1 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, what is the number of children in Singapore diagnosed with COVID-19 and what proportion has the Delta variant; (b) how many needed supplementary oxygen at any time during their illness; and (c) how does this experience compare with countries with significant numbers of COVID-19 Delta variant infections in children.
2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) how can the safety of children be ensured before a suitable COVID-19 vaccine for them is available, especially children who are immunocompromised; (b) whether the Ministry is monitoring the trend of long COVID-19 symptoms in children; and (c) whether adequate resources are available to provide healthcare and emotional support for children who contract long COVID.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 and 2 together, please?
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, in Singapore, we have had 367 COVID-19 paediatric cases to date, with 172 infected with the Delta variant. Children below the age of 12 account for 0.6% of all local infection cases.
Amongst these COVID-19 paediatric cases in Singapore, 13.6% or 50 cases were aged zero to one, 22.6% or 83 cases were aged two to four, 20.7% or 76 cases were aged five to six and 43.1% or 158 cases were aged seven to 12.
Global data show that a very low proportion of COVID-19 infected children experience a severe illness, as compared to adults. The percentage of infected children who experience severe illness and require intensive care is 0.7% in Israel, 0.3% in the Republic of Korea and 0.6% in France. There is evidence suggesting that children with underlying medical conditions, such as genetic, neurologic, metabolic conditions, medical complexity, congenital heart disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma, chronic lung disease, sickle cell disease, or immunosuppression might be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
Fortunately, in Singapore, no child thus far has developed severe illness requiring oxygen supplementation or ICU care. So, the percentage of infected children that experience severe illness in Singapore is zero. We are, however, mindful that the number of cases in the community is rising and there may be more children infected with COVID-19 in the future. We will ensure that these children receive appropriate care, if their illness is more severe.
There are things parents can do to minimise the risk of their children getting infected or developing severe illnesses. All family members should maintain good hygiene and keep their home clean. When out, keep your masks on and cut back on social activities where masks are off or the interactions are prolonged, because such interactions account for the large majority of infections. When unwell, do a self-test or see a doctor immediately.
These effective safe management and surveillance have been implemented to further keep our children safe, particularly in large settings where children congregate, such as preschools and schools. These include mask-wearing, limiting the group size, personal hygiene and requiring those children with a higher risk to take leave of absence. Family members should also get vaccinated to reduce the risks of being infected and transmitting COVID-19 to the child.
Immunocompromised children are at risk from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. They and their family should exercise additional precautions, such as avoiding crowded places and minimising the number of visitors.
As for \"long COVID\", it is an informal term that refers to persons who have continued symptoms of COVID-19 infection. The underlying reasons for continued symptoms vary, as do the symptoms themselves. Locally, infected children have, generally, not had prolonged symptoms. We will offer care to all patients with long COVID, if this occurs, and especially those that require support from different clinical teams, depending on their conditions.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have got two supplementary questions.
Sir, as background, a number of Clementi parents have reached out, sharing about their worries for their young children, children who are too young to be vaccinated, parents who are watching the case numbers in the community go up. Some parents have been watching what has happened overseas in some other countries: long COVID as well as the Multi-system Inflammatory Syndrome in children reported in some countries where COVID-19 is widespread; some parents also look at what happens in some advanced economies —
\tMr Speaker: Can we come to the questions, please?
\tDr Tan Wu Meng: Yes, Sir. Let me ask the two supplementary questions. First, can the Minister share whether there have been any cases of Multi-system Inflammatory Syndrome documented so far in Singapore among our paediatric COVID-19 patients?
Secondly, given the very different experience of paediatric patients across some countries in the West, for example, in the US, there is an NBC news report on 14 August that stated \"North Texas runs out of pediatric ICU beds amidst COVID surge\", but at the same time, the British Medical Journal on 16 August mentioned that the UK experience is not as serious as what has happened in the US. So, can the Senior Minister of State also share, given the different experience on both sides of the Atlantic, what lessons can we learn from studying other countries' battles with COVID-19 to safeguard and support our children?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank the Member for the questions. The short answer to the first question is no. There are no paediatric cases, such as what he has described. As for the different experience overseas, indeed, the lessons learnt are something that our various expert committees and professionals in various disciplines are looking at very, very closely.
There are a lot of lessons to be learnt but if I could summarise a few things. Our context matters. So, when we take these lessons from overseas, how they are applied here will depend, for example, on the baseline health of our population, whether it is child or adult; on access to care, and we are very fortunate that within the confines of our city, tertiary medical care is a very short distance away; on the general level of hygiene; and also, on the ability for our population to comply with various procedures or requirements, whether medical or social.
So, context is everything and the baseline health of our population is also very, very important. We cannot just simply take the raw numbers or the raw experience from overseas and expect that exactly the same thing will happen here in Singapore. But we must learn the lessons of their experience, often hard-won, so that we can better protect our population here.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. We read that the UK will be offering the COVID-19 vaccination to older children from 12 to 15 as soon as next week. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may also authorise the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children from ages five to 11 by the end of the year.
When can we expect approval to be given in Singapore for our children to receive the vaccine and for what ages?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, we will continue to study the data from overseas. Some of it will depend on the applications made by the vaccine companies. But I think when the decisions are reached, we will certainly be quite clear and make full explanation to the public.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Booster Programme Roll-out and Help for Pregnant and Post-partum Women to Get COVID-19 Vaccine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health what avenues of support are available for pregnant or post-partum women who are not yet vaccinated against COVID-19 because of medical reasons and who have to visit their loved ones in hospital given the cost of the self-paid pre-visit COVID-19 test.
4 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Health in view of the COVID-19 dose-sharing agreement with Australia (a) whether there are sufficient vaccines for the national vaccination programme by providing details on (i) the current stock of COVID-19 vaccines and (ii) the remaining number of doses that have yet to be delivered under existing supply agreements and when these are due to be delivered; (b) whether the Government has completed its assessment on the need for a booster shot; and (c) whether additional contracts have been signed to reserve additional doses if required and, if so, what are the expected delivery schedules.
5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the costs of regular testing under the \"Vaccinate or Regular Testing” (VoRT) regime will be fully borne by the Government for individuals who are able to secure a doctor's certification confirming their ineligibility for COVID-19 vaccination; and (b) how long is the VoRT regime expected to persist given that full-vaccination coverage of the population is now at 80%.
6 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health (a) of those who refuse COVID-19 vaccination but not on medical grounds, what are the main reasons for them doing so; (b) whether the Ministry will implement a more targeted approach to address those who have concerns about the different vaccines; and (c) whether tougher action will be taken against persons who persistently spread misinformation to undermine the vaccination campaign.
7 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health in light of reduced vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 variants that is of concern in other countries whether the Ministry will (i) review the speed of relaxation of measures and the opening up of borders (ii) consider the requirement for booster shots and (iii) share what are the long-term outlook and healthcare plans for an COVID-19 endemic Singapore.
8 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry will consider subsidising regular Antigen Rapid Tests (ART) for those who are unable to take the current slate of vaccines due to medical or health reasons; and (b) what proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated before it will be possible for those who are not vaccinated due to legitimate reasons to be able to enjoy the same treatment as those who are fully vaccinated in more and higher exposure risk activities.
9 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health when the COVID-19 vaccination rate of 80% is reached by September 2021 (a) what is the Ministry's plan to wind down the vaccination centres islandwide; and (b) whether there will be permanent vaccination centres and associated facilities should future booster doses be required.
10 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health with Singapore achieving 80% COVID-19 vaccination status and moving into endemic status (a) whether the Ministry will stop tracking the number of COVID-19 infection cases; (b) what other forms of tracking and measures will be relaxed when Singapore reaches endemic status; and (c) what other thresholds or criteria must be reached before we do.
11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health whether there are further plans to diversify COVID-19 vaccine sourcing.
12 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Health whether he can provide details of the Ministry’s programme announced in July 2021 to provide booster shots of the COVID-19 vaccine.
13 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Health whether there are already plans in place to secure COVID-19 booster jabs following the completion of the first round of COVID-19 vaccinations.
14 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health given how Singapore had committed to advanced purchase agreements for COVID-19 vaccines as early as June 2020 (a) what were the reasons behind the delay that led to the first receipt of shipments only in December 2020; and (b) what were the constraints that inhibited a more rapid vaccine rollout rate, at least until April 2021.
15 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health when does the Government plan to start COVID-19 booster vaccination for the general population.
16 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health (a) in relation to the four-stage roadmap to transit Singapore to a “COVID-19 resilient nation” announced on 6 August 2021, what are the criteria for reaching each of the stages; (b) whether further details can be provided about the restrictions which will be eased at each of the stages; and (c) whether the Government will consider further easing COVID-19 restrictions given that the milestone of eight in 10 people in Singapore being fully vaccinated has been achieved.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 3 to 16 together?
\tMr Speaker: Yes.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, we have achieved an 80% COVID-19 vaccination rate as at the beginning of September and a number of Members have asked for greater clarity on our vaccination and booster strategy, and our approach on community measures as we transition into a COVID-19 resilient nation.
Sir, we have been experiencing an exponentially rising wave of infections in the community since 23 August. To curb the spread of infection in previous waves, we implemented circuit breaker and Heightened Alert measures, which significantly suppressed the rise of infections. The measures worked. But they were painful. They were painful to many families, workers and businesses. It is also not a sustainable way to battle the virus for the long term.
So, we will need to open up social and economic activities, otherwise many people and businesses will suffer and we risk permanently damaging our ability to earn a living. But we have to do so safely, which means reducing the number of people falling very sick to a minimum and, for this, vaccination continues to be key.
When we achieved 70% of our population having received the full regimen of the vaccine, the Multi-Ministry Task Force, presented a four-stage transition plan. It is a cautious, calibrated approach, not a sudden opening.
At this point let me address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim’s question on delays in our vaccination programme. Our vaccination programme has not been slow at all. We were one of the earliest countries to secure vaccine supplies, with the first shipments of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines arriving in mid-December 2020, one of the fastest to roll out a vaccination programme, and we now have achieved a vaccination coverage that is one of the highest in the world. In fact, 81% of our population have completed their full regimen and 85% have received at least one dose as of 9 September.
Members have asked about the criteria for moving from one stage to the next. I can understand the desire for transparent and pre-determined criteria. This is of great interest to all of us. But other than vaccination rates, we also need to consider case numbers, the transmission trajectory, our social behaviour in adherence to the Safe Management Measurements (SMMs) and the status of the testing regimes. So, while we have achieved our vaccination target of 80%, taking all this into account, we have decided to pause the transition plan, given the rising number of cases currently. We are not reversing course; neither are we charging ahead.
Having studied the safety and efficacy data, we will commence our booster programme for the vulnerable. Persons aged 60 years and above may receive a vaccine booster six to nine months after their second dose, while immunocompromised individuals will receive a third dose of the vaccine two months after their second dose.
The Expert Committee on COVID-19 vaccination (EC19V) will continue to observe global and local data, particularly on the risk of adverse reactions, before recommending additional population groups for booster vaccines. They are also actively studying a heterologous strategy involving non-mRNA vaccines. We are negotiating with suppliers to provide us non-mRNA booster shots and a few are preparing their applications.
We have a deliberate strategy to procure a portfolio of vaccines that use different technologies to improve our chances of securing vaccines that will continue be safe and effective against COVID-19. Due to commercial sensitivities and confidentiality undertakings in our agreements with vaccine manufacturers, we are unable to disclose more information regarding our current stock of COVID-19 vaccines, the remaining number of doses to be delivered and their delivery schedules.
This also applies to our dose-sharing arrangement with Australia. We do not need those particular doses at this point in time, but Australia’s vaccine programme does. We will need more doses in the future as we increase our booster programme and Australia will return the favour by sending us some doses at the appropriate time.
With 81% of our population fully vaccinated, we will close four vaccination centres on 30 September 2021 and may scale down other centres. We will also increase the number of Public Health Preparedness Clinics (PHPCs) which offer vaccinations from 79 currently to around 100 by end of October 2021. Those who are unable to go to our vaccination centres or PHPCs will be visited by our mobile and home vaccination teams.
Pregnant and breastfeeding women are strongly encouraged to take up the COVID-19 vaccination because they will benefit from the protection. They are more likely to develop severe symptoms if infected with COVID-19. All of our experts and professionals, such as the EC19V, the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the Academy of Medicine Singapore, and the Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, have advised that pregnant and breastfeeding women can receive a COVID-19 vaccination.
Since last year, hospitals have facilitated patients who are nursed in isolation settings to have contact with their family and loved ones through video-conferencing. This is an option to consider taking up if one wishes to communicate with a loved one who is hospitalised, without needing to make a physical visit to the hospital.
\t
To encourage vaccination take-up, MOH has been working closely with stakeholders to address the concerns of those who have not yet taken COVID-19 vaccination because of medical complications due to pre-existing diseases, or misinformation over the vaccines and their side effects, or those who simply do not see the need for vaccinations. MOH has issued clarifications and corrections and, where necessary, applied the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to debunk the falsehoods.
Vaccines can keep down the numbers of serious cases of COVID-19, but vaccination alone is not enough to prevent infections. It needs to be complemented by pervasive testing and safe management measures to detect and ringfence infections in the community early, so as to control community transmission. We have made available Quick Test Centres to administer supervised self-swabs, but it is also the personal responsibility of individuals to conduct these tests properly.
The Vaccinate or Regular Test regime will be introduced on 1 October 2021 for workers in higher-risk settings. The Government will fund, until 31 December 2021, the test kits for employees working in these sectors who are medically ineligible for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We will continue to review the regime and will make changes later, on the basis of the public health assessment.
Vaccination differentiated SMMs (VDS) were introduced to protect unvaccinated individuals from being infected with the COVID-19 virus. The F&B industry, the companies and their staff, have been responsive and adaptive in implementing VDS requirements for dining in, and have been educated on the digital and non-digital forms of verification. There have been some teething issues when this was first implemented but, over time, they have been sorted out.
Mr Speaker, earlier in August, we outlined a four-stage roadmap comprising the Preparatory Stage, Transition Stage A, Transition Stage B and a COVID-19-resilient nation. We continue to work on the basis of this roadmap. Our vaccination and testing efforts, along with our SMMs and all of us exercising social responsibility, implemented together, are vital to us staying the course towards becoming a COVID-19-resilient nation.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.
\t \tMr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. In relation to my Parliamentary Question (PQ) on booster shots, I note that MOH will now offer booster shots to seniors and immunocompromised individuals, as what Senior Minister of State has said.
I was just wondering if the Government has completed its assessment on the need for a booster shot in general and what are the rollout plans for the general population, especially the healthcare workers and transport workers who are amongst the first in this country to be vaccinated? I also note in Minister Dr Tan See Leng's reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) of mine yesterday, for example, that protection conferred by vaccines may wane with time and new COVID-19 variants may emerge that may be resistant to our current vaccines.
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, the short answer is we continue to study the matter and we have not completed that process yet. When we do, we will have a full explanation and discussion.
\t \t
\tMr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two supplementary questions. Currently, the vaccines that are used in Singapore are under emergency approval. First, at what stage is HSA at in providing full approval to the vaccines eventually? And, under those circumstances with an expected booster regime in the works, will the Government then consider making boosters and vaccination compulsory? This is to address the concerns I raised in relation to Question No 6.
On Question No 7, I asked in terms of concerns over efficacy of the vaccines against new variants, what is the Government's long-term plan in dealing with variants, as well as the concerns of citizens that vaccines might not be fully effective when new variants emerge?
\t \tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, for full approval to be granted for any of the vaccines, not only do we need the data, but we also need the application from the manufacturer. So, the manufacturer has to make the application. The appropriate data needs to be available for our own Health Sciences Authority (HSA), and our professional experts here will need to be able to study the matter. So, we are not in a position at this point in time, to be able to answer that.
As to making the vaccine compulsory, well, firstly I think we do need to wait for that process if it happens at all. We also need to then look at our context and I imagine the Member is referring to what has happened in the US, where there has been that consideration. Our context is different. Our vaccine rates are much higher, the acceptance by our population of vaccinations has also been very different. So, well, we will look at the matter, but I think, at the moment, there is no full approval anytime soon. We will study the matter when it arises.
As for the third question about long-term plans with respect to variants, we have a number of surveillance systems in place. The first layer of defence is our integration into the international network, where variants of interest and variants of concern, the markers for that are shared through a network of professionals. The second layer of defence is our clinical staff on the ground. You have a patient in front of you and you have to make the assumption that maybe this might be COVID-19, maybe I need to send a test for this. That then allows us to activate our third layer of defence, which is laboratory surveillance when specimens are submitted, to then look for the analyses that will tell us whether it is COVID-19 and, if so, whether it is a new variant or it is a strain that we are already familiar with.
We do have a process in place and that process has been going on for some time and it is what we have used to be able to get us to this point in the COVID-19 fight already.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He has touched on the importance of the testing regime. So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, with the greater use or dependency on the Antigen Rapid Test and self-testing by individuals and organisations, how can MOH ensure the integrity of the system and the results do not prevent any undermining of the ongoing efforts to combat the current pandemic?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. Firstly, the testing regime is only one part of our overall effort to combat the pandemic. We have the social measures, we have the vaccination, we have the healthcare system and we also have the whole process of ring-fencing, quarantining and isolating people.
Testing runs throughout all these. But, again, there is no single testing regime. You have ART, PCR test, Rostered Regular Testing and so forth. All of these require a certain personal responsibility for an individual. They have to conduct the tests properly. They have to adhere to instructions when they are given, but we do not rely only on that. So, we have a web of processes, an ecosystem of processes. There is room in there for people to not perhaps execute some of this properly, but there is also plenty of room for people to exercise diligence and personal responsibility; and each of us then can play a part in terms of protecting ourselves, our family and our entire country.
\tMr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
\t \tAssoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. I am afraid I continue to disagree with the characterisation that our rate of vaccination rollout was, in fact, as rapid as could be. Admittedly, today, our rate of vaccinations is among the highest in the world. And there was an acceleration, clear in the data, in the rate in which rollout occurred in Singapore, round about the end of March and early April. But at the same time, it is worth recalling that by 18 March, in fact, Israel's coverage was 60% for first shots. And this is in light of the fact that the Government has stated that advance purchases occurred in June 2020 and our first shipments were in December. So, I am thinking specifically, about that three-month gap between January and April, where rollout remained low.
If I may quote, this was shared in this House by Minister Ong Ye Kung that there was a concern and I quote, \"that many developing countries were still trying to secure supplies... fortunately, we had negotiated advance purchase agreements.\" And so, given this fact that we had already negotiated these advance agreements, it is puzzling why we were not able to accelerate this rollout in the first three months of this year.
Dr Janil Puthucheary: The Member is quite free to disagree with me. We had the doses delivered to us as part of the advance purchase agreement. The manufacturers were under some strain to produce as much as they can, not just for us, but for the whole world. But I think our contractual agreements were honoured.
If the Member was suggesting that perhaps we should have renegotiated the agreements or not honoured the agreements in some way or changed it, he can hold on to that opinion. But I thank him for agreeing that, now, we have, indeed, done relatively well compared to perhaps, what the situation looked like in March. Ultimately, it is that destination which is of importance and will protect us. At the beginning of the vaccination rollout, our pace was constrained by the supply that was made available to us from the manufacturers. And I think this is something that we have explained several times.
\tMr Speaker: Leader of Opposition.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just two questions for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, does the Government now have a fix on the number of Singaporeans who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons?
The second supplementary question is, the Senior Minister of State, if I heard him correctly, replied that the Government is extending free ART testing to certain groups of employees at the workplace. Does the Government have a position on testing-related subsidies for Singaporeans who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons and not just in workplace settings? I understand that we have got free ART kits that are being delivered to Singaporeans, but for elderly Singaporeans who still cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons or thereafter, are there going to be some subsidies for them, for additional ART kits, for example?
\tDr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, the issue of not being able to take for medical reasons, unfortunately, is not an absolute cut and dry, because some of it is a continued assessment. For example, you are waiting for your chemotherapy to be completed, or as you recover from the surgery and so forth. So, it is not a fixed number. We will pay very close attention to it. It is a small number, relatively speaking.
For the second question, individuals who are unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons have some degree of vulnerability. So, perhaps, they may need to be careful about their exposure to the wider community, because the issue of testing is not going to protect them from the vulnerability they have as a result of their medical condition. So, it is not quite the same as the circumstances where you have someone who, for some reason, is allergic to the vaccine and then cannot complete a vaccination regimen, but would like to then go out and work and is otherwise healthy, and this is the situation in which we are then providing subsidies for the ART kits.
\t
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Upcoming Fairer Workplace Legislation on Workplace Culture And Current Approaches to Deal With Workplace Discrimination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"17 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the proposed legislation on workplace discrimination (a) what are the scope, progress and expected rollout date; (b) what will be the role of unions, union leaders and tripartite partners in the implementation and execution of this law; and (c) whether there will be ground and stakeholder consultations in the promulgation process.
18 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the upcoming review of strengthening legislation for a fairer workplace (a) how does the Ministry intend to prevent the inadvertent development of a litigious workplace; and (b) whether the Ministry will be conducting a public consultation.
19 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the current approaches by which the cases of workplace discrimination have been handled; (b) what are the various recourses available to workers; and (c) how the upcoming legislation against workplace discrimination can help achieve better outcomes.
20 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry can provide a timeline on how long it will take for the TAFEP guidelines to be enshrined into our laws; (b) what is the projected timeline to resolve employment disputes, from conciliation and mediation to the Employment Claims Tribunal; (c) whether any party is expected to shoulder any costs if the matter is taken to the Employment Claims Tribunal; and (d) whether the anti-discrimination laws will apply during the interview and recruitment stage.
21 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the upcoming legislation of TAFEP guidelines, how can the Ministry (i) balance the concerns of both employees and employers; (ii) ensure that the workers reporting workplace discrimination can be protected without changing the tone of relationship between employers and employees, which may lead to a litigious workplace culture; and (iii) engage business leaders and the HR community to ensure that the new measures do not become overly onerous and deter employers from setting up operations in Singapore.
22 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) in the past three years, how many workplace discrimination cases filed with the Ministry are gender discrimination in nature; (b) what are the top three types of gender-related discrimination filed; (c) how many are resolved via current platforms like the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management and Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices; and (d) with the proposed tribunal system, how will the Ministry enhance the recourse and remedial actions, especially for gender-related workplace discrimination.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 17 to 22 together, please.
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, Members have filed numerous questions on the topic of workplace fairness and I thank them for their interest in this very important topic.
The tripartite partners' approach to enhancing workplace fairness has been a successful journey. Compared to the year 2006, when the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) was first formed, the HR practices of firms have improved significantly. This was the right approach. Rather than rush to legislate, the tripartite partners recognised that education to cultivate the right workplace norms and values was the foremost and more fundamental task. We did not want the process to become legalistic or confrontational. It is better if disputes can be resolved amicably.
Year by year, we have progressively stepped up our efforts, including coupling education with enforcement against discriminatory employers, thus advancing the cause of fair and merit-based HR practices.
Today, we have a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices, which is familiar and well-accepted by employers and workers alike. The vast majority of employers comply with the Guidelines. If there is a complaint, TAFEP uses these Guidelines to evaluate and advise the parties concerned. About two-thirds of reported cases are not substantiated. The majority are misunderstandings which are clarified and where both parties do not pursue the matter further.
Where TAFEP finds gaps in the employer's HR practices, TAFEP would counsel the employer. Most employers accept and make amends. Very rarely does the employer dispute the assessment and refuse to correct their actions. In cases where discrimination is substantiated, TAFEP would refer the employer to MOM, which can restrict it from hiring foreign workers. Therefore, the process of mediation is, in itself, an opportunity for employers and employees to close the gaps in their understanding of the requirements. We will continue to maintain the strong emphasis on mediation even as we strengthen the legislation.
Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked specifically about gender discrimination. Over the last three years, about one in seven reported cases each year fell into this category. Most related to employers specifying their preference for a particular gender in their recruitment advertisements. In about 30% of these cases, discrimination was substantiated after further investigation and the errant employers had their work pass privileges curtailed.
The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, co-chaired by the Minister for Manpower Dr Tan See Leng, NTUC Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng and Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) President Dr Robert Yap, convened last month and took stock of the progress made. We recognised the calls made by Members in this House previously, including Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng, for the Tripartite Guidelines to be legislated. We concluded that legislation could be a helpful next step to take and updated the Prime Minister on our assessment.
Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked how legislation will achieve better outcomes. Legislation builds on the progress made with our current approach. With legislation, we can broaden the range of remedies available. This can benefit both workers and employers.
For workers, the remedies could give them direct redress, rather than indirectly through enforcement action against the employer. For example, such redress is available for wrongful dismissals today. Employees can claim for compensation or for reinstatement to their former employment. For employers, curtailment of their work pass privileges, which has a significant impact on their overall business operations, can, in some cases, be disproportionate to the breach. Even if there is some mitigating factor, there are no alternative penalties that could provide for a more calibrated approach. Legislation will also send a strong signal that society does not condone discrimination at the workplace and further entrench the fair employment standards that we have built up over the years.
The Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness has not completed its work yet. It will continue the next stage of its deliberations, to define the scope of future legislation and design a legal framework that is balanced and in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans.
This includes looking into how we can avoid the unintended consequence of fostering a litigious workplace culture, something Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Sharael Taha are also concerned about. We should have a claims process where mediation is the first and necessary step, with appearances before the Tribunal as a last resort. This has worked well for the handling of salary-related and wrongful dismissal cases.
To Mr Patrick Tay's question, in the case of unionised employees, the union is involved in the mediation process today. This is something the Tripartite Committee should also consider and study for the new claims process.
Anxieties about workplace discrimination can also be driven by perceptions. Not every complaint means that the employer has done something wrong. The process must be fair to both the worker and the employer. By adopting an even-handed approach, we can avoid a situation where employers are deterred by excessive legal compliance to further expand their businesses.
Several Members asked about how the Tripartite Committee will gather and balance the views of different stakeholders. The Tripartite Committee comprises a diverse group of business, union, Government and HR practitioners. It intends to conduct wider consultations and engagements with these groups as well as the general public to ensure its deliberations and eventual recommendations are well-balanced.
The Tripartite Committee aims to complete its work in the first half of 2022. The Government will then consider its recommendations and, if accepted, start work to prepare legislation. In the meantime, I would like to reiterate that TAFEP and MOM will ensure the Tripartite Guidelines continue to be practised and upheld.
As fair and merit-based HR practices have already been promoted for so many years, even SMEs would be familiar with the requirements. TAFEP will continue to step up education and outreach, even as the Tripartite Committee continues its work.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection and Assistance Measures for Delivery Riders","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye –
23 To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the past three years, what is the number of injuries and fatalities suffered by food and goods delivery riders; (b) whether the Ministry has studied a possible correlation between higher frequency of such accidents and timing, such as in the latter part of the day, as riders rush to meet daily incentive targets; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider regulating the incentive structures of large gig economy platforms to better protect the health and safety of such self-employed persons.
24 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry monitors the average income and the number of self-employed persons (SEPs) working as delivery riders for food and parcel delivery platforms; (b) if so, how many SEPs are currently working as delivery riders and what is their average income; and (c) whether there are any differences in the average income for this group of SEPs in the past three years and, if so, what are the differences.
25 Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry has examined the relationship of gig workers and their platform partners, in particular, workers being tied to employee-like relationships with the platform; and (b) whether there are intended studies on the impact of working on such platforms to the worker’s medical, housing and retirement adequacy and the role of platform partners in contributing to these safety nets for the worker.
26 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there is data on the number of people who are doing gig work full-time; (b) whether platform gig workers can be considered for some form of medical and insurance benefits as well as annual leave; and (c) whether these workers need to clock in a minimum number of hours per week to qualify for any possible benefits.
27 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider (i) legislating workplace protection and benefits, (such as healthcare, paid/childcare/paternity/maternity leave) and contribution to CPF (including MediSave) for platform workers from their platform providers and (ii) the economic impact to the operating costs of business for these platforms; and (b) whether the Ministry will put in measures to ensure the increase in cost is not entirely passed on to consumers.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Question No 23.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 23 to 27 together, please.
\tMr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank Members for their questions following the Prime Minister's announcement at the National Day Rally that MOM will be studying the issue of self-employed persons and their relationship with the platform companies.
In 2020, about 190,000 persons were engaged in self-employment as their main source of income, of which about 79,000 worked with matching platform companies. Among such platform workers, about half are private-hire car drivers and one-third are taxi drivers. The rest are mostly car and light goods vehicle drivers who use delivery service platforms to obtain delivery work. From 2018 to 2020, the median monthly income of full-time employed residents in these three occupations ranged between $1,500 and $2,000.
To Mr Melvin Yong's question on the number of injuries and fatalities suffered by food and goods delivery riders, the number of fatalities has remained low. In 2019 and 2020, there were two fatalities each year. In 2018, the first year we started tracking this, there were zero fatalities. We do not currently have data on traffic-related injuries suffered by these delivery riders.
The work arrangements of platform workers can resemble those of employees. The platform companies set the price of their product, determine which jobs are assigned to which workers and manage how the workers perform, including imposing penalties and suspensions. Most platform workers earn a modest income, even before the impact of COVID-19, and may find it harder to afford housing, healthcare and retirement.
Because their contracts with platform companies are not employment contracts, they do not have basic job protections that most employees enjoy, such as work injury compensation, union representation and employer CPF. This is a concern as more people take up such work and some at a young age as well.
To look into strengthening protections for platform workers, specifically delivery workers, private-hire car drivers and taxi drivers, and ensuring a more balanced relationship between platforms and platform workers, an Advisory Committee will be convened. The committee will need time to consult widely with stakeholders and study these issues carefully before making its recommendations. The points raised by Members will be shared with the Advisory Committee, so that they can take them into account when studying the issues.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.
\tMs Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you. I note through my Meet-the-People Session interactions with delivery riders that many have started to make longer-term financial arrangements, such as medical retirement insurance and the purchase of housing, especially with housing loans from HDB.
Given the instability of the evolving platform gig model with shifting incentive structures, they are worried about the long-term viability of their financial commitments. Would the Minister for Manpower consider looking into setting up longer-term safety nets for platform workers, with gig platforms taking on more responsibility for their delivery partners; and, perhaps, for more of the mature platforms, a certain guarantee of level of jobs received? I note, too, that many of the platforms are largely commercially viable due to compliance and cooperation of their delivery partners.
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I think these are important considerations and stressors that our workers face. I am sure the committee would take that feedback from the Member into account and deliberate on this, striking a good balance between maintaining flexibility of work while ensuring some degree of protection and stability for their longer-term needs, whether it is housing or retirement.
The committee has not quite really begun its work, so, I do not want to prejudge their deliberations. But I think the Member's feedback will be useful. I do know that the Member is going to be on the committee. So, I hope she will bring this up as a point of discussion as well. We can deliberate on this further.
\tMr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.
\tDr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I have met a number of brothers and sisters in Clementi who work in the gig economy, including as delivery riders. Sir, I have two supplementary questions.
First, Mr Speaker, can MOM share whether MOM will consider requiring the gig platforms to report instances of injuries, when the worker is injured in the course of their gig economy work? Although the fatalities are documented, as in the Minister's answer, for every fatality, there may have been a serious injury, a near-miss, some time before. This data would be useful.
The second question pertains to the workers who have lost their lives in the course of doing their gig economy work, as the Minister mentioned in his answer earlier. Does the Ministry have information on what compensation and support were provided to the families of these workers, who lost their lives? And was that support comparable to similar accidents taking place in delivery firms where the worker had an employee relationship with the employer?
\tDr Koh Poh Koon: Sir, I thank the Member for his two questions. Indeed, workplace injuries and the kind of compensation that gig workers may need to have are something that we will ask the committee to study further, relating to workplace injury compensation, for example. This is something which, today, under the Employment Act, other employees would have enjoyed. So, I think this is a serious issue, because these drivers do go around many places, sometimes many trips a day as well. They are constantly exposed to the risk on the road. Looking at how we can actually better protect them from workplace injuries and also compensation would be something that the committee would want to deliberate on.
On the second question, of those cases of fatality as a result of gig work, whether they do enjoy the same level of compensation, I am afraid I do not have information for that. Suffice to say that, today, they are not treated as employees. So, I would imagine the amount of compensation, if there is, would not be commensurate with what employees would probably get under the Employment Act as well.
\t
So, again, these are issues that we will want to study further with the committee and in engagement with the platform companies as well, to see how they can also continue to function as a good employer, to be able to make their business sustainable, while ensuring a safer place but also attracting good workers to continue with them for the longer term.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha. You can move on to the next question, not supplementary question.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Local Qualifying Salary Requirement and Expansion of Progressive Wage Model on Costs, Productivity and Jobs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"28 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry ensure that wage increases in the Progressive Wage Model sectors are sustainable for employers given that wage increases may not be directly tied to productivity increases; and (b) given that wage growth will have to outpace productivity growth at the individual lower-wage worker level, whether the Government will consider providing support to businesses to enhance firm-level productivity such that businesses will be better able to support the wage increases for low-wage workers.
29 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) for each of the last five years, how many Singaporeans make less than the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS); (b) what is the breakdown by job type and industry for these Singaporeans; and (c) how is the LQS determined and how often is the level reviewed.
30 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how will employers be able to verify the specific progressive wage that they need to pay their workers given the various sectors they come from; and (b) whether the verification process will form an onerous administrative burden on the employers.
31 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what are the considerations for lowering the qualifying age of the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) from 35 to 30 years old; (b) whether the Ministry will consider extending it to lower-wage workers below 30 years of age; and (c) whether it shifts the financial burden from the Government in paying WIS to employers via the Progressive Wage Model as it becomes more pervasive and lead to rises in personal income.
32 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the expanding coverage of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and new requirement for companies to pay all local employees at least the Local Qualifying Salary (a) whether any forms of support will be provided to consumers and businesses to manage cost increases; and (b) if so, what are they.
33 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the expanding coverage of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and new requirement for companies to pay all local employees at least the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS), how can the Ministry ensure that price increases purportedly resulting from the LQS will be fair, reasonable and not attempts at opportunistic profiteering.
34 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Manpower how many Singaporean employees currently earning under $1,400 per month will not be covered by the changes to the Local Qualifying Salary requirement for companies.
35 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower how does the Ministry ensure that wage increases in the Progressive Wage Model sectors are sustainable for employers given that wage increases may not be directly tied to productivity increases.
36 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower with the proposed increase in wages for low-wage workers, how will the Ministry ensure that businesses do not profiteer under the pretext of having to pay higher wages.
37 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what transitory support will the Government provide to employers as the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is expanded, especially during pandemic uncertainties; (b) how will the Progressive Wage Mark (PW Mark) be administered; and (c) how can the public and private sectors through their procurement and purchases of goods and services, encourage more businesses to obtain the PW Mark.
38 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how is the Local Qualifying Salary being determined currently; and (b) how does the Ministry plan to review the monthly minimum salary regularly.
39 Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how does the Ministry plan to inform and support employers to pay all local workers at least the Local Qualifying Salary to qualify for their employment of foreign workers; and (b) what will be the time period given to employers for this transition.
40 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Manpower in light of the tightened Local Qualifying Salary requirement (a) whether the Ministry will provide additional financial support to low-income families to help them cope with the expected increase in the cost of goods and services; (b) what are the safeguards to prevent companies from passing the entire burden to consumers; and (c) how can we ensure that businesses do not engage in such practices.
41 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in view of increases in business costs with the implementation of the Progressive Wage Models (PWM), how will the Government (i) monitor that the increase in costs is fairly shared between the businesses and consumers and (ii) ensure that such cost increases will not raise the cost of living for the low wage workers such that the benefits of the PWM to them are outstripped.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister of Manpower): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 28 to 41 together, as well as another related Parliamentary Question by Member Yip Hon Weng1 scheduled for a Sitting tomorrow.
\tMr Speaker: Please do.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Members for their interest in the recent recommendations of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers which the Government has accepted. Apart from my reply today, I would also like to encourage them to read the 88-page report of the Workgroup where the reasoning and intent of many of the proposals are laid out in greater detail.
The Workgroup's vision is for a strengthened social compact where everyone enjoys Singapore's fruits of growth. We want to enable our lower-wage workers to progress along with other workers. At the same time, society, employers and the Government stand in solidarity with them. We must also recognise that, for our lower-wage workers’ progress to be sustainable, Singapore must maintain a dynamic economy, where businesses can thrive and create good jobs and good careers for our workers.
Uplifting lower-wage workers has been a priority for the Government over the years. Workfare is the foundation of the Government’s support for our lower-wage workers. We currently spend about $850 million a year on Workfare. The Prime Minister has announced that Workfare spending is expected to increase to $1.1 billion by 2023. This is a clear commitment that Workfare will continue to be a foundation of our policy response. The Government will release more details next year.
Mr Speaker, building on the foundation of Workfare, the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) provides job and training progression pathways for our lower-wage workers and grows their wages as they improve their skills and productivity. Workfare and Progressive Wages work in tandem and are, therefore, mutually reinforcing.
Over the last decade, our policies to support lower-wage workers have made a difference in uplifting them to enjoy good wage growth. From 2009 to 2019, real income at the 20th percentile of our resident workforce grew 39% cumulatively, faster than the median worker at 33%. To address Ms Ng Ling Ling’s and Mr Desmond Choo’s questions, I want to stress that these are real income gains; in other words, 39% cumulative income gains, even after subtracting the effects of inflation.
Low-income households would, therefore, benefit from our Progressive Wage and Workfare policies. I am sure many Members are aware that there are dedicated efforts to support our low-income households through various schemes, such as subsidies in education, healthcare, housing, as well as financial assistance. Households facing financial difficulties can approach MSF’s Social Service Offices (SSOs), which will look into ways to support them through schemes, such as ComCare assistance. MSF regularly reviews ComCare to ensure that support remains adequate.
The Workgroup achieved tripartite consensus on 18 recommendations, including significantly widening the coverage of Progressive Wages.
First, we will expand Progressive Wages to new sectors like Food Services, Retail and Waste Management, as well as occupations like Administrators and Drivers. We will also extend PWMs to in-house cleaners, security officers as well as landscape workers.
Second, we will introduce a new Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) requirement where employers will need to pay all its local workers at least the LQS, in order to access any foreign worker.
Third, we will introduce the Progressive Wage Mark, or PW Mark, to encourage firms that pay progressive wages.
The Workgroup has not deviated from the broad principle that wages should grow in tandem with productivity over the long term, so as to be sustainable. However, it recognised that there was a case for wage growth of lower-wage workers to outpace productivity. This is because the productivity of frontline workers is not due solely to the industriousness of the worker, but it is also dependent on the firm’s operations and methods of work. The Workgroup also recommended that for the next decade, the wages of our lower-wage workers should continue to grow faster than the median, or what we call the \"median-plus\" approach. However, when wages at the 20th percentile have gained sufficiently on median wage levels, this would no longer be necessary. We can reflect on other strategies beyond that.
Mr Edward Chia and Mr Sharael Taha asked about the sustainability of these wage increases. These are very important questions. One important way we will do this is to continue the Progressive Wage approach, whereby wage increases are secured by tripartite consensus, that is, the agreement between the employers and the unions remain very important.
These will be done by sectoral Tripartite Clusters for the Sectoral Progressive Wages, and the National Wages Council for the Occupational Progressive Wages. I know for a fact, and especially during these times, that tripartite negotiations are never easy, and for good reason, as the concerns of different parties, of the employers and workers, need to be balanced.
Tripartism is our strength, and some say our secret sauce, to make Progressive Wages work for the foreseeable future. I am confident that through such robust discussions, these established tripartite bodies will arrive at common ground that is sustainable and benefits all stakeholders.
If wage growth of our lower-wage workers outpace productivity growth in the medium term, the sustainable response is for businesses to use this period to urgently enhance their firm-level productivity to better support wage increases for our workers. To Mr Sharael Taha’s query, the Government will continue to support firms through the Productivity Solutions Grant, as well as more specific efforts enabled by the Industry Transformation Maps.
For many years, firms hiring foreign workers have been required to pay at least the LQS to the local workers that they need to count towards their foreign worker quota, or Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC). This is a policy that our businesses are already familiar with. The Workgroup studied this carefully and decided to leverage on the LQS to broaden our coverage of Progressive Wages. From September next year, firms hiring foreign workers will have to pay all local workers the LQS. This builds upon regular increases in the LQS level over the years, such as from $1,000 in 2016 to $1,400 in 2020.
To Ms He Ting Ru’s query, there are 103,000 full-time resident employees earning a gross monthly income of below $1,400 in 2020, which is about 5.3% of the full-time employed resident workforce. But I would also like to take the opportunity to highlight that in 2020, many of our lower-wage workers were also impacted by the economic impact of COVID-19 and faced reduced work-hours and allowances. These employees work in a wide range of industries, from Food Services to Administrative and Support Services, and occupy a diverse range of jobs, from cleaners to office clerks to shop sales assistants, and we can imagine the impact of COVID-19 on these jobs in the last year or year plus. This was also why the Government provided special support of $3,000 to this segment of workers through the Workfare Special Payment and other social support schemes.
With the new LQS requirement, an estimated 77% of these employees should see their wages rise to at least $1,400 a month. Many in this group would also see their wages further uplifted beyond LQS, by the Sectoral and Occupational Progressive Wages. The Workgroup expects the PWMs to continue to set the pace on wage growth, with Progressive Wage levels expected to rise beyond the LQS. For example, workers in the Cleaning and Landscape sectors can potentially earn at least about $2,400 a month by 2028.
To Ms Hazel Poa’s query, the remaining 23%, who are not covered, would be in businesses that do not hire foreign workers. The vast majority of these businesses are very small, hiring fewer than 10 workers and include small family operations, such as hawker stalls and heartland shops. We are all familiar with these microbusinesses; they are familiar faces in our neighbourhoods and typically having family members who are spouses, children or relatives helping out. They do not have the business scale or reach, and we are mindful that sudden wage shifts to these microbusinesses can result in business failure. So, the last thing we want is for job losses for these family businesses.
While not formally covered by the LQS requirement, these workers here should still see meaningful increases in their wages over time due to market forces. The Progressive Wages will cover eight in 10 full-time lower-wage workers, and the PW Mark is expected to bring the coverage of Progressive Wages up to 94% of full-time lower-wage workers. So, eight in 10 and moving up to 94%, I think we are quite confident that market forces will probably lift the remainder up over time.
Some Members, including Mr Yip Hon Weng, asked about how the LQS is currently being determined, and under what circumstances would it be reviewed. As the Workgroup’s Report explains, the LQS is a stable benchmark that has been in place for many years. It has been revised four times in the last five years.
We recognise that the new LQS requirement in 2022 will have a significant impact on employers. We are also mindful and sensitive to the fact that many of our companies are still recovering from the effects of COVID-19 on our economy. Hence, we have no plans to further increase the LQS for now, but will focus on the implementation of the new LQS rules and also for the other Sectoral and Occupational Progressive Wages to establish their relevant wage benchmarks.
I urge Members not to look at each measure in isolation but to bear in mind the overall and holistic impact on not just the workers but also the employers.
Members have also asked about the implementation details. I would like to give the assurance that the intent of MOM is for firms to be well-informed of the moves and to have adequate time to adjust before the implementation.
To Mr Edward Chia’s query, firms that hire foreign workers are already familiar with the concept of LQS for many years. Together with tripartite partners, the Government will continue to reach out to firms before the new LQS requirement and other new Progressive Wages kick in on 1 September 2022. The initial period beyond its introduction will be a run-in period, for which MOM will focus on educating employers on the various Progressive Wage and LQS requirements that they will need to adhere to. In other words, I can assure employers that MOM will not jump straight into strict enforcement, but it will initially focus on improving awareness and compliance, because we are all moving towards a new system. This is the same approach that was adopted when new Employment Act obligations were introduced in 2016.
In designing the system to support the new moves, we will make the compliance process as smooth as possible. To Miss Rachel Ong’s query, we will keep additional reporting requirements minimal by tapping on existing processes such as CPF salary declarations and returns to MOM’s Business Census.
\tEmployers will also be able to refer to MOM’s website to check the job descriptions of workers eligible for Progressive Wages and the required wages. We will also explore ways to allow employees to check that they are paid the Progressive Wages due to them. So, employees also have a chance to get used to the new system. We note that the Singapore Business Federation has acknowledged that the Report of the Workgroup has taken into consideration their feedback on minimising the burden of compliance for firms.
To Mr Liang Eng Hwa’s query on how the PW Mark will be administered, we will tap on the same systems that I have just described, to ensure that only firms that pay Progressive Wages are awarded the PW Mark. This will assure companies and consumers that when they purchase from firms with the PW Mark, they are directly supporting the lower-wage workers in these firms. The public sector will take the lead and require its suppliers to obtain the Mark. As the support of private sector buyers is also essential, the tripartite partners will also work with the various trade associations and chambers to raise awareness of the PW Mark, promote its adoption and encourage businesses to purchase from other businesses with the PW Mark.
Mr Speaker, Sir, uplifting lower-wage workers is a whole-of-society responsibility, and the cost of raising their wages will have to be shared. So, workers will have to adopt the right mindset and be ready to adapt and learn new skills to be more productive. Employers will need to increase productivity at the firm-level, which would help them better absorb the additional wage costs.
The Government will do its part, too. With respect to employers, the Government recognises that employers will need some time to adjust their operations, especially as the economy is still recovering from COVID-19. As such, to the queries of Ms Jessica Tan and other Members, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Workgroup to provide transition support and is carefully studying the details of that support. This will be announced in due course and, certainly, I want to provide the assurance that this will come before the implementation of the first moves in September 2022.
With respect to workers, I have already touched on the Government’s commitment to expanding Workfare. So, to Miss Rachel Ong’s question on whether there will be a shift away from Workfare to employers paying for the wages of our lower-wage workers, the answer is no. The Government is committed to Workfare as a permanent scheme; at the same time, employers do their part by offering progressive wages.
Miss Rachel Ong asked why we are lowering the Workfare qualifying age to 30 years old and whether we will lower it further below the age of 30. Below the age of 30, most workers would have just started work and earning starting salaries. Most will have greater potential for future income growth. Therefore, it will be too premature to consider them for Workfare. They could be better supported through training and upskilling efforts, such as SkillsFuture, to help them access better jobs and grow their wages in a sustainable way.
For workers aged 30 to 34, however, some continued to remain in the lower-wage range despite the upskilling efforts. At this age, they are just starting their own families or are looking to buy their first home. We believe that Workfare will help them better cope with their current expenses and to start saving for their retirement.
Miss Cheng Li Hui and other Members asked if businesses will unfairly raise prices. I can certainly understand why this is a big concern for many of us. In the Food Services and Retail sectors, where there are many firms competing and barriers to entry are not high, firms will be expected to think carefully about cost increases. It is also fair to say that we have to expect some degree of cost increase to accommodate higher salaries for our lower-wage workers. This is where we, as consumers, have to do our part in support of our lower-wage workers.
I, therefore, hope that Singaporeans will not accuse firms unfairly of profiteering, but let us also work together to address any unreasonable price increases or practices. One reason why the Workgroup recommended that the National Wages Council help to provide guidance on wage growth is to enable the tripartite partners to carefully weigh the impact of wage growth, inflation and general economic conditions every year, before finalising their guidance.
Because the growth of Progressive Wages is negotiated through tripartite consensus, rest assured we have more assurance that wage increases will be sustainable for workers, employers as well as consumers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the effort to uplift our lower-wage workers is a massive undertaking, spanning the next decade and beyond. To do this well, we will need to go beyond a whole-of-Government approach, or even a whole-of-tripartite sector approach. We will need the whole of society – workers, consumers, employers, unions, the Government, members of the public – to come behind and support this effort.
The Government has committed to providing transitional support and increasing spending on Workfare. Tripartite partners have agreed on a roadmap to chart the progress of our lower-wage workers over the next decade. And many businesses and consumers already recognise that they will need to do their part by paying a little more for goods and services. There has been heartening support from society at large since the Prime Minister spoke at the National Day Rally. I would also like to thank the tripartite partners for helping chart this roadmap ahead. So, let us continue on this course, to bring society together behind the goal of supporting our lower-wage workers.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
\tMs Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. I have one supplementary question. I understand the need for LQS and the intent to uplift the wages of lower-wage workers. The Senior Minister of State did talk about the need for PWMs to complement that. I am concerned, however, and I am asking the Senior Minister of State how do we ensure that LQS does not become the maximum wage for lower-wage workers in companies that hire foreign workers.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for her question. In fact, as I have shared earlier, the main driver of wage growth in the next decade or so will really be your PWMs. It has been heartening to see how employers have come on board despite the last one year being a challenging year with COVID-19. And if you look at the PWMs that were renewed for the next six, eight years, you will see in the cleaning and landscape sectors how employers have supported us through this and grown the wage ladders at a pace that is faster than the median, in what we call the median-plus approach. If you look at the end state in 2028, where cleaning and landscape sectors will end up at about $2,400 per month, and moving on to, say, lift-and-escalator PWMs, too, going up to $3,000 a month. These are ways in which we support them and these will drive market forces, too.
Speaking to employers, I know some are also concerned that if a cleaner, for example, earns $2,400 a month in 2028, then the rest in the firm will also seek to ask, \"Why not the tea lady?\" and the tea lady asking \"Why am I not earning the same as a cleaner?\" and administrators, for example, doing so. So, these are areas in which I think will be game changers in the years ahead. But at the same time, the concern of some parts of society is whether this will also increase costs for businesses. So, that is also the other part where we will see how to balance this.
On LQS, this is a measure that most employers are already quite familiar with. Most workers today who are in firms hiring foreign workers are already paid beyond LQS. We are down to the last 5% of workers and, actually, would have been much less, but the numbers were because of last year when we were down with the COVID-19 pandemic. So, we have seen many of them having their income drop. This is where we think, in the long term, this PWM will help them over time and in a sustainable manner because the employers are all on board with us on this.
So, look forward to some of the upcoming PWMs – food services, retail, waste management – which will come on from next year onwards. The tripartite clusters are negotiating the wage benchmarks. They will come up to share what these new benchmarks will be. And occupational progressive wages across sectors for administrators as well as the drivers are also key to us and something that we are now still negotiating and we will come up with the benchmarks soon, too.
So, looking at all these wage benchmarks and wage ladders ahead, I am quite confident that the PWMs will continue to drive wage growth. But at the same time, it is important that we assure employers that these moves are sustainable. I am glad that most are on board and supporting us on this, despite the challenging times today.
\tMr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
\tMs Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. I would like to point out that I have listened to his reply, but I still did not get the answer to my question, which was: how many Singaporeans earning less than $1,400 would not be covered by this scheme? On top of that, I have two supplementary questions.
Firstly, would employers who wish to employ foreigners no longer be able to employ part-timers at under $1,400? Would this spell the end of part-time employment?
Last question: the Senior Minister of State mentioned that over the years 2009 to 2019, the real wage growth of the lowest quintile outperformed those of the highest. If we look at only wage growth, it does not include other incomes like investment income or rental income. So, this does not quite give us the full picture of how inequality is changing. Does MOM track similar data but in terms of total income?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Ms Hazel Poa for her query. In fact, in response, I did share that 23% of the remainder would be in businesses that do not hire foreign workers. So, it is a minority left: 23% out of your 103,000 full-time employees. So, it is about 20%, or 20,000 or thereabouts. And as I have shared, with progressive wages, you will end up, hopefully, covering up to 94% of our lower-wage workers. You will see the long-term impact in terms of how their wages will grow over time.
Also, bear in mind that the remainder that is left are typically those in microbusinesses. Like I have shared, in heartland shops, they are people you are very familiar with and the last thing you want is to have them collapse in the short term because they do not have the scale. And many of them are uncles and aunties running stalls and I am not even sure whether the uncle pays the auntie full wages. But these are areas in which I think we have to correct over time, but you do not want to collapse them in the short term. So, this is something we are very mindful not to disrupt the whole system in such a way.
On the Member's second question on part-timers, if you look at the new LQS mechanism today, we do have a rate for part-timers, which is $9 per hour. We also give you half a count for DRC if you employ at least half of the LQS rate, that is, $700 a month for part-timers. So, this is one way in which we still maintain the current system but, at the same time, provide some flexibility for part-time workers, for many of our employees. That one, employers do not have to worry too much because they are familiar with the system and the part-time mechanism still continues. It is just that we now set a $9 rate per hour for part-time workers.
\tMr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
\tMr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State two supplementary questions. With regard to firms' level of productivity, are there actually specific plans to ensure that firm-level productivity support dovetails with worker upskilling and not as two separate activities? The second supplementary question is with regard to LQS. Can the Ministry consider a predictable timeline for future adjustments so that employers can make reasonable financial projections, especially when they are entering or pricing fixed-price term tenders?
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank Mr Chia for his questions.
Two things: one, let me just start with the LQS. I think I have shared earlier that the Government's approach is that we will start with reaching out to firms and getting them familiar with this new LQS requirement. With this change, I think it affects many of our businesses, so it is important that we give them time to run in. Rest assured that while the LQS requirement may have kicked in, we are going to work on advising and seeing how we can get companies to comply rather than enforcement straightaway. That is why we have also given the announcement and heads up now, so that firms will be ready by 1 September next year to implement the new LQS approach.
It will be a light touch up front. But I am quite sure firms are already quite familiar with this LQS mechanism. That is why this was an ideal framework to leverage on, because it is not something new that firms have not complied with in the past. It is just that the framework has been modified and tweaked.
On the second question on firm level productivity and workers' productivity, that is a very good question. To some extent, the narrative with many of our firms today and the approach so far with PWM has been that workers have to upskill and improve productivity. Therefore, they have to justify productivity gains against wage gains. But moving forward, we also have to think about productivity gains very differently, too. There is the worker level productivity as you train and upskill him, but there is also that level of productivity leap that you can get when firms make the effort to transform, do job redesigns.
I will give an example. Like the securities sector, for example, when you think of a security guard in the old days, you think of a \"jaga\" at the gate. If you just train him that way, there is only so much productivity you can gain with him as a jaga at the gate. But I have to commend the security sector. Through PWM and working with the unions in the sector, I am quite heartened today that they are using CCTVs, technologies, and you see, suddenly, the firm level productivity jumps. Therefore, if you look at the wage levels of our security officers, they have also jumped in the last five years. Therefore, that justifies productivity, not just at the worker level, but because businesses also push on with the transformation.
I think if you look at many other sectors, including cleaning and landscape, we are seeing them make those changes, making efforts towards job redesign and transformation. That is also why firms were agreeable to the wage increases that we have seen in terms of the wage ladders in the years ahead. Because they also bear in mind how contracts will be in the near future and how we are moving towards outcome-based contracting.
These are ways in which they can offer more, use better technologies, look at how we can redesign jobs to make them more attractive. We have seen entry rates of locals into these jobs increase. Many of us have also seen appeals at Meet-the-People Sessions where there are more locals today asking for security licences because they know that the wages are much better today and, therefore, worth considering.
This is one way in which when you look at productivity gains, in terms of wages, it should not just be on the basis of the worker level productivity but this is where the Government continues to support through our Productivity Solutions Grant and Industry Transformation Maps to make sure that our companies are able to transform and redesign the jobs to be more productive and pay our workers better salaries and give them better careers too.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
\tMr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Madam, I have one supplementary question. The LQS was not meant to be a minimum wage quantum. It exists to ensure firms do not hire phantom local workers to meet the DRC for the purpose of hiring foreign workers. So, it is merely a coincidence that the LQS of $1,400 is similar to the average household expenditure on basic needs (AHEBN) for the bottom 20% of income earners. As such, would it not be better to peg the minimum wage to the AHEBN instead of the LQS? This will allow the minimum wage to rise in tandem with cost increases so that the low-wage workers will not lose out over time.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: To answer the Member's question, maybe it is by coincidence that the numbers are looking the same. But as I have shared, we have adjusted it four times in the last five years, from $1,000 in 2016 to $1,400 in 2020. Maybe it is by coincidence, or not. But it has been adjusted because we have got various wage benchmarks that we work on.
The main goal of the LQS was also to ensure that Singaporeans' wages were not depressed as we hire foreign workers. Therefore, as we hire foreign workers using a Singaporean for the quota, we did not want the Singaporean worker to be left out and be depressed because you, typically, would have access to cheaper foreign labour out there. Of course, we have other obligations made on the employer, such as taking care of the worker, giving him food if he is in a dormitory and so forth, and medical expenses. But overall, I think, net-net, the objective was not to have Singaporeans lose out, as firms access foreign workers.
Unlike minimum wage laws around the world, there is the International Labour Convention where you cannot have laws that discriminate between locals and foreigners. Therefore, for most legislation around the world, you will find minimum wages covering both local and foreign workers.
This enables us to make a differentiation, but the overall concept still applies, whereby as you hire foreign workers in your firm, you want to ensure that not just those that are being counted have a fair wage, but every Singaporean worker in your firm has a fair wage too.
On balance, maybe, perhaps, it is coincidental, but the wage levels for the LQS have been adjusted over time to ensure that we meet certain benchmarks that we manage and it has been a fair one.
We also have to manage over time and that is why we also take guidance for our Progressive Wages from the National Wages Council moving forward as well, largely because we want to make sure that it is sustainable and not open to political auction. The last thing you want is to have a political auction on what the wage level should be. But let us pick a fair one, where a committee looks at available data projections and see what is sustainable, and the impact to inflation because that too, is a concern for many Singaporeans – cost of living over time.
These are quite complex matters which we need to give assurance, not just to the workers but to the employers and the consumers at large too, to create a fair system. At the same time, as I have shared, it also gives us a release valve for many of our microbusinesses who are not currently part of the LQS because they are, typically, your heartland shops and many of these micro-businesses recruit less than 10 workers.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.
\tMr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. I have one supplementary question. How would the Ministry help companies that are locked into forward contracts with their customers, like those in the construction sector, to bear the additional cost of the LQS requirement?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for the question. The short answer is that, as I have shared, the Government is studying the transition support that we will provide employers for wage increases in the next few years. One, we understand there will be some firms who are locked into contracts. Secondly, we are also recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, firms do need time to recover and the transition support will, hopefully, help them in the short term as we balance the needs of our low-wage workers, as well as the businesses which need to recover and still cover these additional salaries.
But overall, that is why it is also important for our PWMs to be negotiated with our employees, and, a lot of times, if you look at our PWMs, we announce them years in advance. For cleaning, security and landscape, for example, these are also contracts that run three to five years ahead. Therefore, we announce it today for a new PWM ladder that starts in 2023, for example. This is one way in which we help firms prepare and we give them advance notice. The sector also understands this, that we, typically, give them advance headway to do this. For the short term, as I have said, look out for our announcements on the transition support before the new LQS requirements and PWMs kick in next year.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Question subsequently withdrawn: To ask the Minister for Manpower (a) how often and under what circumstances will the Local Qualifying Salary (LQS) be reviewed and revised; and (b) what support will the Government provide to companies in sectors that are traditionally more reliant on foreign manpower and badly hit by the pandemic, such as the construction sector, to afford the LQS for all their local workers."],"footNoteQuestions":["28","29","30","31","32","33","34","35","36","37","38","39","40","41"],"questionNo":"28-41"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Arrangements for Support of Singaporeans who may be Living in Afghanistan","subTitle":"Aftermath of Taliban's takeover in Afghanistan","sectionType":"OA","content":"42 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether there are any Singaporeans known to be residing in Afghanistan following the recent takeover by the Taliban and, if so, what arrangements are made to support them or help them return to Singapore if they so choose.
\tThe Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for Foreign Affairs): Mdm Deputy Speaker, there are currently no Singaporeans registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) who are in Afghanistan.
As MFA has no diplomatic representation in Afghanistan, there are limitations to our ability to provide urgent consular assistance to Singaporeans in the country. This was why we had earlier strongly advised Singaporeans against travelling to or remaining in Afghanistan. Any Singaporeans who are still in Afghanistan should e-register with MFA immediately if they have not done so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Mitigate against Flooding Given Inclement Weather Due To Indian Ocean Dipole","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"43 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the recent incidents of flooding and forecast of inclement weather due to the Indian Ocean Dipole over the next two months, what are the Ministry’s plans to mitigate against flooding, especially in areas where there are major roadworks.
44 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether she can provide an update on the flood management measures and early warning system in view of the recent flooding.
45 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has conducted a comprehensive review of areas that are susceptible to flash flood situations like what was experienced on the morning of Friday, 20 August 2021; and (b) what plans are being made to mitigate such possibilities from recurring going forward.
\tThe Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the effects of climate change are increasingly felt around the world. Recently, we saw widespread flooding caused by a record rainfall in parts of Europe, China and the USA.
Singapore has also experienced intense rainfall events in recent months. On 17 April and 24 August, more than an entire month’s rainfall fell on our western parts within three to four hours. Given climate change, we must prepare for more extreme weather scenarios as we are likely to see more flash floods from intense rain.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Minister, are you taking Question Nos 43 to 45 together?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I beg your pardon. Three questions, please.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Thank you. PUB has invested almost $2 billion on drainage works in the last decade and reduced Singapore’s flood-prone areas from 3,200 hectares in the 1970s to 28 hectares today. PUB will continue to monitor these flood-prone areas closely. Another $1.4 billion will be invested over the next five years on drainage improvement works. It is, however, not practical to expand all 8,000-plus kilometres of our drains and flood protection infrastructure to accommodate every extreme rainfall event, as this would require massive land take and much higher costs.
Flash floods arising from intense rainfall occur in limited areas and are transient – most will subside within 30 minutes, given our extensive drainage system. Moreover, PUB deploys more immediate and practical measures to protect our properties against flash floods, including portable flood barriers that can be installed at doorways or erected on roads and pavements. These flood barriers protect residents and businesses against flash floods and minimise potential damage to their premises.
PUB is using technology to better predict and respond to floods. PUB will complete enhancements to its rainfall forecasting capability by first quarter of 2022. This will help forecast locations which will face heavy rainfall, issue earlier public alerts and enable early deployment of portable flood barriers in areas at risk of flash floods. Coupled with an extensive network of water level sensors and CCTVs installed at flood-prone areas, PUB’s Quick Response Team can also be deployed on site faster and assist premises owners to set up flood barriers, if needed. Information on floods and road closures is communicated to the public promptly through radio broadcasts, news media, myENV Mobile App, PUB Facebook and Twitter, as well as LTA’s Expressway Monitoring Advisory System. SMS alerts are also sent to those who have registered to receive flood warnings.
These measures will also help build preparedness to extreme weather events and strengthen community resilience, as we check weather advisories and warnings and adjust our daily schedules accordingly. I encourage members of the public to subscribe to NEA’s and PUB’s SMS alerts.
PUB will continue to strengthen our forecasting and sensing capabilities and implement cost-effective measures to minimise flood risks. However, PUB cannot minimise flood risks on its own. Building owners must ensure that flood prevention measures in their developments remain effective. Contractors must also implement proper flood prevention measures at their worksites. We have seen cases of contractors failing to do so, resulting in floods in their locations.
This brings me to the flash flood incident that occurred on 20 August 2021. This flash flood was reported at the junction of Tampines Avenue 10 and Pasir Ris Drive 12 towards TPE entrance at around 8.00 am. PUB’s Quick Response Team was immediately deployed to assist drivers and pedestrians, together with SCDF and Police. PUB also issued advisories to motorists and members of the public to avoid the area.
\t
This location is not a flood-prone area and the drainage system is more than adequate to cope with the rainfall intensity experienced on 20 August 2021. PUB’s investigations found that the contractor carrying out road widening works along Tampines Avenue 10 had altered the public drainage system there without PUB’s approval. As a result, storm water could not discharge effectively into downstream Sungei Api Api.
PUB does not condone such illegal works and will be pressing charges against the contractor under the Sewerage and Drainage Act.
Under the Sewerage and Drainage Act, no one can carry out any works to alter our storm water drainage system without PUB’s approval. PUB also requires contractors working in the vicinity of any watercourse to put in place measures to prevent construction materials from falling and choking up the drainage system. PUB takes a serious view of all works that affect our public drainage system. We have reminded all contractors to comply with the requirements and will take enforcement action against errant contractors.
\tMdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
\tMr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Just a few quick questions. We know that we have an increasing number of roadworks, infrastructure works for the next few years. Do we need to toughen up our laws so that contractors know that they will be in serious trouble if they do not comply with the regulations?
The second one is: how are we coordinating from an inter-agency perspective so that all agencies, if they are part of the roadworks, can coordinate so that we have less of such occurrences like the one in Tampines in future?
\tMs Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Deputy Speaker, there is already coordination between PUB and LTA. In most cases, for major roadworks, such as for MRT stations, there has been close coordination of the work that is progressing and also the preventive measures that are being taken. But, from time to time, we do have such unauthorised alterations and also blockage in the drainage; sometimes, it is intentional or, sometimes, it is actually because of poor housekeeping. It happens from time to time.
So, we do have to step up and look at how we can improve the enforcement and monitoring measures. We will review our measures from time to time to see if they are adequately preventive.
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 46-79, 83-87, 89-94, 97-105, 107-112 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question No 80-82, 88, 95-96 and 106 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 4 October 2021.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Courts (Civil and Criminal Justice) Reform Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [13 September 2021], \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\" – [Minister for Law]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.
Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I would, first, like to declare that I am a practising lawyer.
As per the hon Justice Lee Seiu Kin in his opening speech at the launch of the Law Society’s Technology Roadshow in 2017, he shared his view that the world today is faced with \"more frequent and unpredictable disruptions\", and \"Technology holds the promise of greater productivity and effectiveness. We must seize the opportunity to leverage this to higher quality legal services and cost savings for law firms, and ultimately, for the clients and society at large.” I agree wholeheartedly with his Honour.
One of the major components of this Courts Reform Bill is set to empower the Courts to conduct proceedings more flexibly by leveraging on the use of technology.
My speech today will, therefore, focus on the potential impact of this digital transformation and explore possible ways to utilise this transformation to reduce the costs of litigation and enhance convenience for Court users.
Over the past few years, we have begun to see a gradual modernisation of the legal industry: from law firms going paperless with the adoption of cloud-based data management systems to smaller set-up firms moving away from traditional law firm premises and towards contemporary co-working spaces, with shared meeting rooms and lounges.
The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly accelerated the pace of digital transformation. By now, most of the workforce, including lawyers, have become familiar with the concept of working from home in compliance with safe distancing measures. Many client interviews as well as Court hearings are now conducted virtually, which has allowed more flexibility for lawyers in terms of their daily working schedules while managing other personal obligations.
One of my fellow members of the Bar shared with me that she had initially thought of giving up breastfeeding her baby after returning to work from maternity leave, but she has since been able to continue doing so due to the work-from-home arrangement. Another of my peers also remarked that remote working has provided him with more opportunities to spend more quality time and attend to the needs of his aged parents.
This reform Bill reaffirms remote working as part of the new norm. But whilst the adoption of newer technology to conduct legal matters is the way forward, it is prudent to take heed of the downsides that come along with it as well, such as the loss of in-person communication.
Before the start of the pandemic, it was not uncommon for lawyers to bump into our peers in places such as the Court’s Bar Room or the waiting area outside the Courts’ Pre-Trial Conference chambers. For years, these ad hoc meetings have helped to foster the productive discussions concerning the day’s pressing agendas, or aid in the gathering of fresh perspectives on a particular subject. It has also served as an informal way of maintaining connections amongst those in the legal industry.
In contrast, most correspondence these days occurs online via video-link meetings and emails, and even the actual Court hearings are isolated virtual spaces where lawyers are each segregated into their own waiting areas, unable to see or hear those who may be waiting for their own hearings to proceed.
Aside from the lack of social interaction brought about by this new norm, the rigidness of the virtual hearings has their shortcomings.
The currently used video-link platform tends to begin its sessions without prior warning and regard for the attendee’s presence, which means that lawyers, aside from signing in for their session, do not have knowledge of the current status of the Courts, unless otherwise informed by the Court on when their hearing is likely to begin.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Worse still, in the event of delays – which may sometimes last for longer than 30 minutes at a time – the litigant-in-person or lawyer is forced to sit and wait in front of their computer at all times, unable to visit the restroom or make proper use of the downtime for other obligations.
To address these issues, I understand from Minister’s earlier speech that features on the existing E-Litigation system will be further improvised. In this regard, I would like to propose whether the Ministry can facilitate, after taking into account the feedback of users from the Courts as well as members of the Bar, to tap on the expertise of GovtTech in improving the features of the E-Litigation system or creating a new virtual Court platform that is equipped with an integrated chat function and a dynamic queue system.
With these features, one would be able to know when their case is slated to be heard upon logging in. With an SMS alert system for the queue, users can manage their waiting time more effectively and efficiently. A private message function will enable users to communicate with the Court’s admin clerk on the possibility of jumping the queue due to the need to be present for another Court matter soon.
The chat function would also allow the ability to see other counsel who may be online at the same time and to chat or start a video call with them. This would return some measure of communication between lawyers whereby counsel can take the opportunity while waiting, to explore settlement terms.
Although most hearings are now online affairs that require the relevant parties to attend in separate locations, many clients still prefer to do so at their lawyers’ office premises. This is common, particularly for the mediation sessions conducted by the Family Justice Courts, where the client still prefers the physical presence and in-person support from their lawyers to ease their anxieties.
This arrangement is typically not a problem for medium or large-sized firms, as they have multiple meeting rooms with adequate space at their office to accommodate the lawyer and their client. For smaller law firms, however, the realities of limited work spaces and meeting rooms represent a significant challenge in addressing similar needs for their clients.
In light of the disadvantages faced by lawyers practising in sole proprietorships or small partnerships, I would like to ask if the Ministry can look into offering some assistance schemes that enable the affected law firms to purchase the necessary equipment to attend such virtual hearings and whether the Courts can provide more spaces that will allow small law firm practitioners to communicate with their clients in person whilst adhering to safe distancing measures.
Over the years, I understand that the Government, along with the Law Society of Singapore, has come up with several initiatives, such as the \"Tech-celerate for Law\", being subsidy assistance schemes that aim to help defray costs for law practices, particularly smaller firms, and enable them to remain competitive.
However, these schemes have so far focused mainly on helping law firms to obtain, what I would call, the “software”, such as online data management, databases and establishing online presence through marketing portals. In this context, would the Ministry be looking into more ways to help these smaller law firms gain access to the equipment or “hardware” with the aid of these same schemes, so that they can fully transition into the digital era without transferring the cost of such implementation on their clients? In Mandarin please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To many, litigation is a costly and time-consuming process. I support the recommendations made in this reform Bill, such as simplifying Court terminology across our statute books, to ensure that our laws are accessible to the public and easy to understand; as well as leveraging on technology for Court process with a view to reducing the costs of litigation. Parties that can benefit from the reform include those SMEs whose financial situation is affected by the pandemic; they can leverage on digital platforms to save time and money to resolve disputes.
Apart from that, I hope the Ministry can further consider reviewing and reducing the Court filing and hearing fees. These improvements will be very helpful for those litigants who have financial difficulties, and victims who are wrongly accused.
(In English): Mr Speaker, it is my opinion that in order to enhance access to justice, the relevant stakeholders will have to look into and work on the three \"hows\".
Firstly, how we can make the law easier to understand for a layperson; secondly, how we can simplify the Court process to avoid unnecessary wastage of time and resources; and finally, how to achieve cost efficiency by acting on the first two points.
But the last point is, more often than not, the primary concern, because affordability of the costs to be incurred is often the paramount consideration for litigants when contemplating whether or not to pursue a matter further in the interest of justice.
I am hopeful that the implementations to be rolled out subsequent to the passing of this Courts Reform Bill aims to address these points. I stand in support of Bill.
Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.
12.45 pm
Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The amendments will enable legal proceedings to be more accessible to everyone by simplifying the language used in Court and support our overall digital transformation plans, keeping our legal system efficient and ready to meet the evolving needs of society in the future. I am in support of these amendments. However, I would like to raise three clarifications.
Firstly, simplification of words used in Court must not compromise on common understanding of terms; secondly, there are potential implications of simpler language and accessibility of the legal system; and, finally, clarity on when remote hearings are allowed should be considered.
Firstly, while it is laudable that we want legal proceedings to be more accessible to the public, we must ensure that words, especially new words used, should be properly defined. There should be a clear definition of terms such that all those involved in the proceedings are clear of their meanings such that it is not open to different interpretations and, subsequently, become a point of contention in the proceedings.
An illustration is the use of the word \"claimant\" instead of \"plaintiff\". The word \"claimant\" is used in many contexts, such as a claimant in insurance claims or, in the US, a claimant for welfare or tax benefits. \"Plaintiff\" is more widely used in the Courts. It may be the case where it is just not possible to simplify legal terminologies and to change for the sake of accessibility may prove to be detrimental to the due process of law.
Secondly, with easier access to the Courts and better understanding of legal terms and proceedings, laypersons may seek to defend themselves in Court. Unless the person is well-read in Singapore law and familiar with due legal processes, the desire to defend oneself in Court may, ultimately, prove detrimental.
In the recent case of the individual publicly known as the \"MBS badge lady”, the defendant's initial attempt to represent herself in Court was met with various challenges. Subsequently, her family had to step in, engaging a lawyer to finally represent her in Court.
While we want our legal system to be more accessible, we should also be careful not to develop the mindset of engaging legal representation only after attempts at self-representation had resulted in getting themselves into a deeper legal predicament.
Another cause for concern is the public's misunderstanding of our legal system. This is in light of our exposure to the American legal system and, lately, even the Korean legal system, from popular media.
Obviously, there are differences between our legal systems. However, members of the public sometimes misunderstand that and expect our legal proceedings to be similar. The Miranda warning, for example, is used in the American system, where a citizen's right to remain silent is read to the person being arrested. However, in our legal system, remaining silent could draw adverse inferences.
Importantly, our changes should be recognised internationally as we are well accepted as a leading global dispute resolution hub. We cannot afford to make changes at the expense of the rest of the world's legal fraternity not understanding us. We must avoid changes that make our legal system overly localised as we are too small a country to change the norms and nomenclature of the international legal fraternity.
Lastly, while we understand the need to have remote Court hearings and sentencing during the pandemic, we must be very clear, during normal circumstances, as to when we could allow remote hearings.
