1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if he can provide an update on the measures announced earlier this year to address the needs of the increasing number of frail elderly as well as the support given to care-givers of these elderly.
Page: 696
2 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports with regard to the plan to build up to 40 Integrated Day Facilities (IDFs) serving up to 6,000 elderly by 2016 (a) whether the plan to build new IDFs in Bishan-Toa Payoh and Tampines in 2012 will proceed; (b) whether the plan to upgrade six existing Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres to IDFs in 2012 will go ahead and where these Day Care/Day Rehabilitation Centres are; (c) what criteria are used to determine IDF sites and whether these include convertible old town centre facilities and areas having a higher than national average percentage of residents who are above 50 years old; and (d) whether the Ministry will release a masterplan showing where and when the 40 IDFs will be built.
\t
Page: 697
The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year, my Ministry announced a series of initiatives to build up community- and home-based eldercare services to better support ageing-in-place. We are on track to roll out the measures progressively over the next few months.
Last month, MCYS unveiled the \"3-in-1\" concept for Integrated Day Facilities or IDF for short. First, the IDFs will offer integrated care services for the frail elderly, combining social day care, centre-based nursing, community rehabilitation and dementia care. Second, IDFs will provide information, coordination and referral services to better support families and care-givers. Third, the larger IDFs will provide gym and social space for community use.
By second quarter of next year, we should complete the building of two new IDFs – one in Tampines and the other in Toa Payoh – and the upgrading of six existing day-care centres to IDFs. Another new IDF at Serangoon will be completed in the second half of 2013. By 2016, there will be about 40 IDFs serving up to 6,000 elderly. Details on the location of the remaining IDFs will be announced in the next two to three months.
My Ministry is also introducing social home-based care where the elderly at home can receive care services, such as personal hygiene, housekeeping and laundry from a single care worker. We are working closely with our partners to recruit and train these care workers so as to launch this service in the fourth quarter of this year. By 2016, we will scale this service to benefit up to 4,000 elderly.
I am also happy to share that the Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Grant of $120 per month will come into effect from October this year. Applications have opened since 6 August this year. Households which employ a Foreign Domestic Worker to look after an elderly or person with disabilities and meet the eligibility criteria can apply for the grant.
To provide greater support for the vulnerable elderly in the community, my Ministry will organise the existing Seniors Activity Centres (SACs) into a hub-and-spoke concept, where Anchor SACs will support clusters of SACs to strengthen and expand their reach. Anchor SACs will perform additional roles, such as closer monitoring through home visits, case management and counselling services, for vulnerable elderly in the community. We expect the first six Anchor SACs to start operations by December this year. By 2016, we will have 16 Anchor SACs supporting some 39,000 elderly Singaporeans.
Page: 698
Mr Speaker, Sir, these are some of the initiatives my Ministry is working on to better support our elderly in the community and their caregivers. In planning the number and distribution of eldercare facilities, we take into consideration the demographic profile of each region, the adequacy of existing services and the availability of suitable premises. I am confident that most Singaporeans support the vision of ageing-in-place and understand the need for eldercare services to be developed within our communities. We will continue to engage the local communities, refine the implementation strategies as well as review our services from time to time to ensure that they remain relevant and adequate.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Sir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have one supplementary question for the Minister. We observe that there is an increasing number of Singaporeans in their 50s to 60s who have to support their even more elderly parents in their 80s and 90s. We want to know how MCYS can help this group of Singaporeans better because some of these Singaporeans also have to support their children in their education.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, let me thank the hon Member Mr Ang for his comment. And indeed, we share his concern that as the life expectancy of our Singaporeans go into the 80s and 90s, there will be people in their 50s and 60s who are required, not only to take care of their elderly parents in their 80s and 90s, but also at the same time, take care of their children who might be in their early 20s or some in their 30s. Indeed, this is one of the big challenges for our society as we face an ageing population.
MCYS will continue to look at how we can better support this group of people because some of them may be near retirement and they might need some other specific help. On top of the current schemes, we are also going to look at what other new schemes we may be required to implement to cater to this specific group of people that the Member has highlighted, who are in their 50s or 60s. They are near retirement or just past retirement but perhaps still with the need to take care of their elderly parents. In the next few months, as we re-organise ourselves and focus on the potential gaps in our social safety nets in the future, this will be one area that we will be looking at.
\tPage: 698
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans of New Ministry of Social and Family Development","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports what will be the priorities of the newly-announced Ministry of Social and Family Development since there are many social challenges that will fall under its purview.
Page: 699
\tThe Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Speaker, Sir, given the emerging demographic, economic and societal challenges Singapore faces, the formation of the new Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will bring a sharper focus to the Government's work in the development of families, social services and social safety nets. At this point, our immediate priority is to ensure continuity in our current areas of coverage from family and social services to community development, youth and sports, even as we work towards a successful transition to the new Ministry.
Looking forward, MSF will focus on three key areas following the transition. First, we will enhance social safety nets for low-income and needy individuals and families. Some amongst these groups have complex needs beyond financial assistance. They may need help in areas such as housing, education and employment, counselling, caring for an elderly or rehabilitation. We will develop more effective initiatives to reach out to them and render help and support to enable them to improve their circumstances.
Second, we will improve the delivery of social services by working closely with the people and private sectors. These include services for the elderly, families, persons with disabilities and caregivers. We will work on accessibility, affordability and standards, and ensuring more responsive and citizen-centric delivery of services.
Third, we will further strengthen families. The family unit is the bedrock of our society, but it is coming under increasing strain with our changing demographics. We will create a more conducive environment for family formation and the strengthening of family bonds and resilience. We will also review our policies to meet family needs, such as childcare and eldercare, more effectively.
Sir, a strong social service sector is critical to support each of these three focus areas. The Ministry will therefore invest more resources to develop the sector. We will do more in working with the sector to attract, develop and retain social service professionals, raise sector capability and productivity, and improve service co-ordination. Through these efforts, we hope to bring about more resilient individuals and families, and play a part in helping our citizens achieve their hopes and aspirations for themselves and their families.
\tPage: 699
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support for Employment of Disabled Persons","subTitle":"Review of Open Door Fund","sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the Ministry will consider implementing more financial and other practical measures to support disabled employees and their employers; (b) whether special employment credits under the Employment Credit Scheme can be extended beyond graduates from Special Education schools and tax rebates given to employers who hire disabled employees; and (c) if the Ministry will review the success of the Open Door Fund in financing workplace modification and job redesign as well as providing job-specific training for disabled employees.
Page: 700
\tThe Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Sir, Mr Christopher de Souza has made a number of suggestions to facilitate the employment of persons with disabilities. This was one key area covered under the Enabling Masterplan (EM) 2012-2016 announced earlier this year. In terms of financial incentives, the Government decided to extend the Workfare Income Supplement and Special Employment Credit to persons with disabilities and their employers. Our current priority is on implementing these initiatives, and evaluating their efficacy before considering new ones.
Mr de Souza is concerned that the Special Employment Credit is for those from Special Education (SPED) schools. The SPED school criterion was included to help us better target the relevant group who is likely to face greater difficulties seeking employment. I would like to assure Members that we will allow equally deserving applicants to come onto the scheme, even if they have not attended SPED schools. We will exercise flexibility in the administration of the scheme.
Besides providing financial incentives, we need to work on other areas to help persons with disabilities find employment. For example, it is important to help them raise their skills so that they are more employable. As part of our EM efforts over the next five years, more persons with disabilities will receive pre-vocational and vocational education in SPED schools. We are also reviewing the Open Door Fund. One aspect we hope to improve is the apprenticeship element to help the disabled gain better access to job-specific training, something which is also suggested by the Member.
I would like to assure Members that we will continue to work with the disability sector and employers to help more persons with disabilities in their training and employment.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, I thank the Minister for the supportive response. I am very glad that MCYS and Government are open to include non-SPED graduates in the Employment Credit Scheme. I would just like to know – instead of leaving it as an open request – is it possible for Government to formally include non-SPED graduates, as long as they have diagnosis and all the support of disability organisations to prove that they do need that support, can we formally include them in the Employment Credit Scheme? And, if so, when can that be done?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Sir, let me first thank Ms Denise Phua for the comment and suggestion. Yes, this is an area that we will certainly look at but let us look at the numbers for a start. I must stress that the most important thing beyond the numbers is really to get employers who are understanding and who are willing to partner the sector to re-design some of the jobs in order for the people to be placed in meaningful jobs. As to how we can better help them, having this scheme that the Member has suggested is one way. Beyond this scheme, we are also looking at other ways that we can encourage more employers to be more forthcoming in the re-design of jobs, to enable people with disabilities to join their sector.
Page: 701
At the same time, I must also stress that we need a conducive work environment where supportive colleagues can also play a part to help induct these people into the workplace. So, we will certainly look at that.
\tDr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider improving the transport facilities for the disabled in terms of transport availability to help them to get to their jobs or to their doctors; and also, in terms of financial assistance, for the needy who require such transport?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Member Dr Lily Neo for her comment. Indeed, we share her concerns about the transportation for the disabled people, from home to work, and also for them to access other services. We are working on two prongs to help the access for the people with disabilities.
One prong is what we call the specialised vehicles. These are vehicles run by VWOs that provide specialised services to the disabled community to get them from point A to point B. They can book such services, for example, with the Handicapped Welfare Association (HWA), which runs some of these services.
The other prong that we are working on which we have just recently completed a Request for Proposal (RFP), is to allow some of the people in the disabled community to actually access public transport. We know that the London cab issue has come up. Licences will expire next year. We have just completed our Request for Proposal and I am happy to note that some operators have come forward to help us run a new fleet of vehicles that can take some high-back wheelchairs and motorised wheelchairs to enable our disabled community to have wider access to public transport. We will continue to look at it and closely monitor the demand to see whether there is a demand for us to expand such services to allow our disabled community to have access to the day-to-day living functions.
\tPage: 702
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government Risk-sharing Programmes for SMEs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider implementing extraordinary financing measures like the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative (SRI) introduced as part of the resilience package launched during the financial crisis in 2008/2009 when the Government took up 80% of the risk share for the bridging loan programme, to help SMEs in the event that our economy goes into a tailspin; and (b) whether any plan has been drawn up.
Page: 702
\tThe Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Teo Siong Seng had asked if the Government will consider implementing extraordinary financing measures, such as the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative, in the event that our economy goes into a tailspin.
While macroeconomic conditions remain sluggish, our economy continues to grow. Our credit market is stable, and unemployment rate remains low. Barring unforeseen shocks, the Ministry of Trade and Industry expects the Singapore economy to grow by 1.5% to 2.5% for the whole of 2012.
Nevertheless, I can assure Members that we are monitoring the downside risks to Singapore's economic and financial stability very closely. The Government stands ready to provide assistance to businesses and workers should there be a more significant economic downturn. The specific measures and the level of the Government's risk-sharing with businesses and with banks will be decided based on the nature and severity of any such downturn.
\tPage: 702
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Return of Used Utensils at Food Centres","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) if there is currently a general shortage of cleaners working in food centres; (b) if the Ministry will consider implementing a plan to ensure that new and old food centres are fitted with the appropriate facilities for the return of used utensils by customers; and (c) if so, whether education and enforcement measures can be put in place to ensure customers do so when the facilities are available.
\tPage: 702
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the cleaning industry is at an inflexion point. Cleaning used to be characterised by very tough working conditions and low pay. Consequently, few Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, were or are willing to enter this industry. With our recent moves to tighten the supply on foreign labour, this industry is going to have to restructure, and restructure significantly. Our vision is for our cleaners to have a fairer and higher wage and to have better working conditions. NEA is working with the Hawker Associations as well as Town Councils to engage better and more reliable cleaning companies that are willing to pay fair wages and to train their personnel and provide the necessary equipment.
\tPage: 703
The ultimate goal is for all hawker centres to only engage accredited cleaning companies. Efforts are currently on-going on multiple fronts to improve the standards and professionalism of the cleaning industry. We launched the NEA Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme back in July 2010. There have also been other incentive schemes to support job re-design and better equipment in order to raise productivity and professionalism so that these jobs can pay better and be more attractive.
Besides increasing cleaning standards through accreditation, we also need to encourage patrons of hawker centres to reduce the reliance on cleaners by returning their used crockery and utensils in order to speed up the cleaning process.
To be honest with you, there have been several campaigns in the past but these have been of limited success. We are reviewing the lessons learnt from these past efforts to see how we can better re-launch a tray-return initiative that is sustainable for the long term. Together with like-minded partners, such as the Singapore Kindness Movement, we aim to launch this refreshed initiative at a few hawker centres in the latter half of this year. This initiative will require both customer involvement as well as the provision of tray-return facilities to improve accessibility and the convenience of doing this. Existing centres will need to be retrofitted with tray-return facilities and, certainly, new hawker centres will be designed with these facilities in mind.
The cleanliness of our hawker centres is important not just for public health but also for the viability of our stall-holders' businesses, for the dining and quality of the experience of the patrons. All of us who operate either a business or patronise hawker centres need to do our part.
The future for the cleaning industry as a whole is that all of us are going to have to learn to cope with fewer cleaners. This means the different stakeholders will each have to play their respective roles. For instance, as patrons, as customers, we will all have to be more gracious and more considerate, not only for the burden of the cleaners but also for the patrons to join us at the table or eat subsequently at the same table as us. I would point out that it is very wrong to take the attitude that this is a paid-for service, therefore, I do not need to return the tray or I do not need to clean up the mess that I leave behind. I think we should flag this out as simply ungracious and inconsiderate behaviour.
Secondly, the owners of such facilities – certainly, in the case of hawker centres, NEA will play a role – will have to pay more attention to better design and to improving the workflow so that it is easier to maintain a place and keep it clean.
\tPage: 704
Thirdly, we need enlightened employers who will pay people a fair wage, improve working conditions, invest in the necessary training and automation.
\t
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, I thank the Minister. I fully support his direction. I appreciate that. The food centre cleaner jobs are, like the Minister said, often shunned by locals and, in fact, often staffed by the elderly who are mostly unskilled and who have no other options for work. Therefore, installing facilities for the patrons to return their used utensils would, indeed, be very important. I have seen it happened successfully in organisations like IKEA and some more progressive companies at their staff canteens. I do strongly believe that it needs to be done. Since it reduces the hardship of, especially, the elderly cleaners and it does encourage co-ownership of maintaining a clean and pleasant environment for both the patrons and the public, I would like to ask if Minister could accelerate and be more aggressive in the installation of these facilities, especially for the current upgrading of existing food centres/hawker centres and, for the new ones as well.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: As usual, I totally agree with you.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng: When?
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: We are re-launching tray-return in the last quarter of this year. So, within the next few months, you should see some work in some of the centres. All the new centres will certainly have this, and then we will have to retrofit. We have altogether 107 hawker centres, so it is not something I can do overnight.
But the more important message is to flag out behaviour and social norms for Singaporeans. Singapore may be a clean place but it is often due to the hard work of the cleaners rather than the consideration and behaviour of us, Singaporeans. We need better role models and I can think of countries like Japan, Korea, and I have heard, nowadays, even Taiwan, are cleaner, not because they have more cleaners but because people are more considerate and more gracious. That is a harder message but it is one which I hope I will have support from Members of this House, both from the Opposition and the Government to push through. We need that and I think the Opposition, now that you are running Town Councils and hawker centres and cleanliness in your own areas, I think you will agree with me this is an issue which we all need to work together on.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I thank the Minister for that assurance. In the Ministry's process of retrofitting the hawker centres, whether the new ones or those undergoing HIP, some contractors I spoke with have given the feedback that the design of the tables and chairs, and the spacing between them do not allow for mechanised cleaning equipment to go in and clean under the table. So, that simple retrofitting will need to take into consideration cleaning equipment. Secondly, the location of the cable power points. They are located too far apart so you have the long cables to bring the equipment in. So, in the process of retrofitting the hawker centres, I hope the Ministry can take those factors into consideration as well.
\tPage: 705
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: Again, I totally, agree with you.
Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam, last question.
\tMr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I agree with the views of my two fellow hon Members. As Minister has said, cleaning up after ourselves is an act of consideration. However, I have personally come across a number of cleaners and seen other patrons who have been told not to clear our trays because the cleaners were fearful that they might be rebuked by their supervisors, or worse off, lose their jobs because of that. So, while promoting kindness through this process, I would like to ask if the Ministry would also have guidelines in place to ensure that our low-wage workers who, perhaps, depend on this as their sole livelihood, would have their livelihood protected, as well as ensure that operators do not use this simply as an effective cost-cutting measure by getting consumers to clean up for them.
\tDr Vivian Balakrishnan: I would like to reassure the House that no cleaner is going to lose the job because we all are more gracious and more considerate, and clean up after ourselves. In fact, there is going to be a structural and chronic shortage of cleaners in the future. This is not a problem which we are going to solve simply by opening the floodgates or even trying to pay people more. Let me assure the House this will not result in unemployment amongst cleaners. In fact, the opposite is going to be the situation in the future.
\tPage: 705
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ensuring Educational Institutions Manage Resources Well","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Education (a) what controls does the Ministry have in place to ensure that institutions of education manage their resources, teaching staff and facilities such that they are sufficient to support their student populations; (b) what are the guidelines on enrolment numbers and student population growth to ensure that the students' learning experience is not compromised; and (c) whether the Ministry or Council for Private Education is aware of and approves of lessons being conducted in temporary tents in the case of LASALLE College of the Arts.
\tPage: 705
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, our publicly-funded Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have the responsibility and autonomy to manage their own resources to meet the educational needs of their students. They are held accountable through Annual Performance Reviews and five-yearly Quality Assurance Reviews carried out by external panels appointed by the MOE. MOE also works with the IHLs to plan their annual student intake and enrolment, taking into account the manpower needs of the economy and the capacity of the institutions.
\tPage: 706
All Private Education Institutions (PEIs) have to comply with requirements in the Private Education (PE) Act, which include ensuring the adequacy and relevance of facilities for students' learning needs.
In the case of LASALLE, we understand that it had embarked on plans in early 2012 to expand its teaching and learning spaces to create a conducive environment for its students. However, there was a slight delay to the works, and the tentage was a temporary measure to accommodate the students while renovations were being completed. The tentage has been removed since 3 September 2012.
\tPage: 706
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"University Rankings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry accepts the university ranking tables produced by agencies such as Quacquarelli Symonds and Times Higher Education, even if these agencies rank our Autonomous Universities unfavourably.
\tPage: 706
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, the international university ranking tables compare how our Autonomous Universities fare with respect to other universities overseas. However, each table uses different methods and ranking criteria to reflect the emphasis it places on the different aspects of a university. For example, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranking places 90% weighting on research-related indicators, whereas another very commonly cited ranking, the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) ranking is highly dependent on the academic reputation of a university based on the survey responses of other peer institutions. It is important to interpret the results of such international rankings carefully.
On our part – MOE – we assess the performance of our Autonomous Universities on multiple dimensions, covering both education and research. For example, indicators on student quality, graduate outcomes and resource utilisation are used. The Ministry also takes into account the findings from the Quality Assurance External Review Panel which we commissioned and which is made up of independent local and international industry leaders, professionals and eminent academics.
\tPage: 707
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Improvements to Productivity and Workers' Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Zainudin Nordin asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of efforts to uplift productivity so as to improve the salary of our workers (a) whether there has been a significant improvement in productivity; (b) what are the challenges faced; and (c) whether the goals set on improvement of workers' salaries will be met.
\tPage: 707
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we need good quality economic growth to provide well for our people. As our labour force growth slows, we will need to ensure that good productivity growth continues, so that our lives can continue to improve. Hence, in 2010, we set an average productivity target of 2% to 3% per annum. These are stretch targets, but they are necessary. In 2010, we saw exceptional productivity growth of 11.1%, but this is one-off as it was due to the strong recovery from the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009. Inevitably, coming off a high base in 2010, our productivity growth in 2011 was 1%. In fact, productivity this year has not been very positive either. This is because employment has grown much faster than GDP over the period.
While productivity growth measured in terms of value added per worker is really quite sensitive to economic cycles and can swing substantially over the short term, the low productivity growth rates over the past one-and-a-half years is a matter of concern and it is something that we are watching quite carefully. It shows really how urgently we need to step up our productivity efforts. We do need to press on with efforts to restructure our economy, meaning to move up the productivity chain. Companies need to reduce their reliance on manpower, and workers need to continue upgrading themselves so that they can take on the higher value-added jobs created as we restructure the economy. If we are to succeed, we must persist in the gradual tightening of our foreign worker policy.
The Government is fully committed to helping businesses and workers to manage these challenges, and will continue to provide support through the many programmes and schemes. The National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) has taken a sectoral approach to engage industries and develop productivity roadmaps tailored for each priority sector. A considerable amount of time and effort has been spent in ensuring that the strategies and schemes can support progressive companies and help them cope in our tight labour market through productivity improvements. Much of these come about from discussing with the industry themselves.
Over the long term, we also want to restructure our economy into one that provides higher value-added and higher skilled jobs, so that Singaporeans will have improved opportunities and be able to earn higher incomes. While many of these programmes and schemes are in their initial implementation phase, take-up rates have been encouraging, and we expect this to increase further. I have said this quite often, it is very important for industries, businesses to provide feedback so that we can continue to tailor the programmes so that it is right on target and that it is effective for the sectors concerned.
\tPage: 708
Now, let me just share an example. There is this programme, the iSPRINT scheme, or the Increase SME Productivity with Infocomm Adoption & Transformation, which is administered by IDA. It helps SMEs defray the costs of implementing info-comm solutions. The scheme has seen strong take-up since it was started in April 2011. More than 1,800 SMEs have benefited from the scheme. Companies can claim up to 70% of the qualifying costs for the purchase of info-comm technology (ICT) solutions, such as an accounting and payroll system, or enterprise resource planning solutions. The payoffs for such investments will come through over time. This is just one example amongst many schemes available. We are committed to developing more schemes as the need arises.
We have committed significant resources to this productivity drive. There are many schemes available for companies to tap on. In fact, one of the common feedback from companies is that because of the large number of productivity schemes available, it is not easy for them to navigate through all of them and to determine which scheme suits them best. This is a challenge we do need to continue to address. The best designed schemes with the best intentions are not very helpful if no one makes use of them. Therefore, we need to continue to work to improve them, to improve the accessibility of these schemes so that companies can really tap on them, and like I said before, it is very important that we receive the feedback so that we can continue to refine the process.
While we focus on implementing the various sectoral productivity strategies well, we must importantly not lose sight of why we are doing this in the first place. Productivity is not an end in itself. What we are trying to do is to achieve better outcomes, better incomes, better living standards for all Singaporeans in a sustainable way. We believe that increasing productivity is the right way to do so, without jeopardising, at the same time, our competitiveness, which is important, to make sure that companies remain viable because when companies remain viable, jobs are created for our people. At the same time, our workers' livelihood depends on this.
