1 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health (a) how many second trimester abortions were conducted in 2012; (b) what proportion of terminations of pregnancies have been for medical reasons; (c) how many girls under the age of 16 have been referred for mandatory counselling since 1 April 1999; and (d) whether any cases have been referred to the police for prosecutions for abortions below the age of 16.\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): In 2012, 10,624 abortions were carried out, of which 990 were carried out during the second trimester.
Less than 4% of the pregnant women who underwent abortions in 2012 indicated medical reasons, such as fetal anomalies or maternal medical conditions like cancer, lupus and so on as the reasons for abortions.
Under the Termination of Pregnancy (TOP) Regulations, it is mandatory for medical practitioners to refer an unmarried girl below 16 years of age requesting for an abortion for pre-abortion counselling at the HPB Counselling Centre.
The number of girls below 16 years old requiring such counselling has decreased from 109 in year 1999 to 51 in year 2012.
Abortions performed in accordance with the Termination of Pregnancy Act and Regulations are not illegal, regardless of the age of the pregnant female who undergoes the procedure.
\tMr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I note with some sadness that only less 4% was for medical reasons. I have three supplementary questions. First, overall, are we seeing a trend towards more abortions at a younger age? Secondly, if we look at our Termination of Pregnancy Act, we have one of the more liberal laws within our area. With changing social norms as well as the rising number of
\tPage: 8
foreigners seeking abortions, would it therefore be apt for the Act to be renewed or reviewed so that we do not become a regional abortion hub? Thirdly, in March 2013, I understand the Ministry commenced a review on the mandatory counselling criteria. Could the Senior Minister of State also provide an update to the House on how far along the process has gone and when public consultations will begin?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mdm Speaker, with regard to the first question on whether there is a trend towards abortion at a younger age, on the contrary, looking at the numbers, there is actually a gradual decline in the number of abortions carried out on girls below 16 years of age. In 2006, the number of abortions carried out on girls below 16 years was 84. This number has declined to 47 in 2012.
As for Singapore becoming a regional hub for abortion, in fact, the Termination of Pregnancy Act already has safeguards to prevent foreigners from coming into the country just for an abortion. This is because under the Termination of Pregnancy Act, the authorised medical practitioner can only carry out abortions for foreigners if they are the spouse of a Singapore Citizen or they are holders or spouse of a work pass holder under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, or they have been residents in Singapore for at least four months immediately prior to the date of the scheduled abortion. In that sense, there are already safeguards under the current Act. Of course, this will exclude cases where the abortion has to be done to save lives.
I would like to share that the total number of abortions carried out has also shown some decline over the years. In 2006, the number of abortions carried out was 12,032; and it was 10,064 in 2012.
On our review of the issues relating to mandatory pre-abortion counselling, let me assure the Member that we are in the midst of looking into the review of the TOP guidelines, specifically with regard to the issue of strengthening pre-abortion counselling including mandatory counselling, the criteria for mandatory counselling as well as the contents of counselling, and also improvements of the TOP guidelines. We are in discussions with relevant stakeholders including MSF, and we will conduct consultations once we are ready.
\tAssoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether more could be done for the pregnant women, particularly those who are married, to keep their
\tPage: 9
unborn child. In this regard, could we do more to promote adoption, for example?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Even currently, under our regulations and the Act, most women, as long as they fit the criteria and regardless of their age, are required to go for pre-abortion counselling. If we look at the numbers, the majority will go for pre-abortion counselling. Pre-abortion counselling would include showing them the video of medical procedures of abortion and so on, as well as social and emotional support and alternative options to abortion, including adoption. Let me assure the Member that we will continue to look at ways to strengthen this effort.
\tMr Alex Yam: Just one final supplementary question. I am not sure if the Ministry has the statistics, but for those who have gone through mandatory counselling, are there figures for people who have reconsidered their decisions after going through counselling?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Yes, we do have those figures. The numbers are about 4% or less. Many of them would have various reasons. As I have noted earlier, only 4% say it is due to medical reasons. For many of them, reasons could be that they are unmarried, divorced, they have enough children or they feel that they are not ready to start a family. These are the reasons. Through pre-abortion counselling, some of them do change their decisions, but the number is small.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Report 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Government accepts the methodology adopted in the World Economic Forum's (WEF) Gender Gap Report 2013 as a fair and meaningful measure of gender equality in Singapore; and (b) whether the Government is satisfied with Singapore's scores in the Report for the indices of educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.\t
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social and Family Development (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Social and Family Development): Mdm Speaker, in the World Economic Forum's 2013 report, Singapore is ranked 58th out of 136 countries, compared to 84th out of 130 countries in 2009. This translates to a jump of 20-over places in ranking in five
\tPage: 10
years. This itself is an indication of the progress we have made in gender equality. Not just in rankings but also in absolute scores. Our score for 2013 improved from 0.663 to 0.700. For Members who are not quite aware of this report, a higher score indicates a narrower gender gap.
In tracking the progress of women in Singapore, we take reference from various reports, not just this indicator, such as the UN's Gender Inequality Index (GII). The UN Index places Singapore at the 13th spot, out of 148 countries. This makes us the highest ranked country in the Asia Pacific region. The UN Index covers dimensions including education, health, economic participation, as well as representation in decision-making portfolios.
Compared to the UN Index, the WEF Index does not measure absolute levels of progress in the country. Let me elaborate. What this means is that instead, a country's ranking is determined by comparing the attainment levels of women to those of their male counterparts in the same country. Even if a country has limited opportunities and because of that, does not make significant progress for its women, the country's rating would still improve as long as the relative equality between the men and women narrows during that year.
As a signatory to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Singapore also reports relevant indicators on a regular basis. Both our CEDAW reports and indicators are published and publicly available. Just to name a few for the House, for the year 2012, the percentage of women enrolled in university is 50.7% while that for men is 49.3%. The literacy rate for women has gone up to 94.4% in 2012, as compared to 89.7% in 2002.
Overall, women in Singapore have made significant strides in many areas including education, health, as well as economic empowerment. While we have made progress, improving the well-being and status of women is an ongoing process. We are all committed to creating an enabling environment for women's progress as well as equality so that every woman in Singapore can be empowered to contribute to her family, to community as well as to the future of our nation.
\tMs Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, a few supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I do agree with her that the WEF Gender Gap Report measures gaps, that is, disparities between the status of men and women, rather than absolute levels. But does she agree that gaps are also
\tPage: 11
important to track?
Secondly, it was noted in the WEF report that Singapore did not provide the figures for enrolment of women in tertiary institutions. I would like to know why that figure was not given because it could have impacted the scores.
Thirdly, in the WEF report, Singapore was ranked fairly well for economic participation. In other words, men and women participate in the economy. We were pulled up basically because of good scores in wage quality and earned income, but our labour force participation rate, I think, has room for improvement. My question is: will the Government look at a policy framework which will encourage shared parental responsibilities so that more women, especially educated women, will be encouraged to go back to work.
Last of all, there was an indicator in the WEF Report on political empowerment. It was noted that while we scored fairly well – 47 out 136 countries for Members of Parliament – in terms of Cabinet, we are really far down. It is 125 out of 136 countries. I would like to know whether we will improve on this, instead of having just one lady Minister out of 18 currently, and in the last few decades. Do we expect any improvement in this area?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I thank the Member Ms Sylvia Lim for her questions. First, on the importance of tracking gaps, different indices measure different aspects of the progress of women. This is why in MSF, we track different indices such as the UN Gender Inequality Index which measures gender inequality in a few dimensions. It is quite similar to the WEF index. We measure a few indices as well as The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU's) Women's Economic Opportunities Index, and the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) for OECD countries. We agree it is important to track a basket of indicators.
In terms of the enrolment rate for tertiary institutions, let me explain a little more in terms of the ranking for educational attainment, one of the parameters for the WEF indicator. I understand that WEF obtains these statistics from UNESCO's Institute for Statistics (UIS). The assumptions that are used in their methodology, I understand, do not apply so well in the context of a city-state like Singapore. As a result, it has led to fairly inaccurate statistics. For example, instead of a Gender Parity Index (GPI) for Education of 0.93 to 0.95 which was reported, Singapore's GPI for Education was in fact 1. My good colleagues in MOE have engaged UIS many times in the past, and we will continue to engage them.
\tPage: 12
That alone does not really reflect the educational attainment of women in Singapore. For example, we all know the Singapore Government provides all Singaporean children equal access to quality education. As a result, Singapore has achieved a high literacy rate for women – 94.4% in 2012. This is a significant increase from 89.7% in 2002, just 10 years ago.
Women make up 50.7% of the full-time enrolment at the local universities. In addition to that, women are now very well represented in subjects that were traditionally viewed as male domains. For example, in 2012, women accounted for 78.1% of health sciences graduates; and 56.2% of natural, physical and mathematical science graduates. I just want to give some context to the ranking for educational attainment.
In terms of economic participation, indeed, we are mindful of the need to create better understanding of the multiple roles that women hold, not just at home and at work, but also in the society. Indices aside, we are committed to creating a conducive environment for women's progress and equality.
To that end, we recognise and appreciate the multiple roles that women in Singapore play in society, at work and also at home. For example, for women who are still the primary care-givers of young children as well as elderly parents and parents-in-law, we are strengthening the support system to help them balance these responsibilities with their work. This includes gaining access to quality and affordable childcare as well as access to eldercare services in the community. That, itself, will lead to better labour force participation rates.
In the area of childcare, the House will be aware that Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) is ramping up the number of childcare places to cater to the needs of families with young children. In the area of eldercare services, we all know MOH is working hard to improve services and accessibility.
To address all these, we need not just a whole-of-Government but a whole-of-society approach to better improve the labour force participation rate, which has in fact gone up significantly in the last 10 years. In addition, this involves pushing for greater understanding of the multiple roles that women play as well as strengthening the support infrastructure like I have mentioned, and also strengthening the partnership amongst all the various stakeholders in the society.
We are mindful of the need to continue to encourage and foster better understanding and better support for the multiple roles that women juggle
\tPage: 13
today. Just like Ms Sylvia Lim has mentioned, it goes beyond government; it is a whole-of-society approach.
Family education programmes are also very critical because they will play a part in promoting the role of fathers in families as well as helping young parents better balance their work and life expectations.
In MSF, we have a division that is called Office for Women's Development. We work very closely with the women civic groups as well as in collaborating with the various VWOs on programmes and projects to advance the status and well-being of women in Singapore.
As for the last point mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim, we know that in this House, if we include the NCMPs and NMPs, we have a total of 99 seats, out of which we have 25 women. In terms of percentage, we are doing better compared to a decade ago. Percentage wise, it is 25.4%. This compares very favourably to the Inter-Parliamentary Union's world average of 21.4%. That, itself, is a very important indicator.
For many other countries – for example, Brazil where there is a female head of state or some other countries where there are more female Cabinet members – it is because of certain policies like quotas. We think it is much more important to anchor our system based on meritocracy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Art Pieces Displayed in Public Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how many public art pieces have been placed in public areas since the launch of the Public Art Tax Incentive Scheme and Art Incentive Scheme for New Developments In Central Area; (b) for each year over the last five years, how many public art pieces have been provided and integrated under each of these schemes; and (c) whether a comprehensive listing of all public art works under these two schemes, including their current status and condition, can be made available to the public.\t
\tThe Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, launched in 2006, the Public Art Tax Incentive Scheme (PATIS) allows organisations and individuals to get a double tax deduction when they donate, commission, display and maintain public art.
\tPage: 14
Since the launch of the scheme, five art works have been placed in public areas, four in 2007 and one in 2011.
The other scheme that the Member mentioned is the Art Incentive Scheme for New Developments in Central Area (AIS) and that was in effect from 2005 to 2012. And under this scheme, there were 36 artworks approved and installed in nine developments.
NHB and URA will look into making public, information on art works under the both Public Act Tax Incentive Scheme as well as the Arts Incentive Scheme for New Developments in Central Area.
\tMs Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I have just three supplementary questions. First is: what happens when buildings and developments undergo demolition or major renovations that might involve the removal of previously commissioned artworks? Given that these artworks under the two schemes have either made use of public monies or tax exemptions, how do we then encourage public accountability for these works? And should there be a public agency involved in ensuring the care and consideration in relocating or the re-adoption of these public artworks?
My second question is: what does the Ministry think might be the impact of URA ceasing its Arts Incentive Scheme and how will MCCY continue to encourage the good maintenance and the commissioning of new artwork? Would the Ministry consider increasing the tax incentive from the current two times to two and a half times tax deduction on the cost of maintaining these artworks and commissioning new art, for example?
Thirdly, other than just a listing of the public art available, would the Ministry consider an online resource to share best practices of commissioning public art and case studies of successful collaborations so as to encourage more public art in our landscape?
\tMr Lawrence Wong: On the first question on developments that are demolished or which have some impact on the installations, there are indeed public agencies which will look at how to manage the impact on the installations. The agencies are the ones that are responsible for the schemes, namely, NHB, in the case of the Public Art Tax Incentive Scheme and URA, in the case of the Art Incentive Schemes for New Developments. These agencies will then look at what is the best way to manage the installations which are impacted and how
\tPage: 15
they are to be relocated.
On the second issue of commissioning, since the URA scheme has expired, whether we are looking at new ways in which more public art can be commissioned and installed. Indeed, we are doing so. I have said that publicly in an event a month ago that MCCY is looking at how we can promote more public art, make it more accessible. We are not just looking at PATIS, which is the NHB's tax incentive scheme, but the broad range of schemes that we have today. There is the Art in Transit Scheme by LTA which has already installed, I think, something like 48 installations in quite a number of our MRT stations. There is the CDL Sculpture of the Year Award which is a partnership between CDL and NParks to have sculptures commissioned and installed in our parks.
We are looking at a wide range of different schemes that are available today and then looking at how we can enhance and make public art more available and accessible to Singaporeans.
On the third point about online resources, certainly, that is a suggestion that we will be happy to look at – to make available the information on all the different visual artworks and installations that are in Singapore as well as provide artists and commissioning agents with more information on how best to maintain these artworks. So, that is something we will be happy to consider.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Practice Training Requirement for Trainee Lawyers","subTitle":"Inclusion of QFLP firms","sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Law whether trainee lawyers may serve their practice training requirement at Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) firms for admission to the Singapore Bar, notwithstanding that QFLP firms practise in limited areas of Singapore law.\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Law): Madam, law graduates who meet the criteria of being a \"qualified person\" under the Legal Profession Act are required to serve a practice training period before being admitted to the Singapore Bar. The trainee can fulfil the practice training requirements by having a practice training contract with a Singapore Law Practice (SLP) or in the context of public service, by serving as a Legal Service Officer or a legal officer in one of five prescribed
\tPage: 16
public bodies.
Trainee lawyers cannot serve their practice training requirement at Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) firms for the purposes of being called to the Singapore Bar. QFLP firms are foreign law practices (FLPs) with a licence which allows them to practise Singapore law only in \"permitted areas of legal practice\".
The \"permitted areas of legal practice\" are mainly commercial areas of law. Areas of domestic legal practice, such as constitutional and administrative law, criminal law and family law, and the conduct of litigation are excluded, or ring-fenced.
\tAssoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, notwithstanding that the QLFPs practise in limited areas of Singapore law, whether there could be schemes or arrangements by which trainee lawyers could fulfil the requirements in the non-commercial areas. The QFLPs are some top law firms in the world, and with the goal of trying to build a legal hub here, the expertise these firms can offer to our trainee lawyers would be a significant benefit to the Singapore legal profession.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: That is not something that is presently being considered. Under the criteria for admission to the Bar, one of the things that is taken into account is whether a trainee lawyer receives instruction or has gained experience in every type of work normally undertaken by an advocate and solicitor. The ring-fenced areas, such as criminal law, family law, constitutional and administrative law, are all excluded. A QFLP would not therefore be able to give a trainee lawyer exposure to these areas of the law.
It is open, of course, when a lawyer gets called to the Bar, to work with QFLPs and other foreign law firms and they will then be able to get the other type of exposure that they may not be able to get at the local law firms.
Having said that, though, I feel impelled to say that local law firms do also have good regional practices and are able to provide very good training in the area of corporate and commercial practice.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I want to say that I support the Ministry's point on the importance of ensuring that trainee lawyers are exposed to domestic areas of legal practice, especially in areas like criminal law, family law and litigation. I also want to commend the Government's efforts
\tPage: 17
to set up the third law school at UniSIM to address the domestic legal needs because, really, it is not easy to be able to attract young lawyers to these areas of practice.
May I ask the Senior Minister of State if the Government can consider providing more funding, say for criminal legal aid, just to encourage lawyers to take up work in this area so as to better serve the domestic needs of the community?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Mdm Speaker, I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan for his support. The Member's query on criminal legal aid was also raised earlier this year by Mr Hri Kumar at the Committee of Supply debates. At that time, I had replied to Mr Kumar to say that we will consider the position and I believe I had also mentioned this when we were discussing the amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act. And I said at that time that we were considering how to expand our funding to the Law Society's Criminal Aid Scheme to enable them to support more cases that are deserving.
Members will know that for capital cases, legal assistance is already funded by the State, and we have been reviewing the position for non-capital cases for some time. We have decided that the Government should do more in the provision of criminal legal aid compared with the position hitherto and the details are still being worked out with the stakeholders, such as the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society.
While we make this move, though, we need to be careful about how we do this as the monies come from a finite pool of taxpayer money. The experience of other countries is salutary. Countries have found the cost to be prohibitive and the outcomes not entirely satisfactory. For example, in the United Kingdom, the government spent some £2 billion on legal aid every year with criminal defence making up for more than half of the bill and there have been scandals involving wealthy criminals who receive legal aid from the State because their assets were frozen. The United Kingdom has now been forced to cut back on criminal legal aid funding.
We want to learn from the experience from these other countries and to develop a system that is sustainable. There cannot be an approach of unlimited funding nor funding for unmeritorious cases. We have to structure some acceptable way of identifying cases where assistance needs to be given. We will announce more details when we are ready.
\tPage: 18
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Disruption in National Service for Tertiary Education","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Defence (a) if he can provide the reasons why the provision for National Service disruption does not apply to National Servicemen enrolling in SUTD, SIT, UniSIM, LASALLE College of the Arts and NAFA; and (b) whether the policy can be reviewed.\t
\tThe Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Let me address Mr Baey's question in two parts. First, in general, when disruption is granted and then specifically, in terms of the institutions he has asked about.
Mdm Speaker, when we disrupt National Servicemen (NSFs) from their training, it affects the operational readiness of the units that they come from. So, we grant disruption on a selected basis. Specifically to Mr Baey's questions, it is on the basis of equity. This means if his classmates or his peers were called up earlier in that year, and they can go to university in a particular year, the person in question who is called up in later cohorts, he will be disrupted so that he can go into the university in the same year as his peers. It is a fair basis in which we grant disruption.
Now, on specific institutions, we currently allow NS disruption for servicemen to pursue full-time degrees at institutions that are funded by MOE or confer their own degrees. These include full-time degree programmes at the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT), LASALLE College of the Arts and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA). It will also include the Singapore Institute of Management University (UniSIM) when it begins conferring its own full-time degrees from 2014 onwards.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the courses that are eligible for disruption. They must be fully funded by Government and/or conferred by the universities themselves. Is it an \"and/or\" criterion? I was reading the MINDEF's website that disruption is only given to students or NSFs enrolled in courses conducted by institutions that confer their own qualifications. I know that SIT has some courses which are offered in partnership with overseas universities which then confer their degrees. Would students or NSFs enrolled in these courses be eligible for disruption? And whether amongst these five tertiary institutions, are there any courses that do not allow the students to be disrupted for any reason?
\tPage: 19
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: We grant disruption when they are eligible for NS servicemen into institutions where they are pursuing full-time degrees that, as Mr Baey said, are funded by MOE, or confer their own degrees. This would include SIT. I am not aware of any specific courses for which we do not grant disruption, but if he can file a specific Parliamentary Question or if he knows of a particular case, I would be happy to respond to him.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stating Preferred Vocations for National Service","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Mary Liew asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether the Ministry will consider allowing National Servicemen to state their preferred vocations and give priority for navy shipboard vocations to maritime graduates pursuing sea careers; and (b) whether shipboard officers' service can be recognised as National Service for seafaring graduates who commit to three years of working on board ships.\t
The Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Madam, in deploying National Servicemen to some vocations, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) does take into account the individual's aptitude and suitability to fulfil the required tasks and operational roles. These personal considerations are balanced against the priority to train and generate combat and supporting units to defend Singapore. The Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS), which I chair, is presently studying how to expand the number of vocations where the individual's aptitude and preference is considered while still maintaining or strengthening our defence capabilities. I think this was the gist of Ms Mary Liew's question.
The Nominated Member of Parliament also asked about maritime sector qualifications. And, indeed, maritime sector qualification is one of the several factors that the SAF takes into account when deploying full-time National Servicemen to the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN). Let me give some details on the relevant qualifications. It includes Diplomas in Nautical Studies, Maritime Transportation and Marine Engineering as well as Higher National Institute of Technical Education Certificates (NITEC) in Marine Offshore Engineering.
National Servicemen (NSmen), who have suitable maritime sector qualifications, such as the Certificate of Competency issued by MPA may be deployed to the RSN to serve their National Service (NS).
\tPage: 20
The Member has also suggested that civilian shipboard service be recognised as NS. This would be unwise and inequitable, as it would erode the support for NS, where every enlistee performs his duties, whether it is within SPF, SCDF or SAF.
\tMs Mary Liew (Nominated Member): I am very heartened to hear the Minister's response. Just one supplementary question: will the Minister consider working closely with MPA to recognise the sea time served on board navy ships for these seafaring maritime graduates as part of their career sea time to be accumulated for their Certificate of Competency (COC)?
\tDr Ng Eng Hen: Madam, indeed, the RSN already does that and it tracks individuals with maritime sector qualifications and works with MPA. We recognise that it is not a large pool and, so, it is to our interest to be able to deploy these NSFs who are more likely to pursue maritime careers. As I have said, they have the COC and we recognise that the COC is a professional qualification that enables NSmen, and some of them actually are already serving in selected RSN officer appointments that require these professional qualifications.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accreditation under Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for Health to date, how many Government and private hospitals have been accredited with Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative status and when will all hospitals be so accredited.\t
8 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for Health what steps have been taken to actively promote breastfeeding in Singapore and what steps are being taken to prevent companies from unethically marketing infant formula and food to mothers with babies one year old and below.\t
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I take both Question Nos 7 and 8 together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of a baby's
Page: 21
life as it provides all the energy and nutrients needed for optimal growth, development and protection against infectious and chronic diseases. The promotion of exclusive breastfeeding among mothers, by educating and supporting them in breastfeeding, before birth, during their hospital stay and after they are discharged, can contribute towards improving infants' health.
HPB and the Association for Breastfeeding Advocacy (Singapore) (ABAS) have been working with five hospitals – National University Hospital (NUH), KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), Singapore General Hospital (SGH), Mount Alvernia Hospital and Thomson Medical Centre – to implement the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) guidelines and achieve BFHI certification. HPB and ABAS are working with the five identified hospitals as they account for 80% of the births in Singapore. Currently, NUH and SGH have achieved BFHI certification. All five hospitals are committed to the principles outlined in the BFHI guidelines and have implemented initiatives such as the provision of training to all maternity ward staff to provide breastfeeding counselling, consultation and support to mothers.
Promotion of breastfeeding is also accompanied by measures to protect parents from excessive marketing of infant formula targeted at children aged 0-6 months. In this respect, the Sale of Infant Foods Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS)'s Code of Ethics was established to safeguard ethical standards on appropriate marketing and distribution of breast milk substitutes. Adherence to the Code is obligatory on the entire infant food industry operating in Singapore.
Breastfeeding puts an infant on the right start to life. MOH will work together with stakeholders to ensure that mothers are provided with the appropriate skills and support to ensure that they are motivated to continue breastfeeding their babies for the recommended period.
\tMs Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I have three supplementary questions. The experience of other countries has shown that what is important is community support after the mother is discharged from hospital because that is critical in ensuring that the breastfeeding practice continues. So, my question is what has MOH done or will want to do to build upon such peer support to increase breastfeeding awareness amongst mothers in the community, and have there been any funding and, if so, what has been the impact of such activities.
Page: 22
Secondly, with the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) being implemented, how does the Government plan to monitor the effectiveness of such a scheme, especially in increasing breastfeeding rates in Singapore? And what kind of a feedback system is in place?
Lastly, with regards to the Sale of Infant Foods Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS)'s Code of Ethics, does MOH intend to do more in terms of introducing penalties for companies which do not comply?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I will go in the reverse order. Firstly, for the SIFECS' Code of Ethics, as I have noted, the major infant food industry players are all committed to subscribe to the Code of Ethics. In fact, HPB is the agency that oversees compliance with this Code of Ethics. Generally, there has been good compliance with a handful of violations. What we do really is for HPB to send a warning letter to those who have violated the guidelines, firstly, to the regional HQ, and, if necessary, to the global HQ. And, generally, they will rectify the violations. We have observed that there are no continued or consistent violations by the same company. Generally, this approach has worked well, and we intend to continue with this approach, promotional as well as getting the major players involved with compliance. In fact, all of them are committed to complying with the Code.
The other question on BFHI – plans to monitor the effectiveness after implementation, and then the feedback regarding the breastfeeding rate. First, let me share that between 2001 and 2011, the percentage of women who have taken to breastfeeding their infants upon delivery and then discharge from hospital, that is at initiation, has increased. In 2011, the rate was 99.1% at initiation. Continued breastfeeding, partial breastfeeding, at six months has also improved. In 2001, it was 21%. It has improved to 42% in 2011.
The exclusive breastfeeding rate is still very low. We continue to see how we can encourage exclusive breastfeeding, which means that only breast milk for the first six months, excluding water. I think one of the problems really is cultural practices and beliefs that you should supplement it with water, which is not in accordance with the definition of exclusive breastfeeding.