We cannot discount the fact that in some cases, it is important for the judge to be able to physically see the plaintiff or defendant and even witnesses, as it allows the judge to assess their demeanour and to see if the person is being prompted to respond. All these may have an impact on the eventual sentencing and, hence, should not be taken lightly.
Hence, we must be very clear as to when we can utilise remote Court hearings and not compromise the legal process for the sake of conveniences afforded by the use of technology.
We must also be mindful to not be perceived as being too cold or inhumane when employing remote hearings. As an example, the remote sentencing of Punithan Genasan where he was handed the death penalty via Zoom in May 2020 was understandable at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in normal circumstances, it may seem very detached and procedural for capital punishment to be meted out via Zoom.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, the amendments will enable legal proceedings to be more accessible to everyone by simplifying the language used in the Courts and also support our overall digital transformation plans, keeping our legal system efficient and ready to meet the evolving needs of society in the future. Notwithstanding the clarifications above, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.
12.50 pm
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who spoke in support of the Bill. Let me address their questions now.
First, on the protocols for proceedings via video-link.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether the way that live video proceedings are conducted can be standardised. He mentioned the need to maintain the security and integrity of Court proceedings.
The specific ways for participation in remote hearings are published in the Registrar's circulars and set out on the Courts' websites. The specific protocol that applies may vary, depending, for example, on the type of case and the litigants involved.
On the security and integrity of proceedings, the Courts have protocols in place. We will take the point and emphasise this to the Courts.
Mr Murali Pillai asked how conversations between accused persons in prison and their counsel joining in from another location will be kept confidential and how accused persons will continue to have access to lawyers during remote proceedings.
The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has a set of purpose-built video-link facilities. In the course of a remote hearing, over Zoom or tele-presence, SPS will facilitate the private consultation sessions between accused persons and their lawyers. These can be done through the telephone, a virtual breakout room on Zoom or a separate cubicle with a Zoom session between the accused person and his lawyer.
Mr Desmond Choo expressed concern with the rise of deepfake technology and the impersonation of parties or witnesses.
The actions mentioned by Mr Choo are, of course, criminal offences. In terms of safeguards, the Courts are considering adopting new identification technologies. They are planning for them under the National Digital Identity project.
Ms Hany Soh proposed the creation of a virtual Court platform with an integrated chat function and a dynamic queue system and she explained the benefits of it.
The Courts are working on several improvements that are aligned with Ms Soh's suggestions.
First, there will be a new queue management system. It will allow the judge to re-sequence parties according to some specified criteria. There may also be a forecast of the number of cases which are pending, which can be made visible to all.
Second, the Courts are also enhancing the SG Courts app to allow for formal \"on the record\" discussions between lawyers and the Court.
Ms Soh has also asked about assistance schemes for smaller law firms to defray the cost of purchasing virtual hearing equipment. She has also asked whether filing fees can be reviewed and whether the Courts are able to provide more spaces for practitioners to communicate with their clients in-person.
She did mention that MinLaw has been working on initiatives to help law firms, especially the smaller ones, ramp up their use of technology. These efforts include Tech-celerate for Law and Tech Start for Law, as Ms Soh has pointed out.
We will build on these to further help law firms adopt technology and transit to remote hearings. This will also help with their transition onto the electronic Court systems.
Major initiatives that law firms can look forward to will be a Legal Tech Platform which will enable, in an affordable way, law practices and lawyers to work anytime, anywhere.
This is a matters management tool designed specifically around legal workflows. My Ministry is actively working on this.
We aim to integrate the platform with commonly used technology solutions like practice management solutions, document management solutions, communication tools like WhatsApp and Microsoft Teams and Government systems like LawNet, eLitigation and ACRA that lawyers commonly interact with.
This platform will be a one-stop shop to help lawyers access key functions from such solutions and systems more seamlessly.
We aim to introduce the platform to the industry in phases, starting from the first quarter of 2022.
We are also putting together an Industry Digital Plan, which will provide a step-by-step guide for lawyers to assess their own digital readiness and provide information on the technology solutions commonly used by lawyers, which will be mapped to different stages of digital maturity.
The industry digital plan will be launched in tandem with the legal technology platform.
On Ms Hany Soh's question about defraying hardware costs, generally, the Government does not favour any particular group, say, lawyers and so on, to buy equipment for their practices. But we made an exception last year because of COVID-19. We worked to provide 80% funding support for all SMEs, including law firms, to procure laptops and commonly used software, such as Microsoft Office.
On the provision of physical space, there are already many spaces within existing courthouses which lawyers can utilise to meet with their clients.
As for filing fees, we agree. Filing fees should be reasonable. We will pass the feedback onto the Courts.
Moving on to paper hearings, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim sought clarifications on paper hearings. Let me take each of his questions in turn.
First, whether parties can opt in for paper hearings. If parties prefer the matter to be heard on paper, they can inform the Court. The Court, ultimately, has the final say but it will take this into account when considering whether to proceed with a paper hearing.
Second, on the benefits of paper hearings. It, obviously, saves costs and time, provided the matter can be dealt with through a paper hearing.
Third, Mr Zhulkarnain asked whether there can be a fast track for the case management of paper hearings. That, really, has got to depend on each case, its nature, complexity and how prepared parties are for a speedier management of the case.
Fourth, Mr Zhulkarnain asked about paper hearings in criminal proceedings. In the context of remote hearings, Mr Sharael Taha also underscored the need to be mindful of the human aspect in criminal matters. So, we have to make sure the use of paper or asynchronous hearings do not undermine the accused's right to be heard.
This Bill protects the accused's right to be heard. The Courts will exercise the discretion to conduct paper or asynchronous hearings judiciously.
Mr Murali Pillai also raised a query on how the Courts will ensure that litigants-in-persons (LIPs) are not disadvantaged by remote or paper hearings.
LIPs who have concerns with using remote technology or with a paper hearing can notify the Courts. LIPs will be encouraged to take advantage of remote or paper hearing processes but, ultimately, it is an option for them.
If a litigant does not have the equipment or Internet connectivity, he can, of course, come to Court to use in-Court facilities that do cater for remote hearings.
The Courts have published detailed guidelines on the conduct of remote hearings. Users may also reach out to the Courts to get help.
Dr Shahira Abdullah mentioned that under the amendments to the Administration of Justice Protection Act, litigants and lawyers will now be prohibited from making their own non-official audio transcripts of Court proceedings.
The amendments under this Bill do not change the underlying position today. Today, it is already contempt of the Court to record physical Court proceedings. The amendments simply update the provisions so that unauthorised recordings of remote Court proceedings will likewise be in contempt.
Mr Louis Ng asked a number of questions.
One, on the scope of the Court's powers to order parties to attempt amicable resolution. An attempt at amicable resolution may be appropriate where strict legal remedies may not necessarily address the underlying concerns and interests of parties or where litigation is not cost effective.
Second, where parties have gone through formal processes, such as mediation, neutral evaluation, settlement negotiations with exchange of draft settlement agreements, these are all likely to constitute clear attempts at amicable resolution.
Third, Mr Louis Ng asked how the Court will ensure that parties will make good faith attempts at amicable resolution and what would be the consequences of non-compliance with the Court's direction to attempt such amicable resolution. Mr Desmond Choo also sought clarification on whether the Court will consider the intentions of the parties before exercising the powers.
The short answer to Mr Louis Ng's question is that it is not easy to ensure good faith negotiations. But in deciding whether to order parties to attempt amicable resolution, the Courts will take into account all the facts before them, including whether any of the parties have refused to attempt to resolve the dispute by amicable resolution, and why. Where necessary, the Courts may require the parties or their counsel to explain why the matter cannot be settled amicably.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether Registrars will be required to undergo training in mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR), and whether there will be a minimum requirement that must be met and who the Court-appointed mediators will be.
In the State Courts, mediation may be conducted by specially-trained District Judges or Court Volunteer Mediators. The District Judges are experienced trial judges. They have extensive experience in mediation and other ADR processes, and they undergo continuous training in ADR.
As for Court Volunteer Mediators, they must minimally be an Associate Mediator with the Singapore Mediation Centre with at least three years of mediation experience. Alternatively, they should minimally hold a Level 3 qualification as a Singapore International Mediation Institute Accredited Mediator.
For the Supreme Court, a Registrar conducting ADR, or a Court-appointed mediator, will similarly be trained in the particular ADR processes.
Mr Louis Ng asked if there are plans to set up an equivalent of the State Courts' Court Dispute Resolution Cluster in the Supreme Court. Given the nature of the disputes and the value of the claims filed in the Supreme Court, there are no immediate plans to do so.
Lastly, on Mr Louis Ng's question on how MinLaw supports the growth of private mediation service providers, MinLaw's role is to ensure a conducive environment for our dispute resolution ecosystem to thrive. We work closely with mediation service providers, such as Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and so on, to ensure that their service offerings address the different user needs and complement the Court-based dispute resolution mechanisms.
We also have the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI). It looks at accreditation and mediation standards to support professionalising mediation.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about security for costs in the context of an application for freestanding interim relief. A defendant may apply for security for the defendant's costs of the action, on the basis that the applicant has no nexus or assets in Singapore.
On vessel arrests, these fall outside the scope of freestanding interim relief that the General Division can grant. This is consistent with the UK position.
Mr Zhulkarnain sought clarification regarding the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)'s jurisdiction. He asked when the action, and the counterclaim taken as a whole, would still maintain an international and commercial character. The assessment cannot be a purely quantitative one. The Court will have to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances, assess whether the counterclaim, third-party proceedings change the nature or substance of the action in such a way that the action, seen as a whole, no longer maintains an international or commercial nature.
Mr Zhulkarnain also asked about the consolidation of proceedings under SICC and whether similar considerations would apply if one proceeding is in a different Court from SICC. The consolidation of proceedings under SICC may require different considerations, as parties would have already commenced separate proceedings. If proceedings are not before the same Court, but a party believes that an application for consolidation is necessary, then a transfer application should be taken out to bring the proceedings before the same Court, before applying for any consolidation.
Mr Zhulkarnain also pointed out the joinder of a non-consenting party to SICC proceedings, and spoke about the enforcement of an SICC judgment in a foreign jurisdiction. It is possible for a party to be joined to existing proceedings before SICC without that party's consent; just like it is possible for a party to be joined to existing proceedings before the High Court or the State Courts without that party's consent. There are rules on how that takes place. But, of course, the requirements for proper service on that party will still apply.
With regard to enforcement, the enforcement of a SICC judgment against a party, who has been properly served, but has not submitted to SICC's jurisdiction, will be similar to the enforcement of a judgment issued by the General Division of the High Court against a party that has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the General Division.
As with any judgment of the General Division of the High Court, an SICC judgment is likely to be enforceable in major commercial jurisdiction and many other regional ones. There are standard laws on how this takes place.
Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Shahira Abdullah, Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Murali Pillai have raised a number of queries regarding the Attorney-General (AG)'s right to intervene. Let me make some broad points before addressing the specific queries.
First, as my colleague Minister Edwin Tong mentioned in Parliament yesterday, the statutory framework is based on the established role of the AG. He is the Guardian of the public interest. This has been recognised by our Courts as well as by Members who have spoken on this Bill and previously. The proposed amendments are consistent with that principle.
The Court of Appeal, for example, has noted that the AG intervenes on a non-partisan basis. He is disinterested in the interests of the parties to the litigation. The issues that he raises most logically, must have a discernible impact beyond the specific parties and the specific dispute before the Court.
Second, it is important to understand the context in which this proposal arises. Let us say you have a civil case between two parties. Prima facie, nothing to do with the state, or the public. But in the course of the dispute or from the pleadings, or in the course of the arguments, issues arise which, potentially, are detrimental to the public interest.
For example, the AG has intervened on the applicable legal test for negligence in relation to the provision of medical advice, in the case of Hii Chii Kok v Ooi Peng Jin, between two parties. But the test that is laid out by the Courts on what amounts to negligence will impact on future claims on the basis of medical negligence. So, it will impact both patients and doctors, and they cannot come forward and intervene in this case. The only party who can do so in the public interest is the AG. So, this relates to the provision of medical advice.
To take another example, the AG has intervened on the nature and scope of professional and ethical duties. For example, in Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, on what duties are owed by lawyers in making claims for costs. In such cases, it is sensible, obvious, that the AG must have a right to intervene, to protect the public interest and put forward arguments. Ultimately, of course, it is up to the Courts to decide on the validity of the arguments.
So, the amendments provide for the right of the AG to intervene for that purpose but, ultimately, the Court decides on the merits of the substantive case. The AG's presence assists the Court and also informs the Court of the possible broader implications on the public interest.
Third, the AG's application to intervene is only an intermediate step in the dispute. Broadly, there is a two-stage process. At the first stage, the Court will check to ensure that the AG has set out adequate details, the basis, grounds for his request to be added as a party. Only if the Court is satisfied that the AG has explained the reasons for his intervention sufficiently, then the Court will grant permission for the AG to intervene. Of course, that is prima facie.
If anyone wishes to oppose the AG's intervention, then they may apply to set aside the Court's permission.
This brings us to the second stage, which will involve the AG and the other parties, because the first stage is ex parte. At this stage, the parties can raise any concerns they might have about the AG's addition to the proceedings. If any party objects to the intervention, the Court will assess whether the permission that has been granted to the AG should now be reversed.
The Court's assessment will be made based on the interests of justice. It can take into account and balance various considerations, including the possible inconvenience, costs to a party, if AG is added; and the potential benefits if AG is allowed to join the proceedings, to add his perspectives on the matter.
Any Court will proceed on the basis that the AG is a Guardian of the public interest, and if he comes to Court and says there is an important matter of public interest here, it is, generally, not assumed that the AG is being frivolous. There must be a serious point and it is a matter of public interest. When someone comes in, particularly the AG, to put forward the arguments, the Court knows that it will be of tremendous assistance to the Court. Ultimately, how it decides is for the Court, but the Court gets tremendous assistance from the AG.
Mr Pritam Singh asked if this is a shift in the common law position. He has asked why not we just stick with the existing position, why do we need a new framework. The common law position does allow AG to intervene. For example, in the case of ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax, the Appellant was a private company, which applied for specific discovery of internal documents belonging to IRAS. So, this is a taxpayer, I believe, who sought documents from IRAS, but it goes beyond that to a broader principle of when you can apply for documents against a Government agency. Whether it should be allowed or it should not be allowed is a matter for the Court. Whether such a principle should apply to all public departments in the context of a private civil dispute, albeit against IRAS, is a matter of public interest. The AG should be entitled to put forward his position why it is or it is not in the public interest to make a particular order. And that is for the Courts to decide.
So, the AG applied to intervene to make representations on the issue of public interest privilege under the Evidence Act. Application for intervention was filed in the High Court. The company resisted the application. There was dispute on the addition of the AG to the proceedings. It was resolved by the Court of Appeal 20 months later.
The Court of Appeal allowed the AG to intervene, affirmed the AG's position as Guardian of public interest and it further held that if the AG does not intervene despite taking the view that there are issues of the public interest, then the AG would, in fact, be in dereliction of his public duty.
All that is good, but 20 months have been lost. Taking into account what the Court of Appeal had said and the fact that you do not want these things to be unnecessarily delayed, I will say this to Members. As in the cases cited, parties to civil litigation are often seeking to interpret the rules in their own favour. If they succeed, sometimes, it is the man in the street who will pay the bill, ultimately, if it is against the public interest. The AG is intervening to protect the man in the street – the common man.
We are moving to enact a clear statutory framework for the AG's right to intervene, to lend certainty to this area of law, so that parties can proceed expeditiously to the substantive issues in the case.
As I have said, the addition of AG to the proceedings is a procedural step. It does not mean that either of the original parties has somehow \"lost\" or \"won\" the original lawsuit, though I can understand, they may not like what the AG is going to say. In that sense, they would prefer if the AG is not present, but that is not the way hearings and arguments should go.
Mr Pritam Singh has cited various statutes which expressly provide for the AG's right to intervene: Charities Act, Industrial Relations Act. And he is right. In those pieces of legislation, the AG has an unqualified entitlement to intervene in the specified categories of proceedings. It is broadly similar principles, but unqualified. Here, the proposal is that even the addition itself, the parties can oppose if they wish; then, the Court has got to decide after hearing both sides.
Let me now turn to some of the specific queries. Mr Murali Pillai had a suggestion that the AG's role as Guardian of the public interest be codified in the Constitution. As mentioned, the AG's role as Guardian of the public interest has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a number of cases. It has also been recognised by this House yesterday by Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Pritam Singh. My Ministry will study this suggestion whether we should put it in the Constitution the AG's established role in this respect, taking into account how this area of law and the jurisprudence develop.
Mr Pritam Singh asked if the amendments are intended as a contingency or whether there are new areas of public interest that the Government is concerned about.
I am not sure what Mr Pritam Singh is concerned about; or that we always think ahead and are planning something else that he is concerned about. The short answer is, the amendments say what they say on the face of it. They are meant to lend clarity to the procedure for the AG to intervene and to minimise satellite litigation and delays. But it is not going to be possible to predict how other areas of laws in which such interventions may be required in the future, might take place. And what questions of public interest may arise, will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Mr Zhulkarnain also asked whether there will still be a need for AG to intervene if a party to the proceedings can put forth an opposing view to the Court.
The AG's role is not to put forward supporting or opposing views but to represent the public interest and what, in his view, is best stated in terms of the public interest, whereas the views of parties to the proceedings will obviously be influenced by their respective interests. And, sometimes, there cannot be a substitute for the non-partisan views of the AG. The parties to a civil litigation are not there to advance public interest. They are there to advance or forward their own case. Sometimes, it is necessary that somebody else is there to protect the public interest.
Mr Zhulkarnain also asked whether the Court can instead invite the AG to make submissions as an independent counsel under the Legal Profession Act. The role of an independent counsel is to address the Court on specific issues of law, at the invitation of the Court. Whereas the AG's submissions on issues of public interest may well go beyond specific issues of law. Unlike an independent counsel, the AG will be deemed a party to the proceedings if he is added on. And when he intervenes as Guardian of the public interest, like other parties, he will be able to make applications, file affidavits and will also have the right of appeal.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the AG has a duty of full and frank disclosure, since he will be making an ex parte application when applying for permission of the Court to intervene. The AG will have a duty to disclose properly his grounds for intervention to the Court.
Dr Shahira asked who should bear the costs where the parties choose not to appeal the Court's decision but the AG decides to do so. These are properly matters for the Courts. The Courts, generally, understand that the AG does not act frivolously, vexatiously or egregiously in pursuing the public interest, but, ultimately, it is a matter of discretion for the Courts.
Mr Sharael Taha and Dr Shahira spoke in support of the terminology amendments. Laws must be clear and easy to understand. The new rules of Court will contain a clear list of definitions upfront. Dr Shahira had highlighted the differences in terminology amendments that will apply across the Courts and said that this might cause confusion. For the Family Justice Courts (FJC), the rules are being reviewed and will be revamped in due course. The terminology changes will be effected with the revamp and the majority of which are aligned with other Courts.
However, because of the unique nature of family proceedings, some terminology amendments will be specific to the FJC. For example, the terminology of parties in a divorce. The naming of parties as \"applicants\" and \"respondents\" is intended to avoid calling them \"claimants\" and \"defendants\". Calling someone a \"defendant\" sometimes could be seen as pejorative. So, this is really in line with FJC's move towards therapeutic justice.
For the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), the differences are relatively limited. They, generally, relate only to two items. These differences arise as a result of the differences in Court procedure in SICC and the General Division. The procedure in SICC is specifically tailored to facilitate international commercial litigation. We, therefore, do not think that this will give rise to confusion since the respective rules of Court will make clear the procedures that should be used.
On legal representation, public education, building a world-class legal system raised by Mr Sharael Taha, these are issues which my Ministry is working on. And I would say our legal system is, generally, highly regarded.
That, Sir, brings me to the end of my responses to the questions raised. I believe I have answered all the questions raised by Members. And with that, I beg to move, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Clarifications? Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for addressing some aspects of the speech I made on this Bill. My fundamental interest was to try and understand whether the common law position would change with regard to the two-stage process.
I listened very carefully to Minister Edwin Tong's speech at the Second Reading and when Minister Edwin Tong went through the various clauses that pertain to Part 4 of the Bill, insofar as Part 4 section 4A(4) was concerned, it reads in the Explanatory Statement: \"In considering whether to grant permission to intervene, the Court need only be satisfied that the grounds for intervention are adequately set out in the affidavit. The Court is not to examine the merits of those grounds.\" But the Minister added in his speech the words \"at that stage\", and my concerns about at what point the merits of the AG's arguments would be assessed by the Court is the subject matter of my query.
Let me go into the specific query. For example, at paragraph 56 of Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, the Court of Appeal noted that if the Court takes the view that the issues that the AG raised do not pertain to the public interest, it is open to the Court to refuse a cost order in favour of the AG, even if the AG considers his intervention and submissions were warranted in the public interest.
Although this point pertains to costs and not the subject of an order to set aside the order for the AG to intervene as envisaged by clause 488, is it not incongruous for the Court to consider the public interest rationale for the AG's grounds for intervention at one stage of the proceedings, but not at the point of application of leave to intervene as it is the case under the common law today?
There is an expectation that you can assess the public interest grounds when you look at costs but, earlier on, for example, an opposing party applies to intervene to challenge the entry of the AG, the Court cannot look into the merits of public interest grounds. So, my suggestion, number one, is that, is that not incongruous?
To further this point, and I agree with the Minister, AG is to act in a non-partisan way and that is the expectation and it is important that we record that in the Hansard. But in Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, the Court of Appeal also notes the prospect of an adverse Court order against the AG. And it is actively contemplated, albeit exceptionally.
And there, the Court says, \"in cases where the AG has intervened with improper motives such as to deliberately advance the interests of one of the parties to litigation, that would take the AG out of his capacity as a non-partisan advocate of the public interest and into the shoes of a de facto party to the litigation.\"
This again aligns with the earlier question I had. If the prospect of an AG acting in a partisan manner can be contemplated at one stage of the proceedings – this is the determination of costs – would the Minister not agree that the Courts should be empowered to consider the public interest grounds at the point of the AG's intervention in proceedings?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think both questions actually come back to one: is it two stages? Is it one stage? Just to be clear, what is being done is nothing new. It is the standard process when there is an ex parte application. When there is an ex parte application, the Courts hear the party making the ex parte application. It has got to be prima facie. And if, on the face of it, it is completely clear that there is no basis, then they will throw it out. But when it moves on to the substantive hearing, these issues will arise in much greater detail. And that is when the Court then goes into it in-depth.
But I think this is fairly standard, it happens all the time. For example, the parties can, as I have said, oppose the AG having been added. And they can raise a number of grounds for the AG having been added. After the AG has been added ex parte, the parties can oppose that procedure and the process. The Court will then consider if such an application is made. If the Court confirms that the AG has been rightly added, then the next step is to deal with the substantive issues, the point or principle that AG makes and how it impacts one or the other parties' arguments or the outcome itself.
Mr Speaker: Leader of Opposition.
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I appreciate that explanation. I understand the parties can oppose the ex parte application. But what the Bill –
Mr K Shanmugam: Let me explain. When the ex parte application is made, the Court makes the order for the AG to be added but the parties can then subsequently say, that should not have been done.
Mr Pritam Singh: So, at the stage where the party says that should not have been done, what the Bill does is to confirm that the Court cannot look into the public interest ground in assessing that application. This is the nub of my concern.
I am suggesting that, in view of the earlier point I made about costs, if the Courts can look into the substantive arguments later on, why not just allow them to do so earlier?
Mr K Shanmugam: I think this simply takes from the principle, Mr Singh, and Members will accept, really, that the AG is a senior Legal Officer, the Guardian of the public interest. If he says that, \"I am saying this as a matter of public interest\", we do not want an extended argument, trying to delay proceedings by the parties, by saying whether there is or there is no public interest. It should be dealt with on the more substantive points.
If, subsequently, the Court finds that the AG case has got no basis or he contributed in the ways that the Courts have identified in very, very narrow categories, they have powers to deal with it.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I thank Minister Shanmugam for answering the queries that I have made previously and directly with you.
I just have one clarification in respect of the documents-only hearing. I agree that it depends on the case and, especially given our current context of a docket system, whether there would be an internal tendency to decide on documents only hearing at the earliest possible opportunity, so that we can save much time and cost for the cases.
Mr K Shanmugam: As I have said, this is a matter that can be taken up with the Courts. Make the application and then they will have to make a decision. It is difficult for me to set it out in broad terms today.
[(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 K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 13 –
The Chairman: Clause 13. Minister for Law.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, there are two amendments to clause 13, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement be moved. The reasons for the amendments have been explained in the speech by Minister Edwin Tong yesterday.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) In page 22: to leave out “ ”. ” at the end of line 23. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 22: after line 23, to insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) “Summary dismissal of applications (proc text)]
[(proc text) 238B.—(1) Any application may, without being set down for hearing, be summarily dismissed by a written order of the Court, certifying that the Court, having perused the application and any accompanying material, is satisfied that the application has been brought without any sufficient ground. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) Before summarily dismissing an application, the Court — (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) must consider the applicant’s written submissions (if any); and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) may, but is not required to, consider the respondent’s written submissions (if any). (proc text)]
[(proc text) (3) Where the Court comprises more than one Judge, the decision of the Court to dismiss the application summarily under subsection (1) can only be made by a unanimous decision of all the Judges sitting in (proc text)]
[(proc text) (4) Notice of the dismissal must be served on the applicant. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (5) If, within 14 days after the service on the applicant of a notice of the dismissal of an application by the General Division of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate or revisionary jurisdiction or the Court of Appeal under subsection (1), the applicant gives to the Registrar of the Supreme Court — (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) notice of an application for permission to amend the application so as to raise a question of law; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) a certificate signed by an advocate specifying the question to be raised and undertaking to argue it, (proc text)]
[(proc text) the Chief Justice (in the case where the application is made to the Court of Appeal) or any Judge sitting in the General Division of the High Court (in the case where the application is made to the General Division of the High Court) may grant permission to the applicant to amend the application accordingly and restore the application for hearing. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (6) In this section — (proc text)]
[(proc text) “application” means any application under this Code and includes a criminal motion and an application under section 400 or 404, but does not include — (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) an appeal, an application for permission under section 394H(1), a review application or an application under section 397(1); or (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) an application under section 417(1) for an order for review of detention; (proc text)]
[(proc text) “review application” has the meaning given by section 394F(1).” (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 14 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
Clause 25 –
The Chairman: Clause 25. Minister for Law.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement be taken and, again, the reasons for the amendments have been explained yesterday.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) In page 35: to leave out line 27 to the end of line 13 in page 36, and insert — (proc text)]
[(proc text) “29B.—(1) A District Judge sitting in a Family Court may, on his or her own motion, summarily dismiss any appeal made against a decision of the Registrar relating to civil or quasi criminal proceedings, if the District Judge is satisfied of any of the following: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) every issue in the appeal has already been decided by a Family Court or a higher court in an earlier matter in which the appellant was involved, and the appeal therefore has no merit; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) such conditions as may be prescribed by the Family Justice Rules are met. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) Before summarily dismissing any appeal under subsection (1), a District Judge sitting in a Family Court must — (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) give the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be summarily dismissed; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) consider any representations of the appellant. (proc text)]
[(proc text) (3) In this section, “appeal” includes part of an appeal.” (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 26 to 229 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
The Chairman: Consequent amendments* to be made will be made.
[(proc text) *Consequential amendments: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) In page 22, line 3: to leave out “section 238A”, and insert “sections 238A and 238B” (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 22, line 5: to leave out “section:”, and insert “sections:” (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?
Mr K Shanmugam: Now, Sir. I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a third time.
May I put one matter on record, Sir. A number of Members have raised questions and even if they did not speak, I have decided to respond, like Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. He had given his points to me and I made sure that we have responded on the record. Thank you.
Mr Speaker: I apologise to Mr Zhulkarnain for not calling on him.
[(proc text) Bill read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Amendment No 4) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Minister for Finance announced in his Ministerial Statement on 26 July this year that the Government would provide an additional two weeks of direct rental support for qualifying tenants and owner-occupiers of privately-owned commercial properties. This was because the tightened safe management measures under Phase Two (Heightened Alert) imposed a number of restrictions.
The Minister for Finance also said that the Government would consider requiring landlords to provide a matching two-week rental waiver for eligible tenants.
This Bill introduces the legislative framework to implement the mandatory rental waiver by the landlords. Let me briefly explain the rationale behind this Bill.
There were two Phase Two (Heightened Alert) periods, 16 May to 13 June and 22 July to 18 August, both this year.
During these periods, dining in was not allowed. Indoor mask-off activities were restricted. Operating capacity was decreased. These restrictions impacted some businesses. Rental expenses were a persistent pain point.
The Government decided to support through the Rental Support Scheme, or RSS for short. The RSS is part of a broader suite of measures put in place to address the impact of Phase Two (Heightened Alert) measures. These include the Jobs Support Scheme and the various COVID-19 grants. In total, more than $2 billion has been set aside to cushion the business impact of Phase Two (Heightened Alert).
Let me now explain the key features of the Bill.
Eligible tenants will receive from their landlords two weeks' waiver of gross rent, including service and maintenance charges.
To qualify, they must be tenants of privately owned commercial properties and they must meet three criteria.
One, they must be a small and medium enterprise (SME) or a specified non-profit organisation with annual revenue of not more than $100 million.
Two, their tenancy must have been entered into before 20 July 2021 if it is a fresh lease; if it is a renewal, then renewed before 20 July 2021.
Three, their tenancy must be in force from 5 August to 18 August 2021 and they must have experienced at least a 20% drop in their average monthly revenue at the specific property during both the Phase Two (Heightened Alert) periods compared to the Phase Three period from 28 December 2020 to 7 May 2021. That is the reference period.
This third criterion is an additional criterion. It is not required for the two RSS payouts from the Government. Those payouts include half a month of rent for the period of 14 May to 29 May 2021, which has been disbursed starting from 6 August and half a month of rent for the period of 22 July to 18 August 2021, which will be disbursed in October.
If tenants meet the first two criteria, they will receive a Notice of Rental Waiver automatically from the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) in the first half of October 2021.
Tenants who do not receive a Notice but assess that they meet all the criteria can make a manual application. We will announce, in due course, the date on which applications open and other administrative details.
If the tenant also meets the third criterion – that is, a 20% drop in revenue – then the tenant will not be liable to pay rent in respect of the period of 5 August to 18 August 2021 provided that the tenant sends a copy of the Notice and proof of the revenue drop to the immediate landlord within 28 calendar days of the date of the Notice. This can be done via email, which is preferred, to minimise potential disputes between landlords and tenants, or registered mail.
If the rent has already been paid, the equivalent amount can be offset against their next rental payment.
In designing the framework, we also considered the interests of landlords. We recognise that some landlords have been proactive. They provided assistance to their tenants in the form of direct payments and rental waivers. These landlords can offset such assistance from the rental waiver obligations if the assistance was provided in respect of rental obligations incurred on or after 16 May 2021, which was the start of the first Phase Two (Heightened Alert) period.
Some landlords may themselves face financial hardship in having to provide the mandated rental waiver, for example, retirees who depend on the rental income for their day-to-day expenses. They can apply for relief to be assessed by an independent Rental Waiver Assessor who will take into account specific factors in each case. There will be objective criteria, including the annual value of their property and whether the rental income forms a substantial part of their total income. If they meet the criteria, the Assessors can exempt them from providing the rental waiver.
There may be different circumstances on the part of landlords, which warrant special consideration, for example, landlords who gave their tenants flexibility and relief by providing short-term lease extensions with significantly reduced rent.
It is not possible to define the criteria to account for all these circumstances in full within the legislation. Hence, the Bill includes a provision to give the Assessors greater flexibility and discretion to take into account exceptional circumstances of landlords and to determine if it is just and equitable to make appropriate adjustments to the rental waiver obligations between the landlord and tenant.
Finally, besides the rental waiver framework, the Bill also introduces minor amendments relating to Part 10A of the Act.
Part 10A allows construction project parties to seek an assessment on the determination of adjustments to the contract sum arising from foreign manpower salary increases.
These amendments are largely administrative in nature to make clear that different application fees can be prescribed for an initial application for a determination and to allow MND to charge application fees for subsequent determinations made after the initial one.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the representatives from the various industry groups, and individual landlords and tenants who engaged with my Ministry in helping us come up with this Bill. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications? Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, it is clear that whenever there are some forms of safe management measures, related restrictions imposed on our dining and retail businesses, whether it is a complete ban, such as during the circuit breaker, or with fewer restrictions like those imposed under our recent Phase Two (Heightened Alert) in May and June and again in August, many in F&B or retail will suffer a drop in business.
Under today's Bill, the Government is introducing the new rental waiver framework, which will require all private commercial landlords to provide two weeks of rental waiver to qualifying tenants. This is being implemented to assist small and medium enterprises (SMEs) during the recent two rounds of Phase Two (Heightened Alert).
Under the rental waiver framework, eligible tenants will receive a total of about one and a half month's of rental support, for which a month's rental support comes from the Government's Rental Support Scheme announced earlier.
Under this framework, once the Bill is passed, eligible tenants can expect to receive a Notice of Rental Waiver and a declaration form distributed along with their second Rental Support Scheme payout in October. Tenants who wish to claim the rental waiver must, among other requirements, show that they have suffered a drop of at least 20% in their income for the two Phase Two (Heightened Alert) periods in May to June and August 2021 as compared to the Phase Three period between December 2020 and May 2021.
Procedurally, tenants will be required to send a copy of their notice, a completed declaration form and the supporting documents to their immediate landlord via email or registered post within 28 days. The supporting documents include the profit and loss accounts of a tenant as evidence to show the drop in income.
Mr Speaker, I have a question regarding the evidence required to show the drop in income. I am concerned whether the requirement of strict profit and loss statement may be a little bit too onerous for some of the small businesses, especially those who may not have an in-house accounting or finance department or staff. To seek external help for a claim of just half a month's rental waiver may not be cost-effective to many micro businesses.
I would, therefore, like to seek clarification with the Minister as to how stringent is this documentary requirement to show evidence of a drop in income and whether it is restricted to the businesses' profit and loss statements properly drawn up or the Ministry will be open to alternative evidence showing the drop in business income compared to previous months.
Separately, I am also concerned with the shortness of time given for the submission of such financial statements and I would like to ask the Minister whether there can be more flexibility with the time limit of 28 days.
Next, I also wonder whether the Bill in question could have been drafted to provide for the rental waiver framework to apply generally in future whenever there are changes in safe management measures (SMMs) like the onset of circuit breaker, Phase Two or Phase Two (Heightened Alert), with restrictions on dining in and other operating conditions on retailers of businesses.
We may not need to have a further amendment Bill to provide for a specific date in future when another similar Phase Two (Heightened Alert), for example, is called. Perhaps this can be looked into in future, if necessary.
Mr Speaker, still on the topic of rental, according to property company CBRE's comments on URA's statistics for the second quarter 2021, some higher categories of grades of office buildings have seen positive take-ups or upward revision of rentals while other categories of grades of properties face falling rents and slower take-up.
They observed, \"That the office leasing market performances in the second quarter is a tale of two halves. Leasing momentum gets apace as business sentiment improves and more staff were allowed to return to the office.\"
They then noted that this was then affected by Phase Two (Heightened Alert) in May and June, leading to work-from-home becoming the default again. They reported that the retail rental markets were affected by Phase Two (Heightened Alert) in this last quarter.
CBRE noted that select retailers were snapping up choice locations in the second quarter. With such consolidation by so-called \"select retailers\" or even bigger players, reduced available space of choice for smaller retailers had caused their rentals to remain at elevated levels with weaker revenues due to prevailing safe distancing measures.
If that is the case, I hope the Government will see how they can better support the SMEs and smaller retailers and businesses, prevent undue speculation by the bigger players and ensure that the playing field is still level. My concern is that SMEs, especially the micro SMEs, may still face business pressure and lower sales arising from SMMs and challenges of COVID-19 generally, and may struggle more with their business rentals as compared to other more established or bigger businesses.
Mr Speaker, aside from the concerns that I have raised, I support the Bill.
Mr K Shanmugam: Before the Member leaves, I missed the part on business rentals. Perhaps he can explain that to me again? I did not quite get the point on business rentals.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: I thank the Minister, for that clarification. Maybe I will read it in a slower manner. Just reading what CBRE reported that in the second quarter, select retailers were snapping up choice locations in the second quarter. And the concern I have here is: would the consolidation by the so-called \"select retailers\" or bigger players, reduce the available space of choice for the small players, the smaller retailers; in the meantime, while causing their rental to remain elevated with weaker revenues as a result of the current prevailing social distancing measures?
If that is the case, I hope the Government will see how they can better support the SMEs and especially the smaller retailers and businesses, possibly, if need be, to prevent undue speculation by the bigger players and ensure the playing field is still level.
Let me reiterate, Minister. My concern is that the SMEs, especially the micro SMEs, may still feel business pressure and lower sales arising from the SMMs and challenges of COVID-19 generally and may struggle more with their business rentals as compared to other more established or bigger businesses.
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer and same declaration as to the previous Bill, when I spoke earlier. I thank the Minister for the explanation.
I rise in support of this Bill as it sets out the rental relief framework for tenants so that an Assessor can cost effectively and efficiently determine rental waiver allocations between the landlords and tenants, and those down the tenancy chain.
The framework also ensures fair co-sharing of the rental obligations between the Government, landlord and tenant.
I just have two quick clarifications. One, basically, on those tenants who are having difficulties in terms of claiming the rental waiver. They may be the elderly tenants, they are not IT-savvy and may not understand their obligations under the Rental Waiver Framework, like having to serve the Notice of Rental Waiver within a specified time in order to claim for the rental waiver. Or they may not know what are the requisite financial documents because they do not keep proper profit and loss statements, for example.
In this regard, may I ask the Minister, whether MinLaw will be able to provide some guidance or assistance to this group of tenants should they face any difficulties in the process and, if so, how can they go about getting the necessary assistance?
My second clarification is that in respect of the assessment and determination which now includes the entire PTO chain, I think it makes an efficient and holistic determination by the Assessor of all stakeholders in the chain. But may I get some clarifications on the approach to be taken if not all parties in the PTO chain had been joined to the proceedings or disclosed to be part of the PTO chain at the material time of the determination?
Those are my two quick clarifications, Minister. All in all, I stand in support of the Bill and I welcome the Rental Waiver Framework.
Mr K Shanmugam: I thank both Members for their questions.
On Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's question on less savvy tenants and how can they navigate the framework more easily, we have considered the experience from last year and put in place some measures. Some tenants are not conversant in English. They found the framework difficult to understand. So, we made the processes as simple as possible and also the various resources to explain the scheme, including infographics; these will be translated into other languages. We also work with partner agencies and industry associations to ensure that these resources are disseminated quite widely. And webinars will be organised to explain the scheme to stakeholders and address queries.
On Mr Zhulkarnain's other question, we are making it mandatory for the party making the application to inform all parties along the PTO chain. The determination may affect the rental waiver to be enjoyed by all. So the determination should be binding on all, because people can be affected.
Turning to the points made by the Member, Mr Dennis Tan, on the first point about tenants who may not be keeping detailed accounts, I think the starting point is that the tenants have to show that their income has gone down, business has gone down, from that specific premise. I think we can all agree on that. The question is how.
We accept that some tenants may not have kept detailed accounts, may not be able to show it in the way that the normal profit and loss accounts are kept. The law allows – and this is not the first piece of legislation; previous COVID-19 legislation as well – them to swear a statutory declaration that their business has gone down by the required amount and attach whatever evidence they have.
Of course, even if it is not a profit and loss account, what they have must be helpful to come to that conclusion. Otherwise, the question is, how did they know? If they have other material, something to show that their business has come down and that is probative, that will be accepted. It does not have to be a properly drawn up profit and loss account in the way accountants will understand.
Making a statutory declaration is a serious matter, but we provided for it last year and some people did do it. If the landlord refuses to accept that, then it is a matter between landlord and tenant, and they can then go for assessment, too.
The final question is a much broader one from Mr Dennis Tan. It is that he sees the market moving, consolidation by select retailers. I assume, by that, he means the more successful, perhaps the more high-profile retailers, and they are causing the rentals to go up and that is affecting SMEs. This is not a situation that arises only during COVID-19. The more successful ones are prepared to pay the rental and that impacts on other retailers who may not be as successful and who are then squeezed out from, say, prime locations. And sometimes, it is a cycle: if you are not in the prime location, then your business does not go up.
I sympathise with it but those are quite outside the framework of this particular piece of legislation. And that relates to really how you structure the market and what sort of approach we want for the economic structure. Does the Government or Government agencies intervene to tell landlords what they can charge, what sort of tenants they can have or they must have a certain mix of tenants, whether we can or ought to do it and how do we make sure that SMEs have a decent stake in the business? Because that is in everybody's interest. How do you get to that is something that I am sure MTI and to some extent, MOF, will have considerably more interest than MinLaw has.
[(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 K Shanmugam]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Minister for Finance.
The Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, \"That this House:
(a) acknowledges Singaporeans’ anxieties about jobs and competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy;
(b) affirms Singapore’s need to stay open and connected to the world in order to grow and prosper;
(c) supports Government actions to manage the population of foreign manpower, ensure fair treatment by employers, and invest in education and upskilling, to create more good jobs for Singaporeans;
(d) calls on the Government to continue to update and improve its policies to secure the well-being and livelihoods of Singaporeans in an uncertain post-pandemic world; and
(e) deplores attempts to spread misinformation about free trade agreements like the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), stir up racism and xenophobia, and cause fear and anxiety amongst Singaporeans.\"
Sir, securing jobs, livelihoods and better lives for Singaporeans has always been what this Government is about. All our economic policies, be they free trade agreements or foreign manpower policies, are about creating jobs for our people and helping Singaporeans achieve their aspirations.
Every detail matters. Many of you will remember: Mr Lee Kuan Yew took special care to make the road leading from Changi Airport to the city as attractive as possible to impress foreign investors. They see this tree-lined road and their first impression is that this is a well-run place, able to plan and implement. So, it is safe to invest here and create jobs here.
That is the level of detail, the persistence and devotion, that carries on to this day – all to secure jobs and livelihoods for Singaporeans.
We have explained to Singaporeans many times, our approach and policies. We have debated in this House too, including recently in July. I would like to bring it all together in this Motion today to explain where the Government stands on jobs, why we must remain open and connected to the world, and how we are managing the foreign manpower population.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has also filed a Motion on this matter. We had invited him to do so earlier. His Motion appears to be addressing concerns about jobs, but it, yet again, falsely attributes the challenges faced to our FTAs and foreigners.
This is despite the clarifications made by my colleagues Mr Ong Ye Kung and Dr Tan See Leng in July. So, we cannot accept his Motion. That is why the Government has moved a separate Motion to explain and reiterate our position on this important matter. It is important Singaporeans, and the world, understand where we stand.
And as Mr Ong Ye Kung said in July, we are prepared to fight the next election on this issue. We are prepared to fight any party that chooses to take a populist line and stirs racism and xenophobia.
Sir, we recognise that Singaporeans are anxious about jobs and competition. The pace of change in our economy has accelerated over the decades. Think about what our economy was like in the early 1990s. Then, PMETs made up just about 30% of our local workforce. It was rare to hear of PMETs being retrenched. There was a higher chance of retrenchments amongst non-PMETs, but not so much amongst PMETs.
Today, PMETs make up a much larger 60% of our local workforce. Inevitably, we are seeing more retrenchments amongst them. And though the absolute number of layoffs is not many, even those who are in good jobs worry and wonder if they might be next. The pandemic has also increased the economic churn and uncertainty and deepened these worries.
It is the same all around the world. Job stability has fallen across advanced economies. In part, this is the result of the churn that happens in any vibrant economy. In some sectors, firms will close and let go of people. In other sectors, there will be growth and more promising jobs being created. Technology is accelerating this churn due to the disruptions it causes across all sectors of the economy.
In some places, the churn they are experiencing is coupled with structural difficulties. For example, entire industries going down with no new jobs to replace, and places like these have started to turn inwards and become more protectionist.
But that is not a viable option for Singapore. As a small island state with no natural resources and no hinterland, the only way we can survive and prosper is to stay open and connected.
And, indeed, we have thrived over the decades only because we are an open economy and a business hub. Global businesses see value in locating their regional and global functions here. Homegrown enterprises benefit, too, because they can expand easily to markets overseas and access opportunities everywhere around the world.
Ultimately, businesses choose Singapore because of our openness, our rule of law and our consistency in policies. They will hire many Singaporeans because they know the quality of our people: their skills, their drive, their honesty. And, indeed, the quality of the Singaporean workforce is one reason why they came here in the first place.
But there are not enough Singaporeans to fill all the jobs available. Moreover, as international companies, they want to have a diverse workforce and to move their staff around their different offices to develop them. So, here, in Singapore, they bring together the best team to oversee their regional and global operations.
What is our response to these global businesses? Do we want them in Singapore or not? These companies can locate their functions in any other hub city, be it Hong Kong, New York or London. If we were to take a politically craven approach and impose many stringent conditions on their ability to operate here, we will lose out on many good investments. We would have fewer foreigners for sure. But many Singaporeans will also be deprived of good jobs and career opportunities. It is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
Let me be clear: we are bringing in investments and growing the economy, not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. Our aim is to create good jobs and improve the lives of all Singaporeans.
Our strategies have worked. Look at the data over the last decade. From 2010 to 2019, up until COVID-19 struck, median income in real terms grew by 3.2% per annum for residents. Income growth at the lower end has kept pace with the median.\tLikewise, household incomes have also risen across the board. Our employment rate has been amongst the highest in the world; our unemployment rate has been kept low.
Look at the PMET data – professionals, managers, executives, technicians. Between 2010 and 2020, local PMET employment grew by about 300,000. This is almost three times the increase in EP and S Pass holders over the same time period, which was about 110,000.
These are substantial achievements which we can be proud of and which we should celebrate.
But the PSP wants to sweep these aside. They downplay the jobs, opportunities and outcomes we have created, and play up the anxieties.
The PSP assumes that if we reduced the number of foreigners here, then all these jobs will automatically go to Singaporeans. Mr Leong Mun Wai has a euphemism for it. He called it in one of his earlier Facebook posts, “rebalancing”.\tBut it is quite clear what he means. In one post, he said we can get rid of “tens of thousands”, I quote, \"tens of thousands\" of work pass holders and he thinks that Singaporeans can then fill these jobs.
But that thinking is fatally flawed.
First, we already have more than 25,000 PMET vacancies today, with many companies still looking to hire. With so many companies having difficulties filling these vacancies, how would we find people with the relevant skillsets to take on the additional “tens of thousands” of jobs that Mr Leong thinks can be created by getting rid of the foreigners?
Second, if our policies were to become overly restrictive, companies will just find other places to operate in where they can be more competitive. We would lose all the jobs they brought here.
And if we are not careful, decades of hard work to build up our business hub will be wasted. Our economy will contract and go down in a tailspin. We will end up with far worse problems, and it is not the foreigners but Singaporeans who will, ultimately, pay the price.
Today, foreign PMETs account for about 20% of our PMET workforce. For those who would like to see fewer foreign work pass holders, they may perhaps be feeling a sense of nostalgia about how things were like in the past.
Let us say we go back to the 1990s. Back then, we were not as developed as a hub economy; so foreign PMETs accounted for just 10% of our PMET workforce. But remember, our overall standards of living were also much lower then. In 1995, that is the earliest I could get data on, our GDP per capita was just around $35,000 instead of more than $80,000 now. And median salaries of residents were less than $2,000 compared to around $4,500 today.
Is that what we want? Stagnate in the 1990s, while the rest of the world progresses around us?
Remember how Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said, “Never fear, 10 years from now, this will be a metropolis”. What do Mr Leong Mun Wai and the PSP promise: “10 years from now, we will go back 30 years”?
The reality is that as a business hub, we cannot escape global competition, whether it comes from China or India or the developed countries or cities. But by combining and complementing local and foreign professionals, we are able to attract more investments, including from cutting-edge companies. Then, we can grow the pie, create many more good jobs and career choices for Singaporeans.
And, in fact, companies are actively hiring locals into PMET jobs. Most of our local graduates are snapped up as soon as they enter the workforce. Over the past decade, nine in 10 were employed within six months after graduation, with starting salaries rising steadily. And our resident PMET unemployment rate remains low.
Consider the IT sector. Twenty years ago, few Singaporeans wanted to study computer science. It was one of the least popular courses in our Universities. Today, the IT sector has grown manifold and there is huge demand for tech professionals in every sector. IMDA estimates there are around 19,000 unfilled tech jobs across our economy each year. Computer science is now an extremely popular course and its graduates are in huge demand. The median starting salary of a computer science University fresh graduate is around $4,000 to $5,000 a month.
Last year, around 7,600 local students enrolled in ICT courses in our Universities, Polytechnics and ITEs. Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) are producing as many ICT graduates as they can. But you can see from the data that relying on the local pipeline alone will not be enough. We also need to balance the needs of other sectors. Because if we increase the intake of young people in ICT too sharply, we will end up with fewer people in other areas like nursing or physiotherapy. Then, the complaint will not be about foreigners in IT but foreigners in our hospitals.
It is not just the number of jobs that has grown. Career choices have also expanded as we become more vibrant as a hub economy.
Look at the financial services sector. More than 20 years ago, the sector was smaller and the jobs available were more domestically focused than today. Most of the jobs then were in our three local retail banks: DBS, OCBC and UOB.
Today, the financial services sector has grown significantly. Our local banks now have a good overseas footprint. In addition, we have anchored major international banks like the Asia Pacific operations of Citi and the global operations of Standard Chartered, as well as a wider variety of other players, including private banks, asset managers, specialist and reinsurance firms, fintech companies and more. They serve not only the domestic market, but also the larger regional and global markets.
Across the financial sector, the number of Singaporeans holding senior level positions has also grown steadily over the years and continues to do so. Just in recent months, we have seen Singaporeans being appointed new leadership positions in various international firms including Deutsche Bank and HSBC, as they expand their operations here. As we anchor more businesses here and as they expand their footprint, there will be more opportunities for Singaporeans as well.
So, the data and evidence are clear: our economic policies have helped to raise living standards across the board, and to create many good jobs for Singaporeans. Our children – fresh graduates from our IHLs, Polys and ITEs – are benefiting. They are doing the jobs of the future, not the past, which would have disappeared in any event if we had stood still in the 1990s.
Sir, what I have described so far are not just abstract figures. They reflect the lived experiences of the vast majority of Singaporeans, whose lives have improved as a result of our policies.
But we know that globalisation is not an unmitigated good. Being a hub economy brings many benefits to Singapore and Singaporeans but it also comes with its share of costs. The rapid pace of change and the “creative destruction” that takes place in any vibrant economy mean that there will be people displaced from their jobs.
But the issue is not about foreigners working here. Even if we got rid of “tens of thousands” of foreigners, locals will continue to be displaced because of technology, because of innovation, because of the changing nature of work over time. With the rise of remote work, people can work from anywhere in the world and they need not be all in the same place.
In the face of these painful dislocations, it is easy for politicians to blame someone for them. People do not lose jobs because of technology or innovations, they say, but it is because of the foreigners in our midst; they are the reason you have been displaced. And if they can mobilise existing racial prejudices against particular foreign nationalities here, better still.
That is why we see nationalist and protectionist sentiments gaining ground everywhere around the world. That is why populist and anti-immigrant parties – even neo-Nazis and fascists – do well in many European countries. Far easier to point fingers, make one nationality or another the scapegoat and blame them for all our troubles, rather than work on reskilling our workers.
I emphasise again: there are downsides to an open economy and these must be attended to. But if we want an economy where nobody will ever be displaced, then we will stagnate and atrophy.
So, the right approach is not to impede progress by holding on to every job even as they become obsolete, but to work hard to protect every worker and help those who are displaced. In this way, we grow the economic pie for everyone, and ensure that the cost of globalisation and openness does not fall unfairly on the displaced workers.
This is, indeed, the approach we, the PAP and NTUC, have taken.\tOn an overall basis, the pluses of what we have been able to achieve far outweigh the negatives. For example, over the past decade, we have had around 60,000 resident PMET retrenchments. But we have seen a much bigger increase of around 300,000 in PMET employment for residents.
At the same time, we have taken and will continue to take proactive steps to deal with the downsides.
First, we are continually updating our manpower policies and rules to ensure that the flow of work pass holders is managed and they are of the right calibre. Hence, we review and update the criteria for work pass holders over time and I will elaborate on this later in my speech.
Second, we uphold fair employment practices and take a strong stance against discrimination at the workplace. We know that some Singaporeans have experienced this. Their foreign colleagues may not be up to scratch. They may have been unfairly passed over for a promotion. They may have been victims of discriminatory hiring practices. The Prime Minister spoke frankly about these issues at the National Day Rally (NDR). We recognise the pain and the frustration of those who feel unfairly treated by a foreign boss or a foreign colleague. When our agencies pick up problematic indicators in a firm, we place the firm on the watchlist for closer scrutiny and our agencies step in to intervene, quietly but effectively.
As the Prime Minister announced at NDR, we will now enshrine the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices into law. This is a major philosophical shift. We had deliberated over this for some time and had hesitated to do this in the past. We were concerned that doing so would lead to a more litigious and confrontational process; it could easily sour workplace relations, harming both employers and employees.
But after hearing from the Labour Movement and NTUC Members of Parliament, and consulting our tripartite partners, we decided we could manage these concerns and that it was time to change, to send a clear signal that we have zero tolerance of discrimination at the workplace and to give our agencies more regulatory levers to take action against errant employers.
To be fair, the majority of companies do behave responsibly. But we know that unfair practices occur from time to time. We will spare no effort in investigating every case thoroughly. Where companies are found wanting, there will be consequences.
Third, we do everything we can to help those who are displaced. To every person who loses his job, the unemployment rate is 100%. Losing one's job is disorienting and disabling; there are no two ways about it. We understand your concerns and will do our utmost to help you.\tThis is why the Government has been investing heavily in SkillsFuture to help all Singaporeans learn for life and to stay employable in this competitive environment. We are paying special attention to mid-career PMETs to equip them with relevant skills and to find new jobs.
Take the example of Mr Edwin Chee, who was retrenched in May 2019 as an engineer in a manufacturing firm. Edwin took the plunge and made a career switch to the rapidly growing medical technology industry. Although he was new to the industry, his company valued his good attitude and past experience and hired him under the Career Conversion Programme. Through the programme, Edwin learnt the ins-and-outs of the sector, picked up new skills and successfully pivoted into his new role as a senior engineer. Today, Edwin has settled into his new role and enjoys better prospects in this rapidly growing industry.
COVID-19 has given us greater impetus to accelerate this important work and to provide more help for displaced workers. We are pressing ahead with our industry transformation efforts to raise wages and productivity across all sectors. We are stepping up employment and training support, especially for mid-career and mature workers to help them pivot into new growth areas. We are doing everything we can to help displaced workers get back into jobs. We want to minimise their time out of a job, help them find good job matches that build on their wealth of skills and experience, and give them an injection of skills, if needed, for the new job. These are the major undertakings under the National Jobs Council chaired by Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
Some of our current schemes are temporary incentives for jobs which will be tapered down as the economy recovers. But we are not going back to the pre-COVID-19 status quo ante. After the crisis, we expect a permanent shift in support levels with more help for our workers, especially as we enter a period of greater volatility and disruption. MOF is working through these details carefully to make sure that the changes we make are financially sustainable.
I promise all Singaporeans, especially those who are displaced: you will never be alone. We will continue to invest in your capabilities and skills; help you stay competitive; and walk this journey with you through the rest of your careers.
Sir, what I have just described fits into our overall policy for Singapore: to grow our economy, to improve our standard of living and make sure we progress cohesively as a nation, both now and into the future.
Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion states that the Government's \"foreign talent policy\" is the cause of job anxieties. But he is barking up the wrong tree because the issue is not about local talent versus foreign talent. This is not a zero-sum competition, as I have explained.
What we have is a Singapore talent policy – to maximise our overall talent pool, so that we can achieve the best outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans.
We do this by first nurturing and growing our own talent, because Singaporeans will always be our priority and at the centre of everything we do. We start from young through significant investments in preschool and education to help every child achieve their full potential. We are also broadening our conception of merit and giving people opportunities to advance and excel across different domains and at multiple stages of their lives.
At the same time, we continue to bring in manpower and skills from around the world to complement our own people, to give us that extra boost so we can continue to thrive amidst intense global competition. We do this across every level of the workforce.
At the lower end of the income spectrum, we bring in Work Permit holders. The numbers are quite large, but we need them in areas like construction and marine. So, we control the flow with quotas and levies.
For the middle-income tier, we have Singaporeans doing the jobs, but there are not enough of them and we need to top-up with S Pass holders. We control the flow with quotas and levies, but we also impose minimum qualifying salaries to make sure they have the right skill sets and are in areas where we need them most.
At the higher level, we bring in professionals with the abilities and skills to contribute at the upper end of the workforce. We need the right instrument to manage the flow of these foreign professionals and ensure they are of the right calibre. This is best achieved not through levies and quotas, but through the salary cut-offs, because how much the employer is prepared to pay is a practical indicator of quality.
Last year, we raised the EP qualifying salary twice. We will continue to ensure that the qualifying salaries, for both S Passes and EPs, keep pace with our local wages. We are also studying how to further improve this framework to have a finer-grained feel for the people we bring in and ensure we get the right talent for Singapore.
This is how we constantly adjust the balance in our workforce and bring together the best talent for Team Singapore. Based on this framework, we allow companies to bring in the workers they need at different levels.
The PSP has raised questions in Parliament on the nationality breakdown of the EPs. But from a competition and jobs perspective, where the EPs come from should not matter. What is more important are the policy parameters I have just outlined, which determine the overall flow and the quality of the work pass holders.
So, if there are questions about this balance, we can discuss and debate the specific settings of our policies. But let us not turn this into an issue about CECA and Indian professionals, which are not relevant, unless the PSP intends to persist with its negative campaign to stir up racial unhappiness.
In short, Singapore will remain open and welcoming. We must. But those who do business here must also recognise the value of our workforce and abide by our rules. We will continue to ensure that the companies we attract and root in Singapore are those who are committed to nurturing and growing our Singaporean Core.
Both sides need to make the effort. Singaporeans must be big-hearted and accepting of those who are different from us. Non-Singaporeans must respect our norms and way of life and make the effort to fit in.
Sir, all of us in this House are concerned about the job challenges faced by Singaporeans. So, I welcome this debate today. But we should not be starting this debate from zero.
At the last debate in July, my colleagues Mr Ong Ye Kung and Dr Tan See Leng explained why we need FTAs, including CECA, to attract investments and create jobs for Singaporeans. Both Ministers went to great lengths, showing the specific clauses in the text, to explain why the Movement of Natural Persons provisions in our FTAs do not allow free access for foreigners to work in Singapore.
During the debate, Mr Leong Mun Wai acknowledged some of the points and he said, and I quote, that the PSP \"fully supports FTAs\" and is \"in favour of having foreign talents or foreigners to come in to complement us\".
So, with that as the starting point, I look forward to hearing Mr Leong Mun Wai's further elaboration on the PSP's position today. In particular, at the last debate, Mr Ong Ye Kung asked whether the PSP agreed on two key points: first, that FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to Singapore's economic survival and our ability to earn a living and we should not shake this bedrock principle for political purposes; second, that CECA is not the cause of the challenges faced by our PMEs and does not allow a free flow of Indian PMEs into Singapore.
Those were the two questions raised by Mr Ong Ye Kung then.
Mr Leong Mun Wai had not given this House a clear answer to these two questions. The PSP has had two months to think about their answers. So, I hope that when Mr Leong Mun Wai rises next, he will speak clearly. If he acknowledges that FTAs, including CECA, are not the cause of the challenges faced by our PMETs, then we can put this issue to rest once and for all. But if he continues to equivocate, or to make misleading or false claims, then we can only conclude that CECA is a cover for the PSP to stoke racist and xenophobic sentiments.
The strong racist and xenophobic undertones in the PSP's campaign against CECA have not gone unnoticed. The business community here has already expressed concerns about the rhetoric against foreigners and FTAs – they are worried that the PSP's anti-foreigner stance will undermine their access to workers and jeopardise their overall operations here.
Our fellow Singaporeans are also impacted. Let me share an email I received, or some Ministers received, from a Singaporean of Indian ethnicity. And this is what he wrote and I quote, \"due to such PSP campaign and what is falsely reported in social media, there is every possibility that Singaporeans who are shortlisting candidates may not shortlist me for interviews thinking that I am an India Indian. I decided to indicate on the header of my resume on each page 'Singapore Citizen', but does this help? I don’t think so… I seek your assistance that our Government put a stop to the PSP campaign which is truly racist and is hurting Singapore Indians and we are splitting Singaporeans along racist lines. These are little hairline cracks that if left unchecked will result in bigger issues in years to come.\"
So, I appeal to the PSP, its two representatives here and its leadership outside the House. If you are truly concerned about the well-being of our fellow Singaporeans and the future of this country, please have a care about how you go about dealing with these issues. Please reflect on how your rhetoric can deepen fault lines, not just between locals and foreigners, but even between Singaporeans of different races. Please refrain from exploiting Singaporeans' anxieties for your own political gain.
I hope that when Mr Leong Mun Wai rises to speak later, he will share with us PSP's approach to deal with this important issue of jobs.
I have set out comprehensively the Government's strategy. We stay open and connected to the world to create more jobs and uplift everyone. We take concrete measures to deal with the downsides of an open economy, manage the inflow of workers, tackle discrimination at the workplace and look after those who are displaced. We ensure every Singaporean has a place in our society and a share in our nation's progress. We keep Singapore and Singaporeans together, not fractured.
What alternative is the PSP offering? I hope Mr Leong Mun Wai will give us a satisfactory answer later with concrete policy alternatives, and not resort to anti-foreigner rhetoric to stir anger and fear or disaffection against the Government.
Sir, the PAP Government has and will continue to serve with the best interests of all Singaporeans at heart. The challenges before us are complex. There are no silver bullets or instant solutions. It would have been easy for us to make cosmetic changes for symbolic effect or political gestures but that is not the way we operate.
Our approach is to deal squarely with the difficult issues, to be upfront with Singaporeans about our challenges and trade-offs.
We deliberate options carefully. We discuss with stakeholders, especially our tripartite partners. We forge consensus on the way forward to bring about solutions that are durable, effective and sustainable.
Working together in this way, we have overcome crisis after crisis. During bad times, we do not quarrel and fight over a shrinking pie. Instead, we rally as a team to solve our problems and grow the pie for all to benefit. Let us continue to work together to build a better Singapore for ourselves, our children and our children's children. Let us never stop thinking about tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.]
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: In accordance with the decision of this House to take this Motion together with the next Motion standing in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai, I will now call Mr Leong to move his Motion and make his opening speech before allowing Members to debate on both Motions. Mr Leong Mun Wai.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Talent Policy","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, I beg to move, \"That this Parliament calls upon the Government to take urgent and concrete action to address the widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement.\"
Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a shame that this Government has persistently tried to link the public discourse on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) to racism. I hereby state categorically that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is against linking the public discourse on CECA to racism. It is confusing Singaporeans and even dividing Singaporeans.
All that Singaporeans want to know is why jobs and the livelihood situation for many Singaporeans have worsened over the last 20 years. \"Give me the data. Give me the answers,\" Singaporeans are crying out and PSP is responding to their call when we accepted the invitation from the Law Minister to do this debate.
The Singapore-India CECA, is not a race issue but a trade agreement issue. The FTAs and CECA are part of the equation when we evaluate the costs and benefits of past and present immigration and employment policies. So, they have to be part of this debate.
As of today, the information disclosed by the Government is not convincing enough to prove that CECA has not affected Singapore's ability to manage immigration and that it has generated net benefits for Singapore. As a result, the PSP is strongly against the Government shutting off further discussion on the matter.
But we agree that CECA is not the main issue today.
Mr Speaker, Sir, our Motion today is about the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans, not xenophobia or racism, nor is it directed at any nationality or race.
In order to achieve greater economic success, Singapore always needs the right foreign talent to complement our Singaporean Core. We agree to that. The PSP is pro-Singaporean and welcome foreigners to work with Singaporeans for mutual benefit.
Let me be clear: the PSP is pro-free trade but not free-for-all trade. Free trade must benefit all our people and not just some people. We want the benefits of free trade to be shared equitably with foreigners here and among all Singaporeans.
However, when there is an imbalance of interests, we would need to redress the situation. In seeking to rebalance our foreign talent policy, we are not advocating a closed Singapore nor blaming the foreigners. After all, we are responsible for our own policy.
The Government has been grappling with the foreign talent policy for the last 20 years. We take the foreign talent policy to mean all the immigration and employment policies which the Government has implemented since the late 1990s for attracting foreigners.
Actually, there is not a foreign talent policy defined by the Government and debated in Parliament at the beginning. However, there was a concept of foreign talent, which was mooted in the late 1990s, in line with the idea of competition for global talent in the new knowledge-based economy.
Initially, Singaporeans largely did not react negatively to it because we are basically industrious and pragmatic and ascribed to learning from others. However, the Government opened the floodgates for relatively low-wage work pass holders instead of attracting foreign talent. While Work Permit holders like the construction workers take jobs that Singaporeans generally do not want to do, the work pass holders are the Employment Pass (EP) and the S Pass (SP) holders who are collectively known as foreign PMETs because they take up jobs as professionals, managers, executives and technicians in our job market.
The speed and size of the immigration due to easy immigration policies and unfair wage policies forced many Singaporeans out of jobs and then into long-term underemployment. The angst among Singaporeans reached a high in 2008 when, in that year alone, 80,000 PRs were given out to work pass holders. As a result, the last large displacement of Singaporean PMETs became a major issue in General Election 2011.
It is unbecoming of this Government to have touted foreign talent as the reason for relaxing the immigration policies and bring in large numbers of average work pass holders instead. Hence, Singaporeans would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to clarify further what is the definition of \"foreign talent\" and whether the hundreds of thousands of work pass holders in our country are all considered foreign talent.
Singaporeans welcome all foreigners to complement us for mutual benefit. However, because of the potentially large numbers of average work pass holders who want a job in our country, we should have been more careful in managing the quality, number and concentration of these workers from the beginning.
The crux of the matter is that we should have been selective in taking in real foreign talent. The failure to do was a policy failure and that is why a rebalancing is required now.
By the time the Population White Paper was released in January 2013, our population had already grown by 40% since the late 1990s. I quote the then-Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean at the White Paper debate on 4 February 2013, \"Singaporeans have expressed concerns over job competition, having too many foreigners and overcrowding. We face a series of unprecedented crises in the past decade – 9/11 in 2001, SARS in 2003 and the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. The responses we took threw our planning out of gear. In particular, the growth in foreign workforce, total population, infrastructure and housing were not aligned. This contributed to the anxiety, crowdedness, integration issues and the daily inconveniences faced by Singaporeans today.\"
This was in February 2013. So, the problems we are facing today are not new. The quote from the Deputy Prime Minister then was the closest you can get from a Minister in admitting policy failures that have caused widespread hardships to many Singaporeans and Singaporean workers. The White Paper was to provide a roadmap to align total population, foreign workforce, infrastructure and housing based on an assumed population of 6.9 million in 2030.
The Government did moderate the overall workforce growth from 3% before 2013 to 2% thereafter and, belatedly, established the Fair Consideration Framework as a form of labour market testing in 2014.
However, the job and livelihood problem for Singaporeans did not improve and the underlying sentiments in our society continued to fester.
The issue of jobs and livelihoods resurfaced as a major issue during General Election 2020 as the finances of many Singaporeans deteriorated in the severe situation because they did not have the savings to cope with an emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic since many were displaced prior to the pandemic.
We noted more committees and task forces were set up to look into the work pass holders issue after I accepted the invitation to have this debate in May. The Prime Minister has also spoken on the need to manage the quality, numbers and concentrations of foreigners in Singapore. So, the issues I raised are legitimate and it would be unfair if the Government continues to label PSP and I as xenophobic.
However, so far, the Government only talks about tackling discrimination with legislation and does not display a full appreciation of the severity of the problem. I think that would be the main focus of our debate today. What are the causes, how serious is the problem and what are the solutions?
Legislation may not be effective because a displaced Singaporean will be in a vulnerable position and may not want to go through a long arbitration process. Priority must be given to preventing displacement instead, and not legislation, although legislation is still welcomed. We look forward to the Government coming up with concrete measures to tackle the quality, number and concentration issues identified by the Prime Minister.
To begin with, the Government must listen to the affected Singaporeans more patiently and then recognise the serious shortcomings of its current policies. PSP has listened to the people and has condensed their feedback in the following seven questions, which should provide invaluable insight into how we can craft the new policies.
Question one: why do so many Singaporeans have difficulties in finding good jobs when there are so many work pass holders in Singapore? There is a big imbalance in the job market. On the one hand, Singapore is hosting 400,000, maybe 350,000 now, pass holders, and 250,000 Permanent Residents, accounting for about 20% and 15% of its PMET workforce. On the other hand, Singapore has 500,000 lower-wage workers who need Government financial aid to live decently, and more than 100,000 gig workers deprived of basic employment benefits and future prospects, and hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans under the various job support schemes and many more underemployed, including the increasing number of self-employed workers. Are there not enough Singaporeans or are they not given the opportunities by employers? So, the numbers are there.
Question two: are there really more jobs created for Singaporeans if underemployment is a growing problem? The Government has maintained that there are more jobs created for Singaporeans than for work pass holders. However, many Singaporeans doubt whether there is net job creation for Singaporeans after stripping out the immigration effect from the employment statistics, the statistics which lump Singaporeans and PRs together in a category called \"Residents\". Hence, Singaporeans would like to clarify with the Manpower Minister whether the 380,000 PME jobs supposedly created for locals from 2005 to 2020 represent a net job creation for Singaporeans during that period. I know those numbers were given in the last Ministerial Statement on 6 July, but there are a lot of questions behind it.
If there are insufficient jobs created, a portion of Singaporeans will become unemployed or underemployed. Underemployment can be defined in two ways. The first type of underemployment is when a Singaporean is doing a job that does not fully utilise his most valuable skills. For example, a displaced Senior Vice President of a bank may not be able to find the same replacement job and end up being a Grab driver. The second type of underemployment is when Singaporeans cannot find work for the number of hours or days she plans to do. For example, a Singaporean may want to work for eight hours a day, five days a week, but can only find enough work for four hours a day, two days a week. She is still considered employed, as a person is considered employed as long as she has worked for at least one hour during the reference period under our employment statistics.
So, the low unemployment number that the Government is touting may be masking a deepening underemployment problem which we have to look into. New graduates and the 40- to 50-year-old local PMETs are the most vulnerable to the underemployment trap because the former does not have work experience, and the latter needs to keep working to pay the bills.
Hence, Singaporeans would like to confirm with the Manpower Minister again, (a) whether there are not enough Singaporeans to meet employers' demand or employers prefer work pass holders; (b) is MOM monitoring underemployment; and (c) is the objective of the Government to protect jobs for Singaporeans or just to protect jobs?
Question three: if there is a large pool of underemployed Singaporeans, then the shortage of talent is not due to numbers, but skills mismatch. In that case, what has happened to our education system, world-class Universities and Polytechnics? Singaporeans are disappointed that our world-class Universities and Polytechnics were not able to produce enough talent for our key industries throughout the last 20 years. Even if they are skills that Singaporeans are lacking initially, it is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that enough Singaporeans are being trained by our world-class Universities and Polytechnics. Shortage in the first five to 10 years is acceptable, but not 20 years. Hence, the Singaporeans would like to ask the Minister for Education, (a) what has gone wrong in the last 20 years in terms of not producing enough local talent for the finance, infocomm and professional services sectors especially; and b) what is the strategy to train Singaporeans to meet future industry needs?
Question four: by the way, what kind of skills do the average work pass holders possess that Singaporeans do not have? We have been attracting mainly the average work pass holders, judging from the low qualifying salaries for EPs and S Passes. Even with the latest revision in late 2020, the respective salaries for EPs and S Passes are at $4,500 and $3,500 only, not to mention the much lower levels in the earlier years. Many Singaporeans believe that the work pass holders are here to compete for our jobs. They do not necessarily possess unique skills, let alone create jobs for Singaporeans. Singaporeans would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry how the average work pass holders create jobs for Singaporeans, as claimed by the Government.
Question five: if the work pass holders do not possess unique skills, then why are they dominating some of our key sectors? The finance industry is a good example. Singapore has long been a financial centre of this region and we have very conducive tax policies to promote this sector. As we have grown with the sector, including myself, Singaporeans do not lack the skills to grow this sector further. Yet, the EPs occupy 57% of the senior positions in the finance sector. And even in the domestic retail banking sub-sector, which serves essentially the local customers, they occupy 30% of the senior positions. This situation is a far cry from what the Monetary Authority of Singapore has done for Singaporean PMETs prior to the 1990s when localisation was the norm. Singaporeans would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry again whether foreigners are still supposed to complement us, as the Government has always been saying, or are they here to take over us.
Question six: why has the Government allowed unfair wage competition against Singaporeans while talking about fair consideration for all? Many Singaporeans believe that we have arrived at our current predicament mainly because the Government has turned a blind eye towards unfair wage competition and then, later on, discrimination.
In addition to the low qualifying salary described above, the EPs enjoy an advantage over their Singaporean counterparts because their employers do not have to pay the 17% employer's CPF contribution. On top of that, Singaporeans have to do in-camp training. Thus, overall, it is more cost-effective for an employer to hire a foreigner even with their relocation and housing costs involved.
The unfair wage policies are the single most important factor behind the problems we are facing today because employers, after all, are profit seekers. This has a very debilitating effect on our Singaporean Core because, with competition and wage depression, many Singaporeans make the rational decision to avoid sectors that have competition with foreigners, like the engineering and infocomm sectors. As a result, the number of Singaporeans available to work in these sectors declined significantly over time, allowing foreigners to take up even more positions in such sectors. This is a mechanism that has likely caused the rapid rise in EPs in the infocomm sector, and not because of the growth of the digital economy per se.