Data has shown, by and large, that this is the right strategy. Real wages of our workers have risen broadly in line with productivity improvements over the long term. In parallel with our productivity drive, we also need to press on with efforts to help workers upgrade their skills and move up to higher value jobs, while keeping the labour market tight.
Our target of 2% to 3% productivity growth per annum is, like I said, a stretch target. It is not easy because most developed economies tend to achieve an average of 1% to 2% productivity growth per annum. But we believe that there is an upside. When we compare ourselves to many of these developed countries, we think that there is quite a lot of room for us to grow in that area. If we are able to hit the upper end of this range over the long term, we believe that we should be in a good position to provide opportunities for higher wages for all Singaporeans and, at the same time, to remain competitive.
\t
\tPage: 709
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): A supplementary question, Sir. I agree that productivity is a good strategy to enhance the salary of our workers in the long run, but the real challenge is that it is a stretch target. How then can we make people understand – employers and employees – that productivity is the way to go, and are we seeing results in real wages of our workers? And are we expecting some of these to kick in within the next few years before the 10-year target that we have set for ourselves?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Zainudin for his follow-on questions. What we have seen in the last 10 years is that productivity growth has moved in tandem with real wage increase. Productivity growth was about 1.7% in the course of the last decade, and real total wages grew at about 1.6% per annum during the same period. Our sense is that with wage productivity growth, as a whole, there would be a possibility for wages to rise at the same time.
But as the Member mentioned, it is also important at the same time to have a tight labour market. This is where it is important for us to continue to grow the economy so that it remains competitive. That will also create pressures, which is why the effort of productivity does not exist on its own. The effort in terms of raising productivity is very much tied to our policies in terms of tightening the workforce, especially the foreign workforce. Something that we have embarked on – it largely peaked in the 2008 period and has gradually come down. We continue to step up. There is a range of measures that we take, whether it is a DRC, whether it is a levy and so on. That is very much an effort that we need to continue to focus on.
As we tighten the labour market, especially access to foreign labour, companies are feeling the squeeze. We know that. We speak to the companies regularly. But at the same time, we have to begin to restructure. They need to think about how they can operate with fewer workers. We look at developed economies elsewhere. Companies in the same sectors, in the service sector, in the retail sector and so on, their productivity levels are significantly higher. They also operate with a much more restricted access to foreign labour.
It is a combination of these measures which we need to unfold in the course of the next few years. This is part of the whole restructuring of the economy, where we can move towards lesser reliance on foreign workers. The workforce still needs to be diverse. That is something we need to accept. Most Singaporeans understand that. But we need to manage that growth and manage that dependency. In the process, companies must adjust.
\tPage: 710
Forced by circumstances, companies, in order to survive, in order to thrive, they will have to find measures to adjust. Secondly, we can also help in the process, which is why the whole range of incentives and programme schemes are available to incentivise the companies. SPRING works actively with companies as well. We have a lot of dialogues and a lot of sessions with the federations and associations. The best practices are also shared.
We are confident that companies will adjust. We have begun to see companies adjusting. My message to the companies, whenever I meet them, is we are not U-turning on this policy. This is a path that we need to embark on and we cannot turn back in terms of loosening the tightened-up measures. It is really a combination of these measures that will unfold over the course of the next few years, which I think will put us in a very good position to compete on a very competitive basis but at the same time, generating good jobs for people, and with that, good wages as well.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Acting Minister this: Minister mentioned that overseas, in similar sectors, they are more productive. But a lot of SMEs have given the feedback that they do not know what to do. I just want to ask, does MOM have any expertise or consultancies that can guide SMEs along, so that they can further improve on their productivity?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: I would like to thank the Member for her question. It is an important feedback and something that we are aware of. The industry is very large. Especially with SMEs, we do recognise, in particular for the smaller enterprises, they may not always have the capacity and resources to really scour the market to find out what is happening elsewhere. We do know that when we look at other industries, for example in F&B industry – if you look at, say, Japan, the way they construct, it is almost like a production line. The way you operate your shop, your restaurant, it is really geared towards maximising the productivity, maximising the output, in terms of the fewer workers that they have. So, the same person could be the cashier, he could be serving, he could be also running from the kitchen and so on; because they operate in a much tighter labour market.
Similarly so in the construction industry which the Member would be familiar with. I just came back from Australia and I have seen how the industry has transformed. They have a limited workforce. They also have a very highly skilled workforce. The difference, of course, is theirs is a domestic workforce. But, as a result of that, the construction industry has also transformed into a lot more pre-fabricated work. Something that we are encouraging our industries to go into and a lot of other new innovations which I am quite keen to see how they can be best explored, and a combination of these various events.
\tPage: 711
We are looking at how study visits have taken place. Companies have participated. SMEs have participated in study visits led sometimes by industries, sometimes by Government. It is important to see how it is done. It is one thing to read about it, hear about it but when you go there and you see that, \"Oh! It is quite straightforward, I could actually, potentially do it.\" The key is how we share these best practices. I have mentioned it before that it is always challenging because they are all competitors as well. Some companies might have taken on board some of these changes. What we really need and I do urge the business federations and associations is to come together and help the industry as a whole, because the ability to do things differently and to do it better is out there. Some companies have embraced it.
What we need is to make sure this information is shared and transmitted across-the-board. This is an effort that we continue to work on and we will be quite happy to consider options – even putting materials online, pamphlets, whatever means available – to provide companies with ideas. That is something that we do want to explore. We do see the upside. It is a very fair point. We do get that feedback but we are actively trying to promote this effort in terms of gathering lessons learnt from overseas. That is the continual effort that we need to press on with.
Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan, a last supplementary question.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): I would like to ask the Minister about the real wage increase and also better quality jobs. Can Minister share on whether there have been Singaporeans taking up these better jobs that have been created, and also what has been the real wage increase in terms of the jobs that have seen real wage increase?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: I would like to thank the Member for the question. We have talked about how real wages have grown, especially in the last five to six years. As we have mentioned, when we look at the decade as a whole, in the first half of the decade we did not really see particularly strong income growth. If anything, in real terms, there was a slight decrease. But for the second half, we were grappling with how the economy was going, how do we then anchor ourselves in a competitive world to find the right opportunities. That was also the period when we began to look at new opportunities. We did also, as we acknowledged, open up access to foreign workers coming in, in terms of the foreign labour workforce, which we know has also caused some strain on our infrastructure.
But what that period also produced was a growth in terms of jobs created, and very good quality jobs. That was also the same period where we saw real income growth. And it is not just at the middle class and the upper end but even at the low-income level, that was where we actually saw the growth, which helped to improve the overall data for the decade.
\tPage: 712
What is quite clear to us is that economic growth remains important. Not growth at all cost, but good quality economic growth. When we look at how we have evolved over the last decade, it has put us in a decent position. We need to calibrate because there are obviously disamenities that come and the labour force has grown a bit faster than perhaps we could have adapted to. But we are in a strong position to adjust.
We do see jobs continue to be created. Foreign multi-national companies and good Singapore companies remain anchored here, even though we know that Singapore is not a low-cost operating base. But companies find it worthwhile because there is stability, there is certainty. Over time, we have also developed as a hub in many different areas. Much as the world is wired up, a lot of businesses still need to be done on a face-to-face basis. People need to meet. There is a legal infrastructure. There is a financial infrastructure in place. And this hub is created over time, and you create a dependency that exists here. That is why companies remain here. When good companies remain here, good jobs are created.
We all know that, increasingly, there are more young people entering the workforce as graduates − one in three; in fact, one in two if we include all the Polytechnic graduates who, after working a few years, will then go on to acquire more degrees. With that, come aspirations, and aspirations for good dynamic competitive jobs. Singapore, by and large, has become that way. But to do that, we need to maintain a decent level of economic growth while at the same time making sure that Singaporeans are at the core of it, so that these good quality jobs can be created to meet the aspirations of young Singaporeans.
That is something that we will continue to work at. In terms of take-up rates, in terms of employment for young graduates and so on, we have seen that the employment rates are good. We do see that real wages continue to grow. But that is not something we want to take for granted. This competition is quite acute, it is something that we need to try to calibrate, and at the same time, maintaining it at a sustainable level.
\tPage: 712
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Work Permits and S Passes Issued in Last Six Months","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Teo Siong Seng asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has monitored the number of Work Permits and S Passes that have not been renewed and the number of new Work Permits and S Passes issued for the last six months; and (b) what is the net increase/decrease in Work Permits and S Passes issued.
Page: 713
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): There are three things we are juggling. Firstly, we need to calibrate our foreign manpower growth via a range of adjustments to our framework and measures. Secondly, we are mindful that companies need to do well, because they create jobs and they create good jobs for Singaporeans. I do not just mean local companies; I mean foreign companies that decide to base themselves here, when they do have decent options elsewhere. Thirdly, we need companies to be more productive and not just depend on easy access to foreign labour.
My Ministry is tracking the impact of our policies closely, including the number of Work Permits, S Passes and Employment Passes (EPs) and how they are being renewed and issued. We will release the numbers when the 2012 annual foreign workforce data is published early next year.
What I can share now is that there has been a higher number of EPs and S Passes that have not been renewed. From 1 January 2012 to 31 July 2012, 30% of EP and S Pass applications were rejected, an increase from 26% for the whole of 2011. Twenty-nine per cent out of the total number of rejected applications were for renewals, an increase compared to 21% for the whole of 2011.
The higher rejection rates were due to the following reasons. One, the increase in EP and S Pass qualifying salaries from 1 July 2011. To give companies time to adjust, existing EP and S Pass holders who were due for renewal before 1 January 2012 were given at least an additional year to meet the prevailing more stringent criteria. This is to allow companies time to adjust.
Two, the tightening of the educational qualifications for EP, and with older applicants having to command a higher salary commensurate with their working experience and the quality expected of them, which will kick in from 1 January 2012. This is quite a fundamental and important reframing of EP criteria. It is beginning to take effect, and it is probably important in terms of levelling the playing field for all Singaporeans.
Three, the tightening of the S Pass sub-Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) from 25% to 20% of the total workforce from 1 July 2012, has taken effect for all new foreign workers. However, we have also given companies some time to adjust their strategies. Their existing foreign workers will have up to 30 June 2014 to comply with the new DRCs.
Essentially, that is the data as of now. We will tabulate and track the figures. At the end of it, there will be a more complete picture when we look at how we tabulate the figures as a whole. What I will say is that we need to calibrate. It is not about turning off the tap. As I said, we all recognise that we do need access to foreign workers in our workforce at the different levels. Because what they provide is a diverse workforce which remains important in keeping our companies competitive. At the same time, we need to balance the different things that we need to juggle. How do we keep companies viable? For them to be viable, they do need access to a diverse workforce but, at the same time, being able to generate good jobs for Singaporeans and to make sure that Singaporeans remain the core of the workforce.
Page: 714
You can see the tensions pulling in the different directions. Unfortunately, it is not a precise science where we can calibrate all the different dials to exactly the right kind of outcomes we want, because we do not operate on a quota basis like COEs, where I cap the number of COEs we release every month. That is not the direction we want to go because I do not think it will be right to allocate manpower on that basis. But we use the market, we use some of these measures that we put in place, whether DRC or levies, so that there is a cost to companies employing them.
As I said earlier, a combination with other measures will incentivise companies to transform. We hope that we can calibrate downwards in a much more significant way, the dependency on foreign workers or foreign talent, so that the numbers can come down, and it is much more manageable but, at the same time, not affecting competitiveness so that new jobs can continue to be created for Singaporeans.
\tMr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for the answer. I do not think he answered the part about Work Permit. He mentioned about Employment Pass and S Pass. In fact, the reason I raised this question is that many of my Members in the Chambers have a common comment about the old Work Permit. When they went to renew their permits, they did not get the permits renewed, and the new ones did not get approved. The impression is that the total number of Work Permits, since the policy kicked in, has, in fact, been reduced.
We were given the impression that there will be no increase in the number of Work Permits and S Passes, and the pricing mechanism will come in. That means the total number of Work Permits will not be reduced, or will grow very slowly. The impression of many businesses is that the new applications do not get approved and the old ones do not get renewed. The impression on the ground is that the total number of Work Permits is reducing.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, in some sense, it is a happy problem. Not so happy for the individual companies. Let me explain. From an individual company's perspective, I agree. I get a lot of emails from companies and we meet many of them on a regular basis. There will be individual companies that will find difficulties in renewing Work Permits, S Pass and even EP. They may not even get new ones.
At the same time, from the market perspective, from the overall economic perspective, the demand is continuing to increase. Companies are growing across the board. Some companies may not get it; other companies do. There are new companies coming online as well, and they are all competing for the workforce that is available. Overall, even as we are calibrating downwards, it is not that the growth has become negative. We have basically slowed down the growth, but it is still growing. We need to watch that growth to make sure that from a macro perspective, it is at the rate that we can sustain; it is a rate that we can be comfortable with. We are still looking at, from a broad basis, about one-third of our overall workforce to comprise of foreign workforce.
Page: 715
That is a target from the ESC and which is something that we want to keep to. It will hover at about that level, but the way we calibrate it is through these different measures. Individual companies may find difficulties but other companies manage to get them. And a lot of it will depend on the different criteria put in place.
What I would like to assure companies is that we are fully aware that companies do need to draw on foreign workers, foreign talent in various forms but, at the same time, we also need to wean companies off easy access to them. In order for that to take place, they need to change the way they do business. Like I mentioned earlier, we do think there is upside certainly in a number of industries and a certain number of businesses where they can transform. Many have begun to do that. Anecdotally, a lot of them are looking at us to make a change and re-calibrate back to the old levels. The point is we are not. Going forward, this is something that we have to do, and companies are taking that on board. And we would like to support the companies in that process.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Sir, I would like to ask a clarification with regard to the calibration of EPs and S Passes. Rightly so, companies are recognising the need to adjust, and in the process of adjusting and calibrating – as these are higher-skilled workers that many of their businesses are dependent on – will the Ministry also look at flexibility in allowing for extra time, in terms of short extensions, to allow them as they look for new workers to also do skills transfer, especially for EPs?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: There is indeed space for us to look at individual appeals on a case-by-case basis. For new applicants, I think the rules will kick in quite firmly and quite decisively. I do not think there is any room for manoeuvre with regard to new applicants. But for older applicants, that means those who have been with the companies, and this is where we do understand because someone has been with the company for some time, whether on EP or S Pass, I think there is also, over time, productivity that has been built in because they are fully familiar with the system. So, that is where I think we can look at on a case-to-case basis, how do we then accede to requests and appeals.
There is also a challenge because we get appeals from all over. Every company will swear that theirs is a special circumstance, they need exceptions, and if we go down that path, it actually becomes difficult because the whole framework will start to unravel. So, there is space, but it does mean that we need to scrutinise the various appeals and, in some cases, we have to accede but not all cases. A lot depends on the circumstances of these companies.
Page: 716
Mr Speaker: Ms Mary Liew, last question.
\tMs Mary Liew (Nominated Member): I would like to thank the Minister for assuring us of the happy problem. I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Would the Minister consider a tripartite framework where available vacancies in specific industries are made known to the unions to enable us to alert our members of such employment opportunities, before approving these Employment Passes for foreigners? This is also to assure Mr Teo Siong Seng here that we are social partners and we are going all the way out to help him.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: If I may complete the tripartite conversation between the Member and Mr Teo, to provide the Government perspective. There have been calls, and they are not unreasonable, to look at whether we want to tie the approval of Employment Passes with this step in between. I am open to considering that as a possibility. That is something that we can do without hot-wiring that process in a formal way for now.
Again, it is a balance. We do feel that having a fairly flexible adept workforce is important in keeping the companies competitive. I just want to return to this key point – that at the end of it, it must make sense for Singaporeans and Singaporean workers, because that is at the core of our interest. How do you then construct a framework that allows that to happen? Having a flexible adept workforce remains important because it allows the whole economy to remain that way, and to remain competitive.
We do see that there are gaps, so there are matching issues. This is where we think that we could do more to plug the gaps where the needs are. We have begun to do that, and we can extend that effort. For example, I get emails from companies appealing and saying, \"Look, I have been trying very hard, but I cannot find Singaporeans who want to do this particular job.\" Then, what we try to do is link them up with WDA, with e2i, where they know who are the Singaporeans who are also looking for openings, and then try to match them. Sometimes, there is actually a match in terms of people with certain expertise and with those needs. But we also find that it does not always work out that way because sometimes the companies say, \"Notwithstanding they are skilled in a way, but I do not want to take them\".
Is it due to inappropriateness or the inappropriate quality of the candidates, or is it because they are still looking at perhaps cheaper options elsewhere? Those are the dilemmas that we need to manage. But I do agree that we can carry out that matching process a lot better. It is really about information − how do we match our awareness of the people, even though our unemployment rate is low – about 3%. But it does represent 50,000-60,000 Singaporeans. How do I make sure that the awareness of who they are, where they are, which sectors they are in, so that we can help to upgrade them and so on, through courses, but at the same time where are the needs in industries, and see how best we can match them. So, working with the unions and companies would be an important step to see how we can move ahead. But to formalise it, that is something that we are open to, but I do not think we need to do that at the moment. It is something that we can consider.
Page: 717
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Review of Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Ang Hin Kee asked the Minister for National Development (a)\twhether the Ministry has completed its review of the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) for HDB flats following the suspension of land sales for the scheme a year ago; (b)\twhether the review has looked into how it will impact owners of DBSS flats; (c) whether HDB has taken efforts to engage the developers in the design and layout of DBSS flats, keeping in mind the needs of public housing residents; and (d) what is the role of HDB and the authority it has to resolve disputes between the developers of DBSS and the residents.
\tPage: 717
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): The Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) was introduced in 2005 to give flat buyers more choice by allowing private developers to design and build some public flats. While HDB would provide broad planning parameters, such as the mix of flat sizes and the range of social and community facilities to be provided, the developer is responsible for the design, construction quality and the pricing of the flat. Nonetheless, HDB would actively engage the developers by sharing good practices and relevant experiences in public housing development. HDB would also provide useful feedback to the developers and their consultants during the design and construction phases, with particular attention on safety, security and maintenance issues.
As DBSS projects are designed and built by the private sector, HDB's primary role is to ensure that only those who are eligible for public housing can buy such housing, and to disburse housing grants and provide concessionary loans to the eligible buyers. As DBSS flats are sold directly by private developers to flat buyers, resolution of any contractual disputes, including defects, rests with the buyer and the developer.
Given the current priority to ramp up the supply of Build-To-Order flats and Executive Condominium units, my Ministry has suspended the DBSS land sales, and is not rushing to complete the review of this scheme.
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. First, some of the residents in an Ang Mo Kio DBSS project claim that HDB had previously publicly committed that there will not be any building of BTOs in mature estates. I hope that Minister can clarify whether there has been such a policy, or if there were other factors that could have led to such perception. Secondly, notwithstanding that there is a contractual relationship between the buyer and the developer, I wish the Minister would reconsider if the HDB could take a more active stance in mediating the differences and disputes that arise between the residents and the developer.
\tPage: 718
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Sir, there has been no such public or private commitment that there would be no more BTOs in mature estates. How could it be? How would you satisfy the many needs and demands from residents in mature estates who want their children to buy flats near to where they are staying? In fact, when we launched the particular DBSS project in the Member's constituency, there were several BTO projects in other mature estates as well.
As for the disputes between the Member's residents and the developer, I think HDB is playing a very active part to help them, counsel them, advise them, to resolve their conflicts. Whether we can play a mediating role depends on the specific issues involved. At the end of the day, we must be mindful that it is a contractual obligation between the buyer and the seller. We can advise the residents, perhaps with the local Member of Parliament to see what is the problem, and whether there is a way to resolve some of those issues.
\tPage: 718
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Minimise Construction Noise","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB has taken extra efforts and measures to minimise noise, dust and other disamenities in areas where housing construction has been significantly ramped up; and (b) whether HDB and the other agencies have planned and developed adequate infrastructural enhancements and amenities ahead of demand.
\tPage: 718
\tThe Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yi Shyan) (for the Minister for National Development): Sir, HDB is mindful of the temporary inconveniences that are inevitable during construction. However, HDB endeavours to undertake all possible measures to, firstly, safeguard public safety and, secondly, keep the noise and dust levels within limits set by NEA.
Beyond NEA's regulations, where possible, HDB also works closely with its contractors to adopt additional measures to minimise various disamenities. These include the greater use of precast components produced off-site so as to minimise on-site noise generation, as well as using high hoarding with screen nets to contain the dust and abate noise. To minimise mosquito breeding, HDB also requires contractors to carry out weekly site checks and maintain good housekeeping on site. In addition, HDB officers are also stationed at the construction site to address any feedback and suggestions residents might have.
In the introduction of new HDB developments, HDB plans and implements the necessary infrastructure to serve them ahead of demand, in line with our long-term development plans. To do this, HDB coordinates with the respective agencies, such as LTA, for the construction of rail lines, expressways and major roads and, PUB, for the construction of sewers. HDB also plans for amenities and works with the agencies to provide more schools, hawker centres, health facilities and commercial facilities in tandem with the growth of our estates.
\tPage: 719
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his assurance. I would like to follow up with practical questions. In a mature town like Bukit Panjang where we have something like eight BTOs announced, the concern among residents, understandably, is whether all the infrastructure like roads, public transport and facilities and amenities like hawker centres and so on, would be able to cope with the increase in population. The problem on the ground is always this: there are so many agencies to deal with, and each time when the construction starts, there is no co-ordinating agency to work through. So, I am glad that the Senior Minister of State has said that HDB should be the agency. I want to ask the Senior Minister of State this: should there be a situation where, for example, LTA says that \"We cannot build any wider roads here now; we cannot have more road links or more public transport\", is HDB still going to proceed with some of these constructions, knowing that there is going to be congestion on the ground?
My second question is whether in the ramp-up to this housing programme, is it reasonable to build eight BTOs at about the same time, all at one go, in a mature estate? Should HDB not phase out some of these at different locations so that we do not have a complete tsunami of housing construction going on at the same time?
\tMr Lee Yi Shyan: Well, I thank the Member for his questions. I see that there are immediate worries but also longer term happiness because his town would be transformed in three to four years' time. When HDB plans for any major expansion, they would do so by taking advantage of existing infrastructure that are being laid out well ahead of time in that particular estate. So, in Bukit Panjang, I would assume that the entire town is planned in such a way that it is to house a certain density or population and the resulting vehicular density and so on. On that basis, while residents may see empty land parcels in their neighbourhood in the last few years, they should expect the parcels to be filled up in a way that will be supported by a certain housing density when built up. On that premise, HDB will go forward to launch new projects onsite. As Minister has said, some of these sites are built so that they can take advantage of the existing amenities.