We conduct a national survey for breastfeeding periodically and that will be one of the ways that we can monitor the effectiveness. For hospitals which do not have certification, as I have noted, they have already implemented many of the guidelines in the BFHI and they are committed to getting certification. For the three hospitals that have not gotten it, we are working with them, and we
Page: 23
are in communication with other hospitals, too.
Regarding support for mothers who want to breastfeed, HPB actually has been working with Association for Breastfeeding Advocacy to encourage and advise employers on the establishment of breastfeeding friendly workplaces. For instance, having a lactation room as well as, of course, organising talks for women on successful breastfeeding. The \"Project Liquid Gold\" initiative by NTUC U Family has the same objectives. MOM has funding under WorkPro where you can get subsidies for expenditure on lactation rooms.
Besides that, HPB also produces a one-stop parent toolkit called \"Healthier Child Brighter Future\" and it has information on the benefits of breastfeeding for mother and child and knowledge to help the women onto successful breastfeeding. We continue to work with partners to promote breastfeeding.
\tMs Faizah Jamal: One last supplementary question, please. I think in the National Breastfeeding Survey 2011, only 0.9% of mothers were still exclusively breastfeeding when the baby was six months, which is really, really low. In fact, the experience of other countries shows that if you have trained peer breastfeeding counsellors, it really, really helps the rate to go up. So, my last question is: what has MOH done or want to do to ensure that there are trained peer breastfeeding counsellors, whether within the community or somebody from the agencies?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: We are aware that the exclusive breastfeeding rate is low but, as I have noted, two out of five women are breastfeeding partially at six months. Therefore, for exclusive breastfeeding, some of the issues could be that cultural practices and beliefs are such that you cannot comply with the definition of what exclusive breastfeeding means. Nonetheless, HPB is working with the hospitals. Under the BFHI initiative, all staff in the maternity ward, the healthcare professionals, would be trained to provide counselling and support for breastfeeding mothers, that is, teach them how to breastfeed, and so on and so forth. We will continue with that. HPB also will work towards providing more support in this area.
Page: 24
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Core Components of Character and Citizenship Education Syllabus","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Education (a) what the core components of the new Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) syllabus; (b) whether \"Animal Welfare\" is confirmed to be a core module for all students; and (c) if a specific module on \"Common Special Needs/Disabilities\" can be designated as a core, and not an optional, module in the CCE curriculum.\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Education): Mdm Speaker, the new CCE syllabus is anchored on core values, social and emotional competencies, and skills related to character and citizenship development. CCE lessons are based on the life experiences that students undergo, drawing out values and skills appropriate to the students' age.
Students are guided to apply the core values of respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony; make decisions and act on them in a responsible way. There is also a reflection component to encourage students to think of their experience, learn from it and apply their learning.
Students will also engage in various learning experiences, such as co-curricular activities, Learning Journeys and Values-in-Action programmes. These experiences provide authentic contexts in which they can apply what they learn in the classroom, thereby deepening their learning.
Animal welfare and common special needs and disabilities are both topics that are covered in CCE lessons. Through discussions on issues related to animal welfare, students will learn the concept of responsibility, and the values and attitudes they should adopt to be more responsible members of the family, community and the nation.
Through lessons on common special needs and disabilities, students are taught to appreciate diversity in the community, respect each other while appreciating different strengths and abilities and being sensitive to special needs.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): I thank the Senior Minister of State for her response. I just want to ask the question again. I was told on the ground that animal welfare is considered a core component in the new CCE syllabus and \"special needs\" is not. Can the Senior Minister of State
\tPage: 25
confirm that? Second, I am glad that, in any case, special needs and disabilities are covered. I want to ask the Senior Minister of State if MOE would consider for the Ministry to work with key disability groups to develop and fund the content and pedagogy, and perhaps to consider more online resources so that students and staff can access this content on a 24/7 anytime-anywhere basis.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: With respect to the first question, whether it is a core subject for either one, the answer is no, not for either one. In the Member's original question, she asked whether it was a core module. A module, as we understand it or as it is applied in the curriculum, is a self-contained area of learning that is covered over a few lessons. So, neither animal welfare nor special needs are modules. Both however are individual lessons within life themes. Insofar as the Member is concerned that either one – whether the animal welfare or special needs – is taught to students, they are both covered and they are both given due weight.
With respect to the second question on pedagogy and whether we can work with special needs communities, the answer is that MOE would be very willing and open to have input from these communities.
On the third question for online learning, the answer is yes, and that is not limited just to CCE. MOE is looking at online learning across the board to see how we can more effectively teach, leveraging on online resources but also recognising that technology alone cannot replace the role that teachers play.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Opportunities for Students to Interact with Peers of Other Nationalities","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures are taken to ensure that our students have a good amount of interaction opportunities with peers from other nationalities to enhance their holistic learning experiences; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider immersion programmes for students from local and international schools as well as local schools with skewed enrolments to strengthen the opportunity of interactions between Singaporeans and other nationalities.\t
The Senior Minister of State for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Education): Mdm Speaker, Mr Gan has highlighted an important area of learning for our students. They will need to acquire global
\tPage: 26
and cultural literacy, feel comfortable interacting with one another, and share common experiences.
Schools play an important role in promoting mutual understanding and respect between local students and international students. This is achieved through both the formal curriculum and co-curricular activities (CCA).
Subjects, such as History, Geography and Social Studies, help broaden the world view of Singapore students. Through these subjects, students learn about the cultures of other countries. They are also taught the importance of respecting others through Character and Citizenship Education. School programmes, such as CCAs, provide opportunities for students to interact and work with international students and people of different nationalities.
Schools also carry out school-wide programmes to provide opportunities for students to interact and develop friendships with students of other races and international students. Annually, schools commemorate International Friendship Day where they learn the importance of global flow of trade, ideas and talent, and how to work with others from different cultures. At Hua Yi Secondary, as a follow-up to lessons on the significance of International Friendship Day, international students shared with their local schoolmates about their respective cultures, and the trade links between Singapore and their countries. Local and international students also worked together to put up exhibition booths which featured products from different countries in Asia and highlighted the importance of good relations with other countries.
Our schools also have various types of collaborations with both local and overseas institutions to provide our students opportunities to interact with international students. Our local schools and Foreign System Schools regularly hold joint activities, such as cultural celebrations and student exchanges. Many schools also have exchange programmes with overseas schools, where international students would come to Singapore schools for a short stint. In turn, our schools would organise programmes to schools overseas to allow our students to experience a different culture and learning environment.
\tMr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Enabling Singapore students to have a deeper understanding of our diverse cultures and perspectives is quite important. In fact, some parents have actually shared with me their concern that in the current Primary 1 admission system, it is quite highly possible that some schools will end up with all Singaporeans while others may end up with a high
\tPage: 27
percentage of Permanent Residents (PRs). With that in mind, what MOE can do to help Singapore children have a better understanding of each other and between Singapore PRs, and how to deepen their interaction and sharing of personal experiences?
\tMs Indranee Rajah: As I mentioned in my earlier reply, the interactions and opportunities for interactions given are numerous. If the students are in the same school, they will have the opportunity to interact with each other. If they are not in the same school, then there are events in which they have the opportunity to meet and interact. The local students also have the opportunity to travel overseas where they can experience different cultures and exchanges with students in their own countries.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recent Changes to Taxi Fares","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the taxi fare charges can be less complex than what it is now; and (b) whether the current fare structure has been effective in ensuring that there are adequate taxis on the roads and which are able to meet the travel needs of commuters.\t
12 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether taxi companies are at liberty to impose different taxi charges for different types of taxis; (b) whether commuters are expected to scrutinise the type of taxis which they flag down before deciding to board the taxi; and (c) how does the Ministry expect taxi commuters to be able to distinguish the different types of taxis before flagging the taxi.\t
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 11 and 12 together?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, taxi fares were deregulated in September 1998 to allow taxi companies to set their own fares, so that they can be more responsive to market conditions. The taxi fare structure has since evolved with different surcharges to better match taxi supply with demand by giving incentives to taxi drivers to serve locations and time periods where demand is high. The charging of different fares for different types of taxis by
Page: 28
the same operator is not a recent phenomenon, although we are seeing more of it lately, which taxi operators have attributed to the different cost and rental rates for different models. The varying rental rates depend on the model and age of the taxis which some see as a fair reflection of preferences of the taxi drivers.
Although fares are deregulated, taxi companies are required to publicise fare revisions at least one week in advance in the media and on their websites. Taxi fare information must also be made available on taxi stand information panels, on LTA and PublicTransport@SG websites, and on fare decals in taxis.
We recognise that the current taxi fare structures are complex and confusing for commuters. LTA will work with the Public Transport Council (PTC) and the taxi companies to study how the fare structures could be made simpler and easier for commuters to understand, taking into consideration the impact on taxi drivers and availability.
\tMr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether it is a case of these complex charges that are incentivising taxis to concentrate on specific areas or even some specific practices to maximise the mileage, and whether that is counter-productive, as having too many complex charges lead to different behaviour. Secondly, would LTA consider a single call booking system rather than have the present system where each commuter calls each company to book a fare? And would that be a better system for consumers?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Madam, as is the case for many types of services, there is uneven distribution of demand at specific times of the day and at specific locations. What is quite evident today is that operators are sensitive to the mismatches between demand and supply and have made efforts to address them through various surcharges. So, whilst it is unsatisfactory from the commuter's standpoint, they have gone some distance to addressing supply and demand mismatches. The taxi drivers themselves are quite familiar with the different surcharges and they respond accordingly.
As to the Member's question on whether we should have a single call booking service, this is something that we can look into. But I should add our priority right now is to address the need for greater simplicity to fare structures.
Page: 29
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Speaker, I want to ask the Senior Minister of State whether she agrees that there are frequent complaints by the public that it is difficult to find taxis at peak hours and many a time during off-peak hours. My second question is whether the Senior Minister of State would agree that allowing taxi companies to impose different taxi charges for different types of taxis is unfair to commuters and unfriendly. It does penalise commuters because they really do not have a choice in what taxis come their way. So, would the Senior Minister of State reconsider the decision not to interfere with the market and to disallow taxi companies from charging different taxi fares for different types of taxis? Finally, would the Senior Minister of State give her opinion as to whether the different fares charged would benefit taxi companies or do they really benefit taxi drivers?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: A very long string of questions. I apologise in advance if I did not get every one of them. I think the key point to note is that demand and supply are going to vary at different times of the day. As I explained earlier, taxi service is not different from any other types of service and it has the same issue of uneven demand. So, there will be occasions and at certain locations where the demand is very high, and we do need to find a way to get the taxis to ply those areas at those times, and pricing is one way in which the operators have achieved it. Rather than try and talk about the question of whether it is fair or unfair, we have acknowledged that it is complex, and it is confusing. We are interested to try and find a better way to let the commuters understand what the fare structure is. Simplifying it is what we would like to do right now. I hope that addresses his question.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Lim.
\tMr Lim Biow Chuan: They already have different surcharges for different times, for different locality. So, their charges help to bring taxis to where the peak demand is. I am saying that these are different taxi types and why do we allow different taxi types to charge different taxi fares?
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, as I have said earlier, we are looking at whether it should be simplified further. To his question of whether the same taxi company, same taxi operator, ought to charge different fares, the answer is that it is not a recent phenomenon. It has been going on for some time. It is just that we have seen more of it lately, and we are going to address this issue of how we can simplify it. As to whether we will allow the taxi companies to do so in future, that is a question that we are trying to come to a conclusion on.
Page: 30
\tMr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, in MOT's effort to try to simplify the fare, could MOT also ensure that the rental that is levied on taxi drivers is also simplified? Today, many assume that higher flag-down fare means drivers earn a better take-home income. But the take-home income has not changed due to the increase in rental fares. Having a mere increase in the flag-down fare simply means that they partially offset the increase in costs. So, in MOT's effort to try to simplify the flag-down and other fares, I hope MOT will balance the views that taxi drivers also have to bear higher rental costs.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, I think we want to be very careful about doing that. The rental agreement is between the taxi driver and the taxi operator. Right now, what Mr Ang is asking is whether the Government should get involved in this agreement between the taxi operator and the taxi driver. I am not so sure that that is the outcome that we really want to see, because at the end of the day, the taxi drivers will have to compare among which of the operators offers a rental scheme that best meets his requirements and he has to decide which one of it is a fair one from his point of view. In the context today, there is more than one taxi operator. So, there is competition in the market and it is up to the market to come forward with an agreement that taxi drivers find acceptable.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Ang. Last question.
\tMr Ang Hin Kee: I understand what the Senior Minister of State is alluding to, as far as options available to taxi drivers are concerned. But in today's context of a lot of the hiring agreements, the terms that are drafted in the agreements are highly disadvantageous to the taxi drivers to be able to move from one company to another company. There are a lot of incentive programmes packaged into the agreements whereby you cannot simply leave because another company offers you a better deal. They will have a package to say that if you drive for two years, you get this incentive; if you put in this amount of deposit, you have to drive for five years, and so on.
As far as the driver is concerned, he is unable to shift just because the rental is cheaper elsewhere. So, in a sense, the market is not working as effectively to allow a driver to have that portable scheme to be able to navigate between options just to save cost.
\tMrs Josephine Teo: Mdm Speaker, I think our question has gone far beyond the original scope and the questions that were posed by Mr Liang and
\tPage: 31
Mr Lim. Just very briefly, Mr Ang, I think it is an issue that perhaps the National Taxis Association (NTA) would also like to look into because it concerns the terms between the taxi operator and the taxi driver. I believe that it falls also within the remit of the NTA to look into.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Renewal of Employment Passes for Foreign Workers","subTitle":"Number of passes not granted renewal and breakdown by industry","sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Mr R Dhinakaran asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how many foreign employment passes were not renewed in the first half of this year; and (b) what was the breakdown in terms of the type of employment pass and which were the industries/professions that the employment pass holders belonged to.
\tThe Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, in the first half of 2013, about 2,600 Employment Passes (EPs) have not been renewed, of which slightly more than half were Q1 Pass holders. The top industries for these EP holders were Wholesale and Retail Trade, Professional Services and Information and Communications. This is very likely due to the tightening of the EP qualifying criteria implemented in January 2012, as part of the Government's effort to raise the quality profile of foreign professionals working here.
\tMr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Madam, I would like to ask the Acting Minister whether MOM has received any complaints from MNCs which are engaged in this kind of industries because of the tight labour market; whether they are complaining saying that they want to move out of Singapore which may adversely affect our citizens' employment opportunities.
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, we are constantly in dialogue with the various chambers of commerce. As a result of tightening, I would suggest that it is not just foreign companies but local companies as well, that have expressed concerns. As the Member has rightly pointed out, this is one consideration that companies will look at. I have said before in this House that the competitiveness that Singapore offers extends beyond a diverse and open labour market. There are many pluses that are going our way: rule of law, transparency, flexibility, the infrastructure and so on. All these go into the consideration of any company operating here.
\tPage: 32
Having an open diverse workforce is beneficial and it does eventually benefit Singaporeans as well. So, these are ongoing discussions we have with various companies, both local and foreign. We are very mindful of their concerns. That is why I think we do take a calibrated approach and we proceed quite carefully on this front.
The overall message is consistent. We do need to tighten and we do need to move on to a much more productivity-led growth as well as a more manpower-lean approach towards growth.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Coverage of Home Protection Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"14 Ms Lee Li Lian asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what percentage of HDB flat owners is not covered by the Home Protection Scheme (HPS); (b) what percentage of this is due to insufficient funds in the owners' CPF Ordinary Account to pay for the premium; and (c) whether the Government will consider allowing the payment of premiums from the CPF Ordinary Account of the owners' children if the owners have insufficient funds in their Ordinary Account.\t
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, HDB flat owners who are using CPF savings to service their monthly loan instalments are required to take up the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) or an equivalent mortgage reducing insurance (MRI). This applies to about 60% of all HDB flat owners with outstanding loans. Of this group, that is, of this 60%, 95% are covered under the HPS or an equivalent MRI, while 3% are uninsurable or ineligible for HPS cover. The remaining 2% had lapsed on their HPS premium payments.
Of the 40% of HDB flat owners who are not required to take up HPS because they are not using CPF savings to service their monthly loan instalments, 44% of this 40% have taken up the HPS voluntarily. Some have also chosen to take up MRI from private insurance companies.
The HPS premium is deducted automatically from the Ordinary Account (OA) of CPF members. For those with insufficient OA savings, a grace period of two months is provided for them to make their premium payment. During the grace period, any new OA contributions are channelled first towards meeting the HPS premium payments, and then monthly loan instalments. This is, essentially, to minimise lapses in coverage. CPF members are also notified to
\tPage: 33
make cash top-ups to their OA, as required, to make up the shortfall for the HPS premiums. If their children wish to assist with making premium payments, they can actually do so via this route. CPF members can also choose to tap on the OA savings of their spouse, who must also be a co-owner of the flat, to pay for the premium.
We will study the feasibility of using non-spouse co-owners' OA savings for the payment of HPS premiums, without affecting the payers' own retirement adequacy. This is a feedback that has cropped up regularly. We are in the process of working with MND to study other options to help HPS policy holders who face difficulties in paying their HPS premiums to minimise lapses in HPS coverage.
\tMs Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): I would like to find out the rationale for not allowing HPS premiums to be deducted directly from children's CPF OA since funds from the children's CPF MAs are currently allowed to be used to pay for parents' premiums for MediShield as well as Medisave-approved integrated Shield plans. Are there different parameters that are used to consider them?
\tMr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary question. We would like to support home ownership and, therefore, CPF members can actually use their OA savings to finance their own home purchase. The OA contributions, however, are not sized to support additional housing needs that the CPF family members may have.
For the OA account, at present, we are not sizing it such that it is meant to cater for this need. Essentially, we do encourage CPF members to set aside sufficient CPF savings for retirement and should not compromise this by overspending on their housing or in support of their parents' housing.
The long and short of it is how we size that particular account. At present, we do not believe that that is the approach that we would like to take.
\tPage: 34
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mortgage Arrears Due to CPF Withdrawal Limits","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the number of HDB flat owners who are currently in mortgage arrears because of CPF limits on mortgage repayments; and (b) in each of the past three years, what is the number of HDB flat owners who have been served eviction orders despite having CPF savings in their Special Account or the CPF Minimum Sum.\t
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, 5% or 16,300 out of 335,000 households with an outstanding HDB loan are in arrears of three months or more. Among those in arrears, 0.7% or 111 households are affected by the CPF Valuation Limit.
These flat owners can continue to use their CPF OA savings to repay their housing loan after setting aside the required amount in their CPF accounts to ensure that they have at least some level of cash savings for retirement. If they are unable to do so, depending on the merits of each case, CPF Board may exercise flexibility to allow them to continue using their CPF savings to service their housing loans.
Madam, there may be many reasons why flat owners fall into arrears. They could have over-stretched their finances, or suffered a reduction in income due to loss of job or illness. HDB proactively helps flat owners manage their arrears early. If their financial difficulty is temporary, HDB will consider reducing or deferring their instalments, or work out an instalment plan to resolve their arrears. For flat owners who can no longer afford to keep their flats, HDB will explore more sustainable solutions, such as helping them to right-size to a smaller flat.
Compulsory acquisition is taken as a last resort against flat owners who persistently refuse to resolve their arrears, or work towards a sustainable solution, despite the assistance given. Eviction may have to be carried out in the final stage of compulsory acquisition if the owners are hostile and uncooperative. Over the past three years, none of the cases scheduled for eviction due to arrears was affected by the CPF Valuation Limit.
A balance has to be struck between allowing the use of CPF savings for housing and safeguarding savings in the CPF Special Account (SA), or the Minimum Sum Cash Component in the Retirement Account, for retirement
\tPage: 35
purposes. Flat owners in financial difficulty should engage HDB early to work out sustainable solutions to solve their arrears.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. Can I confirm that HDB will actually allow house owners to draw down from their Special Account or Minimum Sum to pay for their mortgages in cases where they could not come up with the cash mortgage payment?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, in the case of an HDB concessionary loan being used to purchase a resale HDB flat, for instance, if the loan is still outstanding when the total CPF used has reached the Valuation Limit, the owner, if he is below 55 years old, can indeed continue to use the OA savings to repay the loan after setting aside half the prevailing CPF Minimum Sum in the OA and the SA. If he is 55 years old or above, the Minimum Sum cash component has to be set aside in the Retirement Account.
As for the use of the SA, in general, SA savings may not be used for property purchase, but we allow exceptions in the cases only of CPF policy changes affecting members' ability to service ongoing mortgage loans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Stabilising Property Prices","subTitle":"Impact of latest cooling measures","sectionType":"OA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked\tthe Minister for National Development (a) whether the 2012 and 2013 rounds of cooling measures have dampened demand from foreign buyers and reduced their speculation in the private property market; and (b) what can be done to ensure a predictable regulatory regime, beyond ad hoc cooling measures, to regulate foreign ownership in Singapore's property market in order to create sustainable property prices.
\tThe Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mdm Speaker, the cooling measures have, as intended, dampened foreign demand and reduced speculation. Since 2011, foreign buying in our private housing market has shrunk, both in proportion and in absolute numbers.
\tPage: 36
The proportion of purchase by foreigners has fallen from 17% in 2011 to 7% in the third quarter of this year. Over the same period, the number of purchases by foreigners has fallen from about 1,400 per quarter to 330 in the third quarter of this year.
As for property speculations, sub-sales, as a proportion of all private housing transactions, have dropped from 7.6% in 2011 to 4.6% in the third quarter of this year. In absolute numbers, sub-sale transactions have fallen from about 670 per quarter in 2011 to 181 in the third quarter of this year.
Our priority is to support home ownership for Singaporeans. This is reflected in our policies. Only citizens are allowed to buy new HDB flats and provided grants to purchase resale HDB flats. Almost all landed housing can only be purchased by Singaporeans. The private condominium market allows foreigner buying and the cooling measures have moderated their impact. The resultant trend is encouraging but we continue to closely monitor the market and we will not hesitate to act further when necessary.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for the response. My question also had as its intention a system that would create sustainability of prices. Therefore, I just like to ask the Minister whether it is still his position that a collection of different avenues in the form of stamp duties or additional stamp duties would be better than, for example, a restriction on foreign ownership to an extent as in the Australian model. So, I just want to get a sense that it is the versatility of the many tools presently in the system, rather than something a lot more draconian.
\tMr Khaw Boon Wan: Madam, managing the property market is both an art and a science, which also requires a heavy dose of good luck. I would say the outcome in the last two and a half years has been \"so far so good\". There is not really a single measure or a silver bullet that will solve the problem and deliver a particular outcome.
Even the Australian model that the Member talked about has its fair share of property bubble. Currently, in fact, they are still trying to sort things out there, with much difficulty.
We do require a basket of measures and calibrate them in a way to achieve a particular outcome. I certainly share the same wish as the Member to achieve a sustainable, perhaps, even boring, property market. But for a small Singapore market that is plugged into the global system, we face many factors which are
\tPage: 37
completely outside and beyond our control. That is why, although the Member in his question referred to our measures as ad hoc, I am afraid that this is part and parcel of managing our property market, that we have to be nimble and we have to try to anticipate and make certain projections but we can never be sure. And, therefore, for some measures after we have done it, we still have to re-calibrate the quantum.
As I said, \"so far so good\"; I am seeing more light at the end of the tunnel but we are still in the tunnel. So, we continue to have to watch carefully over the market. At the same time, we wish for good luck too but, so far so good. As you can see, I am now more relaxed. My hair has even turned black.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Heavy Vehicles on Roads near Schools and High Pedestrian Traffic Areas","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport whether heavy vehicles can be banned from using roads that are near schools and have high pedestrian traffic with exceptions granted on application when there is no alternative route.\t
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, LTA has localised traffic schemes that restrict the entry of heavy vehicles to areas around schools or with high pedestrian activity. However, a blanket ban is not possible as there are many occasions when heavy vehicles need to serve community amenities, or to access construction sites within residential estates.
In such cases, LTA will work with the community and industry stakeholders to implement alternative arrangements such as re-routing to minimise the access of heavy vehicles to these areas, or road safety enhancement schemes such as traffic calming measures and warning signs.
\tMr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Since the accident in Tampines earlier this year where the two brothers died, the Members of Parliament for Tampines have worked with LTA to re-route heavy vehicles in the area so that they do not go near school zones. This was initiated by the community. May I ask when the Parliamentary Secretary talked about the localised scheme, who is the driver of this scheme? Does LTA proactively reach out to the local community whenever there is a new project in the area? Does this apply to both private and public construction projects in every area?
\tPage: 38
So, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to elaborate on how it is being implemented on the ground.
Secondly, specific to the accident site at Tampines Avenue 9, although the heavy vehicles are no longer plying as often, which is much welcomed by residents, we still find high incidence of vehicles speeding along the road. May I ask if LTA has any measures to address this issue?
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I would like to thank the Member for the question. In fact, in Tampines, I am very happy to see the positive development. I think road safety is a shared responsibility. I would like to assure the Member that LTA will try its best to ensure that we can help communities and industry stakeholders to keep their environment and road safe.
In most of the cases, we will look into it and we will be proactive. But in some cases, where things are very unique and localised, only the community would know better. There have been many communities which have come forward to work with us and I am very happy that we can see more and more communities stepping up, and, as such, the effect is that we will have safer roads for fellow Singaporeans and other road users.
With regard to the second point, I am also pleased to share with the hon Member that LTA has worked very closely with the community and we have seen positive development, as mentioned by the hon Member. Beyond that, we are also looking at how we can improve the infrastructure, the engineering work with regards to safety. So, I am pleased to share with the Member that we will implement four bus-friendly humps along Tampines Avenue 9. We also have plans to reduce the speed limit along a section of Tampines Avenue 9 where we are thinking of reducing it from 60 km per hour to 50 km per hour. We are working with other agencies to see how we can do the necessary gazetting to make the effect.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Conditions for Waiving Ethnic Integration Policy for HDB Flats","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"18 Mr Hri Kumar Nair asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there are cases of Singaporeans who have acquired new or resale flats without enjoying any advantage under the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) but
\tPage: 39
are made subject to EIP when selling the same; and (b) if so, whether the Ministry will waive the application of EIP quotas for such sales.
