1 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Education whether the interagency task force on Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families will be looking at issues affecting older children other than preschool children, and youths in their review of the support in place for students from disadvantaged families.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Minister Indranee, would you like to take Question No 31 as well, while you are on your feet? They look very similar.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Education): Yes. We have set up Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) to find ways to better support students from disadvantaged homes, especially those who are underperforming in our schools.
The task force will seek to help students across all ages. There will be a particular focus on preschool and primary school students, so we can prioritise the upstream interventions where there is greatest potential for positive change and long-term impact. However, we will also look at other age groups to see how they can be best helped.
UPLIFT has preliminarily identified three areas of focus that span all student age groups. First, we will consider how these students’ motivation and resilience can be improved and strengthened, so that they can get the most out of the current school efforts to level them up academically. Second, UPLIFT will study the extent and the underlying reasons of long-term absenteeism in our primary and secondary schools, exploring ways to close this small but persistent gap. Third, we will consider how to strengthen engagement and outreach to parents of disadvantaged families, with a view to improving their awareness of and connection to social and other relevant assistance, empowering them to overcome challenges and obstacles and providing support that would enable them to prioritise their children's education.
The task force has begun engagements with stakeholders who are in the frontline of working with disadvantaged children and their families, including teachers, school personnel, social workers, self-help groups and community partners. Their experiences and insights will help us to crystallise the issues that need to be addressed and to develop practical strategies and solutions to uplift students of the target profile and help them realise their full potential.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reviewing Adequacy of Statutory Levers in Children and Young Persons Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"31 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Education with regard to the set-up of the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce to study ways and means to help children from disadvantaged homes to level up, whether the task force can consider reviewing the adequacy of the statutory levers provided in the Children and Young Persons Act and, if deemed appropriate, recommend steps to enhance the Act for the purpose of achieving the stated objective.
\tThe Second Minister for Education (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Minister for Education): With respect to Question No 31 from Mr Murali Pillai, the thrust of that question is the Children and Young Persons Act. The Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT) has been set up to enhance support for disadvantaged students. UPLIFT's focus is to identify the main factors and issues that prevent disadvantaged students from accessing or receiving the full benefit of our educational system and to devise practical solutions to overcome these obstacles.
The primary objective of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) is the protection of children who have been seriously harmed, for example, victims of physical abuse, or who are at risk of serious harm. Its statutory levers are essentially designed for the Government to take action to protect the children from further harm.
There may be instances, of course, where children are prevented from doing well educationally due to harm inflicted by family members or other adults and, in those instances, the CYPA would be invoked. However, as the provisions of CYPA are adequate for its purpose, reviewing it will not be UPLIFT's focus.
However, the more commonly occurring situation is one where there is no physical harm or abuse of the children per se but where children from disadvantaged backgrounds nevertheless underperform. The reasons for their underperformance are complex and multifactorial and often have their roots in the child’s home environment and family situation. In that respect, we have preliminarily identified the three areas of focus, which are, first, to improve and strengthen these students' motivation and resilience; second, getting to the root of the underlying reasons of long-term absenteeism in our primary and secondary schools, as failure to attend school is a common factor among underperforming students; and third, strengthening engagement and outreach to parents of disadvantaged families.
Nevertheless, if there are other pertinent issues that need to be addressed in order to help these students, the hon Member and others are welcome to provide their feedback and input to the task force for consideration.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.
\tMs Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Deputy Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for the answer. It is still early days yet, but I think a lot of people are encouraged with this initiative, especially since it is coming in the midst of the ongoing debate about social inequality. I raised the issue about the young children as well as youths because I see a particular opportunity for us to uplift children in that group.
I am very happy to hear that the task force will be looking at all age groups. In particular, I was just wondering if the task force would also consider reviewing the existing support structures, especially in respect of the area of mentoring, because I think that is a growing area. There are a lot of things that we can study and look into. And that is one opportunity for us to be able to build the support network, social capital and use our youths as our assets, especially in building motivation and resilience for other young people in the community.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: Yes, indeed. I thank the Member for her suggestion. What the Member has pointed out is correct. It is not just a question of adding on to academic programmes or assisting them with their academic work. It is also very much to do with character-building, values, providing a structured environment, and also helping them with resilience and self-motivation.
In that respect, community partners have a big role to play. So, the task force is looking to see how we can have a many-helping-hands approach and how community, self-help groups, voluntary welfare groups can all participate in this.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon Second Minister for her comprehensive answer to my Parliamentary Question. I have three supplementary questions. First, would the Minister accept that in UPLIFT's review, it is likely to find fairly intractable cases, given that over the decades, generations of families have gone up the social ladder, leaving behind rather tough cases to handle? Secondly, if that observation is pertinent and correct, then would she not agree that we need to have a whole suite of options on the table to deal with the tough cases? Finally, in that context, while I accept that the way the CYPA is currently worded, it focuses on physical abuse, would it not be possible for Parliament to consider a widening of its ambit, recognising that in some situations, the reasons why children do not do well in school is multifactorial, but in some instances, it may be due to intentional acts or neglect on the part of parents? And in those circumstances, there needs to be statutory levers to invite intervention by the state.
\tMs Indranee Rajah: I thank the hon Member for his questions. The first was whether it is likely that we would find intractable cases. I would think the answer to that would have to be yes, because there are some parents who just, no matter how much we encourage or we try, they can be as the Member described, \"intractable\".
The Member's second question was whether I would agree that we should have a suite of options. Certainly. And this is what we are looking at because it is one thing to have programmes; it is quite another thing to get some of these parents to bring their children to the programmes. What you want to do is to get buy-in from the parents on that.
The Member asked then whether or not it would be necessary to widen the ambit of CYPA. I would put it this way. We will not rule out looking at whether we need any statutory levers. But whether or not CYPA is the correct piece of legislation in which to have them is a separate matter.
So, what we really need to do, for one, is to try to understand what are the reasons why some parents do not send their children for such programmes or, for whatever reasons, neglect their education. Two, the general approach is, as far as possible, to use statutory levers as a last resort. Because when you have to do it by enforcement, then you are always dragging the parents to Court or trying to force them to do something, which you can do but it is so much better if the parent could take onboard the fact that the child's education is important and wants to do it willingly and voluntarily. Because if you can get the mindset right and you can have a mindset shift, then the rest will follow naturally. So, the Member is correct. You do have to look at it holistically and we will study a wide range of options.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Additional Hidden Costs in Award of Contracts to Overseas Tenderer for Mid-Autumn Festival 2016 and Chinese New Year 2017","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth in respect of the Auditor-General's Report for FY2017/2018 (a) how much additional costs were hidden in the award of contracts to the overseas tenderer for the Mid-Autumn Festival 2016 and Chinese New Year 2017; (b) whether there were such similar hidden costs paid to this overseas tenderer from 2014 to 2016 and how much was it in total; (c) what independent investigations had been carried out to address the telltale signs that the reimbursement claims made by the People's Association (PA) officer for overseas purchases for use in Chingay Parade 2017 might not be authentic; and (d) whether any of the statutory auditors of PA in previous audits flagged out such lapses since 2013.
\tThe Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on Mr Png Eng Huat's questions, let me first clarify that the Auditor-General's Office's (AGO’s) recent report made no mention of \"additional costs that were hidden in the award of contracts to the overseas tenderer\". Instead, AGO pointed out that the successful tenderer had in its tender proposal required the organiser to bear additional obligations, which included transportation charges and provision of a site for lantern-assembly. The organiser was well aware of these additional expenses as they had been bearing the cost every year, which averaged about $34,000 for each event from 2014 to 2016. The AGO had flagged this as an administrative lapse because the organiser did not take into consideration these costs in its tender evaluation for price comparison. The organiser has acknowledged the lapse and put in place measures to avoid its recurrence.
Pertaining to the reimbursement claims made by a People's Association (PA) staff member for overseas purchases for Chingay, an independent investigation panel led by a senior officer in the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth was also set up in June 2018 to check on Chingay 2017 procurement, as well as to review past overseas Chingay purchases and payments. The panel has completed its investigations. While there was no conclusive evidence that there was wrongdoing, there were concerns over the authenticity of some transactions. PA has referred the matter to the Police and will fully cooperate with the Police in its investigations. We will decide on further steps after the Police complete their investigations.
Mr Png Eng Huat asked if any of these lapses were flagged out in the past by statutory auditors. The AGO observations for the Mid-Autumn Festival, Chinese New Year and Chingay events were not observed in past external audits conducted. Although AGO did not previously flag out similar observations on Festivals and Chingay procurement, PA’s own internal audit had earlier identified that Chingay's practice of overseas procurement did not fully comply with approved procedures. PA immediately stopped these practices for Chingay in early 2017, even before AGO's recent audit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, PA acknowledges and takes a serious view of the observations by the AGO. We will continue to educate our staff and volunteers to improve the procurement practices. We will also review the rules for local and overseas purchases with a view of simplifying them for ease of application and compliance. Procedures adopted by PA must be simple, robust but not overly onerous on the staff and the large number of volunteers to adhere to. We will continue to balance the need for agility and accountability.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I just got a couple of supplementary questions. Who should be ultimately held accountable for such lapses – the grassroots organisations volunteers or the management of PA? Because the PA is not run by volunteers, it is headed by People's Action Party Ministers and Members of Parliament in this Chamber and it is allocated a huge budget, closing in on $1 billion with professionally paid staff, so it is not an amateur outfit to begin with. So, I would like to ask the Minister where the buck stops for accountability at PA.
The second question is: does the Minister agree that the work of the current auditor for PA, which has been giving PA a clean report since financial year (FY) 2013, needs to be audited as it could not pick up serious lapses repeatedly, some with telltale signs of possible fraud as reported in the AGO report? And since there is no assurance that the audit work at PA was done to the highest standard of transparency and corporate governance, would the Minister consider ordering an independent investigation or a full AGO audit, or even a forensic audit to ensure public money is well spent?
The last question is: does the Minister agree that it is important to hold PA to greater accountability going forward, since the weakness at PA has not been addressed over time and the lapses have become more brazen? Which Government agency would allow its staff to conduct parallel quotations and also to pay almost $150,000 in cash for overseas purchases and seek reimbursement using cash receipts? Just these three questions, Sir.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me take the three issues that Mr Png Eng Huat raised, one at a time.
\t
\t
\t
First, who is responsible? There is a current process of investigation and whoever is responsible will be taken to task. And that has been the way the Government operates before, now and in the future. Nobody is hiding anything. That has been our system. It has not changed and it will not change. We do a thorough investigation on every lapse, small or big, and we take responsibility for every mistake made and we put them right.
Second, the Member alleged that there are serious lapses and fraud. May I know where did the Member get to use the words called \"serious lapses and fraud\"? If we look at the AGO report, the AGO has done their job professionally, unless the Member is suggesting that the AGO has not done its job professionally. I do not think that AGO used those words. The Member can check the record. I think it is not appropriate for us to put words into the AGO's mouth unless you are making a separate serious allegation, which we will take up seriously. I have no doubt on the integrity of my public officers and their professionalism. I accept that sometimes they make mistakes and, when they do, we will put it right. But please do not use words that do not correspond to the reality or words that the AGO has not used.
The AGO and the auditors have never, never made any comment that the PA's accounts are qualified. This is quite different from other cases which Mr Png may be familiar with. There is a material difference between whether an audit report is qualified and not qualified. Audit reports will always find in most, if not all, cases, some areas for improvements, and some areas where mistakes need to be rectified. We accept that. But there is a material difference whether a set of accounts is qualified or not qualified. And I think Mr Png knows the difference. Because it goes to the heart of whether the accounts can be accepted by the public or not.
The Member's third question on greater accountability. PA is a large organisation run by professional staff as well as an even larger group of volunteers. This is not an excuse for PA to make mistakes. We are fully aware of the nature of PA's work. We are also fully aware of the type of work that the PA needs to do. A large volunteer base, which is why we constantly simplify our rules to make sure that the rules are compliant with processes and yet easily adhered to. We continuously find a balance between the two: the need for accountability and agility.
So, I think it would not be right for us to insinuate that the public officers and, least of all, that the AGO has not done a proper work. If there is a suspicion that the AGO has not done a proper work, we will take the AGO to task. The AGO is independent in its report and it will stay so.
So, I want to remind Mr Png, first, there is a serious difference between what we call a report whereby the auditors have a disclaimer of opinion where they are not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion. There is a material difference there.
When AGO audited Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) in 2015, AGO concluded that there was \"no assurance that AHPETC's accounts are accurate and reliable, or that public funds are properly spent, accounted for, and managed\". However, the Government's accounts are in order. AGO has consistently given the Government an unmodified audit opinion – unmodified audit opinion – on its financial statements. This means that the Government's financial statements containing the accounts of all Ministries, departments and Organs of State are reliable and public funds are properly accounted for. Similarly, Statutory Boards have received unmodified audit opinions from their respective auditors in their recent audit. Now, this is a material difference between a qualified set of accounts and a set of accounts that have no such qualification.
I want to highlight two other differences. In PA, some of the mistakes made were found by our own internal processes and we made it right even before AGO comes. We reviewed the processes, we tightened the processes, we cooperated fully with the investigators to put things right. And when there is wrongdoing, we own up to it and we put it right. I think the public can make their own assessment as to the difference between how we handle our audit very seriously and how others handle theirs.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat: Deputy Speaker, the AGO report actually mentioned that there were serious weaknesses in control and there were telltale signs that certain documents were not authentic. AGO will not use such words unless there is reasonable doubt. I think I spoke in this Parliament before that AGO did a special audit on AHPETC and I accepted all the findings. I have full respect for the AGO.
In terms of audit report, the PA has many years of qualified accounts. And then—
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan, are you raising a point of order?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Clarification. Can I hear you say that again? Did you say PA has qualified accounts?
\tMr Png Eng Huat: Yes.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: I do not think that is what the AGO said.
\tMr Png Eng Huat: No, I am saying history, PA has many years of qualified accounts before 2007, if you look. I looked through all the reports; 2007 to 2012, it has adverse opinion. Adverse opinion is the worst opinion they can ever get for an audit report; six consecutive years. And I have asked why then there is no independent audit on PA. And then, when it finally cleared its accounts in 2013, every year is, I think, true and fair. And when AGO audited it in 2014, 2017, they found all these serious lapses. So, what I am asking for is accountability. Accountability must mean something, it must mean for all. And it is not too much to ask for that.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Png Eng Huat for clarifying that he is not casting doubt on the integrity of the AGO report. Can I have a confirmation that the Member is not questioning the integrity of our AGO?
\tMr Png Eng Huat: I have full respect.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Thank you very much. Thank you very much for accepting that you have full respect for the AGO's professional work. I have similar respect for my AGO's work. And if that is so, then we take the AGO report as what it is. And I would like to repeat this: there is a material difference to what it means by a set of qualified accounts and what it means not to have that qualification. I think we are very clear in our mind whether the PA accounts were qualified or not. The Member can check that. I suggest the Member invite Mr Chen Show Mao, who is sitting beside him, who is well-versed in this, to clarify what is the difference between a set of qualified accounts and otherwise.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lily Neo.
\tDr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am the grassroots adviser in charge of Chinatown festivals. May I ask the Minister whether it is correct to say that the tenders for the Chinatown festivals had been properly procured at every festival for the last 16 years, and they were all itemised tenders?
May I also ask the Minister whether it is correct to say that the Chinatown festivals had always been self-funded and self-sufficient and only depending on public money, as mentioned earlier, or PA's funding had always been only about 1%-2%, on average, for the last 16 years? I would like to clear that, please.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, in response to Member Dr Lily Neo's comment, what the AGO found for that particular event was this: all the items were accounted for; they were itemised. The comments refer to specifically this: should the whole set of things be put under the tender or this part we put under tender and the cost, the other portion of the cost that have to be borne, because of the transportation and the storage, be combined together? What the auditors found and suggested for improvement is that not only the tender cost for the products but also the storage and the transportation be considered in full rather than separately.
The cost has been made clear, the organisers have been aware of both sets of costs but, perhaps, the inadequacy of the organiser was not to consider the two parts in its entirety. That is the clarification I want to make. So, it is not that the costs have not been accounted for. It is not as if there are no bills and receipts to justify the payment. It is not that there is anything that has not been shown to the public or revealed to the auditors.
The question and the suggestion by the auditors are that, going forward, instead of considering the two separately, the tender for the product separately from the storage and transportation costs, that the two should be conducted in its entirety. We will do that and we have done that to rectify it.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.
\tMr Png Eng Huat: Mr Deputy Speaker, just one last question. I think just now the Minister said that because of the auditor giving us a qualified account for two years – I think the history is there, it had been debated here – because of that, the Government ordered AGO to audit our accounts, because our auditor qualified our accounts.
Then, I would like to ask the Minister, PA has many years of qualified accounts before 2007 and six years of consecutive adverse report, why then did the Government not order any audits on PA?
\t
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I suggest Mr Png ask an accountant to explain to him what it means to have qualified accounts and not qualified accounts. As a layman, let me try again to explain in layman's terms.
In every audit report, we can expect to find mistakes made, no excuse. Mistakes made must be corrected and rectified. Full stop. Having made mistakes, does it mean that the set of accounts can be trusted, in layman's term? If the set of accounts can be trusted, because notwithstanding the mistakes made, that means there is no material impact, then we do not need to have a qualified opinion. But if the auditor comes out and say that, \"I look at the set of accounts, yes, there are mistakes made, but on top of the mistakes made, I cannot be confident that this set of accounts is correct and can be trusted.\" Then, people will give a qualified opinion. That is a material difference.
And I am not sure that the Member's statement is correct: that PA has a qualified set of accounts. PA has made mistakes, we accept, we acknowledge and we will rectify and put it right. But at no time was it ever suggested that the accounts cannot be trusted; that there is a material impact that the set of accounts cannot be trusted.
If the Member likes, I would clarify the following things. I know that the Member has been trying to draw a comparison between Aljunied-Hougang Town Council's (AHTC's) case and PA's, and AGO's findings for various Government agencies. As the AHTC's lawsuit is pending before the Courts, I will limit my comments to what is material.
Any lapses in Government agencies can undermine public confidence in the Government as an institution and affects the integrity of our Civil Service. And this is why it is necessary, in the public interest, to explain and distinguish the facts, circumstances and follow-up actions concerning the AHTC's lapse and those found by the AGO in the Government agencies. And I will limit myself to the facts. The issues surrounding AHTC's case are very different from the lapses found by AGO in Government agencies.
First, and I repeat, the accounts of AHPETC, or known as AHTC, have been found by its auditors to be unreliable from fiscal year 2012 to 2017. Its auditors, the Member's auditors, repeatedly gave the Town Council a disclaimer of opinion as they were \"not able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion.\"
When AGO audited AHPETC in 2015, AGO concluded that there was \"no assurance that AHPETC's accounts are accurate and reliable or their public funds are probably spent, accounted for and managed\". However, the Government's accounts are in order. AGO has consistently given the Government an unmodified audit opinion on its financial statements. This means that the Government's financial statements containing the accounts of all Ministries, departments and Organs of States are reliable and public funds are probably accounted for. But that does not mean that there are no mistakes. Similarly, Statutory Boards have received unmodified audit opinions from their respective auditors in their recent audits.
Second, quoting KPMG's opinion in its July 2016 report, the controlled failures in AHTC were \"pervasive, cross-cutting across the key areas of governance, financial control, financial reporting, procurement and records management over the course of five years.\" AGO also found 150 lapses in 2015 and KPMG uncovered a further 70 controlled failures in AHTC in 2016. The Government does not face similar issues. The Government has rules and procedures in place to ensure proper systems of checks and balances. AGO audits pointed out that the instances of lapses found in the Government agencies were failure to comply with these rules. These lapses were taken in the context of a much larger Public Service with more than 140,000 officers handling hundreds and thousands of transactions every year.
The difference is this: our rules are in place. When compliance is not in order, we take officers to task and we improve and tighten up the system.
Third, on the Government agencies' response to lapses found by AGO, their responses have been to take firm action against individuals responsible. And if I may add, even before AGO comes in, various of the agencies have their own internal audits, just like PA, to pick out mistakes made and to rectify them ahead of time. Where criminal offence is suspected, the cases are promptly surfaced to the Head of Department or organisation and a report filed with the relevant authority, such as the Police or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, and this is exactly what has happened.
To give an example, following the AGO's audit report indicating possible wrongdoings in relation to the procurement in the National Library Board in 2014, we referred the case to the Police and a former officer has been charged for corruption. There are other past criminal cases reported in the media. We do not hide them, we do not sweep them under the carpet. We face them squarely and we take the actions necessary.
For administrative and procedural lapses, disciplinary actions are taken against officers where warranted. These range from counselling and warning to stoppage of salary increment and dismissal. Government agencies take AGO's audit observations very seriously and are committed to rectifying the lapses. Where there are lapses, they will openly acknowledge and steps are taken to address them as soon as possible and lessons are shared across the entire Public Service. Government agencies are accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for their corrective and preventive actions taken in response to these lapses.
Last, I wish to clarify a key point. The current lawsuit against the AHTC Town Councillors is based on claims for (a) breach of core fiduciary duties; (b) breach of duty in their capacity as fiduciaries to diligently exercise reasonable care and skill in the exercise of their powers and in the discharge of their responsibilities; and (c) breach of duty of care to AHTC under the common law tort of negligence. The lawsuit was instituted in the name of AHTC by an independent panel. The independent panel was appointed under the Town Councils Act pursuant to a consent order made between the AHTC and the Housing Development Board before the Court of Appeal to take such actions as the independent panel thinks it is in AHTC's best interest in light of the inappropriate payments that were identified. The key point is that the lawsuit was not brought by the Government.
So, to conclude, it is wrong to compare the problem surfaced by auditors of AHTC to lapses by public sector agencies identified in AGO's reports. Government financial accounts are reliable and public funds are properly accounted for. There are proper rules and procedures in place to ensure checks and balances and, where lapses are found, agencies are prompt in closing the gaps and holding individuals to account.
In all these, we do not make light of any mistakes made. We run a clean system and we have every intention to run a clean and open system. Clean, transparent and fair. The fact that we run a large system with many volunteers does not excuse us from making mistakes. But when we make mistakes, we found out, we tighten the process, we improve. We do not shirk our responsibilities or try to diminish the mistake by comparing with other people who have made other mistakes. We put in place our processes to check ourselves ahead of time, even before other people come and check us. And when other people come and check us, we work with them transparently, openly and to improve our system.