I would like to assure the Member that in his particular location of Bukit Panjang, where eight BTOs have been announced and are under construction, HDB keeps a close eye on what is happening on the ground to make sure that as and when the project is executed, mitigating measures on pollution will be taken to ensure that inconvenience to the residents is minimised.
On the Member's second question: HDB will remain the co-ordinating agency on the ground. If there are local bottlenecks that he observes, even at this stage of construction, we will be quite happy to call for inter-agency meetings to see how we can \"de-bottleneck\" some of these choke points.
\tPage: 720
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Minister how often does he has these inter-ministry meetings. Certainly, I do not agree that there is good co-ordination. For example, in Yishun South, I have six BTOs, but the road network that you are going to provide to serve the residents in that area will be completed only in 2015, whereas I will have five BTOs completed by 2014. So, there will be a big jam along Lentor Avenue. The other aspect is the bus services. Definitely, bus services are grossly inadequate. Is this being discussed, when was it discussed, and how will it be resolved?
\tMr Lee Yi Shyan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for her questions as well. The co-ordination meetings are on-going. In the recent ramp-up of BTO flat construction, we have learnt a lesson internally that we also need to plan on a longer time horizon. In other words, some of the major infrastructures, such as vehicular network and rail access, will take a much longer time than construction of HDB flat precincts. That co-ordination for short-term construction projects and longer term planning are on-going, and we would intensify them as and when necessary. In the Member's particular area, we would suggest that we continue to stay closely co-ordinated, in terms of bringing the various pieces of infrastructure to take place at about the same time, so that the inconvenience on the ground can be minimised and shortened. We will convey the Member's concerns to MOT and LTA.
Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee, last question.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Sir. A follow-up question for the Senior Minister of State: when I liaised with HDB about the BTO projects, they made reference to the fact that a lot of the plans are reflected in the URA Masterplan for 2008, and indicated to residents that they could refer to the URA website, or the publicly available information concerning the URA project plans, housing plans and plot ratios and the likes of it. It is not co-ordinated within the HDB domain, or within the HDB website to describe to people what is going to happen. You have multiple agency information that requires individuals to navigate in order to understand the development on the ground. I hope that in the co-ordination effort with HDB, they could synthesise some of the information so that residents have a better idea as to what is going to happen to their town, what kinds of developments are going to take place over the next few years, and how the masterplan will affect their living environment as a whole. Then, they are better informed and know what choice they have to make, what neighbourhood they are going to stay in.
\tMr Lee Yi Shyan: Well, on an on-going basis, HDB does conduct briefings to the local MPs, and the entire GRC sometimes, to update them on key projects that will take place or are scheduled over the next few years. I personally attended a number of such briefings. I find them very useful. What may be useful, going forward, is to make available some of this information publicly, to the residents. We have to do so carefully, because as soon as we make it public, we also lose some flexibility on subsequent fine-tuning or adjustments or acceleration or push-backs on some of the plans. We will discuss with the local Member of Parliament and see how best to have meaningful communications with the residents.
\tPage: 721
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Singapore's Free Trade Agreement Negotiations","subTitle":"FTA negotiations and reviews with EU and India","sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) if he will provide an update on the status of (i) Singapore's FTA negotiations with EU; and (ii) the second review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement with India; and (b) whether there are any specific considerations that are holding back the conclusion of these processes.
\tPage: 721
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, our economic relations with the EU and India are well-established, and both countries are important markets for our companies. The launch of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) and the on-going second review of the Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Agreement (CECA) with India reflect the interest of Singapore-based companies in these markets, and vice-versa.
The EU-Singapore FTA negotiations were launched in December 2009, and 11 rounds of negotiations have been held so far. The negotiations cover the full range of issues typically covered in a high-quality and comprehensive FTA. These include trade in goods and services, investment, competition policy, intellectual property rights, non-tariff barriers to trade, government procurement and sustainable development.
Negotiations have gone well and are now in an advanced stage. There are a few outstanding issues which both sides are working hard to resolve. Both the EU and Singapore remain hopeful that the negotiations can be concluded later this year.
The Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Agreement (CECA) was concluded between Singapore and India in 2005. The agreement provides for a review mechanism that allows both sides to update and improve the agreement to maintain its relevance to businesses. The key outcomes of the first review concluded in 2007 resulted in improvements in the ability for Singapore-based companies to gain access into the Indian market, and a \"Special Scheme for Registration of Generic Medicinal Products\" for India.
The second CECA Review is on-going. It was launched in June 2010 and six rounds of inter-sessional meetings have been held so far. Singapore and India are seeking improvements in the goods, services and investment chapters of the agreement. Unfortunately, the review is taking longer than expected to conclude, but both sides are committed to concluding the Review by the end of this year.
\tPage: 722
\tMr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Thank you, Minister, for updating on these FTAs. I have two supplementary questions. What is the status of the free trade negotiations between India and ASEAN in terms of the services and investment chapter? My second question: eventually, if it is implemented, what would be the impact on the bilateral FTA, that is the CECA, that we have with India?
\tMr Lim Hng Kiang: As Members are aware, India and ASEAN concluded the Trade in Goods Agreement a couple of years ago and we are in the process of negotiating the services and investment chapters of the agreement. We are making good progress. There have been some hold-ups bilaterally between India and some ASEAN member countries, but, more recently, some of these are being resolved. So, again, we are hopeful that we can conclude this at the end of this year.
On the bilateral implications of the CECA, I think this has been generally positive. If you track the growth of trade, it has been very robust between India and Singapore since we concluded the CECA. Similarly, investment flows have been very good bilaterally between our two countries.
\tPage: 722
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breach of Rules for Outdoor Rallies in Elections between 2001 and 2012","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether there were breaches of rules and regulations governing outdoor rallies by political parties at the 2001, 2006, 2011 general elections and the 2012 by-election; (b) if so, (i) how many breach(es) were there and what is the nature of the breach(es); (ii) whether any action was taken against the political parties concerned; and (c) what can and will be done to ensure political parties and electoral candidates' strict observance of rules and regulations on outdoor rallies, especially in complying with the end times of the rallies, in the interest of public order and safety.
\tPage: 722
\t
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, there were 31 breaches of the rules and regulations governing outdoor rallies by contesting parties during the various elections held between 2001 and 2012.
The breaches involved failure to comply with the rally permit conditions. Examples of breaches include not meeting the specifications of barricades, not providing sufficient lighting at rally sites, poor crowd management and exceeding the ending time of the rally. Police has generally issued warnings to the permit holders for these breaches.
The primary concerns for the Police are public order and safety, in view of the crowd size at outdoor rallies. The rules and regulations governing the conduct of outdoor rallies are clearly stated in the Elections Department's Handbook for Candidates and reiterated where possible to candidates, election agents and permit holders.
\tPage: 723
Police will continue to refine its rules, regulations and penalties to ensure that candidates, agents and/or their permit holders take the permit conditions seriously and adhere strictly with all permit conditions.
For parties or candidates who persist in flouting the permit conditions despite numerous reminders, Police will consider requiring the permit holder to put in place on-site measures to ensure election meetings end on time, for example, automatic timers for the power supply for the audio system, and so on. Police will also consider requiring parties or candidates to provide a deposit which could be forfeited should any breach of permit conditions occur.
\tAsst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I am, indeed, very surprised that there have been quite a substantial number of breaches since 2001. My concern in raising this question is I describe it as a banal act of lawlessness, because you can have situations in which parties would compete to see who can push the limits of the conditions governing the permits to the extreme. And I think this would be problematic for crowd control and public safety. I can imagine a situation where you could have a party which pushes it to the limits and the police were forced to intervene. I think that would be a very problematic situation. I certainly hope that the Ministry will take this matter with the necessary urgency. It does not seem like reminders and warnings are of much use.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Currently, Mr Speaker, Police assess the circumstances surrounding each case individually, and will take the appropriate course of action. We believe that we should take a non-escalatory approach at this point in time because as you all know, election periods are times when emotions run high. We want to act on circumstances and evidence, and most of the time, these breaches can be rectified on-site. For example, there are not enough lights or the rostrum is said to be put on one side, and it was actually put on another side. These things can be rectified quite quickly. Those are the kinds of breaches that many of the breaches were like, although the more serious ones where safety and security are compromised, certainly Police would take a very more serious view on that.
\tMr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I would just like to ask the Minister of State whether the breaches that have been committed in the last few elections were committed by several parties or just one party.
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: If the Member is asking about breaches by certain political parties – all parties committed these breaches.
Mr Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang, last question.
\tPage: 724
\tMr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Sir, I assume the PAP also committed the same breach. Sir, my question is this: whether there had been any public disorder due to the breach of the rules. For instance, not enough lighting or a breach of time limit. Are we assuming that a breach of the regulations or rules necessarily resulted in public disorder?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I think it is prudent for the Police to take a precautionary stance. We do not want any small or even what seems to be a minor breach to be taken lightly. Police orders ought to be taken seriously, no matter how minor the directions are, so that the permit holders, as well as the candidates, can carry out their rallies in an orderly fashion, and then the security and safety of the crowds can be assured. So, no matter how small, how minor, how major, Police will certainly take action on that.
\tPage: 724
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Space at HDB Lift Lobbies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the SCDF requirements and/or guidelines for allowable items to be placed by residents at HDB lift lobbies; and (b) whether SCDF will consider allowing residents to place items, such as flower pots and bicycles, in lobbies where the space is large enough not to cause any obstruction to movement of people or during emergencies.
\tPage: 724
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, items placed at common areas of HDB blocks can seriously hamper fire-fighting efforts and evacuation in both fire and medical emergencies. To educate the public and create a safer living environment, SCDF has issued guidelines on the use of common areas by residents, which are available on SCDF's website.
The key principles are, first, that combustible items, such as wooden cabinets, sofas and carton boxes, should not be placed at the common areas, as they pose a serious fire hazard. Second, it is important to maintain free passage to facilitate the carrying of people on stretchers, and for mass evacuation purposes. A minimum clearance width of 1.2 metres is required along passageways. Third, fire safety equipment must be properly maintained and regularly checked.
These principles apply equally to HDB lift lobby areas. Generally, we encourage residents not to clutter up these areas, which could hamper rescue efforts by SCDF officers and other emergency personnel.
SCDF works closely with the Town Councils to enforce these guidelines at HDB common areas. Residents can check with their respective Town Councils if they need clarifications on how these guidelines apply to their specific circumstances.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I would like to ask whether in cases of bicycles or potted plants − are these considered combustible materials? In lift lobbies where there is a minimum access area of 1.2 metres, would these items be allowed? Based on my experience, I have been getting quite consistent enforcement guidelines or enforcement practices by Town Councils that these are not allowed because of SCDF guidelines. The HDB, MND checking of Town Councils' performance leading to the quarterly reports seem to also adopt the same practices. So, I would like to ask the Ministry whether they could exercise some flexibility so that residents can have reasonable use of the lift lobbies so that the common space can be shared and that the Town Councils are not unduly penalised by blind application of the guidelines.
\tPage: 725
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, we thank the Member for raising the clarification. Firstly, you are right. We should not blame SCDF for all these. If there are items placed outside the houses or in the lift lobbies which are combustible or present an obstruction for emergency evacuation, yes. These are requirements not only for the purpose of imposing rules but for the safety of the residents. But if there are other things, clutters or decorations or plants which may bring other kinds of problems, which do not necessarily impose fire hazards or evacuation problems, these are rules which MND or Town Councils have, in implementing them. It might be good for the Member to file a separate PQ to address the overall general principle on use of common areas because what I will address is only on the safety and security issues.
Mr Speaker: Mr Baey Yam Keng, last question. Keep it short.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng: Just to clarify that I should be filing this PQ to MND who oversees the Town Councils?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Yes, that would be MND.
\tPage: 725
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Public Transport Subsidy for Each Singaporean","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport how much subsidy has been given by the Government to each Singaporean for public transportation in the past 10 years.
Page: 725
Mr Speaker: Minister, you have two minutes. You might just be able to answer the question.
\tThe Minister for Transport (Mr Lui Tuck Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, public transportation in Singapore is significantly subsidised by the Government. Before I go on to share more on what and how the Government subsidises public transportation, let me say at the onset that under our model, the transport operators bear the operational costs for running the system, and these operational costs are recovered largely from public transport fares. The Government, on its part, bears the cost of infrastructure development which includes capital intensive infrastructure like MRT tunnels, stations, depots as well as bus interchanges, terminals and bus stop shelters.
Page: 726
The Government also pays for the first set of operating assets for rail, such as the trains and signalling systems. This funding by the Government for capital items represents a significant subsidy to the public transport system, and has helped ensure that our fares remain affordable. For example, over the past 10 years, from 2002 to 2011, such Government investments in public transport have amounted to around $17 billion.
In addition to what I have just stated, the Government has also provided targeted financial aid to low-income Singaporeans over the years to help mitigate the impact of fare increases. In the last five years, more than $10 million of such aid was disbursed.
Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3) Written Answers to Question Nos 19, 22-24, 26 and 28-30 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 778-785). Question Nos 17-21, 25 and 27 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
\tPage: 726
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment of Foreign Manpower (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"Page: 726
[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Sir, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) prescribes the responsibilities and obligations pertaining to the employment of foreign workers. We last amended the EFMA in 2007.
In the last few years, my Ministry has taken steps to moderate the inflow and raise the quality of foreign manpower in Singapore. We want to shift from a labour-driven to productivity-driven growth model. Our intent is to ensure that we support decent and sustainable economic growth that will create good jobs and wages for Singaporeans, and to ensure that our Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. The adjustments we have made to our employment framework and regulations are aimed at supporting this intent.
Employers in Singapore are, by and large, responsible, but there are some who seek to profit by circumventing our work pass framework. As we further tighten the policies on the hiring and retention of foreign manpower, we can expect errant employers to try harder to get around the rules. This is where we are not lacking in creativity. For example, we have found some declaring higher salaries than they are actually paying their foreign workers, asking foreign workers to foot their own levies and insurance premiums, contributing CPF to locals that do not really exist or, at least, are not actively in their employment, in order to meet the required ratio of local to foreign workers, and submitting forged certificates to qualify for skilled work passes.
Page: 727
Singaporeans ultimately suffer when employers fail to pay the true costs of hiring foreign manpower or hiring foreign manpower that they are not entitled to. Local workers will lose out in employment opportunities. Honest employers who play by the rules are also unfairly disadvantaged. Besides errant employers, syndicates also profit from setting up sham operations to illegally import and supply foreign workers who otherwise should not be here. Syndicates have devised increasingly complex schemes to get around our enforcement approaches. Such operations exploit foreign workers and they also cost our local employment opportunities and cost us resources to assist stranded workers.
Sir, the proposed amendments to the EFMA will enhance the Government's ability to ensure the integrity of our work pass framework. Recognising that EFMA contraventions range widely from administrative infringements to criminal offences, these amendments will introduce a calibrated and appropriate response to different types of contraventions. In totality, the changes will allow my Ministry to step up enforcement actions against errant employers, errant foreign workers and syndicates more expeditiously and effectively, thereby enhancing deterrence against EFMA contraventions, which ultimately hurt Singaporeans.
We have made the amendments along three broad thrusts. Firstly, MOM will establish an administrative penalty regime to enforce administrative infringements to complement our prosecution efforts. We will impose significant administrative financial penalties and administrative actions, such as debarment from applying for and renewing work passes. The purpose is to deter employers from exploiting the work pass framework for financial gain. Secondly, to enhance deterrence, MOM will introduce new EFMA contraventions and increase penalties commensurate with potential profits gained from abuse of the system. Thirdly, to facilitate enforcement against common contraventions and syndicate operations of increasing complexity, MOM will include new presumption clauses and expand our investigatory powers.
Sir, let me start with the first set of amendments. All EFMA contraventions are currently classified as criminal offences. These range from breaches which are often administrative in nature, for example, the failure to pay S Pass holders via GIRO, to the more egregious and clearly criminal offences which harm workers, such as non-payment of salaries and the collection of employment kickbacks. At present, the criminal process can be lengthy and consume prosecutorial and court resources. Therefore, we need to take swifter actions against administrative infringements, rather than going down the criminal offence route, and to ensure that penalties are more severe and also at the same time commensurate with the impact of those contraventions. Employers who are trying to profit by getting round our work pass rules must be made to disgorge their ill-gotten gains through imposing sufficiently high financial penalties and debarring them from applying for and renewing foreign work passes. This would be more effective than prosecuting them in court via the criminal route.
Page: 728
We have, therefore, strengthened the process by differentiating EFMA administrative infringements from criminal offences. This is not a weakening of the process; rather it is about making it much more effective. Some existing EFMA offences will be newly classified as administrative infringements under the new penalty regime. Let me describe some examples to these details later.
We used essentially three principles to determine which infringements to classify as administrative infringements and which to regard as criminal offences. First, administrative infringements do not cause direct harm or abuse to workers. Where workers are harmed or abused, it is still important to retain the possibility of custodial sentencing. Second, these infringements would not have been regarded as criminal activities outside the work pass framework. Third, administrative infringements are those for which administrative financial penalties and administrative actions, such as debarment from application of work passes, would be effective in deterring errant behaviour. Given that administrative financial penalties have limited effect on the majority of foreign workers, my Ministry will retain all contraventions committed by foreign workers as criminal offences.
The Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will be appointed and authorised to administer the new administrative penalty regime. The Controller of Work Passes can now delegate his powers to authorised officers to administer the regime under the new section 3(3). These Commissioners will be empowered to impose administrative financial penalties, capped at a maximum of $20,000 per infringement, debar employers from applying and renewing work passes, and give directions to comply. Such directions include orders to rectify breaches, impose performance bonds to ensure compliance with rules and regulations, and direct that compensation be paid by the employer to make good any sums due to an employee.
With the establishment of the administrative penalty regime, a new section 25 has been introduced in the Bill. MOM can now prosecute infringers that fail to comply with the Commissioners' directions, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, or to both. Unpaid administrative financial penalties will be recovered by the Government as civil debts. The Commissioners will now have inquiry powers and it allows infringers to submit written representations in response to the Commissioners' findings. The inquiry process will be directed by the Commissioners, and any hearing that may be convened by the Commissioners will be informal in nature, without the presence of legal counsel, to keep the proceedings expeditious and lower costs.
Page: 729
The Minister for Manpower will be given the power to establish an independent Appeal Board to assess appeals against decisions made by the Commissioners for Foreign Manpower. The Appeal Board will consist of three members. The Chairperson would be someone who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The Appeal Board's decision is final.
Sir, let me emphasise that this move to classify certain infringements as administrative in nature by no means represents a softening in our enforcement approach. Rather, these amendments will allow us to step up enforcement and increase our enforcement effectiveness. We expect the Commissioners for Foreign Manpower to take faster action against infringements. The maximum administrative financial penalty of $20,000 per infringement will be sufficiently high, we believe, to disgorge illegal economic profits from employers. Together, these moves should allow the Government to achieve wider deterrence against errant employers and thereby protecting the majority of employers who are fair and responsible employers.
Some administrative infringements are also related to criminal offences that preserve the possibility of harsher sentencing for employers who harm or abuse workers. For example, while failing to purchase medical insurance for Work Permit holders is an administrative infringement subject to a maximum administrative financial penalty of $10,000, the failure to bear the costs of upkeep and maintenance of Work Permit holders, including medical treatment, is an offence subject to a maximum fine of $10,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months or to both. This approach will allow the Government to calibrate its response depending on whether the employer was simply trying to save costs, or whether he was in many ways neglecting his employment obligations to the foreign worker.
I will now move on to the next set of proposed amendments. We intend to raise the signature and better define the elements of serious contraventions. MOM will establish five key stand-alone contraventions, and raise their penalties.
First, we will now prosecute syndicates that set up shell businesses and illegally import and supply foreign workers. These syndicates circumvent our immigration laws on employing illegal immigrants. They recruit foreign workers ostensibly on legal work passes, but do not provide actual employment, upkeep or maintenance. Instead, these workers are then left and forced to seek illegal employment on their own. Syndicates have also evolved from setting up pure shell businesses to setting up partial-sham businesses that may employ a few local workers for genuine business operations, while, on the side, recruiting foreign workers on false promises of employment and supplying them out illegally. MOM will adopt the same penalties for employing illegal immigrants under the Immigration Act and impose them on offenders who illegally import and supply foreign workers. This will include a fine of up to $6,000, a minimum imprisonment term of six months, up to two years, and mandatory caning for offenders that hire more than five foreign workers. Further, the court will confiscate the illegal profits collected from supplying and importing foreign workers. In determining the sum to be confiscated, the court may also separately order compensation to any workers who have suffered harm as a result of the employer having brought them into the country without providing them with proper employment.
Page: 730
Second, we will prosecute foreign workers that submit forged educational qualifications to circumvent MOM's criteria for educational qualifications, especially for S Pass and EP holders. Offenders will be subject to a maximum fine of $20,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of two years, or to both. Foreign workers have also been known to submit forged educational qualifications and subsequently feign ignorance of the submission, which hampers our enforcement efforts in proving that they had knowledge of the falsehood. Hence, we will now presume that a work pass applicant has knowledge of the information provided in his application, including that of the qualifications which have been submitted. The burden of proof will now be placed on the errant workers. My Ministry will ensure that enforcement action is targeted at culpable workers. An innocent worker can rebut the presumption by proving that he did not have knowledge of the submission of false qualifications when the declaration was made. For instance, he can prove that the employment agency or employer had submitted the forged certificate on his behalf without his knowledge. My Ministry will take action against other culpable parties, such as errant employers and employment agents, if they have abetted such acts.
Third, we will prosecute persons, including employers, supervisors, HR staff and sub-contractors, that collect monies as consideration for employment from foreign workers. We usually refer to such monies as \"employment kickbacks\", which workers are made to pay based on promises of employment. The collection of employment kickbacks increases the foreign workers' debt burden while disadvantaging Singaporeans in favour of foreign labour. Offenders will be subject to a maximum fine of $30,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of two years, or to both. The court will confiscate the employment kickbacks collected from foreign workers and return the monies to the State. This is separate from the court's power to award compensation to workers who have suffered harm from the demand or receipt of kickbacks.
We will also introduce a presumption clause to make it easier to enforce against employers who demand employment kickbacks from workers. Currently, employers' illegal collection of payments from foreign workers is usually made in cash, there is no paper trail to speak off, and this seriously constrains our enforcement efforts.
Page: 731
Therefore, we will presume that any monies collected from foreign workers will be deemed as employment kickbacks, unless the purposes for which they were collected can be properly accounted for. The accused can rebut the presumption by showing that they had legitimate reasons for collecting monies from their workers.