Question seven: why did the Government continue to consider discrimination confined to the minority of employers despite seeing the high concentration of EPs in certain sectors for the longest time? The ineffectiveness of the Fair Consideration Framework as a form of labour market testing is obvious as the work pass holders were seen concentrating themselves in certain sectors. When Singaporeans become a minority in certain sectors, Singaporeans will not be the first to be considered when new opportunities arise.
The infocomm sector is a case in point, where many new jobs have gone to more newly arrived work pass holders each year. Based on feedback from many Singaporeans, the number of work pass holders is large enough and they have been here long enough to have formed networks among main contractors, outsourcing vendors, recruitment agencies, HR managers and even top managers, which discriminate against Singaporean workers in their hiring practices.
Senior Minister of State Chee Hong Tat shared an episode recently, quote, \"A Singaporean who attended a job interview at an MNC was asked by the foreign HR manager, 'You wrote in your CV that you spent two years with the SAF. What is SAF?' This HR manager exemplified all that is wrong with our immigration and employment policies for allowing a foreigner who has little knowledge about the local job culture to be in a decision-making position.\" No male Singaporean jobseeker should be made to go through this kind of insult again.
After all has been said, this Government needs to remember that having a job that commensurates with one's ability is the foundation of human dignity, and income stability is important for families to have a conducive environment for the children. If the breadwinner is out of job or does not earn enough, a host of social problems will arise.
There is a Japanese saying, \"Every child grows up while watching the back of his father.\" What this means is that if the father is doing well, he is likely to stand tall and look confident, and that will have a positive influence on the child. On the other hand, if a father is unemployed, his posture is stooped and self-assurance is low and that will have a negative influence on the child.
Every time a resident relates his displacement story to me, my initial response is one of anger, but later I will cry when I see the effect on his family and children. Each such encounter stiffens my resolve to make Singapore a more compassionate society and to give each child a good childhood.
Mr Speaker, Sir, so there is a huge divide between the Singaporeans' real-life experiences and the Government's narrative. We have debated the same issues in February 2013 at the Population White Paper debate. But Singaporeans' jobs and livelihoods did not improve after that.
The Government says we have not enough talents. But there are many underemployed Singaporeans and we have a world-class education system with world-class Universities and Polytechnics. This Government says the jobs require skills that Singaporeans do not have. But do you mean so many Singaporeans cannot do the job of those average work pass holders?
This Government says discrimination is confined to a minority but do you not see the concentrations in companies, industries and workplaces? The whole situation gave the impression that this Government is not well-coordinated within itself. Each Ministry may be trying to do its best, but the whole Government is not aligned to achieve the best outcome. The misalignment that Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean spoke of at the Population White Paper debate in 2013 seems not to be resolved yet.
Today's debate continues to be handicapped by the Government's unwillingness to give full disclosure on immigration and employment data. Not just restricted to the nationality data, but a lot of other data. We have filed a total of 23 Parliamentary Questions. The debate was further hindered by unnecessary distraction like comments about racial undertones.
The Motion tabled by the Government did not reflect a full appreciation of the severity of the problem arising from the over presence of work pass holders. Neither does it contain substantial and concrete ideas to resolve the problem. If we pass this Government Motion, the debate today will very likely become another Population White Paper debate of 2013.
So, the PSP calls for urgent and concrete measures to be implemented immediately to restore some balance in our job market. We recommend the following three measures.
One, first and foremost, in order to raise the quality of our work pass holders, we should increase the qualifying salaries for EPs and SPs to $10,000 and $4,500 respectively in stages, over the next three years. In addition, a standard monthly levy of $1,200 on all EPs should be introduced immediately to reduce unfair wage competition. These will create a better chance for our new graduates of getting good jobs and older PMETs of retaining their jobs immediately.
Two, to break up concentration and to eradicate discrimination, we should impose a cap on workers from a single nationality, based on the percentage of a company's staff strength in each of its business function. We think new laws may not be effective because a displaced Singaporean will not be in a strong position to go through a legal or arbitration process.
In the long term, we aim for a 10% single nationality cap to ensure diversity in our workforce and seek talent from different parts of the world instead of predominantly from one country or region. We also aim for 25% to 30% combined PMET cap on work pass holders and PRs in the long run.
New companies can be allowed to deviate from the cap provided they can prove there is a genuine shortage of such skills in Singapore and they have concrete and committed plans for localisation, including transference of knowledge and skills within a stipulated time.
Three, the number of PRs and new citizenships awarded to work pass holders each year should be reduced to be in sync with the overall tightening of the foreign manpower to foster a longer period of social integration in order to reinvigorate our national identity.
We also recommend the creation of Standing Select Committees for every Ministry in this Parliament with representatives from different parties to enable more informative exchange on policies and monitor the implementation of new policies until the anxieties of our Singaporeans are completely relieved.
We should not forget those Singaporeans who have been displaced too. We should not only help them look for a good replacement job, but also give financial help for the healthcare and education needs of their family during the period when they are underemployed, especially we should not allow a problem of this generation to have a long-term negative effect on the next generation.
Mr Speaker, Sir, despite the pressure on PSP, despite the tone of the Law Minister's challenge to file a Motion, despite the underlying suggestion in the Government's Motion that PSP is trying to fan anti-foreigner sentiment, all of which my party has denied. The PSP has given careful consideration and felt it is our duty to raise the issue, file this Motion and have it fully debated.
Singaporeans can see that the Government is taking this issue more front and centre in its public pronouncements, including in the 2021 National Day Rally. The debate must not end here. This must be the start of a healthy and proper dialogue. Singaporeans deserve better – for country, for people. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, and Foreign Talent Policy","subTitle":"Simultaneous debate on both Motions","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: In accordance with the decision of this House to have a simultaneous debate on both Motions, I will now call on Members to make their speeches. Members are allowed to consider both Motions in a single speech.
As the intent of the Business Motion resolved on 13 September 2021 is for the House to follow the procedures of previous simultaneous debates, I will put the questions on both Motions at the end of the debate, so that the House can express its view on each Motion.
In addition, I will also disallow any amendment to either Motion that has the effect of negativing the other Motion. By \"negativing\", the term is to mean the effect of qualifying, transposing, contradicting and nullifying the other Motion.
Any Member who wishes to vote against either Motion can do so directly. Minister Shanmugam.
The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir, for letting me join this debate.
I would like to say a couple of things and then, ask some questions of Mr Leong Mun Wai. Mr Leong has said that CECA is not the PSP's main concern, but it has been thrust upon them by the Government. The Motion today, would you not agree, shows what he says to be untrue? It specifically refers to CECA and may I remind him of what it says?
I quote, \"That this Parliament calls upon the Government to take urgent and concrete action to address the widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA.\"
And this is not something that is thrust upon the PSP or Mr Leong Mun Wai. I think you will know that, at the launch of the PSP on 3 August 2019, Dr Tan Cheng Bock made it a point to emphasise that PSP was targeting CECA. And since entering Parliament, Mr Leong, you have repeatedly commented on CECA, comments which carry clear racial undertones.
For example, your post on 22 June 2021, I quote, \"the most important economic policies that have affected the jobs and livelihoods of Singaporeans relate to foreign PMETs and free trade agreements, in particular, the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement with India.\"
But today, we heard you say that you are in favour of free trade agreements. So, is it that you are in favour of free trade agreements, but specifically oppose CECA? That is what it looks like, based on what you have said so far.
Your comments have troubled your own PSP members. They have said that your statements in Parliament on CECA were targeting the Indian community. You protested here that you are not a racist and that these statements and sentiments ascribed to you are a diversion and a distraction. But your party members are quoted as saying, that you are targeting the Indian community and they say it is totally a racial undertone.
Mr Leong, your statements have been interpreted by your own party members, as being racist. People in your party think your statements are racist. Would you accept? I do not expect that you will accept that you are racist, but would you accept that people in your party think that your statements are racist and have said so?
It is a simple factual statement. May I seek that clarification from Mr Leong Mun Wai, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, in response to the Minister's clarification: one, we have included CECA in the Motion today, as I have mentioned in my speech, because FTAs and CECA are part of the equation when we talk about immigration. So, it has to be included.
As for CECA and FTAs, in general, we are supportive. We are supportive of FTAs and even CECA in general, but we need more information about all these FTAs. If we do not have more information, we cannot say we are wholeheartedly supporting them. It has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Two, the Minister commented on I having commented on CECA on many occasions. Can the Minister give me the examples of occasions that I have spoken about CECA? Other than starting from my Facebook post on 22 June, can the Minister give me instances that I have spoken about CECA before? Even for the 22 June Facebook post, it was after I had accepted the challenge from the Minister. So, I had started to comment a bit, to put things into perspective.
So, this is the second point. In this second point, the Minister also mentioned that Dr Tan Cheng Bock had mentioned at the party launch about CECA in August 2019. Yes, he talked about free movement. But he was responding to the feedback from Singaporeans and the phrases \"free movement\" and \"free flow\" are not phrases owned by PSP.
The Government Ministers had been talking about \"free flow\" way before Dr Tan Cheng Bock had said it. I do not think I need to quote George Yeo or about what the Prime Minister had said and all that. So, that is one point.
The third point was about party members. PSP is an open party. We are liberal with members. We allow them to express their views and sometimes, there are one or two members or a minority of members who have different opinions. We have told them that they cannot make their views that public. But some of them chose to do that. We cannot stop them because we are a liberal party. We are not a party which will prevent all our members from having their own opinions. So, one or two party members mentioned that what I am doing in Parliament today is racist but that does not mean I am racist.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. Mr Leong, so, your party members, you say some of them, think you are racist based on your statements. Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask Mr Leong to confirm that, therefore, other Singaporeans may also go away with similar views that what he says is racist? And, second, Mr Leong says, now, they have got nothing to object to CECA and other FTAs. I think it is an important statement and I would like that recorded. I think we all need to note that.
But assuming that, then, we have over 20 FTAs —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: A point of order.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I think the Minister is misquoting me. I say I am supporting FTAs and, in general, including CECA, but I did not say that I am supporting CECA wholeheartedly. We need more information.
Mr Speaker: So, you are supporting or not supporting?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: We do not have enough information to support.
Mr Speaker: So, are you supporting or not supporting? If you do not have enough information, are you supporting or not supporting? I am not very clear.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I am not supporting.
Mr Speaker: So, you are not supporting CECA or FTAs, is that right?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The FTAs, we need more information as well on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Speaker: I am trying to understand what your position is. So, you are not supportiing FTAs, including CECA, is that right?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: We are supporting FTAs in general for the benefits that FTAs can bring: trade to our country, investments and all that. But we are concerned that modern FTAs do have provisions on the Movement of Natural Persons. So, for each FTA, we want to look into the details. That is what we are saying.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I am quite confused by the answer.
Mr Speaker: I am quite confused as well.
Mr K Shanmugam: So, may I ask, Sir, through you, to Mr Leong, one, just tell us does he and does PSP support FTAs? A simple answer will do.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: We support FTAs in general.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. Would that include, Sir, support for CECA?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, in general.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. Let us then have that recorded as he and PSP support CECA and FTAs in general.
May I ask then why is CECA specifically identified in the Motion when I assume there is nothing to distinguish between CECA and other FTAs in Mr Leong's mind?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: As I said, in my speech, we do not have full disclosure on the Movement of Natural Persons provisions in CECA yet and, also, some of the other FTAs. So, we would like to know more. Before we know more information about that, we cannot shut down discussion on FTAs and CECA, which the Government is trying to do.
The day after the Ministerial Statement on 6 July, the next day, in The Straits Times, the Government straightaway said CECA has no effect on our ability to regulate immigration. But the data provided by the Government is not conclusive. The Government only quoted one year's ICT numbers – 500 ICT in 2020, which is a COVID-19 year. The Government did not provide the data to prove its point.
That is what I am driving at. As a result, although the Government may say, yes, we have told you many, many times and we have discussed this again and again, each time the disclosure is incomplete. That is why we have to continue discussing. Because sometimes, the time allowed for the discussion and the debate is also not sufficient.
Of course, in the Ministerial Statement on 6 July, because we are going to file this Motion, we are also holding back some of the things we wanted to discuss. But, today, we can discuss everything.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Again, I am a bit confused. My question was a simple one. It is simply that if you look at the Motion which I read out, it highlights CECA. I am just trying to understand whether CECA has a special place in Mr Leong's affection and mind, or is it treated the same as all the other FTAs. If it is the same as all the other FTAs, why is CECA getting special mention? That is all. A simple answer will do.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The focus of the debate today is on the impact of our foreign talent policy on jobs and livelihoods. So, we are focused on all the work pass holders and not one particular nationality. But —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if you can answer the Minister's question, which is a straightforward one. Because if it was just FTAs in general, then why is CECA being flagged out specifically?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Because there is not enough data. We want to know more about CECA.
Mr Speaker: But you do want to know more data about all the other FTAs, right, from what you were alluding to earlier?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Speaker: So, why no mention of the other FTAs but CECA, in particular?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, but in our Motion, we said FTAs and CECA. So, \"FTAs\" is inside the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: I think Mr Leong does not know his own Motion. It says \"in some FTAs like CECA\". So, there are some FTAs which do not concern him and there are some FTAs which concern him. This is your own Motion, Mr Leong. Just tell us what it means? And why CECA?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, I said \"some FTAs like CECA\". So, these are the FTAs, including CECA —
Mr K Shanmugam: Which ones? Sir, if I may ask, which ones?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Including the Australian FTA, the China FTA, the US FTA, for example.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, may I ask, through you, which aspects of the China FTA, the US FTA and Australian FTA bother Mr Leong like CECA?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The Australian FTA also contains a clause allowing ICTs to bring in dependants. For the China FTA, we are looking at the China FTA to compare with CECA, because both countries have very big populations. For the US FTA, we have received feedback from residents about why US citizens are allowed to buy properties in Singapore without paying the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty. So, some of these FTAs, as I have said, we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. Sir, my understanding therefore, is that Mr Leong is equally concerned about the US FTA, the China FTA, the Australian FTA and CECA, and that CECA is not specifically being singled out. If I may just have that confirmation before I move on?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: That is correct, Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. Moreover, we have, I think, Sir, Mr Leong's confirmation that he supports FTAs.
I then ask, Sir, through you, does Mr Leong accept that his and his party's statements on CECA having been interpreted by some of PSP members as being racist, may well be interpreted by Singaporeans as racist as well?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The reason why I stated our position at the beginning of my speech is exactly in anticipation of what the Minister is going to ask on this. CECA is an economic agreement, trade agreement that we want to have more information on. Because the perception is that there are certain terms on the Movement of Natural Persons that are not beneficial to Singapore. So, we want more information, not necessarily directed at just CECA as an FTA —
Mr K Shanmugam: I am sorry, Sir. A point of order. That has nothing to do with what I asked.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, in that case, Minister, sorry, can you repeat the question again?
Mr K Shanmugam: Some of Mr Leong's party members interpreted his statements as being racist and I quoted. One of the quotes is \"You are targeting the Indian community and it is totally a racial undertone\". My question was, if his own party members can think like that, it is entirely possible for other Singaporeans to take a similar view.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, for discussion on any topic, there are people who have a different view. But CECA is an economic agreement that is the concern of many Singaporeans. So, we are asking for more information.
Mr K Shanmugam: We have heard that. That was not my question, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Do you have a response specifically to the Minister's question?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry, Minister. I want the Minister to repeat the question again.
Mr Speaker: For the third time, Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Leong, it is commonsensical, is it not, that those PSP members will not be the only ones who think that your statements are racist? If they can think like that, your own party members, then, other Singaporeans can reasonably think that your statements are racist too. It is a simple point.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, okay, actually just now my answer was going to that point. But it does not mean that if someone accused somebody who is trying to find out more and discuss about an economic agreement thinks that the person is racist, then we need to shut out the whole discussion.
Mr K Shanmugam: We are not talking about shutting out. In fact, we are having a long debate, we are going to be here for very long.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Correct.
Mr K Shanmugam: And it will be even longer if we do not get answers. Nobody is shutting anybody out. Just a logical conclusion.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: There will be some people who will think that there is racial undertone, yes.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. With that, Sir, I want to go back to some of the questions that were raised and not answered the last time in July.
My colleague Ong Ye Kung said that CECA does not allow a free flow of Indians into Singapore. He made that very clear to this House and to Mr Leong. I will also remind Mr Leong that it has been explained that nothing in CECA says that Singapore must unconditionally let PMEs into Singapore, and all foreign PMEs have to meet our work pass conditions in order to come and work here.
Just to remind Members and Mr Leong, I will repeat what Minister Ong had said. He said in this House, by reference to Chapter 9 of CECA, that it \"makes it clear that the Government's ability to regulate immigration and foreign manpower is not affected by the agreement. The Government retains full rights to decide who can enter the country to live, work, become PRs or become citizens. This is clearly set out in two clauses. They are standard clauses commonly found in all FTAs.\" And then, he refers to Chapter 9.1.2 and 9.1.3.
He then says, \"There is a strong immigration carve-out and National Treatment is not found in Chapter 9 of CECA, nor any other corresponding Chapter in the FTAs that Singapore has entered into\", \"...nothing in this agreement implies that Singapore must unconditionally let in PMEs from India. Contrary to PSP’s claim, our ability to impose requirements for immigration and work pass has never been in question in CECA or any other FTAs that we have signed.\"
And he made a couple of other points, if I may refer to, \"PSP pointed out that CECA listed 127 categories of professionals, hence, claimed that Indian nationals in these professions can all freely come here to work for a year. This is false because, as I explained earlier, all foreign PMEs have to meet our work pass conditions in order to come and work here\", \"The second common criticism is that intra-corporate transferees from India can also freely enter Singapore to work. Based on my explanation on how the Chapter works, this is again not true. Intra-corporate transferees also have to meet our work pass qualifying criteria.\" Then, he said, \"Mr Speaker, Sir,\tI hope we can put a stop to all this misinformation about our FTAs in general, and CECA, in particular.\"
So, bearing that in mind, Sir, can I ask, through you, for Mr Leong to respond to questions posed by Mr Ong Ye Kung that CECA does not allow a free flow of Indians into Singapore?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, as I have said just now, the word \"free flow\" is not the property of PSP. It has been used by the Government as well. So, let us focus on what exactly — we are just talking about the numbers of foreign nationals that have come into Singapore.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, will you be coming to an answer to that question?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, please give me some time.
Mr Speaker: You have all the time, carry on.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: So, let us focus on the numbers. If you do not give us the numbers, how are we going to answer to Singaporeans that, really, CECA has no influence over our immigration policies? We asked for ICT numbers but only one year's number is given. Can you give all the numbers? If you give all the numbers from 2005 to 2020, and the number of ICTs who have later on become PRs and new citizens, and obtained new work passes —
Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry, Sir, a point of order. Sir, through you, may I remind Mr Leong there are two different issues. One, what does CECA or the other FTAs allow? That is a matter of interpretation of the agreement. That is what we had been debating in July and Minister Ong said there is nothing in CECA that allows for free flow.
The second is, within the framework of CECA or any other FTA, and I note that Mr Leong only wants to know CECA and not any other FTAs, how many have come in?
Those are matters of numbers and details, and we can deal with that separately. Hopefully, we will not take another hour for that.
But, first, as a matter of interpretation, the Minister who, as a civil servant, was negotiating this agreement, referred chapter and verse, and had explained how the Government applies that policy, that it is subject to our work pass rules. And that is how it has been applied for the last 15 years. So, unless Mr Leong says that Minister Ong Ye Kung lied or that the Government policies are other than what it says it is, let us just get an answer. Do you accept that there is nothing in CECA that allows for free movement of PMETs? That is all. It is a simple question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, to the Minister, we are arguing not about a legal document, just a legal document, not just the letter of the word. We are arguing about economic effect.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, first, I do not understand that answer because it says here in his Motion \"anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA\". That is just untrue, based on what Minister Ong has said. We are arguing about your Motion which refers to the provisions of CECA. Sir, I am afraid Mr Leong does not even know what his Motion says. He did not even draft it. So, that is our first question.
Second question: will he now, in the context of his Motion, agree that we are debating the provisions of CECA? And will he accept that there is nothing in CECA that allows for free movement of Indians into Singapore?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The provisions that we put in the Motion is actually pertaining to the economic effect of the provisions.
Mr Speaker: Could you explain that again, please?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Economic effects of the provision.
Mr Speaker: So, the provisions are the legal agreement, as explained by the Minister. And what are your views about those provisions? They are written in black and white and we covered that quite extensively at previous Sittings. What are your views on that, please?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: My view is that we are not arguing about a legal document today.
Mr Speaker: The legal documents dictate how these interactions take place with the other countries. So, unless you are doubting the validity of the agreement, or you are doubting the way in which it is implemented, I think we are seeking a view on that. If you could enlighten us, please?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: We do not think that we can interpret, I mean, we can draw a conclusion from just the explanation given by the Minister.
Mr Speaker: Maybe if I can help to paraphrase that. The Minister has explained what the terms are. Do you agree that those are the terms of the free trade agreement as agreed between the two countries?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, as I have said, I am not arguing about a legal document. What I am arguing about is, there is a legal document, but the way you implement the legal document and the economic effect can be different. Because after the legal document —
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as a point of order, let us stop at the legal document first. I wanted to get, Sir, through you, to Mr Leong, because Minister Ong specifically raised this and Mr Leong said they need more time to study this. We have had August and September to study it.
So, first of all, the English meaning, unless some other language may be different, but the English meaning of \"the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA\" means what they say, which is the legal provisions in CECA. So, let us not try and wriggle out of that. That is what it means.
Second, before we talk about implementation, first, in terms of the legal provisions, I have read out what the Minister said, what these provisions are, does Mr Leong have any basis to contradict that or challenge that, or does he accept it?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, may I ask my colleague Hazel Poa to come in and answer those questions?
Mr Speaker: Yes, you may.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I would like Mr Leong because Motion stands in his name; he has put this Motion, he has referred to provisions. If he does not know the answer, he can say he does not know the answer. And I am not sure the answer is going to be found in the phone.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, some of these points that Minister Shanmugam has raised are in my speech. Can I suggest that we leave it here for now and we can discuss again after —
Mr Speaker: No, I think Mr Leong can answer them. I think they are pertinent to the issues that are at hand presently. You may raise it later or you can pass your speech to Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I would have the same answer. We went back to consider the points put up by —
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, before we proceed, can we just answer the questions rather than cover the same ground again?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: As of now, we do not agree to the interpretation of the legal documents as it is now.
Mr Speaker: What does that mean, exactly, when you say that you do not agree with the legal documents? As in as represented by the Minister? You do not agree that that is how it was phrased or you do not agree with how it is being phrased? So that we can proceed with the argument, so that we can develop the debate further. What exactly does that mean?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Because we are looking at the economic effects of the —
Mr Speaker: No, I understand. We are talking about the provisions that are provided under the FTAs, in this case, CECA. What exactly is it about the agreements that you disagree with or whatever that might be?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, I can then say that at this point, I do not have a legal opinion of those provisions.
Mr Speaker: Okay, then if it is not the legal opinion, what is your opinion on them? A non-legal opinion?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: My non-legal opinion would include my interpretation of the economic effect. So, it will be a bit different from what the Minister is asking.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Again, Sir, that is a confusing answer. The Minister has said that there is no free movement allowed. We apply and we are entitled to apply our workforce rules and that this is how it has been operated since CECA has come into force and, likewise, for the other FTAs. Which part of that statement does he disagree with, Sir?
Mr Speaker: We will try one more time. Mr Leong.
Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, maybe he can look at these statements and say which part of it he disagrees with. Does he disagree that we have applied it this way? Does he say that the Minister was lying in Parliament? Or does he say that the interpretation that the Minister has given is inaccurate and that we should, in fact, or are obliged to give free movement of all Indians into Singapore?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, what I am saying is that I am focusing on the economic effects of those provisions. And looking at the economic effects, there are some initial doubts whether the movement is easier than what the Government has represented or not. But we still cannot come to a conclusion yet because we need more data from the Government. And the Government is withholding the data.
Mr Speaker: Okay, thank you. Minister, I suggest we move on. I do not think we are going to get any further clarity on this. We will just have to agree to disagree and register both points.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will take it, Sir, based on the answers that Mr Leong really does not know about these legal provisions, despite the wording of his Motion. And he has no understanding of the provisions of CECA. And I assume that he has the same concerns about the provisions in the US FTA, the China FTA, and the Australian FTA. And, if so, I hope to see those FTAs being referenced in future rather than CECA being singled out. If what he says is true.
I have another clarification to seek, Sir: the PSP's claim that CECA allows the 127 categories of Indian professionals to come here freely to work. Minister Ong has pointed out that that is false and that they have to first meet our work pass rules. Does Mr Leong now accept that? Again, a short question. I hope, a short answer.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, that one is easy. I agree that all these ICTs and the 127 professionals need to go through our work pass route.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, can I ask a question?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the floor is mine.
Mr Speaker: Later.
Mr K Shanmugam: When I finish, if there are clarifications, Mr Leong can ask me, just like I am asking him.
Can I, Sir, ask through you, and I think I heard the answer in Mr Leong's speech, confirm that Mr Leong accepts that we need some foreign PMETs for our economy? For example, that we cannot have zero PMETs. Can I, Sir, through you, have him confirm that?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Speaker: Thank you. Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I want to remind the House, share with the House and Mr Leong some numbers. Over the last 10 years, the last decade, there has been an increase of 110,000 Employment Pass and S Pass holders. During the same period, the local PMETs increased by 300,000. So, local PMETs increased by 300,000. Employment Pass and S Pass holders, 110,000.
Second, the number of PMET job vacancies have been around 30,000 over the past five years.
Third, the size of our PR population has remained stable in the last five years. From 2016 to 2020, it is at about 520,000. In fact, it has been stable even before that, but we will just take five years.
So, with these numbers in mind – local PMETs increased by 300,000; foreign PMETs increased by 110,000, Employment Pass and S Pass holders; PR population, stable and Mr Leong agrees that we need some foreign PMETs. Today, it is 350,000.
If that is too much, then can he tell us what is the right number? Is it 300,000? Is it 200,000? Or is it 100,000?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, can I confirm with the Minister that he only has one question, that question? Are there other questions there?
Mr K Shanmugam: One question for now.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, the number of rebalancing that we need to do depends on the Government's estimate of what is the number of Singaporeans that are being displaced, which is something that I will push during the debate.
Mr K Shanmugam: So, can I take it, Sir, through you, that Mr Leong can confirm that he does not really know how many, what should the number be?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, of course. The Government is always controlling the numbers, controlling the data. I will have to refer to the Government to give me some data to come up with an accurate answer. I got some numbers in mind, but I would prefer to wait for the data.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, based on the data that is available and I have given him this data and much of it is available in public, can I take it that he is in no position, Sir, to tell us whether it should be 350,000 or whether it should be 400,000 or whether it should be less? He has got no basis.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, at this moment, I will need more data from the Government before I can come up with an accurate number.
Mr K Shanmugam: And, therefore, it follows, logically, Sir, that Mr Leong is not able to assert here or anywhere else that we have too many foreign PMETs in Singapore. That would be right?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, that is not accurate because we are seeing so many underemployed Singaporeans around. The number of gig workers —
Mr Speaker: How many unemployed Singaporeans do you see? You were saying that you see many unemployed Singaporeans?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Underemployed. Underemployed Singaporeans have come forward to reflect to us, feedback to us. We have also seen in statistics, the number of gig workers, they are increasing. And also the number of self-employed Singaporeans is also increasing. So, there are Singaporeans that are being displaced. So, we got some rough numbers, but we want the Government to give us more accurate numbers.
Mr K Shanmugam: My question was a simple one. Mr Leong agreed earlier that he does not know if 350,000 is too many or too little. So, it is a natural conclusion that he does not really know if there are too many foreign PMETs here. It is basically based on what he says.
Sir, can I ask through you, that he just be consistent with what he just said three minutes ago?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I am not going to say what is the number in my head until the Government gives me more data. Not that I do not have an idea of how many Singaporeans are being displaced.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Can I ask, Sir, through you, I just mentioned there are 30,000 PMET vacancies. It is there. Perhaps Mr Leong can give us an explanation as to why there are so many vacancies which are unfilled in Singapore and have been unfilled for the last five years?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, these 30,000 PMET vacancies, again, is a number that now the Minister has brought out. Okay, but if all these vacancies and numbers are being presented in a proper time series dataset, then, we will be able to analyse the numbers better. So, at the moment, I cannot give him an answer on that. Because you always come up with single data and ask me for answers.
Mr K Shanmugam: The number of PMET jobs unfilled, that thousands of jobs were being unfilled, was set out in July. So, Mr Leong had said that he will study it carefully. And I think what this House is witnessing is a Motion that has been put up and Mr Leong does not know the meaning of the Motion that he has put up. Because he says \"the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA\". He has given no credible explanation on why CECA is singled out. He has no credible explanation as to why he refers to the provisions, which means legal provisions, the clauses in CECA, in his Motion and then asserts here that he does not know anything about the provisions in CECA. He has got no view on that.
Then, he should not have referred to that. So, it is meaningless, the Motion; does not make any sense to him, let alone to us.
And he says, there are too many foreign PMETs. But now he says, he does not know if there are too many and he does not know what the number ought to be. He does not tell us what further data he needs.
Sir, none of this is to say that there are no Singaporeans who have lost their jobs, that there are no Singaporeans who are underemployed, that there are no Singaporeans, particularly in their 40s and 50s, who are not in a very good situation. We all know that. Those are all true. But the point is to find the right solutions.
Displacement is taking place all over the world. We have tried to keep unemployment low, we have tried to create the jobs and many people have gotten jobs and we need to help those who have not got jobs, and the way to do it is to try to reskill them and bring in the right industries. Those are legitimate points to make.
What is not legitimate is to try and create a racist, xenophobic, them-versus-us fervour, put down a Motion saying that the terms of CECA are wrong. And then come to Parliament and say, I do not know anything about the terms of CECA. That is doing serious disservice to Singaporeans. That is not the way Members should behave, I am sorry to say.
You got to take this seriously. You got to know what your own Motion says. I am a lawyer, but you do not need to be a lawyer to know that this term, \"provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements\", has got only one meaning. It is commonsensical.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, Sir, can I —–
Mr K Shanmugam: I am having the floor, please.
Mr Speaker: You will have a chance to respond, Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, my chance to respond.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Okay. Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Sir. Minister, you have made a lot of accusations there. One is that we go back to square one again about my Motion statement. I bring the Motion statement to this Parliament about the economic effect of the provisions in the FTAs. I am not bringing to Parliament the legal interpretation of the provision. But if you have a legal interpretation, I am fine. I am just telling you that I am concentrating on the economic effect of the provisions.
Second point, you say you provided the data but I asked for a lot of data that is not provided.
Three, the displacement in Singapore and that is a key point that we are debating today. The Government says it is due to global forces. I say, or PSP says, a large part of it is not due to global forces. So, that is what we are debating about. So, do not jump the gun and come and make the conclusion now.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: I should address the Speaker. Looking at the Motion, Sir, Mr Leong can fulminate as much as he wants, but it says what it says. And it says, \"the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like CECA\", and that is consistent with the position that Mr Leong put forward in July and what he has said in his Facebook post and what PSP has said, that CECA allows free movement of Indians into Singapore.
So, before we get all heated up, let me refer to what was discussed here the last time around. The Motion is consistent with what Dr Tan Cheng Bock had said on 3 August 2019, which Minister Ong referenced, and I quote Dr Tan, \"amongst the terms of CECA, it allowed the free movement of professionals in 127 sectors to enter and work in Singapore.\" Mr Leong has confirmed that that is not accurate, because he says it is subject to our work pass rules, but this was what they were thinking.
Minister Ong pointed out, on 7 July, the same; that Dr Tan said \"...CECA is an agreement between Singapore and India to bring in to allow, I think, 127 categories of professionals to come to Singapore and be given that free hand, practically free hand to come and work here\". And that is what the Motion says, \"the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements\".
So, I mean one has got to be both honest and accurate. If Mr Leong does not know what the Motion means, if it has been drafted by someone and he has put his name to it, he can say so. But this is what the Motion says. If I may move on, Sir.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, can I respond?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, a quick one.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I disagree with what the Minister said about his interpretation of the Motion and that I do not understand the Motion and all that.
I already said again and again, that the Motion statement that I put up is about the economic effects of the provisions. I do not expect this Parliament to just argue about legal interpretation. This Parliament is about jobs and livelihoods of our people, about the economy. So, what we are arguing, actually is a larger part of, should be about economics, social, economic issues. We are not going to stand here and keep arguing about a legal interpretation of a clause.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, if I may, the provisions are the first step, is it not? Because if the legal provisions do not provide for that, then it provides a basis for us to discuss about the economic effect. It does not preclude discussing that part because your Motion addresses that.
So, that is the issue at hand and we are trying to understand what is your understanding of the provision. Because it is in black and white, so, what are your views on that? We can subsequently discuss about economic effect, you can take all day if you wish. But what are your views on the legal provisions? It was spelt out in black and white, as illustrated by Minister Ong previously.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Sir, as I have said just now, at this point, I do not have any legal opinion on the provisions provided under the agreement.
Mr Speaker: Do you agree that those are the provisions that were spelt out in the agreement?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, but then, in order to have a legal interpretation of provisions, you must look at other parts of the agreement and then you must look at other practices.
Mr Speaker: So, for those specific parts of the agreement, do you agree that those are in black and white, what was agreed?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: At the moment, I have no opinion.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, that might be useful. So, through you, Sir, therefore I can confirm that if Mr Leong has no opinion, then naturally, he has no view as to whether the terms of CECA are negative for Singapore. I am not talking about actual implementation. We can discuss that. But since Mr Leong has no opinion, it must logically follow that as far as he is concerned, there are no provisions in CECA that he is concerned about. It must follow. May I ask for confirmation of that, Sir.
Mr Speaker: You may, but I think we know the answer. Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: My answer is, at the moment, in terms of the legal interpretation that this agreement does not have further implementation, implications and all that, I do not have an opinion.
Mr Speaker: But you do have a negative view about it? Despite the fact that you do not have a legal or otherwise opinion of it?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I do not have a view yet. I am trying to get a view, if the Government is prepared to release more data, about ICTs and about all that, then I will have an economic view.
Mr Speaker: Minister, I suggest we move, because I do not think we are going to make much progress here.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Sir, through you again, may I ask Mr Leong to confirm – and Members of this House would recall what he said about the CEO of DBS Bank. He professed his deep disappointment that \"DBS is still without a homegrown CEO\". Can I ask, Sir, whether Mr Leong still believes what he said, that naturalised Singapore Citizens should not hold top positions?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, that is definitely not the case. When you are citizens, naturalised or homegrown, you are citizens. I have raised the issue during my maiden speech because I was talking about the succession plan, about skills transfer, which is part of what we are going to discuss today. About DBS, when he was appointed the current CEO, he was to still a foreigner. Why was the chance not given to a homegrown Singaporean? The bank should have had a succession plan that grooms Singaporeans to take over the job. That was what I was trying to drive at.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, let me make a point of clarification. None of that answers the point I made. I am quoting Mr Leong, he professed his deep disappointment when Mr Piyush Gupta was and is DBS CEO, during his maiden speech, that DBS is still without a homegrown CEO. Meaning he was disappointed that it was Mr Gupta and not a homegrown CEO. So, let us not beat about the bush. I am asking whether he continues to have those beliefs or has he changed his mind.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, if the Minister means that I am differentiating naturalised Singaporeans and homegrown Singaporeans, then I can confirm, the answer is no.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. Therefore, Mr Leong has changed his mind, it appears, Sir, from last year.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I did not change my mind. My stance has always been like that.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, may I then ask through you, what is the meaning of the statement that \"DBS is still without a homegrown CEO\". We are not talking about succession plans here. I am just asking for an interpretation of Mr Leong's words: \"DBS is still without a homegrown CEO\".
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. What I was referring to was actually referring to the point he was appointed, not at this moment.
Mr Speaker: Sorry, could you say that again, please?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, what I was referring to was at the point of appointment, the year of appointment, the point when he was appointed, he was still a foreigner. But anyway, when I made that statement, I was not in any way, having Mr Piyush Gupta in mind. I was just talking about the many CEOs that DBS had got; they never had a succession plan. That was the intention. But, that is okay. Being one of the top lawyers in Singapore, maybe the Law Minister could make some interpretations and ask me in that way.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry, Sir, can I ask that the natural interpretation of a statement that \"I have deep disappointment that DBS is still without a homegrown CEO\". At a time that a naturalised Singaporean is a CEO, the normal interpretation, whatever may be the workings of Mr Leong's mind, the normal interpretation would be that he is disappointed that it is Mr Gupta and not a homegrown Singaporean. Would that not be the natural interpretation, Sir?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, would that be a fair interpretation of what you have said?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, that was not the intention.
Mr K Shanmugam: A point of clarification, Sir. I did expressly say we leave aside whatever Mr Leong may have intended. I am simply asking whether what I have said is a fair interpretation, natural interpretation of what he said.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: How it is interpreted, I think, depends on who is listening to it.
Mr Speaker: I think the question is, whether it is fair for anyone in public to interpret it the way as Minister has put across. Because that was what was said, I remembered, I think many of us would remember that. A few of us raised our eyebrows, because we were wondering what exactly you meant.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.
Mr Speaker: So, would it be fair that that is how people would interpret it, notwithstanding whatever your intent might be? Because what we say in Parliament matters, because that is how the public will perceive it. Which is why the choice of words and phrases is important.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: That was not my interpretation.
Mr Speaker: That is not the question at hand. Would that be interpreted the way it has been put across by the Minister?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I would say some minority of the people might interpret it that way.
Mr Speaker: Minister, please carry on.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Speaker, point of order.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: All these issues that the Minister has raised are not related to the Motion today. Now he is going into the statements I made at my maiden speech. So, can I ask that we go back to the debate proper?
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I will just move on. I will just, for the record, set out exactly what was said by Mr Leong. He said and I quote: \"I am deeply disappointed now ...\", that these are the points that he was speaking, \"...because 22 years later after Mr –\" and I assume after Mr Wong's appointment in 1998, \"...DBS is still without a homegrown CEO\". It is open and shut. He meant 2020 and Mr Gupta was appointed in 2009. I think we can at least be honest with each other when the words are in black and white.
I would say, Sir, to this House, it is not wrong that we welcome talent when people are committed enough to take up citizenship. It is wrong to have an issue with new citizens and PRs from specific countries because it is quite clear what Mr Leong and PSP were doing. It is race-baiting and nationality-baiting without beating about the bush. And that is what the words of this Motion suggest. None of this is to deny the legitimate concerns of Singaporeans. None of this is to deny that there are people who have lost jobs, that there are people in their 40s and 50s, in particular, who are very concerned and that we have to do everything we can to help them and we have to stand by with them.
But I think race-baiting, nationality-baiting, putting down Motions and then coming to Parliament and saying, \"well, I don't know, I don't have a view on the legal provisions\", when your party has made it a point from day one to attack the legal provisions. I think none of those helped.
Based on his speech, Sir, Mr Leong has painted such a dark picture of what is going on in Singapore, which really bears little resemblance to reality. Is it that locals are being pushed out of PMET jobs on a large scale? We have created over 300,000 local PMET jobs. In fact, locals take up 80% of all PMET jobs.
Can we do better? I think we ought to do better by the people who have lost their jobs or who are underemployed.
Is it that our Universities have produced graduates who cannot get jobs? Over the past 10 years, nine in 10 graduates have been employed within six months after graduation, with starting salaries rising steadily. I think it is demeaning and dismissive of all the good people in our Universities and Polytechnics working hard to train our students, to say that they are producing people who cannot get employed. And it is untrue.
Would Singapore be consistently ranked highly on the UN's Human Development Index if Singaporean were oppressed in the labour market, if incomes have not risen and productivity stalled?
What we have is not perfect. It is not perfect anywhere in the world and we have to consistently work to improve. But it is not the picture that Mr Leong is describing. And I would say Mr Leong's views have been so completely distorted by his lack of understanding of CECA and his eagerness to attack Indians and CECA. And I would say what his party and Mr Leong are doing is one of the worst types of political opportunism – using race as a bait. Thank you, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, would you like to respond?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I strongly object to what the Minister said about PSP's position on race.
Mr Speaker: Noted.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: The reason why we raised this Motion has nothing to do with race or xenophobia. We will continue to debate on why we think the situation in Singapore is far worse than what the Government has presented to Singaporeans. Okay? We will debate again. Thank you.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Thank you. Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on both Motions, the first filed by PSP Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Mr Leong Mun Wai on 31 August last month, and the second filed by the Minister for Finance Mr Lawrence Wong on 8 September. At their core, both Motions concern the employability of the Singapore worker and PMETs.
Sir, our local population acutely feels the consequences of Singapore being an open economy, with a large number of foreigners working amongst us and living next to us. On this lived reality, fundamental questions that have come up in the last two decades include: where does the Singapore worker stand and what are his or her job prospects in our hub economy? These questions will continue to come up more regularly than ever, as we move into a post-COVID-19 future.
My colleagues, Members He Ting Ru, Leon Perera, Gerald Giam and Jamus Lim, will also participate in this debate, with perspectives on both Motions and suggestions on the way forward.
My speech is in three parts. First, I will set out the Workers' Party's stand on free trade agreements (FTAs) and the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA). This part will be brief. Second, I will iterate the public sentiments on job insecurity felt by Singaporeans. Third, I will make a few suggestions on what should be done to alleviate the concerns of Singaporeans and ensure that the local/foreigner employment divide does not become a permanent fault line.
Sir, let me first start by stating the Workers' Party's position on FTAs and CECA. First, we accept that FTAs have encouraged investments and created jobs and opportunities for both Singaporeans as well as foreigners. This is undeniable.
Second, we note the Government's explanation that CECA does not allow Indian nationals free rein to enter Singapore and that the entry of foreigners who seek employment is regulated by the Government and, specifically, MOM's work pass policies. However, we believe that it is fair to ask whether the Government and MOM, for many years past, have failed to regulate work passes in the best way possible. I note that the Minister for Manpower recently announced that anti-discrimination legislation will be introduced. This is one of the things that the Workers' Party has called for in its manifesto.
Third, the Workers' Party does not assume that good jobs are automatically created for Singaporeans by virtue of Singapore's pro-trade policies and a strong network of FTAs, including CECA. We believe that, for a few groups, such as the sandwiched class, workers who lack skills and lower-income Singaporeans, the opposite may well occur. These groups may see depressed wages and fewer good job opportunities.
Our view is that the Government needs to intervene aggressively through policy or legislation to ameliorate this and ensure the availability of stronger safety nets for Singaporeans who cannot make the transition. The Government must ensure that Singaporeans are not discriminated against during their job search or at the workplace; that our education and training systems provide skills that are workplace-ready; and that skills are transferred to Singaporeans by foreign talent. Finally, the Government should proactively report on the costs and benefits of our FTAs across time, a subject Member Jamus Lim will touch on as well.
The Workers' Party also notes that there have been some elements in our society or perhaps from abroad that have used CECA as a dog-whistle, masquerading racism for genuine economic concerns. The Workers' Party accepts that genuine economic concerns exist and that it is fair to raise concerns about them. However, we abhor and denounce the racism and xenophobia that have become a part of the public narrative in some quarters. Some have gotten carried away resorting to loose and vile language online as an outlet for their frustration, something they would not do in person, or worse, extended this behaviour to the real world. This can never be right, and must also be rejected and condemned.
I now move to the second part of my speech: public perceptions on job insecurity. Mr Speaker, the Government would accept that there have been long simmering emotions amongst a sizeable number of Singaporeans surrounding CECA and, more generally, over the perception that Singaporeans are denied fair opportunities in the job market. Some of this has resulted in highly-charged conversations and incidents, both online and offline, even without the PSP's focus on this subject.
Immigration and the job prospects of locals are not only issues for Singaporeans. Globalisation has meant that the local populations of many countries, particularly advanced economies, share such concerns. As a young nation, these feelings of insecurity and dislocation can shake our national cohesion, with the country being unrecognisable to the one many of us grew up in.
Job displacement is very emotionally jarring, especially when your HR department tells you that your role has been made redundant, only for you to later find out that your job has been rejigged and filled by a foreigner. It is also upsetting for Singaporeans when they learn that a foreigner has filled a job position for which a Singaporean is suitably qualified.
The emotions that we see today, while directed differently – towards Indians in some cases – have been directed at other communities in the past. As noted by Minister for Manpower in his Ministerial Statement in July and I quote, \"In the 2000s, we experienced a similar situation when the share of PRCs in our foreign workforce increased significantly, before tapering as China's growth took off. Both then and now, the large numbers did not go unnoticed and created frictions within our communities.\" An important distinction between the vitriol directed against the PRC workers was that many of them were employed in low- to middle-income sectors, while there has been an acute focus on Indian professional workers today.
Today, the influx of employees of Indian ethnicity – not all of whom are from India, some are from the US and elsewhere – taking up competitively paying jobs has also activated emotions in a not small number of Singaporeans. Some ask, \"why can’t our people do those jobs?\" After all, our students score so well on standardised tests. Our much-vaunted education system should have put our workforce in a much better position. This is a subject Member Gerald Giam will speak more about in his speech.
Our sense of home is also affected when some EP and S Pass holders struggle to speak, let alone communicate in our workplace lingua franca – English – which represents a fundamental basis around which we organise public affairs in Singapore. When this happens, some Singaporeans stop feeling that we are one Singapore, all rowing in the same direction.
Those Singaporeans who ride on the opportunities created by a growing economy, or who are new immigrants doing well economically, can more readily accept the new status quo. It is a small price to pay and one can interpret the new reality as the price of progress and economic growth. But for those who lose their jobs, see their incomes stagnate and fear for their children's prospects in a competitive Singapore – and these are commonly the sandwiched class and low-income Singaporeans – strong feelings are aroused, with many feeling that the playing field is uneven and the Government is slow to protect Singaporeans in their own land.
Ordinary Singaporeans do not delve into the intricacies of FTAs. Instead, they look around and come to conclusions based on what they perceive and experience. If Singaporeans have not for years been seeing foreigners occupying well-paying jobs while qualified Singaporeans are unemployed or underemployed, we would not be talking about this today.
Over the last two decades, the effect of the Government's immigration and foreign talent policies has been so pervasive that former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong covered the subject in his autobiography released only a few months ago, the second part of his autobiography, and I quote, “….take PRs, for example. In the years before, the numbers rose to 50,000, then 70,000 a year. It was nearly 80,000 in 2008! I was surprised and annoyed. I told the Prime Minister so. Since then, we have kept the numbers to around 30,000 PRs every year. But even then, when you add the numbers up over the years, you will begin to feel the cumulative effects within the society and in daily living…\" Then he goes on, \" ...as a government, we needed to monitor the inflows of PRs and foreign workers as well as demographic changes more closely. No surprise that the people reacted in the way they did….the negative ground sentiment went beyond crowdedness. It also encompassed perceived job competition from foreigners and preference of some companies for foreigners over Singaporeans.” Unquote.
Sir, if a former Prime Minister whose job was not directly threatened or taken away by a foreigner can say he was \"surprised and annoyed\", how much more so for a Singaporean who has experienced such a fear of, or actual loss of their livelihood?
Mr Speaker, I now move on to the third part of my speech on what needs to be done to repair the local/foreign divide.
I make five suggestions which I will elaborate on in turn. One, policies and procedures must be introduced to more effectively promote and track skills transfers from foreigners to Singaporeans; two, fixed-term EPs tied to skills transfers should be considered; three, the problem of underemployment must be tracked and solved; four, the Government should consider setting up a Parliamentary Standing Select Committee dedicated to overseeing this issue of jobs and foreign employment; and five, the Government needs to communicate more and much better on jobs and foreign employment that it has been doing up to now.
The first suggestion: promoting and tracking the transfer of skills to Singaporeans.
My first suggestion is that the Government should double down on how it monitors the success of skills transfer initiatives which are generously funded with taxpayers’ money. Do skills transfer initiatives work and to what extent?
I spoke about the Capability Transfer Programme (CTP) during the Committee of Supply debates this year. This Government programme has been extended to 2024 and, in its own words, seeks to, I quote, “support pervasive innovation throughout the economy and build deep capabilities in our local workforce to support companies, associations and professional bodies to speed up the transfer of global capabilities into Singapore”, unquote. Does it do what it promises?
There has to be a reckoning, a balance sheet drawn up, where the successes and shortcomings of such initiatives to transfer skills to Singaporeans are properly accounted for and assessed across sectors and industries. In response to my queries in Parliament, the Government reported that $5 million has been spent over the last five years and this initiative has benefited 970 Singaporeans. Without more, this does appear underwhelming.
I note that the CTP is only one arrow in the Government’s quiver, but this only reiterates the point that a holistic assessment and reporting of the transfer of skills from foreigners to Singaporeans is necessary. I suggest that the extent of skills transfer from foreigners to locals be publicly tracked, monitored and reported as a Key Performance Indicator, or KPI, for each sector in the revised Industry Transformation Roadmaps under ITM 2.0. As each industry is tracked, reasons should be given why skills can or cannot be transferred. It should also be clearly stated how these gaps are being plugged.
Second suggestion: fixed-term EPs. To ease the insecurity felt by the Singaporean worker or PMET, Mr Speaker, I restate a proposal raised by my colleague Member of Parliament Leon Perera, at the Committee of Supply debates in March. He suggested fixed-term EPs that are tied to the training of, or skills transfer to Singaporean workers.
Currently, employers expect the EP of foreigners to be routinely renewed. A fixed-term EP would be one that would only be renewed if the applicant company can prove that, under the previous EP, Singaporean workers in the company or in the industry have benefited from skills upgrading. This new category of work pass can be piloted in newer, disruptive industries, such as autonomous vehicles and AI, where there should be no reason why Singaporeans should not be the candidates of choice. I hope MOM can look into such alternative proposals to secure tangible and positive outcomes for the Singapore worker or PMET by tracking skills transfer to our people.
Third: underemployment. The Government needs to track and solve underemployment. Workers' Party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim, in her Committee of Supply speech in 2016, suggested that underemployment should be measured. MOM said at the time that time-related underemployment is the only internationally accepted statistical definition of underemployment and since it is recommended by the International Labour Organization or ILO, Singapore follows that norm.
Ms Sylvia Lim spoke again on underemployment in her 2019 Budget debate speech, to which the former Minister for Manpower responded that MOM is interested in tracking other forms of underemployment, such as skill-related underemployment, but reiterated that there were no internationally recognised ways of doing so. She said that the Government was working closely with the ILO to develop suitable methodologies. We have yet to hear of the result of this work with the ILO.
Skill-related underemployment appears to be a reality affecting some of our workers. These workers are not undertaking work for which they were trained, for example, engineers working as private hire drivers. Some reskilling initiatives for these workers may be necessary to better align their foundational capabilities. Yet others may have made the transition out of choice. Better measurement and regularly reporting of such underemployment would also enable Singaporeans to assess the Government’s efforts in this regard. An accurate understanding of skills-based underemployment would also have the knock-on effect of ensuring that the selection criteria for work pass applicants would be more accurately scoped. The Workers’ Party suggests that there is an urgent need to publicly track underemployment amongst Singaporeans and to publish such findings.
My fourth suggestion is that there should be a check and balance of a dedicated platform where the policy-makers can be questioned, and this is the suggestion of a permanent Parliamentary Standing Select Committee dedicated to the issue of jobs and foreign employment.
This high level of accountability would do two things.
First, such a committee would closely monitor the Government’s efforts by tracking unemployment and underemployment and job-related data, in addition to calling witnesses to give evidence. Such a committee could also ensure that Singaporeans are getting a fair shake at the workplace and address concerns on job security and employment prospects of Singaporeans, including where training and skills upgrading opportunities lie.
Second, such a committee, by virtue of increased transparency and signature, compared to the current status quo, would minimise mischievous attempts at stoking xenophobia and unreasonable expectations of job protection regardless of competence.
In other parliamentary standing democracies, such permanent Parliamentary Standing Select Committees on fundamental national matters that are appropriately resourced and supported by a strong secretariat, are par for the course. It is about time we had such a committee.
My fifth suggestion is that the Government needs to communicate more and much better than it has been doing till now on foreign employment. And by this, I mean giving factual information so that public debate can be better informed. And this calls for a change of culture. A philosophical change. The Government should have started doing this years ago. Quite clearly, this feeling of displacement and heightened sensitivity was the order of the day well before CECA entered the public lexicon in the way it has done over the last few months. As early as August 2015, the Government fact-checking website, Factually, put out an article titled \"Does CECA allow firms to hire Indian professionals in Singapore without valid work passes, or without adhering to fair employment guidelines?\" The fact that such an article was needed and put out there suggests that the Government was fully aware that CECA was in danger of becoming a fault line many years ago.
In July, when Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng made their Ministerial Statements, I shared with this House that more than five years prior in 2016, my Parliamentary colleague, Workers' Party Member of Parliament Leon Perera, asked the then Minister for Manpower a straightforward Parliamentary Question on the number of Intra-Corporate Transferees (ICTs) through CECA. Specifically, Mr Leon Perera asked how many ICTs from India had been approved under CECA from its first year to the latest year for which data was available. Then Manpower Minister, Mr Lim Swee Say, replied, and I quote: “ICTs from any country, including India, would need to meet the Ministry’s work pass qualifying criteria to work in Singapore. The only difference is that ICTs from all countries are exempted from the advertisement requirement in our Jobs Bank. The Ministry does not disclose data on foreign manpower with breakdown by nationality, including data on ICTs.” Unquote.
The Government simply refused to answer a question of national relevance for which data was readily available. Is this acceptable? Can Singaporeans be blamed for assuming that the numbers must have been so huge that the Government saw fit not to reveal them?
To say that no other government reveals information to the granularity requested ignores the fact that Singapore is sui generis – of its own class. How many other multi-racial hub-economies, immigrant-needy and in our unique geographical and demographic situation can we name? None.
The Government’s position on revealing ICT information seemed to change with Minister Tan See Leng’s speech in Parliament in July. I quote: “We recognise that if misconceptions continue to spread, in spite of all our attempts to address them in so many other ways, even more damage will be done. So, I will share some numbers to address the misconceptions and allow for a meaningful engagement of the issue.” Unquote.
Minister Tan See Leng revealed that the number of ICTs from India was a low figure of 500 in the year 2020. But I should point out that this was a number after the onset of COVID-19. Quite obviously, there must have been a reduction of Indian nationals entering Singapore in 2020 compared to the previous years.
The ICT numbers that Mr Leon Perera asked for in 2016 would allow us to make a better assessment of the impact of ICTs under CECA compared to other FTAs. Revealing the numbers would promote a fact-based conversation. The Government’s initiative to release only the ICT figures for 2020, instead of placating CECA detractors, may actually have the opposite effect: it begs the question of what the figures for the earlier years were.
To help us base today’s debate on facts, may I call on the Government to now answer the question asked by Mr Leon Perera in 2016: how many ICTs have come from India under CECA from 2005 to 2019?
As far as the release of information from the Government is concerned, may I add that I read Minister Tan See Leng’s speech with an implicit caveat that the Government’s release of information on such matters would likely continue to be reactive and when it suits the Government, rather than proactive and when it suits the people. I would be delighted to stand corrected on this, but if I am right that the Government prefers to remain reactive, I would suggest to the Government that this approach can no longer hold water, nor should it, a point Member of Parliament He Ting Ru will make in her speech as well.
This desire to interrogate facts communicated by the Government will only increase, a point that I have shared previously in this House. The Government must share detailed facts that matter to the public and not only consolidated facts that broadly support the Government’s position. For example, since July, the Government has been using the digital notice boards located at every ground floor lift lobby in HDB blocks to launch an aggressive campaign to address the concerns surrounding CECA. This is understandable. One prominent figure in the digital notices is that 97,000 Singaporeans have benefited from CECA.
But where should Singaporeans go when they want more details? For example, at what wage levels were these jobs? Which industries benefited? Were these jobs part-time or full-time ones? This also invites the question of correlation and causation. Is it possible that these are net jobs created by firms since 2005 that are in India through CECA? If so, that does not necessarily mean that the advantages afforded by CECA created those jobs. Such information is not provided in the displays.
I do not believe such additional information is a bridge too far, if the Government wants to clear the air. Surely, it would not be too difficult to incorporate additional detailed information or have it available by way of a QR code in the digital notice display. As intimated earlier, particularly for an issue as sensitive as this, the default position of the Government should be to release more information and explain the situation.
Sir, the Government remains in the most privileged position to move swiftly to assuage public concerns or misunderstanding. The Government needs to reflect on its own omissions and resistance when it comes to providing data and information, and how it ought to take some responsibility for the groundswell of misinformation about CECA.
Many Singaporeans receive news and information through social media. Much of the racist vitriol and xenophobia directed at Indians over CECA can be found online and from anonymous posts. In 2018, the report of the Select Committee for Deliberate Online Falsehoods identified particular traits within the ecology of social media, such as confirmation bias, the illusory truth effect, and the slow drip of falsehoods. Such realities make it more important to be forthcoming and aggressive in releasing information.
Separately, the foreigner-local issue is a fault line that can be exploited by external parties to compromise and destroy Singapore's psychological defences.
Some bad actors, knowing that we rely on foreigners to address our fertility numbers and to ensure an economically vibrant and successful Singapore and are equally aware of how nation building is more challenging as a result for us, would have their own reasons, no doubt, to see Singapore fail. Pitting one racial community against another is an easy way to do this.
It is in our nation's interest that the Government anticipate, change tack and drive an active, not passive, conversation informed by facts rather than misinformation on jobs and the employment situation in Singapore.
In the face of a US-China Cold War and our majority ethnic Chinese population, I would suggest that it is perfectly within the contemplation of other bad actors to use Singapore's racial balance to play out one act of a modern great game amongst our local population, pitting Indians against Chinese as an overlay to fraught Sino-Indian relations and to build up more anger against Indian workers and India in general.
There is some data out there on jobs, which the Government releases every now and then. But the Government can bring this all together with key principals, such as MOM, SkillsFuture Singapore, Workforce Singapore and MTI, in an open and accountable manner.
If we can clarify issues that disturb Singaporeans who would inevitably have less information than the Government, we would be able to focus singularly on the progress being made by the Singaporean PMETs and workers, and address gaps that develop.
Sir, those were the three parts of my speech: the Workers' Party's position on FTAs and CECA, local concerns on job insecurity and suggestions on what needs to be done.
Mr Speaker, may I conclude by saying that being a country open to foreign investment and looking after the Singaporean worker and PMET must be complementary objectives.
In August last year, I said in this House, \"Foreigners are important to Singapore and they help power our economy. Their presence gives Singapore a vitality that keeps us economically relevant and also provides jobs and opportunities to our fellow Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans count the foreigners in our midst, regardless of race, language or religion, as our friends. But it is precisely because we need foreigners to power our economy that we need to pay more attention to Singapore workers, some of whom feel excluded from opportunities created in their homeland.\"
The Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong, in reference to the Ministerial Statement made by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng, said that the tone of how we debate the issue matters. The Minister said that if investors start to feel that Singapore is less hospitable to foreign investment and talent, they will surely look for other options and there are many compelling options everywhere in the world. We may all end up worse off.
In my estimation, Sir, a more open and accountable approach by the Government to the dynamic employment situation is likely to alleviate the anxieties of foreign businesses. They may well devote their intellectual capital to being a dedicated part of the solution, providing greater emphasis on in-house skills upgrading for all their workers, including Singaporeans, and become more conscious of their need to hire and train more locals.
The anxieties and concerns of the Singaporean worker and PMET are real. Our workers carry the same fears and concerns for their children. These insecurities and uncertainties are not recent.
It is for this reason that the Workers’ Party proposes an amendment to the Minister for Finance's Motion, which I seek to share with this House. May I hand a copy to you, Sir, and, if permitted, thereafter to Members. [A copy of amendment handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Speaker: The Clerk will examine your proposed amendment for compliance with the Standing Orders, but meanwhile, please continue with your speech. You may proceed.
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, if I may, I will just wait for maybe 15 seconds for the amendments to be distributed.
Mr Speaker: Sure. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I beg to move the following amendments.
Under limb (c), to delete the words \"supports\" at the start of the sentence and to replace it with \"calls for stronger\".
Under limb (d), to delete the word \"and\".
Under limb (e), to include the word \"and\" at the end of the sentence after the semi-colon.
Finally, to insert a new limb (f) which reads as follows, \"calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment.\"
Mr Speaker, please allow me to explain the proposed amendments very briefly.
The inclusion of the words \"calls on stronger\" in place of \"supports\", reinforces the importance of correcting course and adjusting or changing policies going forward to address the anxieties amongst Singaporeans that limb (a) of the Minister's Motion acknowledges has taken root in the recent past.
The new limb (f) captures what we in the Workers' Party believe represents a fundamental change of culture needed with respect to information disclosure.
A proactive approach to disclosure would operate to take the sting out of misinformation campaigns that ride on job and unemployment insecurity, and encourage a fact-based conversation amongst our people. This would, in turn, buttress efforts amongst Singaporeans to provide feedback on gaps and solutions that can improve outcomes for the Singaporean worker and PMET.
This limb is not inconsistent with the Government's acknowledgement in July that it is better for data, for example, such as that requested by Leon Perera on ICT numbers, and this is my example, to come out early when it concerns issues like racism or xenophobia and that it is much better to quell these issues earlier.
Sir, that marks the end of my speech. My colleague, Member of Parliament He Ting Ru will propose an amendment to the Motion by Mr Leong Mun Wai in her speech. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance as articulated by the Leader of the Opposition:
At paragraph (c), to delete the word \"supports\" at the start of the sentence and to replace it with \"calls for stronger\".
At (d), to delete the word \"and\".
At (e), to include the word \"and\" at the end of the sentence after the semi-colon.
And to insert a whole new limb (f), which reads, \"calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment.\"
Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, of all the FTAs that we have signed with other countries, the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, or CECA, has attracted the most attention for two reasons.
Firstly, it contains a clause in article 9.5 granting entry to persons in 127 professions, which is not found in the other FTAs that Singapore signs with other countries.
Secondly, there was a rapid increase in the number of EP holders from India working in Singapore in the past 15 years.
The Minister for Manpower has revealed that the proportion of EP holders from India has increased from one in seven in 2005, to a quarter in 2020. Based on 65,000 EP holders in 2005 and 177,000 EP holders in 2020, we can calculate that the number of EP holders from India increased by 377% from 2005 to 2020, an average growth rate of 11% per year.
In comparison, the proportion of EP holders from China has remained stable, therefore, implying that the number of EP holders from China grew in tandem with the increase in the total number of EP holders, that is, an increase of 172% from 2005 to 2020 or an average growth rate of 7% per year.
The Minister explained that the increase in migrant workers from India is a global trend. Based on the figures provided in the Ministerial Statement, the number of international migrants from India increased from 10 million in 2000 to 18 million in 2020 or an average growth rate of 3% per year.
If we assume a stable growth rate, then, for comparison purposes, the global growth of migrants from India over the period 2005 to 2020 would be 55%. The growth of 377% in Singapore far outstrips the global trend.
To summarise, the percentage growth of EP holders from India to Singapore is nearly seven times that of the global trend.
What then is the basis for claiming that the growth rate in Singapore is a reflection of global trend? Can the Minister provide examples of other countries that experienced similar growth to Singapore's?
Singaporeans who experienced such changes in their daily lives naturally searched for answers, thus, putting CECA in the spotlight for it seems to offer an explanation.
The Ministers have explained that the clauses on manpower are still subject to our manpower policies and also pointed out that Japan and South Korea have similar agreements with India.
Japan and South Korea have natural barriers in the form of language, thereby making them less accessible as compared to Singapore. Other English-speaking countries are presumably more cautious about signing such an agreement.
We are all familiar with the effect of messaging in a commercial context. Two identical products, one with a good advertising campaign with a strong message and another with a weak message can have very different sales outcomes. The same applies to other areas of life as well. A strong message is a powerful tool.
This clause on the movement of 127 professionals in an agreement signed by the governments of two countries sends a strong message of welcome to Indian professionals. To ignore this effect and conclude that the presence or absence of this clause does not change anything since it is still subject to our manpower policies and criteria is being blinded to reality by technicalities.
Consider two different countries, one with whom we signed an agreement on the movement of labour and another without. The agreement imposes an obligation to grant work permissions to nationals from the first country, provided our manpower policy requirements are met, but no such obligations exist with respect to nationals from the latter country. So, the agreement forms the first gate and our manpower policies form the second gate.
To address the concerns of Singaporeans, we need to go beyond CECA to our foreign manpower policies in general.
Currently, quotas are imposed on Work Permits and S Passes. There is no quota for Employment Passes which are for jobs with a minimum salary of $4,500 and, in the case of the finance industry, $5,000.
If we impose only a minimum salary requirement and open up all jobs beyond that salary to fair competition globally, then, when our small population competes fairly with the huge global population for those jobs, mathematically speaking, we can expect a significant proportion of the jobs to go to foreigners. As the world becomes more integrated, it will only get more so.
So, while fair competition sounds ideal, it is neither tenable nor practical. This is especially so when many other developed countries impose a tighter level of control on foreign manpower, making it an unlevel playing field for Singaporeans competing for jobs globally.
It is our view that tighter controls on foreign manpower are necessary.
The Government maintained that by opening up to global labour supply, we bring in more jobs for Singaporeans and that the foreign workforce provides a buffer for job losses for locals in times of an economic downturn, as in the recent pandemic.
The Minister has said that local PME jobs have increased by 380,000. My colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has raised doubts over claims that our foreign manpower policies have created more jobs for locals and queried this number. Allow me to elaborate.
A portion of the 380,000 jobs could be due to reclassification, a result of Permanent Residents (PRs) becoming citizens and foreigners becoming PRs.
For example, suppose 1,000 foreigners holding PME jobs applied for and became PRs. Then, these 1,000 jobs previously classified as foreign PME jobs became local PME jobs when they became PR. There is no increase in jobs but there is an increase of 1,000 local PME jobs and a decrease of 1,000 foreign PME jobs.
Each year, we have about 20,000 new citizens on average. Over 15 years, that is an increase of about 300,000. The number of PRs has been stable in recent years. So, the total number of residents, comprising both citizens and PRs have increased by about 300,000.
While not all the 300,000 increase in citizens and PRs are holding PME jobs, it still suggests that a significant portion of the 380,000 increase in local PME jobs could have come from a change in the status of the job holders and not due to the creation of new jobs.
Can MOM clarify whether the changes arising from the change in the status of the job holder is included in the 380,000? If so, how many new local PME jobs were created after netting off the effect of reclassification?
As for the point on foreign labour providing a buffer for job losses in an economic downturn, our foreign workforce is large enough that even if we were to cut the foreign workforce significantly, the same buffer would still exist.
In addition, what is not addressed is underemployment, an area my colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has spoken on earlier.
Singaporeans who were displaced from their jobs may subsequently find employment that do not commensurate with their qualifications, skills or experience. Given that this concern has been raised for many years, have we made any attempts to measure underemployment? Does the labour survey contain questions to identify and measure underemployment, apart from hours of work? If not, why not? If so, can MOM share the information on the extent and trend of underemployment in Singapore in the last 20 years?
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout on a comparison of our labour force growth versus median wage growth?
Mr Speaker: Please carry on. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]
Ms Hazel Poa: Economic theory tells us that when supply of labour increases, all else being equal, the price of labour, or wages, in other words, decreases.
There are, of course, other factors affecting wages, with the supply of labour being one factor. But looking at the labour force growth and the real wage growth from 2009 to 2019, we see that in years of higher labour force growth, we tend to have lower real wage growth and vice versa. When labour force growth is lower, real wage growth is higher.
The handout contains a scatter diagram showing the correlation and the regression line between labour force growth in Singapore and the real wage growth. The regression line is negatively sloped, which means that these two move in opposite directions. In other words, when labour supply growth goes up, real wage growth goes down.
As we pursue economic growth, we should always bear in mind that economic growth is a means, not an end. A means to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Increasing labour supply by bringing in migrant workers increases economic growth but dampens local wages, a trend that we observed in our study using statistics from 2009 to 2019.
We would like to ask the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry has studied the effects of how labour force growth depresses real wage growth and, if so, what is their conclusion.
If our priority is economic growth, then, indeed, we should welcome all foreign direct investments, or FDIs, even if they should require a huge influx of foreign manpower.
But if our priority is wage growth, then we would be more selective and focused in bringing in FDIs that benefit primarily the local workforce and does not require a high proportion of foreign manpower. Trading economic growth for wage growth is a worthwhile exchange.
The Government had previously indicated that it is aiming to limit the proportion of foreign manpower in our labour force to one third. Is that still the target this Government is holding to? With this target in mind, does the Government turn down FDIs that would require a higher proportion of foreigners? How is this target put into effect?
My colleague Mr Leong Mun Wai has spoken extensively on manpower policies and proposals. I will now touch on another area of concern and that is enforcement.
There is a Chinese saying, \"上有政策、下有对策\", which, translated, means that while the government has policies, those who are governed have ways to deal with it or have counter measures.
There have been several widely publicised cases of underpayment by employers. This is when employers make inflated claims of staff salaries to MOM or staff are paid full salaries but told to return a portion to the company in cash. This practice effectively circumvents minimum salary requirements for S Passes and EPs.
The reality is that this practice has been going on for years. Mainly, because money is returned in cash, it is difficult to trace unless a thorough investigation is conducted or the employee reports the matter to MOM.
Recent calls by a Labour Member of Parliament and a Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) Member of Parliament asking for greater teeth to be given to TAFEP for enforcement are also an indication that the current level of enforcement is not meeting our needs.
Recently, a business executive who is tendering for various projects highlighted to me that this practice has created an uneven playing field. He is aggrieved that while he does the right thing to employ Singaporeans wherever possible and to report to authorities actual salaries paid, his competitors would use such tactics to lower their costs, and therefore, offer much lower prices to win tenders, with salary being a huge proportion of the cost for projects.
Organisations calling for tenders do not have incentives nor reasons to care whether or not such practices are going on in the company winning the tender. While we are trying to build a Singaporean Core in companies, should we not strengthen our policing of such practices? It would be ironic if companies that break the rules are rewarded over law-abiding ones.
The increasingly common practice of subcontracting can also dilute the effectiveness of enforcement. Separate companies can be set up to take over certain business functions and \"take the fall\" should they be discovered to have violated any manpower policies and regulations.
There are also various other ways of circumventing the rules, for example, the use of phantom employees to meet quota requirements. We would, therefore, like to suggest two ways of strengthening enforcement.
Firstly, we propose that for large contracts or tenders, a certain level of duty of care be imposed on the purchasing company. For example, to include audit requirements on successful tenderers to ensure compliance with manpower policies. This will provide incentives for companies to comply and also make evasion via subcontracting more difficult.
Secondly, we suggest the Government explore the licensing of human resource managers (HRMs). Currently, we license certain professions, for example, doctors, lawyers and real estate agents, amongst others. We impose on them certain standards of service and code of conduct. Those who fail the standards can have their licence taken away.
We can similarly license HRMs and task them to ensure compliance with manpower policies in their companies. Large employers should be required to hire licensed human resource managers who will have personal responsibilities to ensure full compliance with Government manpower regulations and, those who do not, risk penalties, which can include losing their licence. A high turnover of HRMs will also be a tell-tale sign of trouble.
In conclusion, we agree that maintaining an open economy and taking in manpower from other countries are beneficial. The issue is one of degree. To what extent do we take in foreign manpower? At what point does it become an overdose?
We are not asking for a closed economy or a closed labour market but a reduction in our reliance on foreign manpower to a lower level and keeping a close eye on wage growth while we adjust the level of foreign participation in our labour force.
It would also be a good time to reiterate that Ministerial Salaries should be pegged to the median wage. Increasing labour supply leads to GDP growth, which increases Ministerial Salaries. However, the same labour supply increase depresses median wage growth.
Our current model can lead to a divergence in the movement of the salaries of political leaders and those of average Singaporeans. This is not a good basis on which to build trust.
On the other hand, if Ministerial Salaries are pegged to the median wage, it sends convincingly the message that the political leaders and Singaporeans at large are on the same boat, more so than any words can.
Today, representatives from various parties talk about the importance of a Singaporean Core. Let us not stop at lip service. As the saying goes, what gets measured gets done. Make it concrete. Make the percentage of Singaporean workers into a Government key performance indicator (KPI).
I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the points that were raised earlier by Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister K Shanmugam.
On the issue of spreading misinformation about CECA, from what has been said, it seems that attempts to spread misinformation hinge on the use of words like \"free flow of labour\". I would like to point out that both George Yeo, a former Cabinet Minister, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have used similar words in 2006 and 2005 respectively.
On 29 June 2005, at the dinner after the signing of CECA, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, \"As economic linkages expand and a free flow of people and ideas continues, I am confident that the relationship will grow from strength to strength.\"
Mr George Yeo, on 2 March 2006, during the Committee of Supply, said, \"Professionals like doctors, accountants and engineers are able to move back and forth freely, operating within the same legal and regulatory framework.\"
Does this imply that they are also making attempts to misrepresent CECA? For most laypeople, such words are not taken so literally but merely seeks to imply easy access rather than the total absence of criteria. This focus on semantics and technicalities instead of the underlying causes is rather disappointing.
We also object to the implication that discussions on free trade agreements stir up racism and xenophobia. In our opinion, asserting that Singaporeans are not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister does greater damage to our decades of efforts to eradicate racism.
There are other quotes we can delve into if we wish to discuss this matter further but we would rather not open up old wounds and prefer to look forward and engage in a constructive debate on how to make things better.
It is an area that deserves attention and a fuller discussion in the right spirit, one which is empathetic and cooperative, not adversarial.
Minister Lawrence Wong gave an example of an Indian Singaporean who feels that debating about CECA is affecting his job search. I would like to emphasise that PSP is pushing for a tighter control on foreign manpower. If foreign manpower is tightened, he will find his employment prospects much improved.
I am an employer myself and I have been reading resumes for 20 years. Recently, I have seen the trend of Singapore Citizenship status gaining greater prominence in resumes, not just in the resumes of Indian Singaporeans but also Chinese Singaporeans and Malay Singaporeans. If more Singaporeans feel that their citizenship improves their job chances, is that not a good development?