When mistakes are made, we take the necessary actions to put the system right and to punish any wrongdoing. We do not run away from them. Not like in other cases. And I think the public can have every confidence that this Government takes our responsibilities seriously and transparently. We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our nation that we abide by the highest standard in our duties to our Ministries, organisations, but, most importantly, to our people and country.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Online Falsehoods in Recent News Reports Alleging Singapore's Involvement in 1MDB Deals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"3 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law what is the Ministry's views on the deliberate online falsehood appearing in recent news reports published in States Times Review, China Press and elsewhere alleging that Singapore is involved in corrupt 1MDB deals.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute two handouts which I will refer to in the course of addressing this question?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: On 5 November 2018, an article was published on the website, the States Times Review (STR), stating that agreements with Malaysia on the supply of water and on the high-speed rail, favoured Singapore. These arguments have been raised by Malaysia previously and dealt with before in this House and elsewhere.
This time, however, STR added a malicious twist. It took the old points on the agreements and concocted a conspiracy theory about how our Prime Minister and the Singapore Government corruptly allowed money laundering of 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) funds in exchange for terms favouring Singapore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the suggestion that we were helping launder 1MDB monies, or were reluctant to investigate, is quite untrue. Singapore was the first jurisdiction to take strong action against the financial institutions and individuals involved in the 1MDB scandal. Investigations commenced in March 2015 and have since led to serious action taken against wrongdoers.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) undertook a two-year investigation of both foreign and local banks. This was the most extensive supervisory review it has ever taken. As a result of these investigations, it shut down two banks – BSI Bank Limited Singapore and Falcon Bank. BSI Bank was also hit with a financial penalty of S$13.3 million. MAS also imposed financial penalties totalling around S$29.1 million on eight other banks.
MAS also worked to bring wrongdoers to justice. It seized assets amounting to S$240 million, of which S$120 million belonged to Jho Low and his immediate family. Arrest warrants for Jho Low and his proxy Tan Kim Loong were issued. Singapore also requested Interpol Red Notices to be put out for Low and Tan.
We are the first – and it seems, the only – country to date of at least 10 jurisdictions involved, that has secured convictions of individuals who facilitated the laundering. Five individuals have been charged and convicted for offences relating to the 1MDB scandal. Investigations are continuing into several other suspects in Singapore.
On 8 June this year, officers from MAS, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and the Commercial Affairs Department met the Malaysian 1MDB Taskforce led by Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. Singapore has been providing Malaysia information on 1MDB-related fund flows since March 2015, and this has been acknowledged by Malaysia.
The information I have referred to is all publicly available. And obviously there is no basis for the claims of corruption being made against our officials.
I move on now to the curious circumstances in which the falsehoods were then further perpetuated. A few months ago, in May 2018, a similar article was published by STR. On 5 November 2018, the same article was repackaged. It used a quote from the Sarawak Report as a peg to reiterate the falsehoods first published in May. As at 8 November, this article had been shared around 1,600 times on Facebook.
Some of these shares resulted from a concerted effort by a small group of users to spread the article across multiple Facebook groups, including groups that ostensibly cover unrelated subjects. The shares by this small group of just seven users accounted for the falsehood potentially seen by over 800,000 users who were members of these Facebook groups.
Some of these facts and figures are set out in the handouts. If I may refer Members to the first handout (Annex 1) which has the \"ST Review\" on the left-hand side, you will see that seven Facebook users shared the article collectively 45 times over three days to 39 unique Facebook groups. In this three-day period, about 800,000 potential viewers had been given access to this article.
If Members go to the second page of that handout, to illustrate a different point, this post was shared to five different groups within a span of just one minute and you will see the timings on the left-hand side of the extract on the second page.
On the third page of the same handout, to illustrate the spread of the article, the reach on Facebook, just to these four illustrative groups amounted to about 380,000. And you will see in the top left-hand box, the number of members in that group was close to 350,000. So, very quickly and very widely, this was spread.
On 7 November, this repackaged article was reproduced on Malaysian website The Coverage. This report was then picked up by Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper China Press where it was viewed 45,000 times by 8 November, just one day later. Two YouTube videos were also put up, translating the allegations into Mandarin.
It is interesting that, in this case, the spread of disinformation followed a pattern that has been established elsewhere. A falsehood first appears on an obscure site, and then gets picked up by mainstream media, which lends credence to the claims. I will cite two examples in the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which demonstrate these tactics in action. And as I go through the next few paragraphs, Members can refer to the second handout (Annex 2) by way of illustration.
The first, highlighted by Mr Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, was a false claim about the vulnerability of the United States (US) Navy. The false claim was first posted on an obscure website, then republished by a foreign mainstream media outlet. It eventually began trending on social media and was then published by a significant number of prominent news outlets and tabloids in other countries. It took just seven days for the falsehood to go from an obscure website to international news.
The second example, also cited to the Committee by Mr Nimmo, related to a disinformation campaign against Morgan Freeman, after he had said that a foreign country had attacked the US using online activity during the 2016 US Presidential Election. An obscure website run by trolls first initiated a hashtag #StopMorganLie, while publishing the claim that he was lying.
This hashtag was then amplified on social media, including by a group claiming to be independent activists from the foreign country. It was finally picked up by the mainstream media of the foreign country, who claimed that the counter-movement against Morgan Freeman's assertion was a \"big Twitter outcry\", even though online traffic using the hashtag amounted to only about 1,000 posts. It was later discovered that the accounts of the so-called activists were actually controlled by a troll factory in the foreign country. What appeared to be an organic movement was really an orchestrated campaign. That is the evidence of Mr Ben Nimmo, when he came before the Select Committee.
Now, turning to the Government's response, on the evening of 8 November, MAS lodged a Police report in relation to the STR article. Action will be taken against the wrongdoers, based on the outcome of Police investigations and on the advice of AGC.
We also took active steps to debunk the falsehoods and stem their dissemination. The Singapore High Commission in Malaysia stated categorically that the article was “clearly libellous”. And this was carried in a number of mainstream media outlets in Malaysia. Notably, STR did not carry the clarification.
The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) issued a request to STR on 9 November to take down the article. STR declined to do so. IMDA proceeded to direct the Internet Service Providers to block the STR website, and they have since done so.
IMDA also asked Facebook to deny access to the post on STR's Facebook page, on the basis that the post contains material that is contrary to the public interest, thereby constituting prohibited content under IMDA's Internet Code of Practice. Facebook declined to do so.
This is surprising. First, the post is clearly false as I have explained above. The Sarawak Report on which the STR post was based and quoted, itself published a Facebook post calling the article on The Coverage, which had reproduced the STR article, \"misleading\" and \"erroneous\". It later published another post debunking the false claims. Many Malaysian publications, including the China Press, took down their articles after our High Commission in Malaysia issued the clarification.
Second, as IMDA has made clear, the post contains material that violates Singapore law.
Despite the clear falsehoods attacking Singapore, Facebook did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for it to remove the post. Because of this, Facebook's post with the false claims continues to be available on Facebook.
Facebook’s reluctance to remove the post is surprising. In April 2017, it had said that it is \"committed to doing everything [it] can to reduce the spread of false news to as close to zero as possible.\" In its written representation to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Facebook said that it \"believe[d] that reducing the spread of misinformation and false news is a shared responsibility between public authorities, tech companies, newsrooms and classrooms.\" Facebook has also given assurances that it would work closely with the Singapore authorities to swiftly address online falsehoods. And yet, when there is an actual falsehood that attacks Singapore, Facebook refuses to remove the content.
Facebook has said, in response to media queries on its decision, that it does not \"have a policy that prohibits alleged falsehoods, apart from in situations where this content has the potential to contribute to imminent violence or physical harm.\" There are many situations where serious harm is caused even though there is no potential for \"imminent violence or physical harm\". And as Members will appreciate, the slow drip of poison, over a period of time, can one day result in and burst into violence. And Facebook will do nothing about it, despite the various statements made in Singapore and elsewhere. It will allow itself to be a platform for the spread of lies, falsity, to poison and divide societies through such lies, encourage xenophobia, and profit from that.
This incident, therefore, demonstrates why we cannot rely on the goodwill of service provider platforms to protect Singapore from disinformation campaigns. It reinforces the Select Committee's recommendations that legislative powers are needed to protect us from deliberate online falsehoods.
In conclusion, this incident demonstrates once again the insidious nature of deliberate online falsehoods. When STR failed the first time to gain traction, it simply repackaged the same falsehoods. That was then sought to give credibility by mainstream media.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
\t
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon Senior Minister of State for the detailed explanation. There is an old saying, \"untruths travel halfway round the world when the truth is just putting on its boots\". But on the basis of what the hon Senior Minister of State had shared, it seems that untruth has picked up pace since. I have two supplementary questions.
One, in relation to Facebook's action, did Facebook demote the news, the fake news, pursuant to its protocol dealing with fake news? Two, a more general question, dealing with the social media giants, does the hon Senior Minister of State think the attitude of these giants would be different if the direction were made by an independent body, for example, the judiciary, instead of a Government agency?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I reiterate that we have been disappointed with Facebook's failure to remove the clear falsehood. And let me just reiterate that STR had made the publication quoting directly from a report in the Sarawak Report, and quotes an interview granted by the editor of the Sarawak Report. The Sarawak Report itself, having seen the STR version of the article, published a very clear statement, not once but twice, calling out the STR report as being \"false\", \"erroneous\" and \"misleading\". Despite that, Facebook has not seen fit to remove its content or block the STR Facebook page. As we have seen, the spread is not just quick, it is wide. So, at this point in time, there are limited options to stem the spread and influence of such online falsehoods. It is difficult to curtail them.
And so, to answer the Member's second question, yes, perhaps so, but there is probably a need for levers to be given so that these can be arrested, can be stopped. And we have seen the proliferation rate and speed and the reach. So, something has to be done and the Select Committee has made recommendations to consider precisely this, the appropriate measures to be taken so that these falsehoods and the proliferation of these falsehoods which, as Mr Murali Pillai said just now, travels faster, can be stemmed.
On the Member's second point as to whether there has been a demotion or downranking of the article, it does not appear to us to have been so. But, as I said, our primary assessment is that rather than being demoted or downranked, it ought not even have been put up in the first place.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.
CLARIFICATION BY MINISTER FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may just make one clarification to Mr Png Eng Huat's question just now. Mr Png asked whether PA had qualified accounts before. Right?
[(proc text) The hon Member indicated assent. (proc text)]
Mr Chan Chun Sing: In fact, this question was asked by Mr Dennis Tan on 17 August 2015 and we have since answered it. Mr Png might want to check the record of the answer given by Mr Heng Swee Keat to Mr Dennis Tan.
Prior to fiscal year 2013, the auditor made a comment to say that the PA accounts on the grassroots organisation should be consolidated. And because prior to 2013, it was not consolidated, that was why they said that it did not fully comply with the standards. In the case of PA, as explained in Parliament on 17 August 2015, we have since taken steps to consolidate all 1,800 grassroots accounts into PA's financial statements to be in full compliance with the accounting standards. And PA has since received an unqualified audit opinion since 2013. Prior to 2013, we did not consolidate statements and that is not the same, that qualification is not the same as that being a material impact that accounts are not correct or cannot be trusted. It was a technical issue because we did not follow the accounting standards to consolidate all the accounts.
And if Mr Png wishes, he can refer to the Parliamentary answer given to Mr Dennis Tan in 2015.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): I thank the Minister for reminding about the adverse opinion. But I can tell you that when auditors issue an adverse opinion, it means something. It means they could not see, they could not verify the accounts of the grassroots. And those are not hundreds or thousands of dollars. Those are millions of dollars. So, that is why they issued an adverse report. An adverse report means something, actually. If it is a technical issue, I am sure the auditors can do something about it though.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. Can I make a distinction? Can I just ask Mr Png whether he understands this, and if he does not understand, I can explain it during tea break time. Does the Member understand the difference between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts?
Mr Png Eng Huat: Yes, I do.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: You do. Do you understand what is the difference between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts? And the reason is that there is a material impact on the reliability of the financial statements? Do you agree with me? You agree.
[(proc text) The hon Member indicated agreement. (proc text)]
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Do you agree with me that even for unqualified accounts, you can have observations?
[(proc text) The hon Member indicated agreement. (proc text)]
Mr Chan Chun Sing: You agree. So, thank you very much. So, there are qualified accounts where, fundamentally, the issue is whether the accounts can be trusted. There are unqualified accounts, which, fundamentally, means that the accounts can be trusted. But can there be observations, where rules are not followed? The answer, as you have said, is yes.
Unqualified accounts means that structurally, the accounts can be trusted, in good order, but there are still observations and those observations need to be acted upon to be improved.
So, I hope I have clarified the difference between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts. And I have clarified why before 2013 – what was the qualification? It was a qualification on the basis that the accounts were not consolidated. And we have since consolidated that and we have put right.
Mr Png Eng Huat: It was an adverse opinion.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Sorry. You used the word \"adverse opinion\". On which set of accounts?
Mr Png Eng Huat: From 2007 to 2013.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Which set of accounts? Was it from AGO?
Mr Png Eng Huat: No, it was not. It was from the auditor of PA who was auditing —
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Maybe the Member can show me the exact words of what was said.
Mr Png Eng Huat: It is just in the opinion page, if you look into the records of 2007 to 2012. In the first financial statement, they will put the phrase there —
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Which years again?
Mr Png Eng Huat: 2007 to 2012.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: And what was the word?
Mr Png Eng Huat: Opinion was adverse.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: I think Members can check the record. As I have clarified, before 2013, it was not consolidated. After 2013, we have since taken steps to consolidate them, all 1,800 accounts under the PA accounts. And we have not got a qualified account. And I want to make a distinction, and I repeat again, between qualified accounts and unqualified accounts. Unqualified accounts with observations and unqualified accounts without observations; and there is a material difference.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we have spent enough time on this. Miss Cheng.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Practice of Engaging Foreign Agents to Bring Overseas Patients to Singapore Public Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Miss Cheng Li Hui –
4 To ask the Minister for Health (a) how long have public hospitals been engaging foreign agents to bring in overseas patients; (b) whether the Ministry is aware of these practices; and (c) whether the foreign patients crowd out Singaporeans in our healthcare services.
5 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will reschedule or bring forward the specialist appointment dates of subsidised Singaporean patients arising from the Ministry's decision to stop referral contracts for foreign patients in public hospitals.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Question No 4, please.
\t
The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?\t
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: The priority of the Ministry of Health (MOH) and public healthcare institutions (PHIs) is to serve Singaporeans' healthcare needs. Our PHIs are not allowed to actively market themselves to foreign patients. MOH has also recently asked PHIs to cease any contracts with service providers to assist foreign patients referred for medical treatment in Singapore. Today, none of our PHIs have contracts with such service providers anymore.
There are foreign patients who travel to Singapore to seek medical treatment on their own accord. Between 2013 and 2017, such patients make up about 1.5% of the total inpatient and day surgery attendances at our PHIs. Those whose referrals were supported by contracted service providers constituted about only 0.4% of attendances in PHIs that had such contracts.
Singaporeans remained the majority of patients treated in the PHIs. Foreign patients have not impacted our PHI's delivery of services and subsidised appointment slots given to Singaporeans. In fact, the median waiting time for new subsidised specialist appointments has improved steadily from 28 days in 2013 to 22 days in the first half of 2018. MOH will continue to work with our PHIs to ensure that meeting Singaporean's healthcare needs remains our priority.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. My Parliamentary Question was actually prompted by a resident who saw me in late August. He had been referred by a polyclinic for a specialist appointment for a colonoscopy procedure. These were the resident's words and I narrated this to the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). One of the hospital's staff told him that only one day of the week is set aside for subsidised patients for colonoscopy procedures and that is the reason why his appointment was scheduled six months later.
So, I shared this information with SGH. SGH came back a couple of weeks later. They contacted the resident and they pushed forward the appointment by three months, and so, he only had to wait three months. So, that is reason why I actually asked the question whether, firstly, there is any truth to this assumption or allegation that there are specific days set aside for non-subsidised patients and other days for subsidised patients, be it for inpatient procedures or other procedures not limited to colonoscopies.
The second question I have is pertaining to a reply that the Senior Minister of State gave that between the years 2013 and 2017, 1.5% of foreigners were registered for inpatient or day surgeries in our public hospitals. But what is the number, the absolute number of that, as opposed to a percentage? I believe earlier in October, there was an MOH reply to The Sunday Times clarifying that this number is actually lower than what it was in 2008. At that time, it was 2.4% if I remember correctly. Just to get a sense of the absolute numbers, I would appreciate if the Senior Minister of State could share the total number of foreign patients, vis-a-vis both percentages.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Pritam Singh for the two clarifications. On the first clarification, many hospitals do have a protocol to prioritise the appointment given to patients according to the severity of the conditions. If the condition is deemed to be urgent, then the appointment given will be much shorter or almost immediate. And if the condition is assessed to be not urgent, then the appointment date given can be much further away. It could be a few weeks or a few months, depending on the type of condition.
As to the feedback given by one of his residents, I would find it hard to believe that only one day in a week will be assigned for colonoscopy for subsidised patients, considering the fact that the department in SGH is actually a large one with multiple specialists performing such procedures. But I think that needs to be clarified with SGH.
With regard to the second question on the number of foreign patients that were being seen in 2017, the number is actually 10,900 attendances which actually constitutes only about 1.5% of the total attendances seen in Singapore.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiver of Seller’s Stamp Duty for Collective Sale if Seller Does Not Agree to Sale","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Lim Biow Chuan –
6 To ask the Minister for Finance whether seller's stamp duty may be waived for a collective sale if the seller does not agree to the sale and did not sign the collective sale agreement.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Question No 6, Sir.
\t
\tThe Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong) (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Seller's Stamp Duty (SSD) seeks to discourage short-term holding of residential properties and is part of the Government's measures to ensure a stable and sustainable property market. SSD is applicable so long as the property is sold within the holding period.
In a collective sale of private residential properties, the collective sale committee can enter into a sale and purchase agreement on behalf of all owners, if the requisite statutory majority consent has been obtained. The sale and purchase agreement entered into by the collective sale committee will then be binding on all owners.
If the sale occurs within the holding period, SSD is applied, regardless of whether an individual owner consented to or opposed the sale.
There are safeguards in the Land Titles (Strata) Act to protect the interests of owners, and to ensure that collective sales are conducted in a fair manner. In particular, non-consenting minority owners to a collective sale can file objections to the Strata Titles Board against the sale and the Board will then consider the objections raised before deciding on the outcome of the application of the collective sale.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Social Safety Net for Disabled who Need Institutional Long-term Care Beyond ElderShield","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what social safety net is there for a person who remains severely disabled and requires institutional long-term care even after the six years under ElderShield.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, today, Singaporeans with severe disabilities who require long-term care can be supported in several ways. These include insurance schemes, such as ElderShield, Government subsidies and assistance schemes, especially for those with less means, personal and family savings, for instance, and also Central Provident Fund retirement payouts.
Singaporeans can tap on Government subsidies of up to 75% of nursing home costs. Singaporeans who require additional financial assistance for institutional care in nursing homes can tap on Government-funded safety nets, such as MediFund. Many nursing homes are also run by voluntary welfare organisations and may tap on charitable donations to provide further financial support to their residents.
From 2020, Singaporeans can benefit from new initiatives to defray the cost of long-term care. These are (a) CareShield Life, a new long-term care insurance scheme which provides monthly cash benefits for the severely disabled. The scheme will cover all Singaporeans born in 1980 or later, regardless of whether they have pre-existing disabilities. Those born in 1979 or earlier and not severely disabled can join CareShield Life in 2021; (b) next, all severely disabled Singaporeans above the age of 30, including those who have finished their ElderShield payouts, will be able to withdraw up to $200 per month in cash from their or their spouse's MediSave; and finally, we will introduce ElderFund. This will be a new discretionary assistance scheme which provides up to $250 per month for low-income severely disabled citizens who are unable to join CareShield Life, have low MediSave balances and face financial difficulties in meeting their long-term care needs.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
\tMr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I think the last group of people are the people who need this the most. And if special consideration, in the discretion of the Ministry, could be applied to those who are actually suffering from severe disabilities now, and have used up the six years of ElderShield and, therefore, need a leg up. Would that be considered, please?
\tMr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank the Member for raising the point. Yes, certainly, it will be considered. And I will add that apart from what I mentioned, there are also other assistance schemes, such as the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly, which provides means-tested payouts of up to $200 per month for six years. There is also the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme, which provides support for severely disabled Pioneers through a cash payout of $100 per month for life. So, these and other schemes remain available and, certainly, on a case-by-case basis, where the most vulnerable class of persons who are severely disabled, needs assistance, the Ministry will look into those.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Practice to Rank Teachers for Performance","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) whether there are plans to review the current practice of ranking teachers for performance appraisal every year as an approach to cultivate a high performance workforce and identify low performers; (b) whether the benefits of performance ranking outweighs its challenges, especially in terms having to ensure a \"correct\" distribution of scores and creating a culture of individual competitiveness that is detrimental to team work and team dynamics; and (c) what alternatives has the Ministry considered for staff performance appraisals other than the current method.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Ministers for Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, performance differentiation is widely practised in both the public and private sectors. It recognises individuals who do well in fulfilling the missions and objectives of the organisations.
As performance evaluation involves qualitative judgement by supervisors, the Singapore Civil Service, like many large organisations, practises cross-department ranking. A teacher's performance is assessed by his or her own supervisor, and then cross-ranked against his or her peers by a ranking panel comprising direct and indirect supervisors. This way, stronger performing officers are identified and recognised, while weaker ones are provided developmental opportunities to improve. In addition, it also helps to moderate differences in the supervisors' assessments and establish common standards of performance.
Besides their individual performances, teachers are assessed holistically across many different areas, like how they work and collaborate with others and contribute to the learning of their peers. In addition, teachers are also expected to be able to deliver effective teaching and pastoral care, support students in their character development and interact well with them.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) seeks to develop a culture of professionalism and a strong sense of mission in our teachers. The appraisal system is but one of the many tools used to achieve this. We encourage teachers to pursue various professional development opportunities, from formal programmes to informal support through networked learning communities and mentoring arrangements.
To spur teamwork, our schools give out Outstanding Contribution Awards every year in recognition of school staff who collaborate successfully to make outstanding contributions to the school community. The President's Award for Teachers brings out excellence in teaching and is the highest honour bestowed on teachers for professionalism. We will continue to develop and improve our teachers' skills and expertise to deliver a student-centric and value-driven education and, in so doing, enhance our students' learning and growth.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
\tMr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a lot of debate on the merits of forced ranking. Jack Welch started forced ranking in his company, General Electric, and it would be good to know that General Electric has done away with forced ranking.