Fourth, my Ministry will impose a maximum administrative financial penalty of $20,000 on errant employers that illegally recover employment costs from foreign workers. Under our work pass conditions, employers should be bearing costs, such as foreign worker levies, security deposits, medical insurance premiums and so on. Instead, some employers, the errant ones, fail to bear the true costs of hiring foreign workers by recovering these costs from their workers. The Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will be allowed to impose administrative financial penalties on such errant employers to disgorge illegal profits, debar them from applying for and renewing work passes for foreign workers, and impose directions on employers to compensate foreign workers for the recovery of employment costs.
Fifth, the Government can impose a maximum administrative financial penalty of $20,000 on errant employers that pay CPF to local \"phantom workers\" to inflate their foreign worker quota, in order to have access to more foreign workers which they do not have access to, in the first place. The Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will also be allowed to debar employers, and impose directions on employers to mitigate his wrongdoings and prevent recurrence. Although this new contravention attracts administrative penalties, persons who set up shell or partial-sham businesses using local phantom workers to bring foreign workers into Singapore and release them to find their own employment will continue to be dealt with in court. They will be prosecuted under the new illegal labour importation offence which, as highlighted earlier, carries severe penalties that may include jail time and caning.
Although there are essentially no changes to key employer responsibilities, the five standalone contraventions, enhanced penalties and two accompanying presumption clauses will enable us to step up enforcement against errant employers and syndicates and to look after Singaporeans at the same time and to make sure that we protect the majority of employers who are law-abiding and responsible.
To further enhance deterrence, we will increase maximum penalties for EFMA contraventions. The penalties have been benchmarked against contraventions of similar nature in the Immigration Act and the Penal Code. They have also been calibrated to ensure that more egregious offences attract higher penalties. Severe offences, such as illegal employment of foreign workers, will be subject to harsh penalties including a minimum fine of $5,000, up to a maximum fine of $30,000, and/or a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, for first-time offenders. This will also allow the courts to take into account any costs avoided by the employer, including medical and work injury compensation insurance premiums, security deposits and levy payments. Administrative infringements, such as the failure to terminate the employment of a foreign worker after receiving notification of the Controller's revocation of the worker's work pass, will be subject to a $10,000 administrative financial penalty.
Page: 732
I earlier mentioned that errant employers can be debarred from applying for and renewing work passes. However, creativity kicks in again and to circumvent MOM's debarment, errant employers have resorted to applying for work passes using the names of other people that are not debarred, as they continue actually, for all intents and purposes, to run the same business behind the scenes. Errant employers also get their associates to set up what appear to be new businesses, and transfer their existing business, including their workers, business contracts, and business premises to these associates. So, basically, they change the signboard. To prevent errant employers from deploying such tactics, the Controller, in the exercise of his discretion, may now debar persons who have acted in concert with or on the direction of a debarred person, or debar associates of debarred persons who are engaged in a trade or business which is substantially similar to that of the debarred person.
Aside from the key contraventions, the work pass conditions within the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations will be updated with more explicit requirements, to provide greater clarity on employers' responsibilities. Contraventions of the work pass conditions will likewise be classified as administrative infringements or criminal offences.
Currently, the Minister may prescribe conditions that apply during the validity of the work pass. These conditions prescribe in detail the duties pertaining to all aspects of the foreign employee's entry, work, stay and conduct while employed in Singapore, as well as his departure upon the cessation of employment. To broaden the scope of employers' responsibilities where necessary, section 29 has been amended to allow the Minister to impose pre- and post-employment conditions under the EFM (Work Passes) Regulations. An example of which is the pre-employment condition that requires employers to ensure that the In-Principle Approval (IPA) letter in native language is sent to foreign workers prior to their departure, to keep them informed of their actual employment terms and reduce their reliance on unscrupulous middlemen. An example of a post-employment condition is the requirement for employers to provide upkeep for foreign workers awaiting resolution of statutory claims in Singapore, including claims under the Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act.
Sir, it is very critical that employers are able to meet the criteria for hiring S Pass and EP holders not only when they apply for the pass but throughout the validity of their work pass. At present, there are no explicit restrictions on the reduction of salary after an S Pass or EP holder has secured a work pass here. An errant employer – and they exist – would circumvent the salary criteria of our S and Employment Passes by declaring higher salaries to secure these passes and then sharply reduce the salaries thereafter, that is, after the passes have been issued. To close this loophole, we will require all employers who wish to reduce the salaries of their S Pass and EP holders to submit a request for re-assessment of their work pass eligibility. This will not prevent employers from reducing the salaries of their foreign workers for legitimate reasons. But all they have to do now is to submit the lower salaries for re-assessment of their eligibility of a work pass and we will consider that. If they are not eligible for their current work passes, the employer may consider downgrading to another work pass type that carries more restrictions, or try harder to recruit a Singaporean. This new requirement will be elaborated in the EFM (Work Passes) Regulations. This requirement will make it harder for errant employers to abuse the work pass framework, and help protect job and wage growth opportunities for Singaporeans. The failure to comply with this regulatory condition will be subject to a maximum administrative financial penalty of $10,000. The Controller of Work Passes may consider waiving this requirement, for example, in a general economic downturn where salary reductions may have to be made across the board to help businesses stay afloat.
Page: 733
Sir, I will now move on to the last set of proposed amendments. As I mentioned earlier, we have been encountering increasingly complex cases as syndicates devise new modus operandi to thwart enforcement efforts. Hence, we will make amendments to the EFMA that will allow us to take adequate enforcement action against errant employers and undermine syndicated operations.
Offences, such as the failure to pay salaries, are usually committed within the purview of corporate officers. However, errant corporate officers often, and almost always, deny knowledge of such contraventions, for example, when an officer overseeing salary payments claims ignorance that salaries were not paid. We will now presume that a corporate officer, who is primarily responsible and has failed to exercise reasonable supervision, has acted in neglect and is liable for the respective criminal offence or administrative infringement. The corporate officer can rebut the presumption by proving that he had exercised reasonable supervision to avoid the commission of the contravention, for example, if he had taken all necessary steps to ensure prompt salary payment and safeguard against lapses.
MOM will have enhanced investigatory powers. This includes the power to enter and inspect a premise where any work pass application has been made, where a foreign employee is working or accommodated, or any business premises belonging to the employer, at any reasonable time. This will allow MOM to assess the authenticity of the work pass applications, the existence of business operations and weed out shell businesses during upstream audits. In addition, MOM will be allowed to search a premise by force, if there is reasonable belief of a breach of the EFMA or when a foreigner can be found within the premise. MOM will also have the power to take video and voice recordings during investigations and use the recordings as evidence in Court. Finally, employers may also be asked to produce all employees, both local and foreign, to the best of their ability to assist in investigations. The enhanced range of investigatory powers is largely based on similar powers granted to MOM under the Employment Agencies Act and Workplace Safety and Health Act. So, in a sense, it is not new. Employers can be assured that only trained MOM officers are allowed to carry out such operations, as they do now under the Acts mentioned earlier. They will also exercise these enhanced powers judiciously, only when circumstances require such recourse, and taking care to minimise disruptions to genuine business operations.
Page: 734
Sir, the proposals in this amendment Bill have been refined after consultation with the public, key stakeholders, such as employers and non-Governmental organisations. Where good suggestions – and there have been many – were raised, we have taken them on board and amended our proposals. Where we have not been able to do so, we have tried to respond as comprehensively as we can and as transparently as we can with our rationale in our response paper that was published on REACH. At this juncture, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has really taken their time to give us these very constructive views.
The amendments will be effected by the end of this year. We are also committed to ensuring the well-being of workers as well as an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers. Therefore, even as we debate the amendment to the Bill today, we are concurrently undertaking a separate review of this same Act, with a view to rationalise and clarify the employment responsibilities of employers, foreign workers and foreign domestic workers. Just as we have done this round, we will engage stakeholders on the proposed changes. As mentioned before, we are also going to undertake a review of the Employment Act.
Sir, this Bill, ultimately, is aimed at going after errant employers. Most employers in Singapore are responsible and fair. And this Bill, ultimately, bolsters our efforts in creating sustainable and inclusive growth in Singapore and ensuring that Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. It will do so by ensuring employers pay the true costs of hiring foreign workers and creating a level playing field for law-abiding employers. This Bill also seeks to stem the worst abuses against foreign workers. This is in keeping with our values as a society, that we believe all our workers should be treated fairly, decently and with respect, regardless of their nationality. Let me close by saying that this Bill is really about looking after our Singaporeans, that they remain at the core of our workforce, and this Bill is about the kind of people and society that we want to be. Sir, I beg to move.
Page: 735
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to acknowledge the quick action taken by the Ministry of Manpower to plug the loopholes that are being exploited by some employers in employing foreign workers. While people might say that the crooks are always one step ahead of the law, I think, in this case, the long arm of the law is quickly catching up.
Sir, I believe it is correct that we should have a set of instruments to deal with different situations that we find ourselves in. Like having a good Swiss army knife, we should be equipped with the appropriate and effective tools for the job. Likewise, in the proposed amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the Ministry wants to establish an administrative penalty regime and Commissioners of Foreign Manpower to complement criminal actions. I think this is a good move as it allows for certain offences to be dealt with quickly and makes the point that we will not tolerate the illegal employment of foreign manpower. This protects honest employers as well as foreign workers.
Additionally, Sir, by adding new contraventions and enhancing enforcement, the Ministry will be able to send a strong message to employers to take their responsibilities towards workers, both Singaporean and foreigners, seriously. Illegal employment of foreign workers will be dealt with firmly, and the penalties are a stiff deterrent. The proposed amendments will also go some way to enhance Singapore's position as a safe place to work, even as we compete with the region for skilled manpower. This will continue to be a constant challenge, given the economic growth that we are aiming at in the coming years.
Having said that, Sir, I would like to make a few broader points. As we all know, the issue of foreign manpower in Singapore is fairly emotive. The feedback I received from residents and fellow Singaporeans are quite clear. They are being felt everywhere and every day, be it in the MRT trains, at the workplace, in shopping centres and at the hawker centres. Or in the polyclinics and hospitals, and in our void decks and gardens, we encounter foreign workers in all these places, and many more. But is this phenomenon recent? We have had foreign workers here for many, many years. Yet, it seems that, sometime over the last couple of years, we suddenly reached a tipping point.
The daily touchpoints between Singaporeans and foreign workers suddenly became not touchpoints, but friction points. Complaints, at first soft and infrequent, became more strident, and amplified by social media, the complaints reached a point where the situation seemed intolerable.
Though I may not agree with all the views and feedback, I empathise with many of my fellow Singaporeans. The fact is that we reached a threshold that seemed to be unbearable. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it seems. But, I cannot help, Sir, but wonder − when did it happen? At what point was too many too much? If we can find this out, it would be instructive for our policymakers – where exactly is that tipping point? Find that out, and maybe save ourselves a lot of grief in the future.
Page: 736
Sir, allow me to highlight two additional points in this discussion. One, it is imperative that we manage the influx and quality of foreign workers. It has become clear that in the tug-of-war between demand for foreign labour and the stress that they put on our infrastructure, the limits of our infrastructure have fortunately won – at least for the immediate future. Nonetheless, as we take errant employers to task, we should also ask ourselves: how many of these employers had to resort to illegal ways because their legitimate application for foreign workers was turned down? Imagine a situation where a contractor submits a bid for a construction project. He does not carry foreign workers on his payroll until he is sure that he has a project to deploy them. This is a common situation. Once he secures a contract, he would be in desperate need for foreign workers. Yet, because of the tight work permit situation, he may be unable to get approvals. What does he do? Decline the project, and risk his company's viability? If he does that, he risks closing down, and that helps no one, because even the Singaporeans working in his company could become unemployed too. You could imagine that the contractor would be tempted to use other ways to get his workers.
My point here, Sir, is that even if these amendments are approved, the authorities should carefully look into the individual circumstances of each case, because not every employer who breaks the law is an evil opportunist, looking at squeezing the last buck from hapless workers. Ironically, it is these very contractors who will build our infrastructure, to alleviate the crunch that we are facing today.
This brings me to my second point. I accept that Singapore businesses must wean themselves off the reliance on foreign workers. One cannot simply expect to use larger and larger numbers of foreign workers instead of investing in productivity improvements. I think this argument is valid in most industries – increase the productivity and you will be in a better situation. However, for small and medium companies, and, in particular, in the service industry, it is more challenging to reduce reliance on manpower. Take the food and beverage industry for example. Yes, a number of companies have been able to mechanise to save labour. We have conveyor belts to serve food. We have noodle-frying robots. We even have robots that could serve as waiters, though I am not sure if this is fully implemented out there.
With all due respect, not everyone wants to eat off a conveyor belt. Some may want to be served, to have a cosy neighbourhood cafe to go to, to relax and spend time with friends and family. And if we are going to allow for this range of dining options, we have to acknowledge that certain types of food outlets are heavily reliant on manpower. Waiters, cooks, baristas, and the like – many people also prefer the personal touch. We also have to allow that in between hawker centres and Michelin-star restaurants, there should be a whole range of dining options, run by small and medium entrepreneurs, who are at the core of our economy. These offer dining options at various price points. And for particularly the small outlets − the truth, Sir, is employing Singaporeans while at the same time keeping prices reasonable has become an insurmountable challenge for them. I am regularly told that the salaries they can offer for cooks, waiters, cashiers and the like are at a level that Singaporeans are not interested in. So, the jobs are out there, but, unfortunately, Singaporeans are not interested in them.
Page: 737
It would be worthwhile for us to consider the difficulties of this group of businesses. Perhaps, we should look into how to support the employment of Singaporeans within such businesses, or open up options for the employment of foreign manpower. Sir, while on this subject, the MOM website states that service-sector companies wishing to apply for work permits, indicating lower starting salaries, can recruit workers only from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea and Taiwan. Could the Ministry explain why is this so, and consider extending the source countries so that employers have a wider choice of recruitment to support the wider range of dining options that are available today in Singapore?
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned before, the issue of foreign worker employment is emotive. Clearly, it is no easy task to come up with policies that will help us achieve our long-term goals. But allow me to set out what I believe should be our core considerations.
First, Singaporeans must always be at the heart of our foreign worker employment policy – and I would include employment under work permits, S Passes and EPs. If, for example, Singaporean workers and Singaporean businesses can prosper by allowing in more foreigners, and the cost is an infrastructure crunch, then I say, build more infrastructure.
If Singaporean workers' jobs are threatened by allowing in more foreigners, then I would say, upgrade the skills of our workers, then make them world-ready and more skilful so that they are able to compete with the best. And if salaries in certain sectors or certain jobs are too low, then maybe we can think of creative and innovative ways of giving Singaporeans additional allowances to take on these jobs. There are already precedents – many companies and even the Government give hardship allowances to people posted to more undesirable jobs, albeit overseas.
If Singaporean workers' advancement prospects are dimmed, then the Government must take a closer look at companies, particularly those with a sizeable foreign workforce, to see whether they deal fairly in offering promotion prospects. At the same time, when approving EPs, especially at the higher end of the spectrum, the Government must be convinced that the company could not find a single Singaporean capable of performing the job. If we allow the companies to decide what is good for them, then, sadly to say, they will decide what is good for their company and not necessarily good for Singaporean workers or Singapore. In addition, the Government must also be satisfied that the qualifications and experiences, as well as the economic contributions that applicants declare, are fully verified before EPs are issued.
Page: 738
I believe Sir, that if Singaporeans are convinced that the Government has their best interests at heart, through our policies and through our actions, we will be able to assuage many of the concerns that our workers have. And we may even go some way in restoring our poor broken-backed camel to good health. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the pursuit of economic growth, the business of bringing in migrant foreign workers has spawned into a business that has a life of its own. The very process of bringing in these workers is so lucrative that it does not matter if there are matching jobs for them. For some unscrupulous agents, it does not even matter if there are any jobs for these workers, for there is money to be made just by landing them here on our shores. And this lucrative business of bringing in migrant workers alone unwittingly benefits the Government as well because every worker comes with a levy to be paid on the dot, on the 17th of each month by GIRO, regardless of whether there are matching jobs or any jobs for these workers or not.
For some of these low-wage workers, the dream of providing a better life for their families back home became a nightmare of unpaid wages, unimaginable living conditions and unending disputes with employers over wages upon repatriation orders. We have heard and read horror stories about how some of these migrant workers are being treated, and sometimes abandoned, the moment injuries befall them. It is very sad to know that some of these workers already living in poverty back home and going into debt in order to make the trip here will end up worse than ever before because of some unscrupulous agents and errant employers.
Although MOM has no shortage of legislation to act against errant employers, to begin with, I believe many Singaporeans, NGOs and VWOs will welcome the amendments in the Employment of Foreign Manpower Bill to strengthen enforcement capabilities and address the abuses and problems faced by low-wage migrant workers.
MOM has been criticised by some NGOs for not doing enough to help these low-wage workers in the past. I once volunteered for a VWO which specialises in helping migrant workers and I was given such a feedback as well. MOM has enough legislation to deal with errant employers and foreign workers' abuses but, for some reasons, it was slow or reluctant to bite.
Page: 739
With this amendment, I urge the MOM to step up its enforcement. Going forward, MOM should also look into promoting responsible employment, especially for employers of low-wage migrant workers. While enforcement has a role to play, a mindset change will have a bigger impact on our society as a whole. Singapore is a First World country and we should reflect that in the way we treat migrant workers. With that, I rise in support of the Bill.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I begin by commending the work of the Acting Minister for Manpower. In March this year, he told this House that he would tighten foreign labour policies so as to slow down and manage the growth of the foreign workforce while also ensuring that the employment rights of workers are upheld.
This amendment Bill before us is largely in the right direction. I hope the Ministry of Manpower will continue to be guided by these twin principles. Singaporeans want the Government to be serious about enforcing our foreign manpower regulations and we want to be a humane society which guarantees that the workers, foreign or local, are treated decently and not exploited. The new section 22A of the Act, as provided by clause 17, which punishes employers who deduct money from workers' salaries to pay for levies or other costs that they themselves are liable for is a case in point. This is a good move. Nevertheless, the NGO Transient Workers Count Too still voiced their concern, that is, \"Lack of simple mechanism for workers to recover their monies and compensation even so ordered by the Ministry of Manpower\". Can the Minister respond to this?
In being serious about enforcing our foreign manpower regulations, granting inspectors higher levels of authority, such as the right to enter premises and to take audio/video evidence, is critical. The amended powers of employment inspectors laid out in clause 12 are, therefore, important. Industry observers are generally of the opinion that the gap between the practice and principles of the amended Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will be the problem. I say this not to state the obvious but to draw attention to clause 8 which concerns levies. Focusing on levies as an instrument of control may not be better than using foreign worker quotas. Business owners are unlikely to be incentivised to hire Singaporeans over non-Singaporeans because they can always pass on the additional cost of the levy to the worker or to their business customers. Even if stricter foreign worker quotas are implemented, the Government will not lose out in revenue collection since the levies here have been increasing. Increasing levies is a win-win situation for the Government. More revenue is collected and foreign manpower is controlled. But we also need to think of employers, especially those who run SMEs. How can we help them if they are squeezed by increasing levies? Can more be done besides asking them to increase productivity levels?
Page: 740
Regarding the Employment Pass (EP) minimum wage, errant employers will simply work out an illegal arrangement to receive consideration from the employee in order to meet the declared remuneration of the EP holder. After some time, the EP worker could then have a more favourable case to apply for PR status. This may circumvent the quality of our assessment. Perhaps, the Ministry of Manpower could also focus on tightening the enforcement of this specific abuse in this system.
Finally, I would like to say a quick word on the larger debate on foreign workers in Singapore since this Bill is clearly linked to it. While most Singaporeans agree that we need such measures in this Bill to wean off our over-reliance on cheap foreign labour, we also acknowledge that SMEs who rely on cheap foreign labour are facing re-adjustment pains. Indeed, I have received such feedback from such SME owners personally. But let us not write off the complaints of Singaporeans as being paradoxical. They both have a point. I believe we should be talking about striking a balance here.
We can assure SMEs that as long as they adhere to the law, they should not have to fear about the new enforcement rules and penalties in this Bill. In terms of re-adjustment of their businesses, I believe the changes in foreign worker quotas can be made gradual enough to accommodate this. On a larger scale, re-thinking of Singapore's economic model of growth is required in tandem. This can be addressed in future debates during the course of this Parliament. Nevertheless, I support this Bill.
Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 788-789.] Mr Speaker, I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and the Managing Director of Pacific International Lines.
This amendment Bill clearly stipulates the penalties against errant employers and employment agencies that contravene the Employment Act. Indeed, currently, there are many industry practices that contravene the Employment Act, with many employers taking the risk by flouting the law. For example, the creation of phantom employees in order to increase their foreign manpower headcount; reducing the wages of foreign workers and collecting work permit renewal fees from foreign workers, and so on.
Whatever the difficulties these employers face, these illegal practices have damaged the image of Singapore businesses and affected the foreign workers' motivation to work. Therefore, errant employers and agents should be punished.
Page: 741
Today, I would like to share some of my views.
After tightening the flow of foreign workers to Singapore, many Small and Medium Enterprises now face greater pressure in terms of manpower resources and operating costs, especially in the services sector. Many companies are starting to feel the effect, and companies feel a greater sense of urgency to restructure their operations.
We agree with and support the Government's strategies and policy directions, that is, companies should restructure and upgrade, to reduce dependence on foreign workers, increase productivity and raise real incomes of local workers. But employers, employees and companies must also be realistic and make adjustments. In order to cope during this transition period, besides guidance and assistance from the Government, SMEs also need to make adjustments internally, and they also need the support of society as a whole.
In actual fact, the purpose of importing foreign workers is to complement the insufficient number of workers in Singapore. This morning, I read an article titled \"Employers, Speak Now or Pay the Price\" in The Straits Times, which really set me thinking. The writer, Leslie Fong, felt that we should not take a one-sided view when discussing the issue of foreign workers. Singaporeans' lives can no longer do without foreign workers, especially when it comes to jobs with poor working conditions, which are difficult to do, with low pay, long hours and in far-flung places. Braddell View Estate is now in the midst of recruiting volunteers to help maintain the cleanliness of the estate, illustrating the resulting effect of reducing foreign workers. How should we deal with this problem? Perhaps, we can learn from the experience of other cities and countries.
Those who have travelled to Australia will remember the excellent work done by their local tour bus drivers. In Australia, the tour bus drivers take on multiple roles: they are drivers, tour guides, service crew, and also help spread cheer to others. From these bus drivers, tourists can see that they have passion for the work that they do, and the importance of professional training. If the drivers had not been trained systematically, they would not be able to take on multiple roles and would not be able to increase their income. This example also reminds us, when there are limited resources, restructure and change are the best solution. It is a matter of \"survival of the fittest\" and those who are unable to adapt will be eliminated.