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.35 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 5.16 pm until 5.35 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.35 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
(Simultaneous debate on both Motions)
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): I am concerned about some of the points and assertions made by hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai earlier. I wanted to make some comments.
First, in relation to work passes, he had suggested that we raise the EP qualifying salaries from the current $4,500 to $10,000, and for S Passes to be raised from $2,500 to $4,500.
I am not sure whether Mr Leong is aware of the ground sentiments on this both from employers and workers. My union leaders have shared with me, to handle this raising in a carefully considered manner.
Why? Each time the S Pass rates, which apply to foreigners, are raised, Singaporeans who are working alongside these pass holders and doing the same job, may not always get the immediate percentage increases at the same time, which is why it has to be done incrementally and carefully in a considered manner.
Second, let me also state that we also have a significant number of S Pass and EP holders in the healthcare and essential services sectors, looking after all of us and fighting alongside us in this pandemic. Many of them are my fellow union members as well. A suggested sharp curb of S Passes and EPs in these sectors as well as in many of these essential services must also be handled with care.
Third, Mr Leong attributed the 80,000 PRs given at the height of immigration all to work pass holders. I hope Mr Leong is aware Singaporeans also marry foreigners and apply permanent residency for them.
Member Ms Hazel Poa earlier suggested that we should squeeze out more foreigners, create an even tighter labour market, and this will result in median wages going up. I think this may be a too simplistic analysis. Tighter labour market alone, by removing all foreign PMETs, does not necessarily result in higher median wages. Real average wage growth at the overall economy level depends on three factors, namely, labour productivity growth, growth in labour's terms of trade and growth in the labour share of output.
Mr Speaker, Sir, NTUC and the Labour Movement, as a symbiotic partner, is fully cognisant that Singapore has to stay open as a business hub and keep pace with the global competition. We agree and support our national operating philosophy to grow the cake so that we have a bigger slice and piece all around. In the same vein, we value and support tripartism, inclusive growth and working together with the Government to ensure we continue to strengthen the Singaporean Core.
I have been a strong advocate of strengthening the Singaporean Core and robust policies in this space since 2011, just like many of my fellow Labour Members of Parliament and PAP Members of Parliament in this House. And I am heartened that in my past 10 years of lobbying, many of these measures from advisories, guidelines, policies, programmes, regulations, have been put in place by MOM, with strong support of our tripartite partners and even our economic agencies such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Economic Development Board to better protect and support our Singaporean workforce and provide them with a fair and level playing field in the job market.
I, therefore, disagree with hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion, which suggests no concrete action has been taken.
Through the NTUC-SNEF PME taskforce engagements, we have heard ground sentiments on a plethora of issues and challenges faced by Singaporean PMEs, more than 9,000 of them, all Singaporeans, in the past eight months. PMEs are most concerned with the lack of job security amidst this outlook, and their need for more support in employment and training opportunities. This is especially so as the Singapore economy continues to experience ripple effects and challenges of the COVID-19 situation and other factors like technological advances and digitalisation. These challenges seem to impact our mature PMEs aged between 40 and 60 more, as they attributed their age as the key reason for their plight. Mature PMEs have voiced concerns about displacement, disruption and the issue of competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy.
Fortunately, anecdotes from PMEs who shared how they have encountered instances of EP holders being employed for jobs that Singaporeans can take on are a minority and confined to certain sectors and companies, and not widespread.
In the converse, I also hear of positive sharing of human resource (HR) practitioners and employers taking great pains and significant efforts to convince their overseas headquarters to consider and recruit Singaporeans for positions in the region and in Singapore. I sincerely thank these HR practitioners and enlightened employers for believing in Singaporeans and doing their part to ensure that Singaporeans have a fair chance and shot at job opportunities.
In our engagements, our PMEs understand the need for a foreign workforce to complement the local workforce. They do not advocate the closing of borders to foreigners, but they want resolute actions taken against employers who are recalcitrant in their hiring policies, to protect our locals from discrimination. They also hope to pick up the in-demand skills to take on the new jobs.
The reason why some of our workers experience discrimination is not due to foreign competition, but due to a small proportion of egregious companies and employers who are out to exploit the system. While we take cognisance that many measures and policies, including the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP), the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), Triple Weak Scrutiny, tightening of requirements for S Pass and EPs, including the formation of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and so on, had been put in place over the years to minimise unfair hiring and workplace practices.
I am glad to know that we are constantly asking ourselves what more needs to be done to weed out the small proportion of egregious companies out to exploit the system. We need to look at ways to ensure that local PMEs receive fair opportunities and treatment while maintaining competitiveness in the economy.
On this note and for these very facts and circumstances, I, therefore, cannot accept the Motion standing in the name of Non-Constituency Member Mr Leong Mun Wai.
I am glad that the Government has responded to our advocacy efforts and calls with the setting up of the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally addressed and updated that we will look at fair employment guidelines becoming law and the set-up of a new tribunal to address workplace discrimination by those few black sheep. These are big and bold moves, and I think it is important for us to spend time engaging the tripartite partners and stakeholders before implementation.
Many union members, workers and PMEs I have spoken to are heartened by the announcements and acknowledged that these are the right steps taken to punish those errant employers and correct discriminative hiring policies and practices. They are positive that this will send a clear message against workplace discrimination and eradicate unfair hiring practices.
NTUC will represent the voices of our workers and PMEs, and contribute actively in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness (TCWF) to look into improving workplace fairness through both legislative and non-legislative options and consider measures to tackle workplace discrimination.
Beyond legislation, we will need to continuously raise HR standards, to further enhance our HR practices and capabilities so that practices and processes are more transparent. HR practitioners, especially those in the recruitment functions, play a vital role in ensuring that the companies adhere to the employment legislation and regulations to improve compliance with fair employment practices. They are also the advocates for the recruitment of Singaporeans in positions within their companies. It is, therefore, important we move towards increasing certification and accreditation of HR practitioners, as well as providing shared HR services for SMEs.
We will also continue to surface recommendations to strengthen the Singaporean Core and this will include: first, enhancing the EP application review process by considering a range of factors beyond the individual applicant’s education, qualification and salary; second, facilitating skills transfer from foreign specialists to local PMEs through skills transfer programmes. These are suggestions we have raised in the past many years and I am glad the Leader of the Opposition has also weighed in on this; and third, strengthening TAFEP to take decisive action against errant employers who pay lip service to the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF).
Finally, beyond the above recommendations, it is important for the tripartite partners and our workers, including PMEs, to invest even more in training and skills upgrading. For a start, employers and businesses can partner NTUC and the Labour Movement in this journey. In this age of disruption, digitalisation, transformation and the next normal, the tripartite partners need to stand even more united together to support, enable and ensure our workers stay ready, relevant and resilient: ready with the new skills, relevant to the new jobs and resilient to the new changes. This is so that we can better weather any storms and pivot and transform when curved balls are hurled at us.
Mr Speaker, NTUC will continue to champion our workers’ interests to ensure that there must be fairness and zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind at the workplace and a level playing field for our Singaporean PMEs, including mature PMEs. In the same vein, we need to see that they are adequately protected, have access to quality jobs and are equipped with the relevant skills to prepare for the future economy.
I, therefore, support the Motion by Minister Lawrence Wong which acknowledges Singaporeans' anxieties and for the Government to take action to manage the population of manpower, ensuring fair treatment of workers by employers and investing in skills upgrading. This will ensure Singaporeans stay employed and employable and their lives and likelihoods are secure and improved.
Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.
Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, while today’s Motion is ostensibly about jobs for Singaporeans, I believe an inescapable part of the conversation is about immigration and its impact on our economy and society.
Immigration is a topic that is complex and sensitive, and we must, as a society – together with the Government – learn to have difficult conversations with each other without vilifying those who may have a different opinion from ours. Too often do we hear cries of \"xenophobia\" and \"racism\" being thrown at those of us who may raise, often legitimate, concerns about the changing nature of our social fabric or the strain on our labour markets. And on the other hand, those who try to speak up in defence of greater international movement of labour and trade are labelled as sell-outs and as \"opening the floodgates\" at the expense of hardworking Singaporeans.
This polarising approach is neither healthy nor productive, and I believe all of us must take a more nuanced and open-minded approach.
Singapore is a young country. And immigration has been a fundamental part of our story for a very long time, from our founding as a free port in the 1800s to our transformation into a modern city in the 1980s. Immigrants have and will always continue to shape our story. We are the country we are today only because of our embrace of diversity and different histories, and this has to continue.
Indeed, for most of our pre-Independence history, immigration exceeded natural births. After Independence, the Government first tightened immigration, then implemented a policy that uses migrants to fulfil a certain role in our labour force as one of the economic tools to drive the growth of our economy.
I do not think that many will deny that this is a complex and difficult balance to get right. This is because the consequences of immigration are often felt very personally by individuals. These changes in the make-up of our society cut at our very daily experience: who we see in our communities every day, the languages we hear around us and the sheer numbers of \"others\" we have to share our already crowded public spaces with.
Above all, the perception of the impact of immigration on jobs. This is especially against the backdrop of unprecedented disruption caused by the shift to, amongst others, digitalisation, Industry 4.0 and a re-balanced normal, all of which have been exacerbated by COVID-19.
On the other hand, the promise is that immigrants bring skills and a diversity of experiences, and often take up the slack in our labour markets. However, these benefits brought about by our foreign manpower policy tend to accrue more generally and are less directly experienced by individuals. The argument that more trade, more foreign workers and more enterprise equals better and more jobs for Singaporeans is less visible and is not always immediately evident.
Tensions are felt when this \"grand bargain\" is not one that all Singaporeans have bought into.
This could be especially hard to bridge because many come to the debate with views that are seen through a personal lens, one that could bring biases due to personal life experiences, which would, in turn, lead to a very generalised view over our foreign manpower and immigration policies. And citizens may thus approach the matter without the required nuance or balance that academics or policymakers have the luxury to adopt.
Our citizens are, after all, still feeling our way through how to respectfully debate such sensitive topics. It is hardly right then that we dismiss all these views and concerns as narrow-minded and xenophobic.
The challenge to citizens to accept and accommodate more people into our communities, with the different histories, languages, accents, ways of life and cultures they bring is not always an easy one for a society to accept and it is imperative on all of us to play an active role to manage and mitigate any potential fall-out.
Indeed, we have seen how our public debate around immigration and foreign manpower has changed over the last decade. In 2013, during the debate around our Population White Paper with the now \"iconic\" 6.9 million figure, then Deputy Prime Minister Teo told this House that “the growth in foreign workforce, total population, infrastructure and housing are not aligned\", and accepted that it \"contributed to the anxiety, crowdedness, integration problems and the daily inconveniences faced by Singaporeans today\".
Additionally, we must be mindful of how world events can shape the conversation. It has also been pointed out that the current era we are living in has been an unprecedented one which became hyper-globalised, with its roots in the 1980s, when Reaganism and Thatcherism took off. Movement of people, goods and services, has become much easier, and, together with the growth in the middle classes in massive and emerging economies, such as China and India, has had an impact on our domestic markets and society in general.
But it must not be forgotten that globalisation has slowed down since 2010 and the trend of increasing globalisation is not a linear process, as history has, indeed, taught us. Our reliance on foreign labour, whether skilled labour or the low-wage migrants we see taking up the slack as carers in our medical and social systems, as live-in help for households, and also for building sites, may prove to be our Achilles heel if we assume that we can simply turn on the tap for these roles to be fulfilled at any time, and that the workers will come in. Our policies, including our FTAs, need to be sensitive to this and not be blind-sided by any reverses in globalisation trends which are currently threatening to be the case.
This is especially important in the current era, where we see the rise of nativist politics and governments from around 2016, as evidenced most famously by the Brexit vote and election of Donald Trump. Too easily have immigration and migrants become convenient bogeymen, just like CECA and our FTAs appear to have done, often against all data that suggest otherwise. Singapore is vulnerable to such dangerous sentiments, and the shocks caused by COVID-19 and the anxieties wrought by a changed world only add to the fears of our people and need to be addressed through more sensitive policies and engagement with the populace.
Now, more than ever, there needs to be humility in the approach taken by our leaders to such matters, and the listening ear of the Government needs to be attuned to and prod at the genuine concerns behind why some of us feel the way we do so strongly; sometimes, in the face of endless explanations that our assumptions or understanding of these policies and FTAs are flawed. Rather than immediately take issue with the speaker, we could understand that lived realities on the ground could be very different to ours and we should pay attention to whether these views and experiences could reveal potential blind spots in the implementation of our policies.
We must also remember that widening inequality is as dangerous as any threats to our economy, as this only drives fears relating to the quality and quantity of the jobs available to Singaporeans, and can lead to anger and resentment against any incomers who are perceived to be better off and to have taken our rice bowls.
Widening inequality thus leads to increasingly polarised politics, which has a certain irony, as data suggest that it is technological advances, which are, in turn, exacerbated by the failure of politics and Government policies to address these trends, rather than globalisation trends, that drive how equal a society is.
Having said all of this, what else can we do to address the concerns and tensions highlighted above? Two big areas where we can work on more are: first, building more, stronger and meaningful bridges between immigrants and citizens; and second, embracing a strong, transparent and data-driven culture.
In order to better understand one another, much effort needs to be expended by both groups, immigrants and citizens alike, in order to have these immigrants properly integrated and accepted into society. There needs to be mutual understanding, tolerance and, finally, meaningful relationships between these two groups to minimise the pitfalls associated with \"the other\" and also make real the benefits and increased richness to community life that our migrants can bring to our country.
To this end, it is notable that the European Programme for Integration and Migration states that this is, quote, \"a two-way process of adaption by migrants and host societies, and, of identification and respect for a core set of values that bind migrants and host communities in a common purpose\", unquote.
I think this approach needs to equally apply to incomers who choose to sink roots and take up a pink IC, and those who may be here on a more temporary basis.
While I note that there are initiatives organised through the People’s Association, what has been less clear to the public is whether the organisation itself is seen to be there primarily to serve partisan interests and, more importantly, how successful these initiatives have been.
Judging by the recent episodes that have come to our national consciousness, both online and off, towards foreigners, this would suggest that we need to redouble our efforts in bridging any gaps that remain between the groups. How can we, together, in a way that is accepted by both sides, come up with a common core set of values that each of us respects, that would bind us together, to lessen any mistrust and negative feelings that may be currently amplified by uncertain economic times and the fear for one’s livelihoods?
I do not think this is something that Government leaders and associated bodies, such as the People’s Association, should ram down the throats of a skeptical populace.
Perhaps what is lacking is the buy-in from both sides that it is not only important for Singaporeans to adapt to having \"foreigners\" in our midst, but that our foreign friends must also play their part in wanting to integrate into the communities they are in. Efforts need to be made to learn the norms within Singapore society, whether it is how we \"chope\" our tables or the inclination to queue wherever we go. This does not mean losing the richness of the culture or practices that come with one’s history; Singapore will continue to embrace diversity as being at our centre.
Indeed, I do see examples of some immigrants reaching out to us as we conduct our ground work and expressing their desire to volunteer, to work with us and give back to the communities that they live in. It is heartening, especially when we note that they do not do so because they are after priority queue numbers for school places for their children or some other benefit, but because they truly believe in doing something to further the communal spirit that should overcome differences in our backgrounds.
I only wish that we see more of these, and that we continually look for ways and means to improve the situation, to allow more ground-up, non-Government-directed avenues for interaction and understanding between citizens and immigrants, allowing voices to be heard from both sides.
That said, we also need to have a no-excuses approach to discriminatory, prejudicial behaviour and against those who seek to sow discord between immigrants and our host communities. Both groups deserve to have their rights protected stringently. Just as the law comes down hard against those who make offensive and aggressive gestures against foreigners or those from different backgrounds, we also need to ensure that Singaporeans do not face discrimination at the workplace and I hope that the welcomed but long overdue anti-discrimination legislation announced will be strong and robust enough to achieve this.
Finally, I cannot stress enough the importance of a transparent, data-driven approach to immigration and our foreign manpower policies. At the moment, decisions on whether or not to grant citizenship, permanent residence and various work passes are made by ICA and MOM respectively, but no reasons are ever given. Likewise, data relating to our resident labour force often lumps Singaporeans and Permanent Residents together.
While the Government may have reasons for doing so, the best medicine against misinformation, cynicism and resentment is cold, hard data, and to build a transparent culture around the data relating to our policies.
We also need to understand that residents who are married to foreigners or who have foreign family members are often left wondering and speculating about why their family member's application for Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP), permanent residency or citizenship was rejected and what they could do to change the outcome. They would naturally compare this against the number of immigrants moving into the neighbourhood who are granted the immigrant status that they have been applying for – some for decades – sometimes without any ostensible familial ties to Singapore Citizens. Is it any wonder that resentment would build up?
The Government thus needs to take the lead in this by being proactive about the type of data that is shared: from information about our workforce broken down into Singaporeans and Permanent Residents, to providing clear pathways to citizenship for those who are already part of our Singaporean families and communities.
Data on these hot-button topics should be published and shared regularly to allow citizens to understand the impact of Government-led policies on the shape of our economy and society and to allow our academics and commentators a fact base to start with.
A proactive, transparent and data-driven approach to the conversation around foreigners might not convince every cynic but it would go a long way to quieten any unfounded claims, leave less room for conspiracy theories to flourish and give short shrift to those who seek to sow discord amongst us and seek bogeyman, a prime example of which would be CECA and FTAs.
Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Motion today is about jobs for Singaporeans, this issue cannot be divorced from immigration and foreign workers. Such discussions will inevitably stir up strong reactions in today’s Singapore society. Real concerns from some Singaporeans may well be seen as xenophobic or even discriminatory.
I think a few points can serve as starting points for the discussions.
First, we must acknowledge that with globalisation, Singapore, like many other countries, faces the problems of widening income gap and rising social tensions in tandem. Second, these phenomena have, indeed, intensified the friction between the local and foreign workers. In many ways, these problems are avoidable. The key lies in whether Singaporeans, foreign workers and even the authorities are making an effort to integrate them into the society.
Faced with challenges brought about by globalisation, we must cast aside our prejudices and discrimination, especially in the workplace. In this respect, anti-discrimination legislation in Parliament is a right move. If we do not face these negative sentiments squarely, misunderstandings may well become deeper. In addition, the authorities and decision-makers should be more proactive in information disclosure, based on the principle of information transparency, so that we can engage in realistic discussions, avoid misunderstandings from happening or deepening and prevent social tensions from escalating unnecessarily.
(In English): To conclude, immigration and foreign manpower have been heated issues in Singapore for many, many years. CECA and FTAs are but the latest iterations of the debate.
This is a difficult, complicated topic and an issue that many other nations continue to struggle with. We must, therefore, create a strong ecosystem for conversation, interaction and disagreement on the topics at hand. We must say no to a continued top-down approach to immigration where we are told what is good for us.
The danger is that, over time, resentment continues to build, and anti-immigrant sentiment spills over into nasty incidents where there is a heavy element of racism and xenophobia that also affect our Singaporeans as well, such as the unfortunate events that we have seen in recent months.
I hope the Government will take this as an opportunity to rethink the way these topics have been managed and discussed so far and, instead, lean more into enabling conversations on the ground to change hearts and minds rather than continue to debate what is best for Singaporeans and dictate our story for us.
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to move amendments to the Motion proposed by the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from the PSP. [A copy of amendments handed to Mr Speaker.]
Mr Speaker: The Member has moved to propose the amendment as follows:
To delete the words \"and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement\".
And replace them with a similar paragraph as what they have proposed earlier to the other Motion, which is \"by proactively releasing information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of free trade agreements and foreign worker policies, with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment.\"
I am of the view that the last paragraph is similar to what you have proposed in a previous Motion and we should confine that to that Motion so that Members can vote accordingly.
Your proposal to delete the words \"and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement\" substantively changes the tone of what that Motion was about in the first place, which is being debated.
So, in my view, the proposed amendments would not be relevant. So, we will not admit them. Let us proceed.
Ms He Ting Ru: Okay, so be it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended Motion put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
Sir, free trade agreements, or FTAs, are important for our economic development and, hence, the well-being of our people. FTAs are always a compromise. As in any negotiation, we give something away to get something back. Singapore has import duties on hardly any categories of physical goods. So, we have little to give away unless we open up our services sectors or our labour market further.
I am glad that the Government has clarified that it maintains an intent to continue maintaining close control over the granting of foreign work passes without any FTA provision diluting that and this is a commitment that this House will, I am sure, hold this Government and future governments to.
Because FTAs are a negotiated compromise, at any one point in time, it is necessary to review these agreements from time to time to ensure that what we have given away is not proved too much and what we are getting back is as good as what we expected. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague, Member of Parliament for Sengkang, Ms He Ting Ru, to regularly study the impact of our FTAs, to engage research to quantify the net economic benefit over costs.
Furthermore, it is vital that the Government engages our SMEs when negotiating FTAs and FTA reviews. I raised this at MTI's Committee of Supply (COS) in March 2020 and through a Parliamentary Question in March 2017. The reply stated that there were roundtables and engagements conducted but numbers were not given.
Anecdotally, some SMEs on the ground do not feel that their views factor substantially into FTA negotiations, which, they perceive, may be conducted more from the perspective of creating incentives for MNCs to hub in Singapore to invest abroad.
I believe more can be done to gather feedback from SMEs to bring into FTA negotiations, something countries like New Zealand, when defending its dairy industry in the TPP negotiations, for example, seem adept at.
Moreover, the Government should regularly assess local FTA utilisation rates and perceived benefits to see if the other country is delivering on its market access commitments. FTA utilisation rates by SMEs should be published to help all stakeholders assess our efforts in public debate. Many SMEs do not fully utilise FTAs when they go abroad, for reasons that range from lack of awareness to lack of administrative bandwidth. More can be done to make these FTA benefits visible and usable by our local firms, for instance, the idea of a one-stop whole-of-Government portal, which could allow SMEs to transact with the Government and utilise Government schemes that I have spoken about in this House in the past. Such a portal could be used to allow SMEs to gain visibility on FTA benefits in different countries and enable them to transact to realise those benefits online.
At this stage, Sir, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy that conducts studies related to FTAs and SME development, among other topics.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall devote the rest of my speech to the anxieties that exist around the granting of work passes to foreigners.
Sir, in the decades after Singapore's Independence, there was no mass anxiety about the role of foreigners in our economy, at least comparable to what we see now. It was widely recognised that they play a useful role. The same is not true of every country in the world. Singapore's attitude towards the presence of foreigners and fixed-term stays and those who choose to make Singapore their permanent home used to be more liberal to my mind than that you see in some Asian countries I can think of. That culture was shaped perhaps by around 200 years of history as a free port and open trading economy. The sense then was that the rising tide of liberal economics would lift all boats.
This is no longer the case. There is widespread anxiety, frustration and angst about the role of foreigners in the economy, as all the Motions put forth in this House today acknowledge to some degree. I want to share, Sir, two stories about how these things came home to me.
Firstly, I met a Singaporean delivery rider in full uniform at a coffee shop in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied GRC who told me, at length, with tears in his eyes, that he was laid off from his job as an aerospace engineer whereas some foreigners at his company were not, and he is now struggling to keep his family afloat.
Secondly, I met an SME business owner who said that she cannot find Singaporeans to do trades jobs. So, she is frustrated at the curbs on foreign manpower and, asked that if I knew of Singaporeans who wanted to do such jobs, could I give her a list of their names.
Mr Speaker, Sir, these concerns revolve around three \"Ts\".
Firstly, a deficit in trust, the first T; the sense that some Singaporeans have that they face some degree of discrimination in the job market by foreign talent hiring their compatriots.
Secondly, a deficit in transferability, the second T; the sense that there are poor pathways for Singaporeans to learn skills from foreign talents in advance. This current mood is very different from the sense people had in the 1970s and 1980s, with foreign investments from the US, Europe and Japan. To my mind, back then, there was a palpable sense that skills and know-how were being transferred by foreign companies and foreigners to locals through in-house training and foreign-Singapore joint training institutes, for example.
Thirdly, a deficit in transparency, the third T; there is angst about why foreigners seemed to leapfrog Singaporeans in some contexts in spite of our much-vaunted education system, even though those foreigners sometimes come from countries with less recognised education systems.
I should say that a transparency deficit is also felt by another group – local business owners. They wrestle with the issue of hiring talent and often say that Singaporeans do not want to do trades jobs. So, why is the supply of foreigners for those jobs being curbed?
Sir, one antidote to the trust deficit is anti-discrimination laws, something that the Workers' Party has championed in its General Election 2020 manifesto and in this House. I am glad that the Government is now moving in this direction.
One antidote to the transferability deficit is fixed-term EPs, the suggestion I made in this House previously in which the Leader of the Opposition alluded to. These would be foreign work passes granted for a fixed term with the understanding that the job has to be localised in that term and the pass, as a default, would not be renewed, unless the employer can demonstrate strong extenuating circumstances to appeal for a renewal. This differs from the current EP system, where many employees assume that they can renew their EPs and there is no assumption that the EPs would definitely not be renewed as a default. Sir, to be sure, we are not arguing for all EPs to be made fixed-term, but for some of them to possess this feature. Fixed-term work passes should be one tool in our toolkit not just to advance transferability of foreigners' skills towards locals.
There are other tools that can be used to advance transferability that Workers' Party Members of Parliament in this House have argued for, such as stimulating cross-border remote working internships for our students and young adults with cutting-edge multinational corporations abroad which were not present in Singapore, for example.
As for the antidote to the transparency deficit, the key is not just more public dialogues and communication between Government and citizens, vital though that is; the key is to set out long-term goals and clear policies to advance those goals. Let me expand on this issue of transparency.
Sir, many Singaporeans are pained and confused about our foreign talent policy because they do not understand the rationale, the mechanics, the ends and the means. One major area where this angst is being felt is when it comes to education. Singaporeans do not understand why the Government keeps praising our education system but, in some employment contexts, foreigners seem to dominate or have a large share of the better-paying jobs. Has our education system groomed us with the wrong skills and attributes? Sir, we need to interrogate the gaps in our education system that contribute to these aspects of our employment landscape and address them aggressively. My parliamentary colleague, Mr Gerald Giam, will elaborate on what needs to be done on that front.
For the remainder of my speech, I will speak about two areas of Government employment policy where the public, I sense, feels angst from a lack of transparency and whether the system is working in their best interests. And these two areas actually map onto the two anecdotes that I shared earlier.
Firstly, the notion that hiring foreigners is necessary to create good jobs for Singaporeans, even if the foreigners constitute a high share or a significant share of the better-paying jobs. I shall call this the numerical multiplier argument. Secondly, the subject of trades jobs that SMEs perceive Singaporeans no longer want to do. I will call this the trades jobs problem.
Firstly, the numerical multiplier argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has articulated this argument before inside and outside this House. If I were to summarise it at the risk of oversimplification, it is the view that we do not have enough Singaporeans and not of the right skills and talent to do all the cutting-edge economic activities we want to do as a global hub city. So, we need to import foreign talent and, if we do that well, this creates good jobs for Singaporeans. We try to upskill and upwage Singaporeans. But if foreigners account for a large share of the better-paid jobs, it is still okay because Singaporeans are in good jobs that they might not have if the foreigners were not here. So, Singaporeans are absolutely better off, even if, sometimes, they may feel relatively worse off in the employment hierarchy. Or to put it another way, this argument is saying if Singaporeans want to always hog all the better-paying jobs, we will end up poorer in purchasing power terms. This argument stands, by the way, on solid ground in the field of political philosophy. It reminds me of the Rawlsian theory of justice I studied as an undergraduate. According to the philosopher, John Rawls, in a seminal work \"A Theory of Justice\", inequality could be justified if that inequality causes the least well-off person in a society to become better off in absolute terms. Honestly, Sir, there is much to be said for the numerical multiplier thesis and it can be found as the subtext to employment policies in many countries and cities.
But to delve deeper into the empirical reality, what is of concern to many Singaporeans about this argument are a few things. One is the pathway to skills transfer, another is fair employment practices in a foreigner-heavy workplace. I have spoken about these already. But there are deeper and more subtle problems with the numerical multiplier argument. Or I should not say problems; maybe questions. A large population of foreigners to create jobs for Singaporeans places burdens on our scarce resources of land, healthcare capacity, road capacity, public transport and so on. It also runs the risk of entrenching work cultures that disadvantage Singaporeans in the longer term, especially if the foreigners start off from a higher skills base in a new industry. Initial endowments of resources, like skills, do weigh heavily on ultimate outcomes downstream. Being very reliant on foreign labour also means that we are vulnerable to global events that may make these foreigners less willing to come and work here one day. And that day may not come so soon, but it could come in our children's time, in our grandchildren's time.
So, how do we get our workforce profile towards a ratio of foreigners and locals that would better address these issues? Sir, I would like to suggest that the EDB and our economic agencies, together with our Institutes of Higher Learning, work in sync to do a few things that would optimise this ratio, that would create good well-paying jobs for Singaporeans while managing the size of the population of foreigners and, hence, overall population pressures.
Firstly, can we attract foreign direct investment projects that are better matched to existing skillsets of Singaporeans or skillsets that Singaporeans can easily acquire?
Secondly, can we catalyse continuous education and training platforms to train Singaporeans in new skills ahead of demand? By \"ahead of demand\", I mean to attract Singaporeans to train for skills in industries that are nascent, that are newly emerging, confident that the Government is working with investors to groom and build those industries using all the tools in the toolkit. JTC and EDB building physical infrastructure ahead of demand was a key factor in our industrial success in the 1960s. The key to our Industry 4.0 success in the 21st century would be catalysing soft infrastructure, that is, skills, ahead of demand.
Thirdly, tie foreign direct investment incentives to a number of fixed-term EPs to ensure Singaporeans' pathway into new industries, as discussed earlier.
Fourthly, can we examine if we need to expand University education places for locals in disciplines necessary for future industries, thus managing the need to import foreign manpower with degrees from, in some cases, less highly ranked universities than our local ones? This ties to another Workers' Party manifesto point on expanding University capacity to 50% of the cohort size.
Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak about trades jobs, that it is said, Singaporeans do not want. By \"trades jobs\", I mean carpenters, plumbers, highly-skilled construction workmen and supervisors, air-conditioner technicians and so on and so forth. There is a huge transparency deficit here with our local business owners.
In the decades after Independence, many of these trades jobs were done by Singaporeans. But now, many SME owners believe that Singaporeans simply do not want such jobs. If this is true, it could be due to the overall growth of the economy and population base coupled with our low total fertility rate. It could also be due to the expansion of other more attractive jobs in other sectors. There is also the fact that many of our Polytechnic and ITE graduates as well as older PMETs are going into gig work rather than a trade. Many SME owners are adamant that even if they paid more for these jobs, Singaporeans do not want to do them.
No ifs, no buts. One of them told me that when he attends construction training courses as a guest speaker, the only Singaporean trainees there are those with white hair. Yet, on the other hand, from a totally opposite perspective, another older gentleman I met on a market walkabout said that he was gainfully employed in the construction industry as a supervisor in his 20s and 30s. But now, all the jobs in this line have gone to foreigners. And even though he is willing to take a 50% pay cut from his last drawn construction industry pay, he cannot get a job. So, he became a private hire car driver. How do we reconcile these two different and seemingly contradictory perspectives?
Sir, the Workers' Party has supported moves, such as the past tightening of DRC quotas, to curb over-reliance on foreign manpower. However, that cannot be the only solution. We need to deeply address the reasons why SME business owners say Singaporeans do not want to take up trades jobs. Quotas alone should not be the solution. To move more Singaporeans into trades job sustainably needs us to go beyond quotas to tackle a few things deeply. And here I move to my suggestions.
I have about six suggestions. I am not saying that these ideas are not already being looked at or have not been attempted. But, clearly, the results are not yet there and we are far away from success in outcomes rather than just success in efforts.
Firstly, let us implement an across-the-board minimum wage, as we have called for, and PWMs to ladder and upgrade wages on top of that. We do need to accept that prices have to rise as a result to ensure that businesses can survive.
Secondly, implement job redesign to upskill these jobs with state support for productivity-enhancing investments in a more ambitious way than has been done thus far, with both carrots and sticks. For example, can we introduce harder productivity conditions for Government contracts? And there should be clear long-term timelines for phasing out low productivity work, not ad hoc short-term changes to foreign manpower quotas done in an unpredictable fashion. Sir, our low construction productivity, to take one sector as an example, has not brought low construction costs. So, Workers' Party has argued before, with the right policies, there is no reason why we cannot attain developed country productivity in trades jobs to justify higher pay for those jobs.
Thirdly, investigate and fix negative non-wage characteristics of these trades shops. For example, do employers provide adequate equipment to ameliorate the physical downsides of such jobs, like proper gloves, boots, tools? Are trades jobs persons given proper break times and reasonable expectations on hours and working at short notice? Are they treated by bosses with respect? Are they given enough paid leave? These should all be studied and addressed. As I argued in this House a few months ago, no Singaporean will take a trades job at high pay if he or she knows that they will be treated with disrespect and have to put up with awful conditions. They may prefer to do gig work or a lowly-paid office job that attracts less pay with all the attendant dangers of obsolescence from technology that those kinds of jobs bring.
Fourthly, we need to enhance the prestige and standing of trades jobs. I do not have the luxury of time to elaborate on this particular point during this speech, but more can be done to try to shift expectations and attitudes. It is worth bearing in mind that trades jobs are highly respected in many countries around the world. I think continental European countries and Japan are examples that spring to mind.
Fifthly, we need to create pathways for some good trades persons who are foreigners to become citizens in small enough numbers, not to suppress but to supplement locals moving into these sectors, and then nudge those new citizens to transfer skills to more locals in the ways we have spoken about. Are such trades persons given the opportunity to become citizens now even if they have no university degree?
And sixth – and this is another call the Workers' Party has made and the Leader of the Opposition has alluded to – we need to measure underemployment so that we can tackle it. This was a theme of a speech made by my party Chair Ms Sylvia Lim some years ago. Some gig jobs face long-term risk from technology. Today's underemployment can be tomorrow's unemployment. Can we shift local Singaporeans from some of these at-risk gig jobs to redesigned, revamped trades jobs?
In conclusion, Sir, every country struggles to find the right balance between foreigners and locals in their economy and that balance changes from one era to another. In other developed countries, one often finds a more relaxed and liberal attitude towards foreign talent in big cities like London and New York, where even those in relatively lower-income trades jobs, like taxi drivers and restaurant staff, have often benefited from the rising tide that foreigners contribute to. But go to the towns and cities where living standards have stagnated or nosedived, like some of the opioid-ravaged midwestern towns in the US, and you sometimes find bitterness towards foreigners and the cancer of racism, together with the far-right, nativist politics that go along with that.
With the right policies, goals and mindsets, Sir, I believe Singapore can return to what it was in a previous era: a country of citizens who are confident enough about their present and their future to welcome foreign talent that genuinely complements our strengths and adds value to our lives.
Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, as there are still quite a number of speakers who have not yet spoken, I shall need to move an Exempted Business Motion.
Mr Speaker: Please do.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech?
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Minister Tan See Leng's speech.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, and Foreign Talent Policy","subTitle":"Simultaneous debate on both Motions","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mr Speaker, Sir, a debate on jobs should be taken seriously. It is more than a hashtag. The success, livelihoods and well-being of millions of our fellow Singaporeans are at stake. I had hoped that the PSP would share this understanding. Instead, the PSP's approach has disappointed me.
First, the PSP continues to equivocate about FTAs, claiming it does not have enough information. What further information does the PSP need? We have explained that all foreigners have to meet the same work pass criteria.
The PSP has asked for data on ICTs over the years because the data cited was for 2020 – a crisis year. We did not go into these details further because the trends were similar. But since the PSP persists in this line of inquiry, here are the numbers over the last five years.
The total number of ICTs in 2020 was 4,200. This is overall. In 2019, it was 4,400. In 2018, 3,200. In 2017, 2,600. And in 2016, 2,100.
The total number of Indian ICTs in 2020 was 500. In 2019, 600. In 2018, 400. In 2017, 400. And in 2016, 300.
These numbers have been consistently low. So, I would ask the PSP again, what further information does it need? Given the racial undertones on this issue, and this is acknowledged by all Members of the House, the PSP's equivocation is not only misleading but is also dangerous.
Second, the PSP has fielded a slew of data requests via Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and it has made a sweeping statement that there is no credibility in any of our statements because we have not released all of the data it has asked for. It has equivocated that it cannot provide answers because it has no information.
Let me be very clear. When it comes to data on our local workforce, we publish it regularly at a high level of granularity and this is in line with international standards. But it seems the PSP is not aware of this. In the 26 July Parliamentary sitting, the PSP filed a PQ asking for the annual breakdown numbers of local PMEs from 2005 to 2020. Parliamentary rules made it clear that a PQ should not ask for information that is already publicly available. Nevertheless, in my reply to Ms Hazel Poa, I told her where to look for such data. I also told her that the data stretches back to 1991 on the MOM's website, if she was interested. Notably, I have not heard the PSP use any of the data we have provided in its arguments.
And instead of being bogged down by these unhelpful distractions, I want to speak about the anxieties of Singaporeans, workers and business owners alike. I acknowledge these anxieties – they are present, but they are not just present in Singapore alone. They are present all around the world.
I oppose the PSP’s Motion because it does not provide the solutions that Singaporeans anxious about jobs and competition seek. The way to address Singaporeans’ anxieties about jobs and competition in a fast-changing economy, is to continue to invest heavily in developing our local workforce and ensure that foreigners complement, rather than displace, our locals.
Minister Lawrence Wong has already shared some important perspectives on our strategy. I will share some of the facts and data that are relevant.
Turning, first, to the jobs landscape. The PSP fixates on the increase in the number of foreign PMETs to argue that locals have been displaced and lost out. It has painted a picture of widespread displacement based on the anecdotes it has heard. But how have local PMETs actually fared? MOM publishes this data regularly at fine granularity but the PSP has not made any mention of this. So, let me walk you through the numbers.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I display some slides on the LED screens?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]
First, look at the local PMET employment. The PSP harps on the number of foreign PMETs. This is depicted by the orange bars. But the number of local PMET jobs, which is depicted by the blue bars, is significantly higher.
Over the past decade, there was an increase of 110,000 Employment Pass (EP) and S Pass holders, but local PMETs increased by 300,000. This is the case even if you look at some of the sub-sectors that hire more EPs – Finance, Infocomm and Professional Services. Over the past decade, EP and S Pass holders in these sub-sectors increased by 40,000, but local PMETs increased by almost 155,000 – almost four times. This goes to show that competition between locals and foreigners is not a zero-sum game.
The PSP has asked whether most of the local job creation went to PRs rather than Singaporeans. During the 6 July Ministerial Statement, I have already shared that the majority of local PME growth over the last decade went to Singaporeans born in Singapore. This is the same for PMETs.
Some other data points we published should make it clear that Singaporeans have benefited. First, MOM regularly publishes unemployment rates for PRs and citizens. The unemployment rate of citizens has remained stable and low.
Secondly, the PR population has also remained stable over the past decade, at around half a million. So, it cannot be the case that most of the employment growth went to PRs. But, more fundamentally, as a society, I do not think we should be drawing lines between Singapore Citizens and PRs. Many of our PRs either share family ties with Singaporeans or have studied, worked or lived here for some time. They contribute to our strengths as a society and our economy. Singapore is an immigrant nation and openness is one of our society's core strengths that have defined who we are.
The second point on local PMET unemployment. Looking at the chart shown, outside of crises, it has generally remained at 3% or lower. Few countries have achieved unemployment rates as low as this. I think we are one of the lowest in the world, one of the bottom three lowest in terms of these statistics in the world.
Long-term unemployment rate, referring to those who were looking for a job for at least 25 weeks, or about six months, is even lower at below 1%. The increase in foreign PMETs has not caused our unemployment rate to rise.
Third, the number of PMET job vacancies. It has been on an upward trend since 2010 and has been hovering around 30,000 over the past five years. These vacancies are spread across various sectors. There are 4,300 unfilled PMET jobs in Infocomm, 4,100 unfilled PMET jobs in Finance, 2,700 unfilled PMET jobs in Professional Services. This is just to name a few.
If every additional foreigner results in one less opportunity for a local, why are there still so many unfilled vacancies? Surely, these vacancies should have long been filled.
Finally, Members of the House, median local PMET wages. It has risen from $4,600 in 2010 to $6,300 in 2020. This represents a total increase of 38%. In real terms, it translates to a 21% increase.
To sum up, looking at the data, and I have put it in a table for everyone to see, the data shows us that while the number of foreign PMETs has increased, we saw: one, an even larger increase in local PMET employment; two, low local PMET unemployment; three, a growing number of PMET job vacancies; and four, growing local PMET wages.
In fact, the proportion of our workforce in PMET jobs is amongst the highest in the world at almost 60%, doubling up from 30% in the early 1990s. This is a very different picture from the dire situation that the PSP has portrayed. If you hear Mr Leong Mun Wai, you would have thought that it has been midnight in Singapore for the past 30 years.
Nevertheless, while the vast majority of local PMETs have experienced positive outcomes, we must not neglect the lived experiences of the minority who have not. Their experiences are equally valid too. It is not just the PSP who talks to Singaporeans. I meet them, too, and I hear their concerns, and I feel their angst. One group, in particular, concerns me – our older local PMETs. They have contributed to society and they are still able and willing to work. Yet, some amongst them have lost their jobs. When this happens, it can be devastating. It feels like a part of their identity is lost. Even for those who are still employed, seeing others around their age lose their jobs may cause them to be demoralised and feel anxious.
I understand the pain. But I must point out that this is happening not because of increased competition from foreigners, but also from deeper, structural trends.
If you look at this chart, the unemployment rate amongst older local PMETs started diverging from the overall rate, from 2015 onwards. I remember this year particularly well because it was the year I attended the World Economic Forum. At that time, big data was top of the agenda. That was the year that big data and machine learning hit the mass market very rapidly. Companies were racing to build up digital teams. It created new roles which required new skills sets, while disrupting some existing roles and skills. Against this backdrop, our older PMETs faced competition, not so much from foreigners, but from technology and, possibly, also from younger Singaporeans who had the necessary skills.
We saw these trends happening and we rolled out SkillsFuture in January 2016. We knew that lifelong learning had to become the norm, so that Singaporeans could pivot to new opportunities. And we built on this foundation year after year.
But the Government's efforts are only half the story. What really makes the difference is the spirit of older Singaporeans, their willingness to remain open to new possibilities.
Take Mr Arnold Lim, who spent 25 years in the banking industry and was retrenched at the age of 50. After a year of effort to return to the banking industry, he decided to join PulseSecure, an IT firm.
The learning curve was steep for him, given his lack of IT experience. PulseSecure hired him through the Web Developer Career Conversion Programme (CCP), which allowed him to pick up new technical skills and gain relevant on-the-job experience. Mr Lim subsequently took on additional IT certifications on his own accord. In his own words, \"After 50 is a new start for me.\"
I have spoken at length about unemployment. But various Members of the House have pointed out that this may not reveal the full picture of underemployment and asked if the Government is monitoring this.
There are two different concepts of underemployment.
One is time-related, where the worker would like to work for longer hours but is unable to find a job that allows him to do so. This is well-defined and, internationally, there are ways to measure this. MOM regularly tracks and publishes resident time-related underemployment and this can be found in MOM's Labour Force Survey.
The resident time-related underemployment rate has averaged 3.6% over the past 10 years. Although the resident time-related underemployment rate rose to 4.1% in 2020 due to COVID-19, it still remains relatively low.
The other type of underemployment is skills-related, when the worker believes that his current job does not fully utilise his skills. This is more subjective and this is what I think a few Members have alluded to earlier on. But this is more subjective as there is, as yet, no internationally accepted standard for measuring this.
MOM is part of a working group led by the International Labour Organization, or ILO, to develop suitable methodologies to relate an individual's occupation to their skill and educational level.
These are discussions involving professional labour market statisticians. So, while I appreciate the interest of Members for MOM to magically provide a KPI for skills-related underemployment, the fact that there is at the ILO a working group of statisticians studying how this should be measured, should highlight that this is not a simple matter.
In the meantime, we regularly track and publish the number of self-employed persons, or SEPs.
The graph here shows the share of our local workforce who are SEPs since 2010. They include private hire car drivers, taxi drivers, real estate agents and hawkers, who are not employed by a company.
The proportion of SEPs has remained stable at between 8% and 10% over the past two decades, although we did see an uptick during COVID-19.
Gig workers are defined as SEPs who use online matching platforms. The top occupation of gig workers is private hire car drivers on online matching platforms like Grab or Gojek. Around 1.5% of our local workforce is working in this particular occupation.
In response to a survey by MOM, 70% of them said they do this on a preferred basis because they would like the flexibility and also the freedom of time. Grab's own survey echoed this. More than 70% of their private hire car drivers have chosen to take up work via Grab because of the flexibility of time.
For the 30% who wish to transit to regular employment, they can tap on our skills training and employment facilitation services, including career advisory counselling offered by WSG and e2i.
As mentioned by Prime Minister Lee during the 2021 National Day Rally, MOM will form an advisory committee to propose recommendations to improve protection for this group.
Ultimately, the best thing we can do for our locals is to continually invest in them to help them adapt and compete. But it seems the PSP would want us to take a more effortless route and simply target the 400,000 foreign PMETs they say are here.
In fact, as Mr Leong Mun Wai noted, the number of EP and S Pass holders has fallen to 350,000. How much lower does he want it to go? Three hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand? Or maybe zero?
Ms Hazel Poa has painted a simple narrative that if we keep labour supply tight, it will contribute to productivity improvements and a higher wage growth for Singaporeans. But at a certain point, a tight labour market can also lose us opportunities and the ability to internationalise. This can cost us jobs and wage growth in the long run. It is not such a simple linear relationship.
Let us not talk about rebalancing abstractly. Let us focus instead on the PSP's policy suggestions.
Can the PSP explain how all of this will not dampen Singapore's attractiveness to foreign investors and cause poorer outcomes for the vast majority?
As a small country that is devoid of any natural resources, there are severe consequences if we turn inwards, lose our lustre as a regional hub and cause companies to leave our shores and take the jobs with them.
I speak to many businesses, trade associations and chambers. A common thread in their feedback is the difficulty of finding enough locals with the right skills and this has hampered their expansion plans. Some of them are giving up and turning to hiring foreigners based in their home country. After all, people can now work from anywhere.
The 10 biggest MNCs in Singapore alone create around 30,000 local PMET jobs. If they decide to leave, we would not be talking about recouping tens of thousands of jobs but about losing more of them instead.
Members might also know that Singapore has already fallen from first to fifth in the Institute for Management Development's, or IMD's, 2021 World Competitiveness Ranking.
This was partly due to COVID-19 as our small economy was more affected by the global slowdown than larger ones. In particular, we have slid in our openness towards global trade and talent in rankings regarding \"attitudes towards globalisation\", \"availability of skilled labour\" and \"immigration laws preventing companies from hiring foreign labour\".
I will say this plainly to Mr Leong Mun Wai. What he and his party spew, attacking CECA and FTAs and foreigners in general, has had an effect on IMD's assessment and on business sentiments, both here and overseas. Investors watch and wonder how many other Singaporeans feel this way. Has Singapore become less welcoming of foreign investments and of global talent?
Why do you think we are taking this issue so seriously? In July, Minister Ong Ye Kung and I made Ministerial Statements. We decided to confront Mr Leong Mun Wai openly. In August, the Prime Minister addressed the issue again in his National Day Rally speech. And now, in this debate, three Ministers have spoken thus far, myself for the second time.
Do Mr Leong Mun Wai and his party think Singapore will forever be attractive to investors? Is there some magic in our water that draws global multinationals here and that all this happens spontaneously?
Mr Speaker, Sir, we have made this happen and we will continue to make it happen.
You have heard Minister Lawrence Wong recall how Mr Lee Kuan Yew went so far as to pay special attention to how the road leading from Changi Airport to the city looked.
Day in, day out, many Government agencies continue to work hard to make sure that we remain safe and attractive to investors so that they come here, they sink billions here, erect plants, labs, studios, facilities here, create jobs and livelihoods for Singaporeans, including our children, so that they can do jobs of the future and not of the past.
As a result of this unremitting work over the last 60 years, Singapore remains a competitive economy, as proven by our pipeline of investments even during the pandemic.
However, please note. Other economies are also upping their ante. We cannot afford to take our economic competitiveness for granted. The attitudes that PSP is promoting are detrimental to how others perceive our openness. Mr Leong Mun Wai, please, have a care.
I know that, by and large, Singaporeans are pragmatic and they understand that we need to remain open to global talents and stay connected. Some of them feel frustrated when they see a foreigner being hired, though he may not be able to do the job as well as a Singaporean, or simply because he has links with the hiring manager.
We know these sorts of things happen. That is why when it comes to our foreign workforce policies, we constantly adjust them to ensure that foreigners complement, and not displace, our locals. We strengthen our levers against discriminatory practices.
Yet, in spite of our work, the PSP continues to criticise our foreign workforce policies as being too lax. Today, we hear some ideas from them. They characterised our \"foreign talent policy\" as a conduit for quick immigration and a source of cheap labour and claimed that the qualifying salaries of S Passes and EPs are too low. They said that there is an unfair wage competition because employers do not have to pay the 17% CPF contribution for foreigners.
They have asked us to raise the EP qualifying salary to $10,000 and the S Pass qualifying salary to $4,500. They have asked us to impose a $1,200 EP levy, to impose a 25% to 30% cap on work pass holders and PRs and to impose a hard nationality cap of 10% in each firm.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also laments that we do not have enough Singaporeans in leadership positions and elsewhere, he has suggested greater protection for top leadership roles.
Let me take each point in turn.
First, on Mr Leong Mun Wai's claim that our qualifying salaries are too low and that there is unfair wage competition. I wonder whether Mr Leong is aware that the numbers he cited are the minimum qualifying salaries for EP and S Pass holders at the youngest ages. Does he know that our qualifying salaries rise with age to maintain a level playing field for our mature PMETs? For example, the EP qualifying salary for those in their 40s is around double the minimum qualifying salary.
I would like to ask: has the PSP actually consulted businesses on what they think of our current policy?
Many businesses, including SMEs, are already crying out that they are not able to access the foreign PMETs that they need. We listen to them, we engage them, we help them transform and we help them find suitable Singaporeans. But, ultimately, we explain to them why we have to hold the line.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has also repeated the point that foreign EP holders are cheaper to hire than locals because their employers do not make CPF contributions.
I have already clarified this point on 6 July but let me do so again. The CPF is set aside for our retirement needs and it can also be used for housing. Foreign PMETs are not working in Singapore on a permanent basis and we are not responsible for their retirement adequacy or their home ownership needs. It does not make sense for us to extend the CPF coverage and benefits to them.
I think everyone in this House knows the interest rate that we pay on our CPF contributions. I would not elaborate further. Fundamentally, our CPF system is designed to benefit our resident workers, not to help attract or deter foreigners.
So, how do we maintain a level playing field? When reviewing the qualifying salary to maintain a level playing field, we take into account the CPF contributions as part of the cost to employers.
Ms Hazel Poa also highlighted the issue of false salary declarations and kickbacks as ways for employers to get around our work pass framework.
MOM takes firm measures to safeguard the integrity of the work pass framework. False declarations of any sorts are an offence under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). It carries a fine of up to $20,000, up to two years' imprisonment or both.
The fact that Ms Hazel Poa is aware of this means she is also aware that MOM has been enforcing this and publicising our efforts to stamp out these illegal practices. At the same time, the PSP's solution is to raise the salary criteria for EP and S Pass holders significantly. Does the PSP think that this underlying problem will get better with their suggestion?
Second, imposing, a levy of $1,200 on all EP holders. This is easy enough for the Government to do. It also generates revenue. So, why do we not go down this route? Because at the EP level, our primary focus is on regulating quality. A levy would have the opposite effect. Employers have finite budgets for manpower.
Suppose an employer has set aside $10,000 a month for a new EP hire, a levy of $1,200 effectively reduces his budget to $8,800. This immediately narrows the pool of EP candidates from those willing to consider a salary of $10,000 and below to those willing to consider a salary of $8,800 and below. How would this benefit the employer or his Singaporean employees if the intention is to seek the best talents available?
We would also be sending contradictory signals if we say that we welcome high-calibre global professionals to Singapore on the one hand and impose a levy on them on the other. So, instead of a levy, we focus on regulating quality through the EP salary criterion and this sets a high bar that EP holders must reach to work in Singapore and it raises their quality over time.
Third, imposing a 25% to 30% cap on work pass holders and Permanent Residents in the long run. First, I think PSP should know that we have quotas at the S Pass level. We have already been reducing the S Pass Sub-Dependency Ratio Ceiling over the past decade for the services sector. The services sector is currently at 10%, down from 25%, and there are ongoing cuts still taking place in all the other sectors.
I have also explained why we do not set quotas at the EP level because there is fierce competition for global talent and worldwide shortages in areas, such as technology and digital skills. And doing so would send the wrong signal that we are not welcoming to such talent. Let me give a concrete example.
Take, for example, infrastructure financing. Since the 2000s, MAS has been promoting this because there is a huge infrastructure opportunity in Asia in the yawning financing gap. However, working in this area requires significant expertise, given the complex risk profile of infrastructure projects. In the early days, we did not have enough local talent to work in this area. Global banks, especially Japanese and European Banks, were the most active players in the initial phase and had the talent and the expertise. Mizuho Bank was one such bank that chose to set up a project financing team in Singapore. In 2003, Singaporeans accounted for 40% of its project financing team. Now, Singaporeans occupy 70% of a much larger office.
If we have imposed the quotas up front, I doubt this would have happened.
If PSP insists on the 30% quota, then I would like to ask, would you turn away a company that creates 69 high-end jobs for locals because it needs 31 foreigners from abroad? If PSP's prevailing assumption is that less foreigners means more jobs for locals, what would stop it from lowering this quota further to 20% or 10% or 0%?
Mr Leong Mun Wai had previously suggested that it is not good enough for Singaporeans to make up 70% of the workforce in the financial sector, but that it should be even higher at 80% or 90%. In which case, how do we remain and maintain our status as an International Financial Centre?
Fourth, imposing a hard nationality cap of 10% within each firm. Once you stack up a 30% cap on top of another 10% cap, it becomes clear that Mr Leong Mun Wai's policy can only make the environment so hostile that very few foreign investors will consider Singapore when building any business. Maybe no foreign investor will consider. To use the example of Mizuho Bank, the effect of Mr Leong's proposal is to tell a Japanese bank that only 10% of their workers can be Japanese nationals.
Nevertheless, as I have shared in my 6 July Ministerial Statement, we understand the tensions that can arise when a foreign nationality dominates and we have levers today to address this. The Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watchlist identifies firms with high concentration of a single nationality. Their work pass applications are scrutinised for potential discriminatory hiring and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) engages them.
And as I had also shared, we are exploring further refinements to our EP framework to help us achieve our objectives of a strong Singaporean Core complemented by a diverse foreign workforce.
Finally, on Mr Leong Mun Wai's calls to ring-fence positions in top management for Singaporeans. Let me state simply that we helped Singaporeans rise to the top, not by protecting them, but by enabling them. Many companies have programmes in place to groom talent for leadership positions. Take Asia Pacific Breweries, for example. Their staff can participate in their Management Team and Beyond Fast Track programme, be rotated into positions globally and expand their skill sets.
When companies first set up here, it is understandable that they will need to bring in many of their senior management to oversee the business here. If we protect the top management jobs for Singaporeans alone and companies decide not to invest here because of that, we would lose good jobs for our locals and the opportunity for them to take on the higher level positions in the future would also diminish. I worry that the PSP is calling for policies that are not only short-sighted but protectionist and this will do grave harm to Singaporeans.
I would also like to address Mr Pritam Singh's idea of a time-limited EP to facilitate skills transfer. I should point out to Mr Singh that no work pass is issued indefinitely. At the point of renewal, employers must meet our prevailing criteria. The idea of a skills transfer requirement sounds good in theory but, in practice, it is not as straightforward to implement. The process of skills transfer is rarely linear or one-to-one. So, I do not think it makes sense for MOM to be the judge to set a fixed duration and force employers to let go of experienced work pass holders once their fixed term is up.
I want to finally address our efforts to stamp out discrimination. Minister Lawrence Wong touched on the anti-discrimination legislation earlier, but I would like to address the PSP's claim that because FCF was introduced in 2014, fair consideration for our locals was not a priority before that. In fact, the tripartite partners have been issuing guidelines on fair employment practices over the past two decades, having introduced the tripartite guidelines on non-discriminatory job advertisements as early as 1999.
In 2002, we added the Code of Responsible Employment Practices.
In 2006, we set up the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP).
In 2007, we issued the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP).
In 2011, we enhanced the TGFEP to include guidelines on hiring and developing a Singaporean Core.
In 2014, the introduction of the FCF took these efforts one step further by introducing the job advertising requirement and we have been progressively strengthening the FCF ever since. We introduced the FCF watchlist in 2016, as a systematic framework for engaging firms, with outlier, workforce profiles and scrutinising them for potential discrimination.
In 2020, we strengthened the penalties against firms found to have discriminatory hiring practices. In the same year, we extended the coverage of the FCF job advertising requirement to S Passes and doubled the minimum job advertising period from 14 to 28 days.
Ensuring responsible and fair employment practices has always been our priority. At the National Day Rally 2021 recently, Prime Minister Lee announced we are taking the next step of strengthening our enforcement against workplace discrimination through legislation. Members of the House, this is a major step, both philosophically and legally. This will cover discrimination on the grounds of nationality, in addition to other kinds of discrimination covered by the TGFEP and it sends a clear signal that discrimination of any kind is not tolerated.
When you consider all the policies we have put in place, it is quite clear that we are providing strong support for the employment of local PMETs. Even Ms He Ting Ru has noticed and acknowledged our plans to legislate TAFEP guidelines.
Indeed, many companies tell us that they prefer to hire locals over foreigners, so long as they can find the skill sets here. Even if there is initially a shortage of skills, many are willing to develop local talent to fill these roles. Take, for example, PayPal. When it first started, it had to rely more heavily on global talent for specialised technical skills and more senior roles that required managing regional teams. However, PayPal committed to hire and train 150 Singaporeans across tech and business roles over three years.
I acknowledge: there will always be more work to be done. I have said before in my past Statements that we are always a work-in-progress because we continue to refine and tweak and improve. We will always continuously refine our policies to secure the well-being and the livelihoods of Singaporeans in a post-pandemic world.
But, Members of the House, we must not discard the principles that have worked well for us. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now say a few words in Mandarin and I will try to keep it short.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Recently, the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Roland Ng, wrote in a Lianhe Zaobao column that, “The business community agrees with the Government that it is important to secure good employment opportunities and outcomes for locals. However, we also recognise the value of having high-quality foreign workers who can complement the local workforce, help boost the economy, and create a win-win situation.”
I fully agree with Mr Roland Ng. The key objective of Singapore's economic policy is to create good job opportunities for our people, thereby improving and uplifting the overall standard of living. The Government’s objective has not changed: we want to help Singaporeans fulfil their potential, seize opportunities, and improve productivity.
As our economy grows and transforms, many businesses have brought in foreign professionals to complement the local workforce. This has resulted in stiffer competition for local workers. Some groups of workers would inevitably feel the pressure, particularly the mature PMETs.
I can understand their anxiety. Mature PMETs face challenges from multiple fronts. For example, the digitalisation and technological shifts have led to structural changes to the global economy. Companies require their employees to be equipped with related skill sets, but these could be different from what our mature PMETs were trained in. In addition, mature PMETs face competition not only from foreign workers in Singapore, but also younger Singaporeans who have received higher education.
How should we face the challenges in today’s evolving and highly competitive world? Confucius once said, \"At the age of 50, you know what fate has in store for you\". I find it very enlightening. As one approaches middle age, one would have gone through many ups and downs in life and acquired precious experiences along the way. At this age, one should be more adaptable to circumstances and not rigidly follow the rules, or be unwilling to consider new ideas. One should face all challenges calmly. Therefore, I urge everybody to continually upskill and reskill to adapt to new working environments. Only then, can we build a better future for ourselves and our families.
Besides mature PMETs, Self-employed Persons (SEPs) also face tough challenges. The Government is paying closer attention to SEPs working for online platforms because they have an employee-like relationship with these platforms, but they are not covered under the Employment Act. We have established an Advisory Committee to explore how to strengthen protections for these platform workers. We will continue to provide training and job-matching services for other SEPs who wish to transit into regular employment.
Famous Hong Kong singer Sam Hui has a classic song called, “Life is like chess”. A memorable line in the lyrics goes, \"Looking ahead, life is like a game of chess. You should ponder over every move. I hope that our chess skills are comparable, and that we understand life through the art of the game.\" Indeed, life is like a chess game. When you are faced with an ever-changing situation, you will miss out on many good opportunities if you are indecisive.
As for the economy and employment, the Government is actively driving business transformation, creating more jobs that are attractive to Singaporeans to ensure that we emerge stronger in the coming endemic phase. To become a winner, the key lies in everyone working together, laying a strong foundation, and seizing the opportunities. Only by doing so can we achieve good outcomes for all.
(In English): Let me conclude. The PSP has fielded a slew of data requests. We have responded to all of these. We have given you the number of foreign PMETs. We have given you the number of ICTs over the past few years. We have given you the number of local PMETs. Data is regularly published on unemployment and time-related underemployment.
So, the debate today is on whether CECA and other FTAs allow complete free flow. The answer is clear. It does not.
And second, how do these impact on local employment? In July and now, we have shown you that local employment has increased as a result of FTAs. There is enough data for that. This suggestion that you are not being given data is really a red herring.
Based on what I have shared today, I think reasonable Members would agree that our strategies have worked for the vast majority of Singaporeans. I have not based this argument on anecdotes or perceptions alone but on hard data and facts.
Nevertheless, the concerns of the minority are just as important to all of us. We cannot assure today to every Singaporean that their jobs will always be protected. But make no mistake. We will work very, very, very hard to protect every Singaporean and ensure your employability.
Mr Leong Mun Wai has presented us with one bleak and biased view: that of an anxious and fearful Singapore, whose instinctive reaction to challenges is to withdraw from the world. I reject this view of Singapore and Singaporeans. It does not define us and is not us.
The Motion put forward by Minister Lawrence Wong acknowledges our anxieties, while affirming our achievements; preserves what has worked well, while pointing out the work to be done. And I repeat what Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Lawrence Wong have said: we are prepared to fight the next General Election on these principles. And we are determined to fight any party wedded to racism and xenophobia, and a small-minded vision of Singapore. With that, I support Minister Lawrence Wong’s Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank the Minister for your passionate, informative presentation.
I have a few clarifications. One is PSP has never said we want a closed society or economy. We have just suggested policies that you disagreed with. But today, we are happy that we are here, that all of us recognise that there is a problem. But, of course, before I come to this debate, I know the problem is we cannot agree on the causes of the problem and the severity of the problem. As a result, our solutions will be very different.
So, what the Minister has said just now, I would like to one, clarify that we have not said that we want a closed economy or society. We also want an open society. How we maintain an open society, how we send the message to foreigners, it depends on how we Singaporeans get united and speak with one voice. Now, we have two voices: one from the Government, one from PSP; and maybe the other alternative parties as well because we got the feedback from the ground.
So, what we want, whatever you said, today we come here to realise that there is a problem and that means the past policies have some problems. You cannot just say, \"Oh, we just continue with those policies\". So, that is why we are asking for a rebalance and I would want to explain to you a little bit more what rebalancing we are talking about.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, are you seeking clarifications or making another speech? You will have a chance to round up later. If you have clarifications for the Minister, please raise them.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, then, I will direct one question first. First of all, you mentioned about the number of PMEs that were — jobs that were increased from 2005 to 2020. On 6 July, your number was 380,000 for locals and 112,000 for EPs. Today, you give us a figure of 300 and 100. What is the change? Why, why the change? First question. Minister, please.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Leong for his agreement with many of our policies, even though he thinks that all he is asking for is a rebalancing and I have said that we continually work to refine and tweak and improve our policies. So, we thank you at least —
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, sorry —
Dr Tan See Leng: He does not agree.
Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Leong?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, what I have said is that the policies have actually produced some problems. So, we are here to discuss how to solve the problems. I did not say I agree with your policies. In fact, one of the reasons why we differ on our assessment of the situation is because I think for some of the basic assumptions, there is a big difference. But we will discuss again on that. So, please continue, Minister.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Leong has said that PSP has never said that it wants a closed economy. But our point in all of our speeches, I do not think the PAP has ever suggested that we want an economy that is open to every and any foreigner. We have always maintained that we want to select the right talent to complement us. So, I said, let us not talk in abstractions. Let us not hypothesise. What I had debated were your concrete suggestions and why it would not lead to the re-balancing that you asked for.
To your point on the differences in data cited, it is a matter of differences in timeframe. Anyway, all of this data is published, Mr Leong. You can look it up. And, again, if you cannot find it, we are happy to point you to it, just as we have pointed Ms Hazel Poa, to where to look for that information.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sorry, Speaker, Sir, I still have one response.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Minister, sorry. What is the difference in the timeframe? Both are from 2005 to 2020, right?
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, may I respond?
Mr Speaker: Please proceed.
Dr Tan See Leng: On 6 July, it is 15 years from 2005 to 2020 and, at that time, we were talking about PMEs and EPs. When we have time, I can actually segregate and explain to you the difference between PMETs, which are the equivalent of the EPs and S Passes; and PMEs, which are just the equivalent of the EPs. So, today, the statistics quoted to you are for 10 years, from 2010 to 2020. And it is about PMETs and the EPs and S Passes. So, I hope that clears it up. It is different time horizon and also different categorisation.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.
Ms Hazel Poa: Firstly, the charts that have been displayed on the screen over at our location, we cannot see it, any of it. So, can I request for it to be made available to us in a different form?
Mr Speaker: I am sure we can.
Ms Hazel Poa: Okay. The Minister is still quoting 300,000 increase in local PME jobs, but you have not quite answered my question whether those figures include changes resulting from reclassification, as I have mentioned in my speech earlier.
To clarify on my PQs asking for data that is already published, when I communicated with the Parliament Staff, I made it clear that I wanted to compare with some of the statistics that the Government has released; sometimes, as PMETs, sometimes as PMEs.
So, I said that they could either tell us which are the finer classifications that come under PMEs or PMETs or, alternatively, give me the total number of PMETs and PMEs because what is published goes into finer classifications.
Mr Speaker: Minister.
Dr Tan See Leng: For the first point, in terms of the reclassification, I do not have all the statistics here with me now. But the majority, I think I have shared that on 6 July in my Ministerial Statement. The majority of the local PME growth over the last 10 years went to Singaporeans born in Singapore – the majority. That is more than 50%. So, I would urge Ms Hazel Poa not to drive this kind of separation and segregation. Because I really do not think it is healthy for all of us, particularly when at some stage in our not too distant past, all of us, our parents, maybe our grandparents were immigrants.
Ms Hazel Poa: Okay, I would like to clarify that my intention is not to separate between those who are born in Singapore and those who are naturalised, but merely to understand which are really jobs created and which are really just, due to technicalities, they result in an increase in job but is actually not a real increase; it is just that the job holder's status is reclassified.
Dr Tan See Leng: Perhaps, I was not clear. The majority of the jobs created went to Singaporeans who are born and bred here. Not reclassified, yes.
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa, do you want to pursue that?
Ms Hazel Poa: Okay, you are unable to give a number? Just majority?
Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa, are you asking about Singaporeans, naturalised, born here or are you talking about —
Ms Hazel Poa: Actually, my intention is just to net off the effect of that job increase which is due to reclassification so that we get a better idea what really is the number of new jobs created.
Mr Speaker: Would you like to elaborate what do you mean by \"reclassification of jobs\"?
Ms Hazel Poa: Okay, I have mentioned this in my speech earlier. So, let us say, for example, you have 1,000 PME jobs held by foreigners. And when these foreigners become PRs, because of the change in status, these 1,000 jobs are now classified under local PMEs —
Mr Speaker: Understand. So, it is still the issue of Singaporean born, others and so on. Okay, Minister.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on I covered it; maybe I was too longwinded. I will just repeat it. During the 6 July Ministerial Statement, I had already shared that the majority of local PME growth over the last decade went to Singaporeans born in Singapore. I know you want a specific percentage, it is a majority, so, it is more than 50%. This is the same for PMETs.
Some of the other data points we have published should make it clear that Singaporeans have benefited. We regularly publish unemployment rates for PRs and citizens. The unemployment rate of citizens has remained stable and low. Secondly, the PR population has also remained stable over the past decade at around 500,000 or half a million. So it is not, and it cannot be the case that most of the employment growth went to PRs.
Ms Hazel Poa: Yes, but the PRs become citizens. So, there is a drop in the PRs and then the new foreigners go in to fill up the PR numbers. So, as a whole, the number of citizens plus PRs actually increases. That base increases, and, therefore, leading to an increase in the number of local PME jobs purely due to reclassification, not job creation. That is my point. I am not really even making a difference between citizens and PRs. I am just talking about local citizens plus PR.
Dr Tan See Leng: Mr Speaker, may I respond?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
Dr Tan See Leng: Ms Poa, I have said that the majority of the jobs went to local bred and born Singaporeans. Majority. That means more than 50%. So there is no reclassification. So, it is not like as if these PRs became naturalised Singaporeans. This majority is Singaporeans who are born and bred here. So, for that majority under that category, the statistics do not include those who are not born here.
Ms Hazel Poa: Maybe let me just clarify. The majority of the job increase or majority of the PME jobs are held by those born and bred in Singapore?
Dr Tan See Leng: I am very mindful of and I am actually trying to understand the Member's question here. But the majority of the jobs created went to Singaporeans.
Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.
Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister. I also oppose the Motion proposed by Mr Leong Mun Wai to the extent that it states free trade agreements like CECA are responsible for the anxieties created for Singaporeans in relation to jobs. I am quite surprised that Mr Leong maintains this position despite the clarifications that had been provided in the last Sitting about how free trade agreements like CECA work.
It is common ground that Singaporeans have anxieties about jobs. As advisor to the Metal Industries Workers' Union, I have seen retrenchments take place and I have seen how businesses cope with difficulties. The usual cause of retrenchments is usually business difficulties or restructuring. This has nothing to do with free trade agreements. These are business realities.
In the course of COVID-19, many industries have suffered as well, sectors like retail, F&B and tourism. Even well-known names like Robinsons have folded during this period.
The sufferings of all these businesses have nothing to do with free trade agreements. Global businesses are such that business cycles have become much smaller, there is a lot more volatility and people may need to change jobs because the world changes. Industries become redundant very quickly. Typically, in situations where redundancies take place, the reality is that it is usually the foreigners who lose their jobs first as work passes are not renewed.
For those Singaporeans who need to be redeployed or reskilled, where industries are unionised, the unions come in to help. So, this is how we try to work with Singaporeans with job anxieties. And right now, the job anxieties are only going to get more. For those who retain jobs, especially in this current climate, there are many people who feel pressured working from home as well, because they fear potential redundancies. Maybe the bosses do not know that they are working, so they work longer hours. And I think all of this adds to Singaporeans' anxieties about jobs.
As Members of this House, we have to be very clear what are the causes of anxieties.
What happens if there are situations where foreigners take Singaporeans' jobs? And we have all heard anecdotal evidence of this.
MOM has many levers that it does pull in these situations. Currently, companies are required to actually comply with the Fair Consideration Framework, which means that they must give consideration to the resident population first before they apply for foreign work passes. As a lawyer, I have dealt with many companies which have been on the wrong side of this and which have been investigated by MOM and against whom MOM takes actions. So, these levers are exercised judiciously.
What do free trade agreements have to do with all this? I think it would help if people understood free trade agreements. And it is clear that Mr Leong Mun Wai may not even have read the relevant provisions.
The primary aim of free trade agreements is the removal of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes imposed on goods being traded. Generally, the higher the tariffs, the less trade takes place as the cost of trading goes up. Reduction of tariffs encourages trade by reducing transaction costs. Free trade agreements also usually have provisions to facilitate the transfer of services to flow freely between countries. Consumers and businesses will, therefore, have choices to purchase goods and services from all over the world while producers of services can, likewise, look at more countries for a potential market place.
Related to the aim of improving businesses between countries, there are also bilateral and multilateral investment agreements. Typically, these are a different species of agreements. These agreements usually permit countries to invest in each other and the host country would provide protections for such investments such as not to expropriate them. For those of you who have read about a more tumultuous past, there are many situations where foreign investors go into a country, and, because of political turmoil, those investments may get expropriated. So multilateral investment treaties provide that kind of minimum protection.
Some treaties go further. They have clauses that provide Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) status, which means that we will give this country the same provisions it gives to any other trading country.
Against this backdrop, CECA is primarily a free trade agreement that allows goods and services to flow freely between India and Singapore. It has some clauses that protect investments and these include protections against expropriation in Chapter 6.
Let us come to Chapter 9 of CECA. This is where Mr Leong Mun Wai, I think, has found the language on free movement of persons. There is language here on the free movement of persons. But what it allows is the free movement of persons for temporary purposes. This is primarily to facilitate people wishing to visit one country or another for business purposes. I am part of Rajah and Tann’s South Asia Desk and I have a number of clients from India. Generally, if any of them wishes to visit Singapore, they will need a sponsor from Singapore to indicate they are visiting for business purposes when they apply for a visa. And on this basis, they may be granted a visa to visit. The same applies for people who wish to visit for investments and the same thing applies to Singaporeans who wish to visit India. So, this facilitates the free movement of people to do business.
Does this take away jobs? No. Does this create jobs? Potentially, yes. Because more people are coming here to do business. More businesses start up here. More businesses service other parts of the world.
Chapter 9 of CECA does not change anything in relation to citizenship, permanent residence and long-term employment. And this is very expressed in clause 9.2. This means that Singapore retains full discretion on who it admits. The drivers for our long-term employment policies are our needs, as Dr Tan See Leng has explained very clearly in his Ministerial Statement. If it is felt we do not need that many people in a particular sector, or that Singaporeans can do the jobs, it is already within our power to do this and CECA does not change this.
