structured. Thus, re-employment can be a win-win for both the performance-minded employer and the older employee.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On this note, I support the Bill.
\r\n
4.03 pm
Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this very important Bill.\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Column: 2241
\r\n
The continued employment of older and experienced employees is an important development that will contribute significantly to economic and social stability in Singapore. I rise in strong support of this Bill, which mandates the re-employment of workers post-retirement. However, I have two primary concerns which I hope the Minister can comment on.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
First, regarding the criteria for eligibility of re-employment. May I ask the Minister if he can provide clear guidelines on what constitutes satisfactory work performance. Related to this, can the Minister provide details of the appeal process should employees fail to meet eligibility criteria for re-employment? What help will be rendered to those who want to continue working but fail to meet the re-employment criteria? How can we help these workers to continue to be self-sufficient?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My second concern relates to the terms of re-employment for post-retirement. It is a very complex Bill and I may have misunderstood some of the details and, if so, I appreciate it if Minister can clarify. From my understanding, the Bill details re-employment as a new contract, and benefits therefore would be recalibrated for the re-employed worker. What are the implications of this on holiday leave, health and other benefits?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Related to this is the specified salary adjustment for post-retirement workers. I understand the rationale for reduced compensation for re-employed workers as the Bill seeks to alleviate the stress of manpower costs on employers. But it worries me that a structured guideline set out in the Bill may send an unintended message that older workers are less productive, and therefore deserving of less remuneration. And that is not fair. While an older employee may function a little slower due to physiological \r\n
Column: 2242
\r\nlimitations, I think that they more than compensate for this with their wealth of work experience. Where the occupations are not reliant on physical strength and agility, why should an employee aged 63 suffer a pay-cut and reduction in benefits when his productivity and contribution may be even better than when he was 61 or 62 years old?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Inherent in this flawed rationale that if employers had to extend employment of workers beyond retirement, this is an imposition on employers' resources. That is not necessarily true. With our sustained low total fertility rate and a fast-greying population, older Singaporeans who can continue to contribute meaningfully to the workplace cannot be thought of as liabilities. They are a critical and essential segment of the workforce, and their contributions to overall productivity is valuable and irreplaceable.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As the Singapore population continues to age, older Singaporeans are an indispensable part of the Singapore labour force. We cannot rely on augmenting labour shortages through the foreign labour pool as we need to keep a careful watch on the local-foreign composition in our society. A foreign worker who is not familiar with local culture and workplace norms is certainly not able to match up in terms of ability when compared to an experienced older worker who has been with the organisation for an extended period. That older Singaporeans are willing to continue to work past retirement is indeed a privilege that Singapore must be thankful for.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I was very glad to note the highlight of Singapore Airport Terminal Services’ new wage formula for managing compensation in the Straits Times recently. Rather than allow employers to exercise an automatic pay cut post-retirement, I think best-practice should dictate that compensation should be tied to job performance of the\r\n
Column: 2243
\r\nemployee regardless of age. We already have in place a restructured organisational philosophy that favours on-the-job performance rather than tenure for remuneration. I think that insisting on the pay-cut post-retirement certainly does not commit well with the performance-based evaluation system.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n I hope the Minister will send a strong message to employers that the re-employment of retired workers facilitates organisations’ ability to sustain their labour force and productivity, and that we will continue to encourage employers to keep loyal employees who will contribute meaningfully to the workplace on fair terms. Job experience is an invaluable asset that is very difficult to replace.
4.09 pm
Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, three years ago, Singaporeans were subjected to Central Provident Fund reforms which deferred the age at which they start drawing down their balances from 62 to 65 years. At that time, the Workers' Party opposed the deferment of the draw-down age (DDA) to 65 as there would be Singaporeans who would not be able to work or work at the same pace till 65. Though this Bill does provide opportunities for Singaporeans to continue working till 65, my view is that the provisions give little assurance to older workers that they will remain meaningfully employed after they turn 62.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Let me elaborate by going into the specific provisions. First of all, the retirement age is not changed. The name of the Act is being amended to Retirement and Re-employment Act by clause 3. This enables the Government to provide for re-employment opportunities for older workers without actually changing the legal retirement age. Clause 6 which\r\n
Column: 2244
\r\namends section 4 does not increase the national retirement age which remains at 62 years. The new section 4 merely enables the Minister the discretion to change the retirement age by Gazette to up to 67 years at some later point in time.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Next, re-employment obligations and hurdles. Clause 9 of this Bill provides for re-employment of workers beyond 62. It sets out three, what I consider hurdles for workers before re-employment is confirmed. The first hurdle concerns who is eligible for re-employment. Under the new section 7A, the employee qualifies for re-employment if he has obtained the satisfactory performance appraisal and is medically fit. How will medical fitness be determined? Though there is a presumption of medical fitness provided, the employer can prove otherwise, according to the Bill. If a worker has some medical condition, will medical opinion be conclusive as to the fitness for work or can be the employer make his own subjective assessment?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The next hurdle arises if the employer says that there is no vacancy to justify re-employment which is allowed under section 7C. Though there are tripartite guidelines on the re-employment of older workers, the guidelines I read simply said that the employer should consider all available re-employment options. But who can argue against the employer's assessment of whether there are vacancies or not? Will MOM be able to suggest to the employer how vacancies can be accommodated within the employer's business? Will the worker be able to suggest where vacancies might exist against the employer's assessment?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Assuming the worker manages to navigate the first two hurdles, he will be offered re-employment. This is where the third hurdle comes in. What kind of job and benefits will he receive? It is clear from the proposed section 7A that the employer is free to reinvent the wheel by \r\n
Column: 2245
\r\noffering a different job with different terms and conditions. He can even ask the employee to continue at the same job but with much reduced pay. In addition, the contracts for re-employment may be from year to year or even a shorter duration by agreement. The new section 7B makes clear that previous years of service will not be counted for benefits except entitlement to annual and sick leave.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, with so many \"ifs\" and \"buts\", are we exposing our senior workers to shabby treatment? Indeed, it has been noted that the existing law which allows employers to cut workers' pay by up to 10% when they reach 60 has been used by employers liberally. It is reported that this cut was common, even in unionised companies and also present in the public sector. With this new re-employment legislation giving employers a free hand at 62, are we exposing our senior workers to being short-changed further when they reach 62?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, in addition, the Bill gives employers the option of not offering re-employment but to pay the employment assistance payment under the new section 7C. In some way, this Bill does not ensure employment till 65. In fact, it subjects our senior workers to a stressful re-employment process at 62. Sir, further, the re-employment law only applies to workers who at 62 are still employed. It does not help Singaporeans aged 62 find a new job. As at 2009, the employment rate of older residents aged from 55 to 64 was about 57%. The rate of those aged 60 or more would be lower. Even for those who are working, what kind of employment they had and whether there was under-employment is not clear since the person is counted as employed as long as he works for at least one hour a week.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, if the Government wants to delay Singaporeans their CPF draw-down age to \r\n
Column: 2246
\r\n65, it should at least correspondingly provide for a more seamless transition of employment from 62 to 65. Further, Sir, the Workers' Party is still of the view that the CPF draw-down age should not be linked to the retirement age or the re-employment age limit, whatever we wish to call it. Not everyone can work till then and some may need to have an easier pace of life. In fact, in the Minister's Second Reading speech, he acknowledged that workers in this age group would need to have choices. Sir, as such, I believe that Singaporeans should be able to commence their CPF balance draw-down at about 60 years old. These CPF balances were accumulated through decades of work and the money belongs to CPF members.
\r\n
The Government can always educate and encourage people to work longer or to delay drawing down their CPF monies voluntarily.
\r\n
4.15 pm
\r\n
Mrs Mildred Tan (Nominated Member): Sir, I congratulate the Government for bringing this to the Second Reading of the Bill. To say that raising the retirement age is something easy to do would be scratching the surface. Sir, I support this Bill because it gives security to the suppliers of labour that they will have a fair market in which to work in, and also buyers of labour that the market is one that is priced fairly.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
This Bill mandates that employers must offer re-employment to workers who turn 62 until they are 65. In reality, even before this new legislation kicks in, there are older employees who have already negotiated with their current employers for re-hiring. So it would not be wrong to say that this Bill does not create a new market. What it does is to make it a better market.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Under the classical economic model, any intervention to a free market makes it less perfect. This, of course, assumes \r\n
Column: 2247
\r\nthat buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge and are equally equipped or empowered to negotiate on price alone. However, these assumptions do not necessarily hold true in daily economic life. In the current market we are speaking, these assumptions may be too general.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
This Bill contributes by giving older workers the assurance that they will be hired after 62 and at least until 65. The question really is: why are employers reluctant to re-hire older workers? As an employer, the age of a worker is not my concern but from a business perspective, it is about cost and output. If we see labour as a factor of production and if we say we can get the same output with less cost, that makes economic sense.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
However, older workers can sometimes cost more due to the seniority-based wage system and because of healthcare issues. For wages, we have the flexibility to negotiate individual contracts, but for healthcare costs and issues, it is less straightforward and there is more work that needs to be done.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I would like to suggest that the tripartite partners work together to make medical insurance including Eldercare, MediShield and Medifund more accessible to older workers. I would also like to suggest that such insurance be made portable among companies. In this way, it reduces the cost of older workers by lowering the risk of higher healthcare costs, and makes it more attractive for firms to re-hire at more competitive salaries.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, with Singapore's maturing economy and shifting demographics, we cannot afford to be oblivious to the non-economic considerations in this discussion. We need to view the issue of re-hiring older \r\n
Column: 2248
\r\nworkers with extended lens beyond economics.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
First, let us question the inclination to regard the output from all workers as being perfectly comparable. For example, I know that Sembawang Shipyard has a very good policy of re-designing work for older workers. When the engineers and technicians become too old to clamber up and down ships, they are re-deployed to the workshops on land.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With the benefit of having worked on ships before, these older workers have a better idea of how design impacts the ship and what will work or what will not work. Like a fine craftsman, it boils down to the feel of the steel between your fingers that produces excellent work, even if he might not know how that would translate into economic dollars per year. So the benefits of hiring and re-designing work for older workers are there and Sembawang has reaped it in the strong camaraderie at the yard and in their sterling results every year.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My point is that if all the value must be reduced to economic value for us to take notice, the challenges lie in us not being able to capture it all in the planning stage. For example, it is not possible to say that an older worker who has worked on board a ship will add 10% more value than someone who has been working on land all his working life. There is no basis for this, except a post facto one. It is only after a man has come into the workshop, and after the workshop performance has improved, that we are able to talk about the added value the man has brought.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The second challenge is that it is not only post facto; it is also non-uniform. That is to say, not all workers hold an equal premium over younger ones. Many factors come into play. It depends on the job, the organisation, the opportunities and the man himself. An older midwife is infinitely more valuable if you have a\r\n
Column: 2249
\r\ndifficult birth. Her experience makes the difference between life and death but you will never know unless you have difficult births.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
These considerations are messy, particularistic and hard to handle. No wonder they are discussed as non-economic considerations. But they can impact the bottom line, and they can add or subtract value. In this sense, I urge these non-economic considerations be regarded seriously and for more firms to be like Sembawang Shipyard in providing and rewarding opportunities for older workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, finally, a word on implementation. I know that a common pastime for workers and staff is at the coffee machine or the pantry and it is usually to criticise policies devised by Human Resource (HR) or the Management that are being implemented. A young worker recently told me that she was very happy when her HR in her company introduced a flexi-time policy in her workplace where workers are allowed to report to work anytime between 8.30 am and 10.00 am, so long as they clock in the required eight hours a day. So I said, \"Is that not a good thing? Flexibility means you can decide for yourself how best to fit the work day in.\" To that, she replied, \"Yes, you can come in any time but it must be the same time every day.\"
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I realise that flexible negotiations between firms and older workers are provided for in this Bill. Flexible is a key word here. At the same time, the considerations are multiple and hard to quantify. In this case, I call for all three partners in the labour equation to work together to ensure a fair deal for all.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I support the Bill.