In terms of adapting to the environment, we can look at Hong Kong. I go to Hong Kong every month, and the high level of service in Hong Kong is well-recognised. The people of Hong Kong are highly adaptable. When faced with difficulties, they are always able to turn stress into a source of motivation, and win high praise through their thoughtful, meticulous and warm services. They are able to endure hardship, are diligent, with a strong fighting spirit, adaptable, progressive, flexible and self-reliant. We should learn from them.
Page: 742
From the corporate point of view, if we do not have enough workers, then we must think of new solutions. For example, like the Australian bus drivers who take on multiple roles, why can Singaporeans not do the same?
My colleague tells me that during lunch-time at the food court in Raffles City, management staff wearing ties are helping to clear plates and dishes. This is a classic example of shortage of workers. Is there really no other solution for the food and beverage industry?
In Japan, one worker can look after the entire shop, as the workflow, interior design of the shop and processes have been carefully designed. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman talked about this in this year's Budget. In Korea, food courts in major shopping malls have special counters for the return of food trays, and customers leave their trays and utensils on the counters after their meal. With this, they could reduce the workload of clearing tables, increase productivity and reduce dependence on manpower.
From the employees' point of view, everyone would like to lead a happy and fulfilling life. But society cannot be customised to suit every individual. We have to accept reality, learn to love the job that we are doing, and do it to the best of our ability. If employees think of ways to improve the workflow, not only will they benefit from it, their companies will also benefit. What employers need to do is to ignite employees' passion for their jobs, strengthen their sense of identity towards work, provide adequate training, and create an innovative culture among employees. Personally, I only discovered recently that innovation can actually be taught. In fact, innovation and creativity often come from within the company. Given the right inspiration, employees often can zoom in on the problem and find new ways to improve efficiency.
The illegal employment of foreign workers highlights the severe shortage of manpower, as well as other problems, for example, the local workforce structure, employee training programmes, and ways to improve workflow. To turn the situation around requires the collective effort of the entire society. For example, food court operators must provide relevant facilities and Singaporeans must slowly adjust to the self-service model, and return plates and dishes to collection points after using them.
Manpower shortage is a long-term problem. If we do not solve it, the problem will become worse. Punishing employers and employment agencies is the right thing to do, but it is critical to find a solution to the problem. With regard to tackling the foreign worker issue, I believe that companies, employees and, in fact, the entire society, has reached a critical juncture for change. So, as long as the tripartite partners work closely together, we can definitely find a solution. In conclusion, I support amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
Page: 743
Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN MANPOWER (AMENDMENT) BILL
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are introducing an amendment to our Employment of Foreign Manpower Act which aims to further strengthen our legal framework to dissuade abusers and award stringent punishment to offenders.
As we aim to position Singapore as a global city for global talent and skilled labour to come here to grow our economy, we need to ensure that our laws and regulations also incorporate the safety and welfare of this group. As such, this Bill is timely as it will help assuage the grievances of several innocent foreign workers who have come to Singapore to make a fair and decent living.
At the same time though, we must ensure that such laws and regulations protecting foreign manpower do not impede adversely on operations and the bottom-lines of our businesses. I am aware that many businesses, particularly the SMEs, are facing a difficult time coping with the rising costs of doing business in Singapore. These include costs of manpower as well, especially since the Government has taken steps to reduce the dependence on foreign workers. While this forces companies to look deeper into productivity – and that is a good thing – we also need to be more mindful that we should not burden our SMEs with too high costs. And this is the fine balance we must try to attain.
Therefore, I generally support the motion, Sir. However, I want to highlight some grey areas which remain open and pose significant challenges in terms of practicality. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the following:
Today, we have a number of foreign workers who are jobless and victims of deceit. These victims often knock at our doors seeking resolution and justice against offenders. Some of these examples include:
(a) Victim is promised an engineer job back home by his agent and paid agency fee accordingly while being given manual work in Singapore;
Page: 744
(b) Victim is hired by agent as a cook but is instead being employed in a construction site where his ability and aptitude is completely out of place and, eventually, leading to his termination;
(c) Victim is being assured of two years' contract, the agency fee has been paid up but employer runs into trouble and asks employee to return home earlier;
(d) Victim gets injured while at work but employer denies compensation and cost of medical treatment; and
(e) Victims are staying in Singapore to be witnesses in cases which are in progress for months and years while they are being unemployed, with their active work permits already revoked.
Sir, these are the cases where workers are suffering from agony for a second time while waiting for the judgement, or they already have suffered at the hands of the errant employer or the agent. These workers without working rights are a liability to the country and also a potential source of social problems. The issue here is created by the inordinate time taken for the dispute resolution processes to be completed and the lack of a right to make a living for the foreign worker.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry establishes express special benches to hear such cases in a short period of time and deliver enforceable and binding judgements. The workers can then leave the country upon resolution, thus easing the burden and problems for all. Further, the Ministry should consider short- term work permits to allow them to work in the interim period while awaiting judgement so that they are not a liability to the state in any form.
The amendments seem to come down rather heavily on faking credentials. While the spirit is welcome, there are grey areas which are particularly making low-wage and less educated workers vulnerable. A lack of understanding of legal implications and English language on the part of the workers may allow the agents to exploit the situation and have employees sign on blank documents. Widespread education of penalties on employees for falsification of data should be done both in Singapore and in foreign countries of interest.
The proposed new section 22B makes it an offence to \"obtain a work pass for a foreign employee for a trade or business that does not exist, that is not in operation … and fails to employ the foreign employee\". In cases of companies whose object is to supply workers to other companies, this is a reality leaving workers in Singapore without jobs and income. The law is clear in its intent. But there should be further detailing to ensure that contracting companies or agent companies are having the foreign workers on regular payroll and not keeping the workers as an available pool for subcontractors. This can be done by having electronic time sheets using biometric and itemised salary slips and paying their salaries direct into their bank accounts to avoid disputes on outstanding wages, and so on. Wage disputes are often a big proportion of contentious issues for foreign workers.
Page: 745
One of the root causes for disputes is false representation and false promises made by agents about the job scope and benefits while the employees are still in their home countries. Besides, the dispute often stems from the huge amount of monies paid as agent's fee in the home country, in addition to any monies being paid later after arriving in Singapore. Most of these agreements are verbal and cash transactions which cannot be verified. The goal should be to root out possibilities of misrepresentations by middlemen. Although the rules and regulations are in place, the Ministry should have tighter guidelines and monitoring of agents who may act in collusion with several other people within and outside Singapore to give false hopes and promises to innocent and gullible workers. The number of agents and their methods of working need monitoring and control to eliminate any possibility of abuse of the law. We should perhaps regulate this profession in order to monitor standards and quality as well as ensure that the integrity of the profession is not compromised.
Sir, while dealing with foreign manpower problems, it will be a good idea to explore working with the governments of those countries, the main ones in particular, especially through their Embassies in Singapore. They can help in endorsing foreign credentials and spreading the rules and tight regulations including penalties for offenders in home countries. Exploring possibilities of working with authorised employment bureaus in foreign countries may possibly limit pranks by middlemen.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill aims to strengthen the law and ensure justice prevails besides upholding Singapore's reputation for sound employment practices. Practical and simple dispute resolution practices with a strong will may be the next step the Ministry would want to focus. I support this Bill, Sir.
Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, allow me to discuss the amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Bill from two different perspectives: the perspective of the foreign workers themselves and the perspective of the employers. I have four issues to raise on each side.
Let me start with the foreign worker perspective. The first issue of kickbacks and churn. In order to get the foreign worker perspective, I went to visit several foreign workers last Sunday at one of the bigger dormitories in Singapore. These dormitories house about a thousand men from Bangladesh, India and China. All of them share similar living and working conditions, 10 bunk beds to a room, no mattresses, but their financial circumstances were very different, depending on what country they come from and what type of employment agencies they used. Some of the younger workers I spoke to, have to pay as much as $7,000-$8,000 in their first year. They get sent back and then they hope to come back in their second year, but they have to pay another $4,500 in fees. Thus, I hope that these tougher penalties will stop such kickbacks and exploitation and, hopefully, lead to lower costs for these foreign workers. This should lead to better and fairer treatment for them.
Page: 746
The second issue is a longer employment term. Will MOM also consider granting a longer employment term beyond one year especially if the worker has done a satisfactory job? Currently, many get sent back after a year and they do not even break even.
Thirdly, heavier penalties on workers. Incidents of forgery of certificates or falsification of documents will mean workers are penalised with up to 24 months in jail or 12 months for employers. Can we justify workers having such heavier penalties for the same crime?
Lastly, cutting back on welfare. Would MOM ensure that higher levies imposed next year will not lead to employers cutting down on providing basic welfare for their employees to save costs? Whilst these workers build beautiful skyscrapers for us, they do return each night to fairly spartan living conditions. Any worsening of these conditions could spark more social issues.
I now go on to the employer perspective. In order to get the employer perspective, I spoke to business associations, employers and even some insurance companies that provide coverage for these workers.
Firstly, finding the perpetrators of kickbacks. Because of these kickbacks, some companies have been able to hire foreign workers through S and Employment Passes at effectively lower costs than they should be. This in itself is a deterrent for productivity gains. As the Acting Minister himself said, most of these kickbacks are received in cash. Hence, it is very difficult to prove that such errant employers are receiving kickbacks. Hence, any increment in penalty may not have a significant deterrent unless such enforcement measures mentioned in clause 12 can be effective in apprehending such employers. So, the question is: will these amendments be effective in finding the perpetrators?
Secondly, more clarity on stiffer penalties. The Acting Minister did bring up the myriad of increment in penalties. These penalties have been increased to a new maximum of $20,000-$30,000 in cash, caning and imprisonment. The question here is one of clarity for determining the penalty and the extent of the civil servants' empowerment and the determination of whether it is a financial penalty, caning or imprisonment. Hence, I think it would be good to have a clearer or, perhaps, a simpler structure on these penalties, instead of the current way of meting out a combination.
Thirdly, raising productivity of foreign workers. As we embark on productivity gains for local workers, will MOM also consider allowing foreign workers to improve their productivity by allowing them to multi-task, that is, whilst their work passes may specify a single job description, can they be allowed to advance on, take on more, or can their existing insurance policies be extended for more coverage?
Page: 747
Also, we hope that the changes in DRC does not mean that employers have to let go of their more experienced and productive workers. With tighter ratios, it will also be more difficult for employers to plan their employee training, hence impeding productivity gains.
Lastly, the timing of these tightening measures. Higher levies, heavier penalties and tighter ratios mean higher costs for employers. In fact, one can argue that what caused many Singaporean employers to break the law initially was the sharp rise in labour costs caused by the tightening measures that started in July 2010. Now with margins being squeezed further by global economic headwinds, some local employers have to choose between closing down their businesses or resorting to even cheaper labour. If more SMEs close down, the risk is that lower wage Singaporeans who are hired in this sector will suffer. Hence, I would suggest that there may be a time to review this approach of restructuring our economy and I question the timing of such measures now. This tightening is a self-imposed supply side constraint that can result in slow growth and high inflation.
Finally, I will summarise the objectives of these amendments. The first objective of preventing exploitation of foreign workers from unscrupulous employers is to be applauded and fully supported. The other objective of ensuring that Singaporeans are not denied jobs when employers circumvent these rules to hire cheaper foreign labour needs to be questioned further. I would argue that if we are indeed successful in our efforts to improve the skills, productivity and wages of our lower income Singaporeans, then they would not want to take up these jobs left behind by low-wage foreign workers.
I would argue that most Singaporeans aspire towards better paid jobs through skills upgrading. Hence, rather than focusing on squeezing employers to reduce their dependence on foreign labour for lower skilled jobs, why not channel our resources and efforts on improving the skills of our lower wage Singaporeans instead? This will enhance their employability and ultimately raise their standard of living. This is what inclusive growth is all about.
Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendments are needed to bolster the integrity of the framework governing the employment of foreign manpower, in particular, the unskilled and low-skilled foreign workers on Work Permit Passes.
The fact that the amendments are needed reflects poorly on the various parties involved in the employment or perhaps one should call the exploitation process of transient migrant workers in Singapore. It also reflects on us, in some respects, as a callous society in which some seek to profiteer through unscrupulous means given our persistently high demand for such workers. As a society, we should not tolerate such conduct.
Page: 748
It is sad that these foreign workers are seen in blatantly instrumental terms. Most, if not all, of these workers see employment in Singapore as a means towards a better life. As many Members have observed, many of these workers incur huge debts in order to have the opportunity to work in Singapore. It does not help that these unscrupulous employers and employment agents would treat these people like chattels and exploit the Work Permit Pass regime for financial gains.
Sir, the Bill must send an unequivocal message that as a country that is heavily dependent on foreign manpower, the exploitation of foreign workers will not be tolerated. As such, I welcome provisions in the proposed amendments that seek to increase the penalties for the various offences, both administrative and criminal ones. This can help ensure that the penalties are commensurate with the potential profits to be made. Our employment laws must have that deterrent effect.
Given the increasing sophistication of syndicate operations, our laws must be strengthened to deal with them. I support the inclusion of rebuttable presumption clauses, such as the proposed section 22A, as well as the expansion of investigatory powers such as those found in the proposed section 16.
Similarly, it is only proper that the proposed amendments seek to provide the relevant authorities with the power to impose a confiscation order to ensure the adequate disgorgement of illegal profits gained from such operations.
Sir, like the Immigration (Amendment) Bill which this House deliberated upon last month, this Bill will strengthen our border security. But, more importantly, it should enhance the protection for the several hundred thousand of transient migrant workers already in Singapore, and the many more who will seek employment here. That is the least we can do for these workers who often risk life and limb because of the very innate human aspiration to want a better life for themselves and their families back home.
Sir, many of these transient workers do the \"3D\" jobs – the dirty, degrading and dangerous jobs – that Singaporeans shun. Their labour is essential to the completion and upkeep of many of our public and private infrastructure projects, and their efforts help enhance our living environment as well. But we often take them for granted.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that the Manpower Ministry will continue to ensure that the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act is regularly reviewed so that our legal regime is up to the challenge of providing adequate protection to the foreign workers. These amendments that this House is considering today are long overdue. I sincerely hope it is not because the primary beneficiaries are non-citizens of Singapore.
Page: 749
Sir, this round of proposed amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act is specifically targeted at empowering the Ministry of Manpower to step up enforcement against errant employers more expeditiously and effectively. Sir, I am pleased that the Minister has given his assurance and commitment that a review will be done on key employer responsibilities vis-a-vis the rights of transient foreign workers. That is the logical and humane step to take, and I believe a greater focus on and attention to the rights of the workers is long overdue.
Our approach in the management of foreign workers has focused very much on public education. But there is a limit to what public education can do with regard to our treatment of transient foreign workers. While public education efforts should continue, enhancing the rights of these workers will be crucial in protecting them. We should not fear expanding the very basic suite of rights for these workers and enlarging the narrow scope of employers' responsibilities for these workers.
To be sure, there have been improvements in the regulatory regime on the employment conditions of foreign workers and a greater awareness of the basic rights of these foreign workers. Progress has been made over the last few years but we still have a long way to go. We should not relent in our efforts.
Given the significant number of foreign workers in Singapore, the ill-treatment of foreign workers can also undermine bilateral relations between the foreign workers' home governments and Singapore as well as Singapore's international image and branding. But, more importantly, beyond that, we have to do the right thing ultimately, for as all human beings, regardless of their station in life, are entitled to dignity and respect, particularly when they seek dignity through work.
Our focus on the regulatory framework must not result in our ignoring the equally important role of adequately protecting the rights of the foreign workers. Sir, on that note, I welcome the Bill.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It really goes without saying that foreign workers have contributed significantly to Singapore's economic growth. However, over-reliance on cheap foreign labour has had negative effects, not least of which is the disincentive to increase productivity and wages.
The Government has implemented measures to ensure that Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. This includes compelling employers to face the true costs of employing foreign labour. It is therefore important to ensure that the playing field is kept level and these efforts are not undermined by employers who resort to illegal means of procuring and employing foreign labour.
Page: 750
This Bill, which tackles these issues amongst others, is therefore well intentioned. That said, I would like to seek clarification on three issues from the Acting Minister. First, the proposed new sections 7(4C) and (4D) of the Bill allow the Controller in some instances to debar a person from applying for or being issued with a work pass. I understand the need for this amendment – it deals with previous offenders circumventing their debarred status by enlisting the help of others to employ foreign workers. However, the net may be cast too wide.
There are two categories of persons who are debarred. The first is those who act in concert with, or at the direction of, the debarred person in connection with the employment of any foreign worker. This clearly makes sense and is directly relevant to the problem.
The second is more problematic – it covers associates of the debarred person who are engaged in substantially the same trade or business as the debarred person. There is a broad range of people who are defined as \"associates\", and may catch people with little connection to the debarred person. To give an example, a person whose partner in a partnership is a relative of a debarred person and who is engaged in a similar trade as the debarred person may find himself unable to employ foreign workers because he is deemed an \"associate\" of the debarred person.
The answer I suspect will be that it is necessary for the Controller to have a wide discretion to do his job, and he will know how to properly exercise it. But that should not be the starting point. Surely, there must first be some evidence that the associate is acting with, or at the direction of, the debarred person. If so, that will be caught by the first category and there is no need for the second. Not being able to employ foreign workers may well break a business, and we should not draft our laws in the name of expedience to give such wide discretion as to make things less certain for employers.
There is, of course, the option of appealing to the Minister under section 7(5). But this process may prove too long, onerous or costly, particularly for SMEs. And who is going to do the job while the appeal is pending?
Could the Acting Minister therefore clarify how the subsection relating to \"Associates\" will be applied? In particular, under what circumstances will an \"associate\" be debarred in the absence of any evidence that he is working in concert with, or at the direction of, the debarred person in relation to the employment of foreign persons?
Page: 751
My second query relates to the protection of vulnerable foreign workers. The proposed amended section 5(7) imposes a longer maximum term of imprisonment of two years on foreign workers who work without a valid work pass. In contrast, employers who employ foreign workers without a valid work pass are only subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months. This limit of 12 months applies even on a second or subsequent conviction. This disparity in sentencing appears anomalous. First, there are cases where illegal foreign workers are victims of human trafficking, and have been lured to work in Singapore under false pretences. In such cases, surely the employer is more culpable if he hires him. Second, even where trafficking is not involved, greater culpability lies with the employer where he has deliberately hired illegal workers to cut business costs and compete unfairly. In fact, it is the demand for illegal employees from these errant employers that fuels the supply. Could the Acting Minister therefore clarify the reasons for the difference in punishments?
Related to this issue is the repealing of section 15 of the Act, and replacing the burden of proving the truth of the contents of a written application for a Work Pass with the presumption that the foreign worker had knowledge of the information provided in the application. This presumption has the effect of making it easier to convict foreign workers. However, the reality of the situation is that foreign workers are in a position to be exploited by unscrupulous employers. If an employer chooses to falsify the contents of his application to aid his application, the foreign worker in question is unlikely to protest.
The point to be made is really this: the foreign employee or worker is in a vulnerable position relative to the employer. He is likely to be less informed about his obligations. He is also unlikely to question his employer's actions because of the financial pressure he is under. The amendments to sections 5(7) and 15 are not reflective of the power imbalance between foreign employees and their employers. Specifically, the fear of criminal sanction may prevent illegally employed workers from coming forward or seeking help, even in extreme circumstances. Employers may use the threat of exposure against foreign workers to keep them under control. The increase in the maximum imprisonment sentence for foreign employees under section 5(7) may aggravate this problem.
Enhancing penalties against illegal foreign workers and making it easier to prosecute them is not a deterrent. That presumes they know the law, which is unrealistic. The focus should therefore be on restricting the demand for these foreign workers. We should enhance penalties against errant employers. We should also consider alternative approaches. For example, granting amnesty or repatriation for illegals who turn themselves in and testify against their employers.
My final query relates to section 25. This provision reclassifies certain offences under the act as \"prescribed infringements\". These prescribed infringements attract a financial penalty, and deal with situations such as employers inflating their foreign employee entitlement. While this scheme allows such cases to be settled quickly and easily, justice may be compromised. One reason is that the standard of proof has been lowered to a balance of probabilities unlike the criminal standard of \"beyond reasonable doubt\". Furthermore, section 25(4)(c) states that no party may be represented by an advocate or solicitor. In the case of SMEs, this may be difficult if they do not have in-house legal expertise to deal with such matters and make effective representations. Hence, this new scheme again has the effect of trading fairness for administrative efficiency. There is no reason why the employer should not be allowed legal representation if it wishes it. I hope the Acting Minister will be able to address my concerns regarding this new provision as well.
Page: 752
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Sir, this Bill is an important and timely legislation. It seeks to tighten regulations on the employment of foreign manpower to ensure employers do not exploit foreign workers. It is also to prevent companies from circumventing existing foreign worker quotas, and hiring foreigners at a cheaper rate, thus denying Singaporeans from getting employment.
This tougher legislation is also welcomed as it protects foreign workers, whom we all agree must be decently treated. We rely on foreign workers for their contributions to our workforce, in building our infrastructure and looking after our families, thus we must be fair to them. How we manage and treat our foreign workers certainly have an impact on Singapore's reputation.
There is a need to be strict and not allow companies to circumvent the rules, otherwise, the recent moves to tighten the tap on foreign workers will not be effective and will never effect the change we want to see eventually.
I am also glad to note that the new laws will accelerate the punitive processes. It is good that infringements which do not cause direct harm to foreign workers – such as those circumventing foreign worker quotas – will be categorised as administrative offences. I am hoping that with this delineation, these cases can be dealt with much faster and more efficiently.
However, those who commit offences, such as receiving kickbacks, will be classified as criminal offenders and will be brought to court appropriately. These must all act as deterrent factors to employers. Those who are faced with costs issues and problems should find ways to resolve their staffing issues, rather than utilise illegal options, which can lead to their detriment.
Sir, I would like to ask, how widespread is the current practice by companies who flout the rules to gain access to cheaper foreign labour? How many employers have been convicted in the last five years? And which industries are the most notorious or the most commonly affected?
With the new legislation, how about enforcement? Without effective enforcement, some companies may be even bolder, when they know how to circumvent the system.
Page: 753
Sir, in this Bill, we have clause 4, which states employers must act \"in accordance with the conditions of the work pass\". Clause 12, section 16b, where \"employment inspectors and authorised officers will have the general power to enter and inspect any premises or part thereof\", and clause 12, section 16c, where the range of powers has been expanded and \"employment inspectors are given power of forced entry onto premises\" as well as other responsibilities.