\tThe Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) is not intended to advantage or to disadvantage any family when they buy or sell their flats. It is put in place to prevent the formation of ethnic enclaves. It helps to promote racial harmony in HDB estates. As multiracialism characterises Singapore, ensuring racial harmony is an important principle in our public housing policy.
The EIP limits are consistently applied across all ethnic groups in Singapore. There may, indeed, be cases where some buyers or sellers are inconvenienced by the EIP at the time of purchase or sale. However, we are unable to exercise any waiver, or we would compromise the objective of the EIP.
Currently, only a few HDB neighbourhoods are affected by the EIP limits. For these neighbourhoods, flat sellers are still able to secure buyers from the eligible ethnic groups, given the large volume of resale transactions.
\tMr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, supplementary questions. I thank the Minister of State for the answer. I should say that I fully support the objectives of the EIP programme. I think it is right. I just have two questions. First, a question of clarification: would I be right to say that new flats are allotted to Singaporeans after the EIP quotas are already taken into account. So, in other words, if a person of a minority race receives a flat under the BTO allocation system, is it because his quota has already been taken into account in the allocation?
The second question is really one to narrow the exception I alluded to. Can the Ministry at least consider an exception where a minority seller has to sell on account of arrears or on account of order of court, or in other words, where he is forced to sell the flat? In those circumstances, will the Ministry consider waiving the EIP requirement?
\tMr Desmond Lee: Madam, on the hon Member's first question, yes, the EIP quotas are applied when the BTOs are put up for balloting. As for the second point about forced sales or where an individual is required to sell, the Ministry would look at it on a case-by-case basis. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that we will consider a waiver of the EIP. So, I hope that
\tPage: 40
addresses the concerns.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Data by Ranbaxy Laboratories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"19 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Health in view of a subsidiary of the multinational pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd being found guilty of data fraud by the US Food and Drug Administration in May 2013 (a) whether the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) has done a review of all data submitted to it by Ranbaxy; and (b) how HSA ensures Singapore's supply of generic drugs from overseas is safe for use.\t
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Prior to authorisation by HSA for supply in Singapore, generic drugs are subject to a peer review of scientific data by a team of regulatory scientists, including manufacturing and clinical data, to ensure that the drug meets the required standards for quality, safety and efficacy. The drugs have to be manufactured according to international Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards.
With regard to the data submitted by Ranbaxy for registration of their products, all data submitted was reviewed by HSA.
HSA takes a two-pronged approach in ensuring that medicinal products meet the required standards: pre-market review based on data submitted by the company and post-market sampling and testing to ensure compliance. All drugs are subject to post-market surveillance checks to ensure continued compliance with the required standards of quality, safety and efficacy. Such checks include targeted sampling and testing, in conjunction with a safety monitoring system, which enable HSA to detect local and global signals related to drug safety.
In the case of Ranbaxy's products, the US FDA's ruling in 2013 originated from the findings of the audit that FDA conducted at two of Ranbaxy's manufacturing sites in 2008, which raised concerns that the manufacturing processes deviated from US manufacturing standards at these two sites. In November 2008, these two sites were jointly audited by the World Health Organization and five other international regulatory agencies.
Page: 41
HSA participated in one of the two joint site audits. Findings observed during the joint audits were addressed by Ranbaxy and the two audit teams concluded subsequently that the two sites were in compliance with international GMP standards. GMP certificates were then issued by WHO and the European Medicine Agency to these two sites in 2009. Since then, the various regulatory authorities have conducted regular audits at these sites. HSA has maintained close communication with these agencies to track closely the results of these audit findings of the Ranbaxy sites concerned.
Currently, there are 15 products manufactured by the two reported Ranbaxy sites that are marketed in Singapore. HSA has been conducting regular targeted sampling and testing of these products under the Product Quality Sampling programme, and the test results have confirmed that the products comply with approved quality specifications. To date, our adverse events database —
Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State, could you please wind up your speech?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: To date, our adverse events database has also not indicated any safety signals associated with Ranbaxy's products.
The last line, Mdm Speaker. HSA will continue to monitor Ranbaxy products to ensure that they meet safety, quality and efficacy requirements. Thank you, Mdm Speaker.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 21-22, 24-25, 28-31 and 33-36 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 20, 23, 26-27, 32 and 37 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]
Page: 42
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question (11 November 2013), \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to express my support for the Bill, which strengthens the Act, particularly in increasing the enforcement powers of CPF Board and in providing stiffer penalties to target errant employers.
CPF is critical in funding the retirement needs for most Singaporeans. A 2012 study was commissioned by MOM to show that new workers' CPF would be adequate for a comfortable retirement.
However, the issue of the adequacy of CPF for retirement would not go away. The MOM study focused on analysing the 30th, 50th and 70th percentile of young workers. We know that CPF alone may not be sufficient for many outside this range of workers. And within this range, there would be people who drop out of the workforce for significant periods of time, like stay-at-home mothers.
Then, there are the older workers. For the cohort that turned 55 in 2012, only 48.7% of active CPF members attained the full Minimum Sum. This number excludes inactive CPF members.
Apart from these numbers, what is also important is how people feel on the ground. Many Singaporeans seem to feel that their total retirement savings, not just the CPF, is inadequate. For example, in a 2013 HSBC study on \"The Future of Retirement\", over half or 56% of the Singapore respondents felt that their financial preparations for a comfortable retirement were inadequate.
The reasons for this predicament are numerous and complex and this is not the appropriate occasion to explore all of them. I would just focus on some limited aspects of whether enough is going into the CPF accounts of
\tPage: 43
Singaporeans in the first place.
First, let me affirm the good that is being done and ask for an update. The Government restored the contribution rate of low-wage workers from January 2014 and enhanced the Workfare Income Supplement scheme. These are welcomed and I hope the lowering of contribution rates for the low-income does not happen again.
MOM and CPF Board also launched the WorkRight campaign to educate workers about their employment rights and increased enforcement efforts to ensure that employers make CPF contributions for their employees. CPF Board has announced that it is increasing the number of enforcement inspections from 500 in 2012 to 5,000 by 2014. My question is: how effective have these increased inspections been, for example, in terms of finding more errant offenders?
In CPF Board's 2012 Annual Report, it says that \"the enforcement efforts of the CPF Board resulted in the recovery of $293 million in CPF contributions from 39,790 employers, benefiting more than 200,000 employees\". This means out of 128,000 or so employers who paid CPF contributions as at end of 2012, enforcement efforts were targeted at one in four of them.
This seems very high and does not square with the 0.57% average default rate for employers who failed to pay CPF contributions on time in 2012. Two hundred thousand is about one in nine active CPF members – again, not a small number. Perhaps, the Minister could explain this.
Under the \"I Know My Employment Rights, I Do It Right\" publicity campaign, I would also like to know whether it has resulted in more employees stepping forward to lodge complaints against their errant employers.
Secondly, let me highlight the measures that I support in the Bill before us. I support the increase in the maximum fines and the introduction of a term of imprisonment for offences under the Act for which no penalty is provided. These penalties are in line with the penalties for offences of a similar nature under the Employment Act. CPF payments are really no different from wage payments, as Dr Chia mentioned yesterday. And it is unacceptable for employers to withhold CPF contributions for their employees. In line with this, I also support the expansion of the scope of inspectors' powers to conduct their investigations.
\tPage: 44
However, I would like to sound a note of caution: it is important to distinguish between wilful behaviours and negligent or ignorant actions. As an employer in a small outfit, I know how difficult it is to know what is the right amount of CPF to pay. There are so many rules and rates to look at. This includes different rules and rates for different ages, income levels and nationalities, salary components, types of contracts and so on. And the contribution rate changes by the Government are not infrequent, and with staff turnover, it is very easy to make unintended mistakes, especially for small organisations with limited HR resources.
Hence, my third point is to make some suggestions. May I suggest that the CPF Act differentiate between the act of wilful withholding and the act of negligence or honest mistakes on the part of employers? I think a jail term is entirely appropriate for the former – for this group, I would even suggest heavier penalties than those proposed – but less so for the latter. May I also suggest that beyond educating employers on their roles, that CPF Board reviews its processes such that it is easier for employers to file the right returns?
In addition, I would like to take the opportunity to raise the issue of CPF not covering contributions of self-employed persons to their Ordinary and Special Accounts. I think the retirement adequacy of these Singaporeans is just as important as those of other Singaporeans. And it should not be because of political expediency or administrative ease that we choose to exclude them.
For example, in Hong Kong, self-employed persons are required to join the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme. There is no difference in the treatment of self-employed and employed persons, except that self-employed persons can opt to make their contributions monthly or annually. I would propose that the Ministry review the treatment of these persons with the view to increasing their contributions and extending this to informal workers, too.
Madam, I would also propose that the Ministry review the retirement adequacy of persons who do not participate in economic activity for large proportions of their working-age periods. And this would include homemakers, caregivers and people who cannot work, for example, people with disabilities and mental illness. Overall, I think the Government needs to move beyond analysing the retirement adequacy of the modal worker who is an active CPF member all his or her working life, to focusing on the retirement adequacy of every Singaporean. With this, I support the Bill.
\tPage: 45
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Madam, I have three issues to raise on the Central Provident (Amendment) Bill. First, I want to talk about the enhanced enforcement introduced under the Repeal and Re-enactment of section 61 of the Act. The CPF holds the hard-earned money of every working Singaporean. We depend on it for our housing, healthcare, retirement needs and more. It is thus imperative that the Government should do more to protect working Singaporeans from being short-changed by errant employers, by sending a clear signal to these companies that non-payment, under-payment and even late payment of our CPF contributions are not acceptable, and repeat offenders will be taken to task.
It is good to know that the penalties for general offences for non-, under- or late payment of CPF contributions are finally brought in line with the Employment Act. There should be no distinction between the two components of a worker's wage. Salaries and CPF contributions must be equally protected under the law. The introduction of a jail term and a minimum fine would certainly send a clear message that CPF contributions are non-negotiable.
Although there is a rise in the number of CPF arrears cases, I note that the amount of money recovered, excluding late payments, remains relatively constant despite the rise in the number of companies and employees involved each year from 2010 to 2012.
In 2011, there was a jump of 42% from the previous year in the number of companies involved in under-payment or non-payment of CPF contributions, and a corresponding spike of 67% in the number of workers affected. But the amount recovered by the Board was unchanged at $9.5 million a year for 2010 and 2011. In 2012, the number of errant employers involved under the same offence went up by 8% from the previous year, and the number of workers affected increased by 10%. But the amount recovered actually came down slightly to $9.4 million.
These numbers are interesting as one would expect the amount of arrears recovered to go up proportionally with the number of offenders and affected workers. The two arrears cases cited by CPF in its press release in the last two years involved low-wage workers being owed CPF contributions for years and their arrears were substantial. The case cited by the Minister in his Manpower blog in May this year is also quite similar and the amount recovered for the
\tPage: 46
worker alone was $26,000.
Are these cases common or outlier? If these cases are common, it certainly did not reflect in the amount of CPF arrears recovered despite an annual increase in the number of companies and employees involved and the stepped up effort by both MOM and CPF Board to bring about greater compliance with the CPF and Employment Acts over the past three years.
If these cases cited are outlier, what are the common cases of non-compliance? Are we seeing more new entrant low-wage workers being disadvantaged? Are we seeing more part-time or contract workers being short-changed? I hope the Ministry can shed more light on this. I also urge the Ministry to share more examples of employers and their errant practices with the public so that workers in industries where violations are rampant can better understand their employment rights and get the necessary assistance.
It was also reported that the number of inspections was increased 10-fold, from 500 inspections in 2012 to 5,000 this year. The Minister has shared that 800 inspections were already carried out from January to April 2013. Can the Minister share why there is such a drastic spike in enforcement action? How many of the inspections were driven by complaints? And what can the Ministry do to remove the fear and protect workers who decide to come forward or whistle-blow?
It was reported that the key component of WorkRight, its confidentiality and the identity of anyone who files a complaint are kept strictly confidential. Has the assurance given rise to more complaints and enforcement action in 2013?
Second, the Bill seeks to expand the scope of inspectors' power of obtaining information, documents or records in the course of an inspection. I would like to ask the Minister about the safeguards put in place to prevent inspectors from going overboard in carrying their duties, now that they are armed with extended powers. What would constitute reasonable cause for an inspector to exercise the power conferred under the new section 5 subsection (3A)?
Third, I welcome the increase in withdrawal frequency for the CPF members above the age of 55 but I am of the opinion that there is no need to empower the Board to assess such application for withdrawal.
\tPage: 47
The amendment to section 15 subsection (4) specifically deals with members who have already set aside the Minimum Sum, so retirement adequacy is no longer an issue to these members. A member should be allowed to withdraw his CPF savings at any time if the need arises. What is the purpose of controlling the condition and frequency of withdrawal of a member's CPF savings beyond the Minimum Sum after age 55?
We spend a lifetime building our CPF retirement fund. We certainly do not want to spend the remaining years of our life quibbling with the Government of the day on how to spend the rest of our hard-earned money after setting aside the Minimum Sum at age 55. Allowing the Board such broad power to impose conditions and restrictions on the withdrawal frequency of a member's CPF account beyond what is legislated for retirement and medical use just does not sound right.
I seek clarification from the Minister that the previous condition for further withdrawals from CPF by any member upon setting aside the Minimum Sum after age 55 will remain unchanged, that is, a member being unemployed for a period of six months immediately preceding his application for the withdrawal. This is because the explanatory statement accompanying the CPF (Amendment) Bill is not clear on this. I also seek clarification from the Minister that the new section 15(4) will make the withdrawal of a member's CPF savings beyond the Minimum Sum easier and not harder going forward.
One last point. I call upon the Ministry to relook into the Withdrawal Limit and the Valuation Limit affecting some CPF members. The Minister has said that the number of CPF members who have reached their Valuation Limit and must use cash to service their housing loan is at less than half a percent of members who are using CPF savings for their housing loan. The question then is: why would the Government want to impose so much anxiety and hardship on a small group of HDB flat dwellers?
The Minister has also said in Parliament that the Valuation Limit and Withdrawal Limit continue to serve an important purpose in ensuring that CPF members purchase a property they can afford. I am sure affordability was not an issue at that point in time when some of these members purchased their HDB flat, but life is never certain.
I hope the Minister can look into this and, in the interim, exercise as much flexibility as possible to allow CPF members who have difficulties in servicing their housing loan in cash, due to the Valuation Limit, to continue to draw down
\tPage: 48
on their CPF savings for housing loan repayment.
In conclusion, it is vital for the Government to ensure that the publicity of their WorkRight initiative be sustained until such time when vulnerable groups like low-wage workers can fully comprehend their employment rights under the law and responsible employment practices can be a way of life in our society.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, I welcome the CPF (Amendment) Act to allow the increased withdrawal frequency for members above the age of 55 years old.
The CPF Act is amended to provide the Board with the flexibility to allow members to make more than one withdrawal per year, empowering the Board to assess each case on its own merits. Let me continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I hope this CPF (Amendment) Bill can help the Government handle the challenges faced by the members effectively and flexibly. For example, some residents hope the Government can allow them to continue to use their CPF savings to pay for their monthly mortgage.
The current regulation stipulates that members must meet the Minimum Sum requirement in their Retirement and MediSave accounts when they reach 55. Although members can pledge their properties, which help to meet half of the Minimum Sum requirement, some members are still unable to meet the requirement due to unfortunate circumstances, especially the low-income and contract workers, as well as self-employed persons.
I have met one such resident. He is 53 this year and just married, finally fulfilling his dream of having a family. But this is also the start of another nightmare. He is worried that in two years' time, he will be 55 and his savings in his CPF account will be subject to the Minimum Sum requirement. By then, he would not have much savings. How can he afford a HDB flat if he cannot even cope with the initial payment?
(In English): Not long ago, I highlighted in this House that there exists a need to harmonise one of the latest housing policies and the existing CPF rule. Under the new enhanced HDB Lease Buyback Scheme, homeowners of not more than 3-room flats who fulfil the pre-requisites could apply to HDB to
\tPage: 49
unlock part of their housing equity to supplement their retirement income.
It may be appropriate and practical for CPF to review its current rule which only allows CPF members to withdraw up to 120% of their Valuation Limit if they are able to set aside half of their prevailing Minimum Sum.
As we can see, both HDB Lease Buyback Scheme and CPF Minimum Sum Scheme serve the same objective of supporting the owners' requirement needs. Hence, both policies should be aligned and integrated to best serve the needs of our Singaporeans. Hence, the 120% of Valuation Limit rule warrants a review without compromising on the integrity of the underlying policy. Mdm Speaker, with that, I support the Bill and I look forward to a favourable outcome as a result of this amendment.
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, much of the feedback on the amended Bill has already been passionately articulated by my parliamentary colleagues. The CPF is an integral part of our retirement scheme and the recent reinstatement of the CPF contribution rates that was hard-fought by the Labour Movement is a case in point. I, therefore, welcome the tougher penalties for defaults on CPF contributions, especially by recalcitrant employers. The move to introduce a jail term of up to six months will definitely align the CPF and Employment Acts.
However, while the compliance of the CPF Act will now be strengthened and contributions made more constant with the enforcement of payments from employers, the withdrawal of funds by members is still perceived to be somewhat a challenge. As pointed out by the hon Member, Mr Laurence Lien, sometimes perceptions have become a reality for the public. As such, I will focus my attention on two elements that I think are not within the system at the moment and are not covered in the amendments this round.
Firstly, in my Parliamentary Question on 21 October 2013, I made an appeal to the Ministry to consider a tiered approach to the transfer of funds from CPF members' Ordinary Account to their Retirement Account, especially when they have outstanding housing loans. In the reply, the Ministry indicated that this was likely to be unnecessary as a vast majority of current CPF members have sufficient savings for housing or have completed their housing loan repayments. However, there is no smoke without fire. I have come across a number of cases recently where the Ordinary Account to Retirement Account Minimum Sum
\tPage: 50
transfer has turned some families' lives topsy-turvy.
To the layman, the current system presumes a somewhat perfect scenario, where issues only occur in silo. In Chinese, we have a saying: \"祸不单行\" or trouble rarely visits alone. For those families finding themselves suddenly cash-strapped when the sole or primary breadwinner has to transfer his/her Minimum Sum to the Retirement Account, they often face other issues that compound their problems.
In one case, Mr L, who I just saw yesterday, has had almost all his Ordinary Account transferred to his Retirement Account. He is currently left with $896 in his Ordinary Account. He has over $70,000 left in his housing loan and, unfortunately, he has just been diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. He is struggling. In another recent case, Ms H's father just turned 55 and they were unaware that the Ordinary Account had been transferred to his Retirement Account until a letter came from HDB. He, of course, was deeply troubled by this. He approached HDB and was told that he needed CPF's approval to transfer money back from his Retirement Account to his Ordinary Account. Not entirely conversant in English, he found the process hard to comprehend and it went on for a period of time. That was not the end. After he made his appeal to the CPF, he was reassured that it would be taken care of very shortly. However, he received not one, but two reminders from HDB and, therefore, resulted in him being in months of arrears. Thankfully, the matter has been resolved, but these are just some of the many examples.
We may, therefore, need to be cogent of the reality that Singaporeans are now: one, marrying later, yet making their first home purchase much earlier, and then having children much later. This has, therefore, changed the spending patterns of our citizens quite significantly. If we compare this generation with the generation just before us, the hope of an early retirement with kids already well settled in their education, graduated and probably starting their own families, was somewhat a possibility 20 years ago but is very much a pipe dream today.
Cost of living has also gone up, education is becoming comparatively more expensive, and housing is also becoming a bigger part of household expenditure. In just 10 years between 1998 and 2008, expenditure on housing has gone up 4.2%.
So, while CPF has been around since 1955 and it is a part of everyone's working life, the complexities of the system mean that some are still not fully
\tPage: 51
aware of the different schemes as well as different requirements. People may not remember the importance of the 55-year-old gateway. Yes, the system allows for a property pledge, as mentioned by the hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh earlier, and the Board does practise some flexibility when the case extraordinarily warrants. However, it is still somewhat troubling for many ordinary Singaporeans to understand the full complexity of the issues.
It is, therefore, my view that a staggered or tiered transfer of the Minimum Sum over a course of five years may just be a change that could benefit many future families. It helps families better prepare for cash payments for any outstanding housing loans and also better plan their purchases. The staggered end state is that the Minimum Sum will still be committed to the Retirement Account and that continued employment will mean that the Ordinary Account will still be topped up subsequently. The change may not be felt by most, but I am certain that it will be appreciated by the many who may benefit with its introduction.
The second issue that I will mention quickly is with flexibility and implementation. The Home Protection Scheme (HPS) and the Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS) are two cornerstone schemes for families whose insured members unfortunately become permanently incapacitated or die suddenly. HPS pays out the outstanding housing loan while the DPS helps the family tide over the first few years.
Yet, there appears to be some inconsistencies with the definition of permanent incapacitation. I have received feedback during my house visits that some of my residents have had to jump through hoops because of permanent incapacitation.
Under the DPS and HPS, as defined by section 28 of the CPF Act, \"Permanent Incapacity\" refers to someone who is physically or mentally incapacitated from ever continuing in any employment. However, a sole breadwinner losing two limbs is a major challenge for any family. The capability to earn a normal living is, of course, heavily diminished because of these and, in many cases, the family will have to face multiple other issues as well. And therefore the current situation, in the words of one of my residents, is akin to saying that better for me to die than to lose a limb because at least it guarantees a payout! So, this is somewhat incomprehensible.
As such, I hope the Ministry will consider loosening the definition of permanent incapacitation to indicate any form of impediment to continuing in
\tPage: 52
formal employment as previously held by the insured member.
We have here in the CPF, a good retirement savings plan that cannot be denied. The DPS and the HPS are two good schemes. So, let us ensure that it is a compassionate and accessible one. It is a noble thing to help someone to save for their future, but we must all be alert to the chorus of feedback that is coming from the ground.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that the proposals can and will be considered at some point. I do not hold out the hope that it will be adopted at this sitting, but I can certainly count on the listening ear of the Minister and his compassion in coming down easy on my suggestions. Therefore, Mdm Speaker, I reiterate my support for the CPF system and support the amendments.
Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a key institution in Singapore. I warmly welcome the proposed amendments in this Bill to safeguard and strengthen the CPF system, especially in light of the changes in the employment landscape and the changing demographic realities. The amendments will also provide for greater clarity to the CPF Act. Keeping the CPF relevant, consistent and sensitive to the needs of members is essential.
In this regard, I welcome the proposed amendment in clause 18 of the Bill to provide for an increase in penalties, including imprisonment terms, for offences under the CPF Act. The enhancement of penalties for CPF offences, hopefully, will be a stronger deterrent against non-compliance.
Could the Minister inform the House whether there have been more employers defaulting in their CPF contributions in the last few years? What is the total quantum involved and is the amount involved increasing as well? And what were the recovery rates like?
Errant employers should not be let off lightly and I hope that the Ministry will not hesitate to titrate upwards the sanctions if the circumstances warrant it. Non-payment, under-payment, or late payment of an employer's CPF contributions is an assault on the dignity of work. Workers are entitled to get what is provided for under the law for the work they put in. The asymmetry of power and information between the employer and employee means that punitive sanctions should be the order of the day where there is flagrant
\tPage: 53
disregard for the law and the employment contract.
I hope the Ministry and the CPF Board will beef up the enforcement efforts as well as public education efforts. A Singaporean worker's ignorance or misapprehension of the law should not be preyed upon by the employer. The better employees know their rights under the CPF Act, the less likely would employers try to circumvent the law.
Madam, besides the affront to the dignity of work, non-payment of employers' CPF contributions can have other repercussions, such as affecting a CPF member's ability to service his housing loans. For the lower-income workers, if employers connive to have their employees fall outside the CPF system, such employees will not be able to receive Workfare Income Supplements as well as top-ups to their CPF Medisave accounts. Does the Ministry have any data on how CPF members have been impacted by such consequential repercussions flowing from the non-payment of an employer's CPF contributions?
The Bill also provides for the CPF Board to have greater powers in the conduct of investigations relating to an employer's obligation to make CPF contributions. Such powers in clause 3 of the Bill, enabling the CPF Board to obtain information, documents or records from third parties, are necessary, given the variety of employment arrangements in today's labour market, including subcontracting and outsourcing of employees. It is likely that sometimes employees may not even be aware of who their real employer is.
I, therefore, welcome the provision to enhance the powers of the CPF Board's inspectors. My only query here is: what are the safeguards in place to ensure that the documents and records obtained by the CPF Board from a third-party source are only used for the sole purpose of enforcing the payment of CPF contributions?
Clause 5 of the Bill, which will give the CPF Board added flexibility to allow members to make more than one withdrawal per year, will be welcomed by CPF members. This flexibility – through empowering the CPF Board to assess each case on its own merits – is timely and necessary.
While CPF funds are primarily meant for retirement use, there may be extenuating circumstances in which an additional drawdown is necessary to tide over a challenging period – in this case, of allowing more than one withdrawal a year for members above 55 years of age where retirement
\tPage: 54
adequacy is not affected, since the withdrawn amounts must be in excess of the CPF Minimum Sum and the prevailing MediSave required amount. However, we should be prudent not to create too many exceptions such that they would collectively undermine the purpose of the CPF.
In two years' time, the CPF will celebrate its diamond jubilee. Despite close to 60 years of existence, many of us tend to too often misunderstand the purpose of the CPF and underestimate the role of the CPF system. Can the CPF Board do more outreach so that its role as the comprehensive social security savings system addressing not just retirement adequacy, but also healthcare, home-ownership, family protection and asset enhancement is better appreciated?