\r\n
4.21 pm
\r\n
The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Speaker, \r\n
Column: 2250
\r\nSir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
I rise in full support of this very important law. In order to cater to an ageing population and an ageing workforce, we need a holistic approach; a total systems approach. To me, this Bill before us is a very key instrument to allow us to help Singaporean workers, most of whom are expected to live longer, to accumulate the resources through extended working life so that they may continue to enjoy a good quality of life.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Earlier on, I heard the arguments by the hon. Mr Low Thia Khiang as well as Ms Sylvia Lim talking about, \"Why not just let our workers, our Singaporeans, draw on their CPF monies earlier rather than later because they would want to be able to spend this in their later years, especially when they may or may not be continuing to work.\" But I thought that that is the very argument. We all agree that Singaporeans on the whole are living longer. The Minister had earlier shared those statistics. So, the question is, where are we going to find the resources for our Singaporeans as they live more years to be able to enjoy the quality of life?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Bill before us today is to enable more workers to work longer, more years and accumulate those resources so that they can enjoy the very quality of life that Mr Low and Ms Lim hope that they would. So let us, instead of just worrying about the darkness, complaining about possible twilight, work together and bring this candle and bring this light to our workers. Otherwise, it would be like saying, \"You have a bank account, I have no idea how you are going to add money there but I know you have to spend. So do not listen to these guys when they tell you how to add more money into your account, just listen to me and go and draw whatever you have and start spending.\" I do not think this is helpful.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2251
\r\n
And earlier we also heard – does it work? There are different concerns about this law. I would like to share the experience of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). Since 2007, we, as part of this tripartite effort, have been working the ground through our unions, working with companies to promote re-employment, by getting companies to be committed, by getting companies to incorporate this into their collective agreements, by incorporating them into the HR policies and executing them well. So we have a tiered system of measuring them and categorising them. Now, we have more than a thousand companies – I last counted 1,055 unionised companies – already committed and some doing very well in terms of systematic practice. Together, more than 9,000 unionised employees since 2007, when we started measuring, have benefited from in-company arrangements with their unions in re-employment. So, never mind all the theory and concerns. We know if you work well, if you know how to do it, it will work and it will actually benefit many, many workers. Therefore, I support this Bill very, very much. Sir, I would like to now make six observations and suggestions which I hope can help further strengthen the overall effectiveness of this Bill as it passes into law and goes into implementation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The first is that this is a re-employment law, which means to say that we anticipate the day when the worker reaches 62 years old and it obliges the employer to re-employ him. But I think it is also important for us to ensure that across the different age cohorts, before 62 years old, the employment rate in these cohorts is kept high and, in fact, can be raised. And our statistics show that among males, the employment curve actually goes up and then turns down after about age 50 or 55, and for females, earlier, in their 30s. There are various \r\n
Column: 2252
\r\nsocio-economic factors explaining that. But I think it is important that even as we support this re-employment law, to continue to put in our efforts so that the pipeline into the re-employment age is kept strong and, in fact, can be sustained and strengthened over the years; so more and more workers, a higher percentage of whom will reach 62 years can therefore benefit from re-employment.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, secondly, I also note that contract work is becoming more prevalent, both amongst the rank and file as well as the PMETs in our economy. This is done on the part of the companies for labour flexibility. We also therefore need to look at the possible impact it would have on the employment rate across the different cohorts so that people do not leave prematurely or are made to leave prematurely before 62 years old.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Next, the law is passed in 2011 and it takes effect from 2012. Much as we understand that there will be time needed for companies that have yet to figure out how to do it, to now re-double their efforts, I think, on the ground, expectations would be created. Workers would say, \"Now that we have the law, can we have it effective earlier rather than wait till January 2012?\" And in particular, there will be recommendations, whether in the law or in the guidelines, for consultations between company and employee on the re-employment to take place six months before they are supposed to be re-employed. And that means middle of 2011. So I would like to ask the Minister whether anything can be done with respect to helping workers who will reach retirement age by January 2012 so that companies will also be obliged to begin consultations by the middle of 2011.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, next, workers are also concerned about the flexibility over how employers may define their new jobs and their new\r\n
Column: 2253
\r\npay conditions in re-employment. In particular, some will worry that some irresponsible employers may purposely put forth an offer that is so unattractive as to incentivise the workers to reject it and then the employers will say, \"I have done my job.\" Therefore, I am very encouraged when the Minister mentioned that it would be according to reasonable factors and these factors would be performance, productivity, seniority-based structures, and so on. From the union movement, we are very, very clear. There is nothing automatic about this and where there are cuts, we then expect the employers to do so based on justifiable factors. We will continue to pursue this on behalf of our workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I would also hope that in comparison with other countries, for example in Japan, where they passed the law but in the exercise of their law, their mechanism lacked teeth, so they could not really take employers to task if they were to disregard the law and not re-employ their workers. So I am encouraged that in our provision, we do have this legal obligation and there will also be dispute resolution mechanisms present within the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) should the employee not be satisfied that he has been fairly treated.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I urge the Minister to ensure that this mechanism would have the requisite powers and the teeth and administrative wherewithal to do a good job because this is so essential to translate good intent into an effective practice for the benefit of our workers.
\r\n
Finally, Sir, I hope that in this final year before implementation, MOM, together with the tripartite partners, can further step up their efforts to highlight the good practices amongst model companies, as well as to highlight companies that are not doing it because they are against the employment of older workers. I think it is time for us to take a\r\n
Column: 2254
\r\nfirm stand so that everybody knows what is the right thing we expect to be done in Singapore and to offer help, as necessary, to all companies, especially to our SMEs, to do a good job in re-employment.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.
\r\n
Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Low?\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. The Member referred to our proposal that workers should be allowed to draw down on the CPF savings at the age of 60. He said that would affect the quality of life in retirement. I would like to seek clarification from him as to how he thinks allowing Singaporeans to draw down on their CPF at age 60 would affect their quality of life, with insufficient fund – that was what he is referring to. If this is so, perhaps the Member could explain why it is so. Is it that our workers are not being paid enough and thereby after working for 30-40 years when they reach the age of 60, they still have insufficient funds in their Retirement Account to enable them to have a proper retirement and to have a certain reasonable standard of living and quality of life which is the same as any other first world country? \r\n
Mr Heng Chee How: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said was that we all recognise and agree based on the fact that Singaporeans on the whole are living longer. With more years of life, we would need more resources to provide for the more years of life. This Bill today is one way to help more workers extend their working life by making this a legal obligation on the part of employers. This is a good move, and those who can benefit from this will be able to earn more over more years, and therefore enjoy a better quality of life.\r\n
4.32 pm
\r\n
Mr Laurence Wee Yoke Thong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is very timely and commendable. This\r\n
Column: 2255
\r\nBill seeks to facilitate older employees to work longer and their intention in re-employment.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
In today’s world, people are living longer. As the Minister has just said, and according to demographic trends, it is no longer confined only to the developed countries but also the less developed countries. In the context of working beyond one’s retirement age, two important issues must naturally be considered among others from the worker perspective: first, the older person’s physical and psychological well-being; and second, their ability to continue to be well integrated in the family, community and overall society.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Age is no longer an important determinant in the work setting if one continues to be productive and competent. Nonetheless, there should be no compromise with regard to the quality of work or services rendered. To be fair, it should fall within the reasonable expectations of one’s supervisor or employer. And where the older worker’s expertise, experience and knowledge are being valued by his or her company, it is indeed a win-win situation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
One example I recall is that of a long-serving Eurasian waiter, past his 70s, working in an established hotel in the Orchard Road area. He knew most of the faces of regular customers, and would exchange niceties and ensure that their orders were delivered on time. With his positive attitude and personality, he will be a good service model for our younger people.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I had the opportunity of asking him about his retirement plans. He said that he would continue working for as long as the boss wanted him to, and health permitting. For him and for many of us too, work gave him a purpose and\r\n
Column: 2256
\r\nmeaning to his life. This is what I call \"positive ageing\".
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Nevertheless, older workers who are given the opportunity to continue in gainful employment should, if they choose to, be given the option to opt for a slower pace and also lower one’s remuneration expectation, so that they can enjoy working at their pace and do the things that they want to do without disruption to their work life.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, many older people have many positive qualities, including being quite resilient in the face of adversity. This is often due to coping strategies from past experience in behaviour. They can be an important source of mentoring and encouragement to younger people in the workforce.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On a lighter vein, retirement means different things to different people. I refer to a news-cutting sometime ago by a popular Hong Kong singer and actress, and I am not naming her, and I quote: \"The meaning of retirement is putting on weight and being able to eat my fill.\"
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, there will always be a group of people out there who are not ready to stop work suddenly, come mandatory retirement age. For some, it is not the money factor, but a feeling of loss of status, loneliness and social isolation. For this group who want to work longer, the best thing about this Bill is that it will enable them to do so.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, there are also many others who may not be in favour of prolonging one’s work years. I quote one writer on the Straits Times' Forum 31st July: \"Are Singaporeans working all their life and not enjoying the rest they require to savour their life’s toil? There is a time for everything, and they should not pressure citizens about losing out if they do not continue working.\" There is nothing wrong with that perspective. However, \r\n
Column: 2257
\r\nthis should not be a problem at all, given the flexibility of the rule.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, there are many advantages for prolonging the employment of older persons, not just the monetary factor and ensuring sustainability of income for as long as possible, but more importantly I see it as dignifying the lives of the elderly, providing the self-esteem factor and giving meaning to their life’s purposes.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
May I urge employers to see the positive qualities of older workers and not to perceive them as slow, inefficient and unproductive. Some even said that once they reach the magic age of 50, we have some kind of arthritic condition or physical mobility that will hamper their work. So it is not true. In this respect, it is heartening to note that among others, NUH and PUB won the global award this year for promoting the employment and retention of older workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With this timely push to work a little longer, perhaps Government could also consider, at an opportune time, to do away with the mandatory retirement age altogether. This is to better address some of the current issues facing seniors, for example, the alleged discrimination against older people with regard to their credit worthiness. There is also the larger problem of those without proper financial planning and CPF savings as their only source of income which may not see them through their impending retirement years.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, at this juncture, may I suggest that we should have a national body to represent the future retiree on a wider platform to meet their self-actualisation needs among other things. It will be a relevant body to address and care for the diversity of needs of the older persons to enable them to participate effectively in their daily living. This organisation will be largely run by the people for the people-kind of thing. I note that all these may not \r\n
Column: 2258
\r\nbe within the scope of this Bill this afternoon.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In conclusion, Sir, this Bill will provide older workers with an opportunity to prolong their work years in a meaningful way, ensuring them to be financially independent whilst preparing for their retirement so as to age gracefully. I have every confidence that this Bill will be successfully implemented if the principles of care, fairness and objectivity are observed in handling individual cases that come within the purview of this Bill.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I rise fully supporting the Bill.
\r\n
4.38 pm
\r\n
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. If there is one thing I have learned from being in this House for the last five years, it is that too little of what is debated here is followed by many outside. There is sometimes misunderstanding over the reasoning behind a policy or law, or what it seeks to achieve. That, at times, arises because our efforts to reach out and explain are not as effective as what we would like. I fear that, if we are not careful, misunderstanding will happen with respect to this Bill.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Whenever a government is seen to be tinkering with the retirement age, it can be assured of some suspicion. But this Bill is not about prejudicing the employer or employee. It seeks to offer workers more options when they reach retirement age, and to provide a framework for both parties to reach a reasonable compromise on how the employee can continue to work, or receive financial assistance.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To better appreciate the Bill, we must first understand where we stand today. One of the questions I am often asked as a lawyer is whether an employee can be asked to leave his job although he has faithfully discharged his duties. The \r\n
Column: 2259
\r\nanswer is \"yes, he can\", and without any compensation. Most contracts give the employer the right to terminate with notice without cause or reason. Sir, to impose on employers stringent obligations to keep an employee when he reaches retirement age, only encourages employers to let the employee go well before he reaches retirement age. How does that benefit Singaporeans? The reality is that despite our best intentions and the cleverest of drafting, it is next to impossible to force employers to hire people they do not want to hire. The reality again is an employer would likely keep an employee so long as he continues to have value or bring value to the company, and that will take into account amongst other things of what the employee earns.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Under this Bill, when an eligible employee hits retirement age, he can choose whether he wants to continue working. The Bill seeks to reduce discrimination based on age and provides an avenue for relief should an older worker feel he has been unfairly treated. This Bill therefore advances employees' rights. I hope that this Bill will not be portrayed as forcing Singaporeans to work longer or on inequitable terms or an attempt to delay or deny them their benefits.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
But with most other laws, the difficulties will be in its interpretation and implementation. In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify some issues.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Firstly, the Bill provides that employers are not obliged to re-hire if the employee is assessed by the employer to have performed less than satisfactorily. An employee is allowed to file a challenge to the Commissioner against an unfavourable assessment. But many companies do not maintain regular and documented\r\n
Column: 2260
\r\nperformance reviews, so how is this issue going to be determined? Is MOM going to examine the work of the employee and decide what is satisfactory for that company, when expectations may vary from company to company? How will it do so? Or will it be the case that the employer’s assessment will be accepted, unless clearly rebutted by the employee?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Secondly, where there is a dispute between the employer and employee, the Bill places the onus on the employee to lodge a complaint with the Commissioner within a specific deadline. Presumably, if he fails to do so, he will be barred from seeking relief. This raises some concern as older employees, particularly those less educated, may not know their rights or be aware of these deadlines. Why can the obligation not be placed on the employer to refer all disputes to the Commissioner? The employer would be well placed to do so. If the burden is to remain with the employee, what steps will the Ministry take to ensure that all employees are aware of their rights under this Bill, particularly the need to file on a timely basis? Will the Commissioner accept complaints filed out of time, even if the only excuse is ignorance of the law?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Thirdy, even if an employee is successful in his complaint, the remedy he gets is that the employer will be compelled to do what he should have done in the first place. Only a failure to comply with the Minister’s order results in punishment. In short, the employer has no incentive to be reasonable from the outset. The employer can therefore take the chance, at no risk to himself, that the employee may not complain, or may not do so in time, or may just give up. There should be some compensation to the employee for being forced to prosecute a meritorious complaint.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Finally, one of the remedies the Minister can impose is to compel the employer to re-hire the employee. I\r\n
Column: 2261
\r\nquestion whether this is wise. The relationship between the employer and employee is likely to be strained. Indeed, the Courts have long recognised that it is unproductive to compel two parties to work together if the relationship has broken down, which is why they will not order an employer to hire someone. Hence, compensation is the answer. I submit that this Bill should take the same approach.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In conclusion, while the Bill has noble intentions, it would be highly detrimental if we ended up creating unrealistic or impractical expectations. I therefore hope the Minister will ensure that the reasons and rationale for this Bill, including its limitations, will be explained clearly to all Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With that, I support the Bill.
\r\n
4.44 pm
\r\n
Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah) (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Speaker, our population is ageing rapidly. By 2012, about 20,000 people will hit the retirement age of 62 years every year. Of course, our quality of living has improved tremendously. Most citizens can get access to better healthcare so their longevity has also increased. The average man can live up to 80 years old; the average woman 85 years old. Because most people do have access to better healthcare even after they have hit 62 years of age, they will still be very healthy. The body continues to function well and they are full of vitality. The elderly worker has a rich working experience. If he can continue to be part of the workforce, he will be able to put that vitality and working experience to use, allowing them to continue contributing to society. It is good that elderly workers continue to work because it will make their lives more fulfilling; it will also ensure they have a more stable\r\n
Column: 2262
\r\nincome and lower their reliance on the society and their families.\r\n\r\n
\r\n So, I feel that this Retirement Age (Amendment) Bill proposed by the Manpower Minister is very timely because it allows the employers to re-employ those who reach 62 years old. Just as we are always talking about letting people age in a place they belong, this is about letting them be employed in a place they work. This is a new measure that will work well with current and future generations. As such, I support this Bill but have a few suggestions here that I would like to share with Members.