So, what really is Mr Leong Mun Wai trying to achieve with this Motion? CECA is just one out of 26 free trade agreements that we have. Why focus on this one? Is it simply to target Indian nationals or, worse, people of Indian ethnicity? It is clear that the anxieties about jobs relate to structural issues that have nothing to do with CECA.
At the same time, CECA potentially helps to create jobs for people by facilitating investments and trade. According to MTI, some 97,000 locals were employed in 2019 by organisations that invested in India.
If people in this House who have the ability and should research and look into things before coming, do their homework, I think we will probably be in a situation where we have clarity on these issues. I have heard feedback from many people in the Indian community about the discomfort they are feeling with the current anti-CECA stance being perpetuated, which is a thinly-veiled attack against Indians. Even the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged it is a dog-whistle in some corners. Many in Singapore’s Indian community also get caught up and mistaken in this anti-foreigner torrent.
In some ways, I can understand why members of the public may have mistaken beliefs that treaties like CECA are causing foreigners to take their jobs. Essentially, they may be feeling job pressures and job losses, particularly during the pandemic. At the same time, they may see many foreigners, including Indian nationals, having jobs. But these jobs are in different sectors and these jobs, if the Singaporeans are eligible for them, they should apply for them. And if they are not given fair consideration, they can report to MOM and MOM will take action against the employers.
So, I think it is important for us to help solve misunderstandings and make it clear that even though there are foreigners who have jobs, they are not getting it by virtue of free trade agreements like CECA.
But Mr Leong Mun Wai also talked about the Population White Paper and said that this was a White Paper that proposed allowing foreigners to come into Singapore. I was actually in this House when the White Paper was being debated. And again, if you read the White Paper, it says very expressly, we cannot allow in an unlimited number of foreign workers. We do not want to be overwhelmed by more foreign workers than we can absorb or to expand our total population beyond what our island is able to accommodate.
So, if you look at the White Paper properly, it is really a very balanced Paper that looks at Singapore's long-term needs and how many foreigners we can accommodate within that framework.
Against this backdrop, I think, to me, it is very clear that CECA and free trade agreements really have nothing to do with the anxieties Singaporeans face about jobs. There are very real anxieties Singaporeans face and the way to address those is to make sure we continue to create new jobs and be an attractive place for investments to come in.
I am also one of those who agree that we should have protection for Singaporeans and I was also one of those who spoke in favour of the anti-discrimination laws, which I am glad are coming into force. This will give an additional lever.
Currently, MOM already has the power to take away work passes for foreign workers for employers who engage in discriminatory practices. What potential anti-discrimination laws would do is also give the aggrieved individual a personal right, a personal remedy. So, to me, this is one more additional measure to prevent employers from exercising discrimination.
Let me, in closing, also address the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh.
I am glad that the Workers' Party does seem to have a lot of common ground with us. They have stated expressly that they agree free trade agreements are important for Singapore's future and he has also acknowledged that CECA has been used as a dog-whistle in some corners for racist behaviour.
But I will have to stop short of supporting the amendments. I would actually be objecting to them. The main reason I am objecting to the amendments is firstly, they change the substance of the Motion.
This Motion is a very clear one. There are two Motions before this House. Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion claims that Singaporeans' job anxieties are caused by free trade agreements like CECA. The Minister's Motion is quite different. It focuses on the measures we need to take to deal with Singaporeans' anxieties and denounces the link to CECA and free trade agreements.
I think what Mr Pritam Singh is really trying to do is to include one of his pet topics – a request for more information – into this debate, which is really quite different from what the core of this debate is.
The first amendment, of course, where he is changing the word \"supports Government action\" to \"calls for stronger Government action\" also has an insinuation that the Government is not doing enough. I personally do not think this is fair to the hard work done by people in MOM who I know are bending over backwards to enforce and take measures to support local employment. So, I do not agree with that amendment.
The second amendment to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans. There is, actually, a great deal of information out there already. There is quarterly labour market data, advanced market data coming out with breakdowns of Singaporeans and foreigners employed. So, I think an insinuation that there is not adequate information out there is something I cannot support.
In relation to free trade agreements, there are the agreements themselves out there in the public domain which anyone can read but I think very few do, except perhaps a few people like us lawyers. But that information is out there. There is information on the MTI website that simplifies the benefits of free trade agreements for people and, of course, if more information is needed, if a debate is needed on the cost and benefits, we can always have Motions in Parliament.
So, in my view, I do not think the amendment is necessary because it insinuates that there is not enough information out there and we cannot make sensible decisions with the available information. Mr Speaker, for that reason, I would not be supporting the amendment.
Mr Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, let me declare that I am a council member of Singapore Business Federation (SBF).
I have spent 37 years in the ICT industry and I was a foreign worker myself: three years in Japan and eight years in China. So, thank you, Mr Speaker, for the privilege to join in the debate on the subject of jobs, livelihoods and foreign talent.
I have shared previously in this Chamber my views of the imperative of free trade agreements (FTAs) for Singapore businesses. The FTA network which Singapore has established, including the more recent Digital Economic Agreements, offer a key tool for businesses to expand into new markets, enhancing accessibility to different markets.
I quote Mr Lam Yi Young, CEO of SBF who wrote in a July article, \"Trade is Singapore's lifeline, and it is imperative that we remain open and connected to the world.\"
We are a country built by immigrants. But Singapore has gone from third world to the first by recognising that though we are an island, it is imperative that we cannot behave like one. We need to be relevant to the global economy. When I did research of all the rankings that are out there, in almost every competitiveness ranking report for the most innovative cities in the world, the world's best global cities, the world's most competitive economy, this is what I found.
A city's ability to attract talented human capital, generate economic growth, increase competitiveness and ensure stability and security are key factors that make the difference. Singapore, though just a little red dot, is ranked amongst the top 10 in many of these lists.
The concentration of quality talent is invariably a key factor for outperformers, whether they are companies or cities. Singapore's highly- educated workforce, enabled by world-class University communities here, coupled with our ability to attract diversity of global talent, has helped us maintain our competitiveness and attracted large multinational companies to expand in Singapore and startups to plant their seeds of innovation here.
In dialogues which I had with trade associations and chambers (TACs) throughout the year, it is almost unanimous – I could say unanimous – that Singapore must maintain our open foreign talent policy.
To quote Mr Farid Khan, President of Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce, \"Singapore must accept diversity and remain open and transparent in our foreign talent policy even as we scale up the number of graduates from Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) majoring in key disciplines where we have supply/demand gaps: information technology, cybersecurity, software engineering and the like.\"
In the same breath, all agree that companies, both global MNCs and Singapore companies, need to implement fair practices in the workplace. They demonstrated their commitment with a pledge in January earlier this year and Mr Per Magnusson tells me that the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce has focused on operationalising the intent of the pledge by doing a pilot of orientation programmes for newcomers to Singapore.
But, of course, alas, industry-wide, it is still work in progress.
We might think that foreign talents are needed only by the MNCs but that is not true.
Dr T Chandroo, Chairman of the Singapore Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) shared with me an example in the built environment industry.
Building information modelling (BIM) professionals were in high demand for their competences and skills early last year or in recent years. However, positions, such as BIM managers, project managers and architectural managers, had to be filled by foreigners or outsourced to foreign companies because Singaporean architects and engineers were not sufficiently exposed to the convergence of these technologies with traditional engineering and architectural disciplines.
The foreign talent was proficient in visualising building information models (BIMs) and AutoCAD. Likewise, in the engineering domain, there is an increasing need for employees to have multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary skill sets.
Businesses that have secured contracts from clients cannot wait for a critical mass of Singaporeans to be trained before they can service the contracts. Foreign talent, hence, provides a good complement as our Singaporean Core upskill and reskill for the changing demands.
Notwithstanding that I am a National University of Singapore (NUS) alumni, I must say that NUS' bold move in transforming curriculum structures – for example, setting up the new College of Design and Engineering – to prepare the future Singaporean workforce who will be interdisciplinary, broad-based critical thinkers and problem solvers in a VUCA world – VUCA being volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous – is exactly what the industry expects of our world-class Universities: to lead the way of change and to secure our workforce's relevance in the new normal.
Mr Roland Ng, President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce, recently wrote an opinion piece in Zaobao; and I am very happy that Minister Tan See Leng actually referred to it in Chinese just now.
Mr Ng shared that while companies are committed to do all they can to transform their business model, redesign jobs, offer training and upskilling and reskilling opportunities to locals, there remains a near-to medium-term structural issue, that is, locals continue to shun certain jobs, for example, physically strenuous jobs, jobs that require shift work and workplaces in remote locations.
There are certain deep-seated negative stereotypes of jobs which Singaporeans seem to not want to take on or, perhaps, I should say, that Singaporean parents do not want their kids to take on.
These jobs, however, are critical and essential to our economy. Such jobs can be found in both the domestic sector like the built environment and construction as well as the export sector.
For example, a considerable number of foreign manpower work in our food manufacturing sector that exports about 60% of its manufacturing output to overseas markets. Without continued access to foreign workers, companies in these essential sectors will not be able to function, stay viable and thrive, and, hence, even the jobs of the locals in those companies will be threatened and, by extension, impact the wider economy.
Without access to foreign workers to take on work that locals do not want to do, it will affect the export readiness and competitiveness of Singapore brands.
I spoke to Dr Hsien Hsien Lei, CEO of AmCham Singapore and she shared with me a preview of the soon-to-be released 2021 AmCham Manpower Survey of member companies. Sixty-four percent of respondents looking to hire Singaporeans for senior level roles – managers and above – are finding that candidates lack relevant skills and 53% of respondents report candidates lack necessary work experience.
Meanwhile, in order to fill these gaps, companies need to bring in qualified foreign talent who can do the job and also support the training and development of high-potential local talent, especially in areas, such as technical knowledge and global markets. This feedback is pretty consistent with the other TACs.
Critical for Singapore is to understand what are the relevant skills and work experience that employers are looking for and to be willing to step up to learn and to reskill as well as to lean in to express our interest in picking up the new skills and our readiness to pick up the relevant work experiences.
If we do not unleash our voice to compete for the job, we have no one else to blame. Asking \"who has moved my cheese?\" will not help. Go get the cheese. Be humble and learn from the foreign talent coach and do not hesitate to ask the boss for that job when you are done learning.
Why you? Because you are always ready to learn and will do the job even better than your foreign talent coach. And who knows? Your foreign talent coach may get promoted in the headquarters and bring you along as he or she rises in his or her career.
There are many such heartwarming stories during the 30 years of my career. It does take two hands to clap. Everything starts, in my opinion, with the right frame of mind and attitude.
That said, during the Committee of Supply, I did highlight that in engaging with the MNCs, in particular, I hope that MTI and EDB, which are the ones the MNCs work with upfront, will lean in on them to really recognise the value of the Singapore talent as the foundation of their business success. While it is very good to have MOM come in to police and to check, when it is at the policing end, it is always not so much fun. When we start it right, that is always the best.
So, if Singapore hopes to continue to secure good jobs and livelihoods for Singaporeans into the future, we need to continue to be amongst the best of global cities in the world.
The alternative is to fall off to the wayside. For a moment, consider what that alternative might look like.
We no longer are a hub for human capital and, therefore, lose our edge in attracting Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). Without a melting pot of talents, innovations will likely be dry and, without innovation, the investments into the best-in-class infrastructure will not be funded. Businesses no longer find Singapore attractive for their hub activities and the list continues to spiral downward.
At that point, we will not be debating as to whether having foreign talent in our workforce is a good thing or not. The debate would shift to how do we stop the brain drain of our younger Singaporeans who, in the absence of good jobs and good opportunities in a Singapore that has become unplugged from the global network, will need to leave their country in pursuit of better opportunities for themselves and their families, elsewhere.
The future of that Singapore in that story will be sad one. We have watched this movie before.
And as if this is not nightmarish enough, with Singapore's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) being in decline for a few decades and hitting a low of 1.1 in 2020, we will see the decline in the size of the Republic's working population. I have four daughters. So, I can say this loudly.
Let us make sure that we do not ever come close to this alternate state being a reality.
Mr Speaker, I hope that, with humility, pride and solidarity as Singaporeans, we will be a resilient nation. As the Prime Minister said in his National Day Rally closing speech, \"We have done it before, we can do it again\".
I support Minister Lawrence Wong's Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.
The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Please allow me to speak in Mandarin, Mr Speaker.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Speaker, thank you for letting me join the debate.
The impact of foreign manpower on our economy and on Singaporeans is once again a hot topic. The issue is not new. Foreign manpower makes up one-third of our total workforce and are present in many professions. It is quite normal to have objective discussions about the advantages and disadvantages associated with foreign manpower.
However, the focus seems to have shifted over the last one to two years. FTAs, especially CECA, have been targeted. Some claim that CECA allowed for the influx of large numbers of workers of Indian origin, harming the interests of Singaporean PMETs. It is not hard to notice PSP’s enthusiasm for such claims.
On 6 July, Ministers Ong Ye Kung and Tan See Leng gave thorough clarifications and rebuttals to such claims.
Today, the PSP is moving a Motion on Singaporeans’ anxiety on jobs and livelihoods, making specific mention of CECA again, as though the discussion on 6 July never took place. Clearly, PSP remains unmoved by what the two Ministers had shared.
The PSP has been using guerrilla-style tactics, raising piecemeal questions in Parliament and on social media on the nationalities of foreign workers and the structure of our labour force. When asked point-blank, they have expressed agreement with the Government’s economic strategy, only to change tune again.
Hearing their speeches today, I feel even more confused. Mr Leong Mun Wai said in his speech that CECA is not his main focus today. Then why put it in the title of the Motion? When he could not answer Minister Shanmugam’s questions, his response was to ask for more data.
We may never find out what is the PSP’s real stance on the issue, but that does not really matter. I do not believe most Singaporeans would support discrediting the whole of the Government’s economic strategy. But it is true that employment is a sensitive topic to many people, especially because of the impact of digitalisation and automation, as well as COVID-19 on our livelihoods. So, inevitably there will be some anxiety. I doubt the public would care particularly about our specific responses to Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa, but they would want to know whether the Government is aware of some reasonable doubts they might harbour and what the Government is going to do about them.
I believe we can group these into four main doubts.
If the Government truly prioritises the interests of Singaporeans, why allow in so many foreign PMETs to compete with Singaporeans? If I am treated unfairly by my foreign boss or colleagues, how would the Government help me?
Is the Government truly aware of the struggles of Singaporean PMETs, especially those who are middle-aged and facing stiff competition and fears of being replaced?
Is Singapore not a highly competitive place? Surely, MNCs will continue to invest here even if we further restrict hiring of foreign manpower. Is the Government simply unwilling to do so?
Does the Singapore Government have some kind of special affinity for India and Indian PMETs?
The first doubt to be addressed: why does the Government allow in so many foreign PMETs to compete with Singaporeans? If I am treated unfairly by my foreign boss or colleagues, how would the Government help me?
The Government has focused heavily on developing the economy over the years to secure better jobs and better lives for Singaporeans. International competition never ceases. We have to run to stay in the same place. We must not depend only on our existing competitive advantages but must also capture new growth areas. Our various strategies are interlinked: attracting foreign investment, strengthening local companies, grooming the local workforce through formal education and lifelong learning, and bringing in foreign manpower to complement the local workforce.
Singaporeans are very familiar with this set of economic strategies, particularly our drive to gain hub status for various industries. We seek to attract MNCs to invest in Singapore, particularly to set up their Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific or even global HQs. This brings better jobs and a wider range of employment choices for Singaporeans.
For these strategies to work, it is not enough to have a well-trained and diligent local workforce. We have to let companies recruit foreign manpower to overcome the shortage of local workers and staff the positions available in regional and global HQs, which require familiarity with different countries and regions. So, this foreign manpower would complement local manpower, but also compete to some extent.
Our economy has been growing but the local-born Singapore population has not been able to keep pace. So, we see more foreigners in our economy, and locals feel that competition has intensified.
The Government wants good job opportunities and careers for local employees.
How to bring this about? First, we raise Singaporeans’ competitiveness. We develop a well-rounded and diversified education system, where curricula are regularly updated based on industry feedback, and which prioritises work attachments and internships, so that each graduating cohort is amply prepared for the workplace. We also invest heavily in lifelong learning and implement a full suite of measures under SkillsFuture that encourages reskilling, so that Singaporeans can take on larger roles or enter new professions.
The Government also regulates the entry of foreign PMETs and takes action against unfair treatment. This includes imposing minimum age-salary requirements for EPs so that companies would recruit foreign PMETs of a certain quality who are more likely to complement local PMETs rather than compete directly with locals on wages; requiring companies to follow Tripartite Guidelines for Fair Employment Practices and fairly consider local jobseekers before recruiting foreigners; and paying special attention to companies with a concentration of foreign PMETs of a particular nationality. They may be placed on the Fair Consideration Framework Watchlist and have their EP privileges curtailed.
Even if a company satisfies the above requirements, the Government would take seriously any claim of discrimination against Singaporeans working there, for instance, a foreign boss favouring employees from his country and passing over deserving local employees. Local employees would naturally feel particularly aggrieved if they were being treated unfairly by foreigners, on our own land. Since the whole rationale of allowing foreign manpower in is to help make good jobs available to Singaporeans, the Government will certainly not condone this. If MOM were to receive such reports, it would commence investigations in line with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Companies that behave unfairly will face consequences.
Although such interventions are not public, companies operating in Singapore know they do occur. As Prime Minister Lee has said during the National Day Rally, MNC leaders do pay attention to whether their operations in Singapore have reason to cause concern to the Government. It is the Government’s duty to keep reasonable tabs on enterprise behaviour.
The Government pursues an open economic policy for the benefit of Singaporeans. Although we cannot do without some foreign manpower, the Government will not allow unlimited importation of foreign manpower and will not stand for discrimination against local workers. Subsidies in skills upgrading are largely limited to local workers; support schemes for individuals and families to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 are also focused on locals.
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused incalculable damage to the world economy. However, in 2020, local employment in Singapore increased by 14,900 even as overall employment shrank by 166,600. In other words, foreign manpower bore the brunt of the impact of COVID-19 on the Singapore economy, cushioning the locals. Moreover, PMET vacancies remain.
It is clear that the Government puts the interests of Singaporean workers first.
The second doubt: has the Government truly taken to heart the struggles of middle-aged PMETs?
The Chinese phrase “人到中年” is often quoted in reference to all the pressures and frustrations that people experience once they become middle-aged. In 1982, a Chinese movie of the same title was released. I was very young then and did not fully understand the content. But I recall that the protagonist was long-suffering and that middle-age seemed to be a troubled life stage.
Middle-aged is usually defined as 45-65 years of age. I am now middle-aged, and so are my friends and many of the constituents I serve. I dare say most Members of Parliament also belong to this age group. So, we are most familiar with everything that is associated with this life stage. Middle-aged people have to look after aged parents and, often, young children. At work, aside from dealing with the demands of their bosses and customers, they need to upgrade and keep up with ever-changing technology and face up to intense global competition. We are not as fit and spry as we once were. At the very least, we need new reading glasses. Some among us will also have health worries.
The Government pays particular attention to middle-aged workers, especially middle-aged PMETs. PMETs used to be in the minority within our workforce, but our economic structure has changed significantly; we are now a knowledge-based economy. Knowledge enterprises have grown, and PMETs now form more than half of the workforce. It is normal for companies to restructure and close, and for new companies to be formed all the time in a market economy. So, more PMETs will experience displacement, and more will find themselves changing firms or even professions.
Nonetheless, we have managed to keep PMET unemployment low. However, since 2015, we have observed that the unemployment rate for PMETs aged 50 and above has been trending above that for PMETs in general.
This is a structural trend which reflects the impact of digitalisation and the rapid changes in skills that the market seeks. The jobs held by some middle-aged PMETs were replaced through digitalisation and automation, but new jobs have also emerged, including those related to digital tech.
We need a structural solution, and not simply curb the entry of foreign manpower.
We use a multi-pronged approach to help middle-aged PMETs master new skills and regain employment as soon as possible. SkillsFuture, established in 2015, is, by design, tilted towards supporting middle-aged workers. Unlike fresh graduates, they have been out of school for a longer time and need to reconnect with lifelong learning. A SkillsFuture Mid-Career Support Package was launched last year, and additional SkillsFuture Credit top-ups were made available for those aged 40-60. Workforce SG also focuses its career counselling and job-matching efforts on those who are middle-aged and above. It is also a focus of the National Jobs Council led by Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
Middle-aged PMETs face other pressures, aside from those related to the workplace.
Other policies launched by the Government help to relieve such pressures. Increases in preschool subsidies, enhanced financial assistance schemes for schools, as well as subsidies and bursaries for Institutes of Higher Learning help to reduce the burden on parents. Meanwhile, the Pioneer Generation Package, Merdeka Generation Package, MediShield Life and CareShield Life help those who have to bear their elderly parents’ medical expenses. Older middle-agers can also be direct beneficiaries of some of these schemes.
The Government values middle-aged PMETs. They are a policy priority.
The third doubt: will enterprises really be driven away if we further restrict the entry of foreign manpower?
Building an international trade and finance hub is an arduous task. While Singapore has some competitive advantages, there are also obvious drawbacks, such as our limited manpower pool and high manpower costs. We have strong rivals ahead of us, and competitors nipping at our heels.
If not for the fact that we have expended so much effort to build our economy up to a certain scale, we would not be in a position to even talk about curbing foreign manpower. Of course, we seek to uphold the interests of local jobseekers. The Government is going to take a further step, of legislating the Tripartite Fair Employment Guidelines and enhancing our stand against unfair workplace practices. This was a carefully considered decision after taking in views from Labour Movement representatives and NTUC Members of Parliament. I am glad to hear that Ms He Ting Ru has noticed this, too.
However, we must go about this carefully and strike the right balance. Just now, Ms Janet Ang gave a vivid description of the dire consequences if we do not get the balance right. We have a saying in Chinese: \"it is easy to invite a deity into your home but hard to send it away\".
It is the opposite when it comes to developing the economy and attracting MNCs: it is hard work to attract them, but only too easy to send them away. It is not only MNCs, but local companies, too, who constantly appeal to the Government to relax curbs on foreign manpower so that they may have more breathing room. The Government understands their challenges, but we have to put the interests of Singaporean workers first. In the latest world competitiveness rankings by IMD, Singapore slipped from No 1 to No 5, because we ranked lower for factors, such as “attitudes towards globalisation”, “availability of skilled labour” and “immigration laws preventing companies from hiring foreign labour”. Still a good result, but it goes to show that international competition is stiff.
Losing companies to other economies will result in the worst possible outcome for Singaporean workers. It is necessary to regulate foreign manpower, but we have to do so cautiously and not in abrupt ways. Repeatedly calling for curbs on foreign manpower may win some support, but this could morph into xenophobia and discourage companies from coming here or remaining here. This would affect Singapore’s competitiveness and threaten Singaporeans’ prospects.
The exchange between Ms Hazel Poa and Minister Tan See Leng worries me, because the line of questioning was about local-born Singaporean Citizens. I, too, am a born-and-bred Singaporean. I would be especially happy to see fellow born-and-bred Singaporeans do well. It is very natural.
First, local born Singaporeans share many collective memories and feel a bond with one another. It is only natural that we cheer for one another. Second, Singapore is such a small country, with a small population. To achieve international acclaim in the economic sector or in entrepreneurship, innovation, sports and the arts is no easy feat. We would, undoubtedly, feel happy and proud. But if we were to question a successful person’s citizenship and ask if he is a local-born Singaporean, instead of first congratulating him or being happy for him, then something is changing in our society.
A few days ago, I was invited to a concert co-organised by the Singapore Symphony Orchestra and Lianhe Zaobao, featuring Mr Jin Ta, SSO’s Principal Flute. He played beautifully, but my mind was occupied with today’s debate. I feel apologetic towards him. There he was, such an outstanding musician performing for the audience, and all I could think about was wondering whether everyone would sincerely enjoy his music, or judge his contributions based on his birthplace.
After the concert, the CEO of SSO, Mr Chng Hak Peng, asked for my views, and I shared my thoughts with him candidly. He said, “Guess what? The question I get asked most often is what proportion of the SSO is Singaporean. I would reply that the majority of our musicians are Singapore Citizens. But I would get asked further: how many of them are local-born?”
So, it can be seen that some people do draw such lines in our society – whether in the commercial, arts or sports fields.
There is an ancient Chinese saying: “Judge not a hero by where he came from.” If we do the opposite, we end up going down a path of no return, which is not even logical.
Think about it. We are happy with local-born Singaporeans doing well. But when someone wishes to make Singapore their home, and fight alongside us, should we not be happy, too? This person could be working here, serving Singaporean customers. He could head a listed company and make money for Singaporean shareholders. He could be providing healthcare for our elderly or educating our young.
Talent from around the world have many options. If the person chooses to come to Singapore and not elsewhere, is that not also a form of success for Singapore? If we keep drawing lines between the local-born and naturalised citizens, we would have defeated ourselves, even before we face competition from others.
Let us not forget that the pandemic has accelerated the trend of working from home. Anyone can be hired from anywhere. For companies that need foreign manpower, this brings about many advantages. It also means a new challenge for Singapore and Singaporeans. We should be upholding, not undermining, our competitiveness at such a critical juncture.
Let me turn to CECA.
Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Tan See Leng had, on 6 July, clearly explained why the Movement of Natural Persons provisions in CECA have very little impact on the actual entry of Indian professionals into Singapore and that there had not been many intra-corporate transferees under CECA. Mr Leong Mun Wai had acknowledged during the debate that he and Ms Hazel Poa are for FTAs. He expressed understanding that the interests of Singaporeans had not been used as bargaining chips in FTA negotiations and that Singaporeans’ interests had been taken into account.
Nonetheless, the Motion standing in their names today once again mentions “widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the CECA”.
Even if we leave aside the question of their motivation for bringing up CECA repeatedly, I doubt it would do much good to painstakingly repeat our answers.
Let us cut straight to the chase and address the fourth doubt: has the Singapore Government got some special affinity for India and Indians, so much so that we welcome ever-increasing numbers of Indian nationals to live and work in Singapore, in competition with local PMETs?
PMETs from India have, indeed, increased in numbers. Minister Tan See Leng has said that Indian nationals have grown from one-seventh of EP holders in 2005 to one quarter in 2020. Many Indian nationals can be found in some professions, especially finance and IT, and there are concentrations of residents from India in some private estates.
Some locals find this hard to get used to. Indian PMETs are here to make a living. It makes no sense for them to cause offence, but some might take longer to blend in, in terms of lifestyles, work habits and the way they interact. A handful of Indian PMETs have been caught on social media misbehaving, which has caused those who are already uneasy with the change to feel more offended.
We have been emphasising racial harmony in Singapore over the years. Hence, most people would refrain from public discussion about race and nationality. However, we cannot rule out some people wondering quietly: why is the Government so welcoming of Indians? A letter by Mr Tay Ping Hui was published in Lianhe Zaobao in May this year. Entitled “I give my heart to the moon, but does the moon care?”, the letter expresses this sentiment in a subtle manner. The main gist of his piece: is it worthwhile for Singapore to be so generous towards India and Indians, when the goodwill is not reciprocated? The letter referred to some circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and alluded to bad behaviour by some Indian PMETs.
Not everyone can write as well as Mr Tay. Some are fearful of crossing red lines and causing unnecessary misunderstandings, and choose to keep their doubts to themselves. This creates space for those who peddle critiques of CECA. Most people might not know or care about the details in CECA. They only know that it is an FTA with India and assume that it could explain why more Indian PMETs have appeared in Singapore. Hence, critiques of CECA have found a ready audience. Soon, CECA became a code word for Indians, and a cover for some racially-charged commentary.
The answer: Singapore has no special affinity for workers from any country, including India. What we want is to become a finance and digital/ICT hub, to create better jobs for Singaporeans. India happens to be a major exporter of skilled manpower for both industries, especially when it comes to ICT. India and China produce the largest number of skilled manpower in the world for the IT industry. Indian ICT professionals are not only numerous, but also well-versed in English. China’s own ICT industry has been developing at a rapid pace. With a huge domestic market, the demand for their homegrown talent is robust. So, relatively fewer ICT professionals are available to come to places like Singapore now. You will find large numbers of Indian professionals in any English-speaking economy that seeks to build finance or ICT hubs. It is the case in Silicon Valley, New York and London.
As mentioned previously, intra-corporate transferees under CECA had been few. Most Indian PMETs entered Singapore on EPs applied for by their employers, via normal channels. In other words, even if CECA did not exist, our strategy of building a finance hub and ICT hub would mean that there would likely be as many Indian PMETs here.
Singapore, too, has been grooming our own finance and IT talent, so that they can do well in these fast-growing sectors. From 2005 to 2020, in the ICT sector, there were 35,000 jobs created for local PMETs, compared to a 25,000 increase in EP holders. In the finance sector, there were 85,000 jobs created for local PMETs, compared to a 20,000 increase in EP holders – four times as many.
Then, do our companies really need to hire so many Indian PMETs? I have mentioned that India is a major exporter of skilled manpower in finance and ICT. IT students enrolled across various tertiary settings in Singapore were 7,600 in 2020. According to an OECD report, India produced 585,000 ICT graduates in 2015, which also outnumber those in many other countries.
If we restrict enterprises in their hiring of Indian professionals, they will feel constrained. Their operational plans will be affected. Some might even consider giving up on Singapore and going elsewhere.
It is clear that the growing presence of Indian PMETs in Singapore has nothing to do with CECA, nor any special affinity that the Government has for Indians. It has to do with our economic strategy to grow as a financial hub and an IT hub, which we have no reason to abandon. These are among the world’s fastest growing industries and can bring good jobs for Singaporeans.
While there is no special affinity, we certainly have nothing against Indian PMETs either. Approval of EPs should be based primarily on the needs of companies. We pay attention to overall numbers and whether Singaporeans are treated fairly, rather than focus on any particular nationality. The Government will also continue to pursue integration efforts, and encourage foreign professionals working and living here to respect local culture and integrate well. Indian EP holders have to clear the same bar as those from other sources and checks are in place for all sources to guard against letting in under-qualified EPs.
However, becoming Permanent Residents (PRs) or Singapore Citizens (SC) is quite a different matter altogether. When it comes to PRs, we are careful not to cause major shifts in ethnic proportions. When it comes to naturalisation, we are even more careful. This is why many well-qualified Indian nationals have yet to receive approvals for their PR/SC applications even after a long wait.
I hope that this debate would have dispelled some doubts in people’s minds and help them to see that: we have a comprehensive approach towards boosting the competitiveness of local PMETs and ensuring their fair treatment; the Government values middle-aged PMETs and seeks to relieve the pressures they experience; the Government has been regulating the entry of foreign PMETs and will tighten if necessary, but we must not drive away enterprises or that will harm the interests of Singaporeans; and the Government has no special affinity for workers from any country, including India. We exist to serve the interests of Singaporeans.
Moreover, it is the duty of the Government to consider the needs of Singaporeans at every life stage. Undoubtedly, we should care about middle-agers. However, old age comes after middle-age, which means significant expenses for both the individual and society in terms of retirement adequacy and healthcare needs. If our economy does not do well, our people will have little purchasing power and the state cannot afford more subsidies. Who could possibly retire in peace in such a scenario?
I would like to address the Workers’ Party’s proposed amendments to Minister Lawrence Wong’s Motion. Minister Lawrence Wong’s Motion contains a phrase “supports Government actions to manage the population of foreign manpower”. The Workers’ Party has proposed replacing “supports” with “calls for stronger”. In addressing the third doubt, I have mentioned that the Government will continue to be judicious in balancing the needs of managing foreign manpower and maintaining our economic vitality to safeguard Singaporeans’ interests. That is well captured in the original Motion.
The Workers’ Party has asked to include another paragraph calling on the Government to release more information. I do not think we lack information for this debate. This was a delaying tactic employed by the PSP when they could not answer questions posed to them. I do not think the Workers’ Party needs to go along with them and add an unnecessary limb to the Motion.
Hence, the Government and PAP Members will support the original Motion standing in Minister Lawrence Wong’s name and not the amendments proposed by the Workers’ Party.
So, let us adopt a more objective attitude in addressing the challenges that we will inevitably face when developing our economy and creating jobs for Singaporeans, and not be swayed by seductive arguments or waver in our commitment towards an open economy. Most importantly, we must not allow trust between the people and the Government to be eroded. Let us work hand in hand to overcome immediate challenges and build a stronger foundation for our future and that of our next generation.
Mr Speaker, I cannot accept the Motion standing in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa. I support the Motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister.
Ms Hazel Poa: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just now, Ms Sim Ann mentioned that the exchange between me and the Minister for Manpower had worried her because we seemed to be talking about whether some Singaporeans are local-born or not. I would like to clarify that the term \"local-born Singaporean\" was not said by me. It was the Minister for Manpower who had given the statistics, and more than once. In her ensuing speech, Ms Sim Ann has expressed disdain for this attitude. I would like to ask if she was directing this at the Minister for Manpower?
Ms Sim Ann: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: If Ms Hazel Poa had not mentioned this, I would not even want to bring it up. Mr Leong Mun Wai from PSP has repeatedly cast doubt on the nationality of the CEO of DBS, Mr Piyush Gupta, and we have discussed this at length. Here, I would like to say that somebody needs to speak up on behalf of people like Mr Piyush Gupta.
In fact, this type of argument is exactly what I referred to as drawing lines between Singaporeans. I think we have already had a clear discussion on the matter. I suggest that PSP need not undermine itself by reminding us of what they have said.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to declare I am an employee in a foreign bank in the financial sector. I would like to join the debate by focusing on the related issues of globalisation and digitalisation as they relate to the two Motions.
The Motion by the Minister for Finance, who actually has elaborated on how FTAs and the efforts by the Government to help raise livelihoods have created many quality jobs for Singaporeans. A very stark contrast to PSP's Motion by Mr Leong Mun Wai, which casts doubts in some way, on our various FTAs and the various FTAs he mentioned earlier on. So, very important, a stark contrast. I will also talk about how Singaporeans, especially mid-career employees aged 40 to 60 and PMETs in sectors perceived to be affected by foreign talents and students who hope to join the workforce and how they should take advantage of the new opportunities in spite of the current economic environment.
First, we have benefited from globalisation in many ways in Singapore. Singapore and other countries in the region have reaped substantial dividends from pursuing an export-oriented development strategy. By opening up our economy via multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements and participating in global value chains, we were able to industrialise and grow rapidly for long periods and, in the process, transform into middle or high-income countries.
Inadvertently, Singapore has built a reputation as a key hub in Southeast Asia and, in some cases globally, for finance, transhipment activities, business services, transportation and logistics. We should do our utmost to keep it that way. We also have a robust manufacturing base, which is a key node in the complex value chains that wrap around East Asia.
As a global financial centre, Singapore is ranked fourth, behind only London, New York and Hong Kong and ahead of Tokyo, in the 2018 Global Financial Centres Index. Total assets under management in Singapore stood at S$4.7 trillion in 2020, having increased at around 15% to 17% compound annual growth rate over the previous five years. In fact, the financial and fintech sectors created 2,500 jobs and are expected to create 6,500 more in 2021, particularly in technology, wealth management, corporate banking and insurance.
So, I was a bit confused when Mr Leong Mun Wai mentioned that over the past 10 to 20 years, opportunities for Singaporeans and in various sectors have not improved.
Singapore is also a favoured location for multinational companies with more than 7,000 operating some form of headquarters in the city-state. It also hosts 4,200 regional headquarter operations. This is considerably more than Hong Kong with 1,389 regional headquarters, Sydney with 533, Tokyo with 531 and Shanghai with 470. We have many Singaporeans working in these MNCs, some of whom are also in this Chamber now.
Despite these core strengths, Singapore's economy needs to continue growing. By how much is a matter of debate. Arguably, to remain an attractive and vibrant economic hub, Singapore's economy needs to grow at around 2% to 3% a year, which is feasible for a high-income country, such as Singapore. The challenge, however, is finding where this growth will come from to continue creating jobs for Singaporeans without coming up with changes to measures or policies that may unravel our long-term growth.
In the meantime, for small and open economies, continued engagement with world markets in various ways, including FTAs across many countries, including the US, Australia, China and even India. It is not a choice but an economic imperative.
It is because of our persistent belief in free trade and our active engagement with countries that are willing to be equal partners, in areas of trade, travel, services and so on. In spite of some adjustments to our trade policies over the years, we remain one of the most market-oriented and open economies in the world.
By participating actively in the global economy, we have made it easier to move internationally and this, in turn, accelerates the factors for labour mobility, enabling Singaporeans to seek more opportunities and experiences overseas.
The discussion so far, from the start, has been mostly about domestic jobs created for Singaporeans in Singapore which is valid and which is really something that we should discuss. But we should also discuss about opportunities for Singaporeans going abroad and the fact that our discussion today, talking about these two Motions – in my view and also in talking to the markets – is very closely watched by the rest of the world. In particular, concerns about our principles of free trade and our view on foreign talent have an impact on how we are perceived by the rest of the world.
As of 2019, the population of Singaporeans living and working overseas stands at over 34,000 and may be even more. We are sought after in regions of growth, such as China, India, the Middle East, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia and many more countries, I am sure, because of our skills and bilingualism. That is also because our Government has invested in some of these regions and has kept a relatively comfortable stance on foreign talent as a key hub for many sectors. We have to be mindful that any change in stance to foreign talent or signs of xenophobia creeping into our policies will signal to other countries this shift in the markets and, inevitably, in the long run, also have an impact on our future Singaporean workers venturing abroad.
With the pandemic, more Singaporean talent abroad have decided to come home. But they have brought back with them highly-valued international insights on innovation and culture. As representatives of Singapore, they shared the Singaporean work ethic of high efficiency and reliability to the rest of the world, so that Singaporeans would remain sought-after employees. Our policies in Singapore have contributed to that, eventually with them coming back home.
Globalisation allows for different cultures and economic systems around the world to become connected and to integrate with one another because of the influence of large multinational companies and of global communication. Yet it takes a certain type of person to truly comprehend this and turn this into an advantage.
I met a resident whose experience I thought was interesting. The Singapore resident works in an international petroleum trading company in Singapore which trades across Asia, Australia and the Middle East. She said that when the pandemic broke out, the Singapore office was literally the only office that was getting things done. And because of Singapore's multicultural and multilingual characteristics, the multinational staff here were able to help fill the gaps in communications between the other offices. One example she gave was being good with understanding accents and another was being cognisant of the needs of some international colleagues who needed time off for religious activities and having an adequate support system in place.
Consequently, she also noted the threat of remote working from anywhere in the world casting a shadow of instability on jobs. While it is important to stay vigilant and humble, Singaporeans have little to fear because we have good international reputation and unique ability to contribute a global mindset to the employer. But what is clear is that there other more pertinent and major challenges to our Singaporean jobs in MNCs, such as disruptive technology and digital labour markets or remote working.
Globalisation is not only seen in economic activities. It also includes the proliferation of technologies where communications and distribution networks are becoming very significant in people's life. This brings me to my next point, on digitalisation of the economy.
In Singapore, technological adoption is even more urgent in view of the country's ageing population and compositional shifts of the labour force over the next decade. The working-age population has probably peaked already in 2018, 2019, and the resident labour force growth will slow to 0.7% per annum over the next decade, from 1.6% per annum, on average, between 2011 and 2016.
So, for Singapore to sustain healthy growth and living standards to continue rising, it must keep leveraging technology to drive productivity growth and new growth areas, such as, for example, in smart energy, healthcare and technology-related sectors. That will constitute part of where the opportunities will lie.
The Government has taken the lead to create a nationwide movement dedicated to this. Under SG Digital, there is a plethora of programmes and grants to help businesses, individuals looking to get into the relevant sectors and the community of people who rely on it for their daily life.
With the increase in digitalisation of more industries, this is already creating a global demand for ICT talents and relevant roles in maintaining the security and functionality of these digital systems. This has contributed to the increase in the number of ICT talents working in Singapore.
The benefits of globalisation for small open economies, such as Singapore, are there, but there are challenges associated with globalisation and Minister Lawrence Wong has highlighted that and a few other Members here as well. We need to take stock of the current tensions arising from the uneven distributional effects of globalisation, we know that and the potential dislocations posed by new technology.
The Government has, over the past decades, taken practical policy measures to mitigate the side effects of globalisation and achieve inclusive growth. We should enhance these efforts, as mentioned in the Motion by Minister Lawrence Wong. But at the same time, we need to also be cognisant that we are an economy in transition facing a demographic shrinking population issue, rising inequalities and competitiveness issues as we become a more mature economy. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: One segment of Singaporeans who are facing the effects of globalisation daily are mid-career jobseekers and employees in the age range of 40 to 60 years, who are worried about the current employment situation and the inclination towards digitalisation. This is not because they do not want to pick up new skills. In fact, most Singaporeans recognise that learning digital skills is the only way forward. According to a recent survey, 98% of respondents aged between 56 and 65 believed in reskilling and upskilling to stay relevant.
The SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways programme has been extended and enhanced to cater to demand. I hope to call on the Government to share on future long-term plans for the programme and enhance it further with updates or a review, and whether we will see a greater variety of jobs and roles. With the Tech Skills Accelerator programme (TeSA), which was launched in 2016, there are courses for mid-career jobseekers without relevant experience to train them to be software developers, data analysts and UX designers. International big tech companies like Google and IBM, as well as local employers, had joined in to provide courses and traineeships. Between April 2016 and September 2020, TeSA placed over 7,000 Singaporeans into tech jobs.
I hope to see plans by the Government to increase the availability of such mid-career training and placement programmes for the tech sector, particularly for mid-career job seekers who are currently facing difficulties. I believe this would help to alleviate some of the manpower crunch for the tech sector, while helping more mid-career job seekers to land skills and jobs in a rapidly growing industry. So, for those who are in this age group, there are ample opportunities to upgrade your skills set, acquire new skills and help you rise up to meet the challenges. Globalisation and digitalisation open up new chapters in our life. We see many who were able to switch careers so that they do not get trapped in sunset industries.
Another group that is understandably anxious would be the students who have just graduated or are graduating into the pandemic – the University, Polytechnic and ITE graduates. I am glad to note that from April 2021, demand for SGUnited Traineeships or attachments has eased as fresh graduates found other traineeships or full-time employment opportunities. Others take on contracts for a year or so.
But some are still having trouble landing full-time permanent jobs and are relying on internships and side projects. This is currently a global problem for all graduating cohorts, as companies worldwide scale back on headcounts. They also face competition from other Singaporeans who are also looking for jobs. And in taking up side projects and gigs online, they may also find themselves coming up against competition from overseas. Globalisation or its association with foreign talent flows cannot be faulted for this. Rather, the situation arises because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, many local students had benefited from exchange programmes and internships overseas. It is a global competition because the whole world is in the grip of this pandemic.
Mr Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge the uncertainties and fears in the current economic climate. But it will do us no good to maintain a pessimistic outlook, because that will only cause us to miss out on other opportunities that have arisen from the crisis. Indeed, many have found themselves having to put their dream jobs on hold and taking up entirely new and unexpected career paths.
Some young residents became part-time swabbers to earn an income, unexpectedly discovering their interest in healthcare and in that sector. Such stories are, in fact, quite common. Singaporeans across different generations have gone through different crises where they had to rechart their pathways due to the limitations of those times, for example, during the Asian Financial Crisis or even in the post-Independence days. Today, many may find themselves sharing similar emotions of disappointment and anxiety. But the difference is we have a lot more resources today than our parents and grandparents did, and we can afford to remain much more optimistic, as long as we manage our expectations and do our best with the opportunities that are available.
Let us enhance our efforts to strengthen our Singaporean Core of workers. I would first like to take this opportunity to convey my appreciation to the Government for making the significant decision of enshrining TAFEP fair employment practices into the law. Fair employment is a subject that has always been very close to my heart. Only when there is equal accessibility to employment opportunities can we then talk about creating good jobs for all Singaporeans. Now that TAFEP has been given more powers to enforce penalties against workplace and employment discrimination, this will alleviate some of the anxieties experienced by our older workers and minorities.
(In English): Mr Speaker, my next point is on PMETs working in sectors where foreign talent is perceived to be a threat. I work in the financial sector and I do talk with those in the sector as they share their lived experiences. I can empathise with them and their concerns.
Understandably, some sectors, especially the ICT sector, face a talent crunch too. Employers find that, in the short term, it takes too much resources and time to hire and train a Singaporean. So, they would prefer to hire an experienced and skilled foreigner. With the recent tightening of foreign manpower restrictions and newly enshrined anti-discrimination laws coming, I believe, gradually but surely, more Singaporeans should, eventually, find their anxieties easing. But this does not solve the immediate problem of a skills shortage in the sector.
In the financial sector, for example, in the foreign banks, the deliberations on foreign staff recruitment are done at the bank's global HQ level to fill any shortage of skilled staff and are based on specific global business needs and internal human capital movement requirements. Therefore, to ensure that at all levels of the bank, the locals will eventually be the majority, may not be possible, given the global nature of these decisions.
All said, I must point out that there are Singaporeans who are holding senior roles in the foreign banks based on merit and it is not necessarily a situation where foreigners are the only ones dominating the senior positions. I, for one, know, and even if you do a quick search on Google and LinkedIn, it will show Singaporeans heading the business units or are in very senior positions in the Union Bank of Switzerland or UBS – I will not mention the names – even in Julius Baer, Deutsche Bank private banking, HSBC private banking and Pictet, and also Singaporeans holding front office positions, such as the Global Head of Treasury Markets at Standard Chartered Bank. I am sure there are many more.
And, again, with the recent tightening of foreign manpower restrictions and the newly enshrined anti-discrimination laws coming, some of these anxieties can be addressed where there are wrongful practices.
In addition, I would like to urge the Government to explore even the possibility of enhancing the Capability Transfer Programme. I think the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this, and I have mentioned this in my Adjournment Motions previously in 2019 and on various occasions.
I understand that I have been very persistent in this, but I believe it will bring about several benefits. Fewer companies are sending Singaporeans overseas for training in this climate. So, why not redeploy the funds to support the costs for employers to have their new and existing local hires receive training and mentorship under a more experienced and skilled foreign employee in the company? In the long run, this helps to build up the local talent core. It helps to reinforce the main purpose of having foreign talent in the first place, which is to help companies, including local employees, improve as a whole, not to steal our jobs. The foreign employee would receive a boost to his CV. It is a winning situation for all.
Mr Speaker, as we debate the issues of foreign talent policy and jobs, be mindful that globalisation of labour and talent has always been much slower to globalise, compared to via the movements of material goods and financial capital across countries. This is due to the complex nature of talent, the apprehension of domestic populations on attracting labour inputs from abroad and host the individual, either temporarily or permanently, near the location of the work to be performed.
For a variety of reasons, this has proven politically unpopular and nearly all countries place restrictions on migrations, Singapore included. But ongoing trends by MNCs and companies globally, via offshoring before and still now, build-up of \"digital labour markets\" have the potential to radically alter the global labour market, thus overshooting in foreign talent policy responses by any country may lead to more negative outcomes and, worse, it supports xenophobic and racist behaviours that can worsen domestically. These digital labour market platforms can connect workers worldwide with companies seeking to have tasks completed and, with technology, this can go beyond data entry and programming roles only. Worse, if the MNCs see Singapore’s hub status eroded because of too tight foreign talent policies or any signalling thereof in that direction.
And here I would like to refer to Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestion earlier that he intends to recommend PRs and new citizenship numbers to be reduced, going forward. I just want to highlight that – and I think some of the previous speakers have mentioned this – the debate today is mainly about foreign manpower vis-a-vis our economic strategy. Immigration is a separate topic which covers a much broader range of imperatives. Immigration and work passes are separate regimes with different considerations. Immigration policy is very carefully calibrated. Potential applicants know that we are very strict in Singapore.
Our population growth over the last decade has been the lowest since Independence and we have kept the size of our PR population stable for years. Many of our new citizens and PRs are spouses of Singaporeans and parents of Singaporean children.
So, I would like to ask Mr Leong Mun Wai, does Mr Leong think that these family members of our fellow Singaporeans ought to wait longer?
There have been calls from Members of this House, including Members from the Workers' Party, for us to be more expedient in granting Permanent Residency, or PRs, and citizenships, especially for family members of Singaporeans. So, I think it is pertinent.
So, let me give an example from the ground. A 40-year-old resident, who is a Singaporean Citizen, works hard as a private hire car driver, has a Malaysian wife and children who want to be PRs. The question is, how long does Mr Leong want her and the children to wait before they can be granted PR status?
I think most of the Members in this Chamber have, from time to time, seen residents coming to them for help in this regard. And how long do you want their children to pay more for their school fees? So, I would like to pose that question to Mr Leong.
And to go on, I urge all, in Singapore, we need to channel our efforts positively towards building back better, which begins with an understanding that our challenges are complex and cannot be resolved by narrow ideology on globalisation and foreign talent policy. Understanding the complexity of modern society, the working relationship of democracy and capitalism, and recognising the prevalence of externalities are the first steps towards genuinely healing our social, economic and financial issues amid this current crisis.
For those broad reasons and various reasons I have mentioned in my speech, I am not able to support the Motion in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai. I support the Motion in the name of the Minister for Finance, as it affirms that Singapore needs to stay open and connected to the world; it acknowledges the anxieties whilst, at the same time, laying out the existing calls for enhancements needed for policies to secure the livelihoods of Singaporeans in the long run. The latter, too, does not stir up racism and xenophobia and is mindful of securing Singaporean jobs and livelihoods in the long run.
Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi, you can wrap up.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat: To wrap up, Mr Speaker, our success in globalisation is not something that came with the drop of a hat. As far back as in February 1972, our then-Foreign Minister S Rajaratnam visualised embracing the world as our hinterland. We were faced with many challenges but, instead of crying foul, we came up with new ideas and bravely ventured ahead. We had to change our mindset from being an entrepot centre to looking globally. We were put on the path to be a Global City.
That vision, that wisdom, has helped to put us where we are today. I quote the late Mr Rajaratnam in his speech saying: \"But the Global City, now in its infancy, is the child of modern technology. It is the city that electronic communications, supersonic planes, giant tankers and modern economic and industrial organisation have made inevitable. Whether the Global City would be a happier place than the megalopolis out of whose crumbling ruins it is emerging will depend on how wisely and boldly we shape its direction and growth.\"
Very true, words to remember: how we can be a happier place would depend on how wisely and boldly we shape its direction and growth. That is what we are called to do today. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.
Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, we are debating today about how to create an environment that can provide better jobs and improve livelihoods for our fellow Singaporeans. The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector has grown more than three-fold over the last two decades and employs well over 150,000 people. It has one of the highest proportions of PMET vacancies that employers say they are unable to fill with locals. Consequently, the industry also employs among the highest proportion of foreign professionals.
Before continuing, I would like to declare my interest as a founder and director of a local IT solutions and consulting company. My conversations with people in the industry and my observations as an IT practitioner over the past 20 years inform the policy proposals that I am advancing today.
Sir, the tech industry plays a critical role in Singapore’s economy and our relevance to the world. My speech will focus on skills and employment issues surrounding this industry, although some of these issues will be similar to those faced in other industries. I will analyse the reasons for the skills gaps and manpower shortage in the ICT sector; suggest ways in which the education system can be re-orientated to play a greater part in narrowing this gap; and propose ways the Government can address some of the imbalances that Singaporean professionals encounter in the workplace vis-à-vis foreign professionals.
We constantly hear employers complain that while there are many job opportunities in the industry, there are not enough suitable professionals, both local and foreign, who have the skills to fill those positions. On the other hand, some Singaporean IT professionals have shared with me how they have been passed over for promotions or employment despite their best efforts to attend training and improve themselves.
Singapore is an attractive work destination and often a stepping stone for foreigners. Many are willing to work longer hours at lower wages to pick up skills and experience, before moving on to countries like the US, Canada and Australia. When I was a senior consultant at a multinational technology consulting firm, I saw many resumes of experienced foreigners seeking junior positions just to get hired.
The admission of so many entry-level foreign ICT professionals over the past 20 years and the commoditisation of core skills, such as computer programming, has put downward pressures on wages in this industry. Any Singaporean starting out as a software developer would be competing with many similarly skilled foreigners for jobs and promotions. This, coupled with the perception of crony hiring and discrimination against locals, prompted many Singaporeans over the past two decades to veer away from the ICT industry in favour of other sectors, leading to an even greater dearth of talent in this industry.
In the past few years, with the growth in data science, robotics and artificial intelligence, the demand for deep tech skills has increased dramatically. Companies are now willing to pay top dollar for data scientists and cybersecurity specialists. The NUS Graduate Employment Survey found that fresh graduates from the School of Computing have the highest gross monthly salary among all graduates, with the 75th percentile earning $6,316, higher than doctors, lawyers and business graduates. This reflects both the high demand and the short supply of such graduates.
The Minister for Manpower said in July that 6,000 jobs remained unfilled in the infocomm sector and there are not enough locals to fill the available jobs. In an interview last year, the Minister in charge of the Smart Nation Initiative said that the infocomm space will require 60,000 more professionals over the next three years. An Amazon Web Services (AWS) report earlier this year highlighted that Singapore would need an additional 1.2 million digital workers by 2025 to remain competitive.
Yet, the supply of local tech talent is not keeping up. Replying to my Parliamentary Question on 26 July, the Minister for Education said that the number of places in information and digital technologies undergraduate degree courses in local Universities increased from 800 in 2010 to 3,100 last year.
This is still not going to solve the manpower crunch in this industry. With 3,100 graduates and 20,000 new tech jobs created a year, our local graduates would not be able to fill a fifth of these roles. This will lead to a greater demand for foreigners to make up for the shortfall. The pattern of overdependence on foreign professionals will continue. While it is laudable that so many tech jobs are being created, how much does this benefit Singaporean workers if our people are not equipped with the skills to fill them? It will lead to disappointment by both the companies investing in Singapore and our own people. We should have started a bigger push to encourage and enable more students to study IT two decades ago.
Be that as it may, there is now an urgent need to reorientate our schools to prepare Singaporean students for career opportunities in technology, so as to create a stronger pipeline of local talent. Students who are interested in working with computers should be encouraged early to pursue IT as a course of study and an eventual career.
Primary schools should introduce all students to computational thinking and basic coding as part of their core curriculum from Primary 1, although it should not be made an examination subject, as this may kill interest in it. This could spark their early interest in tech and will help them and their parents choose suitable Secondary schools to further their interests. We would not be alone in doing this. Estonia, which is recognised as one of the most advanced digital societies in the world, started teaching all first graders to code almost a decade ago.
Currently, only 22 Secondary schools offer computing as an \"O\" level subject and this is available only from Secondary 3. Moving forward, all Secondary schools should offer computing as an \"O\" level subject, and it should be extended to the \"N\" levels. Computing, just like History, Geography and Literature, should be taught from Secondary 1, so that all students can try their hand at it and make an informed decision at the end of Secondary 2 if they want to pursue it further at the upper Secondary level.
Schools should develop programmes and mentorships to widen students' exposure to careers in technology, particularly those from less privileged backgrounds and also girls, given the traditionally lower female participation in the industry. More scholarships and grants should be awarded to students who choose to study Computing. Tertiary institutions should connect with industries to showcase careers in tech and encourage students to pursue them.
Because there are now so few Computer Science degree places in our local Universities vis-à-vis the demand, we are seeing cut-throat competition for admission and many qualified applicants are being denied places. Take the School of Computing in the National University of Singapore, for example. The \"A\" level subject prerequisites for Computer Science (CS) courses are a H2 pass in Computing, Mathematics, further Mathematics or Physics, or a good pass in H1 Mathematics.
This sounds quite achievable until we look at the indicative grade profiles of applicants offered places last year. Both the 90th and the 10th percentile of applicants offered places scored four As for their \"A\" levels – essentially, perfect scores. I doubt tech companies really need students who aced all four content subjects in Junior College. Setting such a high bar for admission could mean missing out on many students who were initially interested in pursuing a tech career but may have decided to switch their focus to other industries after failing in their bid to study CS in local Universities.
Institutes of Higher Learning should move more quickly to increase their intake of CS majors and should admit more Singaporeans who can demonstrate a passion for technology and meet the prerequisite standards for the course. ITEs can also be a source of local tech talent. Tech, after all, is not the exclusive domain of University or Polytechnic graduates.
To be sure, I am not calling for a lowering of standards just to admit more students, but an expansion of opportunities to study CS. Minister Lawrence Wong said in his speech earlier that relying on a local pipeline is not enough and that if we increase the intake of people in ICT too sharply, there will be complaints of shortage in other sectors.
Of course, I am not advocating that everybody goes immediately into ICT, because that would be impractical. But if many high-growth, high-paying jobs are in the ICT sector, is it wrong to provide more educational opportunities for our fellow Singaporeans in this sector and encourage more of them to consider careers in ICT?
We should place bigger bets on tech in order to seize the burgeoning opportunities ahead of us. Train ahead of demand, as my colleague, Mr Leon Perera proposed earlier. This way, more Singaporeans can benefit from the thousands of well-paying tech jobs that are going to be created in the years ahead. It will also attract more companies to set up research and development centres in Singapore because of the availability of talent. This virtuous cycle will benefit both our economy and our people.
I would now like to address some of the imbalances that many local professionals face in the workplace. Sir, we are a small economy in a very big world. If we want to throw open our doors to global talent, our industries' demands for skilled labour can probably be met, but at what cost?
As early as 1997, when I was interning at a large local tech firm, I was surprised to discover that almost all the programmers in the IT department were foreigners. More than 20 years on, the situation is even more extreme in many IT firms and banks, where many management positions, especially in technology departments, are occupied by foreigners.
I am not asking the Government to mollycoddle our workers, nor are Singaporeans expecting to be \"bubble wrapped\" from all foreign competition. We should remain open to foreign talent, but only those who are suitably skilled and earn their positions based on merit. Singaporeans want to be self-reliant and succeed on their own merit. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Government to ensure that Singaporeans do not become victims of discrimination in their own country.
The world has changed and employment regulations and practices need to adapt to keep pace. The Government must commit to stamping out discrimination in the hiring and promotion process in companies, especially in firms where the competition for attractive and well-paying jobs is keener.
As a society, we claim to have zero tolerance for corruption and racism. However, there are other forms of corruption, like cronyism and nepotism, which have reared their ugly heads in the corporate environment. Some companies have turned a blind eye to their foreign managers \"hiring their own kind\" instead of the best qualified candidates. This has sapped the morale of honest, talented and hardworking local employees who were hoping for advancement in their careers.
Many Members of Parliament would have heard anecdotal reports from constituents about foreign managers hiring compatriots who were less qualified than locals. You, Mr Speaker, were one of the first Ministers to acknowledge this disturbing phenomenon in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2013, when I also raised this concern in one of my COS cuts. Minister Tan See Leng just acknowledged that he knows these things happen.
These acts are difficult to prove and hard to catch because they can be very subtle. It is easy for the offending managers to justify that a particular candidate was the \"right fit\" without doing an objective, competency-based assessment against other candidates.
In Singaporean culture, hiring a less qualified candidate on account of their cultural background is considered discrimination. It runs against the principles of meritocracy. However, in many cultures around the world, this is the normal way society works. While it is not my place to judge other cultures, I think Singaporeans expect that local culture and norms are adhered to while operating in our country. This should not be difficult because most of our international friends in Singapore already do this.
Companies which operate in Singapore should adopt a zero-tolerance stance against cronyism in the workplace. This should be reflected in each company's corporate ethos and codes of conduct. Companies should provide channels for whistleblowing and encourage reporting of such practices. Anti-discrimination legislation should provide the MOM powers to prosecute employers found engaging in discriminatory practices in hiring and promotions. Although this is hard to prove, it could serve as a deterrent in egregious cases.
To encourage companies to demonstrate their commitment to promoting more qualified women, minorities and Singaporeans in their senior leadership, listed companies in Singapore should be required to report the gender, racial and national composition of their boards as part of their ESG (environmental, social and governance) impact reporting. I note that Singapore Exchange Regulation is already proposing to step up efforts to enhance board diversity. This should be stepped up further.
Foreign MNCs and startups which benefit from Government incentives and schemes should be made to submit yearly reports to MOM of the gender, race and nationality of employees at each level of their organisational hierarchy. These confidential reports should be shared with the Parliamentary Standing Select Committee on foreign employment, which the Leader of the Opposition proposed earlier.
Companies which apply for Employment Passes and S Passes should be required to submit to MOM a breakdown of employee numbers by nationality at each level of seniority within the company and in the department that the work pass applicant is being hired into. This will allow MOM to objectively assess the concentration risk of foreigners from any one country before issuing them work passes. MOM should make transparent its criteria to determine what is an acceptable threshold for each industry and size of company. Companies must provide a reasonable justification if they cannot adhere to this threshold.
None of what I have proposed should cause much inconvenience to companies. They just need to run a simple query against their employee database to come up with the numbers. It will not be a deterrent to invest or set up business in Singapore, since we are not imposing any hard quotas on them or preventing them from hiring foreigners. Yet, this level of transparency will nudge companies to relook their HR policies and expand the opportunities they provide for the hiring and advancement of local talent.
Mr Speaker, I have spoken about how we can address the local manpower shortage in the ICT sector, create a stronger pipeline of skilled ICT professionals and provide a more level playing field for Singaporeans. These solutions are neither easy nor cheap, but they are necessary if we are to remain a competitive economy and a cohesive society in the decades to come.
Sir, I support the Motion as amended by Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Speaker: Prof Hoon Hian Teck.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, a debate on the impact of Singapore's foreign talent policy on jobs and livelihoods needs to confront three realities: the \"lump of labour\" fallacy, the role of foreign direct investment in job creation and the Mozart effect in the face of a declining citizen workforce due to a total fertility rate that is below replacement level.
The lump of labour fallacy is the mistaken idea that there is always a fixed number of jobs. Instead, the number of jobs in an economy is variable and determined by the interactions between the pace of job creation and the pace of job destruction.
The role of foreign direct investment recognises that in a small open economy like Singapore, with the right institutions and business-friendly policies, an increase in the size of the labour force boosts the return to capital and thus attracts multinational corporations to set up shop and create new job vacancies.
The Mozart effect recognises that if talent is randomly distributed across a given population, then the bigger the size of the population, the greater the absolute number of talented people.
As an organising framework, to think about the Motion before us, it is useful to characterise the Singapore economy as a country that is linked to the global economy via technological diffusion: a process that is facilitated by strong cross-border exchanges of goods, capital and people.
First, the lump of labour fallacy. It is a fact that even as the size of Singapore's labour force has expanded over the decades since Independence so that there are more people looking for jobs, the number of job vacancies to be filled has increased. The pace of job creation over the decades reflects the changing comparative advantage of the economy.
In the 1960s to the 1980s, as factories were built, the expanding manufacturing sector provided jobs to Singapore citizens even as the size of the foreign workforce expanded. In the 1990s to the present decade, the financial sector expanded and also created new job vacancies. Moreover, real wages were, on the whole, rising even though the economy faced adverse economic shocks that caused recessions in successive decades since 1965.
It should be acknowledged that the Global Financial Crisis that started in 2008 most likely had lingering effects on pulling down the wage growth in the years 2009 and 2010. But other than that, over the decade as a whole, it is the case that as standard of living has risen, real wages, by and large, have gone up. Certainly, from the year 2000 onwards, there came to be some divergence. The better-skilled workers continued to see rising wages whereas in the 10 years since 2000, the low-wage workers have seen their wages somewhat decline. But the country has dealt with that and our focus today is on foreign talent policy.
So, overall, with technological diffusion, because we have stayed connected to the global economy, we have been able to catch up with the US standard of living, starting from less than a third of the level of US purchasing-power-parity-adjusted GDP per capita in 1965.
Second, the role of foreign direct investment in job creation. I find it useful, in my own effort to understand the Singapore Story, to note that even as our total labour force increased by more than three times from less than a million in 1978 to over three million in 2013, the stock of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) per worker in real terms, adjusted for inflation, increased by more than 10 times. So, from 1978 to 2013, the year when I was looking at the trend, total labour force increased three times but total FDI stock increased by more than 10 times. So, the stock of Foreign Direct Investment per worker more than increased.
Then, from 2013 to 2017, just to check the more recent data, 2017 is the latest year that I have found publicly available data on the stock of FDI. That is in the Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 2019. The latest year of the data on the stock of FDI is for 2017. You would find that the growth of the FDI stock just over this period, 2013 to 2017, again far exceeded the growth rate of the foreign workforce in Singapore.
Overall then, total FDI has grown much faster than total labour force. Moreover, you would find that the services sector share of the total FDI stock – because we have data as well of FDI stock divided across industry, manufacturing, services, and broken down – has been increasing over the years. In 2017, more than 50% of the total FDI stock went to financial and insurance services, one of the industries in there. So, manufacturing has been shrinking in terms of its command of the total share of FDI, even as total FDI has gone up, which means disproportionately more of it has gone into the services sector and, in particular, the financial and insurance services, where many of our PMEs find their employment.
A direct benefit of the strong presence of multinational corporations (MNCs) that undertake the FDI in the Singapore economy comes from what is known as the employer-size wage effect. Large firms, which many MNCs tend to be, are more productive and they pay more for observationally identical workers. So, two persons who graduated from the same university, the one who works at the MNC, holding everything constant, tends to be paid more than at a smaller firm. That is empirical fact widely acknowledged now in the labour economics literature.
It is true that in the early stages of recovery from a recession, small firms provide a more rapid pace of job creation than large firms in the early stage of an economic recovery. However, in the later stages of economic recovery, the pace of job creation tends to be more rapid at large firms and workers enjoy pay rises when they join these large firms.
So, that is a huge advantage that we have got, that even as we have expanded our labour force, the number showed that the increase in the stock of FDI really has been huge. And that has been a great help in both creating good jobs and overall providing better wages.
My final point – the Mozart effect in the face of a declining citizen workforce because of the below replacement total fertility rate. In the next phase of Singapore’s economic development, it is not enough to rely on technologies developed abroad. We must move from imitation to innovation just to maintain trend growth. Much of the catch-up phase in the technological diffusion is probably nearly over. So, in the next stage, innovation will have to drive productivity growth.
While MNCs still play an important part in creating new technologies, we need them both for the jobs with better pay and also their part in creating new technology because they also do R&D. A bigger share of the source of growth would have to come from productivity gains achieved by SMEs that are successful in their innovations. Working in an MNC might be a prelude to stepping out to launch a new business venture since moving between departments in an MNC exposes a worker to different facets of running a business.
A shift in our own education system towards preparing students to cope with novelties and picking themselves up after failures will also help to increase the supply of entrepreneurs to boost the SME sector.
However, as an empirical matter, SMEs exit their respective industries more frequently than large firms. Many new business ventures end up in failure but, among the ones that survive, their growth is higher than the average growth rate.
Given the high probability of failure in any innovative activity, having a large supply of workers who turn into entrepreneurs is necessary to ensure a sufficiently high aggregate rate of innovation that would need to drive the productivity growth, to allow us to attain trend growth as a mature economy.
The demographic transition, however, to a declining citizen workforce carries the implication that it will be difficult to sustain the pace of indigenous innovation necessary to maintain the trend growth. Since it is people who create ideas, a declining workforce ultimately leads to slower productivity growth. It would appear then, just to maintain the trend growth, keeping the size of the labour force from declining is of paramount importance.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore overcame the odds against it when it attained Independence by developing the right mindset and economic institutions capable of riding on the opportunities provided by the world. Even as it now faces the challenges of a growth transition, a demographic transition, technological disruptions and higher worker aspirations, it will be the ability to develop political consensus and supporting social and economic institutions to continue to embrace economic openness, not only to goods and capital but also to people, that will assure it of a future with a supply of good jobs and wages.
Therefore, I support Minister Lawrence Wong's Motion to secure Singaporean jobs and livelihoods while staying open and connected to the world, in order to grow and prosper, even as we focus on the other points made in the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. Before I continue, I wish to declare that I am an educator at an institution of higher education, delivering courses in international trade and finance.
Last month, Ministers Ong Ye Kung and Tan See Leng provided thoughtful expositions about the benefits of free trade for economic growth and prosperity, and Prof Hoon Hian Teck has just done the same. Minister Ong has also shared with us his perspective – which I am convinced is deeply embedded in his intellectual DNA – as a trade negotiator, while simultaneously exposing us to the delicacy that is samsu. He also clearly articulated the Government’s position, that anxieties on jobs, while legitimate, are distinct from both FTAs, in general, and CECA, in particular.
In my contribution to this Motion, I will argue against the blanket claim that the precarity felt by our workers has absolutely nothing to do with free trade or, for that matter, FTAs.
The proposition that free trade is a net positive for national welfare has long and illustrious roots, dating back to the 18th and early 19th century. In my courses, I teach this idea in my very first lecture: that countries are better off when they specialise and trade, instead of trying to take on the burden of producing everything within its own borders. This is the case even for an advanced economy, in possession of technological capabilities to produce all manner of goods more efficiently than others can. The conclusion is counter-intuitive, but once one embraces the logic, it is incontrovertible, and the insight deeply satisfying. Indeed, this insight has been characterised as both non-trivial and elusive.
In my second lecture, however, my students quickly learn that free trade is not an unadorned good. Even in the simplest of models, trading relationships between two countries will throw up both winners and losers. In general, for capital-rich, advanced economies, the gainers will, unsurprisingly, be industry, leaving the lot of workers worse off. By a similar token, higher-skilled labour in developed countries tend to benefit from trade opening, while the lower-skilled ones are often left behind.
But this unequal outcome need not be the death knell for free trade. In the longer run, as workers displaced by trade find new jobs and reallocate to in-demand sectors, wages and employment would even out. Furthermore, since the gains outweigh the losses, it is entirely possible for winners – in this example, capitalists or higher-skilled professionals – to compensate the losers, the workers, at least, in part. Doing so leaves everyone better off and helps ease the transition to a more liberal trading regime.
And there you have it: the case for free trade, which has survived many generations of subsequent elaborations, with bells and whistles thrown in. Thus, as long as we keep in mind the pressing need to ease the distributional consequences, we can always build a national consensus in support of trade liberalisation.
Alas, in the real world that we inhabit, many policymakers have often forgotten this important imperative. So, globally, the pursuit of trading relations has often left losing parties to fend for themselves.
When Singapore was a relatively poor, underdeveloped economy, this mattered a lot less. After all, the gainers in this case were our masses of low-skilled labour, hungry for jobs and opportunities that would be ushered in by embracing globalisation. With so many with so little to lose, it was straightforward to build a large coalition in support of free trade.
But we are no longer poor, and this complicates matters. Today, the major gainers in our nation’s stance on free trade are the high-skilled and those with access to capital. These groups benefit disproportionately well from our open trading regime, leaving our less well-off working class – now, decidedly, the minority – in an even worse position. It should, therefore, be of little surprise that, all over the world, we have witnessed populist challenges to globalisation: from the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, to the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement, to the more recent Gilets Jaunes in France.
And, Mr Speaker, may I venture that the backlash against CECA also has its roots in the perceived inequality of the deal for our local workers. After all, this all comes down to the recognition that free trade and free trade agreements are hardly the same thing. Many of these agreements have been concluded with insufficient attention to the distributional consequences for the minority that has been hard done by the deal. As a result, we have ventured from the rules of thumb on compensation that economists have routinely advocated to secure support for free trade.
To be completely fair to governments worldwide, including this one, the standard prescription for compensation has not been completely ignored. The United States first enacted the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The EU created a Globalisation Adjustment Fund in 2007. Closer to our neighbourhood, South Korea rolled out an adjustment programme targeted at SMEs that same year.
But in many instances, these programmes do not do enough. Qualification criteria for assistance tend to be stringent, and those who ultimately benefit from such programmes turn out to be only a small fraction of those who have lost jobs. Some programmes are not even specifically targeted at displacement due to trade and, as a result, underemphasise the importance of retraining and reskilling.
Our equivalent adjustment programme is WSG and SkillsFuture, although these are not explicitly targeted at addressing trade-related job displacement alone. I had previously spoken, during this year’s Committee of Supply debates, on potential refinements of our reskilling and reemployment programmes, including rolling out redundancy insurance, and making the Jobs Growth Incentive and Professional Conversion Programme permanent features of our policy landscape.
Other Workers’ Party colleagues have also spoken of challenges faced by our workers as they adapt to changes wrought by trade, such as Aljunied Member Sylvia Lim on underemployment and my Sengkang colleague, Louis Chua, on expanding worker protections. But suffice to say that there is more we can do to provide an end-to-end jobs safety net that can help our workers cope with pressures from globalisation.
This renewed attention to adjustment costs and distributional consequences has also come under greater re-examination even within the economics profession. This was prompted, in no small part, by the harsh realities of the so-called “China Shock,” which accompanied the entry of China into the World Trade Organization in 2001.
The comfortable consensus in support of free trade that had existed for so long began to be seriously questioned. Emerging evidence from the widespread displacement of workers in industrialised economies, especially in the manufacturing sector, where China has proven to be a formidable competitor, revealed that output, wages and employment losses in sectors particularly exposed to imported Chinese goods tend to be large and significant.
These effects were not limited solely to sectors confronting Chinese import competition. The spillovers left whole regions – which used to hum with economic activity and offer respectable middle-class jobs – decimated, leaving behind armies of unemployed, disaffected workers, while also inducing declines in the wages of even those workers who worked in unrelated sectors.
With this general preamble on the merits, and demerits, of free trade agreements, it is appropriate for us to turn to a more careful examination of CECA. While the deal may, prima facie, look like a free trade agreement just like any other, it actually carries its own set of idiosyncrasies, both in practical terms and for our nation at this moment in our history.
For starters, India is much, much larger than our Little Red Dot. This is not just in geographic size, which is a given. But it also dominates us in terms of economic size. India’s output, measured in a common currency, is almost eight times larger than ours; and, even more evidently, in terms of population.
One important lesson that economists have learned from China’s 2001 WTO entry is that, unlike the trade liberalisation experiences of the 1970s through 1990s, gaining access to a massive market also means accepting the entry of a massive labour force.
When there is a flood of new, lower-wage workers joining an industry that is newly open to trade, higher-wage workers that have been displaced are not easily absorbed into the rest of the economy. Moreover, we should recognise that India is also at a far earlier stage of development journey than we are.