Madam, some Singaporeans see the CPF as a \"Curi (\"steal\" in the Malay language) People's Fund\": that the enforced savings deny them the opportunity to spend their hard-earned money. Some see it as a levy of sorts imposed on employers, making Singaporeans more expensive to employ. Some Singaporeans would rather not have to make CPF contributions so that they can have a higher take-home pay. We also have employers who view CPF payments as an additional and unnecessary cost of doing business.
Could it be that in our quest to make the CPF relevant, given the longer life spans of Singaporeans and the concern with retirement adequacy, has resulted in our seeing CPF contributions by employers and employees alike as mere transactions where compliance with the law is primarily due to the fear of sanctions? How can we view the CPF as a pivotal institution, one which helps Singaporeans, employers and the Singaporean state to create a stakeholding society?
We should remember that an employer's CPF contribution is not just a mere legal obligation. Embedded within that legal obligation is a social obligation, a social responsibility, which helps to maintain the social compact as well as keep industrial relations on an even keel. There is a tendency to look at the social compact as something that exists merely between the state and the citizenry. But that would, in my view, be too narrow a conception of the social compact. Our social compact is not merely about the fundamentals of governance but it also embraces the rights and responsibilities of the key stakeholders and, here, we are talking about the Government, citizens, civil society, the corporate sector and the trade unions.
\tPage: 55
Self-reliance is a core value that pervades the CPF system. The CPF's importance will grow in the years ahead with an ageing population. I hope the Government will do more to ensure that the three key needs of retirement expenditure, healthcare and home ownership will continue to be met, to a large extent, by one's CPF savings. While they constitute the basis of financial security in retirement, the CPF is a vital institution in our stakeholding society.
In this regard, I hope that the Government will also articulate the circumstances and the conditions by which it would return the employers' CPF contribution rate to be on par with that of the employees' contribution. Madam, I warmly support this Bill. I sincerely hope that the passing of this Bill will also have the necessary signalling effects I discussed earlier to both employers and CPF members.
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, let me thank the various Members of Parliament who spoke through their thoughtful speeches and who have extended their support for the Bill.
Obviously, some of the issues that have been raised pertain to general CPF policy and not to the Bill itself, amongst them, CPF contribution rates, CPF returns, housing withdrawal limits and so on. These are important concerns and we are looking into how best we can address them and we will take these up separately at other forums as appropriate.
But if I may just briefly talk about the adequacy issue raised by Mr Laurence Lien: I fully agree and the Government shares his concerns – in fact, many Singaporeans' concern – about providing for all Singaporeans in terms of their retirement needs. It is important to also look at it from a holistic perspective.
The CPF is a very important pillar of our social security system but it is part of a larger whole. There are still the healthcare, housing and other different measures that have been put in place, as explained by my colleague Minister Chan Chun Sing yesterday as to how we address different people in different categories who are in different circumstances.
While the CPF covers a vast majority of Singaporeans, it does not catch everyone because, as rightfully pointed out, not everyone works. Some have dropped out of the workforce for various reasons. How then do we provide for
\tPage: 56
them? There are other measures that we have put in place to address this.
But I think that is a valid point. I would add that for many countries, ageing demographics is a serious issue – providing for healthcare and especially retirement needs through pension systems is something that all countries are grappling with. What we do have in place is a very solid, stable platform and that is something we will continue to build on and improve.
I will now address the comments that have been made on the various aspects of the Bill.
Firstly, on Enhanced Enforcement: allow me to first elaborate briefly on the rationale of the changes to enhance enforcement of the CPF Act. Let me assure the Members of Parliament, specifically Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and Dr Chia Shi-Lu, that compliance with the CPF Act is high and the number of non-compliant employers remains low, relative to the total number of employers. I will give some of these details later.
It is not unexpected that as we step up enforcement and education efforts, we will discover more cases of non-compliance in the near term. The increase in penalties under the CPF Act is to support our enhanced enforcement and outreach efforts. We will not hesitate to take actions necessary to recover contributions owed and impose penalties to ensure sufficient deterrence against future offences. Let me also assure Dr Chia that we have dedicated the necessary manpower resources and training to these efforts and will continue to do so.
On this note, I agree with Dr Chia's point that CPF contributions are part of the overall wage package and employees should not be shortchanged. We have introduced a minimum fine under the CPF Act, and introduced a jail term for non-compliance, in alignment with the Employment Act. These measures, combined with the doubling of penalties under the CPF Act, mean that penalties under the CPF Act have been enhanced significantly and are not trivial as they apply on a per charge basis. We will monitor the non-compliance situation closely to see if further increases in penalties are required.
I would also like to thank Assoc Prof Tan and Mr Zainudin Nordin for supporting our move to increase inspector powers. Under the CPF Act, our inspectors are only allowed to request for documents and records related to the investigation, and must be able to justify how such information will assist in the investigation. Our inspectors also receive professional training in using any
\tPage: 57
information obtained only for the purposes of their investigation and, in addition, are bounded by the Official Secrets Act and have to follow a strict internal code of conduct.
Mr Laurence Lien raised the issue of employers who may be negligent but not necessarily wilful or egregious. That is an important point. Allow me to just briefly explain that, in general, employers are keeping to their responsibilities under the CPF Act. Under our investigations, we have uncovered about 4,000 employers who did not contribute or have underpaid the CPF for their employees. This is for those who have not contributed or underpaid the CPF.
There are also figures for those who, for example, have paid the CPF late, that is, made late payments. The numbers are about 3,100 per month and the total amount of CPF contributions recovered for this late payment category amounts to about $283 million. If we add this to the $9 million-plus of CPF contributions recovered from employers in the non-payment and underpayment category, that effectively adds up to the figures that we shared earlier.
However, in the main, what we find is that most employers are keeping to their responsibilities and, for the minority that are not, that is where we will take action. The degree of compliance has remained fairly stable over the years, at about 3% of total active employers in the CPF Board's database in a given year – 3% have displayed non-compliance and that has remained stable. Total contributions recovered from non-payment, underpayment and late payment have also remained fairly stable at about 1% of total amount of contributions collected by CPF Board in a given year.
However, as I mentioned earlier, we are stepping up enforcement and inspections tenfold. What we will expect, as a result of that, is that we would find possibly an increase in numbers. We will see how that pans out in the next couple of years.
Now, in the course of investigations, let me just briefly explain the approach we take and this will, in part, address the issue of negligence. We do recognise, especially for the Small and Medium Enterprises and the small companies, that despite the fact that CPF is an established practice in the employment realm, some employers are not necessarily very clear of their responsibilities.
We take a calibrated approach in dealing with non-compliant cases. Before prosecution action is taken against employers in Court, CPF Board will provide
\tPage: 58
opportunities – and that is a key priority – for the employers to pay up their CPF arrears. Prosecution is not meant to be the first resort in recovering CPF. As we all know, prosecution in court would take time and is laborious. And when prosecution is taking place, you might end up with the companies disputing that and delaying the payment altogether.
Most employers, by and large, are cooperative upon notification by CPF Board on their non-compliance. Nevertheless, defaulting employers are still required to pay late payment interest for violating the CPF Act and composition sums which will be doubled from $500 to $1,000 on a per charge basis. And this will be imposed. Therefore, it is really for the recalcitrant employers and those that are egregious in nature that we will take prosecutorial action against these employers.
This is to help set the stage in terms of understanding the approach that we are taking. The priority really is to make sure that the monies are recovered for the individual, and that composition sums are put in place. For those who are recalcitrant, that is where prosecution will take place. We will track the situation as it evolves over the next couple of years.
In more general terms, I would agree with the emphasis that is provided by Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Laurence Lien on the importance of employers making timely CPF contributions for their employees.
As I have mentioned, in response to issues with regard to the WorkRight campaign, workers who particularly need the CPF contributions are the low-income workers. They are the ones that are probably more vulnerable and they are the ones that need the CPF most.
Some employees do rely on the CPF contributions to make their monthly housing loan payments from their CPF Ordinary Accounts. We will also only be able to provide Workfare payments to low-income employees who receive the contributions. So, the CPF, as an institution, is important.
However, I would like to reassure Assoc Prof Tan that our statistics show that the percentage of households in arrears on their mortgage payments is generally very low. Only about 5% of households with an outstanding HDB loan are in arrears of three months or more. There are a variety of factors that may cause households to fall into arrears on their housing loans, and given high employer CPF compliance rates, it is unlikely that CPF non-compliance is a key
\tPage: 59
factor. However, when individuals do not receive their rightful CPF contributions from their employers, they should come forward and report the cases, and we will rectify it.
The CPF is a key component of our social security system and helps Singaporeans save for their retirement, housing and healthcare needs. It is also a key avenue through which the Government provides assistance to low-wage workers. Through the CPF, Singaporeans gain access to a range of schemes targeted at benefiting lower-income Singaporeans, such as the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), Workfare Training Support (WTS) and the 1% Extra Interest paid on the first $60,000 of their CPF balances.
Hence, in order for the lower-income Singaporeans to benefit from many of the Government assistance schemes, not all, but many of the Government assistance schemes, we need them to be in the CPF structure. That is why our enforcement and education efforts are so important, as Assoc Prof Tan also pointed out. That is something that we are enforcing through the WorkRight campaign, which is targeted not just at CPF alone but also adherence to the Employment Act. It is also targeted especially at lower-income workers who need it most.
Besides educating employers about their obligations, our education efforts will also reach out to employees to help them understand that CPF contributions are part of their basic employment rights, and that they also stand to lose out on benefiting from the assistance schemes if they are not paid CPF contributions.
We need to do this. We do urge the public to help others who may not fully understand this. For some individuals, they may feel that they would rather have more cash and may decide to forgo their CPF, not realising that they are actually losing out a lot more in the long term. The education effort is particularly important, not just for them, but for all of us, so that we can, in turn, help those who may not be quite so aware.
Over time, these efforts, in tandem with other forms of assistance that are being provided on a targeted basis to the lower-income and vulnerable workers across the board, should improve the financial security of Singaporeans and provide them with better peace of mind and assurance in retirement.
Mr Alex Yam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Png Eng Huat also commented about flexibility in the use of CPF monies. In fact, what we are moving towards
\tPage: 60
is not less flexibility. The changes in this Bill are to allow CPF Board to have some added flexibility to allow some individuals to withdraw their monies.
Let me clarify that the changes to the Bill are for additional withdrawals and refer to the monies that are in excess of a member's CPF Minimum Sum (MS) and the prevailing Medisave Required Amount. This refers to a very specific set of cases, where the member has already set aside monies for his retirement and medical needs after turning 55.
I note that Mr Yam and Mr Gan have suggested that we exercise more flexibility with regard to the use of CPF monies for housing. As I had explained in Parliament last month, where the case merits, we do exercise flexibility and have allowed CPF members to use more of their CPF savings for housing. Part of the changes in this Bill is to enable us to allow some of that flexibility to take place.
Nevertheless, it is important to reiterate again that it is important for us to be prudent with our CPF monies, especially as we are going to live longer, and also, be prudent with regard to using it for property purchases, so that we do – apart from meeting our housing needs – have adequate savings to last through our retirement as well.
Let me acknowledge two other points on withdrawals. First, Mr Zainudin's concern on education loan scheme repayments. Most students repay their loans on time. However, in the case of default, CPF Board may take recovery action against students to ensure that loans are repaid so as to safeguard the retirement savings of the lender and in most cases, this will be the parents. It will not be fair to the rest of the CPF members if the Board were to bear these recovery expenses, although the Board has the flexibility to waive the repayment of expenses, depending on the circumstances of each case.
Secondly, Mr Yam's concern was that permanently disabled members should have access to their CPF savings quickly. I assure the Member that my colleagues at the CPF Board try their best to process applications for withdrawals of CPF savings on medical grounds expediently to ensure that eligible CPF members can get access to their savings as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, we are open to suggestions on how processes can further be improved on this and in other areas.
Finally, let me assure Members of the House that we do our best to assess each appeal case on its own merits. Ultimately, I would agree with Assoc Prof
\tPage: 61
Tan and Mr Zainudin in this regard – we have to balance flexibility with ensuring that members have sufficient retirement and healthcare savings to last them through their retirement years.
Madam, in summary, let me emphasise that the CPF for us in Singapore is a vital component of our social security system, not only because it builds up retirement savings, but also that the Government provides much of its assistance through the CPF system as well. Therefore, enforcement is crucial, making sure that the system works is crucial, not just in ensuring that employees have access to basic employment rights, but also in bringing low-wage workers into the CPF system so they are able to benefit from the range of Government assistance provided through these schemes.
We will, therefore, continue with our efforts in engagement and outreach. We are open to ideas on how best to do it to inform employees about their basic rights and educate employers about their legal obligations. Madam, I beg to move.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
Mr Png Eng Huat: Thank you, Madam. I raised the point on why we need to impose conditions and restrictions on withdrawal frequency on members who have already set aside their Minimum Sum at age 55. Why do we need to do that? Also, as the Minister has said, we can discuss it in another forum, but the transfer from OA to RA has always been a thorny issue for many people, especially those who are servicing their housing loans. Would the Minister consider allowing them to pay off a lump sum of their loan – maybe it is just a small amount, maybe $10,000 or $20,000 – before you make that transfer, so they no longer have to worry that they need to use cash to pay their mortgage?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, as suggested by Mr Png, perhaps we could address this at a different forum. Specifically, the Bill addresses a number of these issues, but I grant that some of these concerns are recurrent issues, some of which we have addressed previously. We would be happy to take it up if the Member filed a separate Parliamentary Question.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
\tPage: 62
[(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)]
Mdm Speaker: Order. I would like to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.54 pm until 4.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment, Parental Leave and Other Measures Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Acting Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute handouts to Members?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members]
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Madam, the Employment Act (EA) is our main labour law that seeks to ensure reasonable labour standards for workers while balancing employers' need to stay competitive, and staying competitive ultimately benefits workers in terms of creating jobs and opportunities. Since the last amendment in 2009, the profile of our labour force has changed; and employment practices have
\tPage: 63
also evolved. A review is, therefore, timely to ensure that the EA remains relevant.
During the Committee of Supply Debate in March this year, I updated this House on the review of the Employment Act. My Ministry, together with our tripartite partners, carried out extensive consultations. The Bill that I am presenting today is the outcome of this review.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Employment Act in three main areas: firstly, to extend better protection to more workers; secondly, accord flexibility to employers in areas where there are practical business concerns; and thirdly, enhance enforcement and compliance with the Employment Act. Let me elaborate on the key amendments.
First, on better protection for more workers. This first set of amendments proposes to extend better protection to more workers and improve employment standards. Madam, Part IV of the Employment Act provides for working hours, rest days, overtime (OT) payments and other conditions of employment for the more vulnerable employees.
Currently, Part IV applies to workmen engaged in manual labour, such as machine operators and cleaners, who are earning a basic monthly salary of up to $4,500, as well as non-workmen, such as clerks and receptionists, earning a basic monthly salary of up to $2,000. In line with general salary increases over the years, we propose to raise the salary threshold for non-workmen from $2,000 to $2,500. This effectively extends the coverage to benefit about 150,000 junior staff who are not professionals or executives.
Another significant extension of protection is for Professionals, Managers and Executives, or PMEs for short. They now account for 31% of the resident workforce. This is up from 27% 10 years ago. As their proportion increases in our workforce, we propose to extend protection for those earning a basic monthly salary of up to $4,500. With more Singaporeans becoming and aspiring to become PMEs, it is timely to extend the more junior ones protection, such as those against unfair dismissal and sick leave benefits. The change will benefit approximately 300,000 PMEs.
This Bill will also improve employment standards and benefits in line with the evolving employment landscape.
\tPage: 64
To protect employees against excessive salary deductions by unscrupulous employers, we will impose a further 25% sub-cap on deductions for accommodation, amenities and services, on top of existing safeguards.
Next, for employees currently covered under Part IV of the Act, we will shorten the non-entitlement period to retrenchment benefits from three to two years, to be in line with shorter employment norms.
In addition, we will extend the validity of the collective agreement for employees transferred to a new company after restructuring. This means the unions can continue to represent employees in the new company for 18 months after the date of transfer or until the expiry of the collective agreement, whichever is later. This will provide greater assurance for affected employees.
Madam, even as we enhance employment protection and benefits for workers, we also do need to strike a balance by allowing businesses appropriate leeway to implement these changes. Hence, the theme of the second set of amendments: Flexibility for Employers. There are four key amendments related to this.
One, managing OT or overtime cost. One, even as we increase the Part IV salary threshold for non-workmen to $2,500, we will help employers manage their OT cost by capping the OT rate payable at the salary level of $2,250. I have included in the handout examples to help Members better understand the mechanics of how this works.
Two, we will extend unfair dismissal protection to PMEs earning up to $4,500 a month. This means that for dismissals without notice, we will provide PMEs with the same protection as rank-and-file employees. For dismissals where notice is given and contractual terms of termination are complied with, we will set a 12-month qualifying period before PMEs who claim unfair dismissal are eligible to seek redress. The qualifying period is a fair request from employers, who need time to assess the PMEs' suitability for the job. In such cases, the onus will be on the employee to substantiate their unfair dismissal claim, for instance, by showing that the dismissal arose from the employer's intent to deprive him or her of employment benefits he or she would otherwise have been entitled to.
Three, one of the general provisions of the EA which will be extended to relevant PMEs is paid public holidays. Currently, employees covered under the EA and who are required to work on public holidays must be compensated with
\tPage: 65
an extra day's pay or a substitute day off. This may be difficult and impractical to apply to PMEs due to the very nature of their work. Therefore, our proposed amendments give employers the additional option to provide time-off in-lieu for PMEs.
Four, we will exempt employers from having to grant paid sick leave and bear medical examination expenses of any employee who chooses to go for treatment for cosmetic purposes. The assessment of whether a treatment is cosmetic or not would be based on the opinion of the medical practitioner performing the examination and providing the appropriate medical certificate.
Thirdly, it is on enhancing enforcement and compliance. As we raise employment protection and standards, we do also need to correspondingly enhance my Ministry's enforcement ability and the teeth that will accompany that.
We propose to put in stiffer penalties for failure to pay salaries. We will introduce a mandatory minimum fine of $3,000 for first-time offenders and $6,000 for repeat offenders. We will also increase the maximum fine from $5,000 to $15,000 for first-time offenders and from $10,000 to $30,000 for repeat offenders. In addition, the maximum composition sum will be increased from $1,000 to $5,000 to bring it in line with the other employment legislation, such as the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA).
We will also enhance MOM's enforcement and investigatory powers. This includes granting employment inspectors the power to arrest any person reasonably believed to be guilty of the failure to pay salary and to enter workplaces to conduct audits. We will also make individuals, such as directors or partners of companies, more accountable for EA offences committed by the company.
Madam, we are also taking the opportunity to make technical amendments to the EA and the Child Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA) associated with the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) measures announced by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean in January this year.
The CDCA will be updated to accurately reflect the policy that parents' total childcare and extended childcare leave is based on their youngest qualifying Singapore Citizen child.
\tPage: 66
In addition, we will prescribe new formulae in both Acts to facilitate computation of parents' entitlement to maternity, paternity, shared parental or adoption leave to take leave flexibly by days rather than by block weeks if there is mutual agreement.
The Bill is proposed to come into effect on 1 April 2014 for most key amendments. For the amendment related to the reduction of the time-bar for retrenchment benefits, this will take effect on 1 April 2015, essentially, to provide more time for employers to update their contracts and collective agreements to comply with this new requirement.
Madam, one issue that received a fair amount of public attention was that of payslips. During our consultations, many members of the public felt that employers should provide payslips to their workers. Indeed, this will raise workers' awareness of their salary entitlements and also protect employers from unsubstantiated claims by their employees. All round, I think we all agree this is good HR practice.
However, having said that, we also received strong feedback that many SMEs, especially the smaller ones like retail shops in HDB estates, for example, are not issuing payslips today and would actually find the process of doing so onerous. We understand their concerns. And not everything, we believe, ought to be legislated at once as, ultimately, we aim to change behaviour in a sustainable way. We will, therefore, adopt a pragmatic and phased approach to allow time for these businesses to adjust. I just want to clarify that, in the main, most businesses are providing payslips. I think the challenge comes really with the small mom-and-pop shops and the small companies which will find difficulties on this front.
So, as a first step, we will begin by issuing a set of Tripartite Guidelines by the first half of 2014 to help employers provide payslips and keep employment records for all employees. We will closely monitor the implementation of payslips and employment records before phasing in the requirements over time.
Madam, even as we seek to raise labour standards, we fully appreciate the anxieties of employers, particularly the smaller ones, about rising compliance costs because a number of measures are being put in place on the manpower front as well. So, the Government will provide the necessary support to help them level up their practices. This will be good for employers in the long run. The assistance for companies will come in various forms.
\tPage: 67
MOM is working with IDA to develop user-friendly tools to help prepare SMEs for the eventual requirements to issue payslips and to maintain employment records. We will tailor the support according to the diverse needs of SMEs and it is, indeed, very diverse. And this will range from providing simple payslip booklets and downloadable templates, to funding support to develop customised solutions. These will be made available by 1 April 2014.
We will work with our tripartite partners, SNEF and NTUC, to conduct briefings and workshops to communicate the Employment Act changes to employers and employees. In particular, we will be collaborating with SME centres, supported by SPRING, to reach out to SMEs on the EA changes and provide hands-on guidance on the tools available and we encourage Members of this House to do your part as well to reach out to your constituents.
Mdm Speaker, we started this important journey to review the Employment Act in April last year. The views and feedback from all stakeholders have helped to make the process more robust. I would like, in particular, to thank everyone who has contributed to the review, especially, NTUC, SNEF, SBF and Members of this House.
The proposed amendments will better protect our workers, raise employment standards and provide employers with the flexibility to manage these changes. It will bolster our efforts to institute good employment norms and develop progressive and good workplaces for our people. Madam, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I am happy to be able to be part of the debate on this Bill.
As we chart forward an inclusive quality growth for Singaporean workers, I would like to bring forth some fundamental principles which I believe need to be discussed together. The Government's commitment to fostering an inclusive society is indeed commendable. In the last few years alone, we have seen many policy shifts and strategies that would move us clearly towards that direction.
Mdm Speaker, we must continue to ensure that Singaporean workers have a good share in the progress of our economy through concerted efforts by all
\tPage: 68
stakeholders. As we grow our economy moderately, we will still need to have more workers to drive the economy. There are potentially a good number of economically inactive Singaporeans who may wish to return to the workforce and I would like to see that the Government come up with more ideas on how we can help ease their way back into the workplace so businesses can tap on some of this needed workforce.
For today's debate, Madam, I will dwell a little further on the group that we often called Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs).
Madam, I hope we can agree on the point that, for a long time, we have not put them on the list of workers who would be getting protection under the Employment Act. Similarly, we also have had quite an accommodating policy when it concerns skilled and highly skilled foreign workers. This was well and good when we were still a young economy and our labour force was still lacking such manpower. Now, Singapore has clearly changed. Our workforce is more educated and more skilful than we were before. More needs to be done to serve the new generation of Singapore workforce.
Nevertheless, we also know that more protection and tighter rules cannot be the only way for us to serve the PMEs. This group must continue to remain competitive and employable. At the same time, in parallel, we must continue to adapt to the changing local workforce as the overall skills and educational profile of Singaporeans improve while, at the same time, we must continue to refine our policies and rules to care for more at the professional level.
I laud our Government's efforts to moderate Singapore's foreign worker growth while ensuring sustainability. These efforts are being felt in the industry, and many employers are now giving feedback about their challenges to get workers. The question now, Madam, is how will the Singapore Government implement this judiciously so that we can secure the interest of Singaporean workers while recognising that there is also a need for the foreign workers to complement and support the development of our economy. It is definitely not an easy balancing act.
With the introduction of the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) by MOM recently, the Government has clearly illustrated again its intent to put Singaporean workers' interest at the core of its policy and this is really good.
But, at the same time, we often hear \"loud voices\" from Singaporean PMEs who are concerned about their career prospects, aspirations and need for some
\tPage: 69
form of industrial representation and protection.
In my view, as the Government moderates the increase in foreign worker numbers, our local PMEs will still need to distinguish themselves from the competition. It is good that the education and skills profile of our locals has been improving over time and we will continue to expect them to be able to serve the highly-skilled jobs in the future. Still, the Government needs to articulate the specific plans it has about how these Singaporean PMEs will be able to gain access to good paying jobs while they can also get some industrial and basic protection under the Employment Act. I believe we certainly have a few more steps to make to ensure that Singaporean PMEs will be the main choice of employers.
As we debate this Bill today and make moves to extend the coverage of the Employment Act, it is worthwhile for us to ponder on a few basic questions, namely: first, where does MOM draw the line on which workers to protect and which to be left to fend for themselves out there in the real harsh world? As of today, the EA provides the parameters based on salaries and the role of workers in the companies.
For example, the vulnerable workers are clearly protected and the senior executives are not. It would surely help if MOM can explain the principles it uses to draw the line of this protection. A case in point would be the PMEs who work as freelancers. Their income fluctuates significantly from month to month and even from project to project. How would the proposed EA provisions on salary ceiling and protection apply to them?
Secondly, beyond this policy principle, what steps must be taken today to make sure that Singaporeans have the correct skill set, attitudes and aptitudes to take on the jobs of the future at the PME level? How can we enhance our education and training regimes to help Singaporeans upskill and regularly re-skill themselves, so that they will be attractive as talents for both our local and even foreign companies operating in Singapore, and maybe even as expatriates to be sent overseas?
So, Madam, overall, I am happy to note that the many proposed changes of the Employment Act are mainly to ensure that we remain relevant to the employment and the workforce situation in Singapore. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.