\r\n According to page 7 of the Bill, those who reach the retirement age of 62 years old can be re-employed if they have good work performance and are healthy. In assessing their work performance, the employers have to look not just at the employees' past one year's work duties and performance but also take into account their work experience and contribution to the company in the past.
\r\n As for the health requirement, the key question is: what kind of health standards will disqualify employees from continuing to work? Every industry has different demands and everybody's health is different. I would like to ask the Minister if this health standard is established by MOM or by the different companies. I fear that if we leave it to the individual companies to establish this health standard, there are some companies who may intentionally raise the threshold to make it difficult for elderly workers to meet this health requirement.
\r\n With regard to the criteria for re-employing workers, I would like to ask MOM if there are policies in place to ensure that the elderly workers can continue to work without their employers making unreasonable demands on them, such as having them master the latest computer working procedures. If so, with
Column: 2263
\r\n such harsh criteria, these elderly workers may not be able to be re-employed.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n With regard to employers who flout the rules, I would like to ask the Minister if the employee meets all the requirements but is refused reemployment by the employer, are there any measures in place to prevent such a thing from happening? If the employers do not follow regulations, what kind of penalties will they get?
\r\n In accordance with the current Retirement Age Act, employers who continue to employ those between 60 and 62 years can reduce their wages by no more than 10%. Elderly Singaporeans are concerned that if they are re-employed after they reach 62 years old, they will have to face another wage cut. By the time they reach 50 years old, the employer's CPF rate will fall progressively lower. By the time they reach 60, the employer's CPF has fallen to 5%. This wage cut, again and again, is unfair to them because they continue to work as they have been and they continue to have the same duties. The employer should decide based on the company's situation and that of the employee's performance instead of a fixed mentality that all elderly workers' wages should be cut.
\r\n Now, I would like to bring Member's attention to a newspaper article in the Lianhe Zaobao on 16th December last year. NUH will employ those retired workers and their salary package will be the same as before. These workers will not only not have their wages cut, they will also continue to enjoy the health benefits, leave and welfare that they have been enjoying in the past. If they perform well, they will get a pay raise and even a promotion. The hospital believes that age is not a determining factor for performance and that work attitude is the most important factor. The hospital believes and recognises that these elderly\r\n
Column: 2264
\r\nworkers can still contribute. By continuing to work in the hospital, they can impart their knowledge to their younger colleagues.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n I see the NUH as a role model in this regard. Hopefully, both the public and private sectors can look to NUH and support the new policy of re-employing elderly workers. I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestions.
I support this Amendment Bill.
\r\n
4.50 pm
\r\n
Mr Terry Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, since 2005, the tripartite partners have embarked on a mission with the future in mind. We are faced with the certainty of a greying population while our birth rate lingers below expectation. These conditions define what we need to do today. \r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Let us be clear that we are not introducing these changes as an austerity measure to combat budget deficits like in other European countries. But we are doing this when our employment rate is at the highest and unemployment is at the lowest. Therefore, our intention is clearly to help fellow Singaporeans better prepare for retirement and our companies to remain competitive. So let us not cast any doubt on the motivation, but let us also know that this is no silver bullet.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
For re-employment to work well, the perceptions and mindsets of both employers and employees are essential. The Labour Movement has been proactively engaging our unionised companies on re-employment over the last five years. Today, we have more than 1,000 unionised companies committed to re-employing about 9,800 employees. Five hundred of these companies have HR policies aligned to the tripartite guidelines. Our unionised companies and members are in a better position today with these experiences.
\r\n\r\nColumn: 2265
\r\n\r\n
[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair]
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Most employees will have some form of anxiety before they turn 62. Many of them understand that if they stop working it means no income but they may have many good years ahead and bills to pay. Companies need to engage their employees early before they turn 62, give them peace of mind and help them move on. They must have a fair chance to be re-employed. And they should be paid according to their contribution and not blatantly by age.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Some may be tempted to think it is their last lap when they reach 62, but we should discourage that thought. They need to keep upgrading and upskilling and do their best at work. They need to appreciate the importance of re-employment for their retirement.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Amendment Bill but, at the same time, I urge that we remain vigilant and nimble in our approaches and policies. Though we are seeing hopeful signs in re-employment now, we must be careful that there are other challenges threatening its relevance. For example, we need to pay special attention to those who may not re-employed at 62. At the rate our population is greying, this possibility is further amplified.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The United Nations reported that we have one of the fastest ageing populations. It was projected we will be the world's fourth oldest country in 2050. Re-employment is necessary because older employees are a precious resource to the Singapore workforce, especially in a tight labour market. The worst for anyone is to have no job, no money and poor health. Therefore, we must ensure that the majority of fellow Singaporeans can and will be re-employed.
\r\nColumn: 2266
\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
4.54 pm
Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very timely to introduce this Amendment Bill now. Why so? Firstly, it is at a time when our life expectancy is the highest it has ever been. Secondly, a significant portion of our seniors continue to stay active, both physically and economically.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Yes, Sir, it is all about keeping people, who are economically active and capable gainfully employed till a ripe age, well into their golden years. This is also a platform for companies to maintain what I would call the 3Es: Experience, Expertise and Education, which can be shared with others. I do, however, feel that a worker should have the flexibility to retire when he feels so.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
This Bill is also necessary to help reduce any abuse by employers, especially pertaining to matters of keeping the seniors employed, their re-employment and comparative remuneration. As MPs, many of us have heard our fair share of the challenges facing our seniors in their job maintenance or job hunt. This Bill, together with the Industrial Relations Bill which we have just debated recently, will certainly help and offer various options to employees to seek recourse for employment disputes. The Ministry of Manpower and the NTUC have been very strong advocates of hiring seniors and older workers. The passing of this Bill, Sir, will help drive the message home even further amongst all relevant stakeholders.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
This Bill will, no doubt, act as one of the signals to help increase compliance amongst employers. But it also means companies will now have to think of how best to utilise the skills of the seniors with an appropriate range and types of jobs. Sir, I do have three areas of concern I wish to highlight.
\r\nColumn: 2267
\r\n
\r\n Firstly, it pertains to some of the SMEs, especially the smaller ones, those with few employees and those dealing with specific types of trades. Currently we do see some from this group already facing a variety of challenges such as those pertaining to manpower and quota issues, that is foreign workers versus local workers. With this new Bill, Sir, I do hope MOM will give this group of companies some due considerations and, perhaps, some flexibility on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps there can be a targeted advisory task force set up to assist these SMEs with the variety of challenges they may face. They can assist these employers and companies to think out of the box and circumvent their options to facilitate their compliance with this Bill.
\r\n Next, with regard to section 7 pertaining to the issue of re-employment and where a new contract of service is to be drawn up, will MOM be coming up with some suggested generic guidelines for employers? This I feel may be helpful to reduce or prevent unnecessary discrimination which has the potential to arise.
\r\n Thirdly, pertaining to the new section 7C, Sir, on the offer of employment assistance payment to the eligible employees, can I again ask if there will be some guidelines from the Ministry? It is mentioned in the Bill that the tripartite guidelines must be referred to in these cases. Can I please enquire if the Ministry feels these current guidelines are sufficient and whether some revisions, edits and fine-tuning would have to be added on?
\r\n\r\n
Finally, Sir, one issue which I think is very crucial is that as we continue to retain our seniors and employ them right into their ripe old age, how do we promote health at the workplace and healthy lifestyle as well? After all, a majority of our working adults and seniors\r\n
Column: 2268
\r\nspend a significant portion of their day at their workplace. I would like to call upon MOM to work even more closely and further with MOH to come up with certain good health practices at work and, perhaps, even adopting some very good practices from overseas, such as the Japanese examples, to ensure that our workers stay healthy and have a good worklife balance right into their old age.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
After all, I strongly believe that work is good for us. Studies have shown that keeping active way into our senior and golden years delays the onset of Alzheimer's disease, dementia and cerebral atrophy. It also helps to maintain our brain neural networks for a longer period. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the healthcare sector has a very high re-employment rate overall.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
There was a philosopher who said that if you love your job and you are passionate about it, you do not have to work a single day of your life.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
So, with that, Sir, I support the Bill.
\r\n
4.59 pm
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, given our tight labour market and the fact that our resident workforce in Singapore is ageing and life expectancy is increasing, the re-employment recommendation proposed will support and enable workers to work longer if they wish to and to organisations to be able to continue to benefit from the value of the more experienced employees.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
I am supportive of the amendments proposed and having gone through the details of the proposed amendments, I must say that much thought has been given to the details of the Bill to ensure that a balanced approach is taken. It takes into account the interests of employees who are eligible for re-employment whilst ensures viability and\r\n
Column: 2269
\r\nflexibility for employers. The hon. Member, Mr Hri Kumar had mentioned, it really looks into giving more rights to the workers and giving assurance to workers of re-employment.
\r\n
The Bill actually provides quite great clarity on the eligibility criteria for re-employment, the re-employment obligations of employers, guidelines or timelines in terms of engaging employees and notifying them of eligibility for re-employment and the terms of contract. It also ensures that employees are provided an Employment Assistance Payment if the employers are unable to find suitable jobs for the employees. There are also clear avenues for employees to seek recourse and remedies for re-employment disputes through the Ministry of Manpower or the Commissioner for Labour. There is also flexibility for employers and employees to make necessary adjustments to wage and employment benefits. The guidelines also encourage employers to exercise fairness in making adjustment to wages and employment benefits for older workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
It is this last point of fairness and the spirit of re-employment that I would like to touch on. As mentioned, the amendments proposed in the Bill and the clarity of the guidelines thus help in providing a framework for fairness for both employers and employees. However, as is often highlighted, the effectiveness and impact of any policy is really in the implementation and the actual execution of these policies. For example, before making downward wage adjustments, when employees reach the minimum statutory retirement age, I do hope that employers will review their wage and benefit policies and not just make automatic downward adjustments. The Retirement Act, as it stands today, has already given employers the legal right to adjust wages downwards for workers who reach the retirement age. However, as many companies have moved or are moving to the performance-based wage\r\n
Column: 2270
\r\nsystem, adjusting workers' pay downwards when they reach retirement age may not be fair if they meet the criteria of at least satisfactory work performance and are medically fit to continue to work. I think MOM has reiterated this point about the fact that it should not be automatic in terms of wage adjustments downwards.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
A positive example is the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) as many Members have mentioned. This was reported in the Straits Times on 5th January 2011, where SATS made a decision to move away from an automatic 10% cut to determine wage adjustments for their workers who turned 60 years of age to ensure a fair remuneration and benefits policy based on performance. I hope that the example of SATS and companies which have adopted similar practices with regard to the criteria used for fair wages for older workers helps to highlight that just because a worker turns a year older, it does not necessarily mean that his or her value and contributions to the organisation decrease.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On the part of employees though, I also hope that there will be a recognition that there may be situations for them to be open and flexible to changes in their jobs. These changes may not be due to the fact that they are not performing, according to the criteria we talked about, but these are the criteria for productivity. It could mean that the market conditions have changed and, therefore, job scopes may need to change. So, re-training may be required, jobs may need to change and then re-deployment may need to happen and, therefore, adjustments and flexibility on the part of the employees are also necessary.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
There is one more point that I would like to touch on. I think the hon. Members, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim, have touched on this point. They had concerns about re-employability and they talked about the CPF and the \r\n
Column: 2271
\r\nability for workers to draw on the CPF. The point is that we all recognise that there is a need for workers to have sufficient funds. So whether the workers are allowed to draw on the CPF or not, I think the point is about re-employability. What is the Member's recommendation if he is not supportive of re-employability? What if a worker wants to work? What options does he have for re-employability? What framework and assurance does he have that he can be re-employed if these recommendations are not adopted? I would like to hear the Members' views on this and the recommendations.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
One other group that I feel that is not addressed in this Bill – and probably it is a much bigger discussion – is the contract workers. It is important for us to recognise that as companies increasingly move to contract work, this Bill and this Act does not cover that group. There are also older workers in this group. How do we help them if they choose and want to work beyond 62 or the retirement age? What framework is there for them to be able to also get some re-assurance that there will be re-employability?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I believe that the amendments proposed in this Bill and the objective of encouraging and enabling the re-employability of older workers are also beneficial for employers as they provide them access to that pool of valuable labour. At the same time, it will provide the option for employees who wish to work and want to work and are able to work beyond the retirement age, the ability and the framework to be able to be re-employed. But I also point out that it is important to ensure that this spirit is realised in the actual implementation of the policy as I believe that it will encourage greater trust and confidence between employers and employees.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
\r\nColumn: 2272
\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a clarification. What we said was not so much of opposing the Bill as a framework for re-employment after the retirement age. But we noted that the Bill also empowers the Minister to, via Gazette, increase the retirement age from 62 to 67, which means that that will also affect the draw-down age for CPF savings. We simply asked if this Bill is not something which provides job security for workers who have reached the retirement age. If this is the case, we asked whether it was fair to deny Singaporeans from drawing their CPF savings. So, it is not that we object.\r\n
Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, further to clarify – I am sorry I did not hear completely the Member's point because I was out for part of the session – but also to highlight that in other countries where they have allowed different draw-down ages or for members to choose when to draw down the CPF, they have also stipulated that the amount be stretched out over a period of time. I believe that this can be accommodated within the concerns of the regime.\r\n
5.08 pm\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Members for their support of the Bill. It was good to hear views from both the employers as well as union leaders and from different points of view. These comments underscore the need for us to adopt a balanced approach in re-employment. Sir, let me now address the comments and questions raised by Members. First, let me start with some clarifications.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Mr Hri Kumar has mentioned that employers can terminate employment without any cause and that there is no obligation for employers to employ his employees until retirement. I would like to clarify that employees who are dismissed\r\n
Column: 2273