Another important consequence of trade opening is that, over time, the prices paid to inputs of production – wages, rents or interest – will tend to meet somewhere in the middle. With wages so much lower in India compared to Singapore, this could lead to a sharp downward shift in our local workers’ earnings, before some sort of convergence is achieved.
Importantly, some adjustment of this nature will occur even if foreign workers do not relocate to local shores. The upshot of trade opening is that minimum salary floors for foreign employment pass holders will only offer limited succour, and the growth of local wages for those in the same sector will still be reduced, so long as we begin from a relatively higher starting point. Hence, even for Singaporeans who do not lose their jobs outright as a result of CECA, or any other FTA, there is still a chance that their salaries could face a significant hit, if they happen to work in sectors more exposed to trade liberalisation. This is our very own version of the China Shock.
All this is not to say that CECA is fundamentally flawed, nor that it is the main factor driving our workers’ anxieties which, as my other Workers’ Party colleagues have elaborated, are more because of our labour market and social protection policies.
Still, there is little reason why we should not seek to refine the deal, especially in light of the ongoing third review of the pact. Doing so will bring us back to the standard remedy I mentioned earlier: that gainers compensate losers. Do we have just cause to believe that this has been the case for CECA, or for that matter, all our FTAs?
It is unclear if companies that have enjoyed enhanced access to the foreign market as a result of our trade agreements necessarily pay higher taxes as a consequence. Nor is it clear that professionals recruited from foreign nations to work in Singapore systematically do, either. When all is said and done, it appears, from my vantage point, that the Government has been the one picking up the slack, via WSG and other adjustment schemes. While this is important, unless the winners from trade are definitively contributing a share consistent with their boosted incomes, this will end up shifting the burden of supporting displaced workers back to the Singaporean taxpayer.
Let me also take one step away from the economics and touch on the impact of FTAs from an institutional and sociocultural perspective, something that has been shared by my Sengkang colleague He Ting Ru.
As this House is well aware, Singapore is a small island bereft of natural resources, which has meant that our success has always been because of our people. As a developing country after Independence, we invested heavily in educating our workforce, producing hardworking, well-trained workers that could hold their own in competition against the rest of the world.
At the same time, we refined and adapted the legal institutions and civil services that we inherited as a British colony. We imbued our people with a sense of national pride, identity and common purpose. These did not spring from nowhere. We had to inculcate such values, slowly, over decades, via national education, patriotic songs, a shared history and, yes, our common love for food and shopping.
Do our FTAs and labour market policies that encourage large immigration flows compromise these key contributors to our past prosperity? While the jury is still out, there are concerns about the entry of workers with less-than-stellar educational qualifications, the presence of a sizeable but temporary expatriate labour force with a limited understanding of our unique national identity, and the dilution of the cultural capital that has hitherto been so central to our success.
In my view, these elements bear closer scrutiny and Prime Minister Lee’s announcement during this year’s NDP Rally that the Government will gradually tighten EP and S Pass criteria is a heartening step in this direction.
The promise behind FTAs is that it will lead to increased economic opportunities, in both trade and investment, traditional strong suits for our economy, accompanied by the creation of more jobs for Singaporeans, on net, as a result. Such agreements also allow us to contribute positively, albeit indirectly, to advancing the development of our trading partners. These aspirations are all laudable.
Even so, we need clear-eyed evaluations of the benefits and costs of all our FTAs, CECA included. We need to know whether these agreements have been detrimental to the job prospects of some of our local PMETs, who are already anxious about automation-related retrenchment. We need to know whether local credentials and qualifications issued to our graduates may inadvertently become undervalued, relative to foreign ones, because of mutual recognition clauses. We need to affirm our tenuously employed workers, those who have been involuntarily forced into food delivery and private car hire jobs, that FTAs do not open up loopholes to excessive labour inflows.
All such assertions should be based on evidence, obtained through careful analysis and deliberation. I call on this Government to institute a freedom of information initiative that will guarantee the full release of accurate and complete trade, production and labour market data, insofar as they pertain to the study of our FTAs.
This should be at any level of disaggregation requested, albeit suitably anonymised, if necessary. I should note that this is a routine practice in countries worldwide, from advanced economies like Australia, the European Union and the United States, to developing nations as diverse as Brazil, Moldova and Sri Lanka. Such a move would permit our researchers and interested members of the public to come to their own conclusions and correct misperceptions that this Government has routinely railed against. If we truly believe that FTAs have been good for our country, we have nothing to fear in releasing these data for further study and scrutiny.
I support the amended Motion advanced by the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh.
Mr Abdul Samad (Nominated Member): Sir, I am too engrossed in today's debate. I am not so sure I am the right person to talk but, nevertheless, I have the duty to speak for the workers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend Minister Lawrence Wong’s Motion “Securing Singaporeans Jobs and Livelihoods\". This is so, as it directly impacts workers who are at the heart of all that we do in the Labour Movement. While acknowledging the role of foreign talent, I would like to focus my energy more on how to help our fellow workers to seize and secure the available good-paying jobs from any big companies that offer them.
The Labour Movement believes that jobs are the best welfare and full employment is the best protection for our workers.
The unions and Labour Movement are constantly looking at how to help workers achieve better employment and employability outcomes in the long run.
Sir, I had highlighted the importance of training and workforce transformation in my Budget speech earlier this year and reiterated that upskilling is key to cultivating a strong Singaporean Core during my speech on 27 July. I would, once again, like to call upon employers to be proactive in equipping your workforce with relevant skills to meet the evolving needs of your industry now and the future. The unions will work with you to rally the workforce, allay any fears of changes and provide constant ground-up feedback.
Let me add that when I mention workers or workforce, it also includes our Professionals, Managers and Executives, in short PMEs.
Due to COVID-19 and its impact on businesses, we see that mature PMEs aged 40 and above are more disadvantaged due to their age and seniority. As much as we have debated and implemented policies and programmes to better support PMEs, there is still a need to protect our PMEs against egregious companies who exploit the system, treat workers unfairly. The unions would not hesitate to deal with such companies to ensure PMEs receive fair hiring opportunities and are treated fairly when in employment.
On the broader topic of workplace discrimination, NTUC will work closely with our tripartite partners in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness to improve workplace fairness. However, I am aware that not all workplace discrimination can be resolved through legislation. The unions will continue to play an important role to work closely with employers to resolve workplace grievances.
Sir, if there is one thing that we do best here in Singapore, compared to any other country in the world, it is tripartism. It has remained to be our tried and tested formula to ensure social and economic stability and success. As such, NTUC and the unions look forward to working together with our tripartite partners to tackle the next bound of workforce challenges and build an inclusive workforce.
Sir, I am heartened with Minister Lawrence Wong's earlier sharing and stand in support of the Motion “Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods\", not forgetting the importance of every FTA, as we believe it will benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. [Applause.]
Mr Cheng Hsing Yao (Nominated Member): Speaker, Singapore has excelled as a regional hub for businesses and talents for a number of business sectors. A few of Singapore's success factors are: one, public policies that prioritise the long-term interests of Singapore; two, pragmatic execution of public policies; three, open and multicultural society; four, in the face of competition, we always choose to level up by improving ourselves; and five, never wasting a crisis to emerge stronger.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a huge crisis for us but, through the methodical way, we have handled it. It is beginning to turn into a great opportunity. We are one of the few Asia Pacific countries that have a real plan for transiting into an endemic COVID-19.
Global Investors have seen not just the resilience of the economy, but also the resilience of the society and the people of Singapore. We can now see the conditions for Singapore to develop into an important regional or even global hub for the technology sector. In due course, we might become a hub for the pharma-medical and sustainability sectors as well.
However, opportunities come and go. They seldom come around a second time. When we have the chance to develop both the breadth and depth of a desirable industry cluster, we should do so quickly and decisively. Once we have achieved the ecosystem of companies and talents, we will likely continue to attract even more investments. Conversely, if we were hesitant or slow to act, the ecosystem takes root somewhere else, future investments and talent will be drawn there instead.
One of the most important considerations for businesses to locate or expand their HQ operations or R&D centres in Singapore is the availability of the right talent pool to support their growth. Mathematically, the size of our local talent pool is insufficient to meet their needs. This is a genuine concern of many corporation executives, who are further unnerved by anti-foreigner public discourse. If our total workforce cannot meet the needs of companies, they will move out. All the jobs that could have been taken up by Singaporeans and foreign workers will be lost.
Thus, as a society, we need to embrace the concept that foreign talent and labour are complementary to our local talent and labour. We seem to take it for granted that people always want to come to Singapore to live and work.
Today, we remain attractive, but our attractiveness is relative. It depends as much on what we do as what our present and future competitors do. One critical trend to note is how digital connectivity has facilitated working from home. \"Home\", in this context, need not be in Singapore, it can be anywhere. The person competing for a job need not be physically in Singapore. There is no stopping this trend. This will heighten the competition for businesses, investments and talents among cities and facilitate the emergence of new and credible competitor cities to Singapore in the future.
To conclude, managing a complementary local and foreign workforce is a complex and emotive endeavour. It requires careful calibration. We also need to be mindful at the cusp of emerging stronger from the pandemic. We should try not to let great opportunities slip by.
In the course of my work, it is always nice to meet overseas executives who had previously worked in Singapore. They understand Singapore and still have positive regard for us. In a way, they continue to contribute even after they have left Singapore by helping to bridge understanding and forge business relationships for us, not unlike a school alumni.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion put forth by Minister for Finance, Mr Lawrence Wong.
Mr Speaker: Mr Edward Chia.
Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, even though we are in a much better position than a year ago, some Singaporeans continue to be anxious about their jobs as global uncertainty continues. During my regular home visit discussions with residents at Zhenghua as well as my meetings with industry, there are employers and employees who are even concerned if newly-learned skillsets are adequate in view of continued disruptions and technological advancement. Some residents who are self-employed shared with me their concerns that “Work From Home” now means “Work From Anywhere” and clients are starting to offshore services.
The competition for jobs and opportunities is no longer confined to a geographical boundary. We are undergoing a significant transformation, and providing national clarity on what we are doing to emerge more competitive and relevant is essential.
In my comments today I will be supporting the Motion that the Government has doubled down on our focus on workforce skills upgrading and job security; and this enables us to compete globally through strategic foreign trade agreements with greater confidence.
The Government has been reviewing and enhancing several core training schemes. For instance, the Training Support Package and Absentee Payroll were enhanced.
Over and above that, many other schemes, such as the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP), Place and Train Programme (PnT) and so on, were put in place. These were introduced to help support individuals and employers with skills upgrading opportunities that are directly linked to job placement.
A few weeks ago, at the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee announced that there will be a new tribunal for workplace discrimination and the further enhancement of legislative powers for TAFEP in the Employment Act. This is such an important step to ensure fairness in the workplace when it comes to hiring – another key component in enhancing our workers' job security. Employers and employees will now be assured that the Government takes this issue very seriously.
In the spirit of continuous review and resolving the issue from all angles and addressing concerns upstream, I would like to suggest three more areas. The intent of these suggestions is to keep our people in jobs and create opportunities for progression. By doing so, we reduce the probability of displacement which creates greater distress for Singaporeans and considerably more resources for assistance. This approach is more sustainable for the Government, employers and employees.
The first is to provide a degree of longevity for those schemes that were enhanced last year, thereby giving our workers and employers confidence that the Government understands that their transition will take time. This level of commitment will translate well to the enterprise level and workers will have assurance that help will not be pulled back too soon. So, I am pleased to hear earlier from Minister Lawrence Wong that MOF is considering this. If the Government could explore the possibility of committing to a five-year period for these newer schemes, it would be helpful.
Building on that is my second proposal. I would like to suggest that existing Government schemes that support local employers to appoint consultancies, especially for business transformation, require the consultant to include relevant training for the employees in support of the identified strategies. By ensuring direct connectivity between employers' transformation and their employees' upskilling, rather than two separate activities, it maximises the return on investments for our grant schemes. There will be many details that need to be sorted out to make this happen. But I believe it would have a significant impact on how our workforce can see their training directly linked to their employers’ strategic direction.
My final proposal is to recommend mandatory training hours per year and to couple it with enhanced absentee payroll support to assist employers and employees with resources to continue to stay ahead of the disruption curve. This will reiterate and complement the Government’s existing and ongoing SkillsFuture initiatives, ensuring our workforce is future-ready through upskilling and reskilling.
With such a comprehensive suite of measures from skill investments to enhanced employer support and deeper legislative powers to reduce workplace discrimination, we can keep our borders open with confidence. To further mitigate the downsides of disruptions and the \"work from anywhere\" phenomenon, we need to grow and anchor jobs in Singapore. To do so, we need to grow and entrench employers.
Being open and connected is critical for Singapore’s competitiveness because many of our employers can only succeed if Singapore is strategically plugged into the global flow of trade, investments and people. Our FTAs are purposefully crafted and executed to ensure that our employers and workers benefit from such connectivity. It allows employers to have access to overseas markets for their products and services; and it allows for our employers to also source for skills and technologies to accelerate their capabilities. The benefits of these agreements ensure that Singapore, with our employers and our workers, are relevant in the global movement of economic activities which lead to value creation back home.
It is, therefore, highly disingenuous for the PSP to simply focus on one or two components of a single FTA to create unnecessary anxieties, especially when it has been addressed in Parliament. Hence, I completely disagree and am not in support of the Motion standing in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai.
This is not about either the big picture or the small picture. But it is about the real and practical picture of how our workers make a living by Singapore remaining open to the world because we have been strengthening ourselves.
Let me share an example. Tunity Technologies is a home-grown employer in the business of RFID technology. This employer benefited from many MNCs in Singapore during their inception through winning business contracts that enabled them to deepen their R&D from the revenue opportunity. In the words of Ms Lim Peck Hui, Managing Director of Tunity, and I quote: “Tunity is chosen by MNCs facing the most challenging and complex RFID projects. Some of the MNCs include ExxonMobil, Katoen Natie, NEC and we are currently working with some Chinese MNCs like Yonyou for collaboration. Such collaboration allows Tunity to develop more IPs to serve them and their clients which, in turn, strengthens our expertise, experience and capabilities. Some of the collaborations bring Tunity's solutions beyond Singapore which, by ourselves, would not have been made possible. This has helped us grow over the past 18 years.”
Tunity exemplifies actually what Prof Hoon Hian Teck shared earlier on the need for SMEs to evolve from technology imitation to technology innovation and how staying open has enabled SMEs to do so.
In addition, Tunity has grown with their employees, done notable national projects, such as the National Gallery and National Heritage Board's inventory tracking systems, build intellectual property and, recently, secured another huge contract from another MNC in the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, they have worked closely with IMDA under the Company Led Training Programme to provide upskilling, training and employment to mature PMEs. This example of Tunity truly illustrates how participating in the global economy has helped them grow. And as Tunity grew, they contributed further to our economy and society, hired local PMEs, creating a positive virtuous cycle.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has clearly done a lot for worker training to provide the skills to be relevant. Recent efforts to go further and enhance its powers to tackle workplace discrimination will go an even longer way in easing our workers’ minds on job security. This multi-pronged approach is important so that we can keep our borders open with confidence because our workforce is continually being prepared, ready and relevant.
Singapore cannot live in fear of how the world is changing. There are movements which focus only on the downsides of globalisation and I believe this is not a healthy conversation. There will always be challenges and we must be sensitive to them. We should focus on how to mitigate these concerns by regularly evolving our systems, structures and policies to enable our workforce to compete confidently. This is the best way to create more jobs, enhance wages and ensure our continued relevance in the global community.
Therefore, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance.
Mr Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.
Dr Tan See Leng: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to have a point of clarification from Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. He was talking about the provisions within CECA, that he would like to look at CECA and refine it. So, perhaps, can I ask him to elaborate on what he means by refining, which aspects of CECA does he want to review and change?
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. Just to be clear, I was saying that it was time to evaluate the agreement. And my call explicitly was for additional information for us to actually better understand what the distributional implications of the agreement had been. I did not call explicitly for a refinement of CECA.
Dr Tan See Leng: I thank the Member for that clarification. I would just like to also refer Assoc Prof Jamus Lim to an article that was published I think in CNA in February 2020, that the household income inequality at the end of 2019 was at its lowest in almost 20 years.
We did not start the FTAs in 1965. We started the FTAs at the turn of this millennium. And at the end of the period of the FTA signing, the Gini coefficient, after transfers, is lower. So, I think, just to put some perspective into what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is talking about.
Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Just a quick clarification. I actually agree that our post-tax Ginis have improved in recent times, but that is, in fact, precisely because of something I pointed out, which is, that we have engaged in transfer policies to seek to ameliorate some of the implications of rising inequality. So, in fact, if you look at the non-post-tax Gini coefficients, they have, in fact, risen over time.
So, I understand it is a technical distinction. But I think it underscores the point that I was trying to raise, which is that it is important that we have policies, Government policies, to help ease this process of redistribution.
Dr Tan See Leng: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, in the interest of time, I thank you for acknowledging that the Government has been making these transfers and easing this process of redistribution, through our policy refinements and tweaking and our constant improvement in the entire situation.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar.
Ms Mariam Jaafar (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. In this speech, I would like to focus on two sectors that have drawn some measure of unhappiness and which the hon Member Mr Leong Mun Wai is quite fond of bringing up: financial services and technology/ICT. I think we can safely assume that these are sectors in which he would like to see an urgent “rebalancing of the foreign PMET population” as well as a “review of the provisions in CECA”.
At this point, I would like to declare my interest as a managing director and partner of a management consulting firm. I do a good portion of my consulting work with banks and tech companies, and I want to share some perspectives on just how important getting the right balance in this debate around the foreign talent policy is to our competitiveness in these two sectors.
These are both people businesses that lend themselves to being natural hubs. Our strategy has been very clear. These sectors do not exist merely to provide services to our domestic market. Our strategy has been, and must unequivocally remain, to be a regional and global hub. And we have done very well.
In the financial sector, we have banks of every colour: local banks, regional banks, multinational corporation banks. Today, Chinese banks are actively entering the market; the fintech sector has been growing; and we are seeing the birth of the first digital banks. Wealth management continues to grow strongly, with family offices flocking here, on whose heels highly sophisticated legal practices are also coming. So, many PMET jobs have been created, for locals and foreigners, within the sector and in adjacent sectors. Jobs that a lot of Singaporeans want, not only for the good pay but also for a multinational corporation work environment that is seen to be more progressive, dynamic and diverse. Today, we are, without a doubt, the place to be for financial services in Asia. It is a status that only a few global cities can claim and it is a status we cannot take for granted.
While more recently forged, our status as a tech hub is growing by the day, with the FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google) companies, or the global tech giants, ramping up their Asian headquarters here. The Chinese tech giants have also come: the Bytedances, the Alibabas, the Ping Ans, the Tencents. They bring with them high-paying jobs, stock options and a startup culture that attracts some of our brightest young Singaporeans. We have unicorns like Shopee and we are also seeing more and more early stage startups or pre-unicorns. There is also a growing phenomenon of founding teams that comprise both Singaporeans and foreigners, and that diversity is fuelling innovation and entrepreneurship.
Both these sectors are important and growing sectors for Singapore. MNCs come for many reasons – our attractive tax laws, our business infrastructure, our skilled workforce and, yes, our open foreign talent policy. They do not only come because of our foreign talent policy, but they will not come if we curtail the flow of talent so much that they no longer feel they have access to a global talent pool. Because they play a global game and a global game requires a global talent pool. Global talent may also not come if they hear from their peers that they will not feel welcome.
As the Government has explained many times, it is our choice to play this global game, to be a financial hub, to be a technology hub. That explains why we have a lot of foreigners in these sectors and, in particular, a high concentration of Indian nationals, not CECA nor other FTAs.
Mr Speaker, if I may use the analogy of something that I love, and I know many others do, too: football, and, in particular, Liverpool Football Club.
Mr Speaker: Thank you.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: The English Premier League (EPL) has, undoubtedly, become the most successful football league in the world. The EPL does not exist to bring Britons their weekly fix of soccer. The EPL has legions of fans around the world. For two of the past three seasons, the Champions League final has been an all-England affair.
For Sunday’s match versus Leeds, the Liverpool starting 11 comprised nine nationalities, with only two Englishmen. But if you want to compete in the Champions League, you need the Messis, the Cristiano Ronaldos and the Mo Salahs. They not only complement the homegrown talent, they improve them. Local boy Trent Alexander Arnold would not be as good a right-back as he is today if he was not pinging in crosses every day to the likes of Mo Salah and Sadio Mane, without Allison and Van Dijk yelling instructions to the back four. This openness to talent has allowed Liverpool to bring pure joy to their fans around the world. It allows Liverpool kids to grow up dreaming of being the next Trent Alexandra Arnold or Curtis Jones, both academy lads.
It also means that many local lads and academy players never break into the senior team. Just think of Harry Wilson, the 2017/2018 Academy Player of the Year, who recently joined Fulham, unable to break the front three of Salah, Mane and Firmino. They have to ply their trade elsewhere. But with the foundation of a club like Liverpool, it is a soft landing. They can still make a great career for themselves.
Just think of Conor Coady who now enjoys an important role at Wolves, and even earned a call-up to the national team for Euro 2020. Or the tireless James Milner, whose minutes get less as he pushes the old age of 36, but only a fool would question his importance to the team, on and off the pitch, for his versatility, his experience and his leadership, to talk to the younger players or in Klopp’s word, to do “his kind of a little bit dirty dressing room talks that I cannot do, these things you say in the dressing room that I am not allowed to say in public. That’s the last kick and that’s nice”.
I, for one, would not object if the rumours of a future role in management in Klopp’s team were to come true. And which Liverpool fan can forget when we welcomed God, or Robbie Fowler to the rest of you, back to heaven when Rafa brought him back from Annfield as a backup striker to Owen and Heskey.
Mr Speaker, we cannot deny that the fruits of our foreign talent policy have not been shared equally by all. It has made things more competitive for our PMETs, and Members of Parliament from both sides of the House have talked about the anxieties felt by Singaporeans.
I have spoken to residents, many in their 40s and 50s, who were retrenched and have yet to find a new job, despite sending out many CVs and making efforts to tap on various reskilling programmes. I have spoken to residents who feel they have been displaced because there was a foreigner willing to work for lower pay. I have spoken to residents who see that the new expat manager is always followed by more of his countrymen. I have spoken to residents who have felt discriminated against at work, passed up for promotions and the plum assignments.
I have spoken to residents who question whether their foreign colleagues really have the qualifications claimed. I have spoken to graduates of our tertiary institutions, who find they cannot land the sexier jobs in ICT, which seem to demand experience that they think should only be expected of people with a few years of experience, not a fresh graduate. And I have spoken to residents in their 30s and 50s, who have jobs, but are feeling anxious about which side they will be on in the next round of headcount cuts, or just feel a little stuck.
And I empathise. I do not doubt that some of these grievances are real. That is the reason why we have the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) and Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). So, I was happy to hear of the commitment to ensuring that Singaporeans always get a fair chance, including measures to enshrine TAFEP in legislation in the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech. The Government must be firm in enforcing this.
It also makes sense to increase the EP and S Pass salary criteria because Singaporeans today are different from 20 or five years ago. We are more educated and more skilled. We have more Singaporeans who can do these jobs and companies must recognise that.
But it is dangerous to generalise and falsely characterise these issues as more pervasive than they are just to stoke emotions. It is dangerous to believe that if we just had fewer foreigners, all the problems would be solved and Singaporeans would get all the jobs, because there are other issues at play.
It is dangerous to believe that if we tell our banks and tech firms that we will not approve most of their EP applications and renewals, as I seem to hear the PSP say, that they have to get rid of the foreign talent they already have to meet some concentration ratios that the hard-earned status of being a global financial and tech hub will not be eroded. It is dangerous to believe that it is okay to lose this status because we have many things to fall back on. Because we do not. That is why I cannot accept and why I must reject the Motion standing in the name of Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Speaker, the reality is, in both these sectors, we have more jobs than talent. The war for talent is not hyperbole. Talk to people in the industry and they will tell you how tight the labour market is, how hard it is to fill many of the roles. Indeed, as it has become more difficult to bring in new people, I have heard that people already in the market are able to jump to another opening, almost always with a minimum salary bump of 20% to 30% and often also with a jump in role.
Part of the reason it is so hard to find people is that technology is changing so rapidly and the depth of domain knowledge or specific technical skills is not yet readily available. We simply do not have enough Singaporeans with these skills.
In ICT, we now have lots of well-trained IT project managers. But, for roles like backend developers and data scientists, often, when they put out applications for these roles, many of the Singaporean CVs they receive check off perhaps one or two of the five to six skills involved. And for those who check off more boxes, the competition for those who have all the skills is intense – from the tech giants, Chinese firms, even GovTech – where I have to declare I am on the board.
On compliance in banking, we have a lot of Singaporeans in compliance. But for some, their knowledge is of traditional compliance frameworks while, globally, banks are adopting smart compliance, which is much more agile and aligned to business objectives, and they do not yet have that experience.
At the leadership level, we still hear that it is still difficult to find enough Singaporeans with the leadership, communication, change management and influencing skills needed to lead in the complex multi-stakeholder environment common in most MNC organisations. A reason often cited is that many Singaporeans lack international work and management experience.
Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Tan See Leng have shared the changes that have been made over time to our foreign talent policy and guidelines on employment practices. These have been necessary and timely, and the impact is being felt.
My banking contacts have shared that getting an EP now takes much longer. EPs that used to get approved in days now take months, even for senior jobs.
But, again, does that mean that the roles will go to Singaporeans? The reality is that global banks are unlikely to settle because their own competition is so intense and the pressure to deliver outcomes so strong. So, if getting an EP takes longer and is more uncertain, if they do not see the skillsets immediately available in the local market, they choose to wait or they build in flexibility for themselves, such as by \"parking\" the staff in London, New York, Hong Kong or Dubai temporarily, but, potentially, permanently.
A senior bank HR executive shared that while she is supportive of the move to increase EP salary criteria, if new restrictions go too far, it will force them to reconsider their location strategies.
COVID-19 has changed the world. By now, MNCs have gotten good at working in remote teams. It is not inconceivable that banks move some tech and operations roles to India or even Poland and Russia. Indeed, it is already happening, taking along with them jobs held by Singaporeans in those teams.
Tech managers echoed these sentiments. \"I could try and settle on a lower quality candidate but that really doesn’t sit well with me. I can wait several months but that doesn’t really work in business. Or I can move the role elsewhere. None of these is a great option I really want to do. I hope to not be put in the difficult position of making these kinds of trade-offs between quality, time and location,\" says a hiring manager in tech.
At the same time, many banks and tech companies are heeding the Government's call to invest in the Singaporean Core. At an MNC bank, at the entry level, the directive is now to hire exclusively Singaporean fresh graduates and PMETs who have gone through professional conversion programmes. At the next level, where the jobs require more specialised technical skills, there is a mix of Singaporeans and foreigners and they are trying different things to increase the proportion of Singaporeans.
They had tried getting hiring managers to carve out time to develop their local talent, but it did not really work – perhaps an ask too big of busy hiring managers. But they are now looking to start a scheme where local talent can shadow or do projects with the hiring manager one or two days a week.
For even more senior roles, they are pushing to give internal Singaporean candidates more opportunities. And at all levels, screening and interviewing practices have been updated to encourage more diversity and Singaporean representation. For example, at least three parties, including HR, interview every candidate to address the perception that some foreign hiring managers tend to favour people from their own countries. Hiring managers are also asked to consider internal Singaporean applicants first before internal EP holders, before external Singaporean hires and then only external foreign hires, in that order.
Similarly, in the tech sector, companies like Google are very deliberate in making sure that locals are represented in the screening and interviewing process and have also created traineeships under schemes like SG United. Google has made a few hires from this programme and has contributed more trained talent to their ecosystem. All these are initiatives that take effort, but they do them.
Mr Speaker, at this point, I do want to give a voice to Singaporeans in these sectors who are perhaps heard not as often about, like my friend, Ms M, who joined one of the tech giants when they ramped up their regional operations here. She said, “I love what I do and I enjoy working with the diversity of colleagues. If Singapore were not open and Company X hadn't come here, I would never have had the opportunity to work for this great company.\" Another friend, who is in one of the digital banks, said, \"I get to be involved in creating a new business model. I'm learning every day.\" Meanwhile, a former colleague who joined one of the unicorns has recently embarked on an exciting adventure to head up their operations as they take bold steps to expand in Brazil.
These positive feelings persist even when there are disappointments. Ms L shared with me how she had applied for the position of country manager, which eventually went to a foreigner. \"I could feel like it was an opportunity taken from me, but you know what? I report to him now and I have learnt a lot from him. I don't begrudge him that role at all because I recognise him as a world-class talent. So, I learn from him and maybe one day I'll get my shot.\"
These are intensely personal stories. But they are real Singaporeans, too. How can we deny these Singaporeans the opportunity to live their dreams?
The PSP talks about rebalancing the foreign labour force. Based on the list of concrete proposals on how they seek to achieve that, I can only observe that they seem to be fixated on achieving this rebalancing by taking unilateral actions to reduce the number of foreigners as quickly as possible, as if that is the only way it can be done.
It is as if the PSP has no faith in Singaporeans to get there on our own merit without risking our global hub proposition. I beg to differ. We Singaporeans are much more adaptable and resilient than that. So, yes, let us tighten up where we can, let us ferret out instances of discrimination because there is really no place for this. But I say the best way to rebalance is to keep investing in Singaporeans until we are globally competitive.
The Government has made significant investments in the Singaporean Core. The number of training and reskilling programmes for the unemployed has been impressive.
It is still too early to tell what the overall outcomes will be, but we have some reason to be optimistic. In one of the mid-career reskilling programmes I am familiar with, 40% of the trainees landed a job within a couple of weeks of graduation. We all know of mid-career PMETs who have taken courses and not landed a job, but let us not forget to celebrate those who have and let us keep working on it.
Reskilling is also relevant to two other groups of Singaporeans: first, Singaporeans who have jobs but are at risk either due to sunsetting sectors or their individual skillsets; and, second, our graduates.
In my maiden speech, I called on companies to take accountability for their employees' learning. In many organisations, learning and development are still not top of mind. Too often, conversations about skills are associated with performance management rather than professional development. Employers sometimes say that it is difficult to get their employees to go for reskilling, even though failure to reskill will, ultimately, cost them their current jobs and their future prospects.
As for our tertiary graduates, more can be done to equip them with industry-relevant skills, knowledge and tools. You may see this as an indictment of our tertiary institutions but that is not entirely fair. It is difficult for professors and curricula to keep up with the pace at which industry is moving, specifically when it comes to the specific tools that are used only in the industry.
When companies recruit for backend engineers, they look not only for knowledge of backend programming languages but also knowledge of popular frameworks like Spring Framework, Spring Security or Django used in industry. According to the CEO of a startup which uses big data to understand skills, few young Singaporean graduates have these on their CVs.
Interestingly enough, many young graduates in India and Jakarta do, not through their university courses but through boot camps and external short courses they attend. We do not quite have this culture here yet.
It is easy to say Singaporeans are too sheltered, passive and complacent, but I submit it is, in fact, often because they lack awareness and understanding of where and how to start, especially if there are frictions that make it difficult to, such as family commitments or side gigs to augment family incomes.
Mr Speaker: Ms Mariam Jaafar, if you can wrap up, please.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: We can do more – the Government and employers.
We need to empower Singaporeans to take ownership of their own reskilling and career development by, first, giving them the tools to understand where their skills stand versus their peers, where their skills, or lack thereof, are at risk, and then what they can do to start their reskilling journey or nudge them on the jobs they can put their hands up for.
Tertiary institutions can work with industry to curate these courses and boot camps and guide their students on which ones to take for the jobs they want.
And Singaporeans must put our hands up. Do not just complain that company job postings or internal job portals are just for show, even if that may be true in some cases. Know the skills, get the skills, send in the applications showing the skills, and MOM will make sure that companies cannot ignore you.
To do this, much more granularity is needed on the skills required for each job.
Mr Speaker: You do need to wrap up.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: Okay. This granularity will also allow MOM to be more circumspect and discerning when employers come claiming that they cannot find any Singaporeans with the skills and to ensure that reskilling programmes supported by public funds will have a better track record of outplacement.
Sir, there are a number of proposals I do have, including extending SkillsFuture Credits to our tertiary students below 25 years old, supporting longer-term reskilling and professional development programmes than the current six to 12 month traineeships, especially for the sandwiched class, and removing frictions for Singaporeans to take on overseas postings.
Mr Speaker: Thank you.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister articulated clearly the need for us to remain open—
Mr Speaker: But you do need to wrap up.
Ms Mariam Jaafar: —while investing in the Singaporean Core. This Motion proposed by the Minister for Finance reiterates this. It is critical we get this balance right. Notwithstanding my suggestions in this speech, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: We will now call the Minister for Finance to make his reply on his Motion on Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods, followed by Mr Leong Mun Wai for his reply on his Motion on Foreign Talent Policy. Thereafter, I will put the question in respect of each Motion to the House for voting. Minister for Finance.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for speaking in this debate.
We all know that change is the only constant. COVID-19 has accelerated change further with digital transformation, new business models and new ways of working.
In the coming years, we will see more disruptions and volatility in the global economy. As entire industries adapt to these changes, many jobs will be transformed. The skillsets needed will change. New jobs will be created but some jobs will become obsolete. This is the reality of the globalised world we live in and this is the inevitable price of human progress.
Sentiments towards these changes are understandably mixed. Some foresee limitless new opportunities. Others fear massive dislocation of jobs. How Singapore capitalises on these opportunities while addressing the anxieties around jobs will determine our success and whether we remain cohesive and intact as one people.
I am glad that Members who have spoken acknowledged that this is a complex issue requiring a delicate balancing act. We need to deliberate our options carefully and work hard to find solutions that balance the different interests and the needs of our stakeholders. There are no easy answers.
Sir, I have listened carefully to the points that Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa made just now. If I may summarise the basic thrust of their argument: we have too many foreigners in Singapore; let us squeeze them out of Singapore; and these jobs will go to Singaporeans; even better, our wages will go up. But this is simplistic and wishful thinking. Let me explain why.
First, when we squeeze foreign PMETs, the jobs will not automatically go to Singaporeans. Just think about this. Global businesses are here – international consultancies and private banks. They are here, as Ms Mariam Jaafar said just now, to play the global game. They are not here to serve the Singapore market. They are here to serve the region and the world.
Here, in Singapore, they want to bring together an international team. That is our value proposition to them. That is why they find Singapore attractive. Imagine if you tell them, \"Look, you can only be here if you fulfil 90% of your staff being locals. That is the condition.\" Why would they find that attractive anymore?
To assume that by squeezing the foreigners, all these jobs will go to Singaporeans, I think that is just being very simplistic about the argument. But Mr Leong Mun Wai goes further than that. He says, \"Look, if foreigners go and Singaporeans cannot take the jobs, that is the failure of the education system.\" Really? I think that argument is completely disingenuous and does a great disservice to our educators and teachers in our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning.
Mr Leon Perera and Mr Gerald Giam did not go as far as Mr Leong Mun Wai, but they had variations of the same argument. If only you did better with training. If only you taught all the kids coding from a young age 20 years ago. If only.
Sir, we will continue to improve our education system. But I think all of these arguments miss out on the most important point. And, that is, the stark reality that Singaporeans are great as a workforce, but there are just not enough of us.
We have needs in IT. We have tremendous need in engineering. Look at the services sector, healthcare is growing, we need more people to look after our elderly population. We need more doctors, nurses. We need more physiotherapists. Oh, by the way, low-income issues are a problem, do we not need more social workers, too? And did some Members of the PSP not ask earlier when I was in MOE, they certainly did, let us recruit more teachers?
Where are we going to find all the Singaporeans? Everybody wants more.
Indeed, if you go to any of our faculties or maybe most of the faculties in our Universities, Polytechnics and ITEs, they will tell you, when they talk to industries, the industries and employers are saying, \"Look, we want your graduates but produce more of them.\" And how are we going to produce more Singaporean graduates? If we move to one area, the other will say that there is a shortage. That is just the stark reality.
Then, there is another argument that says, \"Look, so many mid-careers underemployed. Let us train them.\" Yes, we are doing our best to train all the mid-career PMETs, but this does not happen overnight. All of us know, it is very hard for someone in his 40s and 50s to make a career change to transit from one industry that they have been working in for years to another industry. It takes tremendous effort. And that is why, as I have mentioned earlier, the Government is going all out to help our mid-careers. We are investing more heavily in SkillsFuture, in lifelong learning, we are working with our tripartite partners, and especially with NTUC and the Labour Movement. But individuals also do have to make the effort in order to make these transitions. So, that is my first point. It is hard work getting this reskilling done and we should not just automatically assume that squeezing foreigners means jobs will go to Singaporeans.
Second, Ms Hazel Poa also showed the chart that suggested there was an association between tight labour markets and wage growth. Yes, perhaps there was; the data is quite clear, based on the last 10 years. But I would say be careful about drawing simplistic policy conclusions from that data. It will potentially lead to bad outcomes. What happened in the last 10 years? We had the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. After that, we waited for a while to make sure that the economy has stabilised. And if you recall, we tightened our foreign worker policies, levies and quotas. At the same time, the economy bounced back very sharply, much, much more strongly than we expected.
In fact, I remember after 2011 and entering politics, we were discussing this issue, having dialogues. Many businesses and employers were literally scolding us for tightening foreign worker policies. They said, \"Look, there's so much growth. Why are you holding us back?\" They were very upset with us. But it was that combination of factors – tightening of foreign worker policies, the very strong economic growth during that period – that resulted in a wage growth.
If we make that simplistic conclusion, that tight labour markets – just tighten, just tighten – wages will automatically rise, I think we may be going down a very dangerous path, because, beyond a point, if wage increases are not matched by productivity increases, we will lose our competitiveness. When that happens, we are not just squeezing out foreigners, we will be squeezing out investments, and jobs will go with them.
That leads me to my third point, which is that this thinking is not just simplistic or wishful; it is fatally flawed. If we were to take such a short-sighted approach, companies will leave and jobs will leave with them. Over time, Singapore's reputation as a business hub will surely be impacted. Our economy will decline and Singaporeans will suffer.
There is another thing about the PSP's approach that worries me. And that is the complacent assumption in their thinking that Singapore has arrived and companies just want to be here. So, the Government can set tougher rules and the companies will have to put up with them because they had no choice.
But let us get real. No one owes us a living. Global competition for investments is relentless and more intense than ever. It took many decades of hard work to get to where we are today. Please have a care about what we say or do because things can fall apart very easily.
I have set out in my opening speech the Government's approach. We keep Singapore open and connected to the world because that is the best, indeed, the only way to secure our future.
At the same time, we know that there are downsides to being an open economy. So, we will deal with these downsides proactively. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim just now talked about the concern about an \"India shock\". And I think he also suggested that perhaps our FTA with CECA might make us more vulnerable to this India shock. But, again, CECA is not relevant here. CECA or not, if India liberalises and opens up, just based on WTO, there will be an India shock, which we will have to deal with and adjust to as we had to do when China joined the WTO.
So, there are downsides to trade. I said that in my speech. There are downsides to being an open economy. That is why we work very hard to deal with these downsides by managing the flow of foreign work pass holders, upholding fair employment at workplaces and helping every displaced worker to get back into jobs. We know that the speed at which technology has developed and the way the global economy is shifting are, indeed, disorienting and difficult, especially for our older PMETs. Some have been knocked down by the winds of change and it is not simply a matter of bouncing back on your feet again, especially when you are older. But the world will not stop and the economy will continue to change.
The Government will provide the best possible support we can give to those who have been knocked back. We cannot go back or hesitate in embracing change. Our children now have opportunities today that we would only dream of in the past. They get to work in the most cutting-edge industries and companies; they work alongside the world's best without having to leave Singapore. This is not just for the few as it was for an older generation, but also for the many amongst the young, and all these have been made possible because we kept ourselves open to the world, even as many other countries caved in to domestic pressures and turned inward. There is no reason why, as fathers and mothers, we cannot walk tall, knowing that we are doing our best for our children and our next generation.
Several Members have also given specific suggestions on what more we can do in various areas. We will study all suggestions carefully and continue to finetune and improve our policies.
I have also presented evidence of what we have achieved with our policies: more jobs created, incomes rising over the years and more opportunities for our children. These are all based on published data and facts. There is a lot of data out there – more than enough for any serious analyst to dive in, understand better what is happening in the labour market, what is happening with employment trends and unemployment trends – and Prof Hoon Hian Teck just now demonstrated that with his excellent economic exposition based on published data. So, look at the evidence and see for yourself how our policies have benefited Singaporeans.
But at the end of the day, I recognise that this strategy that I have set out that the Government is pursuing is not something that is easy to implement politically. While the vast majority benefit from an open economy, there will be some whose lived experiences are not so rosy. For everyone who suffers a negative experience, it is painful, it is very difficult and it is emotional.
In other countries, populist parties have no compunction about tapping into people's anxieties, appealing to fear, appealing to tribal instincts, pitting one group against another. They blame immigrants and foreigners and make them scapegoats for their country's problems and this results in the countries turning inward and becoming more protectionist. We cannot afford any of this to happen in Singapore.
First, as a small city-state, staying open is not just essential; it is existential. Second, if we start having racial or xenophobic undertones in our politics, we will be going down a very slippery slope. It will start with seemingly innocent comments and questions being raised, or dog-whistles, coded phrases. But, over time, the comments become normalised, and racist and xenophobic sentiments become more prevalent. When that happens, our society will fracture and Singapore will fall apart.
Indeed, many Members have also spoken strongly against racism and xenophobia. I thank them for their statements and I fully agree with them that there is no place for such sentiments in this House and in Singapore.
Mr Leong Mun Wai himself now claims that his Motion has got nothing to do with racism or xenophobia. But the fact is that, over the past few months, the PSP has been raging against FTAs and CECA, and for reasons that I genuinely cannot fathom. Despite all the clarifications we have made, his Motion today continues to attribute the cause of job anxieties to FTAs and CECA.
Mr Leong Mun Wai takes issue with the Government calling him out on this. But it is not just us. Others can see what the PSP is doing. In my opening speech earlier, I read an email from someone that various Ministers received the email from. Mr Leong says the PSP listens to the people. Is he listening to feedback like this?
Ms Hazel Poa said, in response to my email sharing about this Singaporean who was not happy with the PSP's campaign against CECA, that we should assure him, that do not worry, the PSP's approach will give him more assurance of getting a job. But I have already highlighted that the PSP's approach is not going to work any better. It will be worse.
Second, Ms Hazel Poa misses the point because this gentleman who emailed to us, his concern was not just about jobs. He said, and I repeat what he said again: \"The PSP's campaign is truly racist and it is hurting Singapore Indians and we are splitting Singaporeans along racial lines.\" It is not just a jobs concern, which the Member has not addressed.
The PSP's own members have expressed this concern, which my colleague, Minister Shanmugam, said just now. According to media reports, one senior PSP member said that focusing on CECA is, \"cheap politics\". Another member said that there are racial undertones with how the CECA issue is being raised in Parliament, and the \"real problem is not about CECA\".
So, these are voices that the PSP's own Members have said that Singaporeans have highlighted. Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa keep saying, \"No, no, no, we are not racist. We are not stirring racist sentiments\". But, look, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. [Laughter.]
Whatever Mr Leong Mun Wai or Ms Hazel Poa may say, the fact is, this is how people see and perceive the PSP's campaign.
Mr Leong Mun Wai also asked for more data. Dr Tan See Leng had given a whole range of data just now and, as I have said, there is more than enough public data out there to show that the job challenges we face do not arise from FTAs, let alone CECA. And I cannot help but feel that the persistent data requests are red herrings to continue this campaign of casting aspersions and creating disaffection towards the Government.
I hope Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa will have the open-mindedness to look at the data and evidence again. Listen to what Prof Hoon Hian Teck has said just now, or any other serious analyst that is looking at the data, and review the PSP's position objectively and be gracious enough to accept that the allegations are baseless and put a stop to the false claims that they have been perpetrating about CECA and FTAs, both in and out of this House.
Next, let us consider the policy issues that Mr Leong Mun Wai raised. He suggested tightening immigration policies. But as several of my colleagues have said just now, this is really a separate topic from manpower policy. In any case, the evidence is clear: population growth over the last decade has been the lowest since our Independence. So, there should be no doubt that we have already been very tight at the overall level. We have also emphasised that our immigration policies will continue to ensure that the ethnic balance remains stable for our citizen population. And you can see for yourself in the latest census reports how we have maintained this balance over the decades.
As far as foreign manpower policy is concerned, after all the fire and brimstone from Mr Leong Mun Wai, all that he has asked for are three adjustments to our policies: raising EPs and S Pass qualifying salaries, imposing a levy on EPs and imposing a cap of 10% per nationality in any company. These proposals have nothing to do with CECA and FTAs.
So, these are the three specific policy issues that Mr Leong Mun Wai was concerned about. Why did PSP not raise them in the first place? Why does his Motion harp upon the Foreign Talent Policy, Movement of Natural Persons in FTAs and, specifically, CECA? Why is he continuing the PSP's sustained negative campaign against CECA, a move which even his own party members say is cheap politics? Why pin the blame on Indian nationals and stir racial unhappiness in our own community?
These are questions that I doubt I will get direct answers from Mr Leong Mun Wai, but only he, Ms Hazel Poa and the PSP know the real answers to. But I hope that, having had the benefit of this debate, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Ms Hazel Poa and the PSP will seriously reflect on their actions and conduct and abandon such irresponsible politics that will divide our society and be disastrous for Singapore. By all means, let us talk about manpower policies; let us debate them; let us talk about the pros and cons of different settings, but they have nothing to do with CECA and FTAs. The more you persist with this line of questioning and the more you persist with your campaign, the more you obfuscate the matter and make problems worse.
Next, let me address some of the questions and points that Members from the Workers' Party have raised. If I can summarise the Workers' Party position on my Motion, it is this: the Workers' Party agrees with the Government's overall strategy to stay open and connected to the world and deal with the downsides of an open economy, but we would like the Government to do more to help Singaporeans.
First, I thank the Workers' Party for supporting our strategy. That is very important, that there is alignment and common ground on this basic strategy for Singapore. As for the \"do more\" part, well, I have already said that the Government will do our utmost to deal with all the downsides. Where there are specific policy suggestions – and a few were raised just now – we will consider them. We will weigh the pros and cons and consider carefully also – wearing my MOF hat – how we should pay for them. And I am sure there will be opportunities in the future for such meaningful debates, including during the Budget next year.
The Workers' Party also had another line of argument, which was about information, data and communications. The Government's communication is not perfect, we will always work to improve our communication strategy. But where data is concerned, as I have said, there is already a lot of data that we have released to the public. Data on the labour markets, data that has been requested. We have put out more than enough data for anyone looking at the matter to examine the facts carefully.
The Workers' Party's line is that more data is better. In fact, why not go all the way and have freedom of information, a proposal which the Workers' Party has made before. I would say, the Government has a different view. We see data and transparency as a means to better governance and it is not always the case that data is necessarily an unmitigated good.
America has the Freedom of Information Act. What is their trust in government like? All the external surveys will show that the trust levels are low and nowhere near where we are in Singapore today. And this is America, but you can look at many other countries which have similar Freedom of Information provisions and that has not helped to improve public trust or public confidence in policies.
The real issue is this: when someone loses his or her job, they will be unhappy, no matter how much data you provide to them. In fact, when they lose their jobs, they are not interested in data. They need help. So, we will do our utmost, as I have said, to help everyone who is displaced.
There are also, sometimes – from time to time – good reasons why we may want to be careful about releasing data. Which is why I said our view on data is a lot more nuanced than the Workers' Party's position – to just release all the data and everyone will have enlightenment.
For example, people ask for more data with breakdown by nationality. Where it is possible, we have released those data, but is it such a good thing to let the whole world know our dependence on foreign workers and from which particular country? Really, do we want to let everyone know that?
I think it was one of the Workers' Party Members who also said that one has to be careful about hostile actors that may exploit our social fault lines to disrupt our society. Indeed, we live in a dangerous world. So, should we not be careful about external parties that may hold us to ransom by threatening to disrupt or terminate our labour flows, especially in certain key Industries? So, that weighs on our mind when we think about data release. We should, therefore, think through carefully these broader considerations when we talk about data release and information policy.
This is why the Government cannot accept the Workers' Party's amendments to this Motion.
The first amendment, drops the word \"support\" and talks about calling for stronger actions. But this leaves it too open-ended and changes the meaning of the limb of the Motion that we originally had. The second limb, limb (f), talks about data and information, but that is really about, as I have said, information policy. Nothing to do with the debate we are having now about jobs, and there is no shortage of data, as I have emphasised earlier. There is a lot of data today already that allows anyone to study the facts and evidence to decide how our policies have worked and impacted Singaporeans and make an informed decision about this matter. If the Workers' Party would like to have a separate debate on information, data provision or even what the Workers' Party has proposed, which is, to have a Freedom of Information Act, we can do so separately. But let us not conflate the issues.
Finally, we talk about racism and xenophobia, which are the important issues we are dealing with today in this debate. I note that the Workers' Party has tried to disassociate itself from the PSP Motion. It suggested some amendments to the Motion, which Speaker has ruled were not acceptable, because they changed the substance of the Motion. But it is quite clear from the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and Members of the Workers' Party where they stand on this matter. And I thank Mr Pritam Singh and Workers' Party Members for your very strong stand against racism and xenophobia.
Mr Pritam Singh himself quoted from a speech he made, I believe, at the Opening of Parliament, where he talked about \"foreigners in our economy; giving Singapore vitality\", that we must \"maintain that openness and friendly attitude towards them.\" In the debate in July, he made very clear his stand again, that when it comes to racism and xenophobia, we have to reject them and there can be no \"ifs and buts\". And I believe that he also agrees that FTAs, including CECA, are fundamental to our economic survival. That was in the debate in July.
Again, today, I think he was quite clear where he stood and he, I believe, also mentioned that he was concerned about the racial undertones that have entered into the present debate on FTAs and CECA. And we should be very clear that the Workers' Party does not stand for any of this. Those were, I believe, statements that he made earlier. So, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making very clear where the Workers' Party stands on this important matter.
In that spirit, I hope he will confirm that we cannot give credence to negative racial undertones in our political debates, that we must never allow such politics to take root in this House and in Singapore, and that the Workers' Party will reject the PSP's Motion.
Sir, in this pandemic, we have been talking about vaccines and the antibodies they provide against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There are other viruses we should worry about: the dark forces of fear and anger of racism and xenophobia. They are no less infectious or deadly. As a society, we need our antibodies to kick in, too, against these viruses, against these other threats, to defend against and defeat the bigots, the racists and the fear-mongers.
Finally, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested having parliamentary committees to discuss the issue of jobs and skills. Sir, we have no shortage of opportunities to debate these issues in Parliament. The Government will provide data when it is asked for. Where we think it is in the national interest to provide such data, we will certainly do. We will consult widely with our stakeholders, especially with our tripartite partners. We will take all ideas and views seriously.
Often, there will be differing perspectives and it will not be possible to take on board every suggestion. So, in the end, the Government has the responsibility to govern and to make policy decisions in the best interest of all Singaporeans. Some decisions will not be so popular, even though we are convinced they are necessary and must proceed for the good of all. When that happens, we may see opposition parties finding ways to stir up disquiet and disagreement. That is the nature of politics.
Sometimes, the Government decides it is an urgent matter and we need to move quickly. Then we will be criticised for not consulting and being too high-handed. On other occasions, we think it is better to take time to deliberate and get everyone on board. Then, we will be criticised for moving too slowly.
That is our karma. We have accepted that in Government. At least, I have accepted that. But we will not be shaken from our conviction to do what is right for Singapore and Singaporeans.
We will not sugar coat realities or shirk away from our responsibilities in tackling difficult issues. We will make the tough calls where necessary. At the end of the term, we will present our report card to Singaporeans and they will judge us on our performance. That is how our system has worked and will continue to work and that is why the PAP Government will always be on the side of Singaporeans, working with you and for you.
We know our policies are delivering results and Singaporeans are seeing improvements in their quality of life. But we also recognise that there are segments who are more vulnerable and who struggle to keep up. So, we are fully committed to do more to ensure the fruits of progress are shared by every Singaporean. Our priority is to build a fairer, more equal and more inclusive society as we emerge from this crisis and enter a more uncertain and volatile post-pandemic world.
Mr Speaker, we have had a long debate on important issues. I am mindful of the time. But it is an important debate. It is a debate about jobs and livelihoods. It is also a debate, more importantly, about our values, who we are, who we want to be and the Singapore we want for ourselves and our children.
Two Motions stand before us. The Motion that stands in my name talks about Singapore's overall economic strategy to stay open, connected to the world, and to deal with the downsides of an open economy, and to continue with all our efforts to help every Singaporean cope and adjust, and to make sure Singapore stays united and we progress together.
The Motion that stands in Mr Leong Mun Wai's name is ostensibly to deal with the anxieties about jobs but, for reasons known only to the PSP, persists with a negative campaign to link this to FTAs and CECA, and to continue to stir racism and xenophobia.
So, we have to decide where we stand and make a choice.
I say, we take a firm and unequivocal stance against racism and xenophobia and, so, I ask all Members in this House to vote for the Motion standing in my name and to reject the PSP's Motion.
Sir, I entered politics 10 years ago in 2011. My first posting was as Minister of State in Education. When I visited schools, one of the questions I liked to ask our students then was: what would you like to be when you grow up? At that time, I received many traditional answers: to be a doctor, be a lawyer, be a soldier, be a teacher. When I returned to MOE last year, I went around asking the same question in my school visits. And, this time, I heard many more diverse aspirations. Kids said that they would like to be a video game designer, data scientist, startup founder, pursuing careers in companies like Amazon and Google. These aspirations are possible because we have defied the odds to build something special here in Singapore: a vibrant city connected to the world, brimming with life, energy and excitement, full of opportunities for our people.
By continuing on this path, we give ourselves the best chance of helping our children realise their aspirations. This is what is at stake for all of us. We know it is not easy to thrive as a little red dot in this big ocean of globalisation. We will encounter many bouts of stormy weather along the way for sure. But we are all on the same boat together and we will get through these storms as one people.
That is what we have been doing for the past 20 months, dealing with the COVID-19 crisis. It has been difficult for all of us. It has added to the stresses and strains felt by people who are suffering the negative experiences of trade and globalisation. But we have also seen throughout this period that we are strongest when we stand together. We have demonstrated we have the never-say-die spirit. We have the ability and drive to work as one people. And we have the guts and gumption to meet every problem head-on. So, together, we can build our best home in Singapore and create a brighter future for ourselves and our families, and for all Singaporeans young and old. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai. Please if you can make a reply on your Motion.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Ministers and Members for their participation until so late tonight. Rest assured, I am time-limited. So, I only have 40 minutes for my speech.
I come to this House to respond to a challenge by Minister K Shanmugam to debate on CECA. He has been puzzling me because it was in reference to his remarks made on a racial incident, which has nothing to do with CECA. The very fact that he linked the incident to CECA was both disingenuous and troubling.
The Prime Minister also, in his National Day Rally speech, claimed that those who question CECA, wanting to put Singaporeans first, had a strong racial undertone. Minister Lawrence Wong also reiterated many of those accusations throughout his two speeches today.
But when I asked Minister Shanmugam for instances where I have commented about CECA prior to accepting his challenge, he cannot reply me. He went on to ask me a few other questions but he did not reply to me. So, these are clearly attempts by this Government to put a label on those seeking more information disclosure and more objective discussion on CECA as racist and xenophobic. I think I will leave that issue as it is. We have done all our explanation that we are not racist or xenophobic. At the end of the day, justice is in the heart of the people. The people will decide.
Political labels are convenient to use to discredit someone but they are not helpful for an open and objective discussion. By the way, I will also have to object to Minister Tan See Leng's words just now saying that PSP is attacking foreigners. Maybe it is a slip of his tongue, but I have to correct that.
All of us here today have one common objective and, that is, to improve the job prospects and livelihoods of Singaporeans. And I have stayed focused on that objective.
So, let me reiterate that we are neither racist nor xenophobic, and this debate is squarely about jobs and livelihoods of our PMETs, who are adversely affected by the foreign talent policy. The provisions on people movement in FTAs like CECA are only a small part of a much larger problem. To be clear, we need foreign talent. They play an important role in complementing, transferring skills and knowledge, as well as providing opportunities for cross-fertilisation of ideas.
But those that are brought in and masked under the EP and SP schemes are not, by definition, really foreign talent. They are foreign professionals let in without quota, resulting in displacement of our own workforce. By drawing on Mr Goh Chok Tong's definition of mediocrity, a foreign talent should be one who earns more than $500,000 a year, or $40,000 a month.
While we do need foreign talent, more importantly, we need to protect our Singaporean Core. And what is the Singaporean Core? It is simply our citizens, natural or new, who recite our Singapore Pledge, and whose interest the Government has the prime responsibility to look after.
The current policies have seriously hollowed out our core. In many key industries, our PMET core is no longer the dominant force that we can rely on for long-term growth. The very people that can ensure the future of our country are being displaced and hollowed out.
It has been a long debate and we have covered a lot of ground. However, as expected, the Government's stance on the causes and the severity of the problem Singaporeans are facing is very different from ours. As a result, probably the new policies that the Government is going to come up with will not solve the problems thoroughly and Singaporean sufferings may have to go on. We might have to come back one year later again and debate on the same problem. Singaporeans would note that PSP has done our best to convince this Government.
Let me go through the differences between the Government position and PSP position.
First, the Government says displacement is due to globalised and fast-changing world. PSP says a large part is due to work pass holders.
Two, the displacement problem is not serious, the Government says. PSP says probably a lot more serious. Coming back to the 380,000 PME jobs that the Manpower Minister had presented to us in the 6 July Ministerial Statement, we are trying to ask him if he is sure that this number represents a net job creation for Singaporeans. So, there were some exchanges just now with my colleague, Hazel Poa, as well. There was no conclusion.
But let me just share some numbers with you. Three hundred and eighty thousand PME jobs created for locals, and that is for both Singaporeans and PRs, from 2005 to 2020. But during the same period, 600,000 PRs had been awarded to work pass holders. So, the reclassification is likely to be a significant factor. But we do not know what is the number because we do not have the number from the Government.
On top of that, there were 400,000 University and Polytechnic graduates during that period. So, a million people seeking jobs versus 380,000 jobs created. So, I do not know how to reconcile the numbers, but maybe in other future forums, we can continue to discuss that.
Third, the Government says emphasis is on training and retraining Singaporeans; PSP says better prevent job displacement first. Let the foreigners do the skills transfer because once a person is displaced, it is difficult for him to find a new job. It is so easy to say \"train again, take up the challenge\" and all that. The examples you quoted, I am sure, is a small minority of those Singaporeans who can really change to a new industry and learn new skills.
Fourth, the Government says discrimination is sporadic; PSP says probably it is structural, we have to look at it because the foreign work pass holders have been in Singapore in large numbers for the last 20 years and they are a very influential force in the job market. So, if you want to rectify the discriminative situation in the job market, legislation may be too slow.
Fifth, foreign talent creates jobs, says the Government; but PSP says the work pass holders we are attracting are all average work pass holders. Where do they have the ability to create jobs? So, they are just here to share our jobs. The jobs done by them, most of them can be done by Singaporeans as well. In that sense, Prof Hoon Hian Teck's lump of labour fallacy may not apply.
Sixth, Member Mr Patrick Tay also mentioned this, that there is a lot of resistance from employers if you want to change the foreigners policy. Of course, that is expected because, after all, they are profit seekers. But PSP says: how long can we kick the can down the road? At some point, we have to change and this is a golden opportunity because now we can tell the employers work harder, \"We can give you the quota now, but make sure you promise to scale down your people in three years' time.\" This is the opportunity to convince the employers to work together and we change the course of our economy. If not, our economy will continue to be stuck in a low value-add position.
Lastly, the Government says you send wrong signal to foreigners; PSP says as long as we Singaporeans are united, Government and alternative parties all united and say we have to change course, I do not think foreigners can say much because that is the way we have chosen.
And I do not think the foreigners are here just because we give them work passes. They are here, they have made a business decision and a strategy. There are many factors involved. Work passes are just one of the factors. In fact – afterwards I will elaborate on our policy recommendations – we are not saying that you do not allow the foreign companies to come in with the number of work passes they want initially. But it must be transitional. There must be localisation over time.
We cannot allow them to continue to keep the same number of foreigners from the very day they come in. So, as long as we are united, I think we can put the message nicely to the foreigners. After all, we can set up a fair consideration framework for foreigners. Why the fair consideration framework for Singaporeans? That is something, as a Singaporean, I feel very puzzled about.
An interesting point was brought up by Ms Janet Ang. I respect Janet as a senior executive in the private sector. She mentioned that Singaporeans did not have the relevant skills, work knowledge and global experience. But I would like to say that if Singaporeans continue to be uprooted from their jobs, where do we get the opportunity to accumulate the skills and know-how over time?
Like I said just now, you cannot expect the Singaporeans to pick up new skills all the time. Are you going to say that if foreigners come in and replace the Singaporeans because it is low-cost, the Singaporeans lost the job and then he has to go and acquire a new skill again? No. Skills and know-how – that comes to the capabilities of our economy. The whole foreign talent policy, as far as we can see up to now, contributes little to our capability building, partly because our Singaporean Core are being affected. Our Singaporean Core are no longer learning over time in the same job. They have been displaced.
Another thing I want to point out to Ms Janet Ang is that we hope the top managers in Singapore would also understand that and support Singaporeans and not keep saying \"Singaporeans don't have this, don't have that\", because they are now under a system that does not have the incentive to make them work hard, to make them work in the way we want them to take up the challenge and all that.
Those prospects existed in our generation, Ms Janet Ang. In this generation, it is more challenging. And, now, the leadership of the country has brought in an additional trouble for them and, that is, competition from foreigners. Not that we want to avoid competition. But, as I have said before in my speech, the competition was not really fair, to start with.
So, other than the discriminative structure that we have talked about in the job market, actually, our economy now is also in a very different operating structure, thanks to the 20 years of foreign talent policy. It will not be easy to transform. We know that. Like a GLC senior manager, who is a very close friend, recently shared with me, \"Ah, if you want me to overhaul my whole system now, it will be very high cost because it's totally dependent on foreigners now.\" But I think we still have to make the change. If, together, we have a consensus, we can rope in a lot of initiatives, a lot of resources. We can give each other time – employers, workers – but I think we need to make the change.
Next, what I want to comment about is from Mr Saktiandi Supaat who mentioned that Singaporeans are now very active in the global financial market. I like to hear that. But I would also like to remind him we Singaporeans have been in the forefront of the financial market since the 1980s. I started work in GIC in 1986. Before that, many of my seniors, not just in GIC, but seniors in the financial sector in Singapore were already pioneers in financial innovations in New York. They go to New York and they make the innovation. Some of the innovations were interest rate swaps and all the equity and bond derivatives. I am not so capable. But I set up one of the first equity derivative desks in Tokyo in 1987.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned about my PR recommendation. I recommend to control the number, manage the number down. But he did not read my recommendation correctly. I actually said the recommendation is for work pass holders. So, I am in support of Singaporeans with foreign spouses and giving the PR to the foreign spouses. I am in support of that. But for this recommendation, I am referring to PR and citizenship to the work pass holders.
So, to reiterate PSP's position: one, we think the foreign talent is not a silver bullet to solve all our problems; two, the foreign talent policy is the root cause of the influx of foreigners and that has caused a significant number of displacement of Singaporeans; three, unfair wage competition is the main economic driver of the displacement; four, decisive and concrete measures are now needed to rebalance our job market; five, and lastly, the FTAs and CECA are part of the equation when we consider immigration and employment policies.
And unless the Government can provide new information to prove otherwise, unfortunately, as of today, we still cannot agree that CECA is net beneficial to Singapore.
Next, I would like to address the policy recommendations that I have made in reply to Minister Lawrence Wong and also Minister Tan See Leng.
First of all, PSP is for an open economy and society. So, our policy recommendations are not meant to make Singapore a closed society or economy and our policy recommendations are meant to make a point – a point that all of us agree upon that we change course. We have to change course. But after we have agreed to that, I would think that we can throw in or rope in a lot of other things and provide the leeway for us to implement those policies. They need not be cast in stone. And among the policies that I have recommended, only the price-related policies or what I call price-control policies, have got a timeframe.
For the quota policies, I have purposely made it no time constraint. I hope you have noticed that. Okay, in terms of the policy: firstly, I think you really need to eliminate the wage disadvantage against Singaporeans. Hence, the EP levy. I do not think Minister Tan See Leng's two attempts to reply to my EP levy as a necessity to equalise the compensation package of the EPs and Singaporeans really answered the question, because the 17% employer's CPF contribution is a direct differential. You cannot avoid that. And being an employer, that will go into his decision-making.
Second, in order to attract more foreign talent, the Government also agrees that the qualifying salaries should go up. So, it is just a matter of how fast. My policy may be a bit faster.
Third, I did not put any time limit to reduce the headcount of work pass holders although I would like actually today if we can come to some conclusion as to what is the number of displaced Singaporeans. So, that becomes a target that we can work on.
But since the Government claims there are very few displacements, then we will not discuss that anymore. But I did not put any time limit to reducing the headcount. I also did not put any time limit to reducing the single nationality number. But for all these, there is an aspirational or planning target, and maybe, we should put a 10% cap on the single nationality on that.
What I am trying to say is on the policies that PSP has recommended, actually, we are very mindful of the effect that the implementation has on the job market and also, indirectly, what kind of messages we are sending to foreigners.
Next, we also have to reflect on how the problems of the foreign talent policy have been allowed to fester, develop and exist for the last 20 years. It tells us a lot about the checks and balances in our governance system.
In particular, we have to question the freedom of information, the tripartite partnership and the conduct of our Government.
First, freedom of information. Throughout this long-running saga on the foreign talent policy, accurate data has been lacking, which has contributed to the large amount of fake news and speculation floating around. In my own experience of preparing for this debate, I cannot find the figures of intra-corporate transferees.
Of course, today, the Minister provided a few more years but the thing is: why give it out piecemeal? You are the one who is generating the data. You should be putting the data in an organised format. Yes, we agree that some data may be sensitive but, please, put it in an organised format for people to analyse. There are so many people in Singapore who will be able to analyse the data if the data is presented regularly and in an organised manner.
Today, Minister Tan See Leng provided, I would say, quite a lot of new data but the new data was not actually available for us to analyse without him telling us. So, the Government is doing what I call guerilla data. Whenever they want to prove a point, they give you a little more data. Look at the chart that Minister Tan See Leng has given us. Below the chart, it is stated Labour Survey Report. That is available. After that, \"administrative data from the Research Department of MOM\". Without the administrative data, we do not have the whole picture.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock has called for transparency, accountability and independence in matters of national governance. Singaporeans have the right to information in order to make informed opinions and judgement. We urge the Government to introduce the Freedom of Information Act as soon as possible, although we are not the first one to raise this. The Workers' Party has always been talking about this and we thank them for that.
Parliament also has a constitutional role to play in ensuring that sufficient information is provided and policies are thoroughly debated.
To this end, we recommend the setting up of a standing parliamentary select committee in every Ministry, with representatives from both the ruling and alternative parties to improve information flow to facilitate more substantial policy deliberation.
Policy deliberation is about an integrated deliberation. It is not just a legal interpretation. It is more social economic analysis but, on top of that, philosophy, history, how human beings have behaved over history, those are important things for policymaking.
The second point I want to make is tripartism. Tripartism has been practised since Independence. However, in my opinion, the weak NTUC link in the tripartite partnership has become obvious during the foreign talent policy saga.
I believe Mr Patrick Tay and all the NTUC leadership and the NTUC staff are working very hard. But if the overall policy is pointing at a different direction, the results that come out of their hard work speak for itself: lowly-paid workers constantly needing governmental financial support to get by despite working full-time; PMETs in their 40s and 50s finding themselves extremely vulnerable to discrimination; and now, underemployment.
So, NTUC needs a lot of soul searching if it still wants to be relevant in representing the interests of the Singaporean worker.
We also urge Singaporean employers to stand up against discrimination. They will have the most to lose in the long term, if the current situation leads to a radical change of our business culture and mode of operation without a robust Singaporean Core. We urge employers to take the lead in rooting out discrimination in the job market so that we can build a competitive yet fair, multicultural and multinational workforce with Singaporeans at the core.
Lastly, the conduct of the Government. The Government needs to show more empathy rather than pay lip service in order to understand the psyche and the real experiences of the working citizen. Many of them are struggling.
Even if one Singaporean is being discriminated against, we should take action. Let us not argue about majority, widespread or not widespread. To every Singaporean, we have a duty to make sure he is not discriminated against in the job market.
Over the years, while Singaporeans have constantly provided feedback on their predicament, the Government has insisted that all attempts in trying to curb immigration and foreign workforce growth in order to safeguard Singaporeans will end up hurting the Singaporeans themselves.
I quote Dr Amy Khor from her speech at the Population White Paper debate in February 2013, \"To curb immigration or foreign workforce growth in order to safeguard Singaporeans could in an ironic twist hurt the very people this reversal is intended to help.\"
I wonder what Dr Amy Khor has to say now. Before the ironic twist has happened, the silver bullet unleashed by the foreign talent policy has actually shot down many Singaporeans' livelihoods and may hit Singapore soon.
Well, time is a powerful witness. When Singaporeans' anxiety has persisted for the last 10 to 20 years, I think it is difficult to justify that the current policy is not flawed.
Hon Members of this House, contrary to the original promises presented in the Population White Paper, the foreign talent policy has created in Singapore an imbalanced population with a diluted national identity, an economy with inadequate technological innovation and significant displacement of Singaporean workers.
This has been a debate that many Singaporeans are concerned with and anxiously waiting for. This is not just a debate about a particular section of CECA, nor has it anything to do with racism and xenophobia.
It is a debate about alleviating the plight of our PMETs adversely affected by the foreign talent policy. It is a debate about the need to safeguard the Singaporean Core, which is a pillar of our economy and our future. It is a debate about developing our very own talent by looking into new ideas to create opportunities for them.
The PSP position is clear. We recognise the need to stay open as an economy. We are pro-trade but not \"free for all\" trade. We recognise the need for real foreign talent to complement our Singaporean Core, transferring skills as well as sharing experiences but we want a healthy balance of foreign and local workforce achieved through sound immigration and employment policies.
We want these policies to be designed and executed fairly, with Singaporean interest first. We call for urgent and concrete steps to be taken to alleviate the current problem and we have given suggestions on what needs to be done.
The Prime Minister has said in his National Day message that he recognises the anxieties about jobs and that his Government will make changes over time. But time is of the essence. The changes must start now before this dire situation gets to a point of no return.
Many of us have heard or read about the story of Mr Philip Wen, whom I happen to know. He was a senior vice president of a bank but now has to drive Grab for a living. Please do not be mistaken. There is nothing wrong with driving for Grab as it is an honourable job. But this is a good illustration of underemployment, which many of our PMETs are facing. Their skillsets could have been much better utilised. Yet, they are forced into a no-win situation.
There are many more sad stories, as we discovered through our survey of 750 PMET respondents. It pains us to know that we have our own talent that are not treasured and the very Government that is supposed to look after their interests has the priority elsewhere, maybe on economic growth.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me close by reminding that democracy is famously described as government of the people, by the people, for the people. So, let us not forget that it is the interest of the people that the Members of this House and this Government are elected to serve. There is nothing wrong in voicing out for them and championing for them.
Singaporeans deserve better. The many Philip Wens out there deserve better. For country, for people. Sir, I beg to move the Motion.
Mr Speaker: Dr Amy Khor.
The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment and Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mr Speaker and Members of this House, let me apologise. I did not mean to take up any more time than is necessary. But I think I need to address or clarify Mr Leong Mun Wai's point. He asked me what I have got to say about the quote from my speech.
Let me say that I would say the same thing. For the last eight hours or so, this is exactly what many of the Members of this House, including Prof Hoon Hian Teck and Minister Lawrence Wong, have said: that Singapore has to continue to remain open and have to welcome some of these foreign talent if we want to continue to thrive and grow. We need some of these people.
I think Minister Lawrence Wong has said we simply do not have enough people. So, I would still say the same thing: that we have to be very careful in saying that we keep the foreigners out, we do not have any of these people there and we will have jobs because, indeed, if we do that, we will really hurt the very people that we are trying to help, and, that is, the Singaporeans that we care about and we want to make sure that we improve their lives, they have good jobs. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? Mr Leong?
Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for making that statement. So, we can confirm that, from the debate today, the Government's stance is that the old policies still stand. PSP says you need new policies.
Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.
Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. I do not think there is going to be a reprise.
Mr Speaker: I have a feeling it will be, but it is okay.
Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Leong Mun Wai asked me a question or suggested something, so I thought I should clarify through yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir. He said: \"Prior to my post on 21 June 2021, I have not mentioned CECA and I asked the Minister Shanmugam and he did not say anything.\"
I am not quite sure what the purport or the point Mr Leong makes, because Minister Ong Ye Kung had said during the July debate, gave chapter and verse for the various times when PSP leaders had referred to CECA. For example, Dr Tan Cheng Bock on 2 July 2020, that PSP will call for a review of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement and the canard that it allows a free movement of professionals. And others had made some statements, similar statements.
Mr Leong put up his Facebook post along similar lines in June. His Motion, which we debated today, is along the same lines. All of this is on the record and I had made it clear. So, I am not quite sure what point he was making.
I am not asking him to clarify, because it is past midnight. All I am saying is, the reason I did not respond to him was because the record is clear. He associated himself with all these statements unless now he is saying: well, those are racist, but you know, I did not make them.
But he associated himself with them. I think we can leave it at that. That is my answer.
Mr Speaker: Mr Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Speaker, I just wanted to respond very quickly to Mr Leong Mun Wai's last comment. That he concluded the Government's old policies remain. That was his conclusion. That is an erroneous conclusion. My Motion specifically states that the Government will continue to update and improve our policies. Our policies are not static. They continue to be improved.