\tPage: 70
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendments to the Employment Act which would help address the concerns of workers in Singapore, in particular, the Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) with respect to their workplace rights and protection.
As part of the Labour Movement, I have been advocating for these changes, in particular, stretching of scope and coverage of PMEs who have been deeply affected in many ways. Since entering this House, we have been starting tripartite discussions and looking at how we can better protect PMEs. I am particularly impressed by how forward-looking MOM and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) have been in our negotiations and in enabling these changes for the betterment of the workforce of today and tomorrow. It has given me added faith and confidence in the spirit of tripartism in Singapore.
The two major changes of protecting PMEs earning up to $4,500 with all Parts of the Act save for Part IV, and the changes in Part IV of reducing the non-entitlement period of retrenchment benefits period from three to two years, and the raising of non-workmen salary ceiling from $2,000 to $2,500 are indeed positive steps.
The changes are not just mere enhancements but a milestone change in terms of how we anchor protection and include PMEs under the statutory umbrella since the promulgation of the Employment Act in 1968. I am especially heartened that we were able to forge a consensus together with our tripartite partners in defining what is good for workers and businesses, taking into consideration the major shifts in workforce demographic profile, changes in the employment landscape and volatile market conditions.
I welcome and commend the extension of scope of the Act to cover PMEs earning up to $4,500, bearing in mind the median income of Singaporeans was $3,480 in 2012. There are several key issues driving this set of Employment Act amendments. First, the increasing proportion of PMEs in our workforce represents an important shift as they will eventually become the majority of our workforce in future. Currently, PMEs make up about 32% of our workforce. As for PMETs, the current one-to-one ratio with rank-and-file workers is projected to increase to two-thirds of the working population by 2030. To underscore this shift, there has also been an exponential growth of degree holders from 308,000
\tPage: 71
in 2002 to 622,000 in 2012. This is more than a two-fold increase.
With this extension, more than half of the resident PMEs in Singapore of about 300,000 workers will benefit from the above amendments. This expanded impact will spur employers to ensure that their HR policies are contemporaneous and in adherence with the law.
PMEs earning up to $4,500 will now have added protection and have recourse when they are terminated or when they have been unfairly dismissed, but with one-year minimum service period for dismissal with notice. I know this is important because it will provide an added safety net to all PMEs, whether they are male or female, or whether they are young or not-so-young. NTUC lobbied for this fervently as there are many mature PMEs who may be susceptible.
By the same token, PMEs would also have recourse for salary payments, unauthorised deductions, public holiday entitlements and statutory paid sick leave. Female PMEs will now have recourse to maternity protection and benefits provided in the Employment Act.
Some may ask, \"Why the need for these amendments when most companies already have rigorous HR frameworks and policies?\" The stark truth is that there may be residual cases of malpractices or sheer ignorance. The Minister himself highlighted during last weekend's WorkRight campaign that MOM had 22,000 Singaporeans coming to MOM to get help for employment issues.
There are still employees out there suffering from breach of basic rights, such as maternity benefits, retrenchments and unfair dismissal. We do require the employment laws to adequately address workplace and employment issues and inequities more effectively.
In the same vein, we need our labour legislation to be regularly reviewed to stay relevant and balance the rights and responsibilities of both the employer and employee, especially in these rapidly changing employment and labour profile and evolving market. I am happy to note that the second phase of the Employment Act review is underway and I urge that we continue with this pro-active and pre-emptive approach towards our labour legislation to stay current and relevant with a maturing economy and workforce.
\tPage: 72
As we have a more sophisticated workforce, depending solely on legislation to foster a fair workplace would not be sufficient. Many PMEs hope that the Government can put in place a more rigorous fair employment framework and guidelines. I am glad to note these sentiments have been well addressed by MOM with the recent introduction of the Fair Consideration Framework and the robust treatment of discriminatory job advertisements.
I would like to devote the next part of my speech to examine areas within the amended Act for greater articulation and clarity.
I am glad to note that the header of section 14 has been tidied and that recourse to section 14 will now be availed to PMEs earning up to $4,500, subject to a service period in section 14(2). My question is whether constructive dismissals, forced resignations, non-renewals of contracts and non-confirmation during probation are covered under section 14. If so, I hope that the mediation officers and the courts consider each case on its merits.
With proliferation and use of electronic devices, for purposes of section 10(5), whether notice of termination of contract as stipulated in the Act in electronic forms, for example, emails, SMSes are classified as \"written\", as I believe to be so, by virtue of recent changes to relevant evidentiary legislation.
I am glad that we have raised the salary threshold of non-workmen under Part IV to $2,500 from the current $2,000. This is a positive step forward, as median salaries have risen since the last set of amendments in 2008 which were effective 1 January 2009 and more workers will now enjoy overtime pay. I personally look forward to the day when we can do away with this dichotomy of workmen versus non-workmen, a distinction which, at times, confuses industrial relations practitioners, lawyers and in-house counsels.
On the subject of overtime payment calculation, given the five-day work week that most companies have already moved on to, and, in some companies, the practice of working less than the usual 44 hours prescribed in the Act, would it be correct to say that overtime payment should be payable beyond the contractual working hours or 44 hours, whichever is the lower?
I also seek clarification whether one should use the contractually agreed hours or 44 hours stipulated in the Employment Act as the denominator for the calculation of overtime payment. This is an area I hope MOM can clarify as I know of many of my union members and workers, by the very nature of their
\tPage: 73
job, work contractually less than the 44 hours per week prescribed in the Act.
On the issue of leave computation, when I spoke to our union members who are working as airline cabin crew, when it comes to calculation of leave benefits and entitlements, their flight allowance is not factored in when in fact their flight allowances are almost as regular as standard allowances. Is there any way to close this disparity in our interpretation of pay?
The proposed amendments will be excluding cosmetic consultations and procedures which are not medically necessary for reimbursement by employer. This is a common practice. But my concern is with the definition of \"for cosmetic purposes\", which is sufficiently vague. In some professions, what is cosmetic in nature may well be an imperative for the worker for purposes of his health or work. Moreover, how would an employer know or is able to ascertain? What are the implications to privacy? I urge for greater articulation on what exactly is \"for cosmetic purposes\" and how a worker, employer or layman is to ascertain that? Does it mean an employer has the right to ask what the \"MC\" is for and the employee must disclose?
With globalisation and greater market competition, it is likely that we will see a greater frequency of company restructuring taking place. On retrenchment benefits, I am happy to note that the qualifying period will be reduced to two years pursuant to the proposed amendments. This is in response to changing job cycles and tenure with a growing mobility of our workforce.
I would like to use this opportunity to highlight that this would mean that all Collective Agreements between the Union and Company should be on par with this reduced qualifying period and that MOM in its conciliation and arbitration efforts to take cognisance of this new eligibility period since the amendments will take effect soon after this Bill has been passed.
In reviewing section 18A of the Employment Act, it would be useful to consider that in most acquisitions, the company that took over will usually be bigger and have more resources or manpower. As current provisions only assure that prevailing terms and conditions, such as pay and benefits, remain the same, we have not really addressed the issue of union recognition and representation through existing Collective Agreements during a change of company entity. This is of concern because when the new ownership fails, workers will bear the brunt of job losses and income.
\tPage: 74
While I applaud the amendments where the pre-existing Collective Agreement will be protected for at least 18 months when the business is transferred, it would be far better to safeguard employees' interests by ensuring that the acquiring company would be required to recognise the union for the taken over entity.
Similarly, an issue that has been raised by my fellow union leaders is the problem of successive section 18A transfers within a short period. This may involve workers transferred from big MNCs to companies which are smaller and financially weaker. This results in them having little to no protection even though their length of service is recognised and there is a retrenchment benefits clause because the final employer may not have the means to pay the retrenchment benefits.
It has been suggested that where there is evidence to suggest that the restructuring is not bona fide and that the transfer would be detrimental to the interests of the workers, the workers or union could raise the matter to the Commissioner of Labour with a view of delaying or preventing a transfer. I seek MOM for assurance that the Commissioner of Labour will scrutinise such repeated transfers and be prepared to exercise his powers where the transfer is to the detriment of the workers.
In addition, for greater clarity and expediency, I urge MOM to issue guidelines to clarify on section 18A transfers; first, to set out what information that the transferor/transferee must give to unions/employees; and secondly, a clearer definition of what situations and scenarios are covered under section 18A transfers, such as whether section 18A applies where the business of a company under receivership or judicial management is transferred. How about a transfer of shares scenario? Section 18A(1)(a) refers to \"a person employed\" by the transferor. Does it mean an \"employee\", as the next sub-section refers to an employee?
I would like to thank MOM for safeguarding the interests of workers in enhancing the enforcement powers, coupled with a higher penalty regime to deter potential contraventions of the Employment Act. My concern is with instances where unscrupulous employers impose their own set of fines on their employees to recover their costs of damaged goods, meals, etc, which will be categorised as unauthorised deductions after the amendments. I would like to understand further how this penalty regime can be enforced without any hidden deductions that workers will have to be worried about. Are employers allowed to impose fines at the workplaces to correct or dictate certain behaviours or
\tPage: 75
indirectly recover loss?
I am glad to note we have started tripartite discussions for Phase 2 of the Employment Act amendments, such as protection for employees in non-traditional work arrangements, such as contract workers and protection of vulnerable workers. With Phase 2 of Employment Act review, we are going into uncharted waters and there would be many grey areas to look at. I would like to call again for the same tripartite support and understanding as in Phase 1. During the recently concluded NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference last month, many union leaders expressed concerns that contract workers who have regular breaks in service are not adequately protected by the Employment Act and face challenges in representing their interests.
In terms of scope of representation for PMEs, we have to relook at how they can be better covered. NTUC and our affiliated unions are glad there is positive development in the drive by NTUC to amend the Industrial Relations Act to enable all our rank-and-file unions to collectively bargain for PMEs.
In defining who constitutes as a PME, we hope to look at stretching the eligibility criteria for union representation to as many PMEs as possible, excluding only the really senior or top management. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Union is very pleased to see that MOM is amending the Employment Act. There are three points that are praiseworthy. First, there are more and more PMEs in the workforce. The amendments will give better protection for them. Second, while amending the labour laws can be a very divisive process in many countries, in Singapore, however, the harmonious relationship between the tripartite partners made the amendment process very smooth. The result is better protection for workers' welfare which they rightfully deserve. Third, this amendment is only the first phase. The tripartite partners have already started the second phase discussion, focusing on low-income workers and the contract workers. I hope the tripartite partners can review and amend the Employment Act in the same spirit as in Phase 1, so that workers in Singapore can benefit.
(In English): In conclusion, each time when our labour statutes are reviewed and amended, it represents an opportunity for us to better the lives of our workers. I would like to applaud the tripartite partners for making good strides in improving the Employment Act as this deck of amendments were the result of extensive tripartite consultations and discussions. It is yet another example of how our spirit of tripartism has enabled us to reach consensus on such a
\tPage: 76
potentially divisive subject matter.
In many countries, amendments to labour laws are agonising affairs, often resulting in industrial action or greater polarisation between the government, business and labour. This entire effort augurs well for Singapore. It aptly embodies our mature industrial relations system and responsible employers and trade unions that are able to look beyond their narrow interest to discuss issues objectively and reach agreement for everyone's benefit.
Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, my speech will focus on the amendments made to parental leave as well as Child Development Co-Savings Act. I would like to seek clarifications on these two areas.
With the inclusion of the two weeks shared parental leave between parents to the existing pool of leave which include maternity, paternity and/ or adoption leave, the Employment Act and Child Development Co-savings Act will be providing new formula to compute these leaves. I would like to find out whether the new shared parental leave includes fathers of adopted children.
Can the Ministry consider legislating employers to allow fathers to take the leave flexibly by days instead of by weeks?
If the Government is leaving it to the mutual agreement between the father's employer and the father, for the leave to be taken flexibly by days instead of by block leave, these arrangements should be monitored closely and further evaluated.
Shared parental leave has to be allocated by weeks from the mother's maternity leave to father. Can the Ministry consider allowing fathers to return the shared parental leave back to the mother if it is not consumed?
Next, the Child Development Co-Savings Act will be updated to accurately reflect the policy that parents' total childcare and extended childcare leave is based on their youngest qualifying Singapore Citizen child under the Child Development Co-Savings Act.
This is done to avoid situations where parents who have both an older Singapore Citizen and a younger non-citizen child double claim leave under
\tPage: 77
both the Employment Act and the Child Development Co-Savings Act. I would like to find out from the Ministry on whether there are such cases happening and if yes, how many of such cases have taken place over the last five years to warrant this change?
In conclusion, I welcome the changes and hope that the Minister is able to make clarifications in his response.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the amendments to the Employment Act. The Employment Act of any nation is a vital statute that protects the interests of its workers, and is hence a key legislative instrument that safeguards the social and economic fabric of the country.
The increase in the monthly wage threshold for non-workmen like clerks and sales staff, from $2,000 to $2,500 under Part IV, is particularly timely in view of the rise in wages that Singaporean workers have enjoyed over the past few years and ensures that the Act remains relevant to the majority of local workers.
Like the hon Members Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Patrick Tay before me, I am also heartened by the bold step taken to expand the scope of the Act to cover junior PMETs, which is one of the measures that my parliamentary colleagues and I, together with many Singaporeans, have called for in the past few years. Although the unions and MOM have initiated many new programmes to promote and secure fair employment practices, as also detailed by Mr Patrick Tay before me, increasing globalisation and the complexities of the workforce suggest that some form of statutory protection is appropriate for more junior professionals and managers.
I do not think that this calibrated approach will make hiring any more restrictive or less business-friendly. For instance, the minimum period of one year employment mandated before an employee can seek redress for unfair dismissal seems to be just right, allowing companies to suss out their new employees, and judging from comparisons to practices in similar jurisdictions, and also based on a number of scholarly dissertations on this subject. The United Kingdom, for instance, has only recently raised a similar requirement to two years.
\tPage: 78
Even as the Government is working to expand employment protections for Singaporean workers, many developed countries around the world are in fact scaling back on such protections, which peaked globally approximately a decade ago. This was well detailed in a recent OECD Employment Outlook report. Overly restrictive employment protections may have the negative effect of dampening hiring sentiments and reducing business competitiveness, which Singapore, as a small nation, can ill afford. Other than protecting workers, the Employment Act also impacts labour force reallocation and hence, it's robustness.
I hope that the Ministry will continue to streamline the processes and procedures through which employees covered by the EA can seek redress or restitution. New initiatives like WorkRight are working right, but many procedures still seem complex and too lengthy for the average worker.
For my final point, I hope that with the ongoing revisions to the Act and future amendments to the Act, we will also look at expanding provisions for leave, such as marriage or compassionate leave, caregiver's leave, or even leave for community work, in view of the increasing emphasis on social and family development. We now have a Ministry for Social and Family Development and thus, I think it is only appropriate that the Employment Act is similarly aligned. With this, I support the Bill.
Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. Like the CPF (Amendment) Bill, which this House has just passed, I warmly welcome the various amendments and additions in this Bill, including the proposals to extend the Employment Act's coverage to PMEs, to improve the employment standards for employees and to provide needed and greater clarity to the various leave provisions found in the Child Development Co-Savings Act.
As our employment landscape changes, so must the Employment Act to adjust, adapt and advance the interests, rights, obligations, and duties of all stakeholders in the employment market. So, the proposal to extend the Employment Act, except for Part IV, to cover persons employed in a managerial or executive position and earning a basic monthly income not exceeding $4,500, is timely. However, I would like to ask the Minister how the threshold figure of $4,500 is arrived at.
\tPage: 79
Similarly, could the Minister explain how the proposed salary threshold of $2,500, for non-workmen under Part IV of the Employment Act, was arrived at as well?
The threshold salary is pertinent when the evolving employment landscape is considered. The Population White Paper, issued in January this year, indicated that the number of Singaporeans in PMET jobs is expected to rise by nearly 50% to about 1.25 million by 2030. This compares with the figure of about 850,000 today. During the same period, the number of non-PMET jobs is expected to fall by over 20% to 650,000, compared to with 850,000 non-PMET employees today. Overall, two-thirds of Singaporeans will hold PMET jobs in 2030, compared to about half today.
That being the case, would it not be better to bring PMETs fully onboard, and not just in relation to the payment of their salaries as is the case today? Can the Minister provide a road map as to when PMEs could be brought under the provisions of Part IV of the Employment Act which is concerned with matters such as rest days, work hours, and other conditions of service? These are equally important matters as well for PMETs.
I should add that the intent here is not to be prescriptive but rather to ensure that employers do not exploit the meaning of what a \"professional\" job is to the extent of requiring a professional to put in inordinate working hours. Here, I am thinking of whether something similar to clause 2(17) of the Bill can be considered to set minimum levels of conditions of service for professionals.
Madam, we must appreciate that there is a asymmetry of power at the workplace, even for PMEs. We should not assume that PMEs are more than capable of looking out for their own interests and rights.
The proposed amendments to increase the pool of employees who are protected by Part IV of the Employment Act will be well-received by the labour market, particularly employees. I now turn to clause 2(29) of the Bill, which relates to overtime payments under Part IV of the Act and also sets out the set formulas to calculate such payments. Could the Minister clarify why the formula found in the Fourth Schedule is pegged at $2,250 when the salary threshold of non-workmen is proposed to be set at $2,500?
I would like to move on to the proposed amendment in clause 2(2) of the Bill on seeking redress against unfair dismissal. This provision requires PMEs to have served the employer for at least 12 months to be eligible for the redress
\tPage: 80
procedure. May I ask the Minister why this time bar of a 12-month minimum service period is required? In the fact sheet on this Bill issued by MOM, it is stated that, \"This will provide employers time to assess suitability of the PMEs to their jobs\". But an unfair dismissal is about wrongful dismissal and has nothing to do with one's unsuitability for a job. If one is unsuitable for a job and one is let go, that is not wrongful dismissal, in my view.
On clause 2(7), which deals with deductions for accommodation, amenity and service, the 25% sub-cap is necessary to prevent employers from making inappropriate salary deductions. A suggestion for future amendments is to better specify what \"service\" includes, and to emphasise that an employee not only must accept these deductions but that they are not to be imposed on the employee. An employee must have a genuine choice whether to accept such accommodation, amenity and service.
Madam, the Bill also enhances the penalties for failure to pay salary, and also provide for enhanced powers for employment inspectors in their jobs. The inclusion of the appropriate legislative text in clause 2(22) of the Bill on the criminal liability of a body corporate and the rebuttable legal presumption that an offence committed by an corporate employer is attributable to a real person should clarify that officers, members and partners of a body corporate, unincorporated association or partnership cannot hide behind the corporate veil.
Madam, the Employment Act is Singapore's primary labour law. Timely and robust reviews are crucial in ensuring that the Act remains relevant. Much as the Act needs to balance the rights of employees and the interests of employers, I hope that employees and employers alike, whether Singaporean or not, will not regard the matter as a zero-sum equation. It is not a case where if the employee \"gains\", the employer \"loses\" and vice-versa. Much as it is a cliché, in employment matters, the goal should be a \"win-win\" situation.
It is fair to state that an employer who fulfils its legal and ethical obligations as an employer is more likely to have a committed and motivated workforce. And that is certainly a pivotal factor to a company being competitive, innovative and resilient. This Bill sets the tone for a fair workplace, and I hope it would nudge employers into seeing their important role in this larger scheme of things.
I would like to conclude by quoting Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam from his 29 October speech at the NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference. I quote, \"Workers are not just an essential part of the economy.
\tPage: 81
They are at the core of Singapore society.\"
So, everything to do with workers – wages, employment conditions, the workplace environment – everything to do with workers is at the \"core of what we are trying to do in building an inclusive society.\" In the Singaporean context, workers increasingly are PMEs. Madam, I hope that, in time, the Employment Act will cover PMEs and the whole array of employment conditions.
This Bill deserves the strong support of this House and I commend MOM for effecting the changes and for recognising that the workplace is very much an integral part of the social compact and how it plays a big part in our combined efforts towards an inclusive society. On that note, Madam, I support the Bill.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I will focus on the amendments to the Employment Act in this Bill.
I have several questions regarding the amendments to section 30 pertaining to deductions for accommodation, amenities and services provided by employers to their workers.
First, how is the value of these deductible expenses determined? Has MOM conducted any inspections to determine if the prices charged by any employers are excessive?
Second, is the value of the accommodation based on the actual cost or the market value? If it is based on the market value, these employers could potentially profit from providing accommodation to their workers, since private market rentals are very high. I note that section 27(1)(c) allows for deductions for only the actual cost of meals but section 27(1)(d) does not specify \"actual cost of accommodation\". Can the wording of the latter be changed so that employers are only allowed to deduct for the actual cost of accommodation?
Third, what can \"amenities\" and \"other services\" include? Unscrupulous employers could potentially throw in anything as a service or amenity, in order to deduct their workers' salaries and reduce costs. I understand that some workers earning less than $800 per month still face deductions to their salaries. This could lead to financial hardship for them and their families, as their salaries may fall even further below subsistence levels. Would the Ministry consider
\tPage: 82
prohibiting salary deductions for workers who earn below a subsistence threshold?
And fourth, I note that the protections under section 30 are still subject to mutual agreement between the worker and his employer. While one could argue that the worker is free not to sign the contract, in reality, most low-wage workers are not in a strong bargaining position to refuse. This makes it more necessary for the law, and not just the contract, to protect the worker.
Next, on penalties. This Bill specifies in section 34 the penalties for failure to pay salaries in accordance with the Act. A first-time offender will be liable to a fine of between $3,000 and $15,000 and/or a six-months' jail and a subsequent offence could double that.
Madam, non-payment or late payment of salaries is a concern for many workers. Stiff punishment must be meted out to errant employers who fail to meet their obligations to their employees, in order to send a strong deterrent message. However, the penalties do not guarantee that the worker will actually get paid what is owed him. While section 134 stipulates that the court can order fines to be paid to the aggrieved worker, this is discretionary. Can the fines imposed be automatically paid to aggrieved workers, so that they receive all of their salary arrears?
The amendments to section 40 allow workers in \"essential services\" industries to work for more than six consecutive hours without a break or more than 12 hours a day and without being paid for overtime work if it does not last for more than three weeks. Currently, this exemption is granted mostly for ad-hoc work exigencies, like accidents, unforeseeable interruptions and urgent work, or defence and security duties.
This amendment could greatly increase the number of workers in Singapore who do not enjoy the work hour limit protections under section 38(1). It will now include workers in the broadcasting, newspaper and postal services, and even bulk distribution of fuel and lubricants, from among a list of 28 essential services listed in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.
What is the reason for including these new exemptions and in what way was the previous list of exemptions insufficient? More importantly, how will the Ministry ensure that essential services workers are not made to work excessive hours without breaks, rest days or overtime pay, over an extended period of
\tPage: 83
time?
The insertion of a new subsection (4A) in section 88, increases flexibility for employers to compensate employees who work on holidays by granting them time-off in-lieu or overtime pay. It also specifies the number of hours of time-off in-lieu, depending on whether the employee worked a full-day or a half-day during a holiday.
Madam, holidays are very important for workers, as they provide them a day to spend with their families and recuperate from work. A disruption of a holiday due to work exigencies should be properly compensated by the employer.
This Bill allows the employer to grant only part of a day off to replace a full day of a holiday work, \"as may be agreed between the employee and his employer\". Why is it necessary to give this additional option to employers? It could give employers a way to avoid fully compensating their employees for holiday work, as the employee will find it hard to refuse a lower compensation. Why not take away this option so that it will be mandatory for employers to either compensate their employees with extra pay or time-off in-lieu in proportion to the time spent working on the holiday?
The Bill introduces a new section 105, which gives inspecting officers the power to arrest without warrant persons suspected of committing offences under this Act. It includes powers to \"use all means necessary to effect the arrest\". Section 105D provides for the inspecting officers to be armed. However, in section 103, these inspecting officers have no such powers. They are allowed to examine, search and retain evidence but not to arrest suspects.
I would like to ask the Minister: why is there now a need to give inspecting officers powers to arrest and restrain people suspected of violating the Employment Act?
With these new powers, will inspecting officers be given the same level of training as police officers to ensure that they do not use excessive force when conducting the arrest or restraining suspects?
Lastly, the Bill raises the salary threshold for employees covered under the Employment Act to $2,500 for non-workmen but keeps it at $4,500 for workmen. According to MOM, this will allow the salary threshold of non-workmen to catch up gradually with workmen and in the longer term, will allow the removal of
\tPage: 84
the demarcation between these two groups of workers. May I ask the Minister, how long it will take to remove this demarcation, and what are the existing obstacles to its removal?
In summary, Madam, I am glad to note the introduction of some new protections for workers and some PMEs in this Bill. I have mentioned a few concerns about salary deductions, penalties, exemptions from work hour limit protections, compensation for holiday work and the powers of inspecting officers. I hope the Minister will address these concerns in his response.
Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. The challenge of any employment legislation is to find the right balance between the interests of employers and employees. The law, by and large, allows parties to contract freely, and to include any terms they want in their employment contracts, save for those that are illegal or offend public policy. When jobs are plentiful, this is usually not a problem. Employees who are unhappy move on to other jobs. But when they are scarce, employees may find themselves in difficulties.
One thing that has struck me as a lawyer and as a Member of Parliament is how many people know little and understand even less about their employment rights. Many assume that just because they are called \"permanent\" employees, that means they have a job until retirement. They believe they are entitled to bonuses every year, and that when they are retrenched, they will receive some form of gratuity to recognise the many years they have given to their employer. I would urge them to read their contracts carefully. Almost all contracts allow employers to terminate by giving notice, usually one or two months, regardless of whether you are a permanent or contract staff. Almost all contracts provide that any payment beyond the monthly salary is discretionary, regardless of your position or how long you have worked.
The Employment Act offers some protection on such issues, but these are largely for lower wage, or what was commonly referred to as blue collar workers.