\r\nunfairly may appeal to the Minister for Manpower under section 14(2) of the Employment Act. In addition, section 8 of the RAA protects employees from being dismissed on grounds of age before the age of 62.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang has also asked whether we intend to raise the retirement age to 67 and, at the same time, raise the draw-down age of CPF to 67. As I have mentioned in my main speech, currently, our plan is to introduce re-employment to allow our workers to continue to work from the age 62 to 65. The Act does provide for the extension of re-employment to 67, but that is at a later stage. Let us focus on implementing re-employment to allow our workers to work up to 65. We will deal with 67 as our lifespan continues to extend. We will need to maintain that flexibility.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Laurence Wee has also suggested that we should do away with retirement age at some point in time. As I have explained in my main speech, to improve the employment rate of older workers, both employers and employees will need to have the flexibility to make necessary adjustments to employment terms and conditions. This is why we have adopted the re-employment approach instead of raising or removing the retirement age altogether.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef has suggested coming up with guidelines on re-employment contracts and the EAP. As I have mentioned earlier, the set of revised Tripartite Guidelines on Re-employment of Older Employees will be released today.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Sylvia Lim have asked about the definition of \"satisfactory work performance\" and how we go about assessing that. Sir, in general, this refers to the minimum level of performance any\r\n
Column: 2274
\r\nemployee is expected to maintain in discharging his duties. I agree with Mr Ang Mong Seng that employees need not be assessed on just one year of work performance. The assessment could be based on the past two or three years, if appropriate. We will continue to encourage employers to introduce proper appraisal systems so that they can provide a fair and objective assessment of their employees' work performance for re-employment purposes. Employees who feel that they have been unfairly assessed and denied of re-employment opportunities, as a result, may approach my Ministry for assistance.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Ang Mong Seng, Mdm Halimah Yacob and Ms Sylvia Lim have asked about the criterion of medical fitness. In general, an employee should be considered medically fit to continue working as long as his health will not affect his performance on the job. Section 7(2) places the onus on employers to prove that the worker is medically unfit to continue working. Given that an employee has been working with the employer for the past years, it is reasonable to presume that the employee is medically fit to continue working beyond his retirement age unless the employer has evidence to prove otherwise. This may include sending the employee for medical examination, if necessary, as pointed out by Mdm Halimah.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah has also asked for an update on the review of the employees exempted under the Retirement Age Act (RAA). Sir, certain groups of employees are currently exempted from the minimum retirement age under section 11 of the Retirement Age Act. Apart from foreign employees holding work passes, it consists mainly of employees in uniformed services such as firemen, police officers and SAF officers, whose job requirements are physically demanding and employees who, before the enactment of the RAA in \r\n
Column: 2275
\r\n1993, are covered under retirement benefit or pension schemes that are linked to a contractual retirement age lower than the statutory minimum retirement age of 62. There is also a small number of employees who are exempted under other categories.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We have been reviewing these exemptions in consultation with the relevant employers and unions to examine whether the exemptions are still required. Some of the exemptions may be outdated or are no longer relevant and will be removed from the exemption list. These include public officers in the Economist Service, medical practitioners or dentists in any hospital who are under fixed-term contracts. However, I expect some employees will continue to be exempted from the RRA for a variety of reasons. For example, foreign employees holding work passes and employees in the uniformed services, whose job requirements are physically demanding, will be exempted under the new Act. Nevertheless, many of these employees, especially those in the uniformed services, continue to work after they retire as their employers would facilitate their move to take up a second career in the Civil Service or in the private sector.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
For those who are covered by retirement benefits or pension schemes introduced before 1993 which are linked to a contractual retirement age that is lower than 62 years, we would allow them to retire at a lower contractual retirement age. However, to extend re-employment opportunities to this group of employees, we are looking at requiring the employers to re-employ them upon their earlier retirement and up to the age of 65.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah also asked whether employers could get around the law by employing contract workers. Ms Jessica Tan also mentioned the same concern. \r\n
Column: 2276
\r\nEmployees whose employment contract is tied to a specific project, for example, a consultancy project which will take three years to complete, will be exempted from the law. However, employees who are on a fixed-term contract that is not tied to any specific project will be covered by the law as long as the contract is more than two years, including any renewals. This means that employers cannot deny these employees from the coverage of the law by repeatedly renewing fixed-term contracts unless there is at least a six-month break between renewals. We will continue to work with the relevant unions and employers and complete the current review before the implementation of the RRA.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah has asked whether there is a need to retain section 5 on salary adjustments at 60.
\r\n
Ms Sylvia Lim was also concerned about the same issue. This provision was introduced to provide flexibility for companies to adjust wages, taking into account reasonable factors such as any seniority element in the wage structure, employees' duties and responsibilities, productivity and work performance. Let me stress that wage adjustment, whether at 60 or for re-employment, should be based on reasonable factors as I mentioned earlier. Removing this flexibility would add rigidity to the labour market and affect the employability of older workers. The number of establishments practising automatic salary reduction at 60 is small. Hence, let us keep this flexibility, but work together to encourage companies and unions to move towards rewarding workers based on their performance and productivity.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
An employee who does not agree with the reduction of his wages at 60 because the reduction was not based on reasonable factors, as I have mentioned, may lodge a complaint with the Commissioner for Labour (COL) under section 115 of the Employment Act on \r\n
Column: 2277
\r\nsalary disputes, if they are covered by the Act. Alternatively, if the worker is represented by his trade union, his union can also raise the disagreement over salary reduction to the Industrial Arbitration Court.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Assoc. Prof. Straughan asked about the implications to employment benefits when an employer and an employee enter into a new re-employment contract. Employers and employees may re-negotiate employment benefits for re-employment, subject to meeting the minimum prescribed benefits under the Employment Act.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mrs Mildred Tan has suggested making medical insurance more accessible and portable for older employees as employers may be concerned with the medical costs of re-employing their older employees. Employees who are covered by approved MediShield schemes or private integrated shield plans, would already have portable medical insurance. Where medical costs are a concern, employers could consider various forms of arrangements with their re-employed workers, such as co-payment of medical benefits, introducing appropriate caps on medical benefits claimable, or providing additional Medisave contributions for employees to help pay their MediShield premiums or other medical expenses.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Ang Mong Seng has asked how retrenchment benefits will be computed for re-employed workers. Where a new contract is entered into after retirement and the years of service before that has been disregarded, the tripartite partners have agreed that employers may offer financial assistance using the Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) as a reference to help these retrenched employees.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Teo Siong Seng is concerned that employers may be required to offer EAP to employees with poor performance. I would like to clarify that only employees \r\n
Column: 2278
\r\nwho have at least satisfactory performance will be eligible for re-employment and, hence, eligible for the EAP, if they are not offered re-employment.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang was concerned that employers may simply offer EAP, instead of offering re-employment opportunities. And that is why we have set a minimum EAP quantum in the guidelines and we stress that this EAP payment should be used as a last resort. The high employment rate of older workers and the low unemployment rate go to show that employers, by and large, are responsible and older workers, by and large, are able to find jobs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah, Mr Heng and Mr Teo and Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef suggested stepping up our efforts to reach out to companies, especially the SMEs, to help them put in place re-employment policies and processes. Employers can tap on the ADVANTAGE! Scheme and obtain up to $400,000 in grants to re-design their job processes as well as develop good HR practices for re-employment. Moving forward, we will be reviewing these schemes to ensure that they remain relevant and we will also be exploring new initiatives to further enhance the employability of our older workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah has asked whether an officer from the NTUC could be allowed to represent a member of their affiliated union in hearings before the Commissioner for Labour. Sir, to maintain a balance of representation, we would continue to allow NTUC officers to be present and provide advice but not to represent the employee, who should really be represented by his own union officials.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Hri Kumar has asked whether employers, instead of employees, should be required to report re-employment disputes to the Ministry, given that employees may not be aware of the time \r\n
Column: 2279
\r\nbar for lodging of appeals and claims. Sir, it may not be practical to do so, as reporting of disputes should be by the aggrieved party, who is likely to be the employee. We will work closely with the unions to raise the awareness of employees on the RRA, including the time bar requirement, and encourage employees to notify the Commissioner of their disputes early.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim were also concerned whether employers may take advantage of the flexibility and make unreasonable offers in order to escape their obligations under re-employment. Sir, employees who are unfairly denied of re-employment can approach the Ministry and the Minister may order the employer to offer re-employment or pay compensation. The amount of compensation may be enhanced, depending on the circumstances of the case, including whether the employer has made reasonable attempts to re-employ the worker at the onset.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Heng Chee How asked whether employees who will attain the specified age on or after 1st January 2012, can approach my Ministry for mediation if they encounter any dispute before 1st January 2012. While the Act will take effect from 1st January 2012, employers and employees who encounter difficulties on re-employment before then can still approach MOM for advice and assistance.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Heng has also asked why the law will only come into effect a year later, on 1st January 2012, and whether there is anything MOM could do for those who are retiring this year. Sir, it will take time for employers to put in place systems and processes to support the implementation of re-employment. Employees would also need time to discuss possible re-employment options with their employers and make adjustments, where necessary.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2280
\r\n
We have announced earlier that the law will take effect in 2012. But we have presented the Bill ahead of time so that employers and employees will have early knowledge of what to expect, come 1st January 2012, and will start to prepare for re-employment. For employees who are retiring in 2011, the tripartite partners will continue to encourage companies and workers to implement re-employment early.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim also asked why the CPF Draw-Down Age should be raised to 65. Sir, in 2007, when Parliament debated on the decision to raise CPF Draw-Down Age from 62 to 65, we explained then that even with the CPF reforms which we were introducing at that time, many members would still run out of savings if we start the Draw-Down Age at 62. This is because 60% of members will live longer than 82 years, which Mr Low also pointed out; that lifespan is extending. By the time they reach 82, most will not be able to work. It is therefore better to work longer earlier and to draw-down later, than to draw-down now and when savings run out, workers will be older and will find it more difficult to find jobs. I am sure this is not what Mr Low and Ms Lim would like to see.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Ho also asked whether we can provide incentives to help older workers work longer. Sir, the Workfare Income Supplement serves to do just that, with more for older workers, up to $2,800 a year, including a CPF component. Sir, rather than drawing down CPF early, it is better for us to help workers find jobs. Given the flexibility that the RRA provides and that the majority of older employees continue to work beyond 62, we expect a large majority of the employees would be able to be re-employed come 2012. For those who are not re-employed by their existing employer, they are encouraged to look for alternative employment so that they can continue to earn a regular\r\n
Column: 2281
\r\nincome to improve their financial adequacy. And we will help them. Employees can approach e2i or WDA's career centres for employment assistance. Better for us to help them find a job than to bring forward the Draw-Down Age of CPF; better to help them fish than to ask them to eat the fish they are saving up for old age.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I believe I have addressed Members' concerns and queries. As highlighted by several of our Members, the Bill balances the objectives of providing opportunities for more employees to work beyond retirement, with the need to maintain the flexibility in implementation to allow employers to continue to tap on the pool of experienced and skilled older workers. With the continued support of the unions and employers, we will press on with our efforts to ensure an effective and smooth implementation of the re-employment law.
\r\n
Mr Hri Kumar Nair: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I just clarify the Minister's clarification on my speech.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
The Minister mentioned that those who have been unfairly dismissed will have recourse. I was not talking about or referring to unfair dismissal. The vast majority of full-time contracts and almost everyone I have seen, allows an employer to terminate a contract with notice or with payment in lieu of notice, without assigning a reason or without cause. And because the contract allows you to do that, that is not deemed unfair termination. The only reason why I raised this is because there are many people out there who assume that just because they faithfully discharge their obligations under a contract, they will be entitled to keep their employment until they reach retirement. And I think that is a dangerous assumption. I wanted to make that clear.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, Mr Hri Kumar is right in that employment contract allows\r\n
Column: 2282
\r\nflexibility for the employer to exercise contractual termination based on their business needs. However, as the worker approaches the retirement age of 62, the employers will have to ensure that even if they terminate the worker contractually, it is not on the basis of age. So, the Member is right that there is flexibility in the market, the labour market has to be able to respond to economic changes and the employers must have the flexibility to be able to hire and terminate as provided in the employment contracts. But we will examine the circumstances leading to the termination of the employment contract, whether it is done on the grounds of age, and if it is so, the Minister can order a reinstatement of the job. As Mr Hri Kumar also pointed out earlier, it is not so easy to reinstate the job because the relationship would have soured and we will look at other alternatives, including compensation. It is an issue that we will continue to have to work with employers to ensure that more opportunities will be given to the older workers and to protect their employment rights.\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister disagreed to allowing Singaporeans to draw down the CPF earlier. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister, whether he thinks that it is fair for the Government to hold on to the CPF of Singaporeans whilst not being able to assure Singaporeans of job security between the ages of 62 and 65, or up to 67.\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, let me clarify that the purpose of raising the Draw-Down Age for CPF is to ensure that the savings will last longer. As Ms Sylvia Lim also pointed out, we have to ensure that there are enough savings for them as their life expectancy increases. We introduced CPF LIFE for that reason to ensure that the savings are able to last a lifetime. For workers who are unable to find jobs, what is more important for us is to explore\r\n
Column: 2283
\r\nopportunities and ways to help them find jobs. We have put in place Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) to ensure that those who are working will get a top-up if they are among the low-wage, low-skilled workers. If they are older, in fact, the WIS has an additional payment for them. We also introduced the Workfare Training Scheme last year, targeted at these workers to help them acquire the necessary skills so that they are able to find job opportunities.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
So, instead of encouraging them to draw down their CPF savings, and as a result run out of savings when they grow old, it is better to encourage them to work while they are still young or while they are still able to work.
\r\n
And for those who are medically unable to work – some of them unfortunately might have met with an accident or might have suffered a medical illness – we have provisions for them to draw down their CPF savings earlier to support their living expenses. So the scheme is already in place.