What we object to are muddle-headed policies that will lead us to the path of ruin and what Mr Leong suggested, what the PSP suggested, in our opinion, will get us there. I was flummoxed when Mr Leong said: if we do not change course, Singapore will remain a low value-add economy. Really? Low value-add economy today? Mr Leong, have you seen the economic data? Today's economy? I think if we change course to adopt your policies, we will truly be a low value-add economy.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to clarify a point made by Minister Lawrence Wong vis-à-vis his request that we vote against the PSP Motion. We feel strongly about the amendments that we sought to amend the PSP Motion. Speaker disallowed it because it was deemed to a substantive change to the Motion. But the reason why we opined that the change was important is because we have a different view on FTAs and CECA compared to the PSP.
Similarly, I have shared with the House why I sought to move an amendment to the Minister's Motion and we feel strongly about those amendments as well. We have a difference of opinion on that.
On both Motions, the WP will vote accordingly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do have to apologise to everybody for holding things up, but Mr Leong Mun Wai had a specific comment. He says that the NTUC, or the Labour Movement, should do some soul-searching.
I did some soul-searching and I hope he did as well. I am sure he also benefited from what NTUC has provided over the years through our grocery programme. I am sure he did.
But I do want to seek some clarification from him. As he was in the 1980s, building a derivatives platform in Tokyo, was he aware that in the 1985 recession, NTUC and the unions, together with the Government, worked with workers to take a 15% cut in CPF to help Singapore go through a difficult time? Whether he also remembered the Asian Financial Crisis, when the Labour Movement worked with the Government and the people of Singapore to go through a difficult period of time? And during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, under the leadership of then Secretary-General, Mr Lim Swee Say, to upturn the downturn? So, I do not think NTUC is the weak link in tripartism.
And I want to also emphasise: we always do deep reflection and soul-searching about what is the best thing that we can do for workers.
The best thing that we need to do for workers is to care for them in the long term, we seek to protect workers, we care for their jobs. But protecting workers does not mean a zero-sum game. We are worried that if investments go away, if companies will suffer. If companies suffer, then there will be no jobs for workers.
This is something that we think about day and night. This is the soul-searching that I do. I have it here on my phone because this is something that I look at all the time. So, I want to seek a clarification from Mr Leong Mun Wai, after the three pointers that I have given to him, does he still agree that NTUC is the weak link? If he still so agrees that NTUC is the weak link, I would very much like to invite him to NTUC and share with him the work that we have done since our founding in 1961. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Member Desmond Choo for the clarification. I appreciate all the work that NTUC has done for Singaporeans. In fact, NTUC was formed, no, FairPrice was formed around the time of the oil shock, the oil crisis, right? I was still a small boy. I remember going to the Community Centre to collect rice from NTUC FairPrice. I do not think it was called FairPrice at that time.
So, yes, the things done by NTUC, we Singaporeans, we all know. In fact, in this House, we are all for Singapore. We all know. We are just trying to say what is the right direction forward.
When it comes to talking about general welfare for workers and all that, I think NTUC has done a tremendous job as well. But when it comes to wage policy, I think there is some room for improvement. Sometimes, it is not because of NTUC. There is an overall national policy called foreign talent policy. And then, there is some preference to make sure the businesses do well before the workers. Okay, I mean, that may lead to another debate. But maybe suffice to say that, okay, we think that there is some room for improvement as far as wage policy is concerned.
I hope that answers the question.
Mr Speaker: Members will be glad to know that I have prepared breakfast. I did not mean that seriously though. Mr Desmond Choo.
Mr Desmond Choo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one last point, just to clarify what Mr Leong Mun Wai has said.
He said that we ought to do better. Of course, we definitely want to do better for workers. And that, perhaps in the wages side of the house, we can do better. I think this is something that we always strive to do our best. We do not want to overstate the work that we have done for the Progressive Wage Model, but it is precisely a way that we can implement good wages for workers by making sure that it is sustainable. So to say that NTUC and the Labour Movement are not doing their part on wage policies, I am sure we are as confused as he is in the last eight hours of not doing homework. I think that is important.
The second thing that we must note is that NTUC and the Labour Movement have been an important part of the National Wages Council. Year after year, we deliberate, trying to find out what are the best wage policies for our workers across different segments. It is a difficult thing to do. We have fierce exchanges with our employers, with our Government side of the house, but we need to do that because we need wage increases to be sustainable, create a pie, so that our workers can go home and come back to work tomorrow again with their job intact.
So, I do appreciate what Mr Leong Mun Wai has done in the financial sector, but I do not want what he has said today to stand as the record for the generations of unionists before me, who have dedicated their time, their blood, their sweat, to better the lot of workers in Singapore. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Yia Swam.
Dr Tan Yia Swam (Nominated Member): I want to thank PSP for sharing its survey on 700 people and sharing some of the ground sentiments. In healthcare, we actually have problems finding nurses, clinic assistants and radiographers for these trained jobs. So, I am just wondering could there be a mismatch of trained Singaporeans in getting these jobs?
And I hear a lot of concern over foreigners and foreign talent. I would like to ask the PSP, what do you think of Singaporeans working overseas? In a global economy, I would think that there will always be flow of people, crossing nations for jobs, so would our Singaporeans working overseas then be discriminated against as foreigners?
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank Dr Tan Yia Swam for the clarification.
One on the lack of manpower in certain sectors, as we have said, we are not saying that we clamp down on foreigners immediately. We are saying that we have to chart a path. Because this path going down, does it mean that we need more and more foreigners? That cannot be the case, right? Because that is not something that Singaporeans want.
So, we may need to chart a new path now. But at the ground level, there are a lot of different requirements. So, we will handle it accordingly.
Mr Speaker: Mr Abdul Samad.
Mr Abdul Samad: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not so sure what is the right word to use. When Mr Leong Mun Wai spoke about NTUC, he is not doing justice; I took it very badly because I am a walking union leader. My job is not full-time working for the union. It is a mixture of sacrifices I have to make.
When you said that wages can be better, I would like to share with this House what you have seen and what you have heard based on just the Progressive Wage Model (PMW) is not very reflective. Every union, through the branches that they represent, every time when we renew a collective agreement, we make sure the workers are benchmarked to the type of work that they do. We review their job scope, pay them accordingly.
As we know, recently, when NTUC launched Worker 4.0, we talked about the three Ws: wages, welfare and work prospect. Wages is always on our mind. So, it is not right to say that NTUC has not done our part. We have been doing it since it was founded. I am a beneficiary of past great union leaders. Some might have been Nominated Members of Parliament like the late A Nithiah Nandan. We go to the table, we quarrel over wages, even though we know at the end of the day, there would be some sacrifices to be made.
But I want to make it clear. NTUC is here for the workers. Their wages, their welfare, their work prospect will continue to be our main aim. When we talk about NTUC FairPrice, we are talking about mitigating the cost of living compared to other merchants.
We are a holistic institution that upholds the belief that every worker needs to be paid due respect for what they have contributed to the company. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Any final clarifications? Ms Janet Ang.
Ms Janet Ang: I am so sorry; it is past midnight and I am 62! [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, if I may, I am really humbled that Mr Leong Mun Wai called my name in his speech. So, I cannot help but have to stand up.
He mentioned the data that I shared in my speech that came from the survey of American companies, a preview of the survey that the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) shared with me. They are real employers who are hiring and they have found the gaps they found. So, I am not sure what Mr Leong is disagreeing with me about. It is from a survey. They are real employers. They have found those gaps.
We can do a couple of things. One is engage these employers and really, like I said in my speech, understand what those relevant skills that our people are missing are, what are the relevant experience that is missing, and then we go figure out how to get the right approach.
But since I have managed \"United Nations\" employees in IBM before, I will share with Members – which is what I said in my speech – one tip that Singaporean workers need to recognise. We have to be brave to speak up. We will always have all our things in our heads: \"I am so good at all these. That guy is not so good. Why is he taking the job?\"
But if you do not speak up and you do not tell anybody why you deserve that job, you will not get that job. Because of the competition, Mr Leong, which is my second point. I was going to ask you because you did say that the paradigm has shifted from our time. I am 62 years old. I do not know how old you are. But, yes, the paradigm has definitely shifted. So, do you not agree that competition for most jobs is not just among the talent that are onshore in Singapore, whether local or foreign, but, really, a global one?
Again, back to my point. If, as Singaporean PMETs, we do not speak up, we do not ask for the job, we do not show hunger for our jobs, then, of course, those who speak louder, those who are more enthusiastic, those who appear more hungry, will get the job.
So, my point is, Mr Leong, you have been a private sector executive yourself. Do you give the job to the individual who is entitled to the job, almost like – and this one, a little bit scary to say it – Malaysia's bumiputra policy, perhaps? Or do you give the job to the guy who has the skills to do the job and, better yet, has the added characteristics of passion for the business, hunger for the business and a willingness to go the extra mile?
So, Mr Leong, since you asked me those questions, if you could help me understand whether I got you wrong. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.
Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Member Janet Ang, for raising her clarification. It is past midnight. The only thing I want to confirm is that, yes, I am 62 years old. So, that is why I know we are from the same generation. That is why I related the example.
But I do not think we want to go further into explaining what you just said because it will enter another debate. I hope to have another opportunity in the near future to talk about wage policy and retirement. But that will be for another forum.
I hope that is okay for Ms Janet Ang.
Mr Speaker: Prof Hoon.
Prof Hoon Hian Teck: Thank you, Mr Speaker. A reference was made to the lump of labour fallacy. I think we all agree that, in essence, that is not a good description of labour markets. And I will just conclude by applying that to two settings.
I think, first, with reference to what Member Desmond Choo illustrated, the understanding that the lump of labour fallacy – which is that there are only 100 jobs and, so, if you have more people than that, some other people take the jobs, the others would not have it. In fact, that does not apply, first, in a setting when the economy is itself subject to adverse shocks, recessions.
Mr Desmond Choo pointed very well to the episode in 1984 to 1985. In the face of a sharp recession, in fact, the number of jobs substantially decreased. Unemployment sharply went up. There were major retrenchments. Job destruction was very high.
I think the remarkable thing about Singapore when you look at how it faced its challenges over the decades is the ability to demonstrate the lump of labour fallacy does not apply even in an adverse situation.
In 1984, I was an Honours year student graduating from NUS. Prime Minister Lee was then actually directing the economic committee that came out with the report. The remarkable thing that came out of that episode – really remarkable, because it was the sharpest recession since 1965 – was the ability to bring together union leaders, employers and the Government to convince the people that you will accept a 15-percentage-point cut in your CPF. That amounts to 12% of your wages, really.
I had the opportunity in 2010 when Prof Paul Romer, who won the Nobel Prize in 2018, to meet him through my association with Prof Edmund Phelps who was my teacher at the University of Columbia. Paul had, for some years before he won the Nobel, been very interested to visit various countries to talk about policy. He was in Singapore. He was in the International Advisory Panel with the University at that time. He came to me and said, at Prof Phelps' suggestion, \"Would you like to take a trip with me to South Africa?\" It was a one-day conference, where they were going to bring together their business leaders and their trade union leaders to talk about the fact that the unemployment rate among the young people was close to 50%.
I had a chance to tell them about the Singapore story, with trade union members all in the room, about how we were able to convince labour to accept the 15-percentage-point cut and, of course, with the understanding that the CPF rate will be restored.
The challenge ahead for Singapore is understanding that the lump of labour fallacy still does not apply over the long term. The challenge for Singapore, really, is to recognise that the sources of growth going forward have to come with a continued integration into the global economy. I think Minister Lawrence Wong has demonstrated and illustrated that very well. It is a view that I share.
The challenge for Singapore is, in the next stage, to demonstrate this. Because we have had five decades of being able to find a new way to reinvent ourselves, I think there is a great reason to have great optimism to show that the lump of labour fallacy will not apply.
At the heart of it, I believe it is, indeed, right in that point in the Motion by Minister Lawrence Wong, which I have a deep sympathy for: that Singapore's growth must continue with economic openness. That includes openness to trade, capital and people in the right way. [Applause.]
Mr Speaker: Okay. We have now finally come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the necessary questions to the House for decision.
We will first deal with the Minister for Finance's Motion on \"Securing Singaporeans' Jobs and Livelihoods\". We have two substantive amendments by Mr Pritam Singh and a consequential amendment.
Mr Pritam Singh's amendment number 1 is in part (c) of Minister Wong's Motion to delete the word \"supports\" at the start of the sentence and to replace it with \"calls for stronger\".
Mr Pritam Singh's amendment number 2 is to insert a new limb (f), which reads, \"calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies, with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment\".
If this new limb is agreed to, Mr Pritam Singh's consequential amendment is to remove the word \"and\" at the end of part (d) and to include the word \"and\" at the end of part (e).
We will deal with the first amendment by Mr Pritam Singh.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out\", put and negatived. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: This amendment falls. Part (c) of the original Motion remains in its original form.
Mr Pritam Singh's amendment number 2 is to have a new limb (f), with the words \"calls on the Government to proactively release information on jobs and employment prospects of Singaporeans and the costs and benefits of Free Trade Agreements and foreign worker policies, with a view to formulating better policies to ensure Singaporeans secure good jobs in Singapore and are not disadvantaged when seeking employment\", to be added at the end of the Motion.
[(proc text) Question, \"That the words proposed to be added, be there added\", put and negatived. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: The amendment to have a new limb (f) falls. As a result, no consequential amendment will be made. The original question is before the House.
[(proc text) Original Motion put and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this House: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) acknowledges Singaporeans’ anxieties about jobs and competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b)\taffirms Singapore’s need to stay open and connected to the world in order to grow and prosper; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (c)\tsupports Government actions to manage the population of foreign manpower, ensure fair treatment by employers, and invest in education and upskilling, to create more good jobs for Singaporeans; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (d)\tcalls on the Government to continue to update and improve its policies to secure the well-being and livelihoods of Singaporeans in an uncertain post-pandemic world; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (e)\tdeplores attempts to spread misinformation about free trade agreements like the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), stir up racism and xenophobia, and cause fear and anxiety amongst Singaporeans. (proc text)]
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I beg your indulgence. Can the Workers' Party Members of Parliament have their dissent recorded, please?
Mr Speaker: Yes, we will. All the Workers' Party Members?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir.
Mr Speaker: Thank you.
[(proc text) Dissent by Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong, as recorded. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: We will now deal with Mr Leong Mun Wai's Motion on Foreign Talent Policy.
[(proc text) Question, \"That this Parliament calls upon the Government to take urgent and concrete action to address the widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods caused by the foreign talent policy and the provisions on Movement of Natural Persons in some free trade agreements like the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement\" put, and negatived. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Motion accordingly negatived. (proc text)]
","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":"The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, it would be of great relief to the Members that I now beg to move, that Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Before I end, if I may, I just extend our congratulations to Ms Janet Ang for her birthday yesterday and for staying on; disappearing a short while for a dinner with her family and coming back. And because it is now today, Happy Birthday to Mr Zaqy Mohamad as well. [Applause.]
Adjourned accordingly at 12.33 am on 15 September 2021.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Flood Management and Adaptation Measures for Public Transport Systems","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"46 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the flood management measures for our public transport systems; (b) how often are our public transport infrastructure inspected to ensure they are able to withstand increasing erratic weather conditions; and (c) whether there are concrete emergency and evacuation plans in case passengers are stranded onboard vehicles due to bad weather.
47 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the flood adaptation plans for Singapore’s transport infrastructure; (b) what improvement efforts are planned to prevent episodes of flooding on major roads; (c) whether the Ministry has conducted studies examining the impact of intense rainfall events on commuter behaviour and how it affects our public transport targets; and (d) whether a standardised climate change impact assessment approach is used for transport infrastructure and, if so, what is the approach.
Mr S Iswaran: All existing transport infrastructure are required to conform to minimum platform and crest levels stipulated under PUB’s Code of Practice (COP) on Surface Water Drainage, which sets out drainage and flood protection requirements for all developments. The COP is reviewed regularly to ensure that the drainage system remains robust in light of urbanisation and changing weather patterns.
To address the impact of climate change, PUB raised drainage design standards in 2011, which required an increase in drain capacities by up to 50% to cater for more intense rainfall events. LTA has ensured that all rail, road tunnels and bus infrastructure meet the enhanced flood protection requirements to mitigate flood risks. These include designing the platform level for bus interchanges and depots to be 0.6 metres above the adjacent road, and the minimum crest level for underground MRT stations to be 1.3 metres above adjacent road or ground level. Similarly, the entrances to all developments which are linked to underground MRT stations are required to be built at least 1.3 metres above the adjacent road or ground level.
For stations built before 2011 where crest levels do not meet the latest requirement, LTA has enhanced the flood protection of these stations by putting in place mitigation measures, such as flood barriers, to reduce the flood risk. These flood barriers are inspected on an annual basis to ensure their structural integrity. LTA will continue to work together with agencies and rail operators to review flood protection measures to ensure that they remain effective amidst increasing weather uncertainties.
As climate change will bring about more frequent and intense storms, LTA and PUB are currently reviewing the flood risk of MRT stations and depots. The preliminary assessment showed that the existing crest protection levels for MRT stations are sufficient against more intense rainfall under the future projected climate change scenario. Site checks are currently being conducted and the full study is expected to be completed by 3Q 2022.
Beyond designing infrastructure to mitigate the risk of flooding, Operation Control Centres (OCCs) for MRT lines monitor water level and the frequency of pump operations. Drainage equipment at these underground facilities, such as pumps and flood protection barriers, are maintained regularly and inspected annually, in line with equipment manufacturers’ recommendations. During rainy seasons, the maintenance teams also step up their frequency of physical checks as an additional layer of assurance. Emergency flood response plans are also exercised regularly by agencies and operators, such as flood barrier installation refresher training for MRT station staff twice a year, to maintain staff currency.
To minimise obstruction to traffic flow during intense rainfall, PUB will identify low lying areas and roads which will have to be raised. In the event of bad weather causing passengers to be stranded on board vehicles, SCDF will lead evacuation efforts, with the safety of passengers as its top priority. If roads need to be partially or fully closed depending on the severity and extent of the flood, LTA will work with the SPF to minimise impact to traffic. This includes disseminating real-time traffic and road closure information to the public.
We will continue to invest in our public transport infrastructure to strengthen the resilience of our rail network and make journeys more convenient and seamless for commuters.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore Green Plan Targets following Sixth Assessment Report of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"48 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in view of the “code red for humanity” warning in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report (a) whether the Government will bring forward the targets in the Singapore Green Plan 2030; and (b) whether there will be an introduction of more incentives for electric vehicles ahead of schedule.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The latest report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a sobering assessment of the grave threats posed by climate change. Singapore remains fundamentally vulnerable to the impact of climate change.
Senior Minister Teo, who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, outlined Singapore’s Considered, Committed and Collective approach to climate action at this year’s Committee of Supply debates. As a small city-state with limited land and alternative energy options, we face much starker trade-offs in mitigating our emissions. But we are committed to doing our full part in the global fight against climate change.
Our ambitious climate goals have real impact on Singapore’s development and the lives of Singaporeans and are made after careful and coordinated planning. Last year, we submitted our enhanced 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) under the Paris Agreement. Less than a year later, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, our national roadmap towards sustainable development and net-zero emissions. The Green Plan builds on our enhanced NDC and LEDS and maps out ambitious targets and concrete initiatives over the next decade.
The Member has asked if we would review our initiatives and targets in light of the latest IPCC findings. Our initiatives and targets are not static. We are pressing ahead decisively and gaining experience from implementing them. Where the conditions allow, we will strengthen our suite of initiatives and push ourselves to do more. The extent to which we can realise emissions reductions will become clearer, as technology evolves and matures, and as the modalities for international cooperation and collaboration become formalised. We are making efforts on both fronts. We are investing and working with key partners on low-carbon technologies and solutions, such as hydrogen. We are also working hard on the international front to advocate for a multilateral, rules-based approach to address climate change and to foster collaboration in areas like carbon markets and regional energy grids that will support our push for decarbonisation.
In the meantime, we are advancing our efforts to transform our industry, economy and society to be more energy- and carbon-efficient.
For the transport sector, we will tackle emissions systematically by limiting our vehicle population, reducing traffic congestion and promoting the switch from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to cleaner vehicles, such as electric vehicles (EVs). Today, there are several schemes, including the enhanced Vehicular Emission Scheme (VES) and early adoption incentives, to narrow the cost differential between ICE vehicles and EVs. We have seen early signs of increased adoption of EVs and will monitor whether further incentives are necessary. We have accelerated plans for the nationwide deployment of charging infrastructure and set a target of 60,000 charging points by 2030. LTA recently launched an EV Common Charger Grant to co-fund charger installation costs at non-landed private residences, as an early adoption incentive. As explained earlier, we will review our schemes and programmes regularly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints Received about Safe Distancing Enforcement Officers and Training and Protocols for Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"49 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what training is provided to safe distancing enforcement officers operating under the auspices of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act before deployment; (b) whether this pre-deployment training includes calibrating their response to unverified reports of safe distancing infractions; and (c) to date, how many complaints or feedback has the Government received about the conduct of (i) safe distancing ambassadors and (ii) safe distancing enforcement officers, respectively.
50 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the powers granted to Safe Distancing Enforcement Officers to enter, inspect and search various premises without a warrant to check for compliance with COVID-19 regulations (a) under what circumstances are such powers exercised; (b) what procedures are in place during the exercise of such powers; and (c) what measures and safeguards are in place to ensure the safety and protection of enforcement officers and premises owners during such checks.
51 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) what are the operating procedures and protocols that the Safe Distancing Enforcement Officers observe when they enter and inspect residential premises; and (b) what are the feedback received from the public on the conduct of safe distancing enforcements.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Safe Distancing Enforcement Officers (EOs) are empowered under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act and Infectious Diseases Act to enter premises, including residential homes, shops, food and beverage establishments and offices without a warrant to check for possible COVID-19-related infringements. Only EOs have enforcement powers and are authorised to enter premises; and Safe Distancing Ambassadors (SDAs) do not have such powers. For residences, EOs do not randomly or proactively enter and check for potential breaches, given the sensitivities. They adhere to a set of protocols to guide them in deciding whether to enter homes and check for potential breaches.
Entry into homes is not necessary most of the time. EOs, typically, engage occupants at home entrances and can identify tell-tale signs of possible breaches from outside. For larger residences, EOs will request to enter for checks, based on a reasonable level of suspicion or repeated feedback that COVID-19 regulations may have been breached. From April 2020 to August 2021, out of more than 5,100 cases of feedback received for potential breaches in homes, EOs entered residences on less than 30 occasions. There have been 16 cases of enforcement action involving breaches in homes, and two cases pending further investigation.
EOs will request to enter residences if there are repeated or substantiated feedback, or by the presence of tell-tale signs from outside the residence. EOs will engage the occupants and identify themselves with both their EO and corporate staff passes and explain their intent. To verify their identities, residents may request to see their Letters of Appointment from MOH, which authorise them to perform their roles as EOs. To provide greater assurance and prevent impersonation, all EOs will wear a photo identification card, which will include new features like a serial number, name of officer, the officer’s organisation and its contact details.
All EOs are trained on the code of conduct and rules of engagement when dealing with members of the public. This includes pre-deployment training, on-the-job training, where new officers are paired with experienced officers, as well as regular updates in protocols and processes. When performing home checks, EOs follow strict protocols. EOs will follow the lead of the occupants and avoid physical contact with them. At least two EOs are deployed to perform the checks and may also be accompanied by Police officers during joint operations or if law and order issues are encountered. If there appears to be a sole occupant who is a woman, child or a person with disability, EOs will exercise reasonable measures to ensure the well-being and safety of the occupant, such as to ensure that a female EO is involved in the checks.
EOs will also be equipped with body-worn cameras progressively. These cameras will be activated prior to entering the residence to capture the inspection process. Only authorised personnel will be allowed to access the footage for investigation and the footage may be used in Court as evidence.
From January to August 2021, we received 75 and 17 cases of feedback related to the conduct of SDAs and EOs respectively, of which 20 and two cases were found to be substantiated, mostly for rude or unprofessional behaviour. The Government treats any allegation of misconduct seriously and will investigate and take the appropriate action if any case is established.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Relaxation of Movement Restriction Orders on Migrant Workers Staying in Dormitories","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"52 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider allowing fully vaccinated workers living in dormitories back into the community under strict safe management measures; (b) if so, when; and (c) if not, why not.
53 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what caused the recent COVID-19 outbreak in foreign worker dormitories, such as North Coast Lodge; (b) how are workers monitored to ensure that they leave the dormitories only for approved purposes; and (c) whether locking down dormitories continues to be justified in the light of the Government’s strategy to treat COVID-19 as endemic.
54 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to the status of mental wellness of migrant workers in dormitories (a) what is the expected timeline in which the movement restriction orders on migrant workers in dormitories can be relaxed; and (b) what are the future plans to manage the mental wellness of these workers.
55 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Manpower when will foreign workers who are currently isolated in dormitories be reintegrated with the wider society.
Dr Tan See Leng: Many Members have filed questions related to the easing of restrictions for migrant workers. I would like to take these questions together.
Over the past few months, there have been several active clusters in the community and in the dormitories, such as North Coast Lodge, attributable to the more infectious Delta variant. Based on phylogenetics analysis, we understand that the SARS-CoV-2 strain at North Coast Lodge is similar to that of the cluster at Jurong Fishery Port, which has resulted in other clusters seen in the community.
Most of the infections amongst fully vaccinated persons have been mild or asymptomatic. The evidence suggests that fully vaccinated individuals recover faster and are protected against serious disease. There continues to be strong evidence that vaccination is protective against severe illness. We are thus in a better position to manage outbreaks as dormitories are now more resilient in a few ways.
First, over 90% of migrant workers residing in dormitories are fully vaccinated, similar to that of the adult population in the general community. Second, we have instituted a multi-layer strategy to quickly detect, isolate and contain the spread of COVID-19 within dormitories. This includes surveillance using wastewater testing, ensuring compliance to Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) and surveillance on workers with acute respiratory illness (ARI) symptoms. Third, we have implemented Safe Living Measures (SLM) and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) audits to ensure that preventive measures are well adhered to.
These measures have effectively limited the risks of transmission and allowed us to quickly detect COVID-19 cases which are mostly mild and asymptomatic. We have also provided workers assurance and care regarding their protection from COVID-19 and healthcare even if they do get infected. This helps to provide the workers with relief from worry, fear and stress from the disease.
Since August last year, migrant workers residing in dormitories have been able to work, visit the Recreation Centres (RCs) for leisure and supplies. Migrant workers are required to apply for an exit pass via their SGWorkPass App to visit the RCs. For essential errands, employers will submit a request to MOM for approval. These requirements are clearly spelt out to both migrant workers and employers. Dormitory operators are also required to conduct checks when migrant workers leave the dormitories. MOM conducts checks for compliance.
As we transit towards a COVID-resilient nation, we must not lift these restrictions too quickly and risk unwinding the gains we have so painstakingly made in the last one year. We are also concerned that high vaccination rates and earlier low infections in the dormitories could result in complacency and a re-ignition of cases. MOM’s strategy is, therefore, to take a careful and calibrated approach to the easing of movement restrictions for migrant workers. We are very mindful of the well-being of migrant workers, but are also responsible for safeguarding their health. First, we have substantially eased restrictions within the dormitories and have allowed a range of social activities, subject to group size restrictions and Safe Management Measures. Second, we will also increase the frequency for workers to visit RCs. Concurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners to introduce programmes and new offerings to make RC visits more engaging. Third, we will pilot community visits with guided itinerary for vaccinated workers to places of interest. We will monitor and adjust the frequency and scope of these community visits.
56 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Transport (a) what have been the modes of transmission of COVID-19 infections at bus interchanges; (b) whether any commuters have been infected at bus interchanges or while on buses with infected bus captains; and (c) whether public transport companies will be requiring all their bus captains to be vaccinated.
Mr S Iswaran: Ensuring the safety of our public transport workers and commuters has been our top priority. One way to achieve this is through a high vaccination rate to keep frontline staff and commuters safe. Our public transport workers were one of the first groups to be offered vaccinations early this year. More than 96% of them have been fully vaccinated.
Since the start of the circuit breaker period last year, we have enhanced safe management measures and the cleaning regimes of our buses, trains and public transport nodes, especially high contact areas. These have enabled public transport operations to run smoothly and safely over the past 18 months. As the virus mutates, we have continually reviewed the adequacy of our measures in consultation with public health experts.
MOH's preliminary investigations indicate that, given the high number of cases in the community, it is likely that the infections amongst bus workers originated from the community. When community cases rose sharply in July, the public transport operators implemented regular testing for their employees working near COVID-19 clusters, to pick up and isolate COVID-19 positive cases early. This proactive testing, coupled with community surveillance testing by MOH, helped to quickly detect and isolate about half of the current bus frontline workers who tested positive for COVID-19. In addition to the seven-day Fast and Easy Test (FET) Rostered Routine Testing (RRT) regime which commenced on 1 September, we are also conducting swab tests at interchanges with a higher number of cases to detect cases and quickly contain further spread.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Subsidies to Help Delivery Riders Afford Motorcycles in View of Recent Increases in COE Prices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"57 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent high COE prices for motorcycles, whether the Ministry will consider providing subsidies to help delivery riders better afford the purchase of motorcycles.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for her question. I have addressed it in my reply to Question No 140 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 13 September 2021. [Please refer to \"Proposal for New Category of COEs for Motorcycles Used for Delivery Work\", Official Report, 13 September 2021, Vol 95, Issue 37, Written Answers To Questions For Oral Answer Not Answered By End Of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Steps to Tackle Issue of Gun Parts and Other Controlled Items Being Sold on E-commerce Platforms","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"58 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps will be taken to address the recent incident involving gun parts and other controlled items being offered for sale on several e-commerce platforms in Singapore.
Mr K Shanmugam: Gun parts and other dangerous items, such as explosives, are regulated under the Arms and Explosives Act (AEA). Suppliers or buyers have to obtain relevant licences from the Police to handle these items.
E-commerce platforms are currently not regulated by the Police for the sale of gun parts and other dangerous items. However, MHA has introduced the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act (GEWCA), which will replace the AEA when it comes into force in end 2021. Under the GEWCA, e-commerce platforms will be regulated for the sale of these items. MHA is developing the regulatory framework and consulting the industry.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Raise Height of Station Platform Doors for Above-ground MRT Stations","subTitle":"Measures to prevent recurrence of incident where commuter climbed over platform door to train tracks ","sectionType":"WANA","content":"59 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Transport in light of the recent incident where an MRT commuter had climbed over the station platform door to access the train tracks (a) how are safety protocols enhanced to prevent similar incidences from occurring in future; and (b) whether there are plans to raise the height of the station platform doors for above-ground stations.
Mr S Iswaran: On 2 August 2021, train services between Ang Mo Kio and Yishun stations were disrupted as a commuter had climbed over the Platform Screen Doors (PSDs) onto the tracks at Yio Chu Kang station. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the fellow commuters and SMRT staff for their quick and effective response which brought the commuter to safety.
Safety of commuters and public transport workers is our utmost priority. In particular, there are safety features and established procedures to ensure the safety of commuters. At all our MRT stations, we have PSDs to prevent commuters from falling accidentally onto the tracks, emergency telephones for commuters to communicate with station staff, and Emergency Stop Plungers (ESP) to stop the trains in times of emergencies. In the recent incident, commuters activated the ESP and emergency protocols were immediately put into action. After assessing the situation, the Operations Control Centre stopped train service and switched off the power supply along the railway tracks. Station staff responded quickly and persuaded the commuter to return to the station platform safely.
For passenger safety and comfort, the height of our PSDs at the above-ground MRT stations have been designed to cater for sufficient airflow. The height of our PSDs is also comparable to those used in other cities, such as Taipei and Hong Kong. There are no plans to raise the height of the PSDs at above-ground stations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sufficiency of Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act to Prohibit Advertisements with False Claims","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"60 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act is sufficient to prohibit any advertisements and false claims relating to the treatment of medical conditions, especially with current fast-emerging digital media platforms.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Medicine (Advertisement and Sale) Act (MASA) prohibits any persons who are not licensees under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (PHMCA) from advertising claims to treat any medical condition, so as to prevent any unnecessary inducement to members of the public to seek any unlicensed services. This prohibition applies across all forms of advertisements, including those on digital media platforms. MOH will investigate any contravening advertisements and take the appropriate enforcement actions against offenders under MASA.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protecting Consumers against False Claims by Health Supplement Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"61 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health given the recent case where a health supplement company is fined for making false cancer cure claims, how does the Ministry balance public health protection and unnecessary restriction of consumer choice.
62 Dr Wan Rizal asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is currently working with other agencies to issue import alerts for companies operating in dietary supplements, natural health and sports nutrition so as to timeously remove any unsafe supplement product.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Health supplements are products which are marketed as enhancing a person’s well-being, for example, by making claims, such as \"for vitality\", \"supports joint function\". As these products are not meant to prevent, treat or cure diseases, the supplements can be imported or placed on the market for sale to consumers, without HSA’s approval.
To protect public safety, HSA prohibits the addition of potent medicinal ingredients in health supplements. Any claims that these products can prevent, treat or cure any medical conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension and cancer, are also prohibited. HSA administers a post-market surveillance programme to monitor the safety of health supplements and to initiate product recalls when necessary.
HSA publishes guidelines on the safety and quality standards to facilitate industry’s introduction of safe and quality products in the market. These include information, such as disallowed ingredients and claims, toxic heavy metal and microbial limits.
To inform the public, HSA issues press releases on unsafe health supplements and false or exaggerated claims. Consumer guides and advisories on the HSA and HealthHub websites enable consumers to make better decisions, should they choose to purchase or consume health supplements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Foreign Workers Entering Singapore who have been Tested Positive for COVID-19","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"63 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) from January 2021 to date, what is the breakdown on the number of foreign workers that have entered Singapore who are (i) domestic helpers, (ii) S Pass holders, (iii) Employment Pass holders and (iv) other work permit holders; (b) how many foreign workers have been tested positive for COVID-19 under each category; and (c) of those who have been tested positive for COVID-19 from each category, how many have suffered serious symptoms which required oxygen ventilators or to be warded in Intensive Care Units.
Dr Tan See Leng: MOM calibrates the number of work pass holders entering from each country, based on MOH’s assessment of the COVID-19 situation in those countries, which is regularly updated. MOM does not differentiate based on the type of pass holder, because the exposure of an individual and thus the risk that they are incubating COVID-19 on arrival, is determined by the country of departure and not the type of work pass they hold.
From January to August 2021, about 12,200 work pass holders entered Singapore each month. Over the same period, the total number of work pass holders actually declined by about 9,900. This is because the number of work pass holders leaving Singapore upon the cancellation or expiry of their work pass exceeded the number coming in.
Among these work pass holders who entered Singapore, about 1% tested positive for COVID-19 upon arrival in Singapore or during Stay-Home notice.
In total, only five of the work pass holders among the imported COVID-19 cases above required oxygen ventilators. None among them was warded in Intensive Care Units.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Ensure only Fully COVID-19 Vaccinated Visitors Can Enter Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"64 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport as Singapore prepares to open up its borders more extensively once a large majority of its population has received their full COVID-19 vaccination, what measures will be in place to ensure that only visitors to Singapore with authentic evidence of proof of COVID-19 vaccination in their home countries are allowed to enter Singapore.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank Mr Dennis Tan for the question on border reopening for vaccinated travellers and safeguards in this reopening. Ms Janet Ang, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Seah Kian Peng and Mr Christopher de Souza filed related questions for the 13 and 14 September Sittings; I will address their questions in my reply.
First, relaxation of border measures for vaccinated travellers. As a small and open economy, Singapore’s survival depends on being open and connected to the world. In our transition towards becoming a COVID-19 resilient nation, we need to reopen general travel safely in a carefully calibrated manner.
A year ago, we began to open unilaterally to general travellers from very low-risk places. More than 35,000 travellers have entered via this scheme over the past year and it has not resulted in any community spread. The list of places has changed in response to the COVID-19 situation around the world; today only Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan are on the list of Category I places that we have unilaterally opened to. Travellers from these Category I places take a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test on arrival at Changi airport, and self-isolate until their on-arrival PCR test results are known. They are free to move about if their PCR test results are negative, and they do not need to serve Stay-Home Notice (SHN).
Next, Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL). Now that more than 80% of our population in Singapore is fully vaccinated, we have decided to pilot a new VTL, starting with Germany and Brunei. Since last week, that is, 8 September 2021, fully vaccinated travellers from Germany and Brunei have been able to enter Singapore without the need to serve SHN. Instead, travellers take pre-departure, on-arrival and two post-arrival PCR tests. In response to Ms Ang, we do not require serology testing under the VTL.
Next, vaccination for short-term visitors. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about COVID-19 vaccinations for short-term visitors. Since 18 August 2021, MOH has extended the COVID-19 National Vaccination Programme to short-term pass holders who have been in Singapore for at least 60 days continuously. This further improves the protection of our domestic population. Short-term visitors may also visit private healthcare providers offering World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing (WHO EUL) vaccines under the Special Access Route (SAR) framework. MOH does not track the number of short-term visitors vaccinated under the SAR framework.
Next, proof of vaccination. Ms Janet Ang and Mr Dennis Tan asked how we recognise and verify COVID-19 vaccination records issued overseas.
For the VTLs with Germany and Brunei, non-residents must apply for a Vaccinated Travel Pass (VTP) before their arrival in Singapore. The vaccination status is verified by the airlines before boarding, as well as by Singapore authorities as part of the entry process. Digitally-verifiable vaccination certificates may be read and verified by scanning the QR code with a suitable application to determine if the certificate is valid and authentic. Non digitally-verifiable vaccination certificates will need to contain a standardised set of fields, which will be manually checked to determine if the certificate meets Singapore’s entry requirements.
Singaporeans and PRs returning to Singapore under the VTL do not need to apply for a VTP. They should present proof of their vaccination status to ICA officers on arrival at Changi Airport or using an electronic or physical copy of their vaccination certificate.
We are also in discussion with several other countries and regions on the mutual recognition of vaccination certificates, including the exchange of public keys for the verification of digitally-verifiable certificates and the exchange of specimen copies for the verification of non digitally-verifiable ones. We are also closely monitoring reports about security vulnerabilities related to these vaccination certificates.
Next, travel history. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked how we will ensure that passengers under the VTL with Germany do not travel unrestricted within Europe before coming to Singapore.
This is a matter that the inter-agency team considered very carefully when we were designing the VTL. All travellers to Singapore today are required to declare their travel history via the electronic Health Declaration Card (eHDC). This declaration is not unique to the VTL and has been in place since March 2020. False declarations of travel history are criminal offences under Singapore law and may be punishable upon conviction by a fine and/or imprisonment. Foreigners may face additional administrative measures, such as the shortening or revocation of their visit pass to remain in Singapore. Conviction may also affect their ability to obtain or sponsor immigration facilities in the future. In addition, travellers entering Singapore under the VTL pilot with Germany must also present proof of their vaccination in either Germany or Singapore. Vaccination certificates issued in other places will not be accepted.
All travellers should be responsible when travelling on the VTL and diligent in complying with its requirements. In particular, they should strictly abide by the travel history and testing requirements, including the Day 3 and Day 7 tests in Singapore. These safeguards have been put in place to reduce the likelihood of imported cases and quickly identify and isolate those who do test positive, to minimise the risk of community spread. Irresponsible behaviour, such as false declarations or missing the post-arrival tests, puts the traveller and the community at risk and undermines our ability to expand the VTL to new places.
Finally, further reopening. MOT and CAAS are working closely with MOH and the Multi-Ministry Task Force to monitor the outcomes of the VTL. If the pilot is successful, we can consider expanding the scheme to more countries and regions in the coming months.
As a small and open economy, our connectivity with the rest of the world is existential. The longer our borders remain closed, the greater the risk of lasting damage to our economy, our livelihoods and our status as an aviation hub. Cross-border travel is also important for many Singaporeans, who have to travel for work or study, or would like to reconnect with loved ones overseas. To safeguard Singaporeans’ lives and livelihoods, we will, therefore, take a careful, calibrated and science-based approach in reopening our borders, adjusting the safeguards when necessary as the COVID-19 situation evolves.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Safeguards to Ensure Travellers to and from Germany Do Not Move Unrestricted Within Europe Before Arriving in Singapore","subTitle":"Measures after implementation of quarantine-free travel lane between Singapore and Germany","sectionType":"WANA","content":"65 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the recently announced quarantine-free travel lanes for vaccinated passengers going to and from Germany, what safeguards are in place to ensure that such passengers do not travel unrestricted within Europe before coming to Singapore whilst enjoying this privilege.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his question. Please refer to the reply to Question No 64 for oral answer on the Order Paper for 14 September 2021 filed by Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong. [Please refer to \"Measures to Ensure only Fully COVID-19 Vaccinated Visitors Can Enter Singapore\", Official Report, 14 September 2021, Vol 95, Issue 38, Oral Answers to Questions section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assistance for Handicapped and Frail Seniors to Return Food Trays","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"66 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether NEA can work with the hawker centre cleaners and the public to assist the handicapped and very frail seniors to return their food trays rather than to impose the fine on them.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Since 1 September this year, NEA has started enforcing against table littering in hawker centres following a three-month advisory period. For diners who do not clear their dirty trays, crockery and litter, enforcement officers will first advise them to do so. Diners who refuse to heed officers’ advice will have their particulars taken down and issued written warnings if it is their first offence. Only second and subsequent offenders will be issued fines or be sent to Court.
NEA adopts a pragmatic approach on enforcement. We will not take enforcement action against diners who are clearly unable to carry their food to the table, such as the elderly who have difficulty moving about, young children and persons with disabilities. We urge their family members, dining companions and members of public to help them return their trays and dirty crockery. Moving towards a full self-service model where diners return their dirty trays and crockery after their meals is also a kind gesture to make it less laborious for our ageing cleaning workforce. It also shows consideration to the next diner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Countering Possible Effects of Redundancies amongst Cleaners Given Food Tray-return Policy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"67 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment whether there are any mitigation plans to counter the possible effects of cleaner redundancies that may arise from the tray-return policy in public dining places.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: As of 1 June 2021, diners at hawker centres are required to return their dirty trays and crockery and dispose of litter after their meals. Enforcement against table littering has commenced at hawker centres from 1 September 2021, after an initial three-month advisory period. This followed the Clean Tables Campaign that was launched in February 2021 to raise public hygiene standards at public dining places and encourage tray return.
NEA, supported by the Singapore Food Agency, has been working with stakeholders, including operators, stallholders and the cleaning industry, on a revised table-cleaning workflow at public dining places to ensure a smooth transition and help cleaners manage their workload better.
Clearing our dirty trays and crockery will not deprive cleaners of their jobs as they are still required to upkeep the general cleanliness and hygiene of dining places, sort the crockery, and wipe and sanitise the tables. In fact, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the demands on cleaners, with the heightened requirements to ensure higher levels of public cleanliness and hygiene. Moving towards a self-service model where we return our dirty trays and crockery will, therefore, be a kinder gesture towards our ageing cleaning workforce and make it less laborious for them.
Under the revised table-cleaning workflow, a team of cleaners will focus on wiping and sanitising tables after diners have cleared their tables, which would enable faster turnover of tables during peak mealtimes. Another team of cleaners will man the designated tray and crockery return points to clear and sort the returned crockery promptly.
These revisions to the table-cleaning workflow will facilitate a more effective and efficient process to improve the overall cleanliness of public dining spaces, while providing cleaners and diners with a more hygienic and pleasant working and dining environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Common Causes of Non-residential Fires in 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"68 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the most common causes of non-residential fires this year; and (b) what measures are in place to help prevent such fires.
Mr K Shanmugam: From January to June 2021, there were 215 non-residential fires. The three most common causes, contributing to about 70% of such fires, were fires of electrical origin, overheating of food and fires due to exposure to heat sources or chemicals.
There are various measures in place to minimise the occurrence of such fires.
SCDF requires large non-residential premises to appoint a Fire Safety Manager (FSM) to assist the building owner in ensuring a fire-safe environment. The FSM’s responsibilities include daily checks for fire hazards, conducting fire drills to ensure that the building occupants are familiar with the evacuation plan, and educating them on fire prevention matters.
SCDF also works with stakeholders, such as the National Fire and Emergency Preparedness Council, the Fire Safety Managers’ Association Singapore and the Association of Company Emergency Response Teams (Singapore), to engage the industries regularly. At such engagement sessions, professionals share best practices and lessons from past fire cases. Commercial and industrial premises with good fire safety track records are recognised at the annual Fire Safety Awards.
SCDF conducts regular checks on non-residential premises and takes enforcement actions against non-compliance. Members of the public can also provide feedback on fire safety via channels, such as the Fire Safety Hotline and the myResponder App.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Social Cohesion Caused by Differentiated Treatment for Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Residents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"69 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the differentiated treatment between vaccinated and unvaccinated residents will cause Singaporeans to be divided; and (b) how can the Government encourage more residents to be vaccinated without dividing the community.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Our assessment is that COVID-19 has brought Singaporeans together to fight the pandemic. The great majority of Singaporeans have observed safe management measures, donned masks, maintained higher standards of personal hygiene and took their vaccinations.
We are now one of the most highly-vaccinated countries in the world, partly due to the various measures we have taken, including setting up mobile vaccination teams, home vaccination teams and enabling walk-in vaccinations.
However, for various reasons, there remains a minority of individuals who are unvaccinated. As we transit into a COVID-19-resilient nation, more economic and social activities will resume, which means these individuals are at higher risk of being exposed to the virus and falling severely ill. Hence, it will be more prudent for them not to take part in higher risk activities, such as big events and dining in restaurants in the company of other persons. However, if they really wish to, they can take a pre-event test before participating in these higher-risk activities.
For now, the differentiated measures are necessary to keep unvaccinated individuals and vulnerable people in our community safe. As we achieve a very high level of vaccination, reaching or approximating herd immunity, it is possible to remove the differentiated measures.
In the meantime, it is important to continue to explain that these are public health measures to protect unvaccinated individuals and not let the policy be mistaken or misrepresented as discriminatory.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"HPB's Cash Voucher Incentive for Those Who Successfully Refer Seniors Aged 60 and Older to Get Vaccinated","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"70 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Health whether the introduction of the $30 HPB voucher as an incentive to those who successfully refer a senior aged 60 and older to get vaccinated discriminates against those who had persuaded their senior parents to get vaccinated earlier.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Vaccination protects seniors from a higher risk of severe symptoms if infected with COVID-19. MOH has, therefore, pursued several initiatives to support seniors in getting vaccinated. For example, we have deployed mobile and home vaccination teams, many manned by volunteers.
During the initial stages of our vaccination programme, many seniors came forward to get vaccinated. However, as we attained higher vaccination rates, seniors who remain unvaccinated would require further persuasion and assurance. The Health Promotion Board (HPB)’s \"Let’s Get Our Seniors Vaccinated\" programme was launched to further support our national vaccination efforts.
Under the programme, a $30 voucher is given to each referrer to cover the costs involved in supporting seniors throughout the vaccination process, such as accompanying seniors to the vaccination centre. This is a token amount that acknowledges the additional effort needed to encourage seniors who may be vaccine-hesitant and require deeper engagement to address their concerns.
In the first two weeks of launching the programme on 13 August 2021, about 550 seniors were successfully referred for their first dose of vaccination. This is an encouraging outcome and we hope that more seniors will come forward for their vaccination with the support from referrers.
We thank the many people who have stepped forward to help in our national vaccination programme in many different ways. With every extra person vaccinated, all of us are better protected.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Well-being of Teachers Given Additional Counselling Roles","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"71 Ms Carrie Tan asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry will review the plans for making teachers take on teaching-counselling hybrid roles given the vastly different roles and responsibilities of each that can add to additional stress for teachers; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting up an allied unit of specially trained and dedicated mental health support staff in the Ministry to support educators on the ground with mental health care for students.
72 Mr Darryl David asked the Minister for Education whether mental health first aid training can be incorporated for all educators and students in Secondary and tertiary institutions.
73 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) whether schools follow and apply the tripartite advisory on mental well-being in the workplace for their staff; (b) whether teachers and other staff in schools have access to free or subsidised mental health consultations and treatment; (c) whether the Ministry reviews the mental well-being of staff in schools as part of the risk assessment of workplace health; and (d) whether the Ministry can commit to regularly publish more details of such risk assessments, if any.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: A number of Members of this House have raised questions related to the training of educators and counsellors to support the mental well-being of our students as well as concerns about teachers’ mental health. Let me address these related questions together.
First, the issue of capabilities and deployment. Ms Carrie Tan asked about teachers taking on teaching-counselling hybrid roles, while Mr Darryl David asked on mental health first aid training.
In our schools, teachers, teacher counsellors and school counsellors work closely together to provide a holistic support network for students. Teachers are in regular contact with students. They know their students well and serve as trusted adults whom students can approach for help in school. They are often the first to detect signs of distress in their students.
Hence, all teachers are trained in basic counselling skills and mental health literacy, which include the key elements of mental health first aid training. They learn about common mental illnesses and their symptoms, facilitating help-seeking, addressing the issue of stigma and how to support students with mental health issues. These equip our educators in schools to detect signs of distress in students and take timely action to refer them to the school or other professional counsellors when necessary. With these basic skills and knowledge, they can also create a supportive environment in class and CCAs. In the IHLs, students also have access to pastoral support and our IHLs continue to strengthen their staff’s capabilities to support students’ mental well-being, such as by providing training to identify early signs of distress in their students.
Through the Mental Health Education lessons in our revised Character and Citizenship Education curriculum, students also learn elements similar to mental health first aid training, including recognising signs of distress, when and how to seek help for self and peers, as well as developing empathy and care towards people struggling with mental health conditions. Similarly, mental health programmes and activities for students in the IHLs seek to raise awareness on mental health issues and build their resilience. These include self-care and stress management workshops as well as a compulsory mental wellness literacy curriculum for all Year 1 students in the Polytechnics and Institute of Technical Education (ITE).
Besides teachers providing the first-line support, teacher counsellors, who have additional counselling training, have been deployed in schools since 1996. They help to counsel students on school-related issues, such as friendship issues, emotion regulation, learning difficulties and stress management. They can also take on more complex issues, such as coping with grief and loss. To support teacher counsellors, schools have the flexibility to reduce their teaching or CCA duties to provide them with more time to spend with students. We will continue to monitor the workload of teacher counsellors to ensure that teachers are well supported.
Ms Carrie Tan also asked whether the Ministry would set up an allied unit of specially-trained mental health staff to support educators in their mental healthcare for students. MOE has a team of Counselling and Education Psychologists, Specialist Officers and experienced Lead School Counsellors. They work closely with school personnel, including educators and school counsellors, providing consultation, case assessment, training and resources in the areas of mental health and student well-being.
Dr Shahira Abdullah asked about the issue of certification of MOE’s school counsellors by Singapore Counselling Association (SAC). MOE recruits both trained and untrained applicants for School Counsellors (SC). Untrained applicants undergo the Diploma in School Counselling (DSC) programme conducted by the National Institute of Education (NIE) before they are deployed as SCs in the schools. The DSC programme is specially designed for school counselling to equip the trainees to work effectively and meet the needs of our children and youths in the educational setting.
NIE has a wealth of knowledge and experience in research and training in counselling psychology within the school context. They have been offering the Master of Arts (Counselling and Guidance) programme since early 2000, which is recognised by professionals and the Singapore Association for Counselling (SAC).
Counsellors in Singapore are not required to register with SAC as it is not an accreditation or licensure body. MOE too does not require School Counsellors to register with SAC. Registration is voluntary.
The next set of issues concerns educators’ well-being, which Ms He Ting Ru touched on. The well-being of our school staff has always been of paramount importance and, even before the tripartite advisory on mental well-being was issued in 2020, measures that were contextualised for schools and well-aligned with the advisory, were already in place to support their well-being.
First, counselling services are available for school staff when needed. As part of the Civil Service medical benefits scheme, school staff are eligible for subsidised medical treatment, including mental health consultations and treatment. MOE provides in-house counselling services by trained professionals and there is also a whole-of-Government counselling hotline for our teachers. These sessions are confidential and free for all staff. Our counsellors also organise workshops for staff in areas, such as managing difficult conversations and stress management.
Second, MOE has structures in schools to support the well-being of our staff. School Leaders are guided by the Teacher Work Management Framework on staff deployment and measures to support staff well-being, including ensuring protected vacation time for staff to rest. In every school, the Staff Well-being Committee looks into staff welfare and bonding. MOE HQ supports these committees by offering professional knowledge, resources and sharing platforms for them to share their best practices and to learn from one another.
We recognise that ground practices may vary. Leadership is thus crucial in setting the tone, and our school leaders are committed to supporting the well-being of our school staff by building a culture of care and openness. In addition, MOE also obtains feedback through various sensing platforms, such as engagement surveys and platforms, and school visits by MOE senior management. We take steps to provide support where needed, such as working with schools to review teacher workload, and organising workshops to address the well-being needs of staff. Key indicators are also shared with schools so they can implement interventions and adjust their systems to support their staff.
MOE is committed to ensuring the well-being and building the capacity of our educators and staff so that they can rise to the demands and challenges, as they educate and support our students, especially in the context of the on-going pandemic situation. We will continue to refine our efforts and work with relevant partners in this endeavour.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessment of Effectiveness of Existing Property Cooling Measures","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"74 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry can provide an assessment of the effectiveness of existing property cooling measures; (b) whether the objectives of these measures have been met; and (c) whether the Government will consider increasing the supply of land for private housing to meet demand.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government’s intent is to ensure a stable and sustainable property market, where prices move broadly in line with economic fundamentals. Where necessary, we have implemented measures to achieve this and to ensure that households do not overextend themselves when making property purchases.
These measures have been effective. For instance, the property cooling measures in July 2018 significantly slowed the increase in property prices to 1.2% between 3Q2018 and 2Q2019, from 9.1% between 3Q2017 and 2Q2018.
The Government remains highly vigilant and will continue to monitor developments in the property market closely. We will maintain our current approach of adjusting policies as necessary, including calibrating the supply of Government Land Sales (GLS) sites, to ensure a stable and sustainable property market.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recipient Countries of COVID-19 Vaccine Donations by Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"75 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) which countries has Singapore donated COVID-19 vaccines to; (b) how many doses have been donated to each of these countries; (c) what is the total cost of these donations; and (d) what are the considerations for donations to higher income countries like Brunei which have the financial means to purchase their own vaccines.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I would like to emphasise that we conducted a comprehensive assessment of the progress of our National Vaccination Programme and made the decision to contribute our vaccines only when we were sure that we had, and will continue to have, enough vaccines for our people.
We had contributed 100,000 doses of the Moderna vaccine to Brunei on 20 August 2021. We had also contributed 20,000 doses of the Sinovac vaccines to Johor on 29 June 2021 and are working towards a further donation of around 100,000 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines to Johor. Due to contractual obligations with the vaccine manufacturers, we are not able to disclose the cost of vaccines.
Mr Gerald Giam has asked about the considerations behind contributing vaccines to our neighbours, including higher-income countries. As Members of the House are aware, there are global vaccine shortages and delivery delays. I would like to express our gratitude to our vaccine procurement team for securing sufficient vaccines for our people at such an early stage.
In combatting a pandemic that knows no boundaries, no one is safe until everyone is safe, and it is, therefore, in our collective interest to help one another. One such example is the swap arrangement with Australia. We sent 500,000 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines to Australia recently and we will receive the same quantity from Australia at a later date. This arrangement is mutually beneficial as it enables both countries to support each other in optimising our respective schedules for vaccinating our populations against COVID-19.
Our contributions are part of our broader commitment to work together with our neighbours in confronting the pandemic. While we continue to support regional and global efforts to combat the virus, it is sensible that we begin by helping our neighbours, given their proximity to us, and the large number of cross-border flows between our countries. It is, hence, critical that we first bring the COVID-19 situation in our region under control.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Delay in Commencement Date for ERP 2.0 Given Work-from-home Trend","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"76 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Transport in view of the work-from-home trend, whether LTA will review whether there should be a delay in the commencement date of ERP 2.0, especially if peak hour traffic condition is less congested than pre-COVID-19 days.
Mr S Iswaran: The implementation of Next-Generation (nexgen) ERP is to replace the existing ERP system, which is more than 20 years old and reaching the end of its operational life. It is not contingent on prevailing traffic conditions. Our priority in the implementation of the nexgen ERP is to ensure a smooth and uninterrupted process once the installation exercise begins for close to one million motorists. In this regard, LTA is working closely with its contractors to take into account the evolving COVID-19 situation.
When we switch to nexgen ERP, the existing point and cordon congestion charging framework will remain, and ERP rates will continue to be adjusted according to prevailing traffic conditions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employees who May Require Regular Testing under New “Vaccinate or Regular Test” Regime","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"
77 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the estimated number of employees who are likely to require regular testing under the new \"Vaccinate or Regular Test\" regime; (b) who will bear the costs of the twice weekly antigen rapid test; and (c) whether there will be any legal protection afforded to employers or employees in the event of a disagreement on the apportionment of costs for such testing and, if so, what are these protections.
Dr Tan See Leng: Under the Vaccinate or Regular Test (VoRT) regime, unvaccinated employees will need to undergo more frequent testing compared to vaccinated employees. This would help pick up possible infections so that they can be treated early and mitigate the risk of transmission to their colleagues and the public. As at 8 September 2021, about 90% of our workforce has already completed the full vaccination regime and we encourage medically eligible employees who are not vaccinated to do so as soon as possible.
Under the VoRT regime, medically eligible but unvaccinated employees may be required by their employers to pay for any antigen rapid test that is in addition to that required for vaccinated employees, if any.
Employers are encouraged to engage employees on the importance of being vaccinated and clarify the cost arrangements for test kits for those who are medically eligible but not vaccinated. In the event of a dispute, employers and employees are advised to approach MOM for advice and assistance. The Member may also refer to the Advisory on COVID-19 Vaccination at the Workplace, which was issued by the tripartite partners on 23 August for more details on how companies can implement the VoRT regime.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Easing Financial Support for Sectors Affected by COVID-19 Pandemic","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"78 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Finance in light of the recent upgrade to GDP growth forecasts for 2021 (a) whether there are plans to cease provision of financial support for sectors hardest hit by the pandemic; and (b) whether additional support may help or hinder the reallocation of workers across sectors over time, if provided.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The Government has been monitoring global and local economic developments closely. MTI’s recent upgrade of Singapore’s GDP growth forecast is largely supported by outward-oriented sectors, as we see a rebound in our main final demand markets.
But the headline growth figure does not paint the full picture. We continue to see uneven recovery across the sectors. While outward-oriented sectors remain strong and consumer-facing sectors are starting to recover with the easing of restrictions, aviation- and tourism-related sectors are recovering much more slowly, as global border restrictions are likely to be lifted only cautiously and unevenly.
At the same time, the crisis has accelerated changes in business models and introduced new ways of working. We must continue our efforts to restructure our economy and help our workers to adapt and seize opportunities in new growth areas.
Against these different considerations, the Government has taken a balanced approach towards providing relief on the one hand and supporting restructuring and reskilling on the other. We explained these considerations and shifted our support from a focus on job retention to a greater emphasis on job creation in October last year.
In line with this balanced approach, we have tapered the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) and introduced the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) to encourage growing firms to hire more. The Government also set aside $24 billion over the next three years to support our firms and workers to emerge stronger from the crisis during Budget 2021.
We have adopted two key strategies to support our workers to find better employment prospects in growth areas.
First, we are partnering the industry, unions and trade associations to identify new drivers of growth. We have also been updating all of our Industry Transformation Maps so that we can channel more resources towards areas with high growth potential.
Second, we extended and enhanced the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package (SGU JS) to equip workers with the skills and agility to move as new growth areas emerge.
Even as we press on with sector transformation and job creation, the Government is mindful that some sectors, such as aviation- and tourism-related industries, will take more time to recover. For these sectors, we will continue to take a more customised approach in order to preserve core capabilities and talent.
The Government stands ready to support all Singaporeans to tide through this crisis and emerge stronger. As our economy recovers, we will continually recalibrate our support based on each sector’s specific needs and recovery trajectory, to ensure that our measures are targeted and achieve good value for money outcomes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tackling Trend of Increase in Personal Debt amongst Young Adults Below 30 Years Old","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"79 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the increase in personal debt amongst young adults below 30 years old in the past year is sustainable; and (b) what preventive measures can be put in place to avoid youth indebtedness from taking root in Singapore.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): MAS has put in place a number of prudential limits on borrowing by individuals and households, so that they do not borrow beyond their means. They are, generally, more extensive and stringent than in many countries.
Unsecured borrowing by an individual is subject to the individual meeting minimum income requirements, and the total amount of such borrowing is capped at his or her annual income. Mortgages, which constitute the largest liability for households, are subject to both a loan-to-value limit and a total debt servicing limit.
For now, there are no worrying signs of rising indebtedness amongst young adults. Average monthly default rates amongst borrowers below 30 years of age have remained low at less than 0.7% from March 2020 to March 2021.
The number of young adults with credit card rollover balances dropped by 23% from March 2020 to March 2021. Their average rollover balances also fell by 15% year-on-year.
The number of young adults with unsecured personal loans has fallen by 33% over the same period, and the average level of such loan balances fell by 21%.
As for secured loans, the average outstanding balances of mortgages by young adult borrowers fell by 12% between March 2020 and March 2021. Whilst the average balances for secured personal loans, excluding mortgage loans, increased by 4% in the same period, these were typically offered by private banks to high-net-worth individuals. Young adults with secured personal loans make up less than 1% of the young adult population.
Besides regulatory limits on borrowing, financial education helps to inculcate good financial habits among our young adults. Key financial concepts have been added to the curriculum, from Primary school up to tertiary levels; concepts, such as the effects of compound interest and the responsible use of credit. The efforts are complemented by outreach activities organised in school campuses by MoneySense, our national financial education programme.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Encouraging More Private Sector Contributions to Singapore National Paralympic Council","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"83 Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what are the steps taken by the Government to encourage more private sector contributions to the Singapore National Paralympic Council such that Paralympic medal winners can get the same quantum of cash rewards as Olympic medal winners.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: MCCY focuses on building a structured and comprehensive system to provide sustained support for Team Singapore athletes of all abilities to pursue their sporting aspirations and achieve their potential.
The Major Games Awards Programme and Athletes’ Achievement Awards are private award schemes managed by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and Singapore Paralympic Council (SNPC) respectively.
We congratulate all our athletes who represented Singapore at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, who have made us all proud with their commitment to excellence and their fighting spirit.
MCCY and Sport Singapore value all our Team Singapore athletes tremendously. We will continue to work with SNOC and SNPC on opportunities to engage corporate entities and members of the public to celebrate our athletes’ achievements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Independent Environmental Impact Assessment for Dover Forest Development Plans","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"84 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether an independent environmental impact assessment has been conducted on the development plans for Dover Forest and, if not, whether it can be conducted before any development takes place there.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Ulu Pandan site, known to the public as \"Dover Forest\", is a 33-hectare site earmarked for residential development in URA’s Master Plan since 2003.
As part of the planning process, development proposals are subject to an evaluation of the potential impact to the environment, as well as other factors, such as traffic and public health. Based on the site context and advice from Technical Agencies for this development proposal, HDB engaged an external consultant to conduct an Environmental Baseline Study (EBS) to understand the existing topography, flora, fauna and hydrology within the site. The EBS also guides HDB’s development plans and identifies existing habitats to retain within the site.
HDB had engaged nature groups extensively and iteratively to seek their feedback on the EBS findings as well as the proposed treatment for the site in response to the EBS findings. The EBS report was also published online to take in public feedback, with the feedback period extended by an additional four weeks to allow the public more time to share their views.
Based on the findings from the EBS, feedback from nature groups and the public, as well as NParks’ Ecological Profiling Exercise, HDB has revised their urban planning and design strategies for Ulu Pandan, taking a holistic and science-based approach to balance development and nature conservation in Singapore. The revised conceptual development plans were announced earlier in July. Measures include putting off the development plans for the western half of Ulu Pandan in the medium term to be reviewed again in about 10 years’ time, while agencies work towards safeguarding a sizeable nature park within the western half of Ulu Pandan which is richer in biodiversity compared to the eastern half of the site.
The nature park will serve as an ecological connector and habitat between Clementi Forest and the Southern Ridges, as well as to complement the connectivity along the Rail Corridor in the vicinity of Ulu Pandan, which is one of the two ecological corridors identified in NParks’ Ecological Profiling Exercise. Additionally, a Green Corridor, measuring up to 40 metres wide at some stretches, along Ulu Pandan Canal, is also proposed to be established to serve as an ecological corridor to facilitate wildlife movement along Sungei Ulu Pandan.
HDB will be engaging a specialist consultant to develop an Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP), which will mitigate and manage any potential environmental impact arising from the infrastructure works, and closely monitor the works from start to end.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sustainability Practices in Built Environment in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"85 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for National Development what are some of the areas in which the Ministry has begun adopting sustainability practices in Singapore.
Mr Desmond Lee: As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, we are making our urban environment more green and sustainable, with ambitious steps on three fronts.
First, we are transforming Singapore into a City in Nature. We have been launching new parks which feature more lush vegetation and natural landscapes, the most recent being Bukit Gombak Park and Phase 1 of Pasir Panjang Park. We have also announced new nature corridors, such as Clementi and Bukit Batok Nature Corridors, which will strengthen ecological connectivity in these areas.
Second, we are making our buildings, HDB towns, and districts even more sustainable. We are committed to raising our environmental sustainability standards under the latest edition of the Singapore Green Building Masterplan. Last week, BCA launched its latest edition of the Green Mark scheme, which is one of the world’s leading green building certifications. The refreshed scheme raises our standards in energy performance, and places greater emphasis on other important sustainability outcomes. These include designing for maintainability, reducing embodied carbon across a building’s life cycle, using smart technologies, enhancing a building’s resilience to climate change, and creating healthier environments for building users. We have also developed a new Super Low Energy (SLE) standard for residential buildings, which will be awarded to residential buildings that achieve at least 60% improvement in energy efficiency over 2005 levels.
Residents of existing HDB towns can also look forward to their towns becoming more sustainable via the HDB Green Towns Programme. Over the next 10 years, residents can look forward to more green features that can improve their quality of life. Some of these initiatives include the introduction of more greenery on the top decks of selected multi-storey carparks and piloting the use of cool paint on the façade of HDB blocks to reduce ambient temperature.
Third, we are driving R&D in urban sustainability. For example, our Cities of Tomorrow R&D programme supports R&D to address urban sustainability challenges. We are also initiating a Marine Climate Change Science programme, which will advance the core sciences of marine climate change, and develop solutions to mitigate impacts, such as rising sea levels, increasing sea surface temperatures and extreme storm events.
We will press ahead with our sustainability efforts under the Green Plan, in partnership with the private sector, research institutions and the community.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Requirement for Management Corporation Strata Titles to Clean Common Touch-points in Immediate Vicinity of Positive COVID-19 Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"86 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether NEA currently requires Management Corporation Strata Titles or their managing agents to clean all common touch-points in the immediate vicinity of any positive COVID-19 case; and (b) if it is not currently doing so, whether NEA will consider doing so.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: For strata developments, such as condominiums, with positive COVID-19 cases or visited by such individuals as informed by MOH, NEA will get in touch with the management corporation strata titles (MCSTs) or managing agents (MAs) to advise them to thoroughly clean and disinfect the premises. This includes all common touch-points, such as door handles, lift buttons, letter boxes, escalators and railings. The approach taken is similar to that for other premises, such as public housing estates and commercial properties. MCSTs and MAs have been responsive in undertaking the disinfection works. Should it be necessary, NEA will work with MOH to compel any persistently uncooperative MCSTs to disinfect their premises through an order under the Infectious Diseases Act.
For guidance on how to carry out the cleaning works and the appropriate personal protective equipment to be used, MCSTs and MAs may refer to the \"Guidelines for Environmental Cleaning and Disinfection of Areas Exposed to Confirmed Case(s) of COVID-19 in Non-Healthcare Premises\" jointly developed by NEA and MOH, which is available on NEA’s website.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Consultations and Assessments on Contraindications for mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"87 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many individuals have been assessed to have contraindications to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines; and (b) whether these individuals can be provided with a free consultation with an allergist to help them choose suitable vaccines to receive based on the latest medical findings and safety data.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: About 1,000 individuals had previous allergic reactions to other vaccines. These persons have been referred to allergists to assess their suitability for mRNA vaccines. The assessment is fully subsidised for Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and long-term pass holders.
A separate group of about 7,100 individuals had allergic reactions after taking the first dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. They have been invited to complete their vaccination with two doses of Sinovac-CoronaVac under a dedicated public health programme. Of these persons, 3,900 have indicated their interest to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Annual Household Expenditure on Private Tuition","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"89 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Education (a) for the past three years, including year-to-date, what is the annual household expenditure on private tuition; and (b) whether the Ministry would consider implementing restrictions on the private tuition industry like what is being done in China, with the intention of reducing students' workload and mental stress.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In my response yesterday to a Parliamentary Question filed by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim on a similar topic, I had explained MOE’s approach towards the issue of private tuition and enrichment.
Based on the latest Household Expenditure Survey (HES) conducted from 2017 to 2018 by the Department of Statistics (DOS), resident households, on average, spend $112 a month on private tuition and other educational courses. However, we are concerned when parents send their children for tuition excessively, or to ace examinations even when their children are coping well with their school work.
Implementing restrictions on the private tuition industry to address unnecessary reliance on tuition is unlikely to be effective, if the underlying reasons why students and parents take up tuition are not addressed. Overseas experience in countries, such as South Korea, thus far has shown that restrictions on tuition are generally ineffective at reducing demand. We continue to monitor new developments, such as the new regulations in China, that the Member has referenced.
We have progressively introduced several policy changes under our Learn for Life movement, to address the fundamental issues that drive the demand for tuition, with the aim of nurturing the joy of learning in our students, reduce the overemphasis on academic results and change the mindsets and attitudes of parents and students to adopt a broader definition of success.
Our reforms will take time to bear fruit. Reducing the over-reliance on tuition requires a long-term partnership between MOE, parents and the wider community to change mindsets and reduce students’ workload and mental stress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Professional Help for Family and Elderly Suffering From Depression and Other Mental Health Issues","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"90 Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Health how family members can get support to arrange professional help for a member of the family who suffers from mental health issues but who refuses to consult a doctor.
91 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Health in light of the various initiatives supported by the Silver Volunteer Fund to grow senior volunteerism in Singapore, whether the Ministry will consider training senior volunteers as unqualified health workers as first responders to help people with mental health issues, much like the Friendship Bench project in Zimbabwe which has assisted many suffering from depression and other mental health issues.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The questions reflect the breadth of concerns and challenges that families and individuals challenged with mental health issues face: the role of the family, the interface with the professionals, the opportunities to help through volunteerism, the challenges of access to care as a result of lack of consent or insurance coverage and the need for a national strategy addressing the entire spectrum of mental health conditions, including suicides.
The interplay within these various challenges and many others, as well as the need to look across agencies and Ministries are some of the reasons why in July 2021 the Government set up the new Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being to develop a comprehensive strategy to strengthen our mental resilience and well-being.
We have begun work and will be addressing the various issues and will report on our progress. We will develop a National Strategy on Mental Health and work on the details of programmes and implementation.
I will now provide a summary of the existing initiatives that address the Members’ questions currently.
On the matter of insurance coverage, MediShield Life provides universal coverage for all Singapore Residents, including for subsidised inpatient psychiatric care. In addition, MediFund is available for those who qualify.
Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) are private and optional products that provide additional coverage for patients who wish to seek private and unsubsidised care. The benefits are determined by insurers based on their own commercial and actuarial considerations. Today, all seven IP insurers offer IPs that provide coverage for inpatient psychiatric treatments. In making underwriting and claims decisions, insurers are expected to treat all customers fairly and reasonably, regardless of whether they have a mental illness. We are formulating guidelines for insurers to adopt fair and responsible practices towards all customers and will commence public consultations when ready.
Our Mental Health Community Outreach Teams are supported by volunteers who help to broaden and extend the outreach to vulnerable persons in the community. They include the Silver Generation Ambassadors from the Silver Generation Office, befrienders across various befriending programmes, including those under the Silver Volunteer Fund, and caregiver peers. These volunteers do regular check-ins on vulnerable individuals and refer them to the appropriate care services where needed.
Individuals with or suspected to have mental health conditions who cause disturbances in the community and who refuse mental health assessment or treatment can be flagged to agencies, such as the Police, grassroots organisations, the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) or the Town Council. Our ground agencies would engage the individual or the family members to explore how best to arrange an assessment or intervention.
The Interagency Taskforce will review our current approach and existing measures, to ensure that persons with mental health needs can continue to receive the care they require.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quantity and Side-effects of Anti-depressants Dispensed to Patients Under 21 Years Old","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"92 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health (a) whether there are any statistics on the amount of anti-depressants prescribed annually to patients under 21 years old; (b) what are the medical protocol and considerations for dispensing anti-depressants to patients under 21 years old to mitigate the known risks associated with the use of anti-depressants; and (c) how are patients or caregivers alerted to the risks and the required supervision in the use of anti-depressants.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Based on our national public health records, there were 4,535 patients in 2019 compared with 4,763 patients in 2020.
Patients under 21 years old and/or their caregivers are counselled prior to the start of treatment. This is conducted by healthcare professionals, such as doctors and pharmacists, and the counselling may include the purpose, the common side effects, the monitoring and safe use of the anti-depressants being dispensed. Information leaflets may also be used. Recommendations would also include how and when to seek further medical help.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Estimated Number of Beneficiaries from and Careers Covered under Skills Path Initiative","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"93 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the projected number of jobseekers who may expect to benefit from the Skills Path Initiative; (b) whether the Ministry has firm plans and a timeline to include more occupations under the Skills Path Initiative; and (c) whether the National Jobs Council will be involved in curating the available courses.
Dr Tan See Leng: Skills Path is a LinkedIn programme to match local jobseekers to jobs based on skills instead of traditional criteria like educational qualifications. At the same time, Skills Path also helps hiring employers to broaden their talent pool and build a more diverse workforce.