Given the debate on the merit of performance ranking, would MOE consider doing away with forced ranking and, instead, raise education officers' salaries to ensure their substantive grades commensurate with their official appointments and also adopt a criteria-based appraisal for performance?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank the Member Mr Zainal Sapari for his passionate plea and also his supplementary questions. Allow me to reassure him that MOE will continue to finetune our appraisal system with the focus on supporting the development opportunities and potential of our teachers.
While there are debates about the pros and cons of ranking, I think it has proven that ranking imposes objectivity, fairness, rigour and discipline in the appraisal system. It also differentiates officers' performance relative to their peers and helps to establish common standards of performance amongst supervisors. And I just want to give an example. In recent years, the majority of, and, in fact, more than 80% of our principals are being remunerated according to their substantive grades.
\tDeputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
\tDr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. One, appraisal, as in any form of assessment, should be both formative and summative. At the moment, our appraisal system is quite summative. Are there plans to get teachers to have teacher mentors or buddies so that a more formative approach to their appraisal can be done throughout the year before the final assessment for performance bonus or promotion?
The second supplementary question is this: would the Ministry consider also getting feedback from students as well as parents on how teachers perform rather than just based on peer assessment among teachers and their reporting supervisors?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank Dr Intan Mokhtar for her supplementary questions. I want to assure her that the annual appraisal is not a static one. In fact, the development of our teachers, 30,000 of them, is really key to achieving our goals in education for our students' development. In order to help our 30,000-plus educators improve their skills, we, indeed, use several avenues for our educators to receive feedback. Just to give an example. Rather than for appraisal, the 360-degree feedback mechanism is used as a development tool to gather all-round feedback. In so doing, we seek to help our teachers and supervisors learn to give one another feedback and also learn to receive feedback in a very constructive manner through daily interactions and not only at the point of appraisal. A lot of the Members in the House are parents and we have different apps, whether it is ClassDojo, Snapp and so on, for us to give inputs and feedback to teachers and also to the school leaders. So, actually that avenue is open to the parents as well.
\tMr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to ask for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's help to ask the Public Service human resource (HR) function to consider doing away with the forced ranking system for several reasons.
One, as my colleague Mr Zainal Sapari has mentioned that a lot of progressive companies have actually done away with such performance evaluation systems. Two, we know the consequences of forced ranking. There are some negative aspects of forced ranking in that there are instances when employees get pushed up in terms of their ranking because of very vocal supervisors who are able to speak up for them at ranking sessions. And then there are some jobs where some staff who are actually more visible due to the nature of their work and the way some of them carry out their work. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to seek counsel and advise the Public Service HR function to consider other ways by which performance evaluations can be done and rewards can be distributed.
I also want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to consider asking the Minister of Education and the Ministry if they could do away with such award schemes like the Outstanding Teacher Award. Because out of the many thousands of educators, there are many who actually do very well. And it is really quite difficult to finalise a list of educators who should be honoured. In fact, to run a race whereby only a few win the trophy might be a race that, I think, the Minister has been asking for us not to run. We should run races where as many as possible can make it to the finish line, and as many as possible can meet a good or great performance standard. For your consideration, please.
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank our Government Parliamentary Committee Chair Ms Denise Phua for her supplementary questions and also her suggestions. I want to assure all the Members that MOE continues to look at the performance appraisal systems that are practised by other organisations. And we do know that each appraisal system comes with the pros and cons.
In relation to the original Parliamentary Question, the question is whether we can do away with ranking and do an assessment based on the job type. And we have looked at that. Currently, MOE follows the Civil Service, which is, to conduct performance ranking for officers of the same substantive grade. We have 30,000-plus educators. We certainly want to do so in a manner that is fair and just and that recognises efforts of our passionate teachers.
So, just allow me to explain why, currently, this appraisal system is deemed as a fair assessment. I will give Members a quick example. For example, if it is simply ranked by job function, job scope. And a newly appointed principal who has been promoted upwards from a vice principal to a principal based on job scope but not yet moved up in substantive grade. If he or she is then compared, in terms of performance, to the rest of the principals, and some of whom will be very senior principals in higher grades, actually, in so doing, the showing for the newly appointed principal may well pale in comparison with the senior principals. When this happens, obviously then, it is not a very good and fair way for us to measure the performance of the newly appointed principal. And this is really why, in this case, using this example, the newly appointed principal should actually be compared with his or her peers in the same substantive grade which is why we are doing such cross rankings.
Earlier on, Ms Denise Phua said it also depends on whether the immediate supervisor is more vocal and whether or not the educator is doing certain projects that are more visible. And this is why, other than taking the inputs of the direct supervisor, we complement the individual assessment by the direct supervisor with also the views of the ranking panel which will comprise direct and also indirect supervisors who have worked with a broad base of educators, to ensure that we arrive at a fair and just assessment for our educators.
As for the Member's second suggestion about doing away with awards, in the last few years, MOE has reviewed many of these awards and we try to strike a good balance to ensure that it does not inadvertently create unnecessary competition and pressure. At the same time, we also want to make sure there are also avenues for us to express gratitude and recognise the efforts of our teachers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Introduction of Licensed Public PMD-sharing Services in 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Transport (a) why has the Government decided to allow applications for licensed public personal mobility device (PMD)-sharing services from January 2019; and (b) whether the Government will consider delaying the introduction of such commercial shared public PMD services until the riding culture for PMDs has improved and incidences of unsafe and inconsiderate usage have subsided.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, personal mobility devices (PMDs) provide convenient transport options for first- and last-mile connectivity. PMD-sharing services will allow more Singaporeans to use PMDs as they will not need to own or carry them around. However, it is important that operators provide such services without causing public disamenities.
Drawing on the lessons from regulating the bicycle-sharing industry, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is taking a cautious approach to regulating the nascent PMD-sharing industry. Key issues being studied include fire risks and charging issues, as well as the need for third-party liability insurance. When licence applications commence next year, operators will be allowed to apply for sandbox licences for small-scale operations with limited fleet sizes. This will limit the impact of their operations and allow LTA to assess the operators' operations and ability to comply with regulatory requirements before LTA considers granting any full licences for large-scale operations in the future.
The safe use of PMDs is a shared responsibility between users, operators and the community. LTA is strengthening public education and enforcement for all PMD users. LTA will also be introducing an e-scooter registration regime from January 2019 onwards. Under this regime, all e-scooters, regardless of whether they are owned by private individuals or PMD-sharing operators, will have identification stickers prominently pasted on them. This will facilitate enforcement and deter reckless riding. To ensure a smooth transition, LTA will engage the user community and will give a transition period for users to comply.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive answers. I have four supplementary questions. I think Members of the House will agree with me that it is hard enough currently to ensure that all owners of PMDs adhere to the rules for safe use of PMDs and to be considerate to the other footpath users. And earlier this year, a lot of us spoke about this issue at the Committee of Supply debate. I believe we are not out of the woods yet. Would it not exacerbate the present situation if we have a new category of users, namely, hirers? Hirers may even take less ownership of the need to ride responsibly and considerately since they are not the owners.
My second supplementary question is: how does the Ministry of Transport (MOT) intend to educate this new group of users, the hirers?
My next supplementary question is: what would be the responsibility of commercial-shared PMD service providers in ensuring that their hirers use their PMDs in a safe, responsible manner?
And, finally, as the Senior Minister of State has shared about the limited sandbox size, could he share with the House what is this sandbox size expected to be when this shared service is being introduced?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the supplementary questions. They are more or less related. Yes, we had quite a comprehensive debate many months ago on the issue of bike sharing as well as the use of PMDs. With regard to the PMD-sharing services regulatory framework, there are several key considerations that LTA will take into account when promulgating that in 2019.
One is that we will take into account recent experiences from licensing the bike-sharing operators, that is, looking into ways to prevent indiscriminate parking and the abandonment of shared PMDs. In addition to that, there are also some issues that are very specific to PMDs, like fire risks, charging issues as well as like third-party liability insurance.
LTA has been making an effort to ensure that PMD use as well as bike-sharing remains safe in the community. We adopt a multi-pronged approach, one of which is public education where we work closely with the various operators to educate users on safe and responsible riding. LTA also has broad-based measures to improve active mobility safety. I think Mr Dennis Tan is also quite familiar with these, one of which includes the registration of e-scooters which will be implemented in early 2019. We also have stricter penalties for errant users. We will also be lowering the speed limit on foot paths from 15 kilometres per hour (km/h) to 10 km/h. At the same time, we will be implementing the UL2272 standard to reduce fire risks of motorised PMDs. Last but not least, of course, will be infrastructural improvement. We will be building more dedicated cycling paths as well as widening footpaths at locations where there is high pedestrian and cyclist volume.
Ultimately, PMDs offer a very convenient mode of commuting around Singapore and they are integral to our transport network and provide us with a car-lite alternative, especially for short distance trips. I would like to urge Singaporeans to be patient because many of these measures have been implemented only very recently. I believe, with time, we will be able to see significant improvements to users' behaviour as well as indiscriminate parking.
With regard to the sandbox licences, more announcements will be made when we are ready.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Currency (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BI","content":"[(proc text) \"to amend the Currency Act (Chapter 69 of the 2002 Revised Edition), and to make related amendments to the Private Security Industry Act (Chapter 250A of the 2008 Revised Edition)\", (proc text)]
[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung) read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
The Civil Defence Act (CD Act), provides for the establishment, maintenance and discipline of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
This Bill seeks to amend the CD Act to achieve three objectives: first, to enhance SCDF's operational response and efficiency; second, to codify the powers and protection that SCDF officers need to do their work effectively; third, to strengthen SCDF's disciplinary and human resource (HR) processes.
The Bill will also amend legislation pertaining to other Home Team Departments (HTDs) where a similar change is being proposed for the CD Act. These amendments will allow the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to standardise certain policies across the different HTDs.
In this speech, I will be using the term \"SCDF officers\" to refer to SCDF regulars, National Servicemen (NSmen) and volunteers of all ranks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now elaborate on the key amendments.
On the first objective of enhancing operational response and efficiency, let me start with the proposals related to SCDF's Public Warning System (PWS).
The PWS is a network of outdoor sirens located on rooftops throughout Singapore. The sirens provide warning of threats, such as aerial bombardments, natural disasters, terror attacks and other home-front emergencies. They alert members of the public to take actions to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.
Many public warning sirens are located on Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks or other Government-owned buildings. Some have to be installed on privately-owned buildings. Today, SCDF gets permission from building owners before the sirens are installed on their premises. Unfortunately, there have been occasions where permission is not granted.
Some owners cite concerns about noise pollution, even though the sirens are typically sounded for only about six minutes in total in any year, and only during the day. Others tell us bluntly that they are not obliged to cooperate, since there is no law that requires them to.
As a result of their refusal to cooperate, SCDF has to look for alternative locations. But this may lead to sub-optimal placement of the sirens, which may result in members of the public in some areas not being able to hear the sirens as well. More sirens may even have to be installed to ensure sufficient reach, at increased costs to the public.
Mr Deputy Speaker, an effective PWS is critical to save lives in times of emergency. We cannot allow public safety to be compromised.
New section 103B inserted by clause 20 of the Bill will, therefore, make it an offence for building owners to not comply with a direction from the Commissioner of SCDF to provide SCDF with space and access to the premises, for the installation of prescribed civil defence emergency devices, such as PWS sirens. Non-compliant building owners will be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years, as well as a further fine of up to $1,000 for each day of non-compliance after conviction.
New section 103C inserted by clause 20 will also provide SCDF with the power to enter premises to conduct assessment, maintenance and repair work for the devices. New section 103D provides that any willful removal, destruction, damage or tampering of the devices will be an offence. An offender is liable for a fine of up to $50,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years.
These penalties are aligned to those for similar offences involving telecommunications equipment under the Telecommunications Act.
SCDF plans to enhance the PWS in the coming years, by installing new types of public warning devices, such as equipment that broadcasts emergency alerts within buildings. New section 103B read with the new definition of \"prescribed civil defence emergency device\" also allows SCDF to require building owners to allow SCDF to install devices for the monitoring or detection of a civil defence emergency. The types of devices will be set out in the regulations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to assure members that SCDF's preferred approach remains to work with building owners to come to mutually acceptable arrangements.
The PWS is a long-term initiative, and we hope that building owners recognise the importance of PWS and come on board willingly. Legal action will be taken only as a last resort, against building owners who refuse to cooperate for no good reason.
Next, I will speak about SCDF's ambulance services. They are formally known as Emergency Medical Services (EMS).
In 2017, SCDF attended to some 165,000 EMS patients. SCDF was unable to confirm the identities of about 8%, or 14,000, of them. Typically, these patients were unconscious or unresponsive and did not carry identification documents.
If such patients could have been identified, the ambulance crew would have been able to expeditiously obtain the relevant health information from the Ministry of Health (MOH) and deliver more appropriate and timely medical interventions.
For instance, crew members can avoid administering drugs to which the patient has known allergies. Or, if they know that a patient with breathing difficulties has a history of asthma, they can administer the relevant drug immediately. They can also share the patient’s identity with the hospital, so that preparations can already be made at the Emergency Department even while the patient is being conveyed there by SCDF.
New section 101A(2) inserted by clause 18, therefore, proposes to empower SCDF officers and other authorised individuals attending to EMS calls to obtain the fingerprints or other personal identifiers of a patient whose identity is not known, and is unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate, for example, individuals who are having a seizure.
Clause 25 amends section 36B(2) of the Immigration Act to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to authorise the disclosure of identifying information belonging to an EMS patient, for the purpose of providing him with urgent medical care.
MHA will work with MOH to grant the authorised personnel access to the relevant health information, strictly on a need-to-know basis.
To safeguard the information, SCDF will put in place robust information technology (IT) security systems and processes. For example, the devices to capture the fingerprints will be password-protected, and the information encrypted.
Clear guidelines will also be developed to determine the access rights of the personnel involved and the circumstances under which the information can be accessed. All access to the database will be logged, and penalties will be imposed for any misuse.
Sir, I would now like to address the second objective, to provide SCDF officers with the powers and protection they need to do their job well. SCDF officers often perform emergency and rescue operations which require swift and decisive action.
To reach and extricate persons in emergency situations, SCDF officers may have to enter private premises and remove obstacles that block their way. For example, SCDF officers often have to break down doors and window grills in their rescue operations. To allow operations to proceed efficiently and safely, SCDF officers may have to close roads near the incident site, as well as shut gas, water or electricity supplies to affected premises.
For some types of operation, SCDF officers have been relying on the common law to justify the use of requisite powers. This is the case for EMS and rescue operations, as well as operations involving hazardous materials, or HazMat for short.
Clause 18 places on an explicit legislative footing the requisite powers for these operations in the CD Act. SCDF officers will be allowed to exercise such powers for the purpose of protecting lives and preventing injury and harm to human health.
In time-critical and dangerous situations, SCDF officers are also often required to take calculated risks. For example, in a rescue operation arising from a road accident, SCDF officers may need to cut open vehicles, to extricate trapped victims. This risks damage to the vehicles, and even injury to the people inside.
At present, SCDF officers do not have statutory protection from legal liability when they take calculated risks during EMS, rescue and HazMat operations. This is not ideal. SCDF officers ought to be allowed to focus on the job at hand, on saving lives, without being distracted by concerns about whether they may be charged or sued for damages caused while performing their duties.
New section 101C inserted by clause 18, therefore, provides SCDF officers with legal protection for actions undertaken in execution of the CD Act, including during any civil defence operation. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to stress that this does not mean SCDF officers can now act with wanton disregard. The protection applies only where SCDF officers act within the scope of the CD Act, and only when they have acted in good faith and with reasonable care.
So far, I have been speaking only about SCDF officers and what is needed to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. But SCDF officers are not the only people performing civil defence operations.
Today, SCDF engages ambulances run by Private Ambulance Operators (PAOs) to augment its \"995\" fleet. SCDF also has an arrangement with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for the training of SAF medics, under which SAF medics are attached to SCDF ambulances.
PAO crew members and SAF medics attending to EMS calls perform the same role as their SCDF counterparts and should be given the same powers and legal protection to do their jobs well.
Hence, the new section 101B inserted by clause 18 extends the requisite powers for EMS operations and protection from legal liability to PAO crew members and SAF medics, when they are attending to EMS calls.
I will now move on to the third objective, which is to strengthen SCDF's disciplinary and other HR-related processes.
I will begin with the voluntary extension of service for SCDF NSmen. Under the Enlistment Act, the maximum service age for SCDF NSmen is 40 years for those holding the rank of Senior Warrant Officer and below, and 50 for those holding the rank of Second Lieutenant and above.
The new section 9A inserted by clause 7 allows SCDF NSmen to serve beyond the stipulated maximum service age, if they are willing to do so and their services are required by SCDF. This will allow SCDF to continue tapping their valuable expertise, honed through many years of experience. It is in line with what SAF and Police NSmen are currently allowed to do.
With this amendment, motivated individuals, such as Mr Jorge Lau, will be able to extend their NS with SCDF on a voluntary basis. Mr Lau was an outstanding SCDF NSman. He was a Deputy Division Commander, holding the rank of Colonel (NS) when he reached the age of 50 last year. Mr Lau has had a unique NS experience. He underwent his Basic Military Training with SAF before becoming a Police NS Inspector, and later served the rest of his Operationally Ready NS in SCDF. He has held several key appointments in SCDF, including Company Commander, Head of Operations, and Battalion Commander, of a Rescue Battalion. The wealth of operational experience he has acquired over many years of NS puts him in a good position to mentor young SCDF NS commanders. With the Voluntary Extension of Service Scheme, SCDF will offer him the opportunity to continue serving.
These volunteers will have the same powers, protection, recognition and benefits as operationally-ready NSmen, and will be subject to the same disciplinary regime. Certain provisions of the Enlistment Act will also apply to these SCDF volunteer ex-NSmen. Among other things, the volunteers are protected from the loss of civilian remuneration and unfair dismissal, and employers are required to grant these volunteers leave of absence during the period of service.
Next, I will cover the new service offence for SCDF and Police Officers.
In the course of their work, these officers may be exposed to health hazards, such as toxic substances and pathogens. If the need arises, SCDF and the Police must have strong levers to compel their officers to go for medical examinations and treatments, including vaccinations. The objective is to protect the health of our officers and prevent the spread of diseases.
The new section 32A inserted by clause 12 makes it a service offence under the CD Act for an SCDF officer not to comply with an order from the Commissioner of SCDF to go for a medical examination or treatment. Clause 30 amends the Police Force Act to create similar provisions for Police Officers. Similar provisions for SAF personnel already exist in the SAF Act.
For the rest of this section, I will speak about the key amendments to SCDF's summary trial process. There are four of them. They involve changes to how service offences are detected, tried and sanctioned within SCDF.
The first amendment concerns the time bar for summary trials. At present, an SCDF NSman cannot be subject to a summary trial, if the offence was committed more than three years ago. To address situations where offences may only come to light later, clause 11 amends section 19(1) to provide for SCDF NSmen to be tried within three years, from the day the offence was reported or discovered. This change will align SCDF’s practice with that of the Police.
The second amendment pertains to the recall of NSmen for summary trials. Today, SCDF issues recall orders under section 14 of the Enlistment Act, to compel its NSmen to answer disciplinary charges levelled against them. Such recall orders enable NSmen to claim for the loss of their civilian remuneration under the Enlistment Act.
Clause 10 amends section 18 to allow SCDF to issue orders under the CD Act to compel NSmen who have committed service offences to report for summary trial. With this change, SCDF will not have to make up for the loss of civilian remuneration by affected NSmen. Those who do not show up for their summary trial will be deemed to have committed another service offence. Such provisions for SAF NSmen already exist in the SAF Act.
The third amendment concerns appeals against outcomes of summary trials. At present, SCDF NSmen below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel who have committed service offences are tried by SCDF Disciplinary Officers (DOs), while those with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or above are tried by a Disciplinary Board. There are currently no avenues of appeal against the decision of the DO or the Disciplinary Board.
To strengthen the summary trial process, clause 15 inserts a new section 76A which provides a new mechanism for SCDF NSmen to appeal against the findings or award of punishments. The conduct and procedures of an appeal will be set out in regulations. The Commissioner SCDF will be the appellate authority. He will determine the outcome of an appeal. In section 81 as amended by clause 16, Commissioner SCDF will also be given the authority to review any findings and award of punishment.
The last amendment in this section concerns the maximum fine quanta for disciplinary offences committed by SCDF NSmen. Clauses 13 and 14 align the maximum fine quanta for disciplinary offences committed by SCDF NSmen with those for SAF NSmen. Clauses 27 and 28 do the same, for disciplinary offences committed by Police NSmen.
Finally, I would like to cover the unauthorised production, distribution and use of Home Team uniforms and insignia.
With the powers and protection conferred on SCDF officers, there is a need to deter abuse by impersonators. Clause 22 will make it an offence for any person to impersonate or misrepresent himself as an SCDF officer. The penalty will be a fine of up to $2,500 and an imprisonment term of up to six months. In addition, any person who manufactures or sells SCDF uniforms or insignia without authorisation from SCDF will be liable for a fine of up to $10,000 and an imprisonment term of up to three years.
Clauses 26 and 31 create similar criminal provisions in the Immigration Act and the Prisons Act, for acts relating to immigration officers and prison officers respectively. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) of Singapore and the Singapore Prison Service are the other uniformed HTDs that currently do not have such provisions.
In conclusion, Sir, while SCDF has done well in its mission, this Bill will ensure that it can become an even more effective Life Saving Force. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, SCDF plays an important role in Singapore's Total Defence. This Bill plays an important role in enhancing the support SCDF and other HTDs need in their dedicated service to Singapore.
The first main feature of this Bill is that it strengthens HR capacity by allowing SCDF NSmen to voluntarily extend their service beyond what is required. Similar possibilities exist through the NS volunteer scheme and the Voluntary Extension of Service for Police NSmen Scheme, in the SAF and Singapore Police Force (SPF).
This will help advance SCDF's 2025 Vision of building a \"Nation of Lifesavers\". Being prepared to save lives would allow for prompter responses to life-threatening incidents and a more robust and resilient response in the event of a national crisis. Would the Minister elaborate on the rationale of the vision and the initiatives that SCDF has undertaken towards partnering the community to collectively work towards that vision?
The second major feature of this Bill is supporting day-to-day operations of the officers. The Bill expands the scope of the SCDF's functions to go beyond firefighting so as to provide statutory-based powers needed for their day-to-day life-saving duties which do not involve fighting fires. Historically, these duties were performed separately by SCDF and the Singapore Fire Service. However, in 1989, they merged to form Singapore Joint Civil Defence Forces and soon after became known as SCDF.