\r\n
Ms Sylvia Lim: A clarification for the Minister. The Minister earlier mentioned that attempts will be made to find work for people above 62, and certainly we would support such job placement efforts. Our concerns would be about the workers who are unable to be placed in jobs and the criteria for special CPF drawdowns. As he mentioned, I think these are very strict medical criteria which many people would not be able to meet. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
So, my question for the Minister is: why is it not possible to allow a member to draw his own CPF savings at an earlier date while stretching the payments out for a longer period?
\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, to answer the second question first: to stretch out the payment period so that it lasts longer with the same amount of savings would just \r\n
Column: 2284
\r\nmean that they would have less every year and that may not be enough for them. So, with the same amount of savings, it is either that the savings will last longer with a lower amount or the savings will last a shorter time. The better solution is to continue to add on to the savings. That is why the Workfare Income Supplement has a CPF component to help top up the CPF savings and if the worker continues to work, he will then be able to accumulate more savings. If he starts to draw down later, his savings would then last longer.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Ms Lim also mentioned about those who really cannot work. There will be a small minority of older workers who may be medically fit but unable to work for a variety of reasons. But this remains a small minority. As I mentioned, the unemployment rate for the older workers remains very small – it is about 3% today. So, rather than re-design the CPF scheme to cater to this small group of minorities which might have difficulties, it is better for us to deal with these cases on a case-by-case basis. And we should not label them as \"unemployable\" and therefore allow them to draw down from the CPF. It is better for us to continue to encourage them to look for work and if they have problems dealing with their living expenses and so on, we still have many other social safety nets to help to support them including ComCare fund. So, it is better for us to design the scheme based on the needs of the majority, and that is those who are able to work will continue to work. Let us encourage them to continue to work and draw down their CPF savings later so that it will last longer. For that reason, we are putting in place the CPF LIFE.
\r\n
Mr Teo Siong Seng: Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. Our concern is that smaller companies may not have jobs for the older workers and they have to pay the EAP of $4,500 to $10,000. To some small companies, that is quite a \r\n
Column: 2285
\r\nburden. How does the Minister feel about that? \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We have to start from the point that this older worker has been with this company before he reaches 62. So, the company has a job for him at 62. The vast majority of the companies will continue to have a job for him when he goes beyond 62. But there may be some necessity to make some adjustments to the job scope, remuneration, or the terms of the employment that are provided within the re-employment legislation. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Rather than focusing on EAP which, I want to stress again, should be viewed as a last resort, it is better for us to focus on creating opportunities for them to work. Our tripartite partners will work with these companies, including the SMEs, to re-design the job processes, to create more opportunities by making their job processes more age-friendly. Given the high employment rate of older workers and the fact that the vast majority are able to continue to be re-employed by the same employer, I am quite confident that most of the companies would be able to find solutions to provide employment opportunities for our older workers.
\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Minister earlier on said that he will focus his effort on re-employment within the age range of 62 and 65, and to raise the retirement age to 65. But the Bill also provided for raising the retirement age to 67. I would like to ask him when he intends to raise the retirement age to 67. Is it during the next term of Government? \r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me just clarify. I have mentioned in my speech quite categorically that the retirement age will stay at 62. We allow workers to retire at 62 and continue to be employed under re-employment legislation from 62 to 65. Eventually, we may think \r\n
Column: 2286
\r\nabout extending the re-employment to 67. I also said in my speech that for the time being, let us focus on implementing re-employment up to 65. We have the intention of raising it to 67. But when that would happen, it would depend on the economic environment and on the average life span of Singaporeans. It depends on many other factors. Therefore, it is better for us to focus on implementing the legislation, that is, put it in place, ensure that we work with employers and unions, and make sure there is smooth implementation and address some of the misunderstanding, difficulties and the friction in implementing it. This is the more immediate task than to discuss when re-employment would be extended to 67. \r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Low Thia Khiang: I take it that the Minister has no intention to raise the retirement age which will affect the Draw-Down Age of the CPF. \r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Gan Kim Yong: The retirement age today, let me explain again, is 62. The CPF Draw-Down Age would be 65. So they are not linked. We have introduced re-employment to allow our workers to work from 62 to 65. But the retirement age remains at 62. The Draw-Down Age would be gradually moved to 65 based on a schedule which we have announced in 2007. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Question put, and agreed to.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Gan Kim Yong].
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Bill considered in Committee.
\r\n
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Chairman: The citation year \"2010\" will be changed to \"2011\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2287
\r\n
Clauses 1 to 20 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2287
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Order for Second Reading read.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
5.40 pm
\r\n
The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Lee Yi Shyan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, the Employment Agencies (Amendment) Bill seeks to strengthen the regulatory framework of the employment agency (EA) industry. The outcome will be an EA industry that is better qualified, more professional and effective in matching employers and workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As intermediaries that link job seekers and employers, EAs play a critical role in the smooth and efficient functioning of the labour market. A well-functioning EA industry helps match employers with workers with the right skills, ultimately raising the productivity of our workforce. It will also support Singapore’s vision of being a centre of talent with fair and responsible recruitment practices.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
For our EA industry to be effective, we need a regulatory framework that is relevant to today’s labour market requirements. My Ministry had therefore embarked on a review of the EA regulatory framework to ensure its robustness and accountability of all stakeholders. Today, I am pleased to present the outcome of the review in the form of this Bill.
\r\nColumn: 2288
\r\n
\r\n Changing EA landscape
\r\n
\r\n Sir, the current version of the Employment Agencies Act was last amended in 1984. Since then, our workforce has grown in size and mix. Correspondingly, the number of licensed EAs has also increased by more than seven-fold to over 2,500 last year to meet labour market demands.
\r\n
\r\n Where many EAs have conducted themselves professionally, some have been found to be wanting. Malpractices have unfortunately also become more widespread. In 2010 alone, my Ministry took enforcement actions against 147 licensed EAs. The number of complaints we received against licensed and unlicensed EAs in the last few years has also risen. The need for stronger regulations to tackle errant and unlicensed EAs has therefore become a key consideration in our review.
\r\n
\r\n Sir, this Amendment Bill is the result of many rounds of consultations and refinements with key stakeholders such as EAs themselves, employers, workers and non-Government organisations.
\r\n
\r\n The enhanced regulatory framework achieves four objectives. Firstly, to weed out unlicensed and errant EAs that give a bad name to the industry.
\r\n
\r\n Secondly, the new framework will hold all stakeholders involved in conducting EA-related work to higher professional standards and accountability.
\r\n
\r\n Thirdly, we will update the provisions and processes to ensure their relevance.
\r\n
\r\n Finally, we will enhance the flexibility of the EA regulatory framework.
\r\n\r\n
I will first explain who the Employment Agencies Act is intended to cover.
\r\n
\r\n Clause 5 clarifies that we wish to regulate all EA-related activities conducted \r\n
Column: 2289
\r\nin Singapore, regardless of whether they are for job placements in Singapore or outside Singapore, whether the activity is conducted by locals or foreigners, or on a long-term or short-term basis, or whether for gain or otherwise.
\r\n
\r\n I would like to assure the House that it is not the intention of my Ministry to penalise persons who make casual recommendations to link job seekers to employers. The new provisions are deliberately kept broad to ensure that all types of EA-related activities that may give rise to malpractices are covered. For instance, there are foreigners who earn extra money by regularly linking up acquaintances from their hometown with various employers in Singapore. They are, in effect, conducting EA-related work and should be held to the same level of accountability that other EAs are held to, in order to protect the interests of job seekers who seek their help. Yet, it may be difficult to prove whether the foreign workers conducting EA-related work had benefited in cash or in kind. It is thus important to ensure that the Act covers and regulates these activities.
\r\n Clause 4 empowers the Minister to exempt individual entities, certain classes of persons or EAs from the provisions of the Act. This exemption list will include activities or entities which we clearly do not intend to regulate, such as web-based job portals and job bulletin boards as they are not usually actively involved in the actual placement work.
Sir, the Government takes unlicensed EA activities seriously. They undermine the regulatory framework by competing with licensed law-abiding EAs. They also tend to exploit the vulnerable workers from developing countries by charging them exorbitant fees and may not give them the promised jobs in return.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The current penalties pale in comparison to the potential profits from \r\n
Column: 2290
\r\nillegal or errant EA activities. The existing maximum penalty for first-time offenders under the Act is $5,000. But foreign workers, as you know, are willing to pay agency fees of between $3,000 and $10,000 in order to land a job in Singapore. They did so, perhaps, by selling land or taking up loans to pay these fees. Moreover, licensed EAs would have to furnish a security deposit of up to $60,000 and the same requirement is not there for unlicensed EAs. Therefore, all these add to strong incentives for unlicensed EAs to remain unlicensed.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To stem the supply of unlicensed agencies, we will raise the penalties for unlicensed agencies to ensure that they are commensurate with the potential gains from malpractices. The most significant increase in the maximum penalties under the Act will be for operating an unlicensed EA in section 6. The first offence will warrant a fine of up to $80,000 and/or up to two years of imprisonment, and subsequent offences are liable for penalties of up to twice that amount. In addition to raising the penalties for operating an unlicensed EA, we will also hold an unlicensed agency accountable for the same offences as a licensed agency under the Act.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To stem the demand for unlicensed EAs, the new section 22A introduces a new offence for persons who engage unlicensed EAs. We will require individuals to exercise due diligence in checking whether the EA they intend to engage is licensed, via an EA directory on our Ministry's website. The requirement is not an onerous one. However, my Ministry will be reasonable in dealing with employers who have limited access to the Internet, such as elderly persons hiring foreigh domestic workers (FDWs).
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The new section 22B introduces another offence prohibiting licensed EAs from making applications on behalf of EAs which are disallowed from making such\r\n
Column: 2291
\r\napplications. We are aware that some licensed EAs allowed unlicensed EAs to thrive by submitting work pass applications on their behalf to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) since their access to the work pass application system is only granted to EAs that are licensed. Licensed EAs should only make applications on behalf of employers or job seekers. Should they need to make applications on behalf of other EAs, they must verify that other EAs are similarly licensed and allowed to make such applications.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To allow for a more calibrated action, depending on the gravity of offences, the Bill expands the range of enforcement actions. Whereas MOM's enforcement options are currently limited to only prosecutions or licence revocations, under the new framework, MOM will also have the discretion to compound offences or suspend licences of errant players. Meanwhile, to ensure sufficient deterrence against malpractices, amendments to sections 18, 19 and 20 will enhance the range of MOM's investigatory powers. These are largely based on similar powers granted to MOM under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Increasing professionalism and accountability of industry stakeholders
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, apart from weeding out unlicensed and errant agencies, we will enhance the professionalism and accountability of EA key appointment holders and personnel. These new features will raise the entry barrier and build confidence in the industry. It will benefit legitimate EAs in the long run.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The new section 7(4) allows the Commissioner for Employment Agencies to debar any person or company deemed unsuitable from obtaining a licence. In addition, the new section 22C prohibits\r\n
Column: 2292
\r\ncertain classes of persons, such as those with criminal records, from conducting specific EA work as defined in clause 2. Persons intending to assume key appointment positions such as partners, chief executive officers and directors, or other positions involving management or administration of EA work, will be held to even higher standards.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In addition, clause 12 requires all individuals who wish to engage in any specified EA work to be suitably certified by attending and passing the course identified by MOM. The EA these individuals are affiliated with must also issue them with registration cards in accordance with MOM's specifications. These requirements will give employers and job seekers the assurance that their EAs and their personnel are properly qualified and equipped to help them. To clarify, it is not our intention to require all EA staff, including drivers or cleaners, to be certified and registered. My Ministry will put up guidelines on the kinds of staff who need to be certified and registered.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Currently, it is the licensee who takes all responsibility for malpractices committed under the EA's name. To further increase the accountability of industry stakeholders, the new sections 28A and 28B will also allow MOM to take punitive actions against individuals other than the licensee to task for the malpractices they have committed.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, the next change I will talk about will only affect the subsidiary legislation and is thus not reflected in this Bill. Currently, EAs that place FDWs must be accredited in order to renew their EA licence after one year of operation. Mandatory accreditation entails meeting certain service standards. To raise minimum service standards in the industry, MOM will incorporate into the subsidiary legislation some of the minimum service standards, such as being explicit about the agency's dispute\r\n
Column: 2293
\r\nresolution mechanism and using standard service agreements. The subsidiary legislation will apply to other types of EAs, not just those placing FDWs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
With certain minimum service standards enforced by MOM, accreditation will cease to be mandatory. However, I would like to encourage progressive EAs to adopt standards and best practices beyond the minimum standards in the legislation. Towards this end, MOM will be working with the industry to develop a new voluntary trustmark scheme to recognise agencies that pursue higher level of service excellence.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Updating provisions and process
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Our new framework will also be updated to ensure that it is relevant in today's context. We will create a new office of Commissioner for Employment Agencies, assisted by Deputy and Assistant Commissioners, to assume the responsibility for the overall administration of the EA Act. Currently, the Commissioner for Labour appointed under the Employment Act has this responsibility. Introducing this new office under section 3 will ensure clearer accountability of the functions and powers conferred on the Commissioners under the various Acts. At the same time, we have reviewed the caps under the subsidiary legislation on fees that EAs can charge employers and jobseekers. We will remove the fee cap for employers as it is not necessary. There are many EAs willing to supply them labour and employers are free to make contracts that protect their interests. We will retain and update the cap on fees charged to workers, in order to protect vulnerable rank-and-file workers who have relatively weak bargaining power. In the case of foreign workers from rural villages, they also suffer from information asymmetry and often have no say in choosing their Singapore EA.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2294
\r\n
We will update the fee cap for workers to take into consideration the need to be fair to EAs for the services rendered, and to workers with respect to their income. A worker can be charged a fee not exceeding one month of his salary for each year of the duration of the approved Work Pass or employment contract, whichever is shorter, subject to a maximum of two months' salary. The fee cap will cover all fees paid to Singapore EAs, including fees paid to Singapore EAs via overseas agents. However, the fee cap will not apply to fees paid for costs incurred overseas, such as the cost of the air ticket to Singapore. Certain costs, such as the cost of training and medical check-ups conducted in Singapore, must continue to be borne by the employer as mandated in the existing legislation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
MOM will also introduce a new fee refund mechanism under the subsidiary legislation for workers whose contracts are terminated by their employers within six months of commencement. The refund will not apply if the worker absconds or voluntarily terminates the contract and aims to encourage EAs to be more careful in matching the right worker to the right employer.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Introducing a more flexible framework
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To recognise the diverse range of EAs in the industry today, the new framework adopts a risk-based approach. A single approach to regulating headhunters that place only white collar workers, to those that place lower-skilled Work Permit holders, is inadequate. We are amending section 29 to empower the Minister for Manpower to vary the security deposits required of EAs. This will enable us to vary the security deposits required based on the risk profile of agency. The risk profile of an EA will be assessed on a combination of factors, including its placement volume, the types of workers placed and its track record.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2295
\r\n
The amended section 29 also allows the Minister to impose different licensing requirements on different EAs, depending on their profile. Executive search firms which have generally been problem-free will be regulated with a lighter touch. As such, EAs placing only workers both locals or Employment Pass holders, earning monthly salaries of more than $7,000 will qualify for a Select Licence which is subject to only basic licensing requirements. EAs that do not wish to limit the type of workers they place may apply for a Comprehensive Licence instead.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Transitional arrangement
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, the new regulatory framework will be implemented on 1st April 2011. We have measures catered to help existing EAs transit to the new framework, which includes allowing EAs up to 2014 to certify all their EA personnel. We will carry out a series of public communications initiatives over the next few months to help the key industry stakeholders fully understand the new regulatory framework and be prepared for the transition.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, this new regulatory framework is an opportunity to improve the experience and labour market outcomes for all stakeholders – employers, workers and the EAs. Vulnerable rank-and-file workers, including foreign workers, will enjoy greater protection against the unethical practices of unlicensed and errant players. They will also benefit from measures such as the updated fee caps and the new fee refund mechanism. Employers will benefit from the greater certainty and transparency in the recruitment process. The new regulatory recruitment framework will facilitate labour market efficiency and raise the standard of recruitment practices in Singapore. This will in turn entrench Singapore's global position as a choice\r\n
Column: 2296
\r\ndestination for experienced and skilled workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Finally, by enhancing the professionalism and accountability of the industry, the stricter licensing, registration and certification requirements will instil greater confidence in the industry and boost its reputation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I recently met the Managing Director of an EA called PeopleWorldWide Consulting. They bring in many foreign workers for the manufacturing and services sectors.