Can I please also request that these inspectors do not just look at employment breaches when they visit the sites because they can, at the same time, also assess if there are issues such as accommodation issues, unsanitary living conditions and other related issues and also let other personnel follow up on these matters. It is not uncommon for us on the ground to see that Government department officers working in silos and we get deviated all the time. Very often, the \"no wrong door\" policy does not work.
Sir, let us take an example. Not too long ago, my feedback on unsanitary and over-crowded, living conditions in an apartment, a single apartment, which was filled with foreign workers, took longer than expected to be handled and processed. When efforts were initialised at my urging, illegals were found, and just in that one particular site, 18 dengue breeding sites were located in that one apartment. So, there are multiple breaches and issues in just one location and I hope all these can be sorted out together at the same time.
I urge that community and ground feedback must be taken seriously and acted upon expeditiously as well. The Minister himself has mentioned how employers are getting very creative at circumvention. And, thus, all these show that we must certainly work very closely with the community.
Now, Sir, employers will have to pay for the upkeep of their foreign workers who are waiting for claims to be resolved. Those who fail to do so can be fined up to $10,000, jailed a maximum of one year, or both fined and jailed. What about deducting from foreign workers salaries for payment of acute medical care required by these workers whilst they are still being employed? I see this very often when the foreign workers come for acute medical illnesses, not requiring hospitalisation and they actually have to enquire on the costs because they state that this amount would have to be deducted from their salary for that particular month. So, I hope MOM can clarify and advise on what is accepted practice pertaining to this matter.
Finally, Sir, since the last Budget announcement was made to cut back on foreign manpower quotas in the various industries and sectors, how are we progressing in this area? Are we enroute to achieving the targets that we have set in the various industries? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Page: 754
Mr David Ong (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. The introduction of this amendment could not have come at a better time as we engage in our National Conversation to decide the kind of society we want Singapore to be. I am certain that the narrative of a big-hearted society includes the graciousness and respect accorded to our fellow men, both locals and foreigners alike. Certainly, in our Singapore Conversation, we do wish for our country to be an inclusive and gracious one; a country that cares for her citizens and others who live and work here; a country that not only optimises its local talents but also welcomes and appreciates foreign talents to supplement and complement its workforce.
The latest World Economic Forum Report ranks Singapore second, next only to Switzerland, as the most competitive economy, and first for efficiency of its goods and labour markets. As we pride ourselves for being a First World economy, we must never become Third World employers where the rights of our local and foreign workforce are compromised. Our local workers should not be marginalised nor our foreign labour be cheated, used and abused.
Sir, I fully support this Bill. We must send a strong and clear signal to unscrupulous and errant employers, employment agencies and syndicates who deliberately contravene the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to profiteer from the work pass framework. For these amendments to yield the desired results, we need strong deterrent laws coupled with rigorous enforcement and ample avenues for such cases to be surfaced.
Working in a foreign country can be challenging for anyone, including Singaporeans. Thus, it is wrong and naive to believe it is different for foreign workers. Our forefathers, who are immigrants themselves, have contributed to the development and progress of Singapore. We are where we are today because we are a migrant society. Our foreign workforce complements our local workforce in areas of inadequacies of manpower and skills set. To continue Singapore's path of growth, the contribution of foreign workers is inevitable. We need to appreciate their contribution and respect them as fellow human beings. Thus, having good recruitment and employment practices, pertaining to foreign workers, will strengthen Singapore as an attractive and credible destination for experienced and skilled foreign workforce, who can help us achieve productivity-driven growth.
In the management of foreign workers, employment agents play a key role. In recent years, especially with the spurt in the number of foreign workers in Singapore and low barriers to entry, employment agencies have proliferated to about 3,000 now. As a result of stiff competition for business, many employment agencies have resorted to cutting corners contributing to a spike in the number of complaints against errant employment agencies.
Page: 755
In 2010, the then Minister of State for Manpower, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, told this House that there were more than 1,200 complaints from employers, foreign workers and members of the public regarding employment agency malpractices. This represents an 80% increase compared to the year before. I hazard a guess that with more than one million foreign workers and 3,000 employment agencies now, the number of complaints on errant employers and employment agencies can only go up.
Hence, there is an urgent need for more legislation on employment agencies that play a key role in managing foreign workers. We need to also enhance our enforcement against errant employment agencies and employers from profiteering from foreign workers. We need to send a strong signal of our intent to be a civil society by respecting the rights of the foreigners who have left behind loved ones to make a living here.
I am happy to note that section 25 would address this anomaly. The Ministry of Manpower has done much to improve our employment practices of foreign workers such as the living conditions and transportation safety. I would beckon the Ministry to continuously strive to review and raise the standards of our recruitment practices of foreign workers.
Currently, all employment agencies are not restricted to who they can employ to perform recruitment or placement work. Recruiting workers to do work that they are not qualified or employed for will lead to shortcomings and malpractices as evident in the case of the Nightingale Nursing Home.
Sir, I have been told anecdotally that such malpractices are not confined to Nightingale Nursing Home. Rather, it is just a case that the Nursing Home was more unfortunate than many to have been caught whilst others are still lurking in the shadows. We have also heard of cases where foreign workers were paid less than the amount stipulated in the S Pass applications, paying exorbitant agency fees, kickbacks and received unfair employment terms.
We need to continually ensure all key appointment holders and staff performing recruitment or placement work are appropriately qualified so as to raise the standards and accountability of the employment agency personnel. Audits and checks should be done to ensure that such personnel attained the \"Certificate of Employment Intermediaries\" and equip themselves with the necessary knowledge of relevant legislation and regulations.
Sir, before coming to Singapore, many of these foreign workers borrow huge amount of monies to pay their recruitment agencies. As a result, most of these new Work Permit holders work almost for free in their first year as the entire year's salary goes towards paying off these debts. It is only in the second year that he gets to keep anything of his pay. Whilst I understand that the Manpower Ministry have regulations to manage and control how much employment agencies can charge foreign workers, such regulations are not widely known, much less these foreign workers. Many companies will still find ways to be creative and contravene these regulations. How may MOM be more vigilant in guarding such contravention?
Page: 756
Finally, I support the legislative amendments to strengthen our enforcement capabilities and tighten the integrity of the work pass framework. The increased penalties and imprisonment against errant employers, employment agencies as well as workers with less than genuine qualifications will not only deter breaches of the work pass system but also help to create and protect employment opportunities of our local workers. However, Sir, all these laws and penalties would amount to nothing without enforcement. I hope that the Ministry will put teeth to these amendments by devoting adequate resources so that errant cases can be expeditiously investigated and resolved.
Another channel of enforcement is to set up a framework to encourage the public and victims to blow the whistle on employers' wrongdoing and to report malpractices that could be improper, illegal or negligent behaviour. Whistleblowers are also to be protected for public interest, to encourage people to speak out if they find malpractice in any organisation or workplace.
Singapore workers are already working one of the highest numbers of hours per week. We are in a full employment situation. Many companies are experiencing real problems of a shortfall of labour, and I believe the Government and related agencies are not spared too. With the further tightening of foreign workers' employment, what would be the implication on our Singapore economy?
Yes, the influx of foreign workers was at a pace that caused some uneasiness and placing a squeeze on our infrastructure. But we must guard against drastic cutbacks and forcing companies to scale down, close or relocate altogether because they simply cannot find sufficient workers. Singaporeans too will also be displaced when this happens.
Our unemployment currently stands at the low end of 2%. This is the envy of many countries around the world. Although it is a happy situation, it poses a challenge to many companies in Singapore, from the service, manufacturing to construction sectors. Many companies are struggling to fill up job vacancies in their organisations and many more are finding it increasingly tough to employ Singaporeans, especially in meeting their employment of foreign workers' quota.
Sir, this tough, aggravated and rather desperate employment situation will only prompt more employment agencies and employers to be more creative with the law. Whilst the Bill is timely, we have to look at mitigating such contraventions by having a comprehensive workforce strategy – aligning talent needs with educational institutions, improving pipelines, tapping on our latent workforce, renewing our trained and skilled foreign labour, attracting foreign talents, upgrading our existing staff and enhance productivity.
Page: 757
Mr Speaker, Sir, creating a just and fair employment environment will no doubt send a clear and strong signal to show our social graciousness and appreciation to the contribution of our local and foreign workers. Sir, with this, I support the Bill.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Proposed amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) are broad-ranging and timely. They were finalised after public consultation which involve intensive discussions with key stakeholders in June and July this year.
I am glad that the Ministry of Manpower and its Foreign Manpower Division and Legal Division, made the effort to seek and consider the views from the employers as well as the non-Governmental organisations who put forward their recommendations and observation on behalf of the foreign worker population in Singapore. Their efforts should be lauded.
I note that this round of proposed amendments to the EFMA focused on ensuring the integrity of the work pass framework in three main ways. This is especially crucial given the unequal relationship between employers and their foreign worker employees. I am, thus, in support of the amendments that would be made in this round of review, namely, the establishment of an administrative regime to complement the prosecution of employers who flout the rules; increased deterrents against EFMA contraventions, especially with respect to the upkeep and maintenance of workers awaiting resolution of statutory claims as well as compliance with salary thresholds for both S and Employment Pass holders and, finally, enhanced administrative powers to facilitate the enforcement of EFMA contraventions.
These targeted measures addressed the areas that are in pressing need of review and reform at the moment and will go some way towards deterring some of the most serious abuses against foreign workers. This is certainly a good step forward and ought to be lauded in terms of addressing the imbalance in the employer and employee relationship, an imbalance that is still all the more stark in the context of foreign worker employment. I believe there is still much room for further work, in particular, in terms of delineating and defining the rights and responsibilities of both employers and foreign workers which would help manage expectations between these two groups.
As much as enforcement plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of all parties involved, changes are needed in relation to key employer responsibilities and the consultation process should continue so that our existing framework may be better refined in order to meet the legal and broader social objectives of protection and integration. I am heartened by the steps the Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Manpower are taking in the direction of ensuring better legal protection for the foreign worker population here in Singapore. The often invisible workers whose silent contributions to our physical infrastructure tend to go unnoticed.
Page: 758
I would like to highlight the important role the Government has to play in regulating and ensuring that foreign workers' rights are upheld primarily because of the unequal relationship which leaves foreign workers vulnerable at times. Here, I would like to highlight the issue of housing and accommodation for foreign workers which is important and urgent enough to be singled out. Under Part 2 of the First Schedule of the EFMA (Work Passes) Regulations, employers are required to ensure that their foreign workers have acceptable accommodation.
I have previously raised a number of Parliamentary Questions on the subject, highlighting concerns about the existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks which were in turn met by assurances from the Ministry that the Government will continue active enforcement as well as review the administrative requirements and penalties to ensure their adequacy.
With that in mind, I believe that even more active enforcement and what is currently in place is needed. There are still many unresolved issues in relation to accommodation. For example, the difficult living conditions that some workers are still housed in. Others live in overcrowded dormitories. May I ask the Ministry how he intends to ensure that sturdy and reliable accommodation is provided for workers by the companies?
Finally, apart from the above-mentioned changes to the existing legal structure which I support, I believe that it is time for Singapore to move beyond mere legal regulation and towards cultivating a culture of respect for our foreign worker population, be they construction workers or domestic helpers in our homes. Legal rules and regulations can only go so far. The true success of these legal reforms will depend very much on the renewing of our approach, treatment of and engagement with our foreign workers. All workers, whether Singaporean or not, deserve to be treated with dignity. All of us live on our precious island together, and it is on this basis that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Bill. This Bill contains amendments that are urgently needed to shore up the integrity of the work pass framework, and further strengthen the enforcement regimes against unscrupulous employers that exploit vulnerable foreign workers.
Page: 759
The Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) prescribes the responsibilities and obligations pertaining to the employment of foreign workers. The foreign worker population in Singapore is significant – it currently stands at 1.2 million, or one third of the total workforce. So, it is critically important to regulate the conditions of their employment.
Given our current reliance on foreign labour in many industries, we have to ensure Singapore can continue to attract the right number and quality of foreign help. This includes the protection of foreign worker's basic rights and well-being.
At the same time, we need to safeguard the interests of Singaporean workers, and to ensure that employment conditions of foreign workers do not adversely impact local job opportunities, wages and working conditions and that our citizens remain at the core of our workforce.
This amendment Bill comes as a welcome addition to on-going efforts by the Ministry to improve the plight of work permit holders, including the recent range of measures catering to foreign domestic workers, such as mandatory rest days; safety rules on the cleaning of windows and the new Settling-in Programme.
Sir, the Bill's new presumption clause on \"kickbacks\" presumes that any monies collected from foreign workers are collected as consideration for employment, and will attract a maximum fine of $30,000 and/or two years' jail. I hope this presumption clause goes a long way towards deterring the illegal practice by employers and their intermediaries, both foreign and local, of demanding exorbitant fees from foreign workers. I get consistent feedback from foreign workers, from Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar, that this practice is persistent and widespread. They are expected to pay thousands of dollars, often in cash, to secure or renew their employment in Singapore. These transactions often involve multiple parties, all part of well-organised syndicates. Not only do such practices subject poor foreign workers to long servitudes of crippling debt, but they also deceptively position Singaporeans at an unfair disadvantage to foreigners, by distorting the true level of foreign worker wages.
I also hope that the other amendments in the Bill to enhance the investigative powers vested in the enforcement officers in the conduct of their investigations; to enhance the prosecutorial powers as well as to increase the severity of penalties for infractions will all help put a stop to such pernicious practices.
Sir, the new regulations are welcome. But the tighter regulation must be coupled with effective enforcement in order to have any meaning for those who are bent on circumventing the law. My concern is whether or not the Ministry has the necessary manpower and resources in place to conduct investigations and checks. The Ministry may wish to time their implementation of these rules with their readiness to step up checks, using a special enforcement task force. I believe it is important to send a strong signal: heighten deterrence early on and leave employers in no doubt as to the Ministry's resolve to weed out errant players, in order to achieve the maximum effect of the legislative amendments.
Page: 760
Apart from stronger laws, I hope the Ministry will also consider addressing the problem of unscrupulous intermediaries, by setting up the necessary infrastructure to link job seekers directly with their potential employers. Such disintermediation also increases productivity and improves communication between legitimate parties.
Other problems commonly faced by non-domestic foreign workers include provision of acceptable accommodation, prompt salary payment and excessive working hours and overtime over sustained periods that could be detrimental to health and safety. Would the Minister please share how the proposed amendments will help address this set of common problems faced by foreign workers?
Sir, enforcement efforts can be further enhanced by foreign workers themselves, if they come forward to expose errant employers. Unfortunately, too many do not understand their rights, their avenues for redress or the procedures for reporting abuse. Many foreign workers suffer exploitation in silence, fearing the loss of their jobs; and often not without justification. For example, one Bangladeshi worker related how he had once joined a group of 25 workers to complain about their errant employer to MOM – in the end, 20 of the complainants lost their jobs as they were terminated shortly thereafter.
There is a hotline at the Ministry for callers to report on worker abuse, and the illegal employment and deployment of foreign workers. Would the Ministry share with us how effective this hotline has been and how many cases have surfaced through it? Could the Minister also let us know how many cases have surfaced as a result of whistle-blowing and if there are any schemes to assist whistle-blowers who may have lost their jobs as a result of their brave acts? If whistle-blowers can be assured by MOM that they will assist them in finding another job in Singapore, it would help remove the fear amongst these vulnerable workers of being punished when they help to bring errant employers to book. In this spirit, I applaud the amendment that requires employers to maintain the upkeep of workers who are awaiting resolution of their complaints, prior to repatriation.
Sir, the proposed Bill focuses mainly on lower level foreign workers who enter Singapore on Work Permit. I am disappointed that no measures were introduced to address concerns in regard to employers' obligations and responsibilities in hiring foreigners on EP, who compete for professional, managerial and executive jobs.
I had spoken in this House on this subject in the past, urging the Ministry of Manpower to moderate our liberal policies for EP holders. Unlike those on Work Permits who are subject to levies and dependency ratios, EP holders simply have to meet a minimum salary threshold of $3,000 per month with specified education qualifications. To ensure that companies develop a strong core of Singaporeans amongst PME jobs, I had called for employers to be obliged to show that they had attempted to employ Singaporeans first, before they consider foreign executives. I had further urged the Ministry to consider that, when employers cannot find a qualified Singaporean for the job, they are then obliged to invest in the training and development of Singaporeans to fill those jobs.
Page: 761
In response, the Minister had expressed concerns that these measures would subject employers to additional administrative hurdles, lengthen hiring process and add more friction, costs and rigidities to their procedures. Whilst I agree that additional measures may impact labour market flexibility, I am not convinced that employers, relying only on guidelines by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, have delivered the desired outcomes. Our EP framework should ensure that as we welcome foreign professionals who bring specialised skills and expertise, Singaporeans are first considered for the jobs they can perform and they want to perform. This is currently missing.
Sir, I find it puzzling and ironic to read in the tripartite guidelines for hiring and developing a Singaporean Core that employers are advised, and I quote, \"to ensure that jobs advertised must be open to Singaporeans\". In most other countries, it will be taken for granted that locals should be considered first for jobs, and employers are expected to demonstrate that they had made a great effort to do so, before considering foreigners. Employers are also mandated to pay foreign workers the prevailing market salaries for locals so that the same occupational group, are not compressed by the presence of foreigners in the workplace who are willing to take less for their work. Many other countries even require employers to comply with dependency ratios for nationally strategic sectors, such as banking in Dubai.
So, for a start, I urge the Minister to consider including a broad statement of principles in the EP framework designed to send a strong signal to employers regarding their obligations and responsibilities in developing a strong Singapore Core in the workforce. This is to ensure that the access to foreign executives does not result in Singaporeans being adversely impacted in job opportunities. With this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I reiterate, once more, my support for the Bill.
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the Chairman of the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), NTUC Migrant Worker's Centre (MWC). As Chairman of the MWC, I speak for the organisation and the thousands of migrant workers out there when I say that we welcome these amendments.
The MWC was set up in 2009 as a bipartite initiative by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF). MWC aims to champion fair employment practices and the well-being of the migrant workers in Singapore for sustainable growth by doing the following: promoting equitable employment practices; raising awareness of the migrant workers' employment rights; providing interim humanitarian assistance and aid for distressed migrant workers working in Singapore. And, more importantly, to promote social integration among the migrant workers and their co-workers who are the locals.
Page: 762
Our goal as a labour organisation is to show compassion to those who have left their homelands in search of a better life here in Singapore and in doing so, contribute to our economy as well as national development. MWC, through its humanitarian efforts, helps maintain Singapore's position as a desirable destination for migrant workers around the region and enable us as a nation dependent on such labour to thrive.
Apart from advocating migrant rights, we have also put our mission into action. For example, we set up a Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund recently to fund the humanitarian activities so as to sustain such an effort. Not only do we give migrant workers an avenue to seek recourse against errant practices, our interventions also help the worker to stay the course and allow authorities time to investigate and prosecute in cases of wrongdoing. Since 2009, we have provided emergency housing and subsistence to more than 4,000 migrant workers who found themselves mistreated, abandoned or left without work by errant employers.
Sir, our migrant workers have left home and travelled far to work here to support their families. It is not an easy life and we, as Singaporeans, must show compassion. For those among us who game the system and abuse labour rights, MWC has long advocated for MOM to step up enforcement of all the recently tightened manpower legislation. And we are happy that the protection for migrant workers' rights has improved considerably in these renewed laws.
The amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will send a strong message that offences that were traditionally considered administrative or technical breaches are now, in fact, criminal ones. These breaches bring real harm to people and wreck lives in the process and should rightfully attract criminal sanctions. MWC is also pleased that MOM has heeded its repeated call to step up enforcement activities to make headway in weeding out malpractices by the errant employers, intermediaries and workers themselves.
The new regulations will better clarify the true social and economic cost of hiring migrant workers. Singaporeans would then benefit as they will not have to compete unfairly with \"cut-price\" migrant workers.
Moving forward, more importantly, we need to address the issue at root. Quality is the key. I would repeat my call to the Ministry of Manpower to consider the WSQ skills certification, or a better way of skills qualification, as a pre-condition for the renewal and application of Work Permits. We need a benchmark. The Ministry of Manpower can also consider tying the application of Work Permit to the employment of local older workers. We believe that a qualified and better skilled worker is not only more productive, he is also easier to train and integrate, and is less likely to come saddled with huge agency fees or false educational qualifications. And these better ones should be allowed to stay longer and work here for more years. That will also further cut down costs.
Page: 763
As the authorities take new steps to address errant employers and intermediaries, more should also be done to deter and prevent workers who do not meet the job requirements to enter and work in Singapore. MOM should review these requirements regularly to ensure that we are constantly moving towards a workforce augmented by migrant \"knowledge-workers\", \"skilled-workers\" and not just low-skilled or illegal workers. These not only compete unfairly against Singaporeans because of their low cost, they are also the most prone to abuse.
I urge MOM to seriously consider basic qualifying criteria for all migrant Work Pass (WP) holders. WSQ can be one framework and should be made a qualifying standard wherever applicable, given that it is already the basic qualification proxy for Singaporeans, in addition to being a nationally recognised, objective standard administered by the Government. So, why not?
Sir, another area that should be reviewed is that of employers' responsibility of foreign workers' medical expenses. Under the proposed amendment to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers are not allowed to recover cost such as insurance or foreign worker levy from the foreign workers, but it is more critical to ensure that all employers will provide sufficient medical coverage for their workers. MOM should come out with clearer and more specific guidelines on this.
At the end of the day, we bring in the foreign manpower to supplement our manpower shortage. It is important that we create a level playing field by ensuring that employers do pay the right cost to employ a migrant worker. In addition to the regularly strengthening of the legislative protection, I would also like to urge MOM to consider providing more support to labour organisation like MWC. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill which will help to better manage the growth of foreign manpower and to introduce a suite of deterrent measures against errant employers who flout the work pass framework. As we undertake to better manage the inflow of foreign manpower, it is also imperative that we have more robust counter measures to mitigate against the unwanted social impacts and ensure our foreign manpower is fairly treated.
Page: 764
I am heartened to note that some of the penalties will be further enhanced in this amendment Bill. The penalty for the illegal hire of a foreign worker without a valid work pass will see an increase of fine amounts from $5,000 to $20,000 and jail term increased from one to two years. Notwithstanding, there are improvements which can be made in the work pass system to address the root cause of the problem. I am referring here to the greed of employers who embark on hiring illegal foreign manpower merely to save on costs.