But our workforce is not the same as it was when the Employment Act was first enacted, and neither are the challenges we face. We have become and are becoming more educated, better trained. Today, professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) make up about 32% of our workforce, and that figure is set
\tPage: 85
to rise rapidly as years go by. It is clear that our employment legislation cannot exclude this growing sector of our population.
This Bill does cast the net wider and give PMEs more rights but PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month continue to be excluded from this ambit. It is one thing to be given rights but they are elusory – they cannot be enforced when necessary. One of the benefits that will not be available to many PMEs is the right to bring their employment disputes to MOM's Labour Court. Instead, they are expected to enforce their rights in our civil courts.
I would ask the Minister to look carefully at this. It is not within the ambit of the current Bill but I think it is something worth considering for the future. PMEs will not likely satisfy the means test for legal aid. This means that they would either have to sue and engage lawyers or represent themselves in court should their employment rights be violated. And how many are realistically in a position to do this? Unions can represent PME members who are working in unionised companies and are eligible for representation under the Industrial Relations Act (IRA). Yet, the scope of the IRA is limited. Not all PMEs are covered, and even if they are, unions are only able to represent them for a restricted number of purposes.
So, some employers take advantage of this. They avoid their contractual obligations, knowing that the employees will not have the time or resources to take them on. These are individuals who would have already lost their jobs and are either looking for work or having to prove themselves to a new employer and they are in no position to wage a long and extensive legal battle.
We should recognise that employment disputes are different from other private disputes. Employment is a bread and butter issue, and it affects not only the individual, but the entire family he or she supports. They will be up against employers who have stronger bargaining power, better resources and there is a strong public interest in ensuring that all employees, regardless of rank and income, or at least up to a higher income ceiling, are treated fairly.
We should help such employees by giving them a simple platform to resolve disputes with their employers quickly and inexpensively. We can do this by extending the scope of the Act such that all PMEs, or at least PMEs below a higher income ceiling can have access to MOM's Labour Court. As the Labour Court is already well positioned to deal with such issues, it makes sense for us to tap on its strengths and expertise and to extend its reach. It will also be able to maintain a database of cases and precedents, which will allow the Ministry
\tPage: 86
to observe trends and practices, and even identify those employers who regularly avoid their obligations.
Consistent with this, we need to review the powers of the Labour Court to make it more effective. Currently, problems arise when employers do not comply with the decision handed down by the Assistant Commissioner for Labour. In such cases, the employee has to turn to the Subordinate Courts to enforce the order. And that means they will have to apply for a writ of seizure/sale, or pay additional fees such as stamp fees and bailiff's fees in order to recover the amount which is owed to them. Can we simplify the process to make it easier for the employee to recover what is properly due to him so that he can enforce his rights, again in a faster, inexpensive manner? With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this important Bill, which seeks to enshrine the rights of employees and employers in a legislation that is reflective of the current updated environment.
As we are widely regarded now as an advanced economy, with the key characteristics that are among the best in the world, we must also ensure that our employment legislations are sophisticated and developed enough to reflect this. After all, as an advanced economy, we want to better protect the rights of our employees here.
This is important for Singaporeans now and in the future. As the Government aims to restructure the economy, built up upon productivity, higher value-added, better quality and better paying jobs for Singaporeans, we must ensure that they are also well-protected and fairly treated at the workplace. What is the use of better quality and better paying jobs, if they are not protected well or be subject to unfair treatment by employers?
So, I applaud this timely Bill to strengthen our employment legislation.
Next, on protecting employees' rights. Let me first touch on protecting the rights of employees, which the Bill accords significant attention to. There are a few points I wish to make that I feel will further strengthen what the Government has set out to do here today.
\tPage: 87
Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to make changes to section 14 of the Employment Act to stipulate that an employee must have been in service for at least a year with that employer before he may, if considered to have been dismissed without just cause or excuse by his employer, make the representations in writing to the Minister within one month of the dismissal.
While this protects the employers from habitual errant employees who may job hop from one company to another exploiting them, I feel that there is a serious group of job market participants who may lose out from this one-year stipulated minimum time period.
Madam, these are the workers who are in contracts that include a minimum probationary period of, say, three or six months. Quite often, these contracts include a clause that allows for a salary increment should the person satisfactorily complete the probation period and be confirmed in the position. Anecdotally, I have heard of companies who are more liberal with terminating employees during their probationary periods, or rather not continuing with their employment once their probationary periods are over, without obvious or justifiable reasons. I am not definite of what their motives are for doing so but it could possibly be that such companies find it a useful part of their model to continuously employ staff on lower or probationary salaries.
No doubt that such companies may not be prevalent throughout the economy and that they are not serious or credible business players in the first place, but as firms here look towards more alternatives of cutting costs and remaining profitable, I worry that it may become a trend. Hence, it is important that we provide some protection for employees who are still serving their probationary periods to also be able to lodge a complaint should he be unfairly dismissed.
Moreover, the section in the Act already specifies that such an employee should not receive more than $4,500 of salary per month. As incomes increase and are likely to continue to do so in the future as part of our national economic restructuring plans, I feel that this figure should be revised upwards. I note that there is a provision in the Act and the Bill for the Minister to prescribe a substitution, it may be useful to already do that revision now since we are undertaking this exercise to review this Employment Act.
This brings me to the enforcement clauses in the Bill which states that any employer who is guilty of contravening section 21, 22 and 23 of the Act, for not paying salaries on time, payment on dismissal or payment on termination by
\tPage: 88
employee, shall be liable to a minimum fine of $3,000 and not more than $15,000 or a maximum of six months' imprisonment or both. I feel that the minimum fine level should be raised to at least $4,500 since this is commensurate with the salary of $4,500 provided for in the description in the Act.
Next, on protection of employers. As an employer, personally, I would like to contribute my opinion on how we should also provide better protection for employers. I am aware that being an employer has its own set of challenges, and these are sometimes not as recognised or made aware. Employers, too, can be exploited and not just employees. So, we must ensure that our legislation provide adequate cover to employers as this complements Singapore's reputation as a business hub and its ability to attract investments and businesses from all over the world.
The Bill provides for an amendment to section 27 of the Employment Act on Authorized Deductions by removing subsection (g). I would like to propose an addition to this list, which would allow employers to make an authorised deduction from their employees, past or present, of overpayment of work claims. As employers, we are mindful to be quick in reimbursing our staff on expenses they may have incurred as part of their job so as to not disrupt their monthly cash flow. In doing so though, we may often overlook certain claims in lieu of speed. Hence, when internal processes are subsequently completed, we do at times find that a gross overpayment has been made. This provision to lawfully deduct such overpayments should be included in the Act.
Besides these, I would also like to emphasise that the measures in the Bill to protect the pro-family leave allowance are timely. Although these measures were announced earlier this year, intricate details had to be worked upon so that both employees and employers are clear of their respective obligations and privileges in this context. This would reduce the probability of friction and misunderstandings between the employers and the employees in the future.
While enforcement and the legislation help to protect rights, we must also pay attention to reducing the incidences or causes of misunderstandings in the workplace so that our work environment is a conducive and healthy one for our economy and society to prosper. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill on the whole.
\tPage: 89
Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I am heartened that enhancements have been made to the Employment Act to better protect our workers in Singapore. Our Government's commitment to make legislative amendments to accommodate the shifts in our workforce and workplaces is indeed commendable.
The Bill has been extended to offer protection to our PMEs in this workforce. This is significant, taking into consideration our economic growth and global prominence as a regional launch-pad into the Asian markets. It is inevitable that the PMEs in our workforce today will become the rank-and-file workers of tomorrow. Thus, they deserve employment protection that the changes to the Employment Act offer.
Today, I would like to touch on three areas.
Firstly, eldercare leave. Our younger workers today have different aspirations. They look for work they enjoy, they want to have fulfilling careers and a better-quality life. The introduction of the Enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package earlier this year and its incorporation into the employment legislation was an incentive to younger working Singaporeans to get married and have children. It helps reduce the dilemma of caring for the child with enhanced paternity, maternity and childcare leave. This was a milestone because it forces us to rethink our approach to work and life, and know that with higher productivity initiatives at work, a fulfilling life outside work is indeed now a possibility.
Singapore is also facing the challenge of an ageing population and the numbers of Singaporeans who are above 65 are expected to grow from 9% in 2010 to 20% by 2030. Many filial Singaporeans face the prospect of caring for ageing parents who are vulnerable and need to be taken care of. Medical developments have allowed our elderly family members to live longer and stay mobile. However, it does not mean that they do not need care or assistance at all. The Civil Service took the lead in December 2011 with the introduction of the two-day parent-care leave. A medical certificate is not required to be eligible to apply for parent-care leave. Their annual leave is also not affected.
Since the Government took the lead two years ago, only some enlightened employers have introduced it. I have urged for the legislating of eldercare leave at our NTUC's National Delegates' Conference in 2011 and again at our Ordinary Delegates' Conference last month. Mdm Speaker, you too spoke about it passionately recently. Can the Minister look into making eldercare leave
\tPage: 90
mandatory? It is about time that all our workers are given the flexibility to manage the added demands of caring for their ageing family members.
Secondly, restrictive clauses in employment contracts. Many world economies are faced with issues related to unemployment, but our Singapore Government, together with our tripartite partners, has continued to create good jobs for Singaporeans, and we are thankful for that. Working in Singapore is now a necessity, due to the rising cost of living expenses and to build our retirement savings.
Employment contracts in Singapore are often fair for both employer and worker, where the employment and termination terms of the employment agreements are concerned. However, there are restrictive clauses that are overlooked by the workers and subsequently used as reasons for termination or even to the extent of preventing workers from seeking other employment.
Restrictive clauses prohibit workers to work in a similar job for another company after they resign. They are sometimes masked as non-competitor clauses. Is it fair if a trained accountant is no longer allowed to practise accountancy anywhere else if he resigns? Or if a professional trainer is prohibited from training in another company or in an individual capacity after resignation? Such restrictive clauses are unfair to the workers because it prohibits the use of their professional skills to earn a decent living. How are the workers going to earn their keep and feed themselves if they cannot make a living doing what they are trained or skilled to do? The right to work should continue to remain a right of the worker. The responsibility is on the employer to retain their workers through employment incentives, and not restrictive clauses.
I would like to ask the Minister: in the second phase of the review, is there a possibility to abolish the use of restrictive clauses in employment agreements altogether?
Lastly, contract workers. Offering workers contract employment instead of traditional full employment has become more prevalent in Singapore today. Amendments to the Employment Act to improve protection for contract workers are not addressed in the existing amendments, and I do hope that this will be a priority as contract workers in Singapore need protection as well.
Contract work offers short-term employment. When viewed from the perspective of a one-year work contract compared to the possibility of working
\tPage: 91
for some 40 years perhaps till retirement, there is almost no job security. If a worker goes through three months' probation for a one-year contract, this results in having only eight months of job security because, in the final month, the worker would be worrying about where his income will come from when the one-year contract expires. We should consider restricting the probation period of contract workers to one month from commencement of the contract.
The other consideration pertaining to contract work would be the period of continuous employment. When good contract workers are offered an extension to their employment contract, some employers insert a break in between employment contracts to circumvent the accumulation of the period of continuous employment so that they are not eligible for benefits like retrenchment payouts. I would like to suggest that the Employment Act protect the workers such that as long as the worker has not been employed elsewhere between the employment contracts, the worker is deemed to have been under \"continuous employment\". I understand these aspects of contract employment will be looked into in Phase 2 next year but I would like to reinforce that it is important for us to address these lapses sooner rather than later.
In conclusion, Madam, the amendments are positive steps forward to protect our workers, but I hope that these issues I have raised on eldercare leave, restrictive clauses in employment agreements and the issues faced by contract workers be given due consideration by the Government and be incorporated into the proposed amendments. With these comments, Madam, I heartily support the Bill.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, it is said that the measure of a society is found in how they treat the weakest and most helpless citizens. While I applaud the move to offer more and better protection to a group of PMEs, I think more can be done to help the low-wage workers especially in the areas of mandatory payslips, payment for working on rest days and statutory medical benefits.
On the issue of payslips, a Forbes survey was commissioned by NTUC's Unit for Contract and Casual Workers in 2011 to focus on working conditions faced by low-wage workers. Sample size of 400 low-wage workers in each of the following sectors were taken – namely those in the logistics, cleaning, food and beverage, retail and landscape sectors. Close to 59% of the cleaners shared that they did not receive any payslips; it was 51% for those in F&B; 44% for
\tPage: 92
logistics; 49% for retail and a whopping 71% for workers in the landscape industry shared that they did not receive any payslips.
Potentially, there are just too many low-wage workers that are not issued with payslips making them vulnerable to be taken advantage by irresponsible employers who do not issue payslips, possibly, to cover their tracks against unlawful employment practices or underpaying their workers.
Mdm Speaker, the Minister has shared that instead of legislative amendment to make issuance of payslips mandatory, it will be substituted with tripartite guidelines with a view of phasing in the requirements over time. I support this move provided it is an interim measure to enable employers to prepare the necessary structure and processes to help businesses to adjust. However, I would like the Ministry to share the timeline for payslips to be eventually made mandatory under the Employment Act (EA).
Being given a payslip is a basic employment right. Unless backed by legislative action, the problem of non-issuance of payslips to workers, especially low-wage workers, will persist and everything might be status quo with the tripartite guidelines having little impact in providing better protection for workers. Moreover, it will make it more challenging to help these workers over issues of non-payment or underpayment of workers' salaries.
Mdm Speaker, on payment for working on rest days, currently the EA sets the distinction for double pay to be accorded only when the worker is asked to work at the request of the employer, and not at their own request. Unfortunately, some irresponsible employers will pay the workers working on their rest day as if it was requested by the worker even though it was actually on the employers' request. Many vulnerable, old, low-wage workers suffer in silence and would not dare to report to MOM for fear of losing their job, or worse, be completely unaware of the fact that they were underpaid. Sometimes, helping them with their claims is also a challenge because they do not have any payslips.
I would like the Government to consider amending the Act where workers working on rest days are paid double salary regardless whether it was requested by employee or employer. Mdm Speaker, the current provision of medical benefits by employers in the current EA only covers payment for medical consultation. I would like to urge the Government to consider amending the EA to make it mandatory for employers to bear the payment for outpatient medicines as well. Already being in a low-income bracket, low-wage workers find themselves burdened by the cost of outpatient medicines, placing
\tPage: 93
them in a difficult financial situation. If the impact on business cost is a concern, may I suggest that the Ministry mandate for employers to be responsible for only claims for outpatient consultation and medicines from Government polyclinics to be a statutory provision under the EA?
Mdm Speaker, I understand that it could be challenging to adopt some of the proposals that were raised during the public consultations. Yet, I do not doubt that everyone agrees that more must be done to protect low-wage workers who are vulnerable because they are the group that would most likely be taken advantage of by irresponsible employers.
Last week, NTUC launched a one-stop centre for low-wage workers, called U Care Centre, aimed at providing these workers with guidance on work-related issues and opportunities to help them earn a better living. Through advocating fair employment and fair wages, the centre strives to be the voice with weight that can lead to faster change for our low-wage workers to have a better life. I look forward to the support of the Government to make this centre sustainable in its quest to make a difference to the life of low-wage workers.
If our hands are tied in amending the EA that could have offered better protection to help low-wage workers, then let us free our hands to support this dedicated centre for this vulnerable group of workers. I believe that the Government can and will be, as it has always been, generous with funding support that can help workers. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, I support the amendments in the Employment Act. However, I feel that more can be done to provide better protection to low-wage workers. I hope that the suggestion by the Manpower Minister that the proposed issuance of payslips is embodied as a Tripartite suggestion will merely be an interim measure. Many low-wage workers do not receive payslips and this can complicate the resolution of cases related to the payment of salaries. The Tripartite partners can discuss further to ensure that the amendments to the Employment Act that make the issuance of payslips mandatory can be implemented in a way that is acceptable to employers, especially the Small and Medium Enterprises, or better known as SMEs.
I also hope that the Employment Act can be amended to make it mandatory for employers to give double pay to workers who are protected under section 4 of the Employment Act, if they work during their rest days, regardless whether
\tPage: 94
they are asked to do so by their employers or on their own accord.
I also feel that we can help this group as well by making it compulsory for employers to pay for their medical costs for outpatient treatment received at Government polyclinics. At present, the Employment Act only makes it mandatory for employers to bear the consultation costs for their workers' outpatient treatment.
I admit that many of the suggestions to provide better protection for workers are not easy to implement. Therefore, I hope that the Government will implement other measures to provide protection to low-wage workers.
Last week, the NTUC launched a one-stop centre to help low-wage workers and champion their rights at the workplace. I hope to receive support from the Government and Tripartite partners in this effort. NTUC will continue to be the advocate for low-wage workers in order to help them to get better pay, manage the rising cost of living, lead better lives and be respected and valued for the work that they do.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, despite my view that more can be done to offer more protection for the vulnerable, low-wage workers, I believe the proposed EA amendments are in the right direction and I strongly support the Bill.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Speaker, the review and enhancement of the Employment Act (EA), as it seeks to provide better protection for more workers and to raise employment standards, is timely. I am especially pleased that MOM has taken steps to ensure that the EA keeps pace with the changing nature of our workforce, in extending better protection to professional, managerial and executive employees (PMEs).
PMEs already make up 32% of our workforce, and this is set to increase as Singaporean workers become better qualified. It is only appropriate that EA start to reflect this trend so that it can stay relevant. In particular, I welcome the move to extend general protection to PMEs earning up to $4,500, including the protection of sick leave benefits and against unfair dismissal, beyond the protection of salaries already accorded to them since 2009.
However, I am disappointed that provisions relating to hours of work, rest days and annual leave did not go far enough to effect the necessary change in
\tPage: 95
our work culture. Whilst I appreciate that these provisions must also serve the needs of employers, in order that they may manage their costs and stay competitive, I feel that we are still struggling to find the right balance.
Labour studies consistently show that Singaporeans work amongst the longest hours in the developed world. Yet we also know that such long working hours do not necessarily correlate to improved levels of productivity. We have all heard unfortunate stories of, and perhaps some of us have personally experienced, the unintended consequences of overwork: burnt-out executives no longer effective at their jobs, absent fathers and mothers regretting not spending more time with their families, ill health from stress, household tension and even the national fertility rate have, in the minds of many Singaporeans, been linked to unreasonable working hours.
Madam, in this Bill, the obligation for employers to pay for overtime is only limited to workmen earning up to $2,500 a month, and even the amount payable is capped at the salary level of $2,250. This limitation leaves a significant segment of non-workmen workforce uncovered. Furthermore, as PMEs are not classified as non-workmen, they will not be covered at all, even when their salaries are less than $2,500!
Madam, I believe that when employers are required to pay fair compensation for their employees' long hours of work, they will be motivated to think more critically about their operations and find more productive ways of working.
I have, personally, and on many occasions, witnessed how managers, faced with the prospect of needing to account for overtime costs, suddenly come up with creative process improvements that obviate the need for their staff to stay late at work. This could do wonders for Singaporeans' work-life balance!
I urge MOM to vigorously pursue the optimal balance to meet the needs of employers and also employees. Non-workmen's salary threshold for overtime payment should grow quickly to align with that of workmen, at $4,500 a month, so that there is no need to distinguish between workmen and non-workmen when paying for overtime.
Separately, Madam, we should remember that PMEs enjoy no such protection to claim overtime pay. All that the current Bill seeks to amend is section 88 of the EA, so that PMEs who work on public holidays are provided a day off-in-lieu or an extra day's salary at the basic rate of pay. From the
\tPage: 96
perspective of many PMEs, this provision appears rather ungenerous, as public holidays offer those few precious moments in a year when Singaporeans celebrate our cultures, traditions and religions with family and friends. It rather raises the question: should a premium not be attached to the compensation given for PMEs who are required to work on a public holiday?
Mdm Speaker, employers have argued that provisions for overtime pay should not apply to PMEs as their performance evaluation should be based purely on work outcomes rather than on the time expended. The employers have also argued that the types of work that PMEs are doing are too diverse to apply strict standards to and, therefore, employers should be given more latitude in administering them. These arguments, I agree, are fair. But to accept them is also to accept that, since PMEs' performance are based on outcomes, employers should be far more supportive of work-life balance, instead of expecting PMEs to clock in face-time in the office in the traditional manner, when there are so many more ways to get work done.
Madam, my relentless advocacy for flexi-work stems from observations of missed opportunities in the workforce and under-utilised human resources, especially amongst women and older workers. Most women juggle family and work commitments, and too many are forced to make the stark and painful choice between full-time work in a conventional setting or none at all, since there are few alternatives available to them. Many who stop work to care for an infant or an elderly parent, never return to the workforce. As one of the world's most wired countries, Singapore has all the technological advances to encourage flexi-work and work-from-home amongst our citizens. All that is needed is the will to make it happen, and I believe the Government should play an active role.
I urge the Government to do more to help employers understand the critical role they play, and the advantage they gain, in offering flexi-work arrangements along the very same argument that employers have put forward: that is PMEs' performance should be judged on outcomes rather than face-time in the office. Therefore, in support of families with young children, I would like to suggest that MOM consider empowering employees, through provisions in future Employment Act (EA) amendments, both male and female employees, with children below the age of 12, with the right to request for flexi-work arrangements and to have those requests considered seriously by their employers.
Mdm Speaker, MOM has also indicated that they will look into protection for employees in non-traditional work arrangements, such as contract workers
\tPage: 97
and self-employed persons, in Phase 2 of their EA review.
Contract hiring is on the rise in Singapore. In 2012, 192,000 or 11.5% of resident employees were on term contracts. Balancing contract and permanent employment is an opportunity for employers to ride the peaks and troughs of their business cycles, and offers companies the needed flexibility to stay competitive and respond to volatile business environment. Many companies have leveraged a contract workforce as an integral part of their operations.
Contract work also happens to be a mode of employment that Singaporean workers favour due to its flexible nature. A recent survey by Hays showed that out of 200 Singapore workers surveyed, 80% said they favoured contract jobs.
Yet contract workers face far less protection than other workers. Given the trend in employment practices, I urge MOM to consider requiring employers to offer contract workers some basic benefits after a period of employment, and definitely upon renewal of their contract. Currently, contract workers only qualify for certain benefits, such as annual sick leave, if they work continuously for three months. Unscrupulous employers intending to circumvent the EA obligations may coerce contract workers into accepting contracts of three months or less, and then extend these short-term contracts indefinitely, all the while leaving the worker exposed. This practice must be stopped. The renewal of a contractor's term usually indicates that he/she has been found to be suitable for the job and, therefore, the employer should be obliged to extend basic benefits to the contractor upon renewal of the contract.
Furthermore, employers should not be allowed to disguise a \"permanent\" job as a \"contract\" position in an attempt to avoid the cost of legal entitlements due to \"permanent\" employees. Such \"sham\" contracting should not be condoned. I know of people working on a contract basis for years in companies where, apart from their employment status, their responsibilities are indistinguishable from permanent employees. Will MOM consider a provision that allows contract workers to enjoy the same benefits as permanent employees if they have worked on the same job for a specified length of time? Such a provision will discourage employers from manipulating the employment status to avoid EA obligations, at the expense of the worker.
Madam, I support the Bill and I look forward to Phase 2 of the EA amendments to hopefully incorporate the points I raised today.
\tPage: 98
Mdm Speaker: Acting Minister.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the various Members for their views and their broad support for the proposed changes to the Employment Act (EA). I will now address some of the issues raised by the Members.
Assoc Prof Eugene Tan asked how the salary thresholds were arrived at. For non-workmen, the increase from $2,000 to $2,500 corresponds to the general increase in median salaries since the EA was last reviewed in 2009. For PMEs, we covered those earnings up to $4,500 for salary protection in 2011, and the tripartite partners, in their negotiation, agreed that it was too soon to revise its threshold.
Assoc Prof Tan also talked about extending Part IV of the EA to PMEs. I mentioned earlier that Part IV protection is generally accorded to more vulnerable workers and many of the time-based provisions, for example, hours of work, rest days and so on, are less relevant to PMEs due to the nature of the work. I have also explained why the tripartite partners felt it was not unreasonable for employers to ask for qualifying period for PMEs before they can seek redress for unfair dismissal. Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and the UK, also impose such conditions for PMEs. There is no qualifying period for employees to seek redress for dismissals without notice.
Mr Patrick Tay sought clarification on whether the notice of termination can be in electronic form. We take the view that employer and employee may agree to accept notice via electronic means, such as e-mail, as long as the information is accessible and usable for subsequent reference.
Mr Patrick Tay also asked for clearer articulation for the definition of \"cosmetic\" treatment. As mentioned earlier, the assessment of whether a treatment is cosmetic or not will be based on the opinion of the medical practitioner. We are studying how we can provide greater clarity to doctors when operationalising this.
Mr Tay also sought clarification on the computation of overtime (OT) pay. Indeed, OT should be payable beyond the contractual working hours. However, employers are given flexibility on the rate of OT pay if the contractual hours are below the statutory limit of 44 hours, after which a minimum of 1.5 times rate
\tPage: 99
must apply. We think that this flexibility is important or else employers may consider offering shorter contractual working hours, to the detriment of workers. Ms Foo Mee Har did say that Singaporeans work one of the longest hours already. As for the computation, there is a prescribed baseline formula which employers can refer to.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Gerald Giam also talked about compensation for PMEs required to work on public holidays. Given the nature of PME jobs, our intent remains to give employers the additional option of giving time-off in-lieu, instead of just keeping to the current rules, which allow the employer and employee to agree to substitute any other day for the public holiday or pay an extra day's salary. The duration of the time-off in-lieu can be mutually agreed between the employer and the PME to enhance the flexibility. Only where there is no agreement does the law clarify that it should be four hours if the PME works on that holiday for less than half a day, or a full day if the PME works for more than half a day.