\r\n
They shared that they put all their foreign workers through a three to seven-day training programme. They also have a robust process to ensure that these workers do not pay more than the amount that was agreed between PeopleWorldWide Consulting and the overseas EAs, then promised to the workers. We would like to applaud their efforts and look forward to seeing more such progressive EAs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I hope the industry stakeholders, who had a large part to play in the development of these proposals, will continue to give my Ministry their support. Together, we can ensure that the new regulatory framework achieves its objectives and full potential.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I beg to move.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Question proposed.
\r\n
6.01 pm
Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Employment agencies have to be tightly and carefully regulated because, unlike other businesses, they deal with the import of human beings. Although the Act applies to the recruitment and placement of foreigners and locals alike, we all know that most of the abuses involve foreign workers. Just as we have\r\n
Column: 2297
\r\nestablished a reputation as the country with the number one airport and seaport, we should also aim to be a country ranked as number one in the treatment of our foreign workers. Although it is true that most of the employment agencies abide by the rules and act fairly when bringing in foreign workers, the few that behaved badly and had their stories of ill treatment splashed in the media caused considerable damage to our reputation, and the worry is that this number is increasing, judging from the complaints against employment agencies that have more than doubled since 2006.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Hence, this tighter regulatory framework and the stiffer penalties are necessary and timely as this business has attracted many new players because of the huge demand for foreign workers over the last few years. Complaints of abuses include excessive fees, false promises of jobs that do not materialise or of poorer quality than that promised, ill treatment and abuse, poor accommodation, premature termination of contracts and illegal withholding of passports. The number of unlicensed operators has also increased and they could operate outside the ambit of the law with impunity which they cannot do now under this new law.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I most certainly welcome the new broader definition of what amounts to employment agency work or work related to it. The current situation is too restrictive and allows some types of employment agency-related work to be excluded and therefore unregulated. I also welcome the caps on fees to be charged to foreign workers by employment agents. This will remove one key element of oppression as many of these foreign workers who come here to work are prepared to pay an arm and a leg thinking that our streets are paved in gold.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I have, however, a few points to raise on this Bill. The first point is on the sending countries' obligations because I\r\n
Column: 2298
\r\nfeel that no matter what we do, we will achieve only limited success if the governments where the workers come from do not also take strong and effective steps to regulate and monitor their own employment agencies to prevent exploitation and abuse. The foreign workers, who land on our shores, are already so heavily indebted even before they leave their country. Many had to pay thousands of dollars to their own agents back home even before they set foot in Singapore. So we may tighten the laws, we put caps on the fees by our employment agencies, but if nothing is done back home and their own agents can charge as much as they like, then the whole system of oppression is continued and that would also undermine the effectiveness of our law. I think we should make a strong point to the sending countries that they, too, have a part to play to discipline and control their own employment agencies to prevent the abuses of their own citizens. Perhaps, we should suggest to them that they should also have a strong licensing and regulatory framework for their employment agencies, which should also be effectively enforced.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My second point is on the law’s intent to prevent employment agencies from charging excessive fees, and to prevent them from transferring employers’ obligations for costs such as medical and training to the foreign worker. This is a good move and I do notice that there are companies, employment agencies that actually advertise to potential clients that they can get foreign workers for actually almost free. And this is quite prevalent when it comes to the foreign domestic workers where they literally promised the employers that they can get a foreign domestic worker for free, which is really not free because it is the foreign domestic worker herself who has to absorb the cost which otherwise the employer has to pay. This is certainly a good move but I notice, however, that there is no mention of fee caps or restriction on transfer fees. \r\n
Column: 2299
\r\n Employment agencies currently charge a transfer fee whenever a foreign worker is transferred to another employer, especially for foreign domestic workers, and this can be equally painful for the workers. In many cases, when an employer rejects a foreign domestic worker, it need not be because she is a poor worker but because of a poor fit between the employer’s requirements and the foreign domestic worker supplied by the agency. If this is the case, it is not fair to penalise the foreign domestic worker for every transfer that takes place. In fact, it is the employment agency that has failed in their obligations to both the worker and the employer by failing to provide a proper fit between the job and the worker supplied, and they should be the one that should bear the cost and not the worker.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My third point is on the misrepresentation and false promises that employment agencies frequently indulge in. Some of the malpractices that we see involve situations where the workers are promised jobs which do not materialise or are not the kinds of jobs that they were promised or they are offered much lower pay than promised. Sometimes, this happens due to a delay in the commencement of a project or because the employers overestimate the demand for workers. Whatever the reason, the worker ends up being underemployed or working much lesser hours with lesser earnings than promised. How would this new law prevent or address such abuses and how could the worker seek redress?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My fourth point is on the forfeiture of the security deposit when foreign workers abscond. Employers of foreign domestic workers, in particular, find this requirement very onerous especially when their maids run away not because of abuse but for other reasons. I had a case where the foreign domestic worker was with the\r\n
Column: 2300
\r\nfamily for only two weeks before she disappeared, but the family was required to look for her or show that they had made efforts to do so, otherwise their deposit would be forfeited. So they even had to put an advertisement in the newspaper looking for their runaway maid. We cannot assume that in all cases where a foreign domestic worker runs away, it is because of abuse. So, I do ask that the Ministry exercises flexibility in such cases and not to pin the blame automatically on the employers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My fifth point is on the importance of having standard contracts. I welcome the move to introduce measures to make all charges by employment agencies to the foreign worker transparent, as this would prevent employment agents from charging excessive or other kinds of fees which is really not something that they had informed the worker before he comes here. This would also minimise under-the-table arrangements where errant companies also participate in bogus foreign worker employment schemes in order for them to benefit from the exorbitant fees extracted from the foreign worker.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
However, frequently, complaints arise over other issues such as the kind of work, promised salary and other employment terms agreed to. In such situations, without any written records, it is difficult for the foreign worker to substantiate his claim. And it is not just the foreign worker, it is also in the interest of the company employing the foreign worker to have a standard contract. In case the company is being complained against, at least it can say that these were terms agreed upon which the foreign worker knew before he comes and, therefore, he should not say that he has been promised something different. Sometimes, we find that the employment contract that the worker signed in the home country is different from the one given to him in Singapore, which is usually, of course, much more inferior.\r\n
Column: 2301
\r\n The same principle of transparency, in my view, should also apply to prevent abuse and to ensure that employment agencies are responsible for the promises that they made to the foreign workers in their home countries. Could the Ministry consider making it compulsory for all employment agencies to provide a standard contract and to stick to it when the worker reaches our shores? I know some forms of it exist but I am not quite sure how pervasive it is and how effectively it is being enforced when it comes to the employment of foreign workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
My final point, Sir, is on the timeline. The efforts to upgrade the professionalism and standards in the industry through the new licensing requirements as well as the obligations imposed on the key office holders and other personnel to undergo training are welcome. I think this is really needed in this industry as sometimes it is a little like a cowboy town and anybody can come in. There are almost very low entry barriers. Over time, this would help to weed out the serious and responsible players from operators who are entering the market only to make a quick buck. However, the timeline for introducing the new changes is 2014, which appears to be much too long. Is there some way that these changes can be introduced faster?
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, in conclusion, this is a very important Bill as it provides a stronger regulatory framework to help raise the standards of professionalism among employment agencies, enhance the protection for foreign workers working in Singapore and it would, of course, thereby enhance our reputation. But the law alone will not achieve the intended results as we also need the industry players themselves to make a concerted effort to weed out the errant among them, consistently pushing for higher performance standards and achieving greater confidence among the public. The industry can do a lot more to spruce up\r\n
Column: 2302
\r\ntheir own image instead of waiting for the Government to move. We also need the sending countries to assume greater responsibility over their own workers by imposing standards and taking action against errant agencies in their own countries. Unfortunately, of course, we know that this remains a big gap and there is very little that we can do, and also in terms of how the Bill can address that problem. But it will have an impact on the regulatory scheme that we are trying to create – a new one, a more effective one – and I hope that this is an issue that the Government will continue to raise with other governments that are primarily the governments sending the foreign workers to our country.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On this note, Sir, I support the Bill. It is a Bill that is timely, necessary, relevant and it will provide much better protection for foreign workers brought to Singapore.
\r\n
6.12 pm
Ms Audrey Wong Wai Yen (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill which is a most welcome piece of legislation and is particularly relevant for EAs placing foreign workers.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
With Singapore's pronounced need for foreign labour, new business opportunities have opened up and I am afraid that these also mean more room for unscrupulous business practices on the part of some of the EAs as well. These are practices that have little regard for the rights and welfare of foreign workers who are all too often perceived as little more than cogs in a machine and, thus, not accorded the dignity that all workers deserve.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The amended Bill introduces legislation to strengthen the regulatory framework for employment agencies. I applaud the compulsory licensing of EAs and their employees, stricter criteria for key appointment holders in these agencies,\r\n
Column: 2303
\r\nstiffer penalties for infringements, and I am also pleased to see the creation of a new Commissioner of Employment Agencies which certainly will enhance MOM's capacity and power to investigate and to act against errant practices.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
In the past few years, more Singaporeans have become aware of some of the questionable business practices of some EAs, such as the problem of kickbacks with the courts' prosecution of offenders having received lots of media exposure. Other questionable practices include agencies that flout the rule on fee caps. There is anecdotal evidence that suggests that many agencies do not comply with existing rules. For instance, on 22nd March 2010, The New Paper reported two cases of workers who paid agents' fees of $7,000 and $9,600 respectively to come to Singapore to work but were not placed in jobs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I would like to thank the Minister of State, Mr Lee, for clarifying some of my questions on the new revision of fee caps. I have some other questions: firstly, what are the penalties for EAs that do not comply with the fee caps? I hope that he can reiterate the penalties under the existing laws.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Secondly, I would like to ask if the Ministry will be introducing regulations requiring agents to itemise the fees that they charge workers and to declare the fees that they are charging workers in the Work Permit applications and how the Ministry intends to police these declarations.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Thirdly, will there be regulation on transfer fees as well? The transfer fee is an issue that has been bugging a lot of employers as well as foreign domestic workers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Column: 2304
\r\n
Fourthly, I also note that there is currently no regulation over the fees that might be charged by agencies operating in the foreign workers' homelands who might be recruiting these workers and sending them to Singapore to be placed by partner agents in Singapore, that is, the Singapore EAs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
This is actually one of the gaps that has affected a lot of foreign workers and, I believe, this is a long-standing issue. So I hope that the Ministry will continue to look into this matter and will perhaps, as Mdm Halimah has also suggested, also dialogue with the partner Ministries in those countries that send their foreign workers to Singapore. I hope that the Ministry will also continue to monitor all the fee mechanisms and all the fees that are being charged by the EAs in order to ensure that workers continue to be fairly treated and that they are not unduly exploited. I think that where business is concerned, a lot of companies will find different ways and means to earn extra income and to get around the rules, and I hope that the Ministry will continue to be vigilant to some of these practices.
\r\n
\r\n Finally, I would welcome further legislation to tighten other aspects of the recruitment of foreign labour, such as the requirement for standard service contracts. Currently, this is something that is recommended and, I think, a lot of agencies, especially those that place FDWs, have been attempting to use those standard service contracts. But there are still gaps in the application of this, and I certainly hope that the Ministry will encourage more agencies to adopt standard service contracts and if that does not work, perhaps at some future point to consider legislation.
\r\n
\r\n On that note, I would like to conclude by expressing my support for this Amendment Bill.