The SCDF's twin objectives of fighting fires and saving lives can be seen in the Fire Medical Vehicle commissioned in 2017. This vehicle is a hybrid between the Red Rhino and an ambulance, supporting both objectives of firefighting and saving lives. In recognition that life-saving work is important and a core part of what SCDF does, this Bill provides a statutory basis for the powers that need to be exercised in day-to-day operations – to save lives, for example, by breaking open a door.
There are two additional powers provided by the Bill. The first is clause 20 which involves access to install and maintain emergency devices which act as a public warning device or to monitor or detect a civil defence emergency. Clause 20, in particular, prevents the acts of an individual from compromising the safety of many through refusing to cooperate in the installation or maintenance of the device or even tampering with it.
This is important. Why? Because having a functional and effective PWS is critical for a strong, robust emergency response. In Palu, Indonesia, the earthquake destroyed the mobile phone network infrastructure, which made it impossible to use that mode of communication to disseminate information. Having a warning system in place can make the difference between the life and death of many, but only if it is understood, only if vigilance is exercised in detecting the situation and sounding the alert. As such, would the Minister elaborate on how our systems have been updated and upgraded to detect emergencies, possibly taking in newer warning signs? Would the Minister also elaborate how the community is engaged in emergency detection and preparedness?
A further additional power is the ability to take biometric identification factors to identify an unconscious person or one who is unable to communicate for medical intervention. As the Minister alluded to in her speech earlier, this is a useful and pragmatic improvement as it would allow for a prompter and more accurate diagnosis as medical history may reveal important information, such as possible complications and known allergies. In this way, the value of a person’s life necessitates that the practical impossibility of obtaining consent from an unconscious person will not bar more targeted help from being rendered to save the person’s life. SCDF officers will thus be able to render medical assistance more effectively and efficiently. Singaporeans will benefit.
The third feature of the Bill is that it prevents impersonation and unauthorised use of the insignias of the SCDF, Immigration and Prisons officers. This prohibition supports the officers’ work by ensuring that the trust that the public has in the Services is not misused by an impersonator. Immigration Officers keep our borders safe; Prison Officers follow through in implementing incarceration sentences and, where necessary, rehabilitation; SCDF Officers command evacuations, douse fires and save lives. Impersonators should not be allowed to dilute their cause or effectiveness or the trust instilled in our officers.
Indeed, trust has been hard earned. The public perception survey of 2016 showed that “the overall public confidence with SCDF being capable to cope with emergencies reached a high at 99%”. Well done, to our SCDF and Home Team officers!
Sir, this Bill gives SCDF NSmen the opportunity to continue serving the nation in this unique capacity, using the skills, training and experience they have built up and honed over the years. Having been instilled with a duty to save lives, SCDF NSmen will be able to formally and regularly advance the mission of saving lives through better powers and a more robust legal framework for the environment within which they operate. Therefore, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the intention of this Bill is to expand the legal powers of SCDF officers to respond to a wider range of incidents, especially during non-fire emergencies. This can only be a positive move and I stand in support of it.
I seek a few clarifications regarding this Bill which the Minister essentially addressed in her opening speech.
First, the official Press Release by MHA states that such non-fire emergencies could include responding to emergency medical services calls. For a better understanding, could the Minister provide further examples of other day-to-day emergencies which do not constitute as a civil defence emergency?
Under clause 3, powers will be given to SCDF officers to enable them to act in good faith and with reasonable care to save lives and prevent injuries. It would be helpful to receive clarifications on these circumstances since the powers of SCDF officers are extensive, including breaking into private places and vehicles.
Second, clause 7 introduces a new scheme allowing ex-NS men who were enlisted in SCDF to continue serving as volunteers. Could the Minister provide more information on this scheme? For example, how would their roles differ from the Civil Defence Auxiliary Unit (CDAU) or SCDF's volunteer force set up in 2006? Would the ex-NSmen volunteer under a separate scheme? The Bill also states that the Minister may, from time to time, authorise that the NSmen be paid for their services. Under what circumstances will they be paid?
Third, I understand that the Bill also requires building owners to provide space and grant SCDF officers access to install, maintain and repair the outdoor sirens that are part of PWS as well as other emergency devices. I was going to ask about the rationale for this change, but the Minister has answered it in her speech. But I want to add that the PWS is important as it warns all of us of imminent threats that could endanger lives and properties. I know this is not part of this Bill, but what is also equally important is the fire alarm system and we need to address the lack of central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks.
I appreciate that SCDF will be introducing a new requirement for all new residential units, and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices. It is good to provide early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, but what is also important is to provide warning for other residents living in that block.
This will not only help all residents in the affected block but also the SCDF officers responding to fight the fire. Every second counts in a fire emergency and lives will be saved if people are aware of the fire early and can evacuate early. The dangers our SCDF officers face will also be reduced if people are evacuated early.
We also need to remember that it is not only the fire that kills but, more often than not, also the smoke. While the fire might be contained in the unit, the smoke is not. I have raised this issue several times already and I sincerely hope that MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems at our HDB blocks, similar to what is already present in condominiums. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. The proposed measures to provide SCDF officers with clearer legal powers will aid the officers in their day-to-day operations. However, I do have some questions regarding some of the proposed measures.
First, I welcome the move to provide SCDF officers and providers of emergency ambulance services with explicit legislative powers for their day-to-day operations. During an incident, where time is of the utmost importance, the last thing that we can afford is for those attending to medical emergencies to hesitate, or have their hands shackled by the uncertainty of the lawfulness of their actions.
Under the Bill, SCDF officers attending to medical emergencies will be allowed to collect the fingerprints and other personal identifiers of unconscious patients. This will allow them to quickly obtain the necessary health information in order to administer the appropriate medical treatment, onsite or otherwise. I would like to ask the Minister how this would be operationalised. Would officers have a mobile device that can access such sensitive information remotely, and how can we safeguard these personal data?
Due to the protection conferred upon SCDF officers, the Bill proposes to criminalise any unauthorised production, sale, distribution and use of SCDF uniforms and insignia, to deter abuse by impersonators. While I agree with the intention of this measure, I would like to ask if there had been any past cases of impersonation of SCDF officers. If so, what were the intentions of the impersonator to do so? Would the Ministry be open to consider authorising some vendors, such as those operating in the Beach Road army market, for example, to sell SCDF uniforms to officers who can prove their identity on site?
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill proposes measures to strengthen the disciplinary framework for Home Team officers. Under the Bill, it is an offence for Home Team officers to refuse to undergo medical examinations and treatments. While I can understand the need for this measure to avoid situations where officers refuse to go for such medical examinations or treatments, despite the possibility of exposure to health hazards, I am puzzled as to why refusing dental treatments would be classified as an offence. Perhaps, the Minister could elaborate on what are the examples of dental issues arising from exposure to health hazards, and if there have been any past cases that have compelled the Ministry to designate such non-compliance as an offence.
Mr Deputy Speaker, many of the proposed measures in the Bill apply to the SCDF volunteer corps, also known as CDAU. The CDAU was established in 2006 and the current pool of volunteers consists mainly of ex-NSmen. I would like to know if the SCDF has sufficient CDAU volunteers today, and if the scheme can be opened to first-generation Permanent Residents (PRs) who may not have served NS but are still keen to contribute to our civil defence. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): SCDF plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of Singaporeans and residents. This comes with great sacrifice for SCDF officers, who put themselves at risk constantly and they deserve our nation’s appreciation and gratitude. One only needs to recall the Pulau Busing fire which happened in March this year. The massive fire required the deployment of more than a hundred personnel. Thanks to the hard work of our SCDF officers, the fire did not spread to two nearby oil tanks, which would have made the situation far worse. What was particularly etched in the minds of many appreciative Singaporeans was the photograph published in many news portals of our fatigued firefighters, many of them NSmen, drenched in perspiration because of the extreme heat, taking rests in between their duties.
The Bill makes changes to the CD Act to give explicit powers to SCDF officers for peacetime civil defence operations and, as stated by the hon Minister, to enhance the SCDF's operational response and effectiveness. These are necessary to allow the SCDF to take necessary and timely actions in day-to-day operations, in particular, to prevent the escalation of an emergency.
In connection with this, the Bill proposes that the powers given to SCDF officers must be exercised in good faith and with reasonable care, and, if so, the SCDF officers will not be personally liable for any act or omission carried out in the execution of such powers.
This protection from personal liability presently applies in civil defence emergency situations but will now be extended to peacetime situations. This is a recognition of the dangerous situations that SCDF officers face even in peacetime.
I would like to seek a clarification. Whilst liability against individual SCDF officers in such circumstances is excluded, may I ask whether it is meant to exclude institutional liability of SCDF?
Let me elaborate. There may be cases of institutional negligence leading to death. For example, in a 2000 English case, a pregnant woman had suffered a serious asthma attack at home, and the visiting general practitioner made an emergency call for an ambulance, which took 40 minutes to arrive. The woman suffered a miscarriage and brain damage. The ambulance service was found negligent for its unreasonable delay in arriving to the victim’s aid.
Such cases, by and large, are the exception rather than the norm as, under common law, there must be clear evidence of professional negligence by the emergency services crew who need to perform sometimes in exacting conditions. In the English case, the Court focused on the fact that whilst the ambulance service accepted the call to respond, it failed to explain why it had taken 34 minutes to travel 10 kilometres (km), barely 18 km per hour, and why the ambulance log book had been deliberately falsified to show a travel time of about nine minutes.
It must also be borne in mind that, in Singapore, hospitals and doctors are not immune to claims against them in respect of the medical care they provide.
I understand the rationale for protecting SCDF officers from personal liability, so long as they act in good faith and act reasonably. May I please clarify whether the proposed amendment in the Bill is also meant to prevent victims from seeking redress against the SCDF as an institution? If so, may I please ask what is the rationale for this?
The Act presently allows SCDF to direct any person to render assistance to save life in immediate damage, during a state of emergency. Apart from this, I wonder whether we should give the power to SCDF to instruct members of the public to provide cooperation to handle emergency situations even in peacetime.
Under common law, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another and, therefore, generally, a person cannot be held liable for doing nothing while another person is in peril. In contrast, if a person decides to come to the rescue of another, the good Samaritan is said to have assumed a duty of care and can become liable if his action makes the situation worse, such as injuries caused by a reckless rescue attempt.
I filed a Parliamentary Question last month on whether notices to guide the public on the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) could be installed in public locations to guide members of the public who have not received training on the use of AEDs. The hon Minister, in his answer, informed that a new educational sticker, with clear step-by-step instructions on how to handle suspected cardiac arrest cases, will be affixed to the bottom left of every AED cabinet installed in HDB blocks by July 2019.
How do we protect such people who step in to help in good faith? By providing protection to them, we may encourage more people to use AEDs, fire extinguishers, and go some way to achieve the vision of a nation of life savers that the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned in his speech.
Finally, section 115(2) of the Act is proposed to be amended to allow the Minister to make regulations to “prescribe anything which may be prescribed”. What is the thinking behind this? The amendment is so wide that it is as general as section 115(1) which already states that the Minister may make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the provisions of this Act. Is this amendment really necessary?
In conclusion, I applaud the good and hard work of SCDF. I support the Bill. But I would welcome clarifications on the three points I raised from the hon Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill will give our officers the powers to respond to a wider range of incidents. The explicit legal powers currently granted to our SCDF officers are limited to firefighting operations, Civil Defence operations during a state of emergency or state of Civil Defence emergency.
However, our officers also assist in rescues involving EMSes and other life-and-death situations, such as worksite and traffic accidents. Hence, it is only right that they are protected from legal liability when they are part of such hazardous operations.
I am concerned about the caveat that requires officers to \"act in good faith and with reasonable care\" in the course of their duties. This is a reasonable expectation but somewhat vague. In the event of a tragedy, how do we determine what constitutes \"good faith\" and \"reasonable care\"? Is there a list of guidelines or best practices?
In an emergency where chaos reigns, officers may have to make split-second judgement calls under very tremendous stress and heavy constraints. What measures are available to protect these officers if something goes wrong and family members of victims decide to pursue further action?
Is there a neutral panel or body which all parties can turn to for additional information, guidance and mediation?
I request for elucidation as I think that more clarity is necessary for all parties concerned to get on the same page, and to empower our officers to carry out their duties with greater confidence. Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Josephine Teo.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill. They have raised salient issues, which I will now address.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether the PWS will be upgraded to incorporate detection capabilities. The answer is yes. SCDF is studying the feasibility of installing devices that can detect hazardous materials in the air, such as chemicals or radiological substances. SCDF will provide more information at a later stage.
Next, I will address the questions on SCDF's access to the personal information of EMS patients which Mr Melvin Yong asked about, specifically, how the information will be accessed and how it will be protected – all very valid questions.
SCDF will equip the ambulance crew with a mobile device that can scan the patient's fingerprint and check it remotely against ICA's database. If there is a match, the patient's national registration identity card or foreign identification number (FIN) number will be provided to obtain the relevant information from the National Electronic Health Record (NEHR) system.
SCDF is keenly aware of the need to safeguard patients' information and has designed several steps to do so.
First, access rights will be strictly controlled. There will be standard operating procedures (SOPs) to specify the officers who can access the information, as well as the circumstances under which they are authorised to do so. The information that the officers can access is restricted to what is necessary to provide timely and effective care to the patient.
Second, robust measures will be implemented to reduce the risk of unauthorised access. Examples include measures against hacking, encryption of information, password protection, measures against multiple unsuccessful log-ins, such as the auto-lockdown of the account and the auto-wipe of data stored on the device, and regular purging of data from the devices.
Third, a robust logging and audit regime will be put in place. Access to ICA and MOH's databases will be logged and regularly audited. Any person found to have abused his access to the information will be severely dealt with. Persons who commit offences under the relevant legislation, such as the Computer Misuse Act, will be charged in Court.
I will now proceed to address questions on the powers and protection for SCDF officers and authorised individuals performing civil defence operations. Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira sought clarification on the circumstances under which the powers and protection will apply.
I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the proposed powers are scoped tightly, to cover only those necessary for SCDF's operations. Such operations include not only EMS but also rescues.
On a day-to-day basis, SCDF conducts a broad range of rescue operations in response to industrial and traffic accidents, HazMat incidents and also suicide attempts. In all these operations, SCDF officers sometimes have to enter private premises without permission, remove objects that impede operations, evacuate endangered persons, close roads and shut off utilities supplies.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection from legal liability is not unconditional. It will apply only when the officers concerned have acted in good faith and with reasonable care. Let me explain what these two terms mean.
An officer will be judged to have acted in good faith, if his actions were coherent and consistent with the intent to save lives, prevent harm to health, or protect property. So, there is a very tight condition set around the idea of acting in good faith.
He will be judged to have acted with reasonable care, if his actions were of a standard commensurate with his skill and experience for that particular situation. So, again, there is an expectation that the actions must relate to his skill and also his experience in those particular circumstances.
I would like to assure Ms Joan Pereira that as long as SCDF officers and authorised individuals act with integrity and competence, they will have no difficulties meeting the bar of \"acting in good faith and with reasonable care\". The Fire Safety Act has a similar protection for SCDF officers when they perform firefighting operations.
SCDF will equip its officers with the competence to make the necessary decisions during operations. SCDF will continue to put its officers through rigorous training and constantly refine its SOPs to guide their actions during operations.
That said, we are also cognisant that no training or SOP can cover the full range of operational contingencies. Hence, any evaluation of whether an officer has acted in good faith or reasonable care will also take into account whether his decisions were reasonable under those circumstances, for instance, he may be working with incomplete information and dealing with severe time constraints.
Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the proposed protection will apply to SCDF as an institution. Mr Deputy Speaker, the protection extends to SCDF as well by virtue of section 6 of the Government Proceedings Act. The Government remains liable for wrongful torts committed by SCDF officers if the SCDF officer did not act in good faith or with reasonable care.
In the English case that the Member has cited, it appears that the English ambulance service had been negligent. In the event of negligence, the protection from liability will not apply to both the officers concerned and to SCDF, as the condition of \"acting in good faith and with reasonable care\" would not be met.
SCDF is funded by public monies and has a responsibility to safeguard them from frivolous claims, which the protection will help to prevent.
Next, I will address questions on the proposal to make it a service offence for SCDF and Police Officers not to comply with orders to go for a medical examination or treatment.
Mr Melvin Yong was puzzled as to why the relevant provisions cover dental treatments, and I would like to clarify that these dental treatments will only pertain to those required by SCDF and SPF. This will ensure that the provision is comprehensive. Currently, we do not have any required dental examination or treatment, but we cannot rule out the possibility of such requirements in the future. So, there is nothing untoward happening now regarding teeth, but we still have to take care, and these will be in support of operational readiness. A similar provision, Sir, just in case you are curious, requiring dental examinations and treatment can already be found in the existing SAF Act. So, SCDF is not doing something very unusual.
I will move to the unauthorised production, distribution and use of uniforms and insignia. Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there were cases where ill-intentioned individuals had impersonated Home Team officers, and the answer is yes. There have been a few cases. For example, in 2014, SCDF received feedback concerning four scammers. Dressed in uniform and identifying themselves as SCDF officers, they had demanded to see the fire certificates of several shops at Jalan Bukit Merah and tried to sell fire extinguishers to the shop owners. In 2016, a man wore a uniform and posed as an ICA officer to steal contraband cigarettes.
Mr Melvin Yong expressed concerns about the impact of the amendments on retailers who are currently selling SCDF, ICA and Prisons uniforms. He asked whether it is possible to allow the retailers to continue selling the items, albeit only to bona fide Home Team officers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the impact on retailers is not expected to be significant. When SCDF informed retailers of plans to prohibit the sale and distribution of the items some months ago, the retailers told SCDF that they did not have large inventories of SCDF, ICA and Prisons items, as the sales volumes for such items were low. This is because most SCDF regulars and NSmen prefer to purchase their items from SCDF's own e-mart.
Mr Christopher de Souza cited SCDF's vision of building a \"Nation of Life Savers\" by 2025 and asked how SCDF intends to realise that vision.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the \"Nation of Life Savers\" vision stems from a simple fact, that the key to dealing with many emergencies is timely action. Timely action will allow an incident to be managed before it becomes more serious.
The SCDF has a high standard of emergency response. But it will still take around eight to 11 minutes for fire engines or ambulances to reach any location. In comparison, a family member or member of the public in the immediate vicinity can provide more immediate assistance.
Hence, in 2015, SCDF launched the Save-A-Life initiative to encourage community first-response to cardiac arrests in the HDB heartlands. Under this initiative, SCDF is installing AEDs in HDB blocks island-wide. SCDF also launched the myResponder app, which alerts first-responders of cardiac arrests in the vicinity and where AEDs are located.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we are on track to complete the installation of AEDs at HDB blocks by March 2019. All that will be done. SCDF is now exploring the extension of the Save-A-Life initiative to private condominiums.
In April 2018, the myResponder app was also enhanced, to alert first-responders of minor fires in the neighbourhood. This has allowed the first-responders to help SCDF put out rubbish chute fires or provide photos and videos of the fires to SCDF for better sense-making.
During a state of emergency or state of civil defence emergency, SCDF officers have the power to direct any member of the public to render assistance to save lives. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether SCDF officers should be allowed to exercise such a power for day-to-day civil defence operations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the power the Member cited is a significant one. The refusal to comply with an SCDF officer's direction is a criminal offence. An offender is liable for imprisonment of up to three months and a fine of up to $2,000.
The power is necessary during a state of emergency. In such a situation, Government resources are likely to be stretched. Under such extraordinary circumstances, SCDF must have the levers to mobilise any civilian resources available, including members of the public. This is not the case for day-to-day civil defence operations.
For SCDF's vision of a \"Nation of Life Savers\" to be feasible and sustainable, we want members of the public to come forward willingly as community first-responders, and not because they are obliged to.
The question then is whether enacting a Good Samaritan Law will assuage potential concerns that individuals may have about rendering assistance to others, unintentionally causing harm and being liable for criminal prosecution or civil claims, as Mr Murali Pillai has noted.
Sir, I would like to clarify that protection from civil liability is already available under the common law to a Good Samaritan when he acts out of necessity and with the care that can reasonably be expected of a person having his skill and experience. As for criminal liability, this generally requires malign intent which will not apply to a Good Samaritan who acts in good faith. Nevertheless, we will study this issue further to see if specific legislation is warranted.
Mr Melvin Yong asked whether SCDF has enough volunteers in CDAU, and whether first-generation PRs can be allowed to join CDAU.
SCDF started CDAU in 2006. CDAU caters to individuals who are keen to serve as SCDF volunteers in functions, such as firefighting, EMS and public education. The number of CDAU volunteers has grown from 18 in 2006 to 300 currently.
I would like to inform Members that CDAU is also open to PRs. At present, we have 10 volunteers who are first-generation PRs. We certainly welcome more people to sign up.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill will also allow NSmen to volunteer to serve in SCDF beyond the statutory age in the Enlistment Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the difference between the roles of volunteer ex-NSmen and of CDAU volunteers, and the circumstances under which volunteer ex-NSmen will be paid.
There are two key differences. First, volunteer ex-NSmen serve in NS units, mainly in specialised roles, such as Rescue Battalions and Civil Defence Shelter Battalions. CDAU volunteers, who may not necessarily have served NS with SCDF, perform a broader range of roles such as firefighting, EMS and public education.
Second, there is a difference in the manner in which they are called to serve. In the case of a volunteer ex-NSman, he can be called up for up to 40 days per work year, mostly for in-camp training. In terms of scheduling their volunteer duties, CDAU volunteers are given the flexibility to work around their career and family commitments. They typically serve at least 16 hours of duty per month, so it is quite different.
Similar to NSmen, volunteer ex-NSmen receive service and make-up pay when they are called up for duty. They may also receive additional allowances as key appointment holders.
Mr Louis Ng asked whether MHA will consider mandating central fire alarm systems in HDB blocks. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify that there are no differences in the Fire Code requirements for fire alarm systems for private and public residential buildings. Both do not require a central fire alarm system.
SCDF’s assessment is that the Fire Code requirements for residential buildings are sufficient vis-à-vis the fire risks. Typically, residents are familiar with the emergency escape routes for their buildings, which are moreover designed to enable effective smoke dissipation in the event of a fire. Residential units are also designed to be fire compartmentalised to reduce the risk of fire-spread. Consequently, SCDF assesses that there is no need to require the installation of central fire alarm systems in residential buildings. However, SCDF will monitor the situation and make adjustments if necessary.
I will conclude by addressing a technical amendment that Mr Murali Pillai asked about. This is the amendment to section 115(2), which allows the Minister to make regulations on any matter that may be prescribed under the Act.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment makes it clear that the Minister’s power to make regulations under section 115(1) includes the power to make regulations for matters that the Act expressly allows or requires to be prescribed. Examples include the definition of \"prescribed civil defence emergency device\" in section 2 or \"relevant premises\" in the new section 103A.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the amendments in the Civil Defence and Other Matters Bill will strengthen SCDF’s operational effectiveness and streamline its internal processes. They will enable SCDF to be more effective in saving lives and protecting property. Sir, I beg to move.