I would like to highlight the reported case where two years ago, an employer left his foreign employee by the road when the latter suffered a fall and injured his head and legs. All these were sustained in the course of work whilst at a condominium lobby fixing the ceiling lights. It is tragic to note that he was not sent to the hospital for treatment as the employer was fearful of being apprehended for hiring illegally. The errant employer has since been sentenced to a fine of $12,000 and nine months' jail. The punishment is pale in comparison with the loss of a human life. This begs the question of whether the more punitive measures will be fully effective and adequate in eradicating these heartless employers.
More often than not, foreign workers usually enter into an inequitable arrangement with the employers due to the huge debts they owe to foreign labour agencies merely to get a job and work in Singapore. With the further tightening of foreign labour quotas for various sectors, I am concerned about whether our enforcement efforts will be stepped up to wield the strong arm of the law against unscrupulous employers and labour agents. I would like to submit that we should close the loop tighter, in terms of developing a more comprehensive solution, in addressing the problem of illegal foreign workers, their upkeep and any potential issues as highlighted above.
At present, there is no restriction on the number of foreign labour supply agencies as long as they are registered with the Ministry of Manpower. However, this does not mean that these agencies will not go into illegal hiring or, worse still, turn out to be shell companies which just pocket the agency fees of the foreign workers. I would like to urge the Ministry of Manpower to take a stricter view and set a quota on the number of labour supply agencies for each economic sector and that there should be regular audits carried out of their employment practices. The owners of the employment agencies should also meet essential requirements such as a sound background, appropriate qualifications/training and experience. The quality of hiring and adherence to work pass framework can then be better ensured. There should also be better supervision of employees of the labour suppliers and agencies to ensure that both owners and their employees adopt proper hiring strategies in compliance with current laws, regulations, tripartite guidelines and practices.
While punitive measures against errant employers will be introduced, the onus of proof is challenging. A certain portion of foreign workers only receive their salary in cash. There may not be any salary or pay slips issued to the workers. At the same time, employers may threaten to terminate these workers if they would report to the authorities about underpayment or working overtime without payment. As mentioned earlier, these foreign workers may still be owing thousands of dollars to employment agencies even before coming over to Singapore. They would not want to risk their jobs. We do not know how many of such cases there are. Salary arrears or tracking can be difficult for foreign workers who are sometimes illiterate. These are complex issues that will be faced in the enforcement of the law. Employers can also claim that the salary deductions are legitimate and within the boundaries of the law.
Page: 765
Another area of concern is about the re-categorisation of the penalty regime into criminal offences and regulatory breaches in the amendment Bill. While I understand that the rationale is to achieve greater expediency with the outstanding cases, we ought to be careful with the signalling effect to the employers. Does it mean that those categories of offences under regulatory breaches which do not cause direct harm to foreign workers be seen to be settled with ease and treated with less rigour? For example, the inflation of foreign worker quota is listed as an administrative breach. This could have serious implications as any additional foreign worker hired is depriving our citizens a job opportunity. Many Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) have shared with me about their worries of their jobs being displaced in a restructuring exercise when it turns out that employers have decided to replace them with S Pass holders or EP holders. What is even more difficult to ascertain than a foreign worker quota is the actual job scope that the foreign workers are tasked with. For example, an S Pass holder may be delegated jobs that are executive in nature while still holding on technical responsibilities. Here, we would have lost two jobs which could have been filled with Singaporeans.
Fair wages for foreign workers is another important issue that is not addressed in the Amendment Bill. If employers are the critical link in this process, we ought to carry out a deeper cost-benefit analysis in hiring foreign workers. Let us face this – the levies, training, food and accommodation paid to upkeep a foreign worker in Singapore has a direct correlation to the final wages that they are paid. This, in turn, provides a direct comparison point in hiring a Singaporean. If the wages paid to foreign workers are too low, they are tempted to flout the law in taking on more jobs illegally. They may not be able to have enough to survive in Singapore. We should not earn the unwanted reputation of being a sweatshop bent on exploiting foreign workers. Would it be possible for the Ministry of Manpower to collate and publish data on how foreign workers are paid in Singapore in different economic sectors?
Fair sustainable wages for foreign workers are also in reality determined by the employers' ability to pay them. In the application process for foreign workers' permits, there should be closer scrutiny by the Ministry of Manpower on the financial situation of these applicant companies. If a company's revenue streams are vulnerable and at the same time it has incurred huge debts, the foreign workers that it is seeking would definitely be left in the lurch when the company collapses or when the business fails. Hence, there should be tighter financial screening as well as criteria established. Maybe we can even have a situation where the approval of Work Permits is not just based on the sectoral quota but also the market capitalisation of the company.
Page: 766
On regulating the inflow of EP holders, I share and second the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har's earlier point on the Singaporean first approach for PME jobs. Ms Foo is herself an employer in the global banking giant. I am heartened she shares the same views as me − a trade unionist.
To conclude, I welcome the measures introduced in the amendment Bill. Nonetheless, I would also like to urge more efforts be put into resolving fundamental issues such as effective enforcement against errant employers, control of foreign labour agents and fair sustainable wages for foreign workers.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me at the last minute to raise some questions. Personally, I support this Bill. However, I would like to find out from the Minister how many cases of forgery have actually been uncovered each year by MOM regarding S Pass and EP applicants.
Secondly, what makes me puzzled is why can there not be a system whereby people can make a check first, before the foreign workers are allowed in? I notice that under the current system, the foreign workers are allowed in first, and then we verify, and we set up enforcement teams to \"catch\" them. So, my question is: can there not be a check first, even before they are allowed into Singapore?
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this motion as the Bill serves to further enhance the Ministry's investigatory powers and introduces a more calibrated approach towards addressing the various offences committed by employers of foreign workers. While changes to the Bill are intended to have a systemic impact on foreign worker issues, I support the call by my fellow Parliamentarians to urge MOM to give a sharper focus on some details of the intended changes in order to prevent any possible loopholes that may be exploited by employers to the point that the impact or outcome desired by introducing these amendments are negated. As the saying goes, \"The devil is in the detail\".
Sir, we have to be mindful that when measures or laws are introduced in order to tighten certain processes in the hiring of foreign workers, some employers and syndicates get creative and try to find ways to get around the laws. The law has to try and pre-empt these creative tactics and stay several steps ahead of these perpetrators. Where it is not possible to do so, then tough measures will have to be taken in order to ensure that there is some sense of equity and that law abiding companies and the Singapore workers at large are not placed at a disadvantage.
Page: 767
Sir, I support the move that requires employers to pay S Pass holders fixed monthly salaries that are not below the threshold set. There have been cases where employers put up applications for S Pass holders with salaries that appeared to meet the basic requirements but, in reality, these are not the true wages paid by the employer. A union leader shared with me a story where his employer declared that they were paying an S Pass holder more than $2,000 but in effect the worker was getting a much lesser income. The shift allowance was added to top up the difference to meet the S Pass qualifying income criteria despite this worker not working under shift. This is an abuse of the system as it puts other law-abiding companies at a disadvantage and it leads to an imbalance of opportunities for Singaporean job seekers as it deprives them of job opportunities in the company. We do not want to create a situation where the loophole makes it more compelling for an employer to engage an S Pass holder over a Singaporean with the same skill sets and qualifications just because it is cheaper for them to do so.
Sir, I would thus like to call for a system where employers have to clearly state the breakdown of the salary of their S Pass workers so that there is clarity on their basic wage and how much is being paid for other allowances. Currently, the law requires S Pass holders to earn at least $2,000 without specifying whether the salary is indeed $2,000 or the gross payment made to the S Pass holders is $2,000. There must be greater clarity on what the salary requirement entails at the point of application for S Pass holders.
On another aspect of salaries, Sir, I would like the Ministry to consider making it mandatory for all employers to pay the salaries of work permit holders via GIRO. This would help to protect these workers if there are salary disputes as there will be official paper trail that keeps track of what has been paid and when. Making this mandatory will help facilitate investigations for such disputes and will establish the facts of the case more clearly and conclusively.
Moreover, a mandatory salary payment through GIRO would mean that employers have to help our foreign workers open a bank account. Many cannot open a bank account because their employers are holding on to their passports. We, the union, have received feedback from our foreign worker members that without a bank account, they do not have a safe place to keep their hard-earned income and risk it being stolen at their dormitories. Making salary payments through GIRO mandatory will help alleviate some of these problems faced by foreign workers.
Sir, I would also like to highlight the issue of accommodation for foreign workers where there have been many contraventions. In 2001, a total of 1,069 employers had either been given warning letters, or offered composition fines, or convicted for their failure to provide proper accommodation for their foreign workers. Between January and June this year, there have been 531 similar cases of unacceptable accommodation which takes the form of makeshift shelters, bin centres and illegally converted factory premises.
Page: 768
Sir, there are 702,000 Work Permit holders of the 1.15 million foreign workers, but only 300 dormitories for foreign workers. The remaining Work Permit holders are probably housed in workers' quarters, private housing estates or through the HDB flats, some of which may be illegally sublet. Recently, a foreign worker cleaning supervisor shared with me that in the place where he is putting up, there are nine workers sharing a 3-room HDB flat and the number can go up to 15 people.
Sir, some of these practices may not be legal but the employer may decide to risk it due to the difficulty in securing accommodation for the workers. The onus is on the employer to provide accommodation for their workers and ideally, of course, we would want all of them to follow the laws, but in order for this to happen, there must be more land space provided by the Government for more dormitories to be built. Many employers face problems securing apartments for their workers as it is difficult for them to rent private apartments, and even those who manage to do so may face complaints from neighbours. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Sir, I thank all the Members who have given their views and voiced support for the Bill. Members have recognised the rationale of these amendments and understand that ultimately, it is the interests of Singaporeans that are at stake here. Honest business owners will be disadvantaged and Singaporean workers will ultimately lose out if we do not take these steps.
Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Dhinakaran, Mr David Ong, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Teo Siong Seng and Ms Tan Su Shan commented on our broader manpower policies, particularly in relation to the tightening of our foreign manpower framework. This is important. We have debated it on various occasions. And some Members have also called for more to be done to encourage and equip locals to take up jobs in industries with many foreigners. So, these are important. We have discussed it on various occasions, as well as with the public. We will examine them closely and deal with them. However, as they are not the subject of this Bill, I will focus on addressing the specific comments and concerns which are directly related to the amendments and enforcement of the EFMA contraventions.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef had queried how widespread these malpractices are. It is difficult to ascertain the exact extent of some of these problems − because employers and sometimes workers themselves reap immediate benefits in not complaining. However, we anticipate that the imposition of foreign labour tightening measures will tempt errant employers to try harder to circumvent the work pass framework. We are fully aware that this can happen, and it will happen. Thus, in proposing these amendments to the EFMA, the Ministry of Manpower has moved to pre-emptively deter more widespread contraventions. We will constantly track how the situation evolves and if need be, to make future adjustments.
Page: 769
Now, allow me to summarise the concerns and questions that have been raised about the details of the proposed amendments to the EFMA. On one hand, some Members feel that more needs to be done to protect vulnerable workers, and raised concerns that the proposed changes might be construed as going soft on errant employers, or that certain proposals might penalise too harshly workers who are coerced, or have committed offences inadvertently. Conversely, other Members have also raised concerns that these measures will add to the challenges that businesses, notably SMEs, are already facing in operating in a tight labour market with rising business costs.
Finally, Members called for concerted efforts to be made in stepping up enforcement in order to give real teeth to these legislative amendments. As you can see, there are, as with all cases, divergent tensions. There are different interests and they are all valid in their own ways. We have to figure out how best to navigate that space.
Let me first address the broad group of comments that more should be done to protect vulnerable workers and related questions on our treatment of culpable but inherently vulnerable workers. Let me first make some general comments. Do abuses exist? They do. In fact, we could swap stories. They are all fairly dramatic in their own right. What is consistent is that they are all unacceptable. The reality is not all the stories are always wholly accurate. Even in our own internal investigations, certain issues arise and we will try to probe and sometimes, we will unravel details which fundamentally change the context and the feel of those issues.
The fact is abuses do occur but stories amplified are not necessarily wholly accurate. Nor do they make the problem chronic, meaning that most Singaporean employers are fair and reasonable. Just because there are abuses and dramatised in many ways and sometimes accurately as well, do not make our Singaporean employers unreasonable, unfair and abusive.
In our efforts to look after our foreign workers – which is the correct thing to do – we should not at the same time paint an inaccurate picture of our businesses in Singapore as well. We will deal with all cases put before us. Over time, we have also realised that not for a lack of desire but if the laws and regulations do not permit certain actions to be taken, we would have to figure out how to get round that. So, hence, the adjustments and amendments to this Bill to make sure that some of these gaps that might have existed in the past are breached so that we can continue to make sure that the appropriate actions can be taken.
Page: 770
Mr Patrick Tay was wary that we might send the wrong signal to errant employers by choosing to enforce certain infringements under the new administrative penalty regime, notably the use of phantom local workers to inflate the quota for foreign workers. As I said earlier, we are by no means softening our approach. Since most employers who use local phantom workers are seeking to bypass the work pass framework for economic gain, we should hit them quickly and hard where it hurts most − which is in their pockets. With the new regime, enforcement will be swifter and financial penalties will be high enough to disgorge their illegal profits and hence, deter employers from such wrongdoings. The adjustment from just purely a criminal route to an administrative route is not about efficiency, it is about making sure that these moves are effective.
One example of how the administrative penalty regime will help us enforce against errant employers relates to a point by Mrs Lina Chiam. She asked my Ministry to do more to prevent salary collusion between EP holders and their employers. Indeed, under the new administrative penalty regime, the inaccurate or erroneous submission of information, such as salaries, is punishable by an administrative financial penalty of up to $20,000. Under the employment of foreign manpower regulations, we will also make it an infringement if employers reduce the salaries of the S Pass and EP holders without submitting a request for re-assessment of their work pass eligibility to the Controller of work passes. This infringement will be punishable by an administrative financial penalty of up to $10,000 per infringement.
As several Members have also pointed out, many foreign workers do pay high fees to secure jobs in Singapore. These fees typically consist of: (1) fees paid to agents in their home countries, some of whom may have given them false promises about their employment terms here; (2) fees to Singapore employment agencies; and (3) possible kickbacks to the employers themselves.
In this Bill, we have introduced a standalone provision against a collection of such employment kickbacks with increased penalties of up to a maximum fine of $30,000, or a maximum imprisonment of two years, or both.
In response to Ms Tan Su Shan's concern about uncovering such kickbacks, we have created a clause that any employer collecting monies from workers will be presumed to be taking a kickback, unless he can show that the collection was conducted legally and that they have valid grounds for it. Also, let me clarify that my Ministry does not restrict Work Permits to just one year.
Mr David Ong and Ms Foo Mee Har have also called for measures to encourage workers to whistle blow on employers who contravene the EFMA. Whistle blowing would play an important part in uncovering some of these cases, and this is certainly an area in which we are working out the details.
Page: 771
Mr David Ong and Mr Patrick Tay also raised pertinent points on issues related to the role of employment agencies in the recruitment process. Sir, we recently conducted a fairly fundamental review of the Employment Agencies Act and effected the changes in April last year. One of the key initiatives was to curb the excessive charging of fees by Singaporean agencies to the worker. Fees are now limited to no more than 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. Local employment agencies are also prohibited from abetting or taking employment kickbacks, and the earlier measures described will kick in if this happens.
However, a significant part of what foreign workers pay is actually paid in their home country. I think it is difficult for us to extend our jurisdiction upstream into those countries. We cannot police the recruitment practices of foreign employment agencies outside our jurisdiction who are responding to the demand by their countrymen to come to work in Singapore. What we can do – and what we can try to do better and to do well – is to make sure that we get our act right in Singapore.
Reducing the number of work permits or guaranteeing the length of employment of a foreign worker, as suggested by some Members, will have the contrary effect of raising the value of a work permit and result in foreign workers being willing to pay their home agencies even higher fees. We will continue to work closely with foreign embassies and relevant Ministries in labour-sending countries to eliminate recruitment malpractices and improve the recruitment process. We do know of these problems. As I mentioned earlier, there are jurisdiction limitations but it does not stop us from continuing to work with some of these countries to see what else we could do.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested stepping up enforcement against employers who illegally employ foreign workers. Under section 5 of the Bill, MOM is increasing the penalties for the illegal employment of foreign workers.
I noted Mr Hri Kumar's concern that the maximum imprisonment of two years for foreign workers who work without a valid work pass is longer than that of a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months for employers who illegally employ foreign workers. I share his concern at face value, if we were to look at it from that perspective. However, I think it is important to look at the discussion in context. The courts have thus far typically awarded fines only and not jail terms for illegal employment offences, regardless of whether they were committed by employers of foreign workers. That is what happening presently. In any case, we should view these proposed penalties holistically. The penalties for illegally employed workers and employers who hire them differ in several ways. For employers who illegally employ foreign workers, we will impose a mandatory minimum fine of $5,000 per charge on first-time offenders and the mandatory minimum fine of $10,000, again, per charge plus a minimum imprisonment term of one month on repeat offenders. There are no corresponding minimum fines or imprisonment terms for foreign workers. Further, employers who employ more than one illegal foreign worker would potentially face multiple charges and therefore be subject to heftier total penalties.
Page: 772
Mr Hri Kumar further pointed out that some illegally employed workers might, in fact, be victims of human trafficking. I fully acknowledge his concerns. However, the possibility that some of them might be innocent victims should not lead to a lax enforcement approach towards all foreigners trying to work here illegally. Rather, the approach that my Ministry and the Ministry of Home Affairs have adopted under the National Plan of Action against Trafficking of Persons is to put in place procedures to identify victims who have been coerced or deceived into false labour situations. Labour trafficking victims will not be prosecuted as illegal workers. Under the national plan, we also intend to take appropriate action against those who are found guilty of offences that amount to trafficking in persons.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang expressed hopes that these proposed amendments would address common problems faced by foreign workers such as medical coverage for foreigners who do not enjoy any of the healthcare subsidies that are given to local workers.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also sought clarity on whether it is acceptable to make deductions from workers' salaries for the cost of medical treatment. The work pass conditions currently already impose requirements on employers, including provisions on ensuring acceptable accommodation, the prompt payment of salary, the provision of medical treatment and ensuring the safety and health of the workers at work. To answer Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's queries specifically, arrangements for foreign workers to pay part of their medical bills are only allowed for employers of non-domestic foreign workers. Businesses that wish to have such arrangements for their employees' medical costs may do so provided that the part of the medical cost to be paid by the foreign worker is only for costs that have exceeded the minimum $15,000 mandatory medical insurance coverage. Under these amendments, the penalties for contravening the work pass conditions will be increased to a maximum fine of $10,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months or both. We will continue to take to task employers who are remiss in their obligations.
Ms Tan Su Shan also questioned the supposed disparity between the penalties for the submission of forged educational certificates by foreign workers and falsification of documents by employers. To clarify, there is no disparity. The penalty for the former is a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of two years or both. Under the increased penalties for section 22(1)(d), the provision of false information to the Controller of Work Passes, employers who falsify documents will likewise be subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum imprisonment of two years or both.
Page: 773
Mr Hri Kumar had concerns that the introduction of the presumption clause for forged educational certificates will make it too easy to convict foreign workers, particularly since they are less likely to be informed about their obligations or might feel compelled to go along with their employers or agents who falsify documents. It is really about recognition of the imbalance in their relationship. I think that is a fair concern. But as a matter of principle, I think we all agree that any party who submits any application declaring certain facts about himself or herself to the Government should also at the same time bear responsibility to its contents. Errant foreign workers have been known to submit forged educational certificates to circumvent S Pass and EP controls or collude with foreign employment agencies in their home countries to submit forged certificates and subsequently feign ignorance.
In response to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's point, we investigated about 300 such cases last year. We have encountered many cases where workers denied that they signed the application form or claimed that they signed blindly without knowing the contents of the form. Such a defence is easy to raise but it is very difficult to rebut as ultimately the knowledge lies in the mind of the beholder. For example, we had a case last year where a worker was actually acquitted despite confessing that he knew that the forged certificate had been prepared by his agent. His defence was that he was unaware that the forged certificate was part of the stack of supporting documents for his S Pass application that he had, in fact, personally submitted to the Ministry.
Sir, such cases amply demonstrate the need for a presumption clause. An innocent worker can rebut the presumption by showing on a balance of probabilities that he was duped or intentionally kept in the dark on the submission of the forged qualifications. So, please, do be assured that my Ministry will exercise judgement in assessing any worker's defence to ensure that no truly innocent worker is unfairly prosecuted as a result of this presumption. To ensure that workers are cognisant of their responsibilities, my Ministry has put up signs at the Work Pass Services Centre in native languages warning workers not to put their signatures to forged educational certificates and assuring workers that no action will be taken against them if they report the forged certification abuses by their employment agencies or employers to MOM officers immediately.
Let me address the concerns raised by various Members, including Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Dhinakaran, Mr David Ong, Mr Teo Siong Seng and Ms Tan Su Shan that as MOM steps up enforcement against EFMA contraventions, employers, especially SME employers, may find it more challenging to operate. I would like to emphasise that none – and I repeat – none of the measures in this Bill are aimed at increasing the duties of honest employers which make up the bulk of all employers. In fact, our measures are aimed at helping to make sure that we level the playing field for law-abiding employers by penalising unscrupulous competitors who under-cut costs by bypassing the work pass framework.
Page: 774
Mr Kumar has sought greater clarity on the circumstances under which an associate would be debarred and raise concerns that such a broad definition of the term \"associate\" may result in people with little connection to the debarred person being caught. Our target is offenders who circumvent debarment by using associates that re-employed foreign workers on their behalf. If we try to be too narrow or prescriptive in our definition of \"associates\", offenders easily and very easily resurrect their businesses and continue to employ the foreign workers. This will make a mockery of our penalties.
Let me share some real cases to illustrate. A cleaning company and its HR manager were both charged for making false declarations to the Controller and were thus debarred from hiring foreign workers. The HR manager's husband was a manager in the original company, proceeded to set up a new company. This new company was identical to the original company in all material respects – same management, same services and even same cleaning equipment and actually the same foreign workers – just under a different name.
In another case, shortly after a seafood restaurant was debarred from hiring foreign workers, we found that a new seafood company, with a strikingly similar name, had been set up. It had put in applications for work passes, relying on foreign quota obtained by CPF contributions to several local workers, of which two were directors from the original seafood company. Both companies shared the same registered address. When my officers visited the address, the signboard of the original seafood restaurant was still there. So, they did not even change the signboard. The workers were even wearing the old uniforms. Everything was new in name only. These things happen. I think that is where we realise over time that in certain cases, you will find that sometimes, when incidents are reported, we were not always able to proceed and prosecute effectively because in the regulations and laws, we did not have all the space available for us to move accordingly, hence the amendments to this Bill.