Column: 2305
\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
6.17 pm
Mr Ang Mong Seng (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, currently we have 12,000 Work Permit holders in Singapore. They come from different countries and have different cultural background and living habits. We allow these foreign workers here because they can supplement our labour force and they can also make a living and support their family back home. They have contributed to our economic growth and we have the responsibility to take care of them.\r\n\r\n
\r\n The import of these workers into Singapore is currently handled by employment agencies whose standards vary greatly. The lack of supervision has led to many complaints and disagreement. I would like to ask the Minster of State how many of these employment agencies are licensed right now and how many are operating without a licence.
\r\n I heard that some agencies \"outsource\" their work to unlicensed ones. These illegal employment agencies may not be familiar with our local labour laws and regulations regarding hiring foreign workers. They imported some illegal foreign workers into Singapore and caused many unhappy incidents and social problems. I wish to ask the Minister of State if MOM has taken any measures to prevent such activities by the illegal employment agencies.
\r\n MOM often draft new regulations. I would like to ask the Minister of State if MOM provides regular training courses for the management and staff of the employment agencies so they are familiar with the new rules and regulations. Are there any regular tests to ensure that these agencies are clear about the rules on employing foreign workers so that they are able to provide the correct information?
Column: 2306
\r\n
\r\n Under the Bill, MOM is empowered to appoint a Commissioner and a Deputy Commissioner to supervise the employment agencies. I would like to ask whether the Commissioner's Office is an independent organisation or is under the purview of MOM.
\r\n In one of my recent Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), a resident brought his relative to see me to complain about her employment agency. The agency promised to bring her child to Singapore to study and at the same time apply for her a Work Permit to work here as a study mum. After she arrived in Singapore, she found out she could not work here as her Work Permit application was declined by MOM. She was very angry and accused the Singapore Government of misleading her. I explained to her that it was the employment agency that did not tell her the truth and had misled her. There was no promise from any Government agencies. Only after my explanation did she realise that the employment agency provided her the wrong information. The incident involved two Ministries, MOM and MOE. I think the two Ministries should consider setting up a channel to step up collaboration to prevent more study mums from believing that they can work in Singapore just because their children are studying here. I hope the Minister of State can consider the above suggestion.
\r\n\r\n
I support the Employment Agencies (Amendment) Bill.
\r\n
6.21 pm
Mr Calvin Cheng (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Employment agencies, in particular agencies that deal with low-wage foreign migrant workers, deal with some of the most vulnerable workers around, and tighter legislation would mean that they are not abused.
\r\nColumn: 2307
\r\n
\r\n Recently, I have had a chance to talk to volunteers from groups who help migrant workers, and have come to be acquainted with the terrible plights that these migrant workers are subjected to. Many come here with heavy debts from fees they paid to agents; some are stranded when they lose their jobs, or are injured and because of their lack of education, their poverty and their inability to communicate in English, many are left helpless and unable to fend for themselves. We must not ignore the role that errant employment agencies play in this.
\r\n\r\n
Sir, before I go on to discuss what I feel is the single largest cause of abuse in the employment of migrant workers, I would like to first touch on some minor details that the amendment to this Act can improve on. Firstly, I notice that we are only holding directors and key appointment holders of employment agencies responsible for the actions of errant agencies – I feel we should also include shareholders. After all, shareholders have a financial interest in these agencies, and stand to gain from profits that are made from these agencies. They should also be held responsible for the actions of their companies and in the case when a licence is revoked, anybody who has ever held shares in an errant employment agency should be subject to more scrutiny if this person were to be involved in a new agency. Sir, an employment agency deals directly with human lives and, in the case of foreign migrant workers, some of the most vulnerable and needy human lives around. It is not amiss to expect higher standards from these companies. In this light, I would also like to call for higher capitalisation of employment agencies, who deal with foreign workers, to make sure that there are fewer fly-by-night operators who can roll up their shutters and liquidate overnight. My \r\n
Column: 2308
\r\ndiscussions with these volunteer organisations have also led me to believe that, anecdotally, the agencies and agents most likely to be errant in their behaviour are the one or two men shops who put up the bare minimum to get an employment agency licence. This needs to be reviewed. We also need to ensure that errant agencies are less likely to get away with compounded fines. Sir, we are not dealing with traffic offences here. These agencies deal with human lives, fragile human lives, and we cannot allow a light rap of the knuckle as the rule rather than the exception.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I now turn to what I feel is the biggest root cause of many of the abuses by employment agencies as well as the employment of migrant workers in general. This is the collection of agency fees from migrant workers in order to find them jobs in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Sir, many migrant workers, in order to escape poverty in their home countries and in search of a better livelihood, pay thousands of dollars, sometimes amounting to more than six months of their potential wages, in order to come to our shores. They thus come laden with debt, toil for months on end, living a hand-to-mouth existence, before they even have a chance of making any money to remit back to their families.
\r\n Sir, the collection of these large agent fees have become a lucrative industry in itself, subject to much abuse, and it is my opinion that our system currently abets it. Firstly, we have the in-principle approval system for Work Permits. This allows the worker to come to Singapore with the promise of a potential job waiting for the would-be migrant worker. Of course, the lowly-educated migrant worker who at most times cannot even read English does not even know that! As far as he thinks, he is able to leave his home country, come to Singapore, and the provision of this in-principle approval is sufficient for \r\n
Column: 2309
\r\n the overseas agent – sometimes in Singapore as well – to claim success in placing him in a job and demand a huge agency fee before he is allowed to come to Singapore. What the migrant worker does not know is that all he has is the precarious promise of a job, subject to conditions and what makes it worse is that our system currently makes it too easy for these in-principle approvals to be cancelled. A check on the MOM website shows that in-principle approvals and an application for a Work Permit can be cancelled with a couple of clicks of the mouse. The poor migrant worker is thus left stranded with thousands of dollars of debt, with no job and in a strange country with no money even to buy a ticket to get back home.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Of course, if one is a legitimate company, one is not going to cancel Work Permit applications frivolously. The problem arises when unscrupulous companies abuse the system to make a quick buck. As mentioned, the collection of agency fees is such a lucrative industry that agencies can offer companies a kickback in order to issue in-principle approval Work Permits that the agent can then \"sell\" – and then they split the agency fees with the potential employer. When the worker arrives, a worker that the company presumably does not need a couple of clicks of the mouse is all it takes to cancel the Work Permit application.
\r\n The worst abusers of this system are potentially Singaporean companies set up to employ workers not for themselves, but to supply to other people. These companies have no business of their own other than to hire foreign workers whom they can then outsource to other companies that need them on an ad hoc basis. Again, they potentially stand to gain a lot from fees that they split with employment agencies. The problem is compounded by the fact that these companies do not technically hire the\r\n
Column: 2310
\r\nworkers for themselves and are thus more likely to shut down, leaving the workers stranded. These companies also doubly exploit migrant workers by supplying them at high prices but paying the workers only a low wage. In a way, these companies are also acting as agents, except that they hire the workers directly and pay the workers a wage, however measly or irregularly. I sincerely hope that the Ministry of Manpower can look into such companies more carefully.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I thus feel that the Ministry of Manpower needs to close as many loopholes as possible to ensure that Singapore plays no part in what is admittedly an international problem. Firstly, we can consider following the examples such as Japan and Australia where agencies are not allowed to collect fees from employees except under certain exceptional circumstances. Instead, they should collect the fees from the employers. Admittedly, this only solves part of the problem given that many of the most abusive agents are not Singaporean or operating in Singapore but in the migrant workers’ home countries. But, at the very least, it will ensure that Singapore registered agencies are not complicit in any potential abuse.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Secondly, even though this amendment to the Act has made it an offence for agents to split fees with the employers, we need to punish the employers too. This is especially if the agents are foreign-based and we have no jurisdiction over them. In this case, we have to go after the companies themselves who have no business in making money off the collection of fees from their migrant workers. Employers found trading in Work Permit applications, in-principle or otherwise, must also be dealt with harshly.
\r\n Thirdly, we need to make it harder for companies to apply for and cancel in-principle Work Permit applications. It is \r\n
Column: 2311
\r\nutterly irresponsible and morally reprehensible to promise a poverty-stricken, vulnerable and semi-literate human being a job, make him travel thousands of miles to a foreign country, and then frivolously cancel his Work Permit application. In my opinion, short of failing a medical test, or under extremely exceptional circumstances such as the worker misrepresenting his qualifications, the employer who applied for the in-principle Work Permit must be compelled to hire the worker, and for a reasonable amount of time. Cancellation cannot be simply done with a few clicks of the mouse.
\r\n
\r\n Finally, we should consider making agencies more responsible for the migrant workers they bring into Singapore. After all, they are the ones who \"sell\" the opportunity of work to the migrant workers, convincing them to come to Singapore and making money in the process. In monitoring these agencies, MOM needs to make sure that these agencies do not misrepresent job opportunities to migrant workers, or force them to take up jobs they do not want. They should have a moral and legal responsibility not to place them with companies they know to have problems, whether financial or ethical. These agencies are dealing with human lives, and more needs to be done to ensure that they do so with utmost responsibility and care.
\r\n Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with our economy booming, we will see many new migrant workers coming to our shores to do jobs we Singaporeans may not want to do. As a developed country, it is our responsibility to ensure that these workers, these people are treated fairly and humanely.
\r\n\r\n
With that, I support the Bill.
\r\nColumn: 2312
\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n
6.30 pm
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome this amendment of the Bill. \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n
Our country is a choice destination of migrant workers from around the region. Our foreign manpower indeed has made vast contributions to our country’s economic success over the years. It is thus important that we continue to enhance and update our laws as a safeguard for all our workers, both local and foreign workers.
\r\n
\r\n\r\n
As the Chairman of the SNEF-NTUC Bipartite Migrant Workers Centre, I have on many occasions come across workers with horror stories to relate, almost always stemming from having been made to pay exorbitant agency fees to come to Singapore, only to find that they are short-changed on the conditions promised to them once they have arrived.
\r\n
Sir, while it is often rationalised that much of the migrant worker challenges and problems we see are the result of the malpractices of the unregulated overseas employment agents, I feel it is imperative that we ensure our own house is in order first before we are able to look at others and suggest changes. This Employment Agencies (Amendment) Act certainly helps to rectify some existing malpractices and one of such malpractices pertains to agency fee-charging. It is commonplace for almost all or many of the local agents to collect hefty fees from the workers after they arrive in Singapore. Depending on the agreement made at the source country, these fees might include the local agent’s fees, the overseas agent’s fees and, in some cases, some form of kickback to the employers for hiring the workers. The proposed amendment mandating transparency in the charges to the workers imposed by our local agents will, hopefully, prevent them from fulfilling \r\n
Column: 2313
\r\nsuch a function of collectors of these fees.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I believe that we need to secure competent migrant workers with the right skills and the adaptability to co-exist harmoniously with their local colleagues in and out of the workplace. Only then will we be able to continue our emphasis on productivity and continuous improvement and inclusive growth to build a bigger pie of the economy for all to share. This productivity has been elusive under the present conditions as migrant workers labour under the stress of repaying huge debts, poor working conditions and treatment under the hands of profiteers. Many have no channel to voice their problems. Worse still, due to potential profit from the per head migrant worker placement formula, we believe that the overall skills profile of the migrant workers entering our country is prevented from making \"leaps and bounds\" increments.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, to keep pace with the evolving practices of the employment agencies (EAs) and foreign manpower recruitment industry, the Government should consider making employment agencies responsible for ensuring the skill set and the competencies of the workers they intend to bring in as well. In addition, while all EA staff would be required to hold a registration card, it is equally important for employers to be given the right to verify it upon request. EA staff should not decline such document to be checked by the employers. We also propose for a certain database of all licensed EAs and registered EA staff to be set up for employers to have access to such information readily.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
I would also like to highlight that the foreign domestic workers (FDWs) should be responsible for their own loans with the EA, instead of the employers paying the FDWs' loan upfront to the EA and have the FDWs repay the employers on a monthly basis. It should be emphasised that the FDW is under the employment of \r\n
Column: 2314
\r\nthe employer, therefore, the FDW’s salary should be given to the FDW by the employer and have the FDW repay the EA monthly upon work commencement. I think we need a standardised loan repayment system to be set up where the FDW signs a GIRO form authorising the monthly deduction from the FDW’s bank account as repayment to the EA, instead of getting the employers to do so. Making FDWs responsible for their own loans would deter FDWs from terminating their employment irresponsibly and prevent the EA from transferring FDWs frivolously. It must also be ensured that the employers do pay the domestic workers their monthly salaries and not withhold salary payments and payments to the EA unless it is justified.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The Consumers Association of Singapore also support the move to develop the existing mandatory accreditation scheme into a new voluntary trust-mark scheme that would help employers identify better EAs from the rest. We hope the Ministry will look into our proposal to grant accredited agencies incentives for them to abide by higher standards of professionalism. Incentives to be bundled with the accreditation status could be: a reduced amount to the security bond and establishing an express lane for the Work Permit applications. Such incentives would encourage EAs to attain accreditation and employers' recognition.
\r\n
Sir, I have mentioned that we look forward to seeing the changes brought about by these amendments in improving the well-being and the quality of the migrant workers in Singapore. However, traditionally, errant agents and employers have been able to respond to changes in the law swiftly and very creatively. Take the kickback regulations introduced in recent years, for example. Many of the workers coming to see us continue to complain of salary deductions by their employers for items which, according to \r\n
Column: 2315
\r\nwhat they are told, fall squarely under the regulatory definition of \"kickbacks\". This is not unexpected, given the high profit potential available to errant practitioners and their need to protect their \"golden goose\".
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Just like the Chinese saying, \"上有政策，下有对策；道高一尺，魔高一丈\". Sir, I urge the authorities to step up enforcements and intelligence efforts, especially immediately after the changes, and to react to any shifts in the industry practices with speed and force. Sir, with the proposed amendment, I think it is also timely that we should loudly request our counterpart in the \"labour-sending countries\" to also act swiftly to do more to address the malpractices of the employment agencies over there and address all these migrant workers' problems at source.