As we safeguard the interests of workers, we also cannot forget that at the same time we also need to balance this with employers' needs, as Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Dhinakaran, a businessman himself, noted. Drastic moves that hinder business operations could actually inadvertently affect the employability of the very workers that we are looking to help.
The payslip issue which I elaborated earlier was one such example of trying to maintain that fine balance. We agree, in principle, that payslip is the correct way to go and that is where we intend to go too. But what we recognise also is the difficulty that some small businesses face.
Another is the employment conditions imposed by employers that Ms Mary Liew raised; or also the exclusion of allowances from employee entitlements that Mr Patrick Tay mentioned. All these add up to the balance that we need to look at when we deal with these issues.
There are many reasons why employers introduce employment conditions or clauses to protect the commercial interests of their companies. Where clauses are unreasonable or not aligned with the EA or other employment legislation, our laws will take precedence, nullifying those clauses, which means that employers do not have a free reign in terms of what they set in their clauses. Similarly, employers structure compensation packages to meet specific needs. We are, therefore, careful not to make a one-size-fits-all pronouncement that will inadvertently introduce labour rigidities. We will continue to work with
\tPage: 100
tripartite partners to prevent abuse in a targeted fashion.
Mr Zainal Sapari has proposed mandating more protection for our low-wage workers, such as greater medical benefits, greater compensation for work on rest days and shorter qualifying period for sick leave entitlements. I fully understand and appreciate where Mr Zainal Sapari is coming from. Vulnerable workers do deserve our special attention not just in terms of the workplace but across in the many different dimensions for which we have many different assistance programmes that are available. But we also need to be mindful that if we begin to impose too many conditions, we also do run the risk that, inadvertently, we might tip the balance and affect their employability itself. Then we end up hurting the very people that we are trying to protect. So, while the concerns are valid and we continue to look at this base of protection to see how we can expand it, we have to continue to watch carefully because we do not want to end up hurting the very groups themselves; being mindful that the workspace and in terms of the Employment Act is one dimension. For them, it is a multi-dimensional issue in terms of addressing the concerns and needs of these Singaporeans which are valid.
The tripartite partners must continue to watch this space diligently and to debate this to make sure that we look after the workers. At the same time, the Government, on a whole-of-Government perspective, must look at this holistically to make sure that the different schemes are available to address the different needs for the different contexts. Overall, I believe that the current proposals maintain a reasonable and a good balance. We will continue to watch that and continue to evolve that space together with our partners.
But legislative changes, as I have mentioned, are clearly not the only means we have to assist our low-wage workers. This multi-faceted approach on the employment front revolves around one key thing, which I strongly believe is that work is really the best form of welfare. It is about the ability to continue to create good jobs and to raise employment standards. Creating good jobs means that we also need to make sure that the economy remains competitive, that employers have a viable business model that can go on because, in turn, that will also create opportunities for our people.
We also need to look at short-term expenditure and longer-term retirement needs. These will include Workfare Income Supplement, and sector-specific initiatives to raise the employment standards and benefits for low-wage workers, especially in the cleaning and security industries.
\tPage: 101
It is really multi-faceted. While we look at a specific Act today, there are also other corresponding efforts that are trying to uplift the workers in the specific area of concern. We have also been raising awareness of compliance with the Employment and CPF Acts, as discussed earlier under the WorkRight campaign and to ensure that the rights of vulnerable workers are protected. Those are fundamental because they ensure that the various schemes that are available can actually reach the very people that we are trying to help.
Beyond MOM, like I said, there are many different assistance schemes that are available in terms of housing, healthcare and education. For example, the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) allows Singaporeans from lower- and even middle-income households the convenience of seeking subsidised care at private GPs and dental clinics near their homes.
I do applaud and recognise our partner NTUC's efforts to widen the outreach and make assistance more accessible through the U Care Centre. That is an important development and we strongly support that. With our tripartite partners, we will continue to review and enhance the ways we extend targeted assistance and support to low-wage workers as we strive towards a more progressive and inclusive society.
In terms of enforcement, Mr Gerald Giam asked for the rationale for the enhanced investigatory powers. While there is a need for employment inspectors to have such powers to secure the immediate cooperation of suspects to facilitate investigations, in cases of failure to pay salary which our Ministry considers as one of the most serious offences, similar powers are already accorded to employment inspectors under the EFMA. All employment inspectors will have to be adequately trained to execute arrest and search of suspects. MOM will exercise the new power of arrest judiciously.
Members have made other useful suggestions pertaining to the Industrial Relations Act and the second phase of the EA review. One such area is mechanisms to resolve employment disputes which Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Hri Kumar talked about. MOM and the tripartite partners are actively looking into this. I have talked about this briefly before, and I will be giving more information on this probably in the first half of next year.
Mr Zainal Sapari also called for greater accountability on service buyers for outsourced workers; while Ms Mary Liew, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Patrick Tay proposed improved protection for contract
\tPage: 102
workers. All these will be addressed. They are important issues. It takes some time to address because for contract workers, there is really a wide range of different contexts in which contract workers operate and all these will be addressed in the next phase of the Employment Act review by next year.
Ms Mary Liew and Dr Chia Shi-Lu suggested mandatory eldercare leave. I agree in principle that it is important to encourage support for elderly parents. However, as Ms Liew also noted, the Government has recently taken significant steps with a series of family-related leave schemes as part of the Marriage and Parenthood package. We are mindful that we should allow businesses to adjust and we do not have plans to legislate any family leave schemes at this present stage.
As for Dr Chia's suggestion of a national code of employment conduct, he would be pleased to know that the tripartite partners have come out with Guidelines on Best Work-Life Practices to encourage companies to grant non-statutory leave to employees for family-related issues.
Ms Foo called for greater support for flexible work arrangements and I echo that. This involves quite fundamental shifts in terms of the cultural and mindset shifts in our workplaces and especially with the mindsets of employers. I would suggest among employees themselves, I think a lot of it is also brought upon by our own desire not to seemingly lose out and frankly a lot of it just revolves round bad habits that are in the workplace, both from the employer's perspective and even ourselves as employees.
I do not think legislation itself will solve the more fundamental issue. Indeed, we are trying to press ahead to encourage companies to implement work-life strategies, to find different schemes to incentivise companies to move along those lines as part of the effort to attract and retain talent through various schemes. We also see the response from many younger Singaporeans today, and companies have to pay attention to this. I believe the market will soon have to begin to adjust as well. It is really in the interest of companies to do so in this tight labour market.
Like Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Foo Mee Har, I also agree that the evolution of work arrangements does make it increasingly difficult to draw a line between the workmen and non-workmen. I have mentioned this before as well. We do need to work towards removing this distinction in a practical way in the medium term.
\tPage: 103
Ms Lee Li Lian asked for the rationale for the CDCA amendment. This is to make clear that parents who both have an older Singaporean child and a younger non-citizen child should not claim leave under both the EA and CDCA.
Many of you have raised a range of issues; many of them technical and very specific in nature. My Ministry's officials will be quite happy to work with you to provide and our tripartite partners to issue clarifications as appropriate.
I would like to conclude by supporting Assoc Prof Tan's call for shared effort to build a more inclusive society. Overall, I believe that this Bill supports our journey forward to develop progressive workplaces for our people. A lot of us spend a lot of time at the workplace and I think it is also appropriate that these workplaces need to be great workplaces. They need to be progressive workplaces.
Madam, to sum up, this Bill is about better protection for more workers but still at the same time giving employers the flexibility to continue to be able to sustain their business to remain competitive so that they can continue to provide good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. Once again, I would like to thank all our stakeholders, including many Members of the House for all their suggestions and inputs for the support of this Bill.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Madam, I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, regarding the deductions. How does the Ministry monitor employers, especially employers of low-wage workers to ensure that the deductions are not excessive and unreasonable? Second, regarding the prosecution and the fines, if an employer is prosecuted, how will the Ministry ensure that the employer actually ends up not just paying the fine but also pays the worker?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, with regard to the deductions, it is an area of concern which is why we moved some of the changes here. Deductions for accommodation and amenities and services – one of the questions that was raised by Mr Giam earlier – should be factored at the actual cost and be accepted by the employee. Deduction for amenities and services is not common. Employers need to apply to the Commissioner before deducting for amenities and services. So, there are checks in place, but I do fully recognise that there are concerns about the imbalances in the relationship between employers and employees. So, should we find that deductions are excessive, we do encourage
\tPage: 104
workers or those who are aware of these cases to flag it up to MOM so that we can go in and look at it in detail.
With regard to the second question, I would refer Members to my earlier response in the way we enforce non-payment or late payment of CPF. The priority really is to make sure that the entitled monies are provided to the people. That is the first priority, and we find that, in most cases, employers begin to move once we go in. We then move on to the prosecutory stage.
That is the way we approach it. We find that, by and large, employers do respond. Where they do not respond, that is when we bring in the full letter of the law in order to punish the companies. But we will at the same time make sure as far as possible to extract the monies to be made payable to the people. There will be circumstances where, perhaps, not so much because of the recalcitrants but because of closure of the companies and so on, in those extreme cases, there will be challenges in recovering the monies. But, in most cases, we are able to recover the monies.
Ms Foo Mee Har: I would like to ask the Acting Minister in order to effect the positive change needed against long hours of work, and given the minimum protection on overtime that we currently have in our laws, both at the non-workmen level and definitely at the PME level, how would we motivate employers to re-engineer the work processes so that people do not have to work excessive hours? What would be the mechanism going forward for us to rethink about this critical issue of excessive hours that people put in if employers are not subject to either compensation and, therefore, cost? What would be the motivation for them to critically think about changing the ways of working?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, work-life balance is something that I am particularly concerned about. We have a 44-hour work week. It translates to about nine hours a day. We do want to make sure that as far as our workmen are concerned, the appropriate limits are put in place, the OT is in place. That part is being addressed.
The Member's concern is with regard to PMEs. Many of us here in this House work fairly long hours, too. Some of us work long hours, some of us are also employers and we also subject our colleagues to those long hours. How do we address that? It is a big cultural change. For one reason or another, we have developed a culture of being hardworking; but taken to the limits, there
\tPage: 105
will be disamenities in terms of morale, in terms of staff engagement and so on.
Enlightened companies do recognise that. You do find increasingly more companies, and we will begin to see more companies, embracing flexible work arrangements at the workplace. We strongly encourage that.
It is in many ways a movement. Can you really mandate that change? I am not sure that it is necessarily the right way to do it for PMEs, but the effort is there. It is not just for the Government. The Government needs to signal in terms of the way we manage our Ministries and agencies, as well as companies that are progressive. We need to celebrate those progressive work practices, share them and to see how – rather than a decrease in productivity – that you would deepen staff engagement, possibly staff retention, and that turnover is less. It does not impact necessarily the bottom line.
That is the ongoing effort that we have to put in place. But, at the present, we do not believe that legislation itself will change that issue. We are putting in efforts in terms of incentivising, in terms of resourcing pro-work-life balance arrangements, and in terms of the tripartite effort to encourage this to take place in our workplace.
It is going to take time. We are un-doing many years of habit that has been put in place but it is an important objective to work towards. I do urge every individual to look at it from his or her own perspective as an employee, particularly in your own workplace. There are changes we can make. We should endeavour to do that.
Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene: Mdm Speaker, I would be much obliged if the Minister could explain why the overtime rate payable for non-workmen is capped at $2,250 when the salary threshold for such non-workmen under the Bill is $2,500.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: We have increased the threshold to $2,500. Every worker up to $2,500 will be entitled to OT. We took a while to negotiate between the unions and the employers. We decided that $2,250 would be that cap. Meaning that anyone who earns up to $2,500 would be entitled to OT but the calculation would be based on the $2,250. This was basically a negotiated outcome that we feel met the desire to provide coverage for a lot more workers but, at the same time, managing the costs for companies. This is not static. Over
\tPage: 106
time, we will see how that evolves.
Ms Lee Li Lian: I would like to find out whether the shared parental leave includes fathers of adopted children. If not, why not?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, adoptive fathers can apply for Government's paid paternity leave, childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave as long as they meet the respective eligibility criteria.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Mdm Speaker, earlier in my speech, I asked the Acting Minister for more clarity on certain situations that fall within the auspices of section 14 as well as transfers which are tantamount or are covered within section 18(a). I was just asking the Minister whether his Ministry would be able to provide some answers and some clearer articulation on that.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I would be quite happy to provide the specific responses to Mr Tay's questions.
[(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: 107
","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, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Gan Kim Yong] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Easing the Cost of Healthcare for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Government Whip (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\"
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Adjournment Motion.
Many Singaporeans are worried about falling ill and not being able to afford their medical expenses. A survey conducted last year by Mindshare, a global media and marketing services firm, found that 72% of Singaporeans felt they \"cannot afford to get sick due to high medical costs.\"
This echoes the sentiments of many Singaporeans I have spoken to, many of whom are elderly or have sick family members to care for. In particular, the high out-of-pocket payments at the point of treatment are a great source of worry for many.
It is not uncommon to hear accounts of older folks ignoring health problems and delaying visits to the doctor because they fear that medical expenses will be a financial burden to themselves and their families.
Medical inflation in Singapore was almost 9% in 2011 – much higher than general inflation. Our people should not have to face these increasing medical costs alone. The structure of our healthcare financing system is a critical factor in determining whether healthcare is truly affordable for all Singaporeans.
In Singapore, less than one-third of all healthcare costs are paid by the Government. More than 60% of the costs are paid by patients out-of-pocket,
\tPage: 108
which include cash and MediSave. This is much higher than the average of 14% in high-income countries, according to data from the World Health Organization.
Is it any wonder then that Singaporeans are feeling the strain of healthcare costs? High out-of-pocket spending can create barriers to healthcare access and use, because people who have difficulties paying medical bills may delay or forgo treatment even though they need it.
It is a fundamental responsibility of the Government to ensure that all our citizens have access to high quality healthcare based on their medical needs and regardless of their income. The healthcare burden cannot continue to be borne so heavily by individuals and their families. Singapore's population is ageing and healthcare costs are expected to continue rising.
The Government must be prepared to shoulder a much larger proportion of healthcare costs than it currently does. We need to shift away from seeing healthcare as primarily an individual responsibility, and emphasise more Government intervention, risk-sharing and fairness in financing.
We need to change the way healthcare is financed, so that Singaporeans who fall ill can focus on seeking the most appropriate medical treatment, without worrying about whether they are able to afford it.
I would like to make a few proposals on healthcare financing to reduce the financial burden on Singaporeans when they fall ill, to improve the efficiency of the healthcare system and contain medical inflation.
First, on MediShield. MediShield is an insurance scheme intended to cover large hospital bills. However, it does not provide full coverage. Patients need to make hefty co-payments, in addition to other claim limits like caps on hospital ward charges, and annual and lifetime claim limits. As a result, MediShield claims covered only 2.1% of total healthcare expenditure in 2011.
In August this year, the Government announced plans to provide expanded insurance coverage under a new \"MediShield Life\" scheme. These changes to cover all Singapore residents, without exclusions for old age or pre-existing conditions, are certainly welcome. They are consistent with what many Singaporeans and the Workers' Party have been calling for.
However, I remain concerned about the rising premiums. The Government has already warned that premiums will go up. While I accept that increased
\tPage: 109
coverage will come at a cost, there are two questions we must consider: should all of these cost increases be borne by policyholders? And will some groups of Singaporeans find the premiums unaffordable?
MediShield premiums currently rise with age. An 86-year-old pays a premium rate that is more than 23 times that of a 20-year-old. The elderly shoulder a disproportionate premium burden. Policyholders over age 60 contribute about 36% of total premiums, even though they make up just over 12% of policyholders.
Most of the elderly are retired with little or no income. It is unfortunate that many of those who are least able to afford the premiums are, in fact, paying the most.
Many of our senior citizens have exhausted their Medisave accounts and have difficulty coming up with the money to pay their premiums. Every year, an average of 650 elderly policyholders opt out of MediShield coverage completely. This leaves them vulnerable and without insurance protection, putting them at risk of financial catastrophe if they fall ill.
The Government does not directly subsidise MediShield premiums, although it does give ad hoc Medisave top-ups to the elderly and a Medisave grant to newborns.
I would like to propose that the Government introduce a MediShield premium subsidy programme for all vulnerable groups of Singaporeans. These would include elderly persons with no income and limited savings; people with disabilities; patients who have exhausted their MediSave; low-income families; and those who already qualify for MediFund, Public Assistance, ComCare and the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS).
The appropriate level of premium subsidies should be automatically extended to them, without a need for them to apply separately. This could help many more Singaporeans to cope with the rising premiums, while ensuring that the MediShield Fund remains solvent.
While MediShield is intended to help cover the costs of large medical bills, policyholders will still have to make co-payments in the form of deductibles and up to 20% in co-insurance. Last year, over 2,400 MediShield policyholders made co-payments of over $10,000 each.
\tPage: 110
These co-payments can be financially crippling on their own. Would MOH explore the introduction of an annual cap on out-of-pocket co-payments made by each patient? Any medical bills above the cap would be borne by the Government.
Such schemes are a feature in most developed countries, including Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. It is also one of the key consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act in the US.
An annual cap on out-of-pocket payments will limit the financial risk that individual patients are exposed to, and help allay the anxiety of many Singaporeans about uncertain medical expenses.
From the Government's perspective, co-payments are necessary to discourage over-consumption. The Government's fear is that \"free\" healthcare will escalate costs and become fiscally unsustainable. However, people do not consume healthcare like they do other goods and services. Most people visit doctors rather grudgingly – usually when they fall sick and have obvious symptoms. Demand for healthcare is, therefore, not unlimited.
A health insurance experiment conducted by the RAND Corporation, involving over 7,000 patients in the US, found that, indeed, higher co-payments reduced the consumption of healthcare. However, the experiment also found that co-payments caused patients, especially the poor ones, to reduce the use of medically necessary care. The experiment found that poor patients with hypertension tended to avoid treatment, leading to significantly higher mortality rates.
High co-payments have also been shown to have an effect on patients adhering to their prescriptions. In another experiment by researchers from Harvard Medical School, nearly 6,000 patients who had just suffered a heart attack were prescribed drugs that reduced the chance of another attack. Half of them had their co-payments for these drugs waived, while the other half paid the usual fee. The result showed that more patients in the zero co-pay group took their medication regularly. They saw their health improve, with lower incidences of stroke and repeat heart attacks than the patients who had to co-pay. Interestingly, the elimination of co-payments did not increase total spending by patients and insurers, and even reduced spending in some areas.
The lesson from these two experiments is that if co-payments are too high, poorer patients may be deterred from seeking medically necessary treatment.
\tPage: 111
Similarly, it is difficult enough to get patients to adhere to their prescriptions and high co-payments could make it even harder. This could have knock-on effects, like higher rates of hospital re-admissions, which will cost both the patient and the system more in the long run.
The Government's claim that no one will be denied healthcare because of inability to pay is cold comfort for some Singaporeans who regularly forgo medical appointments or cut back on prescribed medication because of the high costs and the difficulty in obtaining financial assistance.
A few weeks ago, I met an elderly resident at his home in Bedok, who suffers from COPD, a chronic lung disease. He is unable to work and has no children to support him. When I asked him how he was coping with his medical expenses, he told me that he was using his MediSave but had almost exhausted it. I was disturbed to learn that he often skipped medical appointments and cut back on his medication just to save money. I told him that there was financial assistance available and that he should not compromise on his health. But he told me that he had given up applying for assistance because of all the documents that he had to submit and the interviews he had to attend for the purpose of means-testing.
Recently, a colleague sent me a photo of a large banner at the counter of a pharmacy at a Government restructured hospital that read: \"Please inform our staff if you do not want to take the full supply and/or if you need to know the total cost of your medication\".
These two situations illustrate how many Singaporeans find themselves making hard choices between getting the necessary treatment and saving money, and how the onerous process of means-testing may be deterring some needy patients from obtaining financial assistance and, therefore, treatment.
I have spoken in this House before about how all means-testing should be done without the need for patients to physically submit income documents. The patients and their families should only need to give their consent for the provider to assess their income records with the relevant Government agencies like CPF Board and IRAS.
This facility should be made available at all institutions, whether private or public. The providers of all assistance schemes, including MediFund, hospital endowment funds and other charity schemes, should be able to access these records. This will better ensure that patients receive all the financial assistance
\tPage: 112
that they qualify for.
Better still, can vulnerable groups of patients be pre-qualified so that they do not even have to submit any applications before receiving financial assistance? Currently, this is already being done for the CHAS cardholders receiving outpatient treatment. MOH should consider extending the same for inpatient financial assistance schemes.
As I call for the expansion of the role of the Government in easing the healthcare burden on Singaporeans, I am also aware of the many challenges that our healthcare system faces in containing ever-increasing costs. We need to look into ways to contain healthcare costs while still improving patient outcomes.
Many of the current measures to contain healthcare costs focus on curbing consumption by patients. However, most patients do not have sufficient knowledge to decide on the type of treatment they need. These decisions are usually entrusted to healthcare providers, which include doctors and hospitals.
Therefore, providers drive the bulk of healthcare spending through their decisions to admit patients to hospital, order medical tests, prescribe drugs and charge fees. Therefore, if we seek to control costs, we need to actively engage providers.
To achieve this, all providers – including GPs, hospitals and preventive care providers – must be made collectively responsible for providing a full spectrum of care for patients. These providers should cooperate and share patient information with one another, in order to make more accurate diagnoses and coordinate patient care.
They should focus on keeping patients healthy and ensuring they take their medication regularly. This will minimise hospital re-admissions, investigations and treatment, all of which are more expensive. Providers should be paid based on their achievement of measured quality improvements, not simply the volume of patients they see or the level of fees their patients pay. All this could lead to healthier patients and lower costs for both patients and the system.
Technology should be used as a \"force multiplier\" in the face of limited manpower in our healthcare system. While Singapore is no laggard in healthcare technology, its potential is not being fully realised. Often, the
\tPage: 113
problem lies not with the lack of technical expertise, but with a lack of adoption.
One example of this is the National Electronic Health Records system (NEHR). The NEHR enables patient health records to be shared across the healthcare system. It can reduce medical errors, and improve productivity and coordination between providers. This will lead to better diagnoses and treatment, and reduced medical costs.
The NEHR has been rolled out to all public hospitals, polyclinics and long-term care providers. However, while over 5,000 clinical users have access to the system, what percentage of these users are fully utilising the functionality of the system?
Is usage lower than it should be, due to usability issues or some providers still preferring to use handwritten clinical notes? How is MOH ironing out these issues to increase usage of the system?
The usage of NEHR in the primary care sector is lagging even further behind. As at March this year, it had been rolled out to only about 50 out of the 2,000 private GP and dental clinics.
The Government has already invested $172 million to develop Phase 1 of the NEHR, and is paying about $20 million each year in maintenance costs. The subsequent phases are expected to cost more. While the Government deems it important to recover the cost of developing and maintaining the NEHR, the goal of cost-recovery must not impose a roadblock to the full adoption of the system by all healthcare providers in Singapore. It is important to ensure that all providers, including GPs and specialist outpatient clinics, enter the necessary clinical data into the system, so that the full benefits of having electronic health records can be realised.
Madam, healthcare is an issue that is close to the heart of every Singaporean. While we are all at risk of falling ill, unaffordable medical costs are not inevitable. The Government must reform the way that healthcare is financed in Singapore, so as to ease the healthcare burden on all Singaporeans. This will give our people peace of mind, knowing that they will be able to afford all necessary treatment if they fall ill.
\tPage: 114
The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Motion.
Madam, healthcare cost was a key focus in our Healthcare 2020 announced in 2012. It was also a key theme in this year's National Day Rally. MOH takes a multi-pronged approach to help Singaporeans with their healthcare cost.
First, at the national level, we must keep healthcare cost low for all Singaporeans. We spend 4% of our GDP on national health expenditure. This is less than many other countries, but with good outcomes. Life expectancy rose from 78 years in 2001 to about 82 years in 2010. We have also seen steady improvement in other indicators, for example, lower premature mortality, death rate for heart disease, aged 35 to 64, fell from 76.2 per 100,000 in 2001 to about 50 in 2010. This is comparable to the top 25% of OECD countries, roughly on par with the United Kingdom and Sweden. We should bear in mind that we are still a young nation in terms of our population, compared to many of the developed countries, although ageing is picking up pace. Expenditure will, indeed, increase with an ageing population. Therefore, it is important for us to manage overall healthcare cost. And we do this through three key thrusts.
Firstly, even as we expand capacity to meet healthcare demand, we must also work on right-siting the patients to avoid over consumption which will drive up cost. Secondly, we must continue to improve productivity and encourage innovation in healthcare delivery. We must continue to seek new models of care that are more cost-effective. Thirdly, we must also preserve the focus on personal responsibility and step up our efforts to promote healthy lifestyle and strengthen our support for preventive healthcare. The key strategy of this was outlined in our Healthy Lifestyle Masterplan announced earlier this year.
Mr Giam also talked about co-payment. Co-payment is a very important component of our strategy to moderate healthcare cost. Co-payment, in fact, plays a very important role in our healthcare financing framework in preventing over-consumption. As Mr Giam pointed out, co-payment encourages our healthcare providers to focus on the more cost-effective options of treatment. So, decisions are also made by service providers as well and not just patients. As Mr Giam has pointed out earlier on, the providers also need to be guided, they also need to be incentivised, to provide the right, appropriate treatment for the patients so that they are more cost-effective. Therefore, we need to be mindful in managing both the patients as well as the providers. And we have calibrated the amount of co-payment very carefully to ensure that they will
\tPage: 115
remain affordable. But there is room for us to provide more help.
We have announced earlier that we do intend to see how we can reduce the patient's share of healthcare cost, including co-payment, through Government subsidies, as well as risk-pooling through MediShield Life. We are also looking at injecting more flexibility in the use of Medisave. This includes a review of MediShield co-payment for the very large bills, which Mr Giam talked about, as well as looking into the subsidy structure at our specialist outpatient clinics. These reviews are currently underway. For the lower income, we will also provide Workfare to help them with healthcare cost. Workfare will contribute to their CPF Medisave accounts. Co-payment will continue to be an important part of our financial framework to moderate the cost of healthcare. But we will need to calibrate carefully and will continue to review to ensure that co-payment will remain affordable.