[(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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (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":"Developers (Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"The Minister for National Development (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time\".
Money laundering and terrorism financing activities are transboundary in nature. Illicit funds are the lifeline for international crime and terrorism which impact all countries.
Today, the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act regulate the sale of housing and commercial properties before completion by developers. Both Acts are administered by the Controller of Housing. Real estate is a category of the non-financial sector that may encounter persons engaging in money laundering and terrorism financing activities.
So, this Bill amends both Acts to, firstly, put in place new requirements for developers to facilitate the detection of money laundering and terrorism financing and, secondly, bar persons from being involved in developer activities if they have been convicted for money laundering and terrorism financing offences. These are among the series of amendments that Members of this House have made in the last four years to bring Singapore’s anti-money laundering and terrorism financing regime in line with the international standards set out by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
FATF, an intergovernmental body, was established in 1989 to set out national and international standards and promote the effective implementation of measures to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. The FATF Recommendations form part of the broader international financial sector standards and are recognised and used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank when they conduct assessments of a country’s financial sector. The FATF Recommendations include measures to be taken under each country's criminal justice and regulatory systems, preventive measures for financial institutions and certain other businesses and professions, and measures to facilitate international cooperation.
Singapore joined FATF in 1992, and since then we have put in place a very strong legal and regulatory framework to detect, deter and take action against money laundering and terrorism financing. This is further complemented by the effective monitoring of implemented initiatives and decisive law enforcement actions. As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore has committed to periodic peer assessments to ensure compliance with the FATF Recommendations, including through changes to legislation.
So, this Bill continues this ongoing effort and will help to strengthen our levers against money laundering and terrorism financing in the real estate sector in line with FATF's direction to strengthen the supervision of non-financial sectors.
Let me now go through the key provisions of the Bill.
First, clauses 5 and 10 of the Bill introduce new requirements for developers to facilitate the detection of money laundering and terrorism financing activities. In particular, developers will need to carry out customer due diligence checks on purchasers, keep proper records relating to these checks, and report any suspicious transactions to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Officers (STROs).
Developers will need to implement programmes to train their employees and develop internal policies and controls to manage and mitigate money laundering and terrorism financing risks. Developers should also not open or maintain any account for, or hold and receive monies from, an anonymous source or a buyer with an obviously fictitious name. The Bill adopts a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering and terrorism financing compliance. Principal obligations are set out, but businesses will have the flexibility to develop procedures according to the different risks they identify using their own programmes.
Today, persons who are looking to develop a housing project are required to obtain a housing developer’s licence, and clause 4 of the Bill proposes amendments to give the Controller of Housing power under section 7(1) of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act, to bar a person who has been convicted of money laundering and terrorism financing offences in Singapore, or has, as a substantial shareholder, or a holder of a responsible position, like partner or director, a person who has been convicted, from being licensed housing developers. This will add to the powers the Controller of Housing already has today to refuse, revoke or suspend a housing developer's licence, for cases, such as when the housing developer has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or when it is carrying on its business in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of its purchasers or to the public.
In addition, amendments in clauses 8 and 10 will disqualify persons convicted of money laundering or terrorism financing offences, from holding responsible positions in developers.
Lastly, the Controller of Housing will also be given commensurate enforcement powers to ensure compliance with the new provisions. Under the amendments in clauses 6 and 11 of the Bill, these include powers to require developers to produce relevant information, retain documents and make copies, and disclose information for purposes of investigation and any subsequent criminal proceedings.
The penalty for not complying with the above provisions will be a fine not exceeding $100,000. This is in line with penalties introduced in more recent Acts like the Pawnbrokers Act.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is important as it allows Singapore to more effectively combat money laundering and terrorism financing. It ensures our compliance with the FATF Recommendations and signals our commitment to be a responsible member of the international community. Failure of businesses to meet international standards puts at risk our international business relationships, as well as the reputation of individual companies and the Singapore financial market in general.
We have consulted the Real Estate Developers Association (REDAS), the Law Society of Singapore and members of the public in general. They appreciate the reputational risks of non-compliance with international standards and are supportive of the proposed anti-money laundering and terrorism financing requirements. The industry has shared concerns on the additional compliance burden that may be generated and how they can effectively carry out their new duties. We understand these concerns and, in drafting the Bill, we have sought to strike a balance between the additional regulatory burden imposed on the industry as well as the need to meet international standards and the FATF Recommendations. In addition, the legislative backing will make clear what is necessary and help to ensure more effective enforcement and efficient compliance to these requirements. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.
Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, as an international financial centre and trading hub, the fight to combat financial crime is a continuing priority. I am encouraged to see the whole-of-Government (WOG) effort on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). Financial institutions have poured substantial resources and investments, including the better use of technology, into improving the effectiveness of AML/CFT measures.
Last year’s setting up of the AML/CFT Industry Partnership (ACIP) by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), a platform that combines law enforcement and regulatory insight with industry's ground knowledge of business and clients, has helped expand our understanding of emerging risks and typologies. Many sectors have put in place the necessary laws to comply with AML/CFT requirements, including lawyers, pawnbrokers and moneylenders.
Parliament had passed the Serious Crimes and Counter-Terrorism (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill yesterday to provide for tougher penalties on corporations and professional service providers, as well as money mules for overseas organised syndicates. Therefore, the introduction of the Developers Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Bill is timely.
The use of real estate to launder illicit funds is an established method of money laundering the world over. Large sums of illicit funds can be concealed and integrated into the legitimate economy through real estate. We have seen reports where millions of dollars' worth of property have been subject to criminal investigation, when they are suspected to be the proceeds of illicit funds, yet these reported cases are likely to represent only the tip of the iceberg. It is, therefore, critical that we put safeguards in place in the real estate sector to stop it from being a channel for such activities. My comments on this Bill will focus on effective implementation.
The proposed Bill puts in place requirements for developers to carry out customer due diligence, keep proper records and report suspicious transactions. Whilst I strongly subscribe to taking an \"ecosystem\" approach to AML/CFT efforts as we are only as strong as our weakest link, I share the industry’s concerns on the practical limitations on some of the requirements. Developers are unsure how they can conclusively check and verify a purchaser’s profile, as well as establish purpose of purchase and source of funds, in the course of a sale and purchase transaction.
As current rules on Option to Purchase and Sale and Purchase Agreement only allow cheque, cashier's order or telegraphic transfer, funds flowing into the property sector would have already gone through AML/CFT checks by financial institutions before developers receive them. The option to purchase is not transferable nor assignable, and cash payment is not allowed without the explicit approval of the Controller of Housing.
I would like to ask the Minister whether developers, as \"secondary\" recipients of such funds, can rely on the customer due diligence already carried out by financial institutions. Also, whether a risk-based approach can be adopted where the levels of checks expected of developers vary according to whether the purchasers are local residents or foreigners, with enhanced checks prescribed for those from high-risk countries. And whether the checks required of other parties in the ecosystem, such as lawyers and real estate agents, can be coordinated so as to reduce duplication and ensure all efforts complement one another.
Whilst the intent of the Bill to stop financial crime in the real estate sector is laudable, we need to ensure that implementation of regulatory measures is not so onerous as to cause the increased cost of compliance to be passed to consumers.
To check for suspicious persons and entities, developers need to screen their prospective purchasers against multiple lists provided by relevant authorities, including the United Nation's Sanctions lists. To assist developers, can the Ministry coordinate and compile a single comprehensive list online to ensure thorough screening against the most updated information?
Under the new regulation, developers are required to appoint a compliance officer, as guided by the MAS notice. The industry is concerned about the availability of talent to fulfil such a role, as well as its related costs. Whilst I agree there is room to heighten awareness as well as institute measures to check for suspicious property transactions, this burden should not rest only on the shoulders of a compliance officer but those also of the senior management and, indeed, throughout the organisation. Developers should institute a corporate culture that has zero tolerance for money laundering and terrorist financing, and have that communicated rigorously to all staff. Lessons learnt from experiences of financial institutions should be shared widely so that developers can shorten their learning curve in implementing AML/CFT measures.
Mr Deputy Speaker, real estate-related money laundering cases often involve sophisticated methods being deployed, making detection a challenge. I would like to ask the Minister how we can mitigate the risk brought on by the use of front companies, shell companies, and trust and company structures established domestically and offshore to purchase property. Such structures help distance the criminal from ownership, with control vested in the hands of third parties to avoid obvious links to true ownership.
According to an article by the Financial Times on \"How laundered money shapes London's property market\", about 100,000 properties in England and Wales are owned by overseas companies, with many of the properties having been bought by anonymous shell companies based in offshore tax havens.
We are also subject to the risk of property values being manipulated by criminals buying or selling real estate at prices above or below market value and colluding with others in the ecosystem to \"clean\" the money. One example is when properties are deliberately undervalued and illicit funds are used to pay the difference between the contract price and the properties' true value. Processes should be in place to question such unusual property price transactions.
My final point is to ask, once again, that genuine buyers of Singapore homes be protected from any increased cost of compliance by developers, which the introduction of this Bill may inadvertently cause. We can do that by adopting a calibrated risk-based approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the introduction of the Bill to address some potential loopholes in our legislative framework governing real estate transactions which may be exploited for money laundering and financing terrorism.
As a member state of FATF, we should support and cooperate with its various recommendations. Notwithstanding, I have some concerns and would like to seek clarifications.
Firstly, how many member states of FATF have implemented similar recommendations so far, especially nations with financial centres? Is there a level playing field for all states, especially financial centres?
The Bill requires developers to perform customer due diligence (CDD), maintain records and report on suspicious transactions, amongst other measures. How will the Ministry ensure consistency in the way different developers perform such checks and how can it ensure compliance from all developers so that these measures will not end up as a matter of formality? How will the Ministry qualify \"best efforts\" and the definition of \"negligence\"?
In addition, are the measures a continued responsibility or only applicable at the point of the contract, that means, is the developer required to conduct regular checks, periodical checks, before obtaining the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) or Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC)?
At which point in time do the duty and responsibility of the developer end? This is pertinent as the buyer could be a group of investors, fund, trust, public or private company with a variable capital structure and have more than a shareholder or company registered. The shareholders and investors of these entities could change after the Sale and Purchase.
The Bill does not cover properties purchased in the resale market or developments exempted by the Housing Developers Act. How will the Ministry prevent money laundering through this avenue?
Finally, I have a couple of questions regarding the powers granted to the Controller of Housing (COH) to refuse, suspend and revoke a Housing Developers Licence given to applicant(s) who has/have been convicted of any offences relating to money laundering and/or terrorism financing, as well as for an applicant which is a company if it has a substantial shareholder or person of responsibility which/who has been convicted of such offences. Will these regulations apply to a person who has previously been convicted for a similar offence beyond our jurisdiction? Will this legislation only apply to new developers or also target newly appointed directors or new shareholders of existing developers?
Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the threat of terrorism is increasing on a global scale. The terror threat that Singapore faces is at the highest in years. To keep terrorism at bay, we need a multi-pronged approach. Apart from shoring up our border security and strengthening social resilience among our citizens, it is important to prohibit any channels of funding terrorism acts. In doing so, we can help to prevent and deter terrorism activities to a significant extent.
As a member of FATF, it is our obligation to comply with standards set out by the task force. This is for our benefit and safety as well. Money laundering is the oxygen that gives life to terrorism activities. It is also used by other criminals to support their activities.
Certainly, this is one of the areas that we have to regulate closely. Nevertheless, I wonder if we are overreacting and being too heavy-handed in the proposed regulations and duties for developers. Let me declare my interest on the board of the public-listed company Tee Land and Koh Brothers.
I note that under the proposed amendments, developers must implement programmes and measures to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF). They must carry out customer due diligence measures, and they are also required to report suspicious transactions.
According to feedback from the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS), there are practical limitations on how developers can conclusively check or verify a purchaser's profile and transactional patterns during a sale and purchase transaction.
It would be difficult for developers to ascertain the true source of a purchaser's funds, the motives behind the purchase and his relationship or association with a \"Politically Exposed Person\", as such issues are generally deemed highly personal and private.
Moreover, while developers can screen clients or prospective clients against publicly available lists of individuals and entities known or suspected to be related to a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, such providers cannot be held responsible for the validity and accuracy of such information. I note with concern that documents and information from due diligence checks must also be retained for a specific time and in a specific form. May I ask what is this specific period? Storing and ensuring the security of such data can add up to a costly amount over a long period of time, which leads to increased business costs.
How will these programmes be evaluated for their effectiveness? Considering that these are laymen who lack adequate resources and expertise when it comes to dealing with ML/TF activities, I would not be surprised if some of them slip up and allow ML/TF activities to occur under their very noses without their realising it.
Furthermore, developers would usually engage third parties like solicitors and licensed estate agents to assist them in the sale of properties. Would the new regulations mean that these third parties also have to comply with the requirements on due diligence measures? Who will be held responsible when the measures are found to be inadequate? The Board of Directors or the management?
If the Government wishes for the developers to take on a heavier responsibility, then it must furnish them with the relevant resources and work closely with them to help them come up with the right programmes and execution. Additionally, the Government must not only help with the initial stage, but also with the implementation throughout.
Should there be a weak link somewhere down the line, this can result in serious repercussions and even compromise our national safety. This is not something we should impose on the average citizen.
I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of the various regulations and their deadlines. If we look at the existing policies, the risk of transactions being abused for ML/TF activities is frankly not very high. Hence, I do not see the point of burdening the developers with additional requirements that may or may not serve the purpose of mitigating ML/TF. The existing standard Option to Purchase (OTP) and Sale and Purchase agreements provide for payment by cheque, cashier's order or telegraphic transfer for residential properties, and the former two payment methods for non-residential properties.
Such funds would necessarily have gone through a financial institution. Inherent in this payment is that the funds would have gone through AML/CFT by the respective financial institutions before the developers receive them. Should developers wish to provide for an alternative mode of payment, such as cash, they would be required to seek the COH's prior approval. Developers are \"secondary\" recipients of funds and the ML/FT risks faced by developers are lower.
The new regulations stipulate a timeframe of 12 months to allow developers to perform CDD measures on its existing customers based on its own assessment of materiality and risk and other considerations.
Considering that the ML/FT risks faced by a developer is lower, as explained earlier, the Minister should consider revising the 12-month timeframe and allow developers some flexibility.
Developers are also required to appoint a compliance officer as stated in the MAS Notice. In fact, the senior management will evaluate decisions to establish business relationships where there are ML/TF suspicions. What requirements would this compliance officer have to fulfil? Can he or she be appointed from the team that conducts these decision evaluations? Otherwise, this is once again an additional long-term expense for the developers.
Moving on to other areas of concern, I note that the developer will not be able to issue the OTP while still being obliged to make a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR).
By declining to issue the OTP, this could alert the \"customer\" that their transactions have raised suspicions. If they are, indeed, involved in ML/TF activities, they may then redirect the funds and it would be difficult to apprehend them. If this turns out to be a mistake, the customer would have missed out on the purchase opportunity. This would not only deprive the development of a legitimate sale but may also incur unhappiness from customers and even lawsuits.
I note that the COH only regulates the sale of uncompleted projects. What is the reason that sale of completed projects is not required to be regulated? In fact, with regard to ML/TF, there are many more players along the value chain. Are we expecting more amendments to come up? Why do we not amend all relevant Acts at one go?
Sir, I appreciate the need to enhance management of ML/TF risks. Even more, we should not leave it to the developers to be responsible for ML/TF risk management. Certainly, everybody has a role to play to combat terrorism. If the Government wishes to have the developers’ full cooperation, then it would be prudent to engage the right people with the relevant know-how to work closely with them and, more importantly, to provide them with the necessary resources to do so, so that it will not end up as just another paper exercise and form signing.
(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Obviously, it is very important to deter ML/TF. However, the Bill puts too much onus on developers. I am afraid that it might increase the cost and even result in negligence. According to the Bill, the developers must check whether the client has a suspicious background and, if found to be so, they cannot sell the property to this buyer. Do developers have sufficient training to do background checks? If they use lawyers or agents to sell their properties, are these people required to do background checks on their clients, too? Are they capable of doing it?
In fact, banks and other financial institutions have protocols to do background checks on their customers. Is it not better to ask them to do the checks?
When a transaction is delayed, innocent customers may lose the opportunity to purchase, and those who are of truly questionable character may smell a rat and, therefore, decide to transfer their funds to somewhere else.
I think banks and the Police are most capable of deterring ML/TF. We may achieve the opposite effect if we demand too much from the developers.
(In English): Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. Real estate is a popular outlet for illicit funds. Money launderers and terrorism financiers often invest in real estate for the same reasons other people do: the prices are stable, the values generally appreciate over time, and you can live in it or rent it out.
This Bill sends a clear message to Singapore's housing developers: you must not be involved with these criminals. They cannot be your customers, your shareholders or your officers. You must take concrete steps to guard against their involvement, and you must report any suspicions you have.
Sir, I stand in support of this and I will raise three points for clarifications.
My first point is about implementation. In an interview conducted by The Business Times this February, a housing developer commented that conducting customer due diligence might be, I quote, \"quite tricky\", for big projects on launch days. It is hard to conduct due diligence when there are so many buyers and so much urgency for everyone involved.
The developer said, \"The process in the show flat does not quite work that way.\"
Can the Ministry share how developers can best cope with the demands of the new law while not compromising their business operations? Will the Ministry provide guidelines on how housing developers can adapt to this new law?
My second point is about specificity. It seems to me that this Bill leaves quite a bit of room for housing developers to make their own judgement calls. The word “appropriate” appears 12 times in what is a fairly short bill: appropriate steps, appropriate mechanisms, appropriate arrangements, appropriate measures. The word “adequate” appears seven times: adequate safeguards, adequate programmes and adequate procedures.
Sometimes these broad guidelines are translated into specific measures. For instance, the Bill states that developers must appoint a compliance officer at the management level. This is clear and unequivocal. It is useful to companies trying to do the right thing by the law. However, more often, the guidelines are left broad. In section 5C, developers are told they must take appropriate steps to identify, assess and understand the risks in relation to its purchasers.
Would it be enough to run the purchasers’ names through regulatory searches and sanctions lists? Or is there a need to commission an investigative firm to dig, expensively, into the background and history of the purchaser?
Numerous other parts of the Bill are written with some ambiguity. At one point, developers are told not to deal with purchasers that have \"an obviously fictitious name\". What is an obviously fictitious name?
Sir, I understand that not everything can or should be codified as specific instructions within the law. But we cannot ask them to significantly increase their costs of doing business while remaining ambiguous about what we want from them. The law should allow a developer, acting in good faith, to confidently say, \"I do not need to be fearful of a $100,000 fine.\"
Further to my earlier suggestion to provide housing developers with guidelines, these guidelines could also shed light on what concrete steps developers are required to take to be in compliance with these new requirements.
Sir, the intent of these amendments is good but I hope this does not just become another “tick in the box” exercise. We must remember that we are asking developers who are there to make a profit to do their due diligence which might end up with them making less profits. We are asking them to check on their own clients who are paying them and at times paying them a lot of money. Again, we need to be more specific, otherwise, these amendments will be futile.
Lastly, on this point, can the Minister clarify if the person who is liable for prosecution for failure to do due diligence is actually the person on the ground doing the due diligence? My concern here is that if a property agent is the one doing the checks and we are going after the director who has never really met the customer, is this going to be effective? The person who is doing the checks know that he or she is not going to be prosecuted, and the director who might receive hundreds of these reports from hundreds of property agents will never be able to properly do the due diligence.
My third point is about other things we can do. The Government can do more to combat the flow of illicit funds. The unexplained wealth order is one idea that has gained traction in recent years. What is the Government’s stance on the unexplained wealth order and will the Government consider implementing it in the law?
The idea is as follows. The authorities can apply to the Courts to issue an unexplained wealth order. The order would compel an individual suspected of criminal activity to explain how they obtained their assets. The order would allow the authorities to freeze and recover assets if the individuals cannot explain, one, why they own assets worth more than their income and, two, how they have acquired the assets legally.
Several parts of Australia have implemented and actively used this law against those suspected of criminal activity. The United Kingdom introduced the Unexplained Wealth Orders under its Criminal Finance Bill this year and its High Court issued in September the first such order, compelling a jailed Central Asian banker and his wife to explain how they were able to afford an extravagant lifestyle that included ownership of a London mansion and a golf course. Earlier this month, Malaysia announced that they were also looking into its implementation.
Transparency International has identified £4.4 billion worth of London properties that it says were paid for by illicit funds and argues that an unexplained wealth order is a crucial tool for governments to combat the use of such dirty money.
This Bill we are reading today tackles the supply side of this problem by regulating our housing developers. An unexplained wealth order would complement this law by tackling the demand side of the problem.
Would the Ministry consider adopting unexplained wealth legislation to bolster our AML/CFT regime?
Sir, in conclusion, Singapore must show the world that it acts against dirty money. This Bill goes some way towards achieving that. But let us clarify what it means for local businesses and see how much more we can do. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Lawrence Wong.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members of the House who have risen in support of the Bill, as well as the Members who have shared their comments and feedback. I will now address some of the points raised in the course of this debate.
I believe Members who have spoken generally agree that as a responsible member of the international community, there is a need for Singapore to do our part to strengthen our levers to effectively detect, deter and prevent ML/TF.
However, several Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Foo Mee Har, asked why there was a need to impose these requirements on developers, in particular, since the funds they receive would eventually have to pass through financial institutions and banks which already have to carry out checks anyway.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is right in that, in general, most ML/TF activities are concentrated in the financial sectors. But as Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Louis Ng said, real estate is also an established method of money laundering worldwide. So, such activities can occur in real estate and real estate can be exposed to questionable practices and be used as a vehicle for ML/TF activities.
For the real estate sector, in particular, besides your bankers and lawyers, developers are a key party that deals with property buyers. So, they do play an important role in the detection and prevention of such activities. And this is why we are introducing these requirements by amending the two Acts that regulate developers to better facilitate our AML/CTF activities.
And this is also the reason why this Bill does not cover transactions involving completed properties because the Bill pertains to the two Acts that regulate the sale of uncompleted housing and commercial properties by developers. These are the sale of properties typically sold off-plan and they are exposed to more risks. And our main objective of the Bill is to get developers who are involved in the sale of such uncompleted properties involved in our AML/CFT efforts and to bring them up to the same level as the other players that are involved in real estate transactions, namely, the bankers and the lawyers.