\r\n Sir, with that, I support the Bill.
\r\n
6.37 pm
Mr Lee Yi Shyan: Sir, I would like to thank all Members who have spoken so passionately in support of the Bill. Their comments and suggestions also showed that they have great insights into the workings of the industry and the many loopholes and pitfalls that currently exist in the industry. I want to assure the Members that the Ministry is committed to remove these loopholes through this Amendment Bill. Let me now respond to some of the specific issues that have been raised.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
Mr Ang Mong Seng was concerned about the number of unlicensed EAs in Singapore. There are currently about 2,500 licensed EAs in Singapore. We are unable to track the activities and numbers of unlicensed EAs. But the number of complaints against unlicensed EAs has been increasing. The new EA regulatory \r\n
Column: 2316
\r\nframework intends to weed out unlicensed EAs, firstly, by increasing the maximum penalties for operating without licence from $5,000 to $80,000. Unlicensed EAs will also face a maximum imprisonment term of two years and they will be held accountable for any other offences committed under the EA Act. In other words, not only are they liable for fine and imprisonment for operating without a valid licence, they will be treated as if they were a licensed EA and therefore liable for further penalties for other offences they commit.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Secondly, to stem the demand for unlicensed EAs, we will make it an offence for employers to engage unlicensed EAs and for licensed EAs to submit applications on behalf of unlicensed EAs. These new offences, likewise, will carry a heavy maximum penalty.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Calvin Cheng raised concerns about fly-by-night EAs and suggested that the shareholders be held accountable under the Act. Under the new regulatory framework, the new security deposit requirement of $60,000 will be applied to all new EAs. So, in other words, you cannot be fly-by-night unless you have $60,000 of security deposit to start the business. If we find shareholders involved in EA malpractice, we will also take action against them, both for committing the offence and for failing to register as a person conducting EA work.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Cheng and Ms Audrey Wong also expressed concern about the fee burden on workers. EAs that breach the fee cap will face a maximum fine of $5,000 per worker charged, in excess of the fee cap. So, if an EA charges 10 workers more than what is allowed, the maximum fine would be $50,000. For subsequent offences, EAs will face the maximum penalty of $5,000, or six months imprisonment, or both for each worker charged in excess of the fee cap. To \r\n
Column: 2317
\r\nbetter enforce the updated fee cap, my Ministry will conduct proactive audits on EAs and require them to issue receipts to workers they place. We will also ensure that the foreign worker is made aware of the important information before he or she arrives in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
On Mdm Halimah Yacob's suggestion that there be greater transparency on the employment terms of workers, my Ministry is examining how to include certain details in the in-principle approval letter that MOM issues to foreign workers before their arrival in Singapore. This could include information on the workers' basic monthly salaries and the fees paid to the Singapore employment agencies. This will ensure that all foreign workers, not just those who go through an EA, would be provided with such information. More details will be announced at a later stage.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We recognise that a large part of the fees paid by the foreign workers is paid to the overseas EAs, as many Members have observed. It will be difficult to police fees collected by Singapore EAs via their overseas counterparts. Nonetheless, we leverage on existing networks with source country Embassies and continue to work with them to improve the regulation of cross-border recruitment activities.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Both Ms Audrey Wong and Mdm Halimah Yacob raised questions about the transfer fees typically charged to foreign domestic workers (FDWs). These transfer fees will also be covered under the fee cap and the refund mechanism. To illustrate, under the new regulation, the fee that a foreign domestic worker on a two-year Work Permit can pay the Singapore EA is capped at two months' worth of her salary. If she is terminated by her first employer within six months, she will receive a refund of half the fees paid. If the EA helps arrange a transfer to a different employer, her agency fee will again be capped at one month's worth of \r\n
Column: 2318
\r\nsalary per year of the new Work Permit duration. We agree with Mdm Halimah and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang that EAs should match employers with the right workers and with the right skills. We hope that the new fee refund mechanism will encourage EAs to do so.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah also asked how workers will be protected against EAs who promise them employment terms and conditions that do not materialise. My Ministry already has the power to revoke the licences of EAs that act in a manner detrimental to the interests of their clients, which include workers. In future, their directors or managers would be disqualified from working in the EA industry. In addition, the EAs would have to refund the workers half of the agency fees collected from them if they are terminated within the first six months.
\r\n
Some Members raised issues related to employment scams. Mr Ang Mong Seng touched on the point related to study mothers. To clarify, study mothers are allowed to work in Singapore as long as they fulfil certain criteria and abide by certain conditions. As this is not a matter concerning the regulation of local employment agencies, we will continue to work with Embassies of the relevant source countries to convey these messages to the citizens interested in sending their children to Singapore to study.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Calvin Cheng also spoke at length on the employment scams by employers. We are aware of such errant practices and have prosecuted employers for collecting kickbacks. We have also penalised employers for setting up shell companies, hiring phantom workers or illegally deploying their workers to other employers. We actively monitor and investigate employers who frequently cancel in-principle approvals. While our efforts on these fronts to tackle employment scams have been significant,\r\n
Column: 2319
\r\nsome of them are beyond the ambit of this Bill.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah raised the concerns that employers should also enjoy fair treatment especially when my Ministry considers forfeiting the security bond posted by employers of foreign domestic workers. I would like to assure her that my Ministry does not treat lightly the decision to forfeit security bonds of employers and does so only in egregious cases. The security bond conditions were amended recently such that employers may recover half of the security bond if he provides evidence that he has made reasonable efforts to locate workers such as lodging a missing person report with the Police.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
There are already existing measures to protect the interests of foreign domestic worker employers. For instance, EAs are required to check and provide the employment history of prospective hires from MOM's records.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To further protect the interests of foreign domestic worker employers, my Ministry will require all licensed EAs placing foreign domestic workers to use a standard service agreement. This agreement will spell out the obligations of EAs and employers in different scenarios. We have also enhanced the interactive employment agency directory on MOM's website to give employers the information they need to choose the appropriate EA, such as the EAs' foreign domestic worker placement success record and names of their registered staff. This is also in line with Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's suggestion for a central database of all licensed EAs and registered EA personnel to be set up. Together, these measures seek to facilitate more informed choices and better matching of workers and employers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also suggested putting in place a system to allow EAs to \r\n
Column: 2320
\r\ndeduct the agency fees from the foreign domestic workers' monthly salaries without involving their employers. My Ministry will consider his suggestion separately.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Ang Mong Seng asked for more details on the new Commissioner for EAs. The new Commissioner for EAs will be a public officer within the Ministry who is appointed by the Minister. The Minister will also appoint the Assistants and the Deputies who will also be public officers within the Ministry to aid in the administration of the Act. These new appointments will be timely especially since the amended EA Act will require the appointed Commissioner to take on greater responsibilities and powers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang also proposed providing certain incentives for EAs to attain the new voluntary trustmark in future when it is available. We will seriously consider what incentives may be needed in the development of this new trustmark scheme.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Let me now touch on the transition plan of the new framework. Mr Ang Mong Seng raised a valid point about keeping EAs updated on any policy changes. We have planned a series of public communications initiatives to key stakeholders over the next few months. The new certification requirement for all EA personnel will also help ensure they fully understand the new EA regulatory framework. Sometime in the future, my Ministry is open to conducting refresher courses for all EA personnel to keep them abreast of more recent developments in the regulatory framework.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Mdm Halimah voiced concerns that the timeline given for the existing EAs to transit onto the new regulatory framework is too long. I would like to assure her that most of the new changes will be implemented within the first year from the time the new Act comes into force. EAs \r\n
Column: 2321
\r\nwill be given three months to register all their existing personnel and up to one year to move onto the new licensing regime. Those EAs personnel registered during the three months will be given a grace period of up to three years to be certified, in other words, to take courses and to be certified. This allows EAs to have sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements and schedule their staff for certification courses. However, we strongly encourage all EAs to certify their EA personnel at the earliest opportunity and we will ensure that the appointed training provider is able to meet market demand for training places. We are committed to ensure a smooth transition process for all existing EAs.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As suggested by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, we will monitor the situation on the ground once the new regulatory framework is put in place to ensure that the recruitment landscape in Singapore moves in the right direction. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang made a remark in Mandarin, \"上有政策,下有对策；道高一尺， 魔高一丈\". I would respond to his remark with \"人力部的立场是：严阵以待，绳之以法。除害扶弱，从不手软。\"
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Sir, I believe I have addressed all Members' concerns and queries. Let me conclude by first thanking Members for their strong and passionate support. We are also grateful for all the key stakeholders who so willingly participated in the series of consultations we conducted and gave us constructive feedback and suggestions. Having gone through many rounds of refinements, I am confident that the amendments will help\r\n
Column: 2322
\r\nus move in the right direction. However, as Ms Audrey Wong, Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang have rightly pointed out, there is only so much the Singapore Government can do. We also need the governments of the respective source countries to play their part in regulating their EAs to stem the abuses and malpractices that start at home. Together, we can make the new regulatory framework succeed and reap the intended benefits.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
\r\n
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lee Yi Shyan].
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Bill considered in Committee.
\r\n
[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]
\r\n
The Chairman: The citation year \"2010\" will be changed to \"2011\", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Clauses 1 to 27 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
\r\n\r\n
\r\n Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
\r\n
Column: 2322
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Resolved,
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Mr Mah Bow Tan].
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Adjourned accordingly at Fifty-eight
\r\n\r\nMinutes past Six o'clock pm.
\r\nColumn: 2323
\r\n
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
NEW HDB RULES
\r\n\r\n\r\n1. \r\n\t \r\n\r\nMdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for National Development in view that the new HDB rules requiring private property owners to sell their homes within six months of buying a HDB flat may be confusing to the laymen (a) what more can be done to bridge the gap between the laymen and the new HDB rules; and (b) how can the Government help those affected to understand and cope with the new rules.\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\nMr Mah Bow Tan:
The policy disallowing concurrent ownership of an HDB flat and private residential property during the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) of the flat is not new. In fact, buyers of subsidised flats have always been subject to this rule.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
When HDB extended this rule to non-subsidised flats on 30th August 2010 alongside other policy measures, it put in place comprehensive public communication plans to explain this policy to the media and the public. On the day of the announcement, MND held a press conference and issued a press release to facilitate media coverage. HDB also updated its InfoWEB to help the public understand the changes. In addition, HDB briefed Advisors, grassroots leaders and housing agents so that they can explain these policies to their constituents and clients respectively. HDB also conducted Resale Seminars and public talks to reach out to interested HDB flat owners and flat buyers.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
To ensure that resale flat buyers with private residential property are aware of the requirement to dispose of their private property, they are required to sign an undertaking to do so within six months from the purchase of the resale flat at the first resale appointment. Upon completion of the purchase of their flats, HDB also reminds the lessees to comply with the timeframe to dispose of their private property in writing.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Members of the public can contact HDB's Sales and Resale Customer Service Line at 1800 866 3066 or HDB's Branch Office Service Line at 1800 225 5432 for further clarifications.
\r\n
Column: 2323
\r\n\t\t
BUILDING OF HDB FLATS
\r\n\r\n\r\n2. \r\n\t \r\n\r\nMdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for National Development (a) how confident is HDB of its ability to complete the building of flats in two and a half years when some projects took more than five years to complete; (b) how much room does HDB have to change strategy by concentrating on building flats without frills; and (c) for the last 20 Build-To-Order (BTO) projects completed by the HDB, what were the shortest and longest time taken to complete building the new flats.\r\n
\r\nColumn: 2325
\r\n \r\n\r\n Mr Mah Bow Tan: Typical Build-To-Order (BTO) projects comprising five blocks of not more than 20 storeys took an average of 32 months to complete in the last two years. Taller blocks will generally take more time. Construction may also take longer if it is affected by factors such as poor soil conditions, site constraints or complex design features. While the longest construction time for a typical BTO project over the last 20 BTO projects was 42 months, the shortest construction time was just 26 months.\r\n\r\n HDB flats are already highly standardized and functionally-designed to facilitate buildability. Nonetheless, HDB is working with its contractors and suppliers to shorten construction period through other means. By increasing resources, enhancing and streamlining work processes, and raising site productivity, HDB is confident that its contractors will be able to build and deliver most of the flats in about 2.5 years (30 months), without compromising quality and structural safety. Beyond shortening construction time, HDB has explored other ways to help flat buyers to get their new flats faster after booking their flats. For example, HDB will bring forward activities such as preparing building designs for tender so construction can commence soon after the project launch. It is estimated that buyers of typical BTO projects launched in mid-2011 onwards will generally need to wait for 2.5 years to collect their keys after booking their flats.
Column: 2325
\r\n\t\t
HANDPHONE BILLS
\r\n\r\n\r\n3. \r\n\t \r\n\r\nMdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts whether he would consider more protection for consumers by directing telephone companies to allow consumers to set a limit on handphone bills for their children.\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\nRAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew:
Currently, the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) requires all operators to clearly publish the prices, terms and conditions of their services, so that mobile users could make an informed choice on the service providers and the types of services to use. IDA also has in place the Premium Rate Services (\"PRS\") Code to promote responsible service provision by PRS providers and further safeguard the interest of consumers against misleading advertisements and wrongful charges for unsolicited services.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
To address the concerns of minors subscribing to mobile services without their parents' consent, mobile operators have voluntarily set a minimum age limit of 16 or 18 years old for service subscription. In some cases, a guarantor may be required before operators approve a service subscription for youths. Mobile operators have also introduced bill caps for roaming and IDD services, as well as SMS alerts when users hit certain data usage thresholds.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
We understand that parents may also subscribe for mobile services under their names but allow their children to use the services. We would suggest to parents to educate their children that services signed up through the mobile phone may incur additional charges, and adequately supervise their children's use of mobile services. Parents who wish to\r\n
Column: 2327
\r\nexert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.
\r\n
\r\n\t \r\n\r\n
\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n
Column: 2329
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\t \r\n\t\r\n \t
\r\n\t\r\n \t \r\n \t\r\n\tColumn: 2229