We must recognise that with an ageing population and the changes in the family structure, we will need to shift more towards collective responsibility and risk-pooling. In addition, as we have announced earlier this year, the Government will take on a greater share of the healthcare cost. Over the last five years, Government spending on healthcare increased at 15% per annum. This is much faster than inflation, GDP growth and, in fact, much faster than the growth in national healthcare expenditure.
In recent years, we have increased subsidies significantly – through CHAS and increased subsidy for the intermediate and long-term care sector. As we have announced earlier, we are also looking into enhancing subsidies for the SOCs and we will share more details on this in time to come. We will continue to do more to increase the Government's share from the current one-third to 40% or more, but we will need to be very careful and to be more targeted to help the low-income as well as the elderly.
Beyond subsidies, we will help Singaporeans with their share of healthcare cost through greater risk-pooling – MediShield Life, in particular – so that Singaporeans need not face the uncertainties in their health alone. And I am glad that Mr Giam supports MediShield Life.
To enhance risk-pooling, we plan to introduce MediShield Life for better coverage for the larger hospitalisation bills, extend coverage to all Singaporeans, and for life. We have appointed a Review Committee to look into this in detail and this is a major step we are undertaking from which there will
\tPage: 116
be no turning back. This is why we have to consider this step very carefully.
Insurance payouts will be funded by premiums paid into the insurance fund. If coverage improves, payouts will go up and premiums will need to rise. And I am happy to note that Mr Giam recognises this, too.
But we understand that there are concerns about the affordability of premiums, as Dr Intan and Mr Giam both pointed out. And, therefore, the Government will provide more targeted help for MediShield premiums.
First, for our seniors, they have worked very hard to build Singapore to what it is today, but they earn less and have fewer safety nets when they were younger and working. They would need more help and, therefore, the Government is working on a special Pioneer Generation Package to help them pay for MediShield Life premiums so that they need not worry about healthcare in their old age. This will also relieve the burden on their children as well, who may be supporting their elderly parents.
Similarly, as Dr Intan and Mr Giam have suggested, the Government will also help the lower-income pay for their MediShield premiums.
For younger Singaporeans, we are studying how to help them pay for part of their old-age premiums earlier so that they do not have to pay so much premiums when they are old. This is what we call pre-funding, as Dr Intan suggested yesterday and Mr Giam touched on today. There is already a small component of pre-funding in today's MediShield, but we are studying if we can do more and to what extent we can enhance it.
Through MediShield Life, the Government will pay even more for healthcare for the vulnerable but in a more targeted way. The Government also provides annual MediSave top-ups to the elderly through our GST voucher and through Workfare for the low-income. From August 2013, the Government will also be contributing $3,000 into every newborn Singaporean's MediSave to help them with a healthy start in life. We are making MediSave use more flexible so that Singaporeans can tap on more of their savings while preserving adequate balance for premiums and co-payments in old age.
Further help from Medifund is also available for those who still face difficulties despite insurance and subsidies. Medifund is a very targeted support and it covers up to the full bill of a healthcare bill that patients may incur. So, we have to assess each case very carefully to ensure that help really goes to
\tPage: 117
those who, indeed, need such help. And the criterion is quite different from the financial assistance through CHAS and, therefore, CHAS may not be able to be used for assessment for Medifund eligibility.
The healthcare financing system in Singapore is fundamentally sound but we need to future-proof it so that it remains effective and relevant for many more years to come. This is our unique approach. Subsidies and the 3Ms will remain a core to our financial framework. But we will continue to look at how we can strengthen this subsidy-plus-3Ms to give Singaporeans greater peace of mind.
Through collective responsibility, through Government subsidies, through risk-pooling from insurance and family support, we can help to manage and share the burden. But we must also keep an eye on overall cost which will have to be borne by future generations if we are not careful. And, in fact, if we do not carefully manage healthcare cost, the tax burden on the population will increase significantly as we will have more and more elderly. Our children's generation will be paying for our healthcare cost when we ourselves grow old. We see this happening around the world and this is why healthcare is a major preoccupation of many governments as they struggle to manage overall spending to keep healthcare cost affordable. And this is why we help Singaporeans put aside savings in Medisave and we try to pre-fund as much as we can in our MediShield, as this will help us avoid overly taxing the next generation.
If we allow Medisave to be used freely and spread over the next few years, all these savings that we have taken so many years to accumulate will dissipate quite quickly. And what would we have left when we ourselves grow old? This may impose an undue burden on our next generation. And will this system be sustainable? Will we have greater peace of mind as a result of that?
So, we will continue to see how we can help Singaporeans share the burden of their healthcare cost. But, at the same time, it is also very important for us to keep our economy healthy and growing so that we can provide good employment opportunity, as well as rising income, so that Singaporeans can better afford healthcare cost, and we can have more resources as a Government to help those who may need an extra helping hand.
Finally, as the Health Minister, I must say this – it is still most crucial for us to help to keep Singaporeans healthy so that we can reduce the burden of healthcare cost, not only on individuals but also on the society as a whole. So,
\tPage: 118
I hope that we can work together to add life to years and not just years to life.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 6.45 pm
to a date to be fixed.
\tPage: 119
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":"Matter Raised On Adjournment Motion","questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lifting Needy Families Out of Poverty Cycle","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in lieu of an official poverty line, how is the Government measuring efforts to help needy families leave the poverty cycle; (b) in terms of existing key performance indicators, how many needy families have left the poverty cycle in the last five years; and (c) what proportion of households receiving ComCare assistance succeeded in being uplifted to become ineligible for assistance in the last five years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Besides the assistance available for basic needs like healthcare and housing, more vulnerable citizens also receive additional financial support through targeted schemes like Workfare, MediFund, the Additional or Special CPF Housing Grant and ComCare assistance. For families with more complex challenges, financial assistance is complemented by other services, such as case management, social intervention and caregiving support. This is so that we can better address the underlying challenges in each family.
From 2008 to 2012, about three in four of unemployed Singaporeans under ComCare's Short Term Assistance were placed onto jobs either during their term of assistance or upon graduation from the scheme. During the same period, about 20% of families on ComCare assistance who received case management support saw their incomes rising beyond the eligibility criteria for assistance.
It is especially important to ensure that children from lower income families have access to opportunities. For this reason, increased efforts were made to reach out to and enrol children from lower income families into preschool. This has resulted in 99.2% of Primary One children having received preschool education in 2012, compared to 95% in 2006.
Many of the families we help have more than one area of need, and some have to deal with multiple challenges. For them, we cannot look only at addressing specific dimensions of needs. We need a holistic approach. Social workers will work with other help agencies and with the families to address the underlying issues. Some families need longer periods of assistance, and help
\tPage: 120
will be provided until they stabilise their situations.
We will do more to uplift the needy families. The Ministry is setting up a network of Social Service Offices to make assistance more accessible and to improve integration of services on the ground. A national case management and information system will also be set up to facilitate better sharing of information among service providers. The data will enable service providers and Government agencies to better understand current trends and the families we are helping, as well as to forecast and address emerging needs faced by the needy.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suara Musyawarah Committee Report","subTitle":"Update on implementation of report's recommendations","sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what are the existing plans to follow up on the recommendations made in the Suara Musyawarah Committee report; and (b) whether there will be a periodic progress report to update the community on those plans and, if so, what is the proposed timeline for these reports to be made.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The Suara Musyawarah Committee, chaired by Haji Sallim Abdul Kadir, submitted its report in July this year. I have urged organisations involved in uplifting the community to study the many recommendations carefully and develop appropriate programmes for the betterment of our community.
As key Malay/Muslim organisations, MUIS and Yayasan MENDAKI will take the lead. To address the recommendations on meeting the needs of vulnerable families, MUIS and MENDAKI will collaborate on a new initiative called Nadi Khidmat@Mosques. This will strengthen outreach to vulnerable families and streamline how they get assistance. Nadi Khidmat@Mosques will leverage on MUIS' Enhanced Mosque Cluster (EMC) system and the MENDAKI@Heartlands initiative to map out vulnerable families in participating neighbourhoods. They will be engaged through house visits, mosque programmes and neighbourhood activities. This will also allow vulnerable families to be referred
\tPage: 121
to relevant national agencies, such as the Social Service Offices (SSOs), in a more coordinated manner.
Nadi Khidmat@Mosques is expected to be rolled out next year. MENDAKI and MUIS will provide further details in due course, and submit an annual progress report.
Another major recommendation was to increase our community's awareness of the importance of health management. To this end, MUIS has stepped up collaboration with the Health Promotion Board (HPB) to educate the community about the ill effects of smoking. For example, during Ramadan this year, HPB expanded outreach efforts through targeted roadshows at Ramadan bazaars and mosques. To date, 14 mosques have also partnered HPB to encourage tobacco-free living among their congregants as part of the Blue Ribbon Smoke-free movement1. Going forward, MUIS will work with HPB to expand public education to other health issues that our community faces, such as hypertension and obesity, and leverage on its network of 69 mosques to organise programmes which promote a healthy lifestyle.
There are other noteworthy recommendations in the report, which require more time for study and should be tackled at the national level. For example, the report raised the issue of suspected job discrimination. The Government is stepping up efforts to create a fairer and more just society for all Singaporeans – and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) has been set up to address discriminatory employment practices.
As the report aptly points out, the passionate conversations on how to move the Malay/Muslim community forward pre-date the Committee and should continue into the future. Once again, I encourage MMOs to leverage on our collective resources, tap on the enlarged pool of the Malay/Muslim Community Development Fund (MMCDF) to implement the Committee's wide-ranging recommendations and provide progress reports on their plans at appropriate junctures.
\tPage: 122
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The Blue Ribbon Smoke-free Movement is part of a larger initiative by the World Health Organisation (WHO) Western Pacific Region Office (WPRO) to promote a smoke-free environment. Other countries, such as Japan and Canada, have also implemented the initiative. The Blue Ribbon Smoke-Free Movement recognises communities and businesses that make a commitment to create and promote a smoke-free environment. HPB launched the Blue Ribbon Smoke-Free Movement in March 2012, making Singapore the first country in the region to adopt this initiative on a nationwide scale."],"footNoteQuestions":["22"],"questionNo":"22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Students Accepted into Secondary Schools via Direct School Admission Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education over the past five years (a) how many students, by gender, are accepted by Secondary schools under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme before taking their PSLE; and (b) of these students, how many subsequently do not join the Secondary schools that offered them a place under DSA.
25 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education which 10 schools have accepted the most number of students, by gender, under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme over the past five years.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: The DSA scheme seeks to promote holistic education by recognising a more diverse range of student strengths, abilities and achievements, other than performance at the national examinations, as criteria for school admission.
Based on MOE's most recent and available data on DSA exercises, from 2010 to 2012, participating Secondary schools made Confirmed Offers to about 2,400 students annually. These students comprised, on average, an even split between boys and girls, with about 196 or 8% of the students eventually deciding not to take up any offers by the participating Secondary schools but to participate in the Secondary 1 Posting Exercise.
Over the same period of time, the 10 participating Secondary schools that have accepted the most number of boys through DSA are (in alphabetical order):
(a) Anglo-Chinese School (Independent),
(b) Dunman High School,
(c) Hwa Chong Institution,
\tPage: 123
(d) National Junior College,
(e) NUS High School of Mathematics and Science,
(f) Raffles Institution,
(g) School of Science and Technology Singapore,
(h) School of the Arts Singapore,
(i) St Joseph's Institution, and
(j) Victoria School.
The 10 participating Secondary schools that have accepted the most number of girls through DSA are (in alphabetical order)
(k) Cedar Girls' Secondary School,
(l) CHIJ St Nicholas Girls' School,
(m) Dunman High School,
(n) Methodist Girls' School (Secondary),
(o) Nanyang Girls' High School,
(p) Raffles Girls' School (Secondary),
(q) River Valley High School,
(r) School of Science and Technology Singapore,
(s) School of the Arts Singapore, and
(t) Singapore Chinese Girls' School.
\tPage: 124
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Tightened Foreign Workers Inflow on Arts and Creative Industries","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with the tightened inflow of foreign workers (a) whether the Ministry monitors its impact on the size and diversity of the talent pool available for our nascent arts and creative industries; (b) whether policies, including the fixed monthly salary requirements, can be refined to take into account the modest pay scales of skilled arts professionals and the freelance nature of work in these sectors; and (c) whether a special work pass of up to one year can be considered for foreign arts students who have graduated from local tertiary institutions.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Since 2010, the Government has introduced policies to restructure our economy to be more productivity-driven and manpower-lean, including tightening of foreign workforce controls.
We recognise that the Singapore arts scene is still relatively young and that artistic maturity and excellence require time to nurture. We are also aware that pay scales may not be comparable to those in other industries despite the nature of the work and that freelancing is not uncommon. This is also true to varying extents in other industries. However, fixed monthly salary is one of the key criteria used to determine a foreigner's eligibility for a work pass, taken as a proxy of a foreigner's quality and economic contribution to Singapore. This is a basic requirement for EP/S Pass application and is applied consistently across the board. To allow variable payments to be counted in monthly salary for Work Pass eligibility would undermine this intent, as some foreign employees may end up not earning that monthly salary, for example, due to poor sales in the case of commissions. They would then not have fulfilled the minimum salary criteria to be eligible for their Work Pass and its accompanying privileges.
Nevertheless, we do consider some flexibility for specific arts professionals on a case-by-case basis, when there is support given by the National Arts Council.
\tPage: 125
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Alleviating Overcrowding at Front of Buses","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"29 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the introduction of part-time bus stop ushers has been effective in alleviating overcrowding at the front of buses; and (b) whether LTA will consider implementing all-door boarding for all public buses as part of the solution to improve peak hour capacity.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: Both public transport operators (PTOs) deploy staff at high demand bus stops and bus interchanges during peak periods to facilitate passengers boarding the buses and to encourage them to move to the rear. These have helped to enable more passengers to board the buses.
All-door boarding is already implemented for some high frequency bus services, under dedicated staff supervision at bus interchanges. LTA and the PTOs will continue to review where there is scope to do more of such, taking into account fare evasion and passenger safety concerns.
Ultimately, however, moving to the rear of the bus is every commuter's responsibility. LTA works with the Public Transport Council, Singapore Kindness Movement and the PTOs to encourage commuters to adopt gracious behaviours. Earlier in April, LTA launched a series of posters and videos as part of a graciousness initiative called \"Make it Right for a Better Ride\" to, amongst other things, encourage commuters to move to the back of the bus. LTA will also explore other channels to promote graciousness so as to make commuting on public transport a more pleasant experience.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Noise Reduction Measures at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Mrs Lina Chiam asked the Minister for Transport what measures are there to reduce increased traffic noise due to widening of the slip road out of Braddell Road in front of Blocks 216 to 221 at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh.
Mr Lui Tuck Yew: As part of the project to widen Braddell Road, LTA is building a slip road from Lorong 8 Toa Payoh for buses to directly enter the bus bay along Braddell Road, in front of Blocks 216 to 221. After widening, the distance between the road and residential blocks remain well within URA's
\tPage: 126
guidelines. Dense planting of trees will be implemented along this strip to help mitigate any increase in road traffic noise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Coordinating Repair and Redecoration Works at HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"31 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can consider the scheduling of repair and redecoration works of HDB multi-storey car parks to coincide with the general repair and redecoration works of the estates managed by Town Councils so as to minimise inconveniences to residents.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Currently, Town Councils manage the general Repair & Redecoration (R&R) works for the residential blocks in their respective towns, while HDB manages the R&R works for all HDB Multi-Storey Car Parks (MSCPs). It is a good idea to coordinate and synchronise the R&R works. One way is for HDB to outsource the R&R works for the MSCPs to the local Town Councils, with funding from HDB. This way, the Town Councils can better synchronise the works in their towns, achieve a coordinated look for the precinct and minimise inconvenience to residents arising from different contractors carrying out the works at different periods. HDB welcomes interested Town Councils to participate in such an approach.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flood-Proofing Walkways and Footpaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what efforts are being made to minimise the common occurrence of water ponding on roadside walkways and footpaths whenever there is a heavy thunderstorm; and (b) whether PUB keeps track of such flood-prone roadside walkways and footpaths throughout the island.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Footpaths and walkways are built above road levels to minimise risk of flooding. However, there may be topographically lower sections of walkways where water may accumulate during heavy rain. PUB would usually require open gratings to be fitted so that rainwater can flow
\tPage: 127
directly into the drains below. Where this is not possible, the walkway should have adequate camber and/or scupper drains. In flood-prone areas, PUB will also be installing more open gratings for the covered drains, as well as additional drop inlet chambers (DICs), so as to facilitate the flow of water into the drains instead of overflowing onto the footpaths and walkways.
Localised depressions may also occur in some walkways due to ground subsidence and growth of tree roots. PUB will advise the relevant agencies and Town Councils to rectify these depressions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Labelling of Infant Formula Sold in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for National Development what steps are taken to ensure that all infant formula food sold in Singapore is labelled according to the standards set by the World Health Organization.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: All infant formula and infant food sold in Singapore must comply with stringent labelling requirements which are in accordance with Codex standards. Codex is an international food standards setting body established by the World Health Organization and the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. In addition, infant formula must be labelled with detailed nutritional information and handling directions as set out in the regulations under the Sale of Food Act.
AVA has put in place import control measures and a testing system to ensure the safety of all infant formula and infant food. They are inspected and sampled for laboratory testing prior to release for sale. AVA also checks the product labels to ensure compliance with legislated labelling requirements during the inspection and testing process.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Priority in Allocation of Season Car Park Lots","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB can allow HDB flat owners to be given first priority in the allocation of season car park lots for their first vehicle that is acquired under a long-term car
\tPage: 128
leasing agreement.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: This is, indeed, the case. HDB residents who acquire their first vehicle under a long-term car leasing agreement will enjoy the same first priority in the purchase of season parking tickets as those with first-owned vehicles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Tightened Foreign Worker Inflow on Pace of Public Infrastructure Developments","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development if he will give an update on the pace of public infrastructure developments, including housing, transport and healthcare, in light of the recent management of foreign manpower inflow, and whether public infrastructure development will keep pace with Singapore's growth as a regional hub.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The Government is committed to improve public infrastructure and, where possible, build them ahead of demand. Above all, we want to ensure that Singapore remains an endearing and liveable home, where Singaporeans can have good jobs.
For public housing, HDB is on track to complete and deliver 13,600 new flats this year. Next year, HDB's target is to complete more than 28,000 new flats, double this year's number. For private housing, including executive condominiums, around 17,800 units will be completed this year and about 21,200 units are expected to be completed next year. By 2016, some 200,000 new housing units will be constructed. This is equivalent to four Ang Mo Kio towns.
Similarly, our road and rail network development plans are progressing well. Our plans to intensify our MRT network, from 178 km today to about 360 km by 2030, and increase the capacity of existing rail lines by buying more trains and improving the signalling system are continuing apace. The Downtown Line will be opened in stages over the next few years, while the Thomson Line and the Eastern Region Line will be completed in stages over the next 10 years. Major road projects, such as the Marina Coastal Expressway and upcoming
\tPage: 129
ones, such as the North South Expressway, are proceeding as planned.
We are also undertaking developments to increase our airport and port capacities to augment our position as a regional hub. For civil aviation, Terminal 4 and Project Jewel are expected to be operational by 2018. Terminal 5 and a three-runway system will likewise be operational around 2020 and mid-2020s respectively. On the maritime front, Pasir Panjang Terminal Phases 3 and 4 are expected to be completed by 2020. For the port at Tuas, we expect the first set of berths to be operational in about 10 years' time.
We are also ramping up our healthcare infrastructure to serve the needs of our ageing population and allow Singaporeans to have better and more convenient access to healthcare. By 2020, we would have added about 4,100 hospital beds, comprising around 2,200 acute hospital beds, a 30% increase from today; and about 1,900 community hospital beds, more than triple the beds we have today. Major developments include the new Ng Teng Fong General Hospital and Jurong Community Hospital which will open in late 2014 and 2015 respectively; and Sengkang General Hospital and Sengkang Community Hospital in 2018.
We will also be enhancing our existing polyclinics and building new ones. Six new polyclinics are planned to be built by 2020, starting with Jurong West and Punggol by 2017. In the intermediate and long-term care sector, we are building various eldercare facilities, including 17 new and replacement nursing homes by 2016. Three of these nursing homes have been completed and another new nursing home at Buangkok will be ready by the end of this year.
With the foreign worker tightening policy measures, such as the reduction in the man-year-entitlement (MYE) quota for new projects and the increase in foreign worker levy, in place to help steer the industry to improve productivity and reduce its reliance on foreign workers, there could be some impact on construction time and costs during this period of adjustment. We are closely monitoring the industry's ability to cope. While some contractors have requested for more workers, we will continue to press on firmly with improving productivity of our construction sector.
\tPage: 130
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Greater Access to LawNet Database for Singaporeans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the National Library will consider subscribing to the LawNet database in order to provide Singaporeans with greater access to legal information and resources on Singapore.
Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The National Library Board subscribes to LawNet. The subscription is, however, not open to the public as it is a condition imposed by LawNet.
Nonetheless, to cater to the public's needs, members of the public who require information or resources from LawNet can consult NLB librarians at the libraries or submit requests for assistance via the NLB website. Since 2010, librarians have received about 10 law-related queries from members of the public that required the use of LawNet.
To complement LawNet, NLB offers i-Law, an electronic resource on Singapore law-related information that is available for public access at all libraries and from home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rodents in Sennett Estate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether NEA can assist to tackle the problems caused by rodents in Potong Pasir's Sennett Estate and whether it has a comprehensive plan to address such issues.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: NEA has received feedback from the residents of Sennett Estate about rodent activity in the estate.
Since August 2013, NEA has been taking active steps to address this issue. It had carried out intensive checks on the refuse management and housekeeping practices of the food shops and construction sites in the vicinity, and placed rodent traps around the area. Defects, such as crevices in drains and
\tPage: 131
on the ground, are undergoing repair so that rodents cannot harbour there.
NEA will also be putting in place an integrated rodent management plan for Sennett Estate, involving the residents and other stakeholders. This plan will cover surveillance to identify the source and location of the rodent infestation, intensive control measures, such as trapping and intensified checks and enforcement on poor refuse management in construction sites and eating establishments. Together, these measures should resolve the current rodent problem in the estate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Keeping Singapore Statutes Online Current","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Minister for Law (a) whether a robust process is in place to ensure that the Singapore Statutes Online is updated in a timely manner; and (b) whether repealed legislation, past versions of current legislation, and past Government Gazettes can be made available on Singapore Statutes Online.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Statutes Online (SSO) is maintained in-house by a dedicated unit within the Attorney General's Chambers. Generally speaking, new content is updated within three working days.
As for repealed legislation and past versions of current legislation, these are already available to subscribers of LAWNET, which is a service provided by the Singapore Academy of Law.
Past Government Gazettes are also available on the eGazette website on subscription. There are contractual arrangements between the Government (MCI) and the Government Printer which entitle the Government Printer to charge a subscription as consideration for maintaining the eGazette website at their own cost.
\tPage: 132
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Poverty Line in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Ms Tan Su Shan asked the Minister for Social and Family Development whether the Ministry can elaborate on why it is not practical to have a defined poverty line as one part of a set of other policy indicators to be used to combat poverty in Singapore.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: The Government has been stepping up efforts to support Singaporeans who need help. We have chosen to have broader definitions of groups we seek to help, clear criteria to help us identify them, and appropriate assistance schemes for them. For essential needs, such as housing and healthcare, or developmental areas, such as early childhood development and education, our subsidies cover a wider group of Singaporeans, with higher levels of subsidies for the lower income. On top of these, programmes, such as Workfare and ComCare, provide additional assistance to a smaller group of low-income Singaporeans who need extra support.
Information on the criteria of the various schemes is made known, and the numbers of people helped are regularly published or announced. Household and worker incomes are also publicly available. Collectively, such information provides some insights on the numbers and needs of the lower income in Singapore.
Different countries use different methods to identify and assist their needy. While some Asian countries like Hong Kong have official poverty lines, others like South Korea do not.
We have decided to have different criteria to identify groups of Singaporeans who require support, depending on the purpose. In other words, we have multiple lines of assistance instead of a single poverty line. We believe this approach is more flexible. It allows us to extend assistance to more people and tailor assistance to different groups and needs.
A single official poverty line to identify the \"poor\" or to assess the efficacy of our schemes is one-dimensional. It has limitations in informing policies as it does not take into account the differing nature of needs, such as housing, health, employment, family issues. Neither does it provide useful information on the depth or intensity of the needs of low-income families.
Also, a single poverty line is not without potential downsides, as seen from the experience of some countries. For some, it has become the single determining line for different help schemes, leading to a \"cliff effect\" where
\tPage: 133
those below the line are guaranteed a whole range of help and those above receive none, regardless of actual needs. There are also concerns regarding social stigmatisation that can result from those who fall under the line being labelled as poor or needy.
There will always be a segment of our society who are vulnerable and, despite their best efforts, need help to cope. The Government is committed to do more to help them. We will continue to review our assistance schemes regularly so that they remain relevant. We will also continue to develop different indicators to improve our understanding of the numbers and needs of low-income families in Singapore.
The Government cannot do this alone. We will work with community organisations and kind-hearted Singaporeans who have been playing a crucial role in helping the needy in Singapore.
\tPage: 134
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3434,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20131112/vernacular-New Template - Gan Thiam Poh.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Gan Thiam Poh.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3435,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20131112/vernacular-New Template - Patrick Tay.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Patrick Tay.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3436,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20131112/vernacular-New Template - Zainal Sapari.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Zainal Sapari.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}