For the sale of completed properties, these typically do not involve developers directly and so we rely on the other players in the real estate chain, such as bankers and lawyers, who already have similarly robust obligations under the respective legislation to conduct CDD checks and to report suspicious transactions. So, this is really about levelling up and making sure that we cover comprehensively the same requirements, not just on bankers, not just on lawyers, but also now, on real estate developers. And that is why the Bill covers the two Acts that regulate the sale of uncompleted properties.
For real estate agents, in particular, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) already has guidelines to require estate agents to perform due diligence checks for suspicious transactions. These are guidelines by the regulator. However, we do intend to make amendments next year to the Estate Agents Act so as to impose similar AML/CFT requirements for estate agents.
I understand and I hear the feedback from Members who have spoken and all of you have highlighted and asked if the proposed legislation will be overly onerous on developers, and whether it will impact their business operations. We share the concerns and that is why, in drafting the provisions and in implementing these requirements, we have been careful to implement a calibrated risk-based approach.
So, in tabling this Bill, we would like to strike a balance between complying with the requirements recommended by FATF and ensuring that the burden on developers is not excessive. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill adopts a risk-based approach under which the broad principal obligations are set out. Perhaps, that is why Mr Louis Ng noted that there are these terminologies which are set out in broad language. But it is deliberately done, so that then businesses have the flexibility to develop procedures according to their business size, customer profile and nationality, and different levels of ML/TF risks which they can identify using their own AML/CTF programmes.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, for example, talked about the 12-month deadline when due diligence checks are to be conducted. These are not hardcoded in the Bill. These are more detailed regulations that would be set out in subsidiary legislation and we have not decided on them yet. So, we will take the time to engage the industry and review these specific requirements before we set them out in subsidiary legislation.
That said, I would like to highlight that developers today already collect most of the \"Know Your Customer\" (KYC) information that we have in mind for the rules. Developers today already do so. Any developer that accepts a transaction without doing basic KYC checks will be problematic, even today. So, I would expect developers today to already collect most of the KYC information that we have in mind for the rules, such as identity documentation, so that incremental compliance costs should not be excessive and should not adversely affect purchasers, especially genuine purchasers.
Er Dr Lee also asked how long developers would have to keep records of their diligence checks. The prescribed period will be set out in the rules and will be at least five years after the completion of the transaction. And this is consistent with what is prescribed in the FATF recommendations and also in other sectors’ legislations, such as for financial institutions and for pawnbrokers.
Some Members asked about the extent of the developer's responsibilities in adhering to the requirements of the new Bill. Specifically, Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the point at which the developer's duty to monitor their buyers ends, given that the profile of buyers can change after the signing of the sale and purchase agreement.
Under the new section 12B of the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the new section 5A(2) of the Sale of Commercial Properties Act, a developer is required to perform such CDD measures as may be prescribed, at such times as may be prescribed. So, the provisions are broad. But I want to assure Members that we will not be requiring developers to monitor their buyers perpetually. Instead, the rules will make it clear that the requirements on developers will only apply until the project is completed, which is also the point at which the developer is no longer regulated under the two Acts. Developers should ensure that the information obtained with respect to the purchasers and its beneficial owners is kept updated. At any point during the monitoring, if the developer comes to know about property which represents proceeds of or is used or intended to be used in connection with, any act which may constitute drug dealing or criminal conduct, the developer will then have to report such suspicious activity to an STRO. But the point is that the rules will not be imposed on the developer perpetually.
Ms Foo Mee Har also asked if developers could rely on third parties, such as estate agents, lawyers or banks, to conduct the necessary checks on their behalf. The answer is yes. Developers will have the flexibility to determine how best to do their checks, including through third parties. As mentioned, the Bill does adopt a risk-based approach to compliance and we will not rule out the use of such third parties. But ultimately, the developer bears full responsibility for adhering to the requirements under his new Bill. So, the developer should ensure that the third party it hires has the appropriate capabilities and the resources to comply with these measures and are able to provide the relevant information to the developers without delay, upon request, should they decide to use a third party.
Er Dr Lee and Mr Louis Ng asked who specifically would be held responsible if the due diligence measures were found to be inadequate or not complied with. Ms Foo Mee Har also spoke about the need for the burden of compliance to fall on senior management and throughout the organisation for accountability.
Indeed, the developer will be primarily responsible for failing to perform any due diligence measures as required by law. However, where the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the company, or the commission of the offence was attributable to the officer's negligence, then that officer may also be held liable for the offence. So, it will really depend on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances. That officer could be any director, member of the management team, chief executive officer, manager, secretary or other persons acting in such capacity in the developer company. This is also the position taken today under section 27 of the Housing and Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and section 9 of the Sale of Commercial Properties Act.
Er Dr Lee also asked about the role of the compliance officer that developers must appoint. This compliance officer can be any appointee at the management level and will be responsible for reviewing the developer's AML/CTF policies. So, it need not result in additional expense. But the developer must designate a compliance officer and appoint with clear responsibilities for this officer.
Ms Foo Mee Har asked how developers can mitigate the risk brought on by the use of shell companies and other corporate entities to purchase property. Indeed, the Government is aware of such concerns and we have made legislative amendments to address this issue. For example, the Companies Act was amended last year to make the ownership and control of business entities more transparent and thereby reduce opportunities for the misuse of corporate entities for illicit purposes. The FATF recommendations also include requirements for regulated entities to obtain information of beneficial ownership. So, in elaborating and crafting the rules, we will make clear the duties of developers in this particular requirement of checking for beneficial ownership as well.
Some Members expressed concern that developers would fail to effectively comply with the new rules due to a lack of understanding of how to implement them or merely go through the motions. Indeed, we do not want this to be a paper exercise or a tick-in-the-box exercise, as some Members have mentioned just now. So, we will be adopting a two-pronged approach to address this.
First, we want to help developers level up. So, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) will engage the developers. They will do industry outreach and provide all the necessary guidance to developers in the initial implementation stage. Subsequently, URA will provide ongoing support to improve the industry's understanding of what constitutes risky transactions, as well as their risk mitigation capabilities that are needed, in order to foster a good understanding of the new requirements.
Then, when the industry's capabilities are levelled up, when everything is in motion, the COH under URA will carry out regular audit checks to ensure that, indeed, developers are implementing their measures properly. And if developers are found to not have adhered to the requirements, there will be penalties, not only potential fines, but, in more serious cases, they could also be disqualified from obtaining licences in the future.
Let me now move on to some transboundary issues which Members have raised.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked whether other countries have implemented similar regulations, how many, and if there was a level playing field. Indeed, the whole point of developing international standards under FATF is to ensure that there is a comprehensive global system to fight against ML/TF. To date, about 190 jurisdictions have committed to the FATF Recommendations. The specific provisions may differ from country to country because even the regulation of the sale of properties varies from country to country. Some countries even prohibit sale of properties off-plan. So, specific provisions may vary. But 190 jurisdictions have committed to the FATF recommendations precisely because this is an important international issue and it can make progress through a global effort.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if we can deny or revoke a housing developer's licence to persons or entities that have been convicted of ML/TF offences in other jurisdictions. We will mainly rely on local convictions as a basis to refuse, suspend or revoke a Housing Developer's Licence. But the Controller may refuse to grant a Licence to a person or entity with an overseas conviction, or revoke the licence if it has been earlier granted, if the overseas conviction, together with other circumstances, indicates that it is carrying on its business in Singapore in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of purchasers or to the public. So, we have the ability to do so, to revoke, suspend or refuse a Licence if the convictions are happening elsewhere.
Finally, Mr Louis Ng suggested for the Government to consider adopting unexplained wealth legislation to bolster our AML/CTF regime. This is, in fact, a point raised by Mr Murali Pillai yesterday during the debate on the Serious Crimes and Counter Terrorism (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.
So, it is, in fact, not quite so relevant to this Bill, because, as mentioned by Minister Josephine Teo yesterday, the Government will certainly monitor overseas developments in the area of anti-corruption measures to see if these can be adapted here on another occasion. Unexplained wealth order legislation has been introduced overseas as an investigation tool to enable enforcement agencies to investigate the source of money. But it is a tool which can and should be capable of being directed at anyone, and not just developers. So, it is really a separate matter outside of the scope of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed the points raised by Members. This Bill is just one of the many changes we are making to our laws to help Singapore be a responsible member of the international community, and to uphold our reputation as a conducive and reputable place to do business.
Failure to impose these AML/CTF requirements across our entire real estate value chain comes at a reputational cost to Singapore. And I believe that legislative backing will be necessary to ensure effective enforcement and compliance to these requirements. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(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 Lawrence Wong.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.31 pm until 3.55 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment (Amendment) Bill ","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, the Employment Act (EA) is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for the basic terms and working conditions for employees, while meeting employers' needs to stay competitive. Since it was last reviewed in 2012, the profile of our labour force and local employment practices have continued to evolve. A review is, therefore, timely to ensure that the EA remains relevant.
My Ministry, together with our tripartite partners the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), carried out extensive consultations. The result is a set of substantive amendments that meet the interests of both employees and employers.
Members may be aware that the EA was first enacted in 1968 by then-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Labour, Mr S Rajaratnam. It has come a long way. Back then, managers and executives were a very small part of our workforce. There was little need to cover them under the EA. It was more than 40 years later that we started covering some managers and executives in 2009.
We have also enhanced employment protection and benefits over the years. For example, we introduced childcare leave and enhanced maternity leave in 2004. In 2009, we extended the provisions on compensation for work on public holidays and paid sick leave to all employees under the EA. Recently in 2016, we also introduced itemised pay slips and written key employment terms.
Each amendment of the EA is a result of careful consideration by the tripartite partners to meet the interests of both employers and employees. As we mark the 50th Anniversary of the EA this year, we should acknowledge the tripartite collaboration that has kept our EA relevant and well-calibrated.
Let me provide an overview of the amendments in this Bill, which is intended to take effect on 1 April 2019. It covers changes in three key areas.
First, we will extend core provisions of the EA to cover all managers and executives. This will mean that other than domestic workers, public officers and seafarers who will continue to be covered by other Acts and regulations due to the nature of their work, all employees will enjoy the protection of the EA.
Second, we will extend additional protection under Part IV of the Act to cover more employees.
Third, we will enhance our employment dispute resolution framework.
Let me elaborate on the key amendments.
The first set of amendments extends the core provisions under the EA to all employees. These include the minimum days of annual leave, paid public holiday and sick leave entitlements, as well as other protections, such as timely payment of salary and protection against wrongful dismissal.
Today, three groups of employees already enjoy core provisions.
First, all workmen – these are our manual workers or blue-collar workers. Second, all non-workmen – these are our rank-and-file white-collar workers. Third, managers and executives with basic monthly salaries up to $4,500.
With the proportion of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) rising and expected to make up two-thirds of our local workforce by 2030, it is timely to make a more fundamental change to the coverage of the EA.
In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will remove the $4,500 salary threshold for managers and executives. In doing so, all employees, whether managers and executives, workmen or non-workmen, will be covered by core provisions under the EA. This will benefit an additional 430,000 managers and executives.
In addition to the core provisions, the EA provides a set of additional protections in Part IV, such as on hours of work, rest day and overtime pay. Today, Part IV covers workmen earning up to $4,500, and non-workmen earning up to $2,500. They are collectively known as Part IV employees.
In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will increase the salary threshold for non-workmen from $2,500 to $2,600, bringing Part IV employees to half of our total workforce. In addition, we will align the salary cap of $2,250 for calculating overtime pay with the new salary threshold of $2,600. Taken together, an additional 100,000 employees will benefit from these enhancements.
As we amend the EA to benefit more employees, we have also introduced changes to better meet business requirements.
For example, currently, when workmen and non-workmen are required to work on public holidays, employers have only two options. They can compensate with an extra day's pay or provide a full-day off-in-lieu.
We will introduce a third option for workmen and non-workmen who are not Part IV employees. Employers will be able to grant them time off for the hours worked on a public holiday, rather than a full-day off. With this change, the options for non-Part IV workmen and non-workmen would be the same as that for managers and executives.
With these changes, all employees will continue to be compensated for working on public holidays. Employers will be able to grant time off to all non-Part IV employees. Part IV employees, who have lower bargaining power, will continue to receive either an extra day's pay or a full-day off if they are required to work on a public holiday.
Another improvement for businesses has to do with authorised deductions.
Today, the EA limits the type of salary deductions that employers can make, such as absence from work or damaging or losing goods entrusted to the employee. Such controls protect the employee’s interests but can also inconvenience them. For example, some companies provide voluntary group hospital and surgical insurance for their employees if the employees agree to co-pay the premiums.
The EA currently does not allow such deductions even when the employees agree. So, employees have to separately reimburse the employer. The EA will be amended to allow a deduction if it fulfils two conditions. Firstly, the employee must willingly consent to the deduction in writing. Secondly, the employee must be able to withdraw his consent at any time, without any penalty. This less prescriptive approach would allow employers and employees greater flexibility to arrange for mutually agreed deductions. At the same time, employees’ interests continue to be protected. In addition, deductions still cannot constitute more than 50% of the employee’s total salary for any one salary period. Deductions for amenities and services supplied by the employer will continue to require the Commissioner’s approval.
The third set of amendments enhances our employment dispute resolution framework.
Currently, salary-related disputes are adjudicated by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), while wrongful dismissal claims are adjudicated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). In fact, both types of disputes are often related.
To provide both employees and employers with a more convenient \"one-stop service\", we will shift the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to the ECT. In line with this \"one-stop service\" approach, we will also expand the coverage of the Tripartite Mediation Framework to include wrongful dismissal claims.
Over the years, a considerable body of cases involving wrongful dismissal claims have been accumulated. They put into practice the broad principles used by MOM that also reflect the consensus reached between employers and unions.
The type of dismissal cases that MOM hears include not only those when the employee was terminated by the employer, but also cases when the employee resigned involuntarily. Involuntary resignation can be considered wrongful dismissal if the employee was forced to do so for wrongful reasons. For example, an employer may make work conditions unreasonably difficult, to force the employee to resign so as to deprive him of his employment benefits, and to mask the employer's wrongful behaviour.
The wrongful dismissal cases heard by MOM have not been published thus far as there was little need to do so. With the transfer of the adjudication function to the ECT, MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. These Tripartite Guidelines will contain illustrations of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not.
Under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), when the ECT adjudicates a case, it must take into account the principles and parameters contained in the Tripartite Guidelines. In cases where a dismissal is found to be wrongful, the ECT will order compensation or reinstatement. There is no change to the scope of remedies. Per the current practice, the ECT will take into account factors beyond just the wages or maternity benefits owed to the employee, in determining the amount of compensation.
Sir, when the EA was first expanded in 2009 to cover managers and executives, the tripartite partners agreed that managers and executives would only be eligible to claim for wrongful dismissal if they have served at least 12 months.
Following further tripartite discussions, employers have agreed to reduce this qualifying period to six months, on the basis that it would be sufficient for them to assess a manager's or executive's suitability for the job. This is in recognition that performance in a manager and executive role is not so immediately clear, compared to workmen or non-workmen, where there is no qualifying period.
This is a win-win approach, as forcing employers to accept an even shorter period would make them more hesitant in offering employment to candidates they are not entirely sure of.
Finally, we will also make other amendments to the EA to enhance its flexibility and ensure it remains responsive.
Today, employers are required under the EA to accord paid sick leave only if the medical certificate (MC) is issued by the Government and company-appointed doctors. This provision has been in place since the EA was first enacted in 1968. As the Minister back then made clear, there were frequent absences using fictitious MCs; the Government stepped in then to specify which doctors’ MCs would be recognised by law.
Today, doctors are registered under the Medical Registration Act and are subject to the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. Therefore, there is no longer a need to distinguish between MCs issued by different groups of doctors where paid sick leave is concerned.
Moving ahead, we will require employers to recognise MCs from all registered doctors for the purpose of granting paid sick leave. Given this widening in the recognition of MCs, it is timely to also clarify what hospitalisation entails under the EA. The clauses on hospitalisation have been in place since 1968 and the intent has been for hospitalisation leave to cover the period requiring hospital care.
However, certain ground practices have deviated from the policy intent over the years. Today, some non-hospital doctors may issue MCs for hospitalisation leave for conditions that do not require any hospitalisation, such as sprains. To clarify the intent, we will specify in the EA that when it comes to hospitalisation leave, employers are required to recognise MCs only if they are issued by hospital doctors. Employers who wish to recognise MCs from their own panel-doctors for granting hospitalisation leave are free to continue to do so.
Hospitalisation leave will continue to cover inpatient stays in hospitals and day surgeries. In addition, the post-discharge period of rest or further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for will also be covered.
There are also certain circumstances where we will continue to require employers to recognise MCs for purposes of hospitalisation leave. Occasionally, the hospital doctor assesses that inpatient stay or day surgery is required, but, for some reason, that does not happen. For example, a hospital doctor may assess that a pregnant woman requires hospitalisation for bed rest due to complications in pregnancy, but she may prefer to rest at home. There may also be other specific circumstances, such as Quarantine Orders as required by law, which would qualify employees for hospitalisation leave. We will provide for these situations in the Act and regulations.
Sir, there is also a need to enhance MOM's regulatory framework to ensure that it remains responsive to the emergence of undesirable employment practices.
For example, some employers have, out of convenience, or even with an intention to cover up for late or non-payment of salaries, asked their employees to sign salary vouchers before receiving their salaries, or to sign on blank salary vouchers. Such errant practices should be curbed. The worker may not realise that salary vouchers can be used as proof of receipt of payment in cases of dispute.
We will, therefore, provide in the EA that the Minister for Manpower can make regulations to protect employees from any employment practice that may adversely affect their well-being, including where the enforcement of their entitlements might be at risk. For a start, we intend to make it a civil contravention for employers to ask an employee to indicate receipt of salary before he is paid, or sign a receipt that is blank or inaccurate.
Sir, we have covered many changes in this Bill. With your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a handout on the key changes to the EA, for ease of Members’ reference.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout (Annex 3) was distributed to hon Members.]
Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, please also allow me to summarise the Bill in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the EA is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for basic employment protections and fair treatment for employees while meeting employers’ needs at the same time, to ensure that our labour market will continue to thrive.
The purpose of each amendment is to make sure that the EA remains relevant and forward-thinking. As always, the amendments today are the result of tripartite consultation. The key areas of review are providing protection for more managers and executives (M&Es), allowing more employees to enjoy additional protections, and strengthening our employment dispute resolution framework.
Today, our PMETs make up about 56% of the local workforce. By 2030, that proportion is expected to increase to 65%. Currently, the EA covers M&Es whose salaries are up to $4,500, to allow them to enjoy legal protection, including when it comes to sick leave, working on public holidays, and wrongful dismissal.
After discussions with the tripartite partners, we feel that M&Es whose salaries exceed $4,500 should also enjoy the basic protection. About 430,000 M&Es will benefit.
We will also increase the salary threshold for non-workmen so that more employees can enjoy more comprehensive legal protection, including when it comes to working hours, overtime pay and rest day entitlement. About 100,000 employees will benefit.
In addition, in order to ensure that employees and employers can better resolve their employment disputes, we will streamline the employment dispute resolution procedures.
On the whole, this amendment Bill is proactive and comprehensive. If passed, the EA's coverage will expand to include higher salaried M&Es and provide additional protection for employees. In total, more than 500,000 employees will benefit from these amendments.
At the same time, the employers can also enjoy some flexibility in their human resource (HR) management, which is conducive to create a more enlightened workplace.
(In English): In conclusion, this Bill will better protect our workers, enhance our dispute resolution framework and provide employers enhanced flexibility. It will bolster our efforts to institute good employment norms and develop progressive workplaces for our people. Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a member of the tripartite workgroup which was involved in working out the areas of enhancements to this Bill.
The EA was first enacted in 1968 to address the urgent need to accelerate economic growth and ensure a steady flow of foreign investments to Singapore in anticipation of labour market disruptions. The EA created more systematic and stable employment conditions to increase labour productivity and business efficiency to achieve these aims. Indeed, the EA is instrumental in ensuring a stable labour market, a major contributing factor of Singapore's economic growth.
The EA has been revised regularly and it is an embodiment of the delicate balancing of tripartite concerns to maximise labour force participation while ensuring that workers' rights are protected and balanced against employers' need to stay competitive to create good jobs for workers.
To ensure its relevance, this balancing act also takes into account the changing demographics of our workforce and the disruptive forces impacting work in our economy. Since the last amendment of the EA which took effect on 1 April 2014, I made calls in and outside the Parliament to review the EA in light of the changing workforce profile, rising median wages and issues that needed redress. And I am heartened that the Bill addresses a number of these issues through two broad thrusts. First, the expansion of coverage of workers under the Bill; and two, enhancements made to better protect workers' welfare.
First, the inclusion of all, I repeat, all professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) under the Bill. It is a watershed moment for Singapore's labour legislation and extends key statutory benefits to an additional number of 430,000 workers. Today, PMEs form about 36% of our local workforce and this rises to 56% if we include technicians, PMETs for short. This figure is growing quickly and PMETs will make up two-thirds of our local workforce by 2030.
As companies push forward with transformation efforts, we must ensure that the EA provides adequate coverage for a changing workforce. I have been lobbying since 2011 for the expansion of the EA to cover all PMEs. I am glad we have moved the needle in 2014 and now to all PMEs, including those earning more than $4,500 a month. This is important as there remain cases where aggrieved PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month did not have recourse under the EA. Having a salary cap meant that there was a deliberate delineation of workers covered under the EA and those who were not. Some rogue employers tried to game the EA by making use of the salary cap to exclude workers from the EA. Others tried to cause confusion by referencing the salary cap to deny PMEs from collective representation by unions, and for unions who tried to extend and to expand the scope of representation to cover PMEs, although this is allowed under the Industrial Relations Act.
The removal of the salary cap signals the raising of employment standards in Singapore by according all workers with protection under the core provisions of the EA and with access to ECT. This is a radical step forward, given that just a decade ago, PMEs were not even covered under the EA. With the removal of the salary cap, companies should have no excuse to prevent unions from representing and organising PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month. I call upon all employers to take this opportunity to work with our unions and the Labour Movement to review their employment practices and make concerted efforts to get all their staff, especially PMEs, within their companies to become union members and be part of the tripartite relationship and framework.
Protection under Part IV of the Act has also been extended to more rank-and-file workers. The increase in the salary cap for non-workmen from $2,500 to $2,600 and overtime rate payable for non-workmen from a salary level of $2,250 to $2,600 under Part IV of the Act will benefit more than 100,000 non-workmen.