LinkedIn’s Skills Path is aligned with our objective of getting our locals into good jobs. While we do not design or run Skills Path, the National Jobs Council sees value in this private sector initiative and supports it by making it better known among jobseekers and companies. This includes co-organising workshops with LinkedIn to help mature jobseekers sign up and create LinkedIn profiles, as well as promoting Skills Path through WSG’s Career Restarter website and MOM’s social media channels.
LinkedIn has announced that six job roles have been curated for the pilot and eight companies have come on board for a start. LinkedIn has plans to bring more companies and local jobseekers onboard the Skills Path initiative over the next few months.
Matching jobseekers and employers is a whole-of-community endeavour. Private sector initiatives, such as the one by LinkedIn, contribute innovative ideas and approaches to a richer ecosystem of solutions that can meet the diverse needs of jobseekers and employers. MOM and WSG will continue to nurture these partnerships and look forward to forging new ones.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effect of Changing Weather Patterns on Landscaping, Maintenance and Plant Species in HDB Estates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"94 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for National Development in light of changing weather patterns (a) how have the changing weather patterns affected the landscaping in HDB estates; (b) whether Town Councils are working closely with NParks to revise the recommended maintenance schedules according to weather patterns and their effect on different plant species; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider including landscaping in the Town Council management report considering its importance in reducing carbon emissions.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB provides greenery in new public housing developments, while Town Councils (TCs) plant and maintain greenery in existing HDB estates. NParks shares best practices and guidelines on greenery management, including the selection of plant species, suitable planting locations, and tree risk management, with HDB and TCs. These practices help TCs to manage the tree population in public housing estates and to mitigate the risk of tree failure, especially in view of more adverse weather conditions due to climate change.
HDB selects trees to be planted based on their hardiness and overall suitability for public housing estates. In addition, since 2018, HDB has been securing trees that are planted on rooftop gardens with anchors at their roots embedded in the soil to further reduce the risk of tree fall incidents.
On plant health and maintenance, NParks provides a range of training courses and seminars, and certifies arborists engaged by TCs using the International Society of Arboriculture framework. This helps TCs to build up their knowledge of tree maintenance and keeps them updated about best practices, which includes adjusting their tree maintenance schedules according to weather patterns and their effect on different plant species. NParks also advises TCs on storm-vulnerable tree species that are prone to failure, so that TCs can remove and replace them. Before the start of yearly monsoon seasons, NParks also provides advisories to TCs to step up checks on all trees, including large trees and trees at elevated areas, and to undertake the pruning of tree crowns if necessary.
The existing Town Council Management Report already assesses whether landscaped areas in HDB estates are generally clean and properly maintained by the TCs. To ensure that there is sufficient greenery in HDB estates, TCs must seek HDB’s approval before removing trees, whether this is due to poor tree health or upgrading works and are required to replace the trees that are removed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Singapore's Model of Tripartism as Module for Graduating Students at Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"97 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) whether Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) teach graduating students about key employment and workplace rights; (b) whether students in our IHLs learn about Singapore's unique model of tripartism; and (c) whether the Ministry can review whether there is a need to equip graduating cohorts of students with the necessary knowledge on their workplace rights and tripartism in Singapore.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: As mentioned in our written response to Mr Abdul Samad’s Parliamentary Question on the inclusion of a module on tripartism for graduating students at our IHLs, the curriculum in our Secondary schools and Pre-University institutions expose students to the concept and importance of tripartism.
The IHLs build on these foundational efforts to deepen students’ understanding of tripartism in Singapore. The IHLs place strong focus on industry and workplace exposure in their curriculum and programmes, such as internships and industry-sponsored projects. They offer a range of modules that cover issues, such as the role of trade unions and tripartism in Singapore, employment and workplace rights, employee relations, industrial relations, labour laws, manpower policies, collective bargaining and dispute resolution.
There are also additional exposure opportunities for IHL students outside the formal curriculum, such as dialogues with representatives from Government, industry and the labour unions.
The IHLs will continue to review their curricula, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to ensure their curricula remain industry-relevant and equip graduates with the right dispositions and skills for the future workplace.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Study on Effects of COVID-19 Infection on Vaccinated Persons","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"98 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health (a) in respect of fully vaccinated individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 locally, what are their average recovery times; (b) whether the Ministry has conducted any study of the duration of COVID-19 infection in these individuals; and (c) if so, whether such study also confirms that the risk of transmission between fully vaccinated individuals is lower as compared to unvaccinated individuals.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Fully vaccinated patients recover faster and are infectious for a shorter period. Based on a recent study of local cases by the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), viral levels in vaccinated patients can decline to undetectable or non-infectious levels within 10 days after illness onset. This takes around 15 days, on average, for unvaccinated patients. However, during the infectious period, vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients are equally likely to transmit to others.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Numbers of COVID-19 Deaths and ICU Cases in Singapore Linked to Delta Variant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"99 Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Health (a) of all the COVID-19 deaths in August 2021, how many of them are from the same clusters; and (b) whether all the COVID-19 deaths and those admitted to ICU since May 2021 have been due to the Delta variant.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 1 August 2021 to 31 August 2021, there were 18 COVID-19 deaths, of which 13 were from sub-clusters phylogenetically linked to the JFP cluster. The remaining five cases remained unlinked.
From 1 May 2021 to 31 August 2021, there were 25 COVID-19 deaths and 35 other COVID-19 cases admitted to ICU. Phylogenetic sequencing was successful for 20 of the 25 deaths, and all 20 were of the Delta variant. For the 35 ICU admissions, phylogenetic sequencing was successful for 24 cases, of which 23 were of the Delta variant.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Sheltered and Barrier-free Access Points at Polyclinics","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"100 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Health (a) whether all polyclinics provide sheltered drop-off and barrier-free access for those with mobility issues; (b) whether any of these facilities have been temporarily removed due to the current COVID-19 situation; and (c) whether the Ministry will review these facilities at Woodlands Polyclinic to ensure that parents with young children and seniors with mobility issues can access the clinic in a more efficient manner, especially during wet weather.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All of our existing and upcoming new polyclinics provide sheltered vehicular drop-off points and barrier-free access for the patients and visitors.
Due to the pandemic, the polyclinics have put in place pre-entry screening and segregation measures to ensure the safety of their patients, visitors and staff. Some polyclinics are using their drop-off areas and/or car parks temporarily to conduct these services. Alternative barrier-free and sheltered access are available.
For Woodlands Polyclinic, alternative barrier-free and sheltered access are available in the vicinity of the polyclinic. While they may not be as convenient as the original access points, we seek everyone’s patience and understanding as we work to improve the situation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Use of Liquidatable Financial Investments as Equivalent to Bank Savings to Meet Home Loan Eligibility Criteria","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"101 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider allowing self-employed persons to use their liquidatable financial investments, such as stocks and bonds, as an equivalent to bank savings to meet the Home Loan Eligibility criteria, as many young Singaporeans invest in stocks and bonds instead of low-yielding savings deposits.
Mr Desmond Lee: HDB conducts credit assessment to gauge the financial ability of a loan applicant to service mortgage instalments every month based on their income. Unlike employed persons who generally have monthly CPF contributions from work that can be used for mortgage instalments, self-employed persons typically service their mortgage instalments in cash.
In the application for an HDB loan, employed persons are, hence, required to provide CPF statements to HDB as proof of their income, whilst self-employed persons are asked to provide bank statements to show that they have been able to sustain a positive cash flow from their earned income over a period of time and, therefore, have adequate cash surpluses every month to pay their mortgage instalments.
Stocks and bonds can be freely traded on the stock exchanges and could have been purchased at any time. Such investments might not, therefore, reflect the latest income and cashflow situation of an individual seeking an HDB loan, and it would be less prudent from a credit assessment perspective to rely on financial investment holdings at the point of application to assess loan eligibility as the values of financial investments are dynamic and market-dependent.
Nonetheless, for those unable to meet HDB’s credit assessment guidelines, HDB will look into their individual circumstances on a case-by-case basis and will exercise flexibility where feasible to assist them with their homeownership aspirations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Reduce Amount of Light Emitted by Public and Commercial Buildings at Night","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"102 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry will consider reducing the amount of light emitted by public and commercial buildings at night; and (b) whether there are plans to gradually replace the lights in the public areas with ambient light sensors to reduce unnecessary energy consumption.
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Lighting accounts for about 15% of the energy consumption of the built environment. The energy efficiency of lighting products is currently regulated through NEA’s Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) and the Mandatory Energy Performance Standards (MEPS). MELS enables consumers to make an informed decision on the purchase of lighting products based on energy efficiency considerations, while MEPS raises the average energy efficiency of lighting products by removing the least energy-efficient models from the market. Through the public sector’s green procurement policy, most public sector buildings have already switched to energy-efficient lighting solutions.
Lighting is important in public areas like HDB estates and parks for reasons of public safety. To provide good visibility when needed, smart lighting solutions have been progressively adopted. These can automatically adjust to ambient lighting and detected motion in the area, and have been implemented in all new public housing developments since 2018. HDB is also working with Town Councils to extend smart lighting to existing public housing estates under HDB’s Green Towns Programme.
Building owners and facility managers are encouraged to adopt smart lighting solutions that dim or turn off the lights when no one is present. BCA’s Green Mark Scheme promotes the use of smart lighting and other smart facilities management solutions to optimise energy performance. Nevertheless, we cannot rely solely on technology. Everyone plays an important role in conserving energy, by switching off the lights when they are not needed, at the workplace and at home.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of COVID-19-related Delays on Flats under Home Improvement Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"103 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for National Development what is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on (i) the number of HDB flats to be approved per year under the Home Improvement Programme from 2021 onwards, (ii) the progress of the existing Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) and (iii) the number of HDB blocks to be approved for future LUP.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2020, we selected the first batch of approximately 56,000 flats under the extended Home Improvement Programme (HIP), which covers blocks built between 1987 and 1997 and comprises 230,000 flats. Future selections will be made progressively, with the number of flats selected each year taking into consideration the Government’s fiscal position, as well as construction capacity, which has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the challenges, we hope to complete the programme within our earlier projection of 10 years.
HDB has implemented the LUP for over 5,000 blocks. Work on all ongoing LUP projects has resumed, but the expected completion date has been delayed by about a year, due to the circuit breaker period last year, the manpower crunch in the construction sector, and the need to comply with onsite safe management measures. HDB has been working with BCA and MOM to mitigate the delays and manpower challenges and will continue to update residents on the progress of the LUP works.
There remain about 150 blocks, with about 2,000 units without direct lift access, where it is not feasible to implement LUP due to high cost, or existing technical and site constraints. For such blocks, HDB will continue to explore new methods to bring down LUP costs and alternatives to improve accessibility for residents living in flats without direct lift access. Residents living in these blocks who are in urgent need of direct lift access due to medical conditions or mobility reasons are eligible for the Lift access Housing Grant (LHG) of up to $30,000 when they buy another flat with direct lift access.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Government’s Method of Assessing and Reporting Average Effective Corporate Tax Rates for Singapore Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"104 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Finance with regard to the Government’s method of assessing and reporting average effective corporate tax rates for Singapore companies (a) whether chargeable income is that before or after the partial tax exemption and startup tax exemption; (b) whether there is any netting off of losses of loss-making companies against the chargeable income of other profitable but unrelated companies; and (c) whether the denominator is based on chargeable income as defined under section 38 of the Income Tax Act.
Mr Lawrence Wong: To compute the effective tax rate, we use chargeable income before group relief, loss carry back, partial tax exemption and startup tax exemption.
Chargeable income, defined under section 38 of the Income Tax Act, is the figure after taking into account group relief and loss carry back but not partial tax exemption and startup tax exemption. It is used for calculating the partial tax exemption and startup tax exemption that companies are eligible for, and, eventually, the corporate tax that companies are liable for.
We use chargeable income before these four schemes, so that the effective tax rate correctly reflects the tax burden of the company after factoring in the tax savings provided by these schemes. To illustrate:
Suppose a company’s chargeable income before these schemes is $100. If these schemes did not exist, it would pay $17 tax with our corporate tax rate at 17%. Its tax burden or effective tax rate is 17%.
Assuming that these schemes reduce the company’s chargeable income to $50, the company would pay 17% on $50 or $8.50.
By using chargeable income before these schemes or $100 in this example, the ETR is 8.5% ($8.50/$100). This correctly reflects the tax burden of the company after taking into account the effect of these schemes.
If we had used chargeable income after these schemes to compute the effective tax rate, we would have ended up with an ETR of 17%. This would have negated the effect of these schemes, which serve to reduce the tax burden of the company.
The effective tax rate is calculated for each company. There is no netting off of losses of loss-making companies against the chargeable income of other profitable but unrelated companies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Enhance Attractiveness and Career Prospects in Intermediate and Long-term Care Sector","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"105 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the working hours and salaries of nurses in the intermediate and long-term care (ILTC) sector as compared to nurses in the public healthcare sector; and (b) what measures will be taken to enhance the attractiveness and career prospects in the ILTC sector to encourage more Singaporeans to join.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Nurses in the ILTC sector, also known as the community care sector, have different job requirements including working hours, compared to public healthcare sector nurses. MOH works closely with the Agency for Integrated Care and Community Care Organisations (CCOs) to ensure that salaries of staff in the sector remain competitive. In 2020, we provided funding to CCOs to raise the salaries of local nurses and support care staff. Earlier this year, we announced further funding support for salaries and expanded the support to more job groups, such as allied health professionals, pharmacists, administrative and ancillary staff.
Over the years, we have also strengthened various recruitment and workforce development support for the community care sector. We embarked on a pilot to redesign support care jobs within the sector to enhance career progression for these staff. The CCOs can also tap on funding support from the Ministry to hire and train new staff. We have also introduced scholarships, traineeship programmes and training subsidies for the sector to attract talent and develop the workforce. We are embarking on a Care to Go Beyond public communications campaign to raise awareness of the job opportunities in the sector.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review Ways to Narrow Gap between Cash Over Valuation and Valuation of HDB Flat","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"107 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will review ways to narrow the gap between Cash Over Valuation (COV) and the valuation of an HDB flat as the current high COV has made it hard for young couples to buy resale flats which is the popular option now given the long BTO construction delays.
Mr Desmond Lee: The recent increase in resale prices can be partly attributed to a broad-based increase in demand for housing, supported by the current low interest rate environment. Nonetheless, the majority of resale flat buyers did not have to pay any cash-over-valuation (COV), and the median COV across all buyers has remained at $0.
HDB resale flat transactions are conducted on a \"willing-buyer-willing-seller\" basis, with prices negotiated and mutually agreed upon between flat buyers and sellers. Many factors influence the price of a flat, including its location, size and condition. The transacted prices of resale flats for the last 12 months are published on the HDB InfoWEB to guide flat buyers and sellers in their negotiations. Taking reference from these transacted prices, buyers should first consider if they will be overpaying for the flat when they make an offer.
After a resale price has been agreed upon, the flat sellers will grant an Option to Purchase (OTP) to the buyers. If the buyers wish to use their CPF savings or a housing loan to pay for the flat purchase, they will need to make a \"Request for Value\" to HDB. Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) arises when the resale price is higher than the market valuation of the flat, as the difference can only be paid by cash. Otherwise, there is no COV. Buyers can decide whether to exercise the OTP for the resale transaction depending on the valuation and any COV payable. Should they choose not to proceed with the transaction, buyers will forgo the option fee of between $1 and $1,000 paid to the seller.
Ultimately, the resale price has to be agreed upon by the buyer and the seller. Before March 2014, sellers would obtain the valuation first before negotiating the COV payable with buyers. As a result, the vast majority of transactions involved a COV. We, therefore, reviewed the resale process and the current process allows price negotiations to take place between buyers and sellers, guided by the latest market information available on the HDB InfoWeb. Any further changes to the resale process that reduce or cap the COV payable could restrict the functioning of an efficient market. This is a situation we want to avoid.
The Government will continue to monitor the housing market conditions closely and ensure that Singaporeans have access to affordable public housing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Islandwide Implementation of Electric Vehicle Charging Points","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"108 Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling asked the Minister for Transport whether the implementation plan across Singapore for electric vehicle (EV) charging points will be a replica of the eight EV-ready towns.
Mr S Iswaran: Our strategy for deploying EV charging points in public carparks is to improve geographical coverage as quickly as the electrical infrastructure and capacity permit. In so doing, we will ensure that the number of charging points leads EV adoption by a calibrated margin.
We have chosen to highlight eight EV-Ready Towns, as these are the ones where existing electricity capacity can support charging points at all car parks with minimal upgrading. For all the other towns, we will also be deploying charging points in as many public carparks as possible. For instance, the Government’s pilot charging point deployment tender, awarded earlier this month, will see over 600 charging points at around 200 public carparks installed over the next year. By the 2030s, every HDB town will be an EV-Ready Town.
For private developments, premises owners have to assess the deployment of EV charging points taking into account the needs of their users and the existing electrical capacity. Several commercial developments, like retail malls and petrol stations, as well as some private residences, have already installed EV charging points. The Government will continue to facilitate such deployment, for instance, by launching the EV Common Charger Grant to further incentivise EV charger installation at non-landed private residences.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of and Measures to Deal with Threat Caused by Pegasus Cyber Surveillance Tool","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"109 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the impact of Pegasus, a sophisticated cyber surveillance tool, that has been reportedly used against journalists, government leaders, politicians, academics, rights campaigners and others in about 50 countries, including Singapore, on the national security of Singapore; and (b) what steps are being taken to deal with the threat posed by Pegasus.
Mr K Shanmugam: The threat of electronic surveillance by hostile actors, including through tools like Pegasus, is not new. Our security agencies continually invest resources to guard against such threats to our systems.
At the individual level, to mitigate the risk of spyware and other malware, we should adopt good cyber hygiene practices, such as avoiding untrustworthy websites and not opening suspicious attachments.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Make it Mandatory for Lorries that Ferry Passengers in the Rear to Be Fitted with Rain Covers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"110 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider requiring lorries that are used to ferry any persons in their rear decks to be fitted with rain covers which are typically waterproof canvas tarps that are installed on the sides of the rear deck.
Mr S Iswaran: Today, we already require lorries ferrying workers in the rear deck to be fitted with roof shelters or “canopies”. This is a safety requirement, which also provides some shelter for workers in inclement weather. As a further step, many employers have also installed rain covers, which complement the canopies, to better shelter their workers.
We will work with the relevant agencies to review the Member’s specific suggestion as part of our continuing efforts to safeguard the welfare of workers. We strongly encourage all employers to do their part, including rescheduling trips when there are heavy rains.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Frequency of Government's Periodic Facade Inspection","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"111 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of buildings that are required to undergo the Periodic Facade Inspection (PFI) currently; (b) of the buildings that have undergone PFI, how many of these buildings require a full facade investigation; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider increasing the frequency of PFI, especially for older buildings.
Mr Desmond Lee: The PFI regime will apply to buildings that are above 20 years old and 13 metres in height, or roughly four storeys. Façade inspections must be conducted by trained personnel, known otherwise as Competent Persons, every seven years. Based on the findings from these inspections, the Competent Person may decide to carry out a full façade investigation, to determine the cause of defects identified and to recommend appropriate rectification measures.
The PFI regime will take effect from early next year and about 30,000 buildings will be required to undertake façade inspections within the first seven-year inspection cycle. BCA will regularly review the requirements under the PFI regime to ensure public safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Tap Technology and Artificial Intelligence to Flag Irregularities in Public Sector's IT Systems Administration and Manage User Access and Controls","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"112 Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Prime Minister with regard to the observations of weaknesses in IT controls highlighted in the Report of the Auditor-General for the Financial Year 2020/2021 (a) to what extent has technology been used in public sector entities to administer and manage user access and controls; and (b) how is artificial intelligence and analytics used to monitor and flag irregularities and to derive insights.
Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): The Report of the Auditor-General for FY 2020/2021 highlighted observations of weaknesses in IT controls, including the management of account and user access rights.
The root cause of these observations is human error. To help address this, the Government has progressively introduced tools to automate processes in IT controls. For account management, since November 2020, 33 agencies have implemented a tool that automatically notifies system managers of employee movements, so that they can be prompted to close the relevant user accounts. This is an interim measure. SNDGG will be implementing a technical solution that also automates the removal of accounts. Agencies will onboard onto this technical system, known as the Central Accounts Management (CAM) system, from January 2022 onwards, with all applicable systems onboarded by end-December 2023.
Similarly, we are automating the log management processes. The log of privileged users’ activities can accumulate to over 100,000 records within weeks. SNDGG is implementing the Automated Baseline Log Review (ABLR) system across the Government. ABLR uses analytics to sieve out a much smaller set of potentially irregular events, allowing reviewing officers to focus their efforts. As of 1 August 2021, over 600 systems have already been onboarded onto this system. All high priority systems will be onboarded by December 2022, with the remaining systems a year later.
We will continuously improve our IT control tools, to make better use of automation, analytics and AI. That said, not all processes can be fully automated. The use of automated tools will enable agencies to dedicate more bandwidth and management attention to processes that require human intervention.
The Government has also stepped up training for officers in ICT roles to equip them with the requisite competencies to perform their duties well, such as determining the appropriate level of rights needed for vendors and officers in different job roles.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Re-employment Offered to Public Service Officers above 60 Years Old in Past Five and 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Abdul Samad asked the Prime Minister with regard to older workers employed in the Public Service who are above 60 years old, how many have been offered re-employment (i) in the past five years and (ii) in the past 10 years.
Mr Chan Chun Sing (for the Prime Minister): On 1 July 2011, the Public Service introduced re-employment of officers from the ages of 62 to 65, ahead of national legislation which took effect from 1 January 2012.
Over the past 10 years from 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2020, over eight in 10 officers who retired at age 62 were re-employed.
Over the past five years from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, the re-employment rate was similar.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Require Banks and Payment Firms to Disclose Interchange Fees for Processing Credit or Debit Card Transactions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Prime Minister whether MAS will consider requiring all banks, including digital banks, and payment firms providing services under the Payment Services Act to disclose what they charge as interchange fees for processing credit card or debit card transactions so as to provide for a more competitive landscape for such services in Singapore.
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): Merchants are charged a processing fee for credit and debit card transactions by payment service providers (PSPs), be they banks or other providers, such as NETS. The processing fee, commonly known as the merchant discount rate (MDR), includes the interchange fee1 which is set by card schemes, such as Visa and Mastercard.
MAS agrees with Mr Pillai that transparency is important to foster an efficient and competitive payments ecosystem. PSPs, currently, already provide information on their MDR to merchants. This enables merchants to negotiate with PSPs for better MDRs and to opt for PSPs that offer the most attractive deal. Merchants can choose cheaper modes of e-payment acceptance, such as PayNow or SGQR, which have been gaining stronger traction over time.
As information on MDR is already freely available to merchants, there is no need to mandate disclosure of MDR at this point. The payment services industry has become highly competitive, especially with the influx of new players. PSPs compete with one another to offer cheaper or more attractive services to secure merchants and, indeed, there is a significant churn amongst merchants switching from one PSP to another.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Interchange fee is paid by PSPs to card issuers for processing transactions made by credit and debit cardholders."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Indicate Vaccination Status on SafeEntry Gateway Device","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister whether the SafeEntry Gateway device can be upgraded to provide an indication of a TraceTogether token or app user’s COVID-19 vaccination status in order to avoid crowding and disputes at access control points.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): Today, businesses can already check the vaccination status of TraceTogether Token or app users by checking against the SafeEntry (Business) App. Once this App is set up on a mobile device, users simply need to tap their TraceTogether Token or app against the device for a fast and convenient way to verify their vaccination status. To redesign the SafeEntry Gateway Box to do the same provides little additional utility and there are currently no plans to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of TraceTogether Tokens Replaced and Average Battery Lifespan of Tokens","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Prime Minister (a) to date, how many TraceTogether tokens have been replaced; and (b) what is the average battery lifespan of the tokens.
Mrs Josephine Teo (for the Prime Minister): As at September 2021, 2.9 million TraceTogether tokens have been replaced. The average battery lifespan is four to six months.
The tokens that have run out of battery may have their batteries changed or refurbished. For token models where the battery can be changed, users can get the battery replaced at community centres/ clubs. Tokens that are exchanged for new ones at the vending machines or at the community centres/ clubs will be refurbished.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Humanitarian Assistance to Affected Civilians or Those Seeking to Evacuate Afghanistan after Takeover by Taliban","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Singapore and ASEAN will render any humanitarian assistance to affected civilians or those seeking to evacuate Afghanistan after the takeover of the country by the Taliban and, if so, what are the forms of assistance.
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Singapore is closely monitoring developments in Afghanistan following the collapse of the former Afghan government.
To help reduce the humanitarian burden on the evacuees from Afghanistan, Singapore had deployed the RSAF’s A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft to assist in the evacuation operations, as announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a joint press conference with US Vice President Kamala Harris on 23 August 2021. The MRTT mission, staffed by 77 personnel from the Singapore Armed Forces, departed from Singapore on 26 August 2021 and returned to Singapore on 10 September 2021. During this period, it airlifted over 2,200 evacuees from Qatar to Germany. To date, there are no plans for ASEAN to render any humanitarian assistance to affected civilians or those seeking to evacuate Afghanistan.
Ultimately, the future of Afghanistan is a matter for the Afghan people to decide. We hope that the transition will be peaceful and that all parties will refrain from violence and reach an agreement on the way forward through peaceful negotiations.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact on Security in Singapore and Neighbouring Region due to Taliban's Control of Afghanistan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Home Affairs given the situation in Afghanistan (a) what are the implications on security in Singapore and the neighbouring region; and (b) what are the Ministry's plans to review our SGSecure national terrorism awareness movement to remind residents in Singapore about the importance of staying vigilant and our roles in combating terrorism.
7 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs with Afghanistan coming under the control of the Taliban, what is the expected impact on Singapore’s and the region’s security, especially terrorist activities.
Mr K Shanmugam: We are watching the unfolding developments in Afghanistan closely. While there is currently no information of a specific terrorist threat to Singapore arising from the situation there, we are concerned if it would provide fertile conditions for transnational militant organisations, such as Al-Qaeda (AQ) and Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), to regroup or establish safe havens there, in the same manner that they had exploited other conflict zones like Syria/Iraq. These terrorist groups can also be expected to propagate an ideological narrative based on the American withdrawal, to draw recruits there.
Our experience with the Soviet-Afghan conflict may be instructive. The conflict drew an estimated 10,000 foreign fighters over a 10-year period from 1979 to 1989, which included several hundred Southeast Asians. Through their experience in Afghanistan, these Southeast Asian militants developed links to AQ and formed a fraternity of mujahideen (fighters). Upon their return to Southeast Asia, they continued to pursue a path of violence through membership in regional militant groups like Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and imparted their operational skills to fellow members. At least 11 Singapore JI detainees were known to have attended military training in AQ camps in Afghanistan. Upon their return, several participated in terror plots targeting Singapore, including the collaboration with an AQ operative to mount suicide truck-bomb attacks against western embassies in Singapore.
In recent years, too, Afghanistan has continued to draw militants from Southeast Asia. In 2019, a handful of Indonesian ISIS militants joined ISIS-K in Afghanistan. One of them was Saefullah, who plotted and financed attacks in Southeast Asia via a transnational network while he was embedded with ISIS-K. Notably, Saefullah facilitated the travel of an Indonesian couple to Jolo in southern Philippines, where they mounted suicide bombings on 27 January 2019.
The situation in Afghanistan will likely remain in flux for some time, and the resulting instability may again attract radicalised individuals. We also expect social media platforms to continue to be used in such radicalisation and recruitment.
The community plays a vital role in the fight against radicalisation and terrorism. The SGSecure movement has greatly strengthened our preparedness as individuals and as a country to deal with a terror attack.
In a recent survey, more than 96% of residents agreed that “All Singaporeans have a role to play in preventing and dealing with a terror attack”, with close to nine in 10 affirming that they are prepared to take action to keep the community safe and secure, for example, by reporting suspicious activities and helping others in an emergency situation.
In particular, family members and friends are best placed to detect possible signs of radicalisation. Anyone who knows or suspects that a person has intentions to travel to Afghanistan or other conflict zones, or has been radicalised, should promptly alert the authorities.
Just as the authorities must be well-prepared to stage a swift and effective response when an attack happens, it is equally important that the community knows how best to respond.
The Home Team has worked with partner agencies to enhance the preparedness of our neighbourhoods, schools, workplaces, places of worship and community organisations. One of the initiatives is the Community Response Roundtable (CRRT), which aims to facilitate greater collaboration in crisis preparedness at the local level. We have successfully piloted it in several constituencies. These CRRTs comprise representatives from schools, businesses, grassroots, community and religious organisations in the neighbourhood. We intend to set up CRRTs in more constituencies.
We will continue to press ahead with our SGSecure efforts to strengthen Singapore’s vigilance, preparedness and resilience. We appeal to all like-minded partners and the public to join us in this whole-of-society effort to safeguard our security and way of life.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Myanmar Nationals with Visit or Employment Passes Expiring Soon and Options to Extend Their Stay on Compassionate Grounds Given Situation in Myanmar","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many visit or employment passes of Myanmar nationals in Singapore have expired or will be expiring by December 2021; and (b) whether the Ministry provides options for these Myanmar nationals to extend their stay in Singapore on compassionate grounds given the ongoing political situation in Myanmar.
Mr K Shanmugam: All requests by foreigners for extension of stay will be assessed based on the prevailing guidelines, which take into account COVID-19-related border restrictions.
Singapore has an established and longstanding policy on refugees. As a small, densely populated country with limited land, Singapore is not in a position to accept any persons seeking political asylum or refugee status.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rehabilitation and Reintegration Challenges Faced by Prison Inmates Aged 55 and above upon Release and Measure to Assist Them","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the challenges faced by older prison inmates aged 55 years and above in terms of employment, accommodation, rehabilitation and reintegration into society upon their release from prison; and (b) what are the measures and initiatives available during imprisonment and after release to assist elderly inmates to better prepare themselves upon release from prison, having regard to their accommodation, health and retirement needs.
Mr K Shanmugam: Offenders aged 55 years old and above (older offenders) face similar rehabilitation and reintegration challenges as other offenders, in the areas of housing, social support, financial needs and employment. Some older offenders may also face age-related physical and mental health issues.
All offenders, including older offenders, have access to rehabilitation programmes while in prison. Where there are additional needs specific to their age group, the existing programmes can be adapted to cater to them.
To facilitate their reintegration into society, eligible offenders can be emplaced on Community-Based Programmes (CBP), to serve the tail-end of their sentence at their residence or approved community facilities under the supervision and support of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS). Offenders who are at a higher risk of reoffending or require more support in their reintegration, may be emplaced on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS). MAS is a structured aftercare regime that provides enhanced community support, counselling and case management with tight supervision. Of the 4,394 offenders emplaced on CBP or MAS in 2020, 948 or 22% of them were older offenders.
All offenders, including older offenders, have access to healthcare services. The Prison Medical Officer (PMO) may make referrals for offenders to continue with treatment after their release. Sufficient medication will be given until the medical appointment in the community. Offenders with mental health issues may be referred to the Institute of Mental Health for follow-up after their release.
Family support is important and offenders are encouraged to maintain their relationships with their loved ones via letters and visits. For those without family support, volunteers are an important source of support. In 2019, SPS introduced the Throughcare Volunteer Framework to strengthen pro-social support for offenders, including older offenders. Various social service agencies and religious organisations collaborate with SPS under this framework. The volunteers build rapport with offenders through regular programmes or activities during incarceration and continue to support them after they are released.
Befrienders play an important role in supporting and guiding offenders in their rehabilitation. Of the 173 offenders who were assigned befrienders in 2021, 41 or 24% were older offenders. In 2020, SPS collaborated with Lions Befrienders (LB) to train befrienders to communicate with and support older offenders. About 15 LB staff had volunteered to be SPS befrienders, to offer their expertise and experience in working with older people.
About six months before release, Personal Supervisors will engage offenders to discuss their post-release plans. All requests for post-release accommodation assistance are referred to SPS’ Family Resource Centres (FRCs), which are staffed by social workers. Older offenders who need long-term residential care may be referred to nursing homes or welfare homes. If referred to halfway houses or shelters for interim accommodation, case-workers will work with the ex-offenders to secure long-term housing.
Post-release employment and support are critical to reintegration. To promote better career outcomes, Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) prepares offenders for employment through skills training and employment assistance.
In prison, nationally-accredited skills training is available to all offenders, including older offenders. Skills training is complemented by YRSG’s job placement and career coaching services. YRSG matches older offenders with jobs suitable for their skill levels, physical health and personal interests. YRSG may also assign a career coach to support the ex-offender on work issues for up to 12 months after release and help him/her stay in the job.
Recognising that older offenders would need additional help to improve their digital literacy, YRSG partnered the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to roll out a customised \"Seniors Go Digital\" training for residents at the Selarang Halfway House (SHWH). Three sessions have been conducted since April 2021, benefiting 35 SHWH older residents. They have learnt how to use applications on smartphones for communications and access digital Government and payment services.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions against Cyclists who Ride Against Traffic or Beat Red Lights Resulting in Accidents","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"10 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Home Affairs in respect of cyclists who ride against the traffic or beat red lights (a) what is the duty of care expected by the Traffic Police of all motorists (who are otherwise traversing public roads lawfully) towards such cyclists; (b) whether motorists will be penalised by way of demerit points or fines in the event of any ensuing accident; and (c) what actions will be taken against such cyclists for accidents caused as a result.
Mr K Shanmugam: All roads users, including cyclists, are required by law to use roads in a safe and responsible way. Road users who flout traffic rules and drive or ride in an irresponsible manner put themselves and other road users at risk.
Parties at fault will be penalised under the law. For example, cyclists who ride against the flow of traffic or fail to conform to traffic light signals, or ride without due regard for the safety of others, may be liable for an offence. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned up to six months, or both. For egregious cases which result in an accident and injury to other road users, harsher punishments under the Penal Code will be imposed.
The Member has also asked about the duty of care of motorists towards cyclists who may be cycling against the flow of traffic. It is difficult to give a general response, since the law is often fact-specific, beyond stating that every road user owes a duty of care towards other road users. Members will, however, appreciate that it does not automatically mean that motorists can ignore another road user who may be in breach of the rules. For example, the fact that a pedestrian is crossing the road at a wrong place does not automatically mean that a motorist can ignore him and drive into the pedestrian and cause serious injury, when the motorist could have, in fact, stopped in time. In such cases, both parties may be liable, under different traffic rules. And civil law also has a way of apportioning the responsibilities, when claims are made.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans for Gradual Opening of Borders and Resumption of Travel for Business and Leisure Purposes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"11 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether he can provide an update on the resumption of travel for business and leisure purposes; and (b) whether quarantines will be necessary.
12 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Transport in light of the pandemic situation moving into an endemic one, what plans are in place for the gradual opening of borders with other countries.
Mr S Iswaran: Singapore remains well-connected to the world. At present, Changi Airport operates 602 flights each week to 74 cities. However, travel to/from Singapore remains weak, in part because of the border protections imposed by many countries, especially quarantine requirements.
As we move towards becoming a COVID-19-resilient nation, we will gradually reopen our borders to more places. The pace of this reopening will depend on factors, such as the COVID-19 situation and vaccination rates in Singapore and the other country/region.
There are several travel schemes that allow travellers from specific places to enter Singapore for general travel without Stay-Home Notice (SHN).
First, we have unilaterally opened to travellers from very low-risk places which, at present, include Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.
Second, we are piloting the Vaccinated Travel Lane (VTL) arrangement with Germany and Brunei. There are multiple safeguards, including a robust testing regime comprising four COVID-19 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests pre-departure, on-arrival and post-arrival, as well as strict compliance and monitoring processes, to minimise public health risks to the community. Among these places, Germany is also open to vaccinated travellers from Singapore. This means that travellers from Singapore are able to travel to Germany and return to Singapore whether for business or for leisure, without the need to be quarantined.
If the VTL arrangement works well, we can potentially open up to more places, including those that are open to vaccinated travellers from Singapore.
Business travellers from specific partner countries can also opt to enter Singapore via Reciprocal Green Lane (RGL) arrangements. The RGLs allow short-term essential business and official travel without the need for SHN, but the travellers must be sponsored by a local entity, such as a Government agency or business, and adhere to a controlled itinerary. Currently, travellers may use the RGLs with Brunei and Mainland China, while the RGLs with the Republic of Korea, Germany, Malaysia, Japan and Indonesia are suspended.
We also have the Business Travel Pass (BTP) for senior executives based in Singapore with regional or international responsibilities who need to travel regularly for work. Travellers under the BTP scheme are required to abide by a strict controlled itinerary when travelling, undertake testing requirements after returning to Singapore, and comply with other prevailing safe management measures.
We are in discussion with a number of countries and regions to explore how we might further reopen our borders, while being mindful of public health considerations. A key element of our commitment to the progressive reopening of our borders is to be nimble in adjusting our measures as and when necessary, to reopen in a safe and sustainable manner.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Accidents Occurring at Signalled Traffic Junctions with Discretionary Turns in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"13 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the past five years, how many accidents have occurred at signalled traffic junctions with discretionary turns; and (b) what is the breakdown of such accidents in terms of percentage involving (i) pedestrians, (ii) motorcyclists and (iii) cyclists or other personal mobility aid devices respectively.
Mr S Iswaran: Over the past five years, the average number of accidents occurring at such junctions is about 430 per year. About 40% involve motorcyclists, about 25% involve pedestrians, about 7% involve cyclists and less than 0.5% involve personal mobility aid device users.
Motorists are allowed to make discretionary right turns at traffic junctions without turning signals, when there is no opposing traffic or pedestrians crossing the road. At locations where there might be safety concerns, LTA has been progressively introducing Red Amber Green (RAG) signals for right turns. At such junctions, discretionary right turns are not allowed, even when there is no opposing traffic or pedestrians crossing the road. Motorists can only make a right turn when the RAG signal turns green. LTA targets to introduce RAG signals at 1,200 junctions. To date, RAG signals are operational at more than 600 junctions and the rest will be installed by 2024. Where it is not feasible to introduce RAG signals, LTA will look into other road safety features, such as warning signs and turning pockets.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Rise in Motorcycle COEs and Help for Those Who Use Motorcycles for Work","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"14 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the recent rise in motorcycle COEs is viewed more as a transitory or permanent phenomenon; and (b) what mitigation mechanisms is the Ministry considering for each of these instances, to assist those who utilise motorcycles primarily for the purposes of work.
Mr S Iswaran: I thank the Member for his questions. I have addressed them in my reply to Oral Question 140 on the Order Paper for the 13 September 2021 Parliament Sitting. [Please refer to \"Proposal for New Category of COEs for Motorcycles Used for Delivery Work\", Official Report, 13 November 2021, Vol 95, Issue 37, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer Not Answered by End of Question Time section.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cyclists and Riders of Power-Assisted Bicycles Caught for Not Wearing Helmets and Actions Taken against Them in First Eight Months of 2021","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"15 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) in the first eight months of 2021, how many (i) cyclists and (ii) riders of power-assisted bicycles have been caught for or found not wearing helmets while cycling on the roads; and (b) of these numbers, how many received punishments and what is the range of the punishments given.
Mr S Iswaran: In the first eight months of 2021, there were 292 violations detected of errant cyclists for helmet-related offences. The Traffic Police (TP) does not track pedal bicycles and power-assisted bicycles separately for this offence. The violations were detected through both regular joint enforcement operations conducted by TP and LTA and routine patrols.
Our enforcement officers also take the opportunity to educate the offenders on safe riding practices. Most of the offenders or more than 75% were issued with a composition fine of $75. The maximum penalty for this offence is a $1,000 fine and/or imprisonment sentence of three months for first-time offenders. Repeat offenders could face a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and/or imprisonment sentence of six months.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Resumption of In-person Co-Curricular Activities in Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"16 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education whether he can provide a status update on the resumption of in-person Co-Curricular Activities in Primary, Secondary and tertiary institutions.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In-person Co-Curricular Activities (CCAs) at the Secondary schools, Junior Colleges, Millennia Institute and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) have progressively resumed since 10 August 2021, adhering to prevailing safe management measures.
For CCAs that are unable to do so given the higher risk settings, such as choir and wind instruments, schools have pivoted them online to continue the learning for our students.
As most of our students in the Primary schools are not yet eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, in-person CCAs in Primary schools remain suspended for now as an additional precautionary measure. MOE will continue to monitor the situation closely and assess when in-person CCAs can resume safely for Primary school students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on School Counsellors with Formal Training and Counselling Staff to Student Ratio in Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"17 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education (a) in each of the last five years, how many full-time school counsellors applied to join the Ministry as applicants (i) with and (ii) without formal counselling training; and (b) what is the percentage of Ministry staff performing counselling duties (excepting para-counsellors) who hold (i) NIE’s Diploma in School Counselling, (ii) NIE’s Master of Arts (Counselling and Guidance), (iii) other diploma counselling qualifications, (iv) other Masters counselling qualifications and (v) other relevant counselling qualifications.
18 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Education with regard to schools and institutes of higher learning respectively (a) what is the current average staff to student ratio for (i) full-time school counsellors, (ii) part-time school counsellors, (iii) para-counsellors, (iv) flexi-adjunct school counsellors and (v) teacher counsellors; (b) whether the Ministry is working towards an improved ratio and, if so, what are the plans to achieve that; and (c) whether there are reviews on how manageable the rebalanced teaching and counselling workloads are for teacher counsellors.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: All schools are resourced with at least one to two full-time school counsellors, while each Polytechnic and ITE college is resourced with five to seven counsellors. The Autonomous Universities are similarly equipped with a varying number of counsellors depending on their size and student profile. In total, about 550 counsellors are deployed in our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). They are augmented by Flexi-Adjunct School Counsellors and teacher counsellors in schools, as well as para-counsellors in some IHLs.
Flexi-Adjunct School Counsellors were introduced to better supplement schools’ short-term and ad hoc manpower needs, replacing the Part-Time School Counsellor Scheme in end-2020. About 100 Flexi-Adjunct School Counsellors are engaged in schools each month. Over 700 teacher counsellors are deployed in schools and we aim to increase this number to over 1,000 in the next few years.
Similarly, some IHLs have para-counsellors to complement professional counsellors and strengthen the ecosystem of support for students. There are about 100 para-counsellors in total, who include both academic and non-academic staff with the requisite skills to provide counselling and socio-emotional support work.
Between 2016 and 2020, about 190 applicants with counselling qualifications and 1,500 applicants without counselling qualifications applied to join the Ministry as School Counsellors each year. Applicants go through a careful selection process to ensure they have the right disposition and attributes to be School Counsellors. Successful applicants without counselling qualifications will be put through formal training and certification before being deployed as School Counsellors.
All School Counsellors are professionally qualified. Around 43% have a Masters in Counselling, and the rest are graduates with a Diploma/Postgraduate Diploma in Counselling or other counselling qualifications with relevant experience. School Counsellors have opportunities to pursue further professional qualifications, such as a Masters or certifications by professional bodies. They also receive ongoing training, professional development and supervision.
MOE is reviewing the resourcing of school counsellors to better support schools. We are also reviewing the resourcing required for the IHLs to meet the need for counselling support for their students.
We recognise that counselling work is demanding and teacher counsellors have to balance their teaching and counselling workload. Schools have the flexibility to reduce teaching or CCA duties for teacher counsellors to provide them more time to spend with students. Training for teacher counsellors has also been enhanced to equip them not only to support their students’ well-being but also better manage their own well-being. MOE will continue to monitor the workload of teacher counsellors and further strengthen the support for teacher counsellors to ensure that they are well-supported and have a manageable workload.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Plans to Expand Offering of Non-standard Subjects at Neighbourhood Secondary Schools","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"19 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Education whether there are plans to expand offerings of non-standard subjects such as music or third language, for them to be directly available at neighbourhood Secondary schools, in particular, in Sengkang and Punggol.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Elective subjects, such as Music and Third Language, are not offered in all schools, as the enrolment could be too small to form a class. Hence, MOE has designated music/language centres spread across Singapore for students whose schools do not offer these subjects.
For students offering MTL as third languages, Malay (Special Programme) [M(SP)] and Chinese (Special Programme) [C(SP)] are currently available at 16 and five schools, respectively, in different parts of Singapore. There are also four zonal centres for M(SP) and two for C(SP) to cater to students from other schools. Foreign Language (French/German/Japanese/Spanish) classes are all held centrally at the two MOE Language Centres, as student numbers remain small.
Music is offered to lower Secondary students in all schools. At the upper Secondary level, more than 25% of Secondary schools, well spread across Singapore, offer Music, as an elective subject, to their own students. Students enrolled in schools that do not offer Music at the upper Secondary level may choose to pursue it at 12 centres, also equally spread across the country. We will continue to monitor and assess if these centres continue to be accessible to interested students from all schools.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Support Available to Companies Affected by Halting of External Events where Food and Beverages are Served","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"20 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Finance (a) what support is available to companies, such as food manufacturers, caterers and event companies, which have been deeply affected by the halting of external events where food and beverages are served; and (b) how may such companies qualify for higher tiers of the Jobs Support Scheme.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The protracted COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenging period for businesses. Recognising that some sectors, such as Food and Beverage (F&B), would be negatively impacted by tightened safe management measures (SMMs), the Government enhanced the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) for these sectors during this period.
Food manufacturers, caterers and event companies that were badly affected by the SMMs can appeal for the higher tier JSS. The entire category of companies cannot be automatically included because the industry classification (Singapore Standard Industrial Classification (SSIC) codes) does not fully capture the range of activities that companies may undertake, or their main customer segments. For instance, many event companies tag themselves under “Audio/Video Equipment Rental1” and not the SSIC for event companies. Another factor is that SMM restrictions do not affect companies uniformly. For instance, food manufacturers that supply to F&B outlets may be more affected than food manufacturers that provide to supermarkets or overseas markets.
As such, we exercise flexibility via appeals, and have extended the enhanced JSS support to companies which fall outside the stipulated qualifying criteria but are in genuine need. Companies can submit an appeal online and we will assess each case based on the merits of their circumstances. Since the start of JSS, we have extended enhanced JSS support for close to 4,600 companies.
Even as we gradually reopen the economy in a safe manner, there will be permanent changes in the way businesses are conducted and in consumer behaviour. Businesses cannot assume they are able to return to pre-pandemic modes of operation.
On top of the Government providing JSS support, Government agencies, such as Enterprise Singapore and Singapore Tourism Board, have been working alongside various stakeholders, such as the Singapore Association for Conventions & Exhibitions Organisers and Suppliers, the Association for Catering Professionals and the Singapore Food Manufacturers' Association, to help companies emerge stronger from COVID-19, by embarking on transformation efforts and pivoting to new business models.
A range of grant and loan programmes are available for companies to obtain financial support, including the Enterprise Development Grant (EDG), Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG) and the Temporary Bridging Loan Programme (TBLP). Companies have tapped on these grants to innovate, increase productivity, as well as build digital capabilities that would enable them to venture into new business concepts and develop new business models.
Beyond financial support, facilitation and advisory services are also available to help companies to continue to identify growth opportunities in foreign markets and internationalise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : SSIC 77391 – Renting and leasing of professional radio and televisions sets and sound reproducing and recording equipment."],"footNoteQuestions":["20"],"questionNo":"20"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Government's Average Late Payment Rate to Its Vendors and Take-up Rate for InvoiceNow","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"21 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the Government's average late payment rate to its vendors each year since 2018; (b) by when does the Government aim to reach its target late payment rate of below 5%; (c) what factors contribute to late payment and what steps are being taken to minimise these; (d) what is the take-up rate for InvoiceNow; and (e) what steps are taken to encourage these vendors to take up InvoiceNow to help them to be paid quicker.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Government Ministries, departments and Statutory Boards (the public sector) achieved 96.2% prompt payment rate in Financial Year (FY) 2018, that is, a late payment rate of 3.8%, reaching our target late payment rate of below 5%. The public sector has maintained the late payment rate below 5% since FY2018 and achieved further improved prompt payment rates of 98% in FY2019 and 98.2% in FY2020.
The public sector has ensured prompt payments through (a) streamlining of the procure-to-pay processes, (b) full adoption of e-invoicing, (c) leveraging on data analytics to enable public sector agencies to track, monitor and intervene on potential late payments and (d) having senior management support and attention at agencies to collectively drive the prompt payment efforts across the public sector.
InvoiceNow, the nationwide e-invoicing network, was launched by IMDA in 2019 to further digitalise the economy and attain the benefits that e-invoicing brings to businesses, including efficiency improvement, cost reduction, faster payment cycles and being environmentally sustainable. InvoiceNow can help businesses which are not on e-invoicing to start doing so and is an additional option for businesses which already have their own e-invoicing solutions. While businesses do not need to adopt InvoiceNow to be paid more promptly, InvoiceNow is aligned to international and national standards and allows businesses a wide variety of solutions to choose from.
Since January 2020, the public sector has taken the lead to onboard InvoiceNow as the preferred channel, in additional to the existing Vendors@Gov portal, for vendors to submit e-invoices to agencies.
To date, more than 40,000 locally registered entities have signed up for InvoiceNow, over 7,000 of whom are public sector vendors. There are monthly business briefings to entities about the benefits of InvoiceNow and direct engagements to onboard them. Efforts have also been taken to ensure the readiness of solution providers to facilitate a smooth onboarding process for vendors. Low- to no-cost options to onboard InvoiceNow have been established for smaller businesses and IMDA had a $200 E-invoicing Registration Grant (ERG) to encourage entities to join InvoiceNow by 31 December 2020. Specifically, for public sector vendors, briefings were conducted and guides were circulated to encourage adoption. Targeted engagements are also being done for larger public sector vendors.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Social Service Agencies Adopting National Council of Social Services' Salary Guidelines in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"22 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year in the past five years, what percentage of social service agencies adopt the salary guidelines of the National Council of Social Services; (b) what are the main reasons provided by social service agencies for not adopting the guidelines; and (c) if this information is not currently available, whether the Ministry will start tracking this information.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Based on MSF's Manpower and Salary Survey (MPSS) of Social Service Agencies (SSAs) conducted in 2015, 2017 and 2019, the proportion of full-time, resident employees1 with salaries adhering to the recommended starting salaries in the salary guidelines ranged from 87% in 2015, to 76% in 2017 and 79% in 2019. This is amidst increments in the guidelines of approximately 3% to 4% annually, to keep pace with comparable jobs in other sectors and general wage movements. This was also accompanied by increases in monthly median salaries whereby, for example, entry-level social workers’ salaries increased from $3,400 in 2015 and 2017 to $3,600 in 2019.
SSAs are reliant on external funding, fund-raising and the generosity of donors to support their operating costs. SSAs have cited the ability to sustain the recurrent cost of salaries as a key consideration in deciding staff salaries. MSF and NCSS will continue to work closely with the sector to strengthen their capacities and capabilities, so that their salaries can be more aligned to the guidelines.
MSF and NCSS also respect each SSAs’ underlying mission and philosophy in delivering social services. We strongly encourage the sector, including the Boards of SSAs, to adopt the guidelines, so as to be able to recruit and retain competent and dedicated professionals who play an important role in supporting the sector’s work and ensuring that beneficiaries are well-served.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : Different SSAs could have varying proportions of employees with pay meeting the guidelines depending on their own context and circumstances for their remuneration policies."],"footNoteQuestions":["22"],"questionNo":"22"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Average and Median Numbers of Group 2, 3 and 4 Cases Handled by Each Social Worker in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"23 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) for each year in the past five years, what are the average and median numbers of (i) group 2 cases, (ii) group 3 cases and (iii) group 4 cases respectively that are handled by a social worker; and (b) if this information is not currently available, whether the Ministry will start tracking this information.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Social workers in Family Service Centres (FSCs) partner individuals and families to address their social needs. FSCs refer to the FSC-Code of Social Work Practice (FSC-CSWP) to classify each case into one of four case groups based on its assessed risk and complexity. Cases with higher risks and complexity of needs are assigned higher CSWP groupings.
From FY2018 to FY2020, the average and median number of cases in each grouping managed by each FSC social worker is in Table 1. We do not have data for the period before FY2018.
24 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Health, to date, how many residents have been followed up by medical practitioners and found suitable for and received vaccinations under the COVID‐19 vaccination programme at the hospitals, polyclinics and private clinics.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: All persons are medically assessed at vaccination centres, polyclinics or participating Public Health Preparedness Clinics before being vaccinated. The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination has advised that only those with previous vaccine allergies are medically ineligible; the vast majority of individuals are suitable for mRNA vaccines.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data and Percentage of Seniors Aged 65 and above Staying Alone and Connected to Befriender or Social Services with Regular Check-ins","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"25 Miss Rachel Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current percentage of seniors aged 65 years and above staying alone who are connected to befriending or social services with regular check-ins; (b) how does the Government identify and update the database of seniors staying alone; and (c) what is the implementation progress of the new eldercare centre service model rolled out in May 2021 specifically in the befriending initiative.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: In 2020, there were 63,800 seniors aged 65 and above living alone. Not all of them require support. Befriending services provide psycho-social support to vulnerable individuals who have limited family or social support and are at risk of social isolation. Currently, there are over 10,500 befriendees supported by the various befriending programmes funded by MOH.
Under the new Eldercare Centre service model that was rolled out in May 2021, Active Ageing Centres (AACs) and Active Ageing Care Hubs (AACHs) work with the Silver Generation Office (SGO) to proactively reach out to seniors in the community through outreach activities, such as home visits. Collectively, they match seniors at risk of social isolation with befriending services, and regularly update their databases of engaged seniors.
MOH has onboarded 60 AACs and AACHs onto the new service model in FY2021. These, currently, oversee around 145,900 seniors, including about 3,500 befriendees. We are on track to onboard at least 200 centres by FY2024.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Provision of Additional Guidance to Assist Doctors in Spotting Signs of Physical and Non-Physical Abuse in Foreign Domestic Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"26 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will be able to provide additional guidance to assist doctors in spotting signs of abuse in foreign domestic workers as not all signs of abuse are in visible areas or may be non-physical.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: MOH sent out a circular in July to all registered doctors and licensees of medical clinics, outlining the type of domestic abuse cases they may encounter (not just for foreign domestic workers) and how they should manage and report suspect cases of abuse. The circular included guidelines on spotting signs of physical and non-physical abuse.
A joint MOM-MOH circular was also sent out in August to doctors and licensees on enhancements to MOM’s six-monthly medical examination (6ME) for foreign domestic workers, reminding them to check and document possible signs of abuse during the 6ME. The Singapore Medical Association (SMA) and College of Family Physicians Singapore (CFPS) have disseminated further guidelines on this circular to their members.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection of Patient Information by Private Healthcare Providers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"27 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health with regard to private healthcare providers, whether the Ministry will consider requiring them to adhere to the Ministry’s data maintenance and protection protocol and only utilise IT hardware, software and services approved by the Ministry to protect patient information.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Under the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act (PHMCA), licensed healthcare institutions in both the public and private sectors are required to have in place adequate safeguards to maintain and protect their medical records against loss, or unauthorised modification, destruction, access, disclosure, copying or use. In addition, they are subject to requirements under the Personal Data Protection Act, which imposes obligations to protect personal data.
MOH regularly inspects and audits healthcare institutions to ensure that licensees have taken reasonable actions to implement appropriate and adequate safeguards for the integrity and confidentiality of patients’ medical records.
Maintaining a good cybersecurity posture depends not just on technical measures. It is equally important that licensees have in place process measures and the capability to detect, respond to and recover from cyber threats. Hence, MOH had issued a set of Healthcare Cybersecurity Essentials in August 2021 to guide licensees in establishing and reviewing their cybersecurity safeguards. These guidelines cover IT asset management, technical, process and people aspects. Licensees are strongly encouraged to implement measures recommended in the Cybersecurity Essentials.
MOH will continue to review and update the regulatory framework to equip licensees in securing their data and IT systems, so as to deliver appropriate and safe care, whilst upholding patient safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protocols for Individuals to Seek Medical Attention from Healthcare Facilities when Serving a Quarantine Order or Stay-home Notice","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"28 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Health (a) what protocols and procedures are in place to allow individuals to seek medical attention from healthcare facilities when currently serving a quarantine order (QO) or Stay-Home Notice (SHN); and (b) how has this information been conveyed to healthcare facilities.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Persons under Quarantine (PUQs) and Stay-Home Notice (PSHNs) have been notified to call their Quarantine Order (QO) agent1 and the SHN facility’s managing agent, respectively, should they require medical attention. Documents with detailed instructions and contact numbers to call for assistance are also issued to both PUQs and PSHNs.
In the event of an emergency, PUQs/ PSHNs should call 995 directly or seek assistance from their family members to do so. An ambulance will be arranged to convey them to a Public Health Institution (PHI). Arrangements with the PHI are usually made in advance for such cases and public health measures, such as escorting the PUQs/ PSHNs to ensure there is no intermingling with others outside the isolation site, and maintaining safe management measures, are adhered to.
For non-emergency cases, the QO agent or SHN facility’s managing agent will assist to facilitate an MOH-approved teleconsultation service as this helps to minimise physical contact and exposure.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : PUQs are managed by Quarantine Order (QO) agent, CERTIS."],"footNoteQuestions":["28"],"questionNo":"28"},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Data on Singaporeans Assessed to Have Allergic Reactions to First Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"29 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many Singaporeans are assessed to have allergic reactions to the first dose of a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; (b) whether there is data on the current number of these Singaporeans who have registered for the Sinovac vaccine and the average waiting time before receiving the first dose; and (c) whether the Ministry can facilitate a subsidised referral to an allergy specialist for these Singaporeans seeking a reassessment of their allergy status in order to receive the second dose of a mRNA vaccine.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: About 7,100 individuals were assessed to have allergic reactions to the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and have been invited to complete their vaccination with two more doses of the Sinovac-CoronaVac vaccine.
Three thousand nine hundred individuals have indicated interest and will receive the vaccination at four public hospital clinics for closer monitoring given their reaction to the mRNA vaccine. The wait time between registering with the public hospital clinics for vaccination and receiving a first dose of vaccine is between two and four weeks. MOH is increasing capacity so that individuals can receive their vaccinations sooner.
Individuals who have allergic reactions from their first dose of mRNA vaccine are advised not to take the second dose of the mRNA vaccine. However, if they wish to seek a reassessment of their suitability for the second dose of mRNA vaccine, they may provide a supporting memo from any medical provider at their own cost. If the attending doctor at the vaccination provider agrees with the assessment, the individual may proceed with the second dose of mRNA vaccine.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Statistics on Utilisation of COVID-19 Enquiries Hotline during Resumption of Phase 2 (Heightened Alert)","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"30 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health with regard to the utilisation of the COVID-19 Enquiries hotline during the resumption of the Phase 2 (Heightened Alert) (a) whether the Ministry can provide information on (i) the number of calls received during this period and (ii) the overall utilisation percentage of the hotline capacity; (b) what proportion of the time was the hotline at peak utilisation; and (c) what is the number of calls that are (i) unanswered, (ii) dropped while queueing for an operator and (iii) where the caller has waited for more than 30 minutes before reaching an operator.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: From 22 July to 18 August 2021, MOH received a total of 111,062 calls via the COVID-19 General Enquiries hotline. This represents a utilisation rate of 246% of the normal call centre capacity of 45,000 calls per month. On average, the COVID-19 General Enquiries hotline operates one-fourth of the time at peak utilisation. During the same period, the number of unanswered calls is 19,735, of which 11,013 (9.9% of total calls received) were dropped before being connected to an operator. Nine hundred and one callers (1% of answered calls) waited for more than 30 minutes before being connected to an operator.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Number of New Nurses from Philippines Hired in Local Healthcare System Annually over Past 10 Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"31 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health (a) over the past 10 years, how many new nurses from the Philippines have been hired annually in our local healthcare system; and (b) whether this number has significantly reduced since the COVID-19 pandemic started.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: On average over the past 10 years, the number of Filipino nurses registered with the Singapore Nursing Board increased by about 400 annually. More join the nursing workforce when there are new hospital openings.
Over the past five years, the total number of Filipino nurses has remained stable, including the period since the COVID-19 pandemic started, and there was only a slight decrease in the number of Filipino nurses between the end of 2019 and the end of 2020.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reason for Long Lead Time to Implement Changes to MediShield Life Coverage for Cancer Treatment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"32 Mr Sharael Taha asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the reason for the long lead time of one year to implement the new changes to MediShield Life coverage for cancer treatment; and (b) whether the changes to the MediShield Life coverage announced in August 2021 can be implemented as soon as possible rather than only in September 2022.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The one-year lead time allows existing patients to complete their current course of treatment and adjust their treatment plans, where needed, to alternatives which are efficacious, cost-effective and eligible for MediShield Life claims and subsidies.
The lead time is also needed for significant system changes to support claims processing and financial counselling.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extending Specialised Subsidised Dental Treatment to Patients from External Referral Sources","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"33 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Health as specialised subsidised dental treatment is currently only available for patients with internal referrals made to the dental clinic within the same hospital (a) whether subsidised specialised dental treatment can be extended to external referral sources, such as polyclinics, public healthcare institutions and Government agencies; (b) what is the current waiting list for specialised dental care at the current dental National Specialty Centres; and (c) what is the percentage of in-patient referrals that are seen at the hospital dental clinics currently.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Subsidised patients from polyclinics and CHAS dental clinics who require specialist or complex dental treatment can be referred for specialist dental care at the National Specialty Dental Centres (NSCs), namely, the National Dental Centre, Singapore (NDCS) and the National University Centre of Oral Health, Singapore (NUCOHS). These centres provide the full suite of subsidised dental services for subsidised patients referred for MOH-approved procedures and treatment. NSCs may also receive subsidised referrals from public hospitals and other Government bodies, such as the Health Promotion Board (HPB), when assessed to be clinically appropriate.
The current median waiting time to first appointment for non-emergency cases at NSCs is 33 days. Patients with emergency dental conditions may visit the Emergency Department of public hospitals and will be prioritised and attended to promptly, based on the severity of their conditions.
Hospital Dental Clinics (HDCs) were set up to provide dental services to hospital patients who require dental treatment, as part of management of their overall medical or surgical condition(s). As the services and capacity available at HDCs are circumscribed for this purpose, external referral sources are generally not accepted and HDCs should refer eligible patients to NSCs where service capacity or capabilities are not available at the HDCs. Where appropriate, HDCs can partner the NSCs to provide an expanded scope of subsidised services at the hospital based on service needs and specialty support by the NSCs, subject to approval by MOH.
We will continue to monitor and meet the dental care needs of Singaporeans at the appropriate settings.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Grants for Content Creation to Assist SMEs Transitioning to Digital Market","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"34 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether grants can be given specifically for content creation so as to assist SMEs in not only transitioning to a digital market but continuing to remain competitive and attractive to potential customers.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Government provides targeted support to help SMEs thrive in an increasingly digitalised economy. With more SMEs going online as a new channel for growth, programmes like SMEs Go Digital not only help SMEs make the leap, but also enhance their productivity and refresh their product offerings, all of which are essential for SMEs to remain competitive and to grow their customer base. Recognising that our SMEs need content creation as part of digital marketing to help them grow, we are looking to support this under the Productivity Solutions Grant (PSG).
In the meantime, under the SMEs Go Digital programme, SMEs can tap on pre-approved digital solutions to develop their e-commerce websites with up to 80% of the costs defrayed by the PSG. Newly-incorporated SMEs can also adopt basic digital marketing or e-commerce tools at no cost for at least six months using the foundational Start Digital Packs. In addition, SMEs can adopt Grow Digital solutions, which are Business-to-Business and Business-to-Consumer e-commerce platforms that enable them to access regional or global markets; also with grant support.
All these digital solutions have been brought together to address SMEs’ needs across the economy, with sector-specific solutions in line with the respective Industry Digital Plans. We will continue to review our schemes to ensure that the support available remains relevant and appropriate for SMEs’ needs in this dynamic environment.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Allow Permanent Residents to Purchase HDB Flat without Singaporean Joint Applicant","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"35 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider allowing permanent resident (PR) applicants to purchase a resale HDB flat when they do not have a Singaporean joint applicant on the condition that such PR applicants must be PRs for at least three years before the purchase, with a view to extending this period.
Mr Desmond Lee: Singapore Permanent Resident (SPR) households that do not have a Singapore Citizen (SC) owner or essential occupier are already allowed to buy a resale HDB flat on the open market, if the household has at least two SPRs, all SPR owners and essential occupiers have been SPRs for at least three years, and the household meets other eligibility criteria.
SPR families are subject to more stringent conditions and do not receive housing subsidies to prioritise our limited public housing supply for Singapore citizens. We have no plans to adjust the three-year waiting period for SPRs at this juncture.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Minimum Indoor Air Quality Standards and Proposed Installation of Carbon Dioxide Monitors and Air Filters for All Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"36 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for National Development having regard to the COVID-19 pandemic experience, whether the Ministry intends to impose regulations setting minimum indoor air quality standards and requiring the installation of carbon dioxide monitors and air filters for all public and commercial buildings.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) requires new developments and existing developments undergoing major addition and alteration works to be designed for adequate ventilation. For example, all naturally ventilated spaces are required to have a minimum area of openings, for example, windows, to facilitate air flow. For air-conditioned spaces, buildings are required to take in outdoor air at a minimum rate specified in the Singapore Standard for air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation (ACMV) in buildings. This Standard provides guidance to help buildings achieve an acceptable level of indoor air quality, and is reviewed regularly by a Standards Committee, comprising representatives from Government agencies, industry and academia.
To mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission, BCA, NEA and MOH have issued a set of guidelines for building owners and facilities managers on improving ventilation and indoor air quality in their buildings. This includes guidance on maximising outdoor air intake and installing efficient filters in ACMV systems. Building owners and facilities managers are encouraged to adopt these guidelines for the health and well-being of their building occupants.
There are no requirements to install carbon dioxide monitors in public and commercial buildings. Building owners may choose to monitor the level of carbon dioxide in their buildings as an indicator of whether ventilation is adequate.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases Where Parts of Building Facade have Dislodged and Cause of Decorative Features on Concrete Roof at Bedok Industrial Park Falling Off","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"37 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the past five years what is the number of cases where parts of a building facade have dislodged; (b) what is the cause of the incident that led to decorative features on a concrete roof at 3013 Bedok Industrial Park E falling off; and (c) whether there is a need to review and shorten the frequency of facade inspection for non-residential buildings.
Mr Desmond Lee: Over the past five years, an average of 24 cases involving dislodged façade elements have been reported to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) each year.
On 22 August 2021, a decorative feature on the rooftop of 3013 Bedok Industrial Park E dislodged and fell. Following the incident, BCA directed the building owner, JTC, to appoint a Professional Engineer (PE) to carry out a detailed investigation of the incident and to recommend rectification measures to be taken. As a safety precaution, the PE will also inspect adjacent buildings with similar features. Investigations are currently ongoing and are expected to be completed by end September 2021.
The Periodic Façade Inspection (PFI) regime will apply to buildings that are above 20 years old and 13 metres in height (or roughly four storeys). Façade inspections must be conducted by trained personnel every seven years. The PFI regime will take effect from early next year, and BCA will regularly review the corresponding requirements to ensure public safety.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Eligibility Conditions to Retain Matrimonial Flat upon Divorce","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"38 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for National Development with regard to the retention of a matrimonial flat upon divorce (a) whether HDB will consider reviewing its prescribed eligibility conditions to allow a divorcee below 35 years old and without children from the marriage, to retain their matrimonial flat; (b) if not, why not; and (c) how many of such cases have been handled by HDB annually over the last five years.
Mr Desmond Lee: To prioritise our limited public housing supply for households with the greatest needs, such as larger families who tend to need more living space, singles are currently allowed to own HDB flats on their own from age 35. Divorcees without children can thus retain their matrimonial flat alone if they are at least 35 years old. If they are below age 35, they can retain their flat if they include a family member, such as either of their parents, to form an eligible family nucleus.
That said, we recognise that circumstances differ from person to person. Hence, HDB does allow divorcees below age 35 without children to retain their matrimonial flat alone, on a case-by-case basis, for instance if they are not able to form an eligible family nucleus to retain their flat and are not able to stay with their family members. From 2016 to 2020, HDB approved 37 such cases on average each year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Parameters Determining Cash Incentive Amounts Offered under Major Games Award Programme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"39 Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what are the parameters that determine the cash incentive amounts offered under the Major Games Award Programme of the Singapore National Olympic Council; and (b) why is there a distinction between the Olympics and Paralympics/Special Olympics given that these all occur at comparable international levels and are recognised by the International Olympic Committee.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: MCCY focuses on building a structured and comprehensive system to provide sustained support for Team Singapore athletes of all abilities to pursue their sporting aspirations and achieve their potential.
The Major Games Awards Programme and Athletes’ Achievement Awards are private award schemes managed by the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and Singapore Paralympic Council (SNPC) respectively.
We congratulate all our athletes who represented Singapore at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, who have made us all proud with their commitment to excellence and their fighting spirit.
MCCY and Sport Singapore value all our Team Singapore athletes tremendously. We will continue to work with SNOC and SNPC on opportunities to engage corporate entities and members of the public to celebrate our athletes’ achievements.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Incidences of Pregnant Employees Leaving Workforce over Fears of Contracting COVID-19 and Initiatives to Protect Their Rights before Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"40 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether there have been incidences in the past year of pregnant employees leaving the workforce over fears of contracting COVID-19; and (b) whether the Ministry is looking into drawing up initiatives to protect the rights of pregnant employees before they can be safely vaccinated.
Dr Tan See Leng: Employers have been taking all reasonable steps to keep workplaces safe and minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission through implementing safe management measures. The Multi-Ministry Task Force has also announced on 6 September that we will ramp up testing at workplaces to detect and ringfence infections early to mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
A fully vaccinated workforce, together with a regular testing regime, ensures a safe workplace for everyone. There is currently no evidence to suggest that the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines cause harm to pregnant women or their foetuses. The Expert Committee on COVID-19 Vaccination has advised that pregnant women can be vaccinated. Pregnant women may discuss with their doctors if they have any concerns.
Nonetheless, we fully understand that some pregnant employees may still prefer to defer vaccination till after delivery. The tripartite partners encourage employees to raise their concerns over workplace safety with their employers and work out mutually agreeable work arrangements. We also ask employers to be more accommodating to pregnant employees’ requests for alternative work arrangements where possible, including redeployment to a lower-risk setting or work from home.
To-date there have been no complaints lodged from pregnant employees against their employers for ignoring workplace safety concerns. Queries from pregnant employees were, generally, resolved after our clarifications and advice. Pregnant employees should approach MOM if, after discussing their concerns with their employers, they still require assistance to reach a satisfactory outcome.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Easing Movement Restrictions for Fully Vaccinated Migrant Workers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"41 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Manpower whether there is a plan and timeline for the easing of movement restrictions and involvement in more social activities for migrant workers, especially those who have been vaccinated, to ensure that their mental well-being is taken care of.
42 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Manpower in respect of migrant workers in dormitories who have had their movements restricted for over a year (a) what percentage of these migrant workers have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19; (b) whether Singapore’s plan to treat COVID-19 as “endemic” extends to these migrant workers and, if so, how so; (c) whether the Government is looking into easing these movement restrictions; and (d) if so, what is the timeline for easing restrictions.
Dr Tan See Leng: Over 90% of migrant workers residing in dormitories are fully vaccinated, similar to that of the adult population in the general community.
As we transit towards a COVID-19-resilient nation, we must not lift these restrictions too quickly and risk unwinding the gains we have so painstakingly made in the last one year. We are now also concerned, as with the general population, that high vaccination rates and earlier low infections from our testing and Safe Living Measures will not lead to complacency and a re-ignition of cases which would severely affect the workers’ physical as well as mental health.
MOM’s strategy is to take a careful and calibrated approach to the easing of movement restrictions for migrant workers. We are very mindful of the well-being of migrant workers, but are also responsible for safeguarding their health. Both in the community and in the dormitories, the aim now is to slow the spread of infection so that restrictions can be eased without a sharp spike in infections.
Let me explain the measures we have taken. First, we have substantially eased restrictions within the dormitories and have allowed a range of social activities subject to group size restrictions and safe management measures. Second, we will increase the frequency for workers to visit Recreation Centres (RCs). Concurrently, we are working with RC operators and community partners to introduce programmes and new offerings to make RC visits more engaging. Third, we will pilot community visits with guided itinerary for vaccinated workers to places of interest. We will monitor and adjust the frequency and scope of these community visits.
43 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Minister for Manpower whether there are any regulations governing the use of the number of days of sick leave taken as a key performance indicator, for employees who are eligible for sick leave and whose leave is certified by a medical practitioner.
Dr Tan See Leng: Paid sick leave is a basic protection under the Employment Act. MOM expects all employers to excuse their employees from work if they are certified unfit for work by their doctor. Employees should inform their employers promptly when they need to be on sick leave, so that the necessary covering work arrangements can be made.
Employers should adopt fair and objective appraisal or performance management systems that take into consideration the employee’s overall ability, performance and contributions. The tripartite partners have consensus that using an employee’s consumption of paid sick leave as a key performance indicator for the whole year is inappropriate.
Employees who are concerned about how sick leave is taken into account by their employer should approach the union for help. Employers who are unclear should also approach SNEF, NTUC or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) for assistance. If employees or unions cannot satisfactorily resolve the matter with their management, they should approach MOM for further assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Outcome of Complaints of Discrimination Received by Ministry or Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"44 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower from 2014 to 2021, what has been the annual number of complaints of discrimination which the Ministry or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (i) received, (ii) investigated, (iii) mediated, (iv) resolved and (v) prosecuted.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2014 and the first half of 2021, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received an average of 379 workplace discrimination complaints each year. All complaints were investigated by TAFEP. About two-thirds of reported cases were not substantiated. The majority were misunderstandings which were clarified and where both parties did not pursue the matter further.
Around one-third of the employers found to have discriminatory practices were referred to MOM for further investigation. Out of these complaints, an average of 41 employers were found to be in breach of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) and had their work pass privileges suspended each year. The annual average number of workplace discrimination complaints handled by TAFEP and MOM is provided in Table 1.
45 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for Manpower from 2014 to 2021, what is the annual breakdown of discrimination complaints for the different categories of discrimination.
Dr Tan See Leng: Between 2014 and the first half of 2021, the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) received an average of 379 workplace discrimination complaints each year. The annual average number of complaints by types of discrimination is provided in Table 1.