So, in short, debarred persons have exercised high levels of creativity in the past to get round our debarment rules and I am sure they will be exercising their creativity, going forward. But because we can expect that they will just continue along this path, we have sought a wider berth for the Controller in this instance. If we leave exploitable loopholes, we will really risk undermining the effectiveness of our enforcement efforts and deterrent measures. The amendments in this Bill are not just about amending the Bill itself, but to facilitate enforcement. In fact, other Members have highlighted that my Ministry should increase the rigour of its upstream checks to better regulate which businesses are allowed to bring in foreign workers.
Page: 775
Mr Patrick Tay suggested that MOM consider issuing work passes to businesses based on assessment of their market capitalisation to ensure that only financially viable businesses are allowed to employ foreign workers. I appreciate Mr Tay's intent and would like to clarify that we already require construction and marine companies to show documentary proof that they have on-going projects before work passes are issued.
Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Dhinakaran, Ms Foo Mee Har, Ms Tan Su Shan and Mr David Ong have also highlighted that our proposed amendments to the EFMA must commensurate with downstream enforcement efforts. I agree, and MOM is committed to doing so. As I mentioned earlier, Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will now have the powers to order administrative, financial penalties, debar employers from hiring foreign workers and impose directions on employers. Such directions to remedy, mitigate or eliminate any effects of any infringement will include compensating workers when their employers recover employment costs, like levies, from them. Failure to comply with the Commissioner's directions will be a prosecutable offence, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 or to a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, or to both.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Christopher de Souza wanted assurance that more will be done pertaining to the management of foreign workers being housed in unacceptable accommodation. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also noted that enforcement efforts should not be carried out in isolation. I fully agree that Government agencies should not work in silo and we do not. There is close coordination between the relevant Government agencies, and MOM frequently conducts joint inspections with agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, ICA, CNB, NEA, SCDF and URA on foreign worker housing, immigration as well as employment-related offences. I, myself, have been to a number of these inspections. And Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef might be pleased to note that as a result of her complaints on some of the potential unacceptable housing in the Geylang area, I have been down to check the appropriate establishments in the area to make sure these actions are carried out appropriately.
In 2011, MOM conducted about 3,000 inspections, including close to 800 inspections of premises were used as foreign worker housing, to enforce against breaches of our work pass rules. These efforts have shown results. In 2009, enforcement action was taken against 1,800 employers for housing their workers in unacceptable conditions.
In 2011, the number of employers taken to task was 1,000. The number of foreign workers relocated by MOM out of unacceptable accommodation into proper housing has also fallen from 18,800 in 2009, to 8,000 in 2011. We will continue our efforts to facilitate acceptable accommodation for foreign workers.
Mr Dhinakaran called for the expediting of investigations to reduce the length of stay of workers who are kept in Singapore as prosecution witnesses. In fact, with the enforcement of prescribed infringement under the new administrative penalty regime, cases will be concluded more swiftly and workers will be able to return home earlier. Non-culpable workers who remain can avail themselves of our temporary job scheme or find a new employer.
Page: 776
Even as we seek to achieve more expeditious and effective enforcement against contraventions, I agree with Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Hri Kumar that we should not compromise fairness for the sake of expediency. The new administrative penalty regime that MOM will put in place will have appropriate safeguards to ensure that the infringer is not denied his fundamental right to be heard and that natural justice is upheld. The infringer would be made aware of the case and evidence against him, and he would be given ample opportunity to respond. The infringer would also be able to appeal against the Commissioner's decision, should he also choose. Such appeals would be entertained and would be directed to an Appeal Board which would consist of three members and be chaired by a person qualified to be a judge of the Supreme Court and legal representation would be allowed there.
Some suggestions made by Mr Dhinakaran and Mr Patrick Tay to facilitate the compliance and enforcement of the law, including mandatory salary pay slips for foreign workers so as to keep them informed of the actual salary components and authorised salary deductions. Mr Zainal Sapari further suggested making it mandatory for work permit holders to be paid via GIRO to facilitate investigations of salary cases. These are useful suggestions and we will take them on board.
I agree with Mr Dhinakaran, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Hri Kumar that we need to inform foreign workers of their legal rights and responsibilities, changes to the law, avenues for redress or the procedures for reporting of abuse. We have indeed stepped up publicity targeted at foreign workers. To empower workers to make informed decisions about working in Singapore, my Ministry revised the in-principle approval letter for work permit holders last year to include key employment terms and translated all these letters into the workers' native languages. My Ministry has also piloted pre-departure briefings in BCA's overseas test centres in workers' home countries such as China, India and Bangladesh. We will also reach out to foreign workers with these messages through various channels when they are in Singapore, including a foreign worker handy guide and a foreign worker newsletter, and through road shows held in worker dormitories and areas where they frequently congregate. We will be quite happy to entertain further suggestions and ideas about how we could do this better.
Sir, I believe that this Bill will allow us to step up enforcement against the circumventions of our work pass framework, whilst adopting what we believe is a balanced and calibrated approach for the various parties. I want to assure Asst Prof Eugene Tan that we are concurrently undertaking a separate review of this same Act to ensure an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers. Let me emphasise again that these amendments are really targeted at employers who are irresponsible and who are abusing the system. The majority of employers can look forward to this Act in terms of protecting them and to making sure that the playing field is level for all.
Page: 777
I would like to conclude by echoing Mr David Ong's sentiment that these amendments should be seen in the context of all our efforts to build a big-hearted society that shows graciousness and respect for fellow human beings, whether they are local or foreign. Once again, I thank Members of the House for all their suggestions and input, and for their support of this Bill.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
\tPage: 777
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Heng Chee How]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.07 pm
to a date to be fixed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Increased Varsity Places on Job Market, Value of Singapore Degrees and Median Salaries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"19 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how will our economy cope with the increase in varsity places; (b) what is the projected job creation for Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs); (c) what measures are in place to ensure that a degree attained in Singapore will not diminish in value in the job market; and (d) what is the projected trend of PME median salaries while taking into account the anticipated increase of local graduates.
Page: 778
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: This is an important question to address. In 2010, the Economic Strategies Committee concluded that skills, innovation and productivity must form the basis to sustain Singapore's economic growth. As we shift towards productivity and innovation-driven growth, we will create more higher value jobs that will require Singaporeans to have more knowledge, skills and experience. We are already seeing this today as Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) make up about one in three resident workers, the fastest growing segment of Singapore’s resident workforce.1
This growing demand for highly skilled workers is not just a local trend, but a global one. According to a recent report by the McKinsey Global Institute2, there could be a global shortage of 16 million to 18 million college-educated workers in 2020.
Therefore, we should support a higher publicly-funded university cohort participation rate (CPR). With or without Government support, Singaporeans aspire to upgrade. Last year, nearly half (46%) of our resident labour force aged 25-29 years had attained a degree, higher than what is provided through our publicly-funded full-time places, as some obtained their degrees from private or overseas institutions. In this light, MOE’s plan to increase CPR to 40% will provide Singaporeans with more opportunities to access a publicly-subsidised degree education.
This is not just a paper chase. To ensure the value of higher education, the universities need to prepare students for work by imparting hard and soft skills relevant to current and future industry needs, while continuing to strengthen foundations and build analytical skills. Differentiation of the university landscape can also create more pockets of excellence. We have already done well in developing good research-oriented universities. The introduction of more applied, practice-oriented degrees at SIT and UniSIM will provide a differentiated pathway, one with close linkages to industry as graduates will be equipped with industry-relevant practical skills. The value of such graduates will be their keen understanding of industry, good industry networks and their work-readiness.
\tPage: 779
It is difficult to project wage growth but if we are able to keep the labour market tight and to ensure that productivity grows, we should be able to see positive real wage growth over time.
I would like to end by making a few important observations. Clearly, Singaporeans today have aspirations for good jobs and good wages. We need to note that the increasing numbers of degree holders mean that more Singaporeans have been able to better themselves compared to their parent's generation. It also means that the playing field is more level and competitive for all. In order to meet these aspirations, we need to be able to grow jobs that pay well. Therefore, we need good companies, both local and foreign to be here. A diverse workforce remains an important feature in attracting good companies to be based in Singapore. We are committed to increasing the opportunities for Singaporeans to better themselves and we are committed to creating higher paying jobs for all.
\tPage: 779
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":["1 : The proportion of PMEs among employed residents grew from 27% in 2001 to 32% in 2011.","2 : McKinsey Global Institute Report, The World at Work: Jobs, Pay and Skills for 3.5 Billion People (June 2012)."],"footNoteQuestions":["19"],"questionNo":"19"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disputes among Neighbours in HDB Estates","subTitle":"HDB's mediation role in these disputes","sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are more cases of disputes between neighbours in HDB estates; (b) what are the common types of disputes; and (c) whether HDB and the related agencies need more resources and powers to resolve these disputes.
23 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development with regard to disputes between neighbours in HDB estates (a) what are the current processes in place to deal with such disputes; (b) how many mediations for such disputes has HDB conducted over the past two years; and (c) if HDB has undertaken any evictions in relation to such disputes.
\tPage: 779
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Most disputes between neighbours in HDB estates concern noise nuisance, obstruction at common areas, dripping laundry and pet nuisance. HDB received more feedback on such disputes last year compared to the preceding two years.
In handling such cases, HDB officers would work closely with grassroots leaders in the community to find out more details and advise the parties involved to be considerate and exercise mutual respect and tolerance. In most cases, the residents are cooperative and would take measures to minimise the inconveniences to their neighbours. However, if the issue persists, the parties would then be advised to go for mediation to reach an amicable resolution. Over the past two years, the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) mediated a total of 73 cases concerning disputes between neighbours living in HDB estates.
\tPage: 780
HDB believes that mediation can be more widely used to help resolve disputes between neighbours, and therefore works with CMC to encourage people to consider mediation. On its part, CMC has made efforts to make community mediation more accessible and effective. For instance, CMC works closely with frontline agencies like HDB to strengthen its referral partnership. As part of these efforts, CMC is working with frontline agencies to ensure that parties comply with mediation agreements.
HDB does not take enforcement action for private disputes involving only two parties. However, for persistent public nuisance that affects a group of residents, HDB may consider compulsory acquisition of the flat as a last resort. So far, it has only done so once, in 1990. In that instance, a group of affected residents had initiated a civil suit against the HDB occupier after all mediation efforts failed. However, the occupier failed to cease the noise nuisance even after being convicted in Court for disorderly behaviour and being fined. HDB hence had to step in.
Neighbourly disputes do not usually happen overnight. They can be prevented with continuous effort by residents and community leaders to build good neighbourliness where Singaporeans learn to live and share common spaces.
\tPage: 780
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"2","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Preventing Employment Discrimination against Disabled Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether there are regulations in place to prevent employment discrimination against the disabled; (b) whether the Ministry will consider including the hiring of disabled people within the Employment Act so that they are assured of the benefits presently available to other employees; and (c) what other measures the Ministry has taken or will take with regard to implementing fair and merit-based employment practices to eliminate discrimination against persons with physical disabilities.
\tPage: 780
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Employment discrimination against the disabled, without consideration for their ability to perform the requirements of the job, has no place in Singapore, like other kinds of discrimination. At its core, discrimination is a mindset issue, and tackling it requires public education and awareness building among employers in particular. The tripartite partners take an active promotional approach to encourage fair and merit-based employment practices.
The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) is set up for this purpose and actively engages employers to educate them on what is acceptable, and how to implement fair and progressive employment practices. For example, it organises workshops where expert speakers and enlightened employers share their experience and insights on working with people with disabilities.
\tPage: 781
The efforts by TAFEP as well as the employers to extend fair employment opportunities to people with disabilities have seen results. For example, the Enabling Employers Network, which is an alliance of like-minded employers, and the Singapore National Employers Federation, has influenced over 160 companies to commit some 600 employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The tripartite partners intend to take these efforts further.
Mr Christopher de Souza also asked whether MOM will consider including people with disabilities within the Employment Act so that they are assured of the benefits presently available to other employees. I would like to emphasise that our Employment Act applies to all employees irrespective of whether they have disabilities, and those who fall under the coverage of the Act enjoy the same level of protection.
\tPage: 781
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Legislation to Protect Whistleblowers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider institutionalising whistleblower and whistleblower protection legislation as an additional safeguard against future Government tender manipulation, in the wake of Brompton bicycle episode.
\tPage: 781
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): A number of Members had asked similar questions earlier this year on 14 February 2012, and the matter also came up during the Committee of Supply on 23 February 2012.
I had described in some detail, on both occasions, the channels available for both public officers as well as members of the public to report any wrong-doing by public officers that they may come across. Such formal, institutionalised reporting procedures already exist.
Channels for a member of the public to report improper behaviour/wrong-doing by a public officer. Allow me to recap what I said in Parliament in February this year about the channels available for reporting wrongdoing in the Public Service.
A member of the public can report wrong-doing by a public officer to the Head of the Department or agency. He can also report the matter to the Permanent Secretary overseeing the Ministry or, indeed, to the Minister. Alternatively, he can make a report to the Head of Civil Service or the Public Service Commission, which is an independent body set up under the Singapore Constitution to take charge of disciplinary issues in the Civil Service.
\tPage: 782
This arrangement is applicable to employees of companies bidding for Government tenders, who may wish to alert the Government to possible tender manipulation or unfair tendering practices.
Corruption cases should be reported to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).
Many Singaporeans also write to the media, or express their views through the social media and new media. There is thus no shortage of official or unofficial channels for members of the public to lodge their complaints.
Public officers should be vigilant and are expected to report wrong-doing if they have sufficient grounds to believe a wrong-doing has been committed in their workplace or by any public officer.
There are multiple avenues for officers to report wrong-doings and irregularities. Apart from making such reports internally within their own departments or agencies, officers can escalate cases of misconduct to their Permanent Secretary or the Head of Civil Service. In addition, they can also report wrong-doing to the Public Service Commission (PSC). Corruption cases can also be reported to the CPIB.
If an officer has sufficient grounds to feel that he is being treated unfairly as a result of a report that he has made, he may submit a complaint to his Permanent Secretary. Therefore, there are already provisions for the protection of officers who make such reports.
Reporting by members of the public and public officers will be treated with utmost confidentiality and every effort will be made not to reveal the identity of the person reporting, to the extent feasible and permissible under law. They should, however, be mindful not to abuse the channels.
Members of the public have, in fact, been forthcoming in reporting alleged fraud or wrong-doing, which have led to investigations by the Government. Where investigations have revealed wrong-doing, officers have been subject to court proceedings or public service disciplinary proceedings.
To sum up, there are multiple channels for raising irregularities. Independent bodies like the Public Service Commission (PSC), Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) and CPIB are also involved in the process.
Reporting wrong-doing is an integral part of our system for maintaining integrity in the Public Service, along with regulations governing behaviour, as well as legal and disciplinary procedures for taking wrong-doers to task and punishing them appropriately.
These measures guide our officers on proper conduct, deter officers from misconduct and reduce the opportunity for corruption and wrong-doing. However, even in the best of systems, no one can guarantee that corruption or wrong-doing can be entirely eradicated and that there will never be cases of misconduct, as there will always be human failings, which we may discover later.
\tPage: 783
The recent cases demonstrate that there are strict rules, reporting procedures, and legal and disciplinary processes in place to maintain the integrity of the Public Service and the proper conduct of public officers.
Most important of all is a culture both in the Public Service as well as among our Singaporean public that does not tolerate corruption, misappropriation or misuse of public resources.
The cases in the Public Service that are under investigation or before the courts illustrate such a process at work, and are an affirmation that this Government is determined to maintain the integrity of the Public Service, and will act against wrongdoing wherever and whenever it is discovered.
\tPage: 783
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Land along Former Railway Route","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development (a) what plans does the Ministry have to leverage on the existing capacities and functions of the former railway route such as (i) the connecting of various green spaces across the island; and (ii) the physical historical record comprising points of interest along the route; and (b) whether preserving important parts of the greenery and history of the land can be placed as a priority.
\tPage: 783
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Our history, heritage and environment are important because they help define who we are and how we live as a young, multi-ethnic nation. These are considerations which we will continue to always recognise and pay attention to in our development planning to meet the practical and material needs of Singaporeans.
Parts of the former Malayan Railway track, or our Rail Corridor as we call it now, will need to be developed for future housing and industrial needs, but, in doing so, we will marry development sensitively with nature and heritage.
Many Singaporeans have suggested and we agree that maintaining continuous greenery along the corridor is important. In fact, the Rail Corridor will be plugged into the larger network of green spaces, park connectors and the future Round Island Route at locations such as Choa Chu Kang, Buona Vista and Henderson. This larger green network will provide our people with greater spaces for leisure and recreation.
We are also studying ways to celebrate historical elements along the Rail Corridor and the surrounding areas. The old railway station at Bukit Timah is now a conserved building and the main station at Tanjong Pagar has been preserved as a National Monument. The Rail Corridor can also become a springboard for those who wish to explore World War II heritage sites near the corridor, such as the Old Ford Factory, the Bukit Timah battle site and the Kranji War Memorial.
\tPage: 784
Our Rail Corridor is certainly a national project that Singaporeans can be involved in shaping. We will continue to gather ideas on how the Rail Corridor can be meaningfully developed and used by the community through the various outreach activities carried out under the auspices of the Rail Corridor Partnership.
\tPage: 784
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disbursement of Community Integration Fund (CIF)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports with regard to the Community Integration Fund (CIF) (a) what is (i) the amount that has been disbursed since its inception in September 2009; and (ii) the nature of activities that have been funded; (b) what are the measures, proxy or otherwise, of outcomes from activities funded; (c) whether a comprehensive review will be conducted with a view to improve the funding mechanism, including providing for multi-year programmes; and (d) whether there are plans to renew the CIF and to increase the funding available.
\tPage: 784
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Community Integration Fund (CIF) was launched by the National Integration Council (NIC) in September 2009 to co-fund and support ground-up integration initiatives.
We have since engaged more than 150 organisations and disbursed $5.1 million to support around 220 projects. Another $3.1 million has also been committed to on-going and upcoming projects. These efforts have brought the people, private and public sectors together to foster integration across all levels of our society.
The CIF projects are typically organised by students, companies and community and cultural groups. They have helped our immigrants better adapt to their new environments and provided platforms for locals and newcomers to interact with and better understand one another. As a result, friendships have been forged and our new immigrants have deepened their appreciation of the various aspects of Singaporean life that makes us unique as a people and nation.
For example, in Project One Heart organised by Republic Polytechnic in May this year, 230 local and international students from our five Polytechnics got to know each other better as they teamed up to engage and provide assistance to elderly residents in the community.
The CIF has resourced individuals and organisations who are interested in playing their part in integration. Many have thus recognised the importance of integration and will continue to find common ground so that we can remain a cohesive society.
\tPage: 785
All CIF initiatives and programmes have different KPIs, depending on the desired outcomes. These may include measurements tied to the participation rate, profile of participants and a project's longer term sustainability. While we continue to monitor these KPIs, we will also raise awareness of the CIF so that worthy projects receive the support that they deserve.
The NIC regularly reviews how this Fund can be enhanced to better achieve integration outcomes. For instance, we have allowed for more flexibility in funding organisations that have a good track record and are able to provide substantive proposals with clear action plans. Similarly, we have started to fund longer-term programmes to help sustain their momentum and deepen the relationships between locals and new immigrants. One such example is the Singapore Healthcare Immersion Programme (SHIP) to help foreign Allied Health Professionals (AHPs) adapt to their life and work in Singapore.
The CIF will continue to support those with good ideas and are keen to join us in bringing new immigrants and locals together, so that integration can be effective and sustained over the longer term.
\tPage: 785
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Merging Oversight of Childcare and Pre-school Education Matters into One Ministry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports if it will be timely to consider shifting the responsibility of childcare and pre-school education to the Ministry of Education since the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports is undergoing a restructuring, so that there is a better fit.
\tPage: 785
Mr Chan Chun Sing: While the pre-school sector is currently overseen by two Ministries, MOE and MCYS have coordinated closely in key policy areas, especially at the kindergarten level. These include requiring the same qualifications for principals and teachers teaching children aged four to six, and adopting the Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework (SPARK) for both kindergartens and childcare centres.
As recently announced, the Government will be setting up a new statutory board to oversee early childhood education and care for pre-school children across the age ranges. The statutory board will be responsible for the development and regulation of the pre-school sector, covering both kindergartens and childcare centres. It will serve as a single focal point to drive quality, accessibility and affordability improvements in the sector.
MOE and the new Ministry of Social and Family Development will work closely together on the formation of the new statutory board. More details will be announced in due course.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grading of Private Security Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Ministry will consider developing a system to grade private security officers based on their training and competency to enable a more distinct differentiation in their remuneration.
\tPage: 786
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Unarmed private security officers (SOs) provide a wide range of services, including premise security, access control and security screening. To enhance the professionalism of SOs, the Police Licensing and Regulatory Department (PLRD) will be identifying the key specialist functions where additional training and certification are necessary. SOs can then be trained accordingly to take on these functions. This should translate to higher wages as better trained officers add more value to their jobs and will be differentiated from others.
For a start, PLRD has imposed such training requirements for SOs performing security screening. SOs must receive specific Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) training before they are allowed to perform screening functions involving the use of X-ray or metal detectors. PLRD is currently looking into imposing training requirements for other security functions.
\tPage: 786
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of Consultation Period for Voluntary Sterilization Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will (a) extend the four-week public consultation period for the proposed amendments to the Voluntary Sterilization Act; and/or (b) conduct focused groups discussions to seek inputs from key stakeholders such as families and advocacy groups, including voluntary welfare organisations looking after the interests of the vulnerable.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Between May and July 2012, my Ministry sought the inputs of the public and interested parties through both my Ministry's and the REACH's websites. The proposed amendments to the Voluntary Sterilization Act (VSA) and the public consultation were reported by the local media. We also met with various groups, including medical practitioners and other interested parties.
Based on the feedback received, the stakeholders and the public were generally supportive of the proposed changes as they understood the rationale of the move to return the autonomy on decisions concerning voluntary sterilisation to persons who have mental capacity.
We have received valuable inputs from the consultation, and used them to refine the proposed amendments to the VSA, including the strengthening of provisions for vulnerable members of our society. Moreover, feedback channels are always open for anyone with concerns. As such, we have not extended the period for this public consultation.
\tPage: 787
I have introduced the Voluntary Sterilization (Amendment) Bill in Parliament, and I will elaborate on the proposed amendments at the Second Reading of the Bill. The proposed amendments to the VSA would also enable Singapore to accede to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":"1","footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3501,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Teo Siong Seng","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20120911/vernacular-Teo Siong Seng 11Sep 2012 Foreign worker_chinese(fr SI).pdf","fileName":"Teo Siong Seng 11Sep 2012 Foreign worker_chinese(fr SI).pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}