Having come across incidents where rogue employers have excluded workers from Part IV protection by giving workers inflated managerial and executive titles and paying them just above the salary cap of $2,500 a month, I strongly urge employers to scrutinise their employment practices to ensure the workers are not unfairly excluded from Part IV protection. I also appeal to workers to come forward to seek the union's assistance if they are of the view they have been unfairly excluded from the Part IV protection.
While there is clearly a need to accord stronger protection for a select group of vulnerable workers under Part IV, there is increasing difficulty on the ground to clearly determine if a worker is a workman or a non-workman. This is particularly challenging as many forms of work now involve a mix of both manual and non-manual work. And jobs will continue to be transformed. There is a need to keep watch on this issue to ensure that Part IV of the Act retains its relevancy in the changing nature of work. Perhaps, there may come a day when we will do away with this PME, non-PME, PME bargainable dichotomy.
Second, a series of enhancements have been made to enable better protection of workers' welfare. In view of the rapidly changing needs of the workforce, flexibility has been provided under the Bill for the Manpower Minister to address undesirable employment practices through the making of regulations. This will allow the Minister to respond quickly to curb undesirable employment practices and protect the well-being of workers.
The Commissioner for Labour's powers have also been strengthened to inquire into retrenchment practices. Employers will have to furnish information on retrenchment of any employee, if they are required to do so by the Commissioner. I believe this will further complement the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower which stipulates the norms for retrenchment benefits and fair retrenchment practices as well as a mandatory reporting requirement for retrenchments and assistance provided by the task force responsible for retrenchment and employment facilitation.
Another enhancement is the transfer of adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims to the ECT. Today, when an employee considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excused by his employer, he may make representations in writing to the Manpower Minister to be reinstated. With the passing of the Bill, the ECT will serve as a one-stop service for salary-related and wrongful dismissal claims. I thank the tripartite partners on agreeing to work out a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and guidelines before the Bill comes into effect to provide clarity on what amounts to wrongful dismissal which may include forced resignations without just cause.
The Bill also provides that the ECT and the Labour Court are to have regard to the tripartite guidelines on wrongful dismissals when deciding any claim involving wrongful dismissals. Such transparency will help to ensure that employees are adequately protected from wrongful dismissal while employers are not saddled by frivolous allegations.
I have some issues of concern, however. While good progress has been made in the Bill under these two broad thrusts, I have a number of concerns to which I opine clarifications or enhancements are needed in the furtherance of the objectives of the Act.
First, with increased volatility and streamlining of businesses, I am particularly concerned about the need to provide greater clarity on the ambit of section 18(a) of the Act which allows employers to transfer employees in the transfer of business undertaking. There is a need for the formulation of a set of tripartite guidelines as well as FAQs on the scope of application of section 18(a). I urge the tripartite partners to work on this urgently, especially since this section now applies to all workers, including PMEs earning more than $4,500.
Second, I would like to ask the Minister what support has been put in place to facilitate the transfer of jurisdiction of wrongful dismissals to the ECT to ensure their access to justice is not hampered. When the jurisdiction of salary claims was transferred from the Labour Court to the ECT, some workers experienced difficulties in filing their claims, as the ECT processes required the submission of more forms and documentation. Support must be provided to ensure workers' access to justice can be done easily and expediently by the ECT.
Third, now that there is a one-stop service at the ECT for salary-related and wrongful dismissal claims, it is timely to consider having simplified enforcement proceedings of these claims which are under the purview of the ECT. I have come across quite a number of cases where the worker has sought recourse at the ECT and has successfully obtained an order for the employer to pay him his unpaid wages, but the employer fails to pay up. Workers who are unfamiliar with the legal system will be surprised or dismayed to find out that they would have to take additional steps and expend more time and cost to enforce the order with no guaranteed outcomes. At this stage, the worker may not have been paid his salary for a few months or may be even out of work. Some workers may have taken out enforcement proceedings but these efforts are later thwarted in cases when the employer is wound up.
Some possible interventions that could be explored include (a) the provision of simplified enforcement mechanisms to the ECT which can help to see through employers' satisfaction of orders for which no appeals have been filed. In cases where employers are unable to pay due to financial difficulties, employers will have to submit evidence for their inability to pay and the ECT can assess and determine if this is truly the case; (b) a short-term relief fund targeted at the bottom 20th percentile of the workforce funded by MOM and operated by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for workers who have successfully made ECT claims against their companies but failed to recover payment can be expanded to assist more vulnerable worker groups; (c) where the employer has become insolvent, MOM can also advance money to pay part of the worker's unpaid wages and stand in place of the workers as a preferred creditor of the same level of priority the workers would have had for paid or unpaid wages to recover the advance monies upon distribution of the insolvent companies' assets. This will reduce the waiting time for workers to be paid and eliminate the hassle and stress of having to take additional administrative steps within the insolvency framework to recover their unpaid wages.
Fourth, clause 15 of the Bill seeks to define the circumstances in which an employee is eligible for paid hospitalisation leave. I welcome the amendment to the clause which clarifies that an employee who is certified to be ill enough to require hospitalisation will qualify even if not warded in the hospital. This reflects more accurately the position under section 89(3) as it is currently worded.
In this respect, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following points.
(a) Clause 15 states that the certification must be done by a medical practitioner employed by a hospital approved by the Minister. I understand that private hospitals may also be approved for this purpose. There are situations where the employees being treated by a doctor in private practice was accredited to the hospital. Could the Minister confirm that the certification by such accredited doctors can be recognised for purposes of granting paid hospitalisation leave?
(b) With the proposed amendments to section 89, the employer will recognise outpatient sick leave which is certified by any medical practitioner. Could the Minister confirm that the law does not prohibit employers from recognising hospital leave certified by medical practitioners as well?
(c) With regard to infectious diseases, clause 15 provides that an employee who is under quarantine under any written law will be deemed to be hospitalised. There are, however, some infectious diseases, such as chicken pox and Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD), which are not covered under the Infectious Diseases Act. Will the Minister consider allowing employees who come down with such illnesses be granted hospitalisation leave under the Act?
Fifth, clause 4 of the Act has streamlined the list of specified deductions which an employer may make from the employee's salary and introduce a catch-all provision allowing employers to make any other deductions to which the employee has given written consent. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following.
First, to ensure that measures included in clause 4 to protect the employee are effective, could the Minister confirm that the written consent must be obtained from the employee at the point of time when the deduction is to be made, and the employers will not be deemed to have met this requirement through practices, such as incorporating clauses in employment contract stating that the employee agrees that the employer may make deductions as and when considered necessary.
Second, if an employee is penalised by the employer for withdrawing his/her consent, what recourse can the employee seek from the Ministry and what actions will the Ministry take against an errant employer?
For payments to credit cooperatives, it should still be specifically mentioned in the EA as an authorised deduction. This is the best assurance of regular collections and ensures sustainability of credit cooperatives. Such cooperatives serve an important social purpose to encourage savings and provide affordable loans to working people while they are members. This helps to steer people away from loansharks and moneylenders in a vicious cycle of permanent indebtedness.
To conclude, while we have made good progress in advancing workers' protection under this Bill and the Bill embodies our spirit of tripartism in striking a balance among our tripartite partners' concerns, we must continue to take a proactive approach to ensure that our labour legislation stays current and relevant in a maturing economy and workforce. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.
Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer who advises on employment law matters and disputes in my practice.
It is good news that under this Bill, PMETs earning more than $4,500 a month will be included in the EA. Until now, our employment law has this anomaly whereby the basic law on employment matters for PMETs earning more than $4,500 are not actually provided for in our statutes. Today’s amendments to include the basic employment rights of PMETs in important areas, such as pay, dismissal, leave, sick leave and hospitalisation leave, as well as employment-related claims, is a right step to take.
The Bill proposes to introduce a new definition of the word \"dismiss\". I have some concerns about the part of the definition beginning from \"…and includes the resignation of an employee if the employee can show, on a balance of probabilities, that the employee does not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so because of any conduct or omission, or course of conduct or omissions, engaged in by the employer\". I do understand and accept the intention to include the situation where an employee may be forced by circumstances created by an employer to resign. However, I still do have a concern over the broad and vague wording of \"any conduct or omission\" or \"course of conduct or omission\", which I fear may create ambiguities and uncertainties and may give grounds for abuse by employees who may have left due to bad blood but who might not actually have been so forced to leave by their employers.
The Bill also proposes to provide the right for a relevant employee to lodge a claim at the ECT for wrongful dismissal. For someone who is employed in a managerial or an executive position, clause 3(b) of the Bill proposes to reduce the prior period of service from 12 to six months before a claim can be lodged. May I ask the Minister why does the Government now think that six months is sufficient and why, for example, it should not be less than three months, which is a common duration for confirmation of employment?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in light of the recent High Court decision in Hasan Shofiqul v China Civil (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 128, would the Minister consider providing a clear statutory definition of what constitutes a \"manager\" or an \"executive\" in the EA itself? Any interpretation published elsewhere, including MOM guidelines, is not binding in law in a similar way. It is clear from this case, and also anecdotally, that companies have tried to exploit the lack of a statutory definition to give inflated titles to fit the category of managers and executives when the reality of the job scope may be otherwise.
Next, I note that the Bill is proposing to allow wrongful dismissal claims to be handled by the ECT under the ECA. I welcome this move. In my speech at the debate during the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill in August 2016, I had proposed that “the Government should consider having one Tribunal that can hear all types of labour-related employment disputes. This may also take away some cases from the Courts. We can have a Tribunal that hears claims on employment claims, unfair dismissal and discrimination.”
In my speech then, I noted that the then Employment Claims Bill only dealt with salary-related claims, not other types of claims or grievances related to work or the workplace. I said that there was no specific tribunal to address issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination. I also said that MOM had in previous years acknowledged that there are such cases. In January 2013, the then Acting Minister for Manpower, said that from 2007 to 2012, MOM received annually an average of 70 cases from female employees who felt they had been unfairly dismissed, out of which 70% involved pregnant women. I had said in my speech then that we should not overlook the issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination but that we should look at the examples of other first-world countries like the United Kingdom (UK) which has been having an employment tribunal handling different types of claims.
I also pointed out that employment claims disputes are often mired in the context of contending allegations of breaches of employment contracts. I said the following: \"unfair dismissal or discrimination could well be part of the factual matrix in some of these cases. How would the tribunal handle submissions or evidence on such issues? It may well be unfair to parties in such cases for the appointed tribunals to just ignore arguments relating to, for example, unfair dismissal or discrimination. It is naive to pretend that such scenarios will not happen and it may be an injustice to employees or employers if the tribunal were to disregard such issues or evidence completely.\"
As per my speech during the debate for the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I think the ECT should also hear claims on discrimination. Let me also cite an example of such discrimination where, anecdotally, some of us may have heard of not infrequently, and that is, a manager of a company preferring to recruit people of the same ethnic origin or nationality.
Next, under the ECA, claims are limited to $20,000 or $30,000 for claimants who go through the Tripartite Mediation Framework or mediation assisted by their unions under the Industrial Relations Act. In the debate at the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I also said that \"…we should set a higher minimum monetary limit for cases before the ECT. A good indication of a minimum limit should be the median annual income so that employers are less likely to be able to delay a hearing before the tribunal, on the calculation that the employee may not have sufficient resources to pursue the case in the civil Courts. Hence, the claim limit should be raised beyond $20,000. Let it cover claims involving PMETs, too, and PMETs with higher income.\"
With today’s amendment Bill, the EA will now cover PMETs earning more than $4,500. I also understand that the ECT is already hearing claims from PMETs. However, it appears that the limits of $20,000 and $30,000 have not been raised yet. Would the Government consider raising the limits so that more disputes can be heard by the Tribunal?
Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, let me touch briefly on the importance of the quality of case handling both at the ECT hearing and the mediation before any such hearing.
I have previously spoken against the provision in the Employment Claims Bill which allows the Tribunal not to be bound by rules of evidence in the conduct of any proceedings where I pointed out that the risks of a tribunal failing to consider relevant evidence or making its decision based on arguably wrongful evidence cannot be discounted and this affects the quality of justice. Naive or lesser educated workers who may not know how best to protect themselves with written evidence of any agreement with their employers may be disadvantaged by such a system.
Employees have no right to have lawyers representing them at the ECT as the law does not allow representation by lawyers. So, this means that lay people may not be fully equipped to ensure that their rights are protected and appropriate arguments are made in their favour. At the same time, I believe that the law does not expressly prohibit companies from using their inhouse legal counsel, who may be a fully qualified lawyer, to represent them at such proceedings. This may arguably not be fair to the employees. It is a possible loophole which the Government may wish to look to address. Perhaps, it may be more appropriate to have a non-legally trained person to represent the employer at a tribunal hearing.
Even with legal provisions which may set the ECT apart from, say, the State Courts in hearing its usual cases in the Magistrates and District Courts, the ECT should always apply the law as faithfully as it can, so that both employers and employees alike will be treated fairly and in accordance with their position under the law. Similarly, each party’s legal position under the employment contract must also be fully recognised during any mediation process before that.
I remember a few years ago, a client of mine received a complaint of wrongful dismissal lodged by an ex-employee with MOM. This was pre-ECT days. The employee had a record of disciplinary issues, which the employer was able to present to MOM. Notwithstanding the disciplinary case, the employer had properly terminated the employment contract according to the notice provision of her employment contract and the employee was paid according to what she was due to be paid under the contract. The employer could well have terminated the contract on disciplinary grounds, which would have meant that she would have been paid less upon termination. However, contrary to the clear contractual provisions and despite the disciplinary breaches, the company was told by MOM to provide ex-gratia payment to the employee. I hope that such a case was, indeed, a one-off and, certainly, I believe that such experiences should not be allowed to happen under the new regime where claims for wrongful dismissal will be heard in the EC, including any mediation process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a step in the right direction and notwithstanding the proposals and concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Douglas Foo.
Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings Ltd, President of Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice-Chairman of Singapore Business Federation and Vice-President of SNEF.
I rise in support of the Bill. Since its enactment in 1968, the EA has been the backbone of workers’ rights as well as a marker of employers’ obligations. The revisions proposed in the current Bill will extend the protection offered and, at the same time, bring the Act in line with economic changes since its last amendment in 2013.
I rise to speak on two points. The first, changes to the Act from the viewpoint of employers and, the second, the role that the tripartite partners play in today's changing employment landscape.
This Bill has been lauded by many employees who see the extension of benefits proffered under the Act now extended beyond any arbitrary salary cap. Some of these well-known benefits include guaranteed seven days' paid annual leave, 11 paid public holidays, paid sick and hospitalisation leave, as well as the timely payment of salary. Extension of these benefits to roughly an additional 400,000-plus workers is, indeed, a step in the right direction for labour welfare in Singapore, a country strongly dependent on our human capital.
Yet, there are valid concerns by employers. SNEF, of which I am privileged to be one of the Vice Presidents, was deeply involved in the review of the EA. Spreading over 12 months, SNEF engaged over 3,000 employers and HR practitioners before reaching consensus with our tripartite partners on the proposed amendments.
Please allow me to share with this House the main feedback that employers gave during the review, alongside some of my humble observations and suggestions.
First, rising costs in today's global business economy, coupled with the uncertainty of trade wars in the world, place our business leaders in a highly stressful environment where thinning profit margins have to be carefully managed against rising costs.
Except for Part IV of the EA, all managers and executives will now be covered by the Act after the amendments are passed. Accordingly, managers and executives will all receive the same protection as rank-and-file workers. It is happy to note that most employers already provide this minimum coverage of benefits, if not better, for all their employees. However, it is in the different ways in which companies manage these benefits that operational issues may arise, leading to some employers having to repackage their compensation and benefits for managers and executives. Such repackaging may take into account their roles and responsibilities, the demands of their jobs and the workplace flexibilities accorded to them. For example, with globalisation and 24/7 operations, it is common for managers and executives to travel or work during a public holiday and, in essential services, the exigencies of service to work outside office hours. Such repackaging will inevitably incur actual or opportunity costs for employers.
In addition, with the removal of the salary cap of $2,250 for overtime rate and raising of salary threshold to $2,600 in Part IV of the EA, employers would also be impacted by higher overtime costs. For example, in the food and beverage (F&B) and accommodation services sector in which I operate, labour cost accounts for 42.8% of the operating cost, one of the highest amongst the different industries. While the sector is transforming to raise productivity, the increase in overtime coverage would have an immediate cost impact.
What can then be done to assist employers mitigate the effects of these changes? I believe that providing ample time for employers to adjust would be crucial. Yet, employers cannot dally and will need to be proactive and start to take steps to manage their manpower better now. This can be done through job redesign, better manpower planning and scheduling, multi-skilling employees for flexible deployment and other innovative ways.
Employees, on their part, should adopt a more open mindset and remove any inertia they may feel about learning new things, and undertake new responsibilities. This may include cross-industry training to better their understanding of supply chain processes, and employees must be ready to eradicate any traces of silo-mentality thinking in relation to their job scope.
Hence, I hope the Ministry will lend enhanced support to employers to undertake lean and agile manpower planning. While the Lean Enterprise Development Scheme (LEDS) has moved towards ready-to-go solutions rather than bespoke solutions to benefit more small and medium enterprises (SMEs), many of the SMEs may still not know how and where to start. A pre-LEDS assistance scheme to evaluate work processes and job roles will help SMEs develop their own lean manpower plan and understand which technologies could help them in their transformation.
In this regard, Trade Associations and Chambers (TACs) can also take the opportunity to offer their inputs and suggestions to the Ministry and work more closely with their respective members to provide a cogent and relevant framework.
In addition, if greater acknowledgment and incentives can be given to employers who adhere to the EA provisions, I am sure it will prove to be a win-win situation for both the workers and the employers. If I may humbly suggest, such incentives can come in the form of one-time tax rebates or publicised awards for exemplary employment practices over the course of five years or such time as the Ministry may consider appropriate. I acknowledge that some will argue that there is a need to incentivise someone for following the law. Yet, the effect of having such a scheme cannot be underestimated. Even for the simple act of driving, a clean demerit-free record can result in so much savings for insurance premiums for drivers. I, therefore, put forward this for the Ministry’s consideration.
Second, in today’s fast-changing business environment, businesses must be lean and nimble to be able to move and adapt quickly or be left behind. Consequently, they must not be impeded unnecessarily by rigid laws and high compliance and restructuring costs.
PMETs, who now make up 56.1% of the local workforce, would rise to about two-thirds, or 65%, by 2030. The nature of their jobs is, however, changing. Many will need to be reskilled. Some may need to be redeployed or face the prospect of being retrenched. Regional roles may mean travelling over weekends or working odd hours. At the same time, companies are meeting the work-life demands of such employees by providing flexible work arrangements (FWAs). It is, therefore, imperative that management flexibility to develop their human capital to their full potential must not be impeded by rigid employment regulations.
Third, of all the proposed amendments, employers have most concerns with the section 14 amendment of the EA on dismissal, whereby all employees will be able to make a claim for wrongful dismissals following the proposed amendments. Moreover, the eligibility service period of managers and executives to claim for wrongful dismissal has been reduced from 12 to six months. Employers are concerned with frivolous and vexatious claims by disgruntled employees as it is unproductive and a drain on resources and time.
While there are, indeed, criminal sanctions provided for the giving of false information in the Act, there is little else by way of compensation to employers who are wrongly accused of breaches by unhappy employees. While criminal sanctions may deter such wrongful accusations, it cannot make up for the anxiety and loss of time which employers who have been dragged through a lengthy investigative process undergo. It would, therefore, be important for the Ministry’s officers to continue to be cognitive of this and continue to handle each investigation with promptness, efficiency and even-handedness.
However, quite apart from criminal sanctions, there is also a need for a framework to operationalise section 14 when it is extended to all employees and shifted to the ECT. I understand that TADM is working on this and employers will be briefed on this in due course. While we await the same, businesses will need to step up and put in place a strong HR system with more rigorous performance appraisals and engage the employees regularly in discussions regarding their performance. This will prevent unreasonable and unfounded claims from arising. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, while many of the proposed amendments are not new obligations, as they merely extend benefits to a wider pool of workers, it is in and from the context of an employer’s viewpoint that I hope that the Ministry will consider my suggestions. I also verily believe that a focused educational campaign, together with a light-touch enforcement approach in the first year of the amendments, can be undertaken by the Ministry, together with its stakeholders, for the benefit of employers.
I now move on to my next point – the role of the tripartite partners.
In recent times, many other countries are reforming their labour laws to make their labour markets more flexible and, therefore, more competitive. For example, Greece and Spain, which had high unemployment rates, undertook labour market reforms to grant employers more flexibility in hiring, firing and determining working hours to create jobs. Even more recently, French President Emmanuel Macron attempted to liberalise France’s rigid labour laws to allow companies to negotiate specific deals on working hours and pay to reduce unemployment.
Going forward, our businesses will operate in a more volatile, uncertain and complex environment. To borrow the words of the Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo at the Ministry's workplan seminar in May this year, we will need an agile workforce, agile businesses and an agile Government.
An agile workforce will enable workers to adapt to company restructuring and transformation. This means workers will have to pick up new skills and take on new jobs. An agile Government will be responsive to changing economic disruptions and emerging employment demographics and structures. But more important, enterprises must develop agility so that they can navigate the challenging seas to sustain and grow their business, create jobs and boost the economy.
A key strategy for the future of Singapore's commercial viability will be our brand of tripartite partnership. It is clear that where employers, workers and the Government come together, there are often competing interests among parties, notwithstanding the overarching purpose of advancing Singapore's interests in the world. The fundamental precept that there must first be a strong and stable country, before a business can prosper and the individual live well is clear. Yet, this seemingly simple precept hides away the inherent principle that where there are competing interests, sacrifices and compromises have to be made.
(In English): It is, therefore, by no means a simple feat for the tripartite partners overseeing labour relations and employment matters to have kept the peace since 1968 when the first version of the EA was passed, whilst at the same time canvassing the interests of their respective stakeholders.
In a Motion tabled in this House in 1998, the late Cyrille Tan elucidated the important basis of tripartite partnership in Singapore, and I quote, \"The tripartite framework has served us well. Our objective as trade unions is to safeguard the interests of workers. We can do so effectively only if companies become more productive and competitive. The Government must continue to provide good infrastructure, transparent regulations and stable conditions to attract investors. Then workers can continue to have good jobs and look forward to fair wage increases. This is the basis of our tripartite relations.\"
\"Singapore has succeeded so far because the Government, employers and workers have worked together. Where there is industrial harmony, there is social and economic development; where there is constant strife, it is difficult for businessmen, local or foreign, to make long-term plans. A strong tripartite relationship is not just critical in maintaining this industrial harmony. It is also a key competitive advantage to help us become a developed economy early in the 21st century,\" unquote.
That these words made more than 20 years ago are still strongly relevant in today’s economic climate is a standing testament to the wisdom of the late Cyrille Tan. Today, the Tripartite Partnership has worked tirelessly and largely smoothened the sometimes-difficult amendments made to the EA over the years and continue to do so.
It is important, therefore, for these partners to be ever aware of the important roles they play in Singapore's future and so, accordingly, continue to educate their members on the same, zealously safeguarding the values to be imparted to their members and pick wisely those elected to their respective councils.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to end my speech by taking this opportunity to borrow from the Motion tabled by the late Cyrille Tan and passed by this House in 1998, to call upon, quote, \"the Government, employers and unions to further strengthen the tripartite relationship, partnership, in Singapore so as to enhance Singapore's competitiveness as we face new and greater economic and social challenges,\" unquote, in the current and future economic climate. On this note, I affirm my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a labour Member, I support the latest amendments to the EA, especially in extending the coverage to all employees by removing the salary threshold for managers and executives. In fact, before 2009, managers and executives were not covered under the EA. This move recognises that all employees should be covered for core provisions, such as the timely payment of salary, annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave and public holidays. Indeed, there are many other welcomed changes to our EA and much of these have been shared by speakers before me, especially by my fellow Labour Member, brother Patrick Tay.
While these amendments are a step in the right direction, I have a few concerns, especially in terms of reducing workers' vulnerability.
I support the increase in the salary threshold for non-workmen that will provide them with additional protection. The increase from $2,500 to $2,600 represents a 4% increase since the last salary threshold in 2012. While this new salary threshold ensures 100,000 more non-workmen in Singapore will receive additional protection, I would like to ask why this salary threshold could not have been higher.
MOM statistics show the median gross monthly income of employed residents, excluding employers' CPF, increased by 32% from $2,500 in 2010 to $3,300 in 2017. The median gross monthly income in 2010 of $2,500 was the same as the EA amendment in 2012. Based on these statistics, the new salary threshold at $2,600 seems to be on the low side if the median salary was used to determine the salary threshold. It seems that the $3,300 would have been the more appropriate salary threshold.
Second, currently, under the existing EA, employers are required to reimburse only the consultation fees when employees visit Government- or company-approved doctors if the MC obtained results in paid sick leave.
This, unfortunately, results in disparity in the medical coverage between local and foreign workers. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers are responsible for the well-being of foreign workers, which includes being fully liable for their inpatient and outpatient medical expenses. However, I also understand that while it would not be fair for this burden to fall on taxpayers, it creates a disparity as employers are only required to pay consultation fees for local workers.
Hence, I have made several calls in the past to mandate in the EA for employers’ reimbursement to cover medication, either capped at a certain amount or only those obtained from Government polyclinics. This would benefit many low-wage workers in SMEs and outsourced industries as they usually are accorded only the basic statutory benefits, as compared to other workers.
Nevertheless, I agree with the committee's position that it may result in an unintended consequence of making employers less likely to hire a candidate in poorer health or those with chronic illnesses. Perhaps then, I would like to suggest to MOM to consider working with MOH to extend the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) scheme to enable all Workfare Income Supplement recipients to receive free outpatient treatment at Government polyclinics.
Third, I would like to highlight the calculation of pay for work on a rest day. I am glad that there is tripartite consensus that employers should continue to pay a higher overtime rate if they request their employees to work on a rest day. However, should the worker be the one requesting to work on his rest day, the worker will only be paid one day's salary. Without a doubt, MOM will act against errant employers if they ask their employees to work on a rest day but paid as if the work was at the request of the employee.
Unfortunately, in our engagement with low-wage workers, many are not aware of the differences in the calculation for pay for work on a rest day. Moreover, given their age and lack of skills, these workers may also be reluctant to report their employers for fear of losing their job. As such, to protect the vulnerable workers, it should be a single rate of double pay whenever a worker works on a rest day. Logically, no employer will allow workers to work should he not require the manpower to begin with. If there is any work, then most likely it is at the request of the employer.
The last concern I have is that the EA has not responded to the emergence of the gig economy. Many of us have seen workers working for Uber, Grab, Deliveroo, Honest Bee and many others but we may not realise that these workers are not considered as employees of the company. Rather, they are working for the company under contract for service, and not contract of service.
The current ambiguity for workers in the gig economy when it comes to a contract of service versus a contract for service is problematic. MOM defines a contract of service as an agreement between an employer and an employee, and the employee will be covered by the EA and Workmen Injury Compensation Act (WICA).
However, under a contract for service, defined as, when an independent contractor, such as a self-employed person or vendor, is engaged for a fee to carry out an assignment or project, he will not be entitled to statutory benefits or be able to make any WICA claims should he be injured during his course of work. This makes the workers exceptionally vulnerable. Our employment laws must address this. Hence, I would like to know the reason why the revision to this EA does not take into consideration this emerging category of workers. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay.
(255, 255, 255);\">(In Malay): [Please refer to .] The key to having an effective EA is to ensure that the needs of the tripartite partners are considered. The EA, and its revisions thereof, are outcomes of continuous reviews and consultations among the tripartite partners to strike a balance among differing tripartite interests.
I support the amendments being proposed currently. Nonetheless, I have some suggestions. First, I would like to suggest that the workers who work during their rest days are paid the same rate of salaries, regardless of whether the work is being done at the request of the worker or his employer.
Second, I would like to suggest that workers are given better medical coverage. The current EA only requires employers to pay for the consultation fees when their workers seek treatment. It is very different from foreign workers, whereby the employers are responsible for settling the medical costs of foreign workers. We can consider providing outpatient treatment for free to all workers who are eligible for Workfare Income Supplement.
Third, I am concerned that many workers in the gig economy, like Grab drivers and delivery staff like Deliveroo workers, are not considered as workers under those employers. Hence, they do not qualify for compensation from WICA for accidents or injuries that occur in the course of their duties. What are the available plans to protect such workers from the gig economy?
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, notwithstanding my concerns, I believe that the changes to the EA are timely and I support the additional protection these changes offer to the workers.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. This Bill will improve protections for all employees while balancing business costs and employability. The most significant improvement is the extension of core provisions of the EA to managers and executives.
We must be realistic. In an employment relationship, the employer often has more bargaining power. This is why unions exist – to balance the greater power of the employer. Managers and executives were formerly excluded from the Act because we presumed that power was more equal at that level. That may have been true in the past, when the vast majority of our workers were rank-and-file. But today, most of our managers and executives are in a similar position to the rank and file. They cannot afford to use contract law to settle employment disputes, and they do not have the power to bargain over employment contract terms. They should be protected by the EA, just as the rank and file already are.
Sir, a good labour law must also ensure that workers are employable and businesses can thrive. There are concerns that this Bill may increase labour market rigidity for managers and executives and, hence, reduce economic efficiency. But the core provisions of the EA, such as timely payment of salary, wrongful dismissal protection, and mandatory annual leave, are really basic labour rights.
A business that cannot afford to grant these basic rights is expecting workers, and society, to pay for their poor business performance. More importantly, the way that we will resolve employment disputes for managers and executives will, in fact, lower business costs. We rely on mediation and, if that fails, the ECT. With due respect to some hon Members, lawyers are not involved, and that greatly reduces costs for both sides. Mediation is effective.
Sir, the Minister for Manpower said yesterday in a written reply to Dr Intan Mokhtar that TADM and ECT have successfully helped 90% of employees recover salary claims in full. An effective dispute resolution framework will greatly deter errant practices which will avoid disputes in the first place.
That said, I wish to outline two emerging labour policy issues that are not completely addressed by this Bill. The first is how the self-employed are treated. The self-employed are exempt from the EA because they are not subject to the direction of an employer. We have all engaged property agents, private tutors and taxi drivers. We cannot oversee and direct them in their work. We have no obligations to each other as an employer and an employee.
But today, many self-employed workers are subject to control by a counterparty who directs their conditions of work. Consider the debate during yesterday's sitting on hawkers. Hawkers are self-employed, but they can only work if they sign contracts with landlords to rent their stalls. Some self-employed hawkers signed rental terms that directed long minimum operating hours and other conditions of work. These are not labour contracts. They are business-to-business contracts. The hawker can hire someone else to keep their stall open. But that distinction does not matter to a hawker who cannot afford to hire an assistant. For them, it is like a labour contract. I was glad to hear that the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will ensure that these contracts will be revised where necessary to safeguard the interests of hawkers.
In fact, technology and new business models have widened the scope of self-employment, while also subjecting the self-employed to greater control. Let me give an example of how self-employment has expanded in scope. Today, if you want cleaning services, you can appoint a cleaning company or you can use a platform which offers self-employed cleaners on a task-by-task basis. A cleaner who is working for a company still enjoys benefits under the EA. A self-employed cleaner contracted through a platform does not.
Technology platforms have made it easier to contract directly with the self-employed. In the United States (US), the JP Morgan Chase Institute found that in June 2016, half a percent of all adults sold labour through the online platform economy, up from practically 0% in 2012. This is just an estimate for one month. As of 2016, about 1.5% of all US adults have sold labour through an online platform at least once.
Singapore is not far off. The Ministry's handout (Annex 4), just handed out before this debate, shows that about one in 20 of the self-employed here are private hire drivers. All of these sell their labour through online platforms. Since about 10% of the workforce in Singapore are self-employed, we see that possibly at least half a percent or more of our workforce is now selling labour through an online platform in Singapore.
Technology also subjects the self-employed to greater control. For example, although private hire and taxi drivers are both self-employed, taxi drivers are not subject to much control. Taxi rental companies do not care what taxi drivers do, as long as the rentals are paid. On the other hand, private hire drivers are closely monitored by private hire platforms. The platforms control many aspects of work. Drivers must accept bookings or face penalties. Some platforms even promise drivers minimum earnings, provided they meet performance standards.
Sir, there appears to be an increasing tendency for the self-employed to be subjected to direction and control. The self-employed are made to comply with incentives and penalties. There is no protection against the use of penalties, unlike the EA, which prescribes allowable payroll deductions and penalties. In short, many contracting parties want to have all the benefits of control over the self-employed, but none of the statutory responsibilities under the EA.
Of course, I would agree these workers have signed these self-employment contracts willingly. But the point of the EA is to give statutory rights to the workers because their bargaining power is weak. Otherwise, there would be too much pressure on workers to willingly sign away their rights. In the landmark case of Autoclenz vs Belcher, Lord Clarke of the Supreme Court of the UK wrote, and I quote, \"the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem,\" end quote.
So, the point is, a contracting party with power may subject a self-employed worker to the direction of an employer, but without giving them employment benefits. The worker will agree because they have no choice. We must have a policy to address this emerging problem of self-employment that also provides for legitimate business needs.
Fortunately, I believe the Government is acting on this. In a reply given yesterday to a Parliamentary Question I filed, the Minister for Manpower noted that the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons was formed in March 2018 to better regulate this emerging area. I will ask the Minister if more clear directions can be set forth so that employers are not tempted to misclassify workers as self-employed as a means of evading the EA.
The second issue is how unfair employment practices are regulated. Workers must be confident that merit is what matters in the labour market, and not their age, race, gender or other personal characteristics. The Government addresses unfair employment through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP), rather than through the EA. This allows flexibility to recognise the diversity of legitimate business practices in Singapore. But it may also give some the impression that we have no commitment to eliminating unfair practices. The EA amendment will help by allowing the Minister to make regulations on some undesirable employment practices.
But, Sir, it will be useful if the Minister will consider making public the records of cases dealt with by TAFEP, so that the public can see that unfair practices are being addressed. I would ask if the Minister can direct that the ECT, in adjudicating cases, can take into account the employer’s past behaviour, including TAFEP cases. This is so that an employer who has repeatedly violated any of our labour standards would have a higher burden of proof in ECT cases.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe my concerns on self-employed persons and on unfair employment practices may be addressed by future amendments, or by regulatory power. I strongly support the current EA amendment, which will extend protections to all workers while being cost-effective for businesses.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The EA is intended to provide terms of employment, employee entitlement and working conditions. This ensures employee well-being while providing businesses clarity on the terms and conditions they must provide for the people they employ. The proposed amendments to the EA seek to provide core provisions to all employees, additional protection for more vulnerable workers, for balancing the requirements for businesses to operate effectively. This is, indeed, not an easy balance to achieve.
With the structural changes in Singapore's employment landscape and workforce profile, it is crucial that the EA continues to retain its relevancy and responsiveness to changing labour market conditions and trends.
With global and technological disruption impacting all industry sectors, and Singapore's push towards becoming a digital economy, we will see a greater proportion of PMETs in our workforce. According to MOM's Labour Force in Singapore 2017 report released on 26 January this year, PMETs make up more than half of our workforce, at 56%, up from 49% in 2007. With the increase in the number of PMEs, employees who earn more than S$4,500 per month will increase, and a key proposed amendment to the EA is the removal of the salary cap of S$4,500 for coverage of core employment provisions, such as minimum paid leave, public holiday and sick leave entitlement, allowable deductions, as well as the redress for unfair dismissal, contract termination and salary payment rights. This inclusion will ensure the provision of the basic and fair working conditions for all employees regardless of their salary levels. This amendment is significant as it will mean the expansion of eligibility for PMEs and it translates to an additional 430,000 managers and executives who will be covered for the core provisions.
With the proposed amendment to raise the salary threshold for non-workmen to S$2,600, Part IV of the EA, which covers rest days, hours of work, overtime pay and other conditions of service, will extend additional protection to more than half of the workforce and benefit 100,000 more non-workmen. This is only right as these are basic working conditions.
The statutory clarity on wrongful or unfair dismissal will also help address ambiguity and inconsistent practices and protect employees.
Currently, wrongful dismissal claims are heard by MOM. Expanding the ECT to handle wrongful dismissals claims will provide employees with a \"one-stop service\" for wrongful dismissal claims and salary-related issues, which tend to go together. Similarly, streamlining dispute resolution services is also good for businesses as having such services will enable employers a platform to clarify their positions in disputes.
I would like to just touch on retrenchment.
With the disruptions and restructuring that businesses are going through, jobs are impacted and employees will face greater uncertainty. I would like the Minister to help clarify if the Ministry and the tripartite partners considered how retrenchment benefits are handled to extend protection to workers while managing the cost impact on businesses?
Clause 4 amends section 27 to restate when an employer can make deductions from the salary of the employee. The amendment clarifies when written consent is needed and withdrawn. This amendment, while ensuring protection of employee interest, also provides improvement for businesses in making authorised deductions.
I would like to also seek clarification on the new section 88A(6)(b) whereby the employee ceases to be entitled to the leave if the employee fails to take that leave by the end of the 12-month period. In the case when the employee’s leave is not approved or possible as a result of work commitment and deadlines imposed by employers, is the employer required to pay the employee the employee’s gross rate of pay for every day of annual leave not taken? Could the Minister help clarify that?
So, while the proposed changes to the EA are significant, some may argue that more can be done for employee protection. We must be cognisant that, for many businesses, manpower forms a large part of business cost. So, with the current business climate and companies facing greater uncertainty and feeling the impact of rising cost of doing business, we must ensure that manpower remains affordable and employable for businesses operating in Singapore. The proposed amendments to the EA are trying to achieve a very delicate balance of extending protection and employability while enabling businesses to stay competitive and create jobs for our people.
A final point I would like to make is on the communication of these amendments. From the various appeal cases I have handled at my Meet-the-People sessions on employment disputes, it does seem that employees do not fully understand the terms of the EA and where they can go for assistance on dispute handling. Given the significant number of employees that the proposed amendments of the EA will now cover, can the Minister share how these changes will be communicated to both employees and employers? With the proposed amendments, the EA offers more relevance, clarity and flexibility for both employees and employers. But to be effective, employees and employers affected by the amendments must understand the changes. Notwithstanding my questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek your indulgence to let me use 30 seconds of my time to invite the Members of this House to take a mental pause with me to take three deep breaths. Only we humans can do intentional or volitional breathing, but we do not do enough of it. Thank you for coming together for our mental well-being.
I am heartened by what might, for now, appear to be a minor but is, to my mind, a significant amendment to section 139 of the EA proposed by clause 22(a) of the Employment (Amendment) Bill.
The existing section 139 provides that the Minister of Manpower may, in addition to the powers expressly conferred by any other provisions of the Act, make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the EA. The amendment of this Act proposes that such regulations may now, and I quote directly from the Bill, \"regulate the conduct of an employer towards an employee, for the purposes of protecting the employee from any employment practice that may adversely affect the well-being of the employee\".
Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this is the first time the wording of \"employee well-being\" has made its way into our legislation in this particular manner. It is clear that \"well-being\" in this case goes beyond physical safety and welfare to include the psychological and social needs of an employee. This, in my view, marks a momentous shift in policymaking from one that views employees primarily as \"resources\" to one that truly puts the \"human\" back in \"human resources\" by recognising the holistic and complex needs of employees. It is, in fact, a policy imperative, given the changing nature of work in an increasingly disruptive and volatile world.
At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as Founder of Hush TeaBar which, aside from Deaf persons, also employs persons with and in recovery from mental health conditions.
I further declare my interest as a founding member of the WorkWell Leaders Workgroup, a private sector-driven effort by business and non-business leaders to champion workplace and employee well-being as a leadership priority.
Please let me share a real-life example of why this policy objective is morally and economically important. Lewis, from the Hush TeaBar team who now lives with depression and mild schizophrenia, could have had a very different life trajectory if he was protected by such a provision many years ago, against an employer early on in his career who verbally abused him repeatedly with every sales call he made in front of her. His mental health suffered adversely through this protracted period of abuse which subsequently affected his employability and quality of life. This is certainly not an employment outcome we desire for a contributing member of our society.
On that, it therefore baffled me to learn that clause 22(c) of the Employment (Amendment) Bill prescribes any violation of the regulations to be implemented under the proposed clause 22(a) as a civil contravention, instead of an offence.
We are all aware that there are certain drawbacks to the mechanism of civil contraventions, not least of which is the lack of a public record of the nature and severity of a violation, especially so for vulnerable workers. Clarification from the Ministry on the reasons behind its choice of prescribing such violations as civil contraventions is welcome.
Mr Deputy Speaker, research estimates that one in eight Singaporeans experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. This means that part of our workforce will have to grapple with mental health conditions while under employment. Further, 90% of psychological conditions with adults in Singapore have their root cause in workplace stress. Yet, studies have shown that an overwhelming 86.5% of those employed do not seek help for their mental health difficulties.
At this juncture, Sir, I would like to remind the House that when we refer to employees and their well-being in the amendment, we are also including workers who are differently-abled and non-domestic migrant workers. Of particular concern to me is the mental well-being of our 1.1 million non-domestic migrant workers.
Over 60% of our non-domestic migrant workers who had outstanding injury and salary claims were predicted to be suffering from serious mental illnesses. Another study found over 20% of these workers suffer from non-specific psychological distress. Just two weeks ago, it was reported that injuries at the workplace have increased. Many studies have found links between occupational injury and psychological hazards. We cannot make light the gravity of these workers’ mental well-being, particularly given the nature of their employment conditions which more often than not include risk of physical injury.
Yet, even as 72% of employers in Singapore consider stress and mental health an issue affecting productivity, only 51% have emotional and psychosocial programmes in place. More specifically, I wonder how many employers of non-domestic migrant workers have psychosocial programmes in place. There is clearly a need to persuade and push for employers to have these support structures in place for employee well-being.
It is commendable that the Ministry, in proposing clause 22(a), is signalling a change in how we approach workplace well-being. However, I cannot help but wonder if Lewis – or any other employee whose psychosocial well-being has been adversely affected by an employer – would be in any practical position to exercise their rights under this provision? I would like to ask the Minister whether the intent to recognise and promote employee well-being can be better served by enacting clear and deliberate provisions that are upstream and preventive in nature.
Some examples of such legislative efforts to influence employers have been made in countries like Germany, Australia and Japan, just to name a few. They appear in different forms to fit the workplace and workforce context.
For example, in Germany, risk assessment and implementation of countermeasures are a legal obligation. These obligations state that work should be organised in such a way that prevents a risk to physical and mental health as far as possible. In Australia, psychological injuries or mental disorders arising from stress in the workplace are compensable and are commonly referred to as work-stress claims. In Japan, the government established the \"Promotion and Maintenance of Mental Health of Workers\" guidelines, which though not legally binding, have become a standard practice for employers in light of the social phenomenon of \"karo-jisatu\", commonly known as suicide from overwork.
Mr Deputy Speaker, even as ground-up efforts promoting employee well-being and inclusive employment practices are making sensible strides to ensure we do not have karo-jisatu, I think it is time our employment laws reinforce these efforts to explicitly state that workplace health and safety include psychosocial health and safety beyond physical health and safety.
On a related note, public understanding of mental health issues and the public’s attitude towards persons in recovery from mental health conditions play an important role in creating a healthy workplace.
In a study conducted by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), close to one in two Singaporeans were not willing to work with persons with mental health issues while 70% of employers agreed that negative attitudes of co-workers are major barriers to employing persons in recovery.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in light of the social stigma indicated above and the spirit of the proposed amendment that regulates employment practices that would adversely affect the well-being of employees, I would like to highlight one such existing practice that, in my view, falls within the purview of this provision.
Many employers, mostly local and the Civil Service, still demand for declarations early on in the recruitment process on the history of illnesses, including mental health conditions. They have maintained that declaration of any existing medical condition, including mental illnesses, does not disqualify a candidate from being considered. This naturally raises the question of the need for and use of such information. It would seem that such personal information does not, indeed, contribute to the evaluation process of the application in any material form and instead only serves to prejudice the employee adversely because he or she may feel compelled to lie and not declare any such medical history because of the shame and fear of not being selected; and/or live in anxiety of being judged later on by his or her colleagues should they have a relapse, especially if there are no psychosocial support programmes available within the organisation.
An informal check with several persons-in-recovery, including Lewis, revealed that most choose not to declare.
Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be a fair statement to say that the Government can and should, in line with the new direction and tone we are taking towards recognising employee well-being and encouraging inclusive employment practices, consider prohibiting to a reasonable extent, employers from requiring job applicants to declare their history of health conditions, be it physical or mental.
At this juncture, I would also like to acknowledge that a fine balance, obviously, has to be struck between (a) such a legal prohibition against requiring health declarations and (b) ensuring that our laws do not unduly restrict social and economic conduct. To my mind, such a balance could entail, for instance, prohibiting employers from making enquiries about an applicant’s medical history too early on in the recruitment process, much like what the UK has done in the Equality Act 2010.
Mr Deputy Speaker, our biggest asset is our people. It is not just because we do not have any natural resources, because even that would be finite. Singapore’s biggest asset is our people because the human potential is infinite. The world changes rapidly, our fundamental needs as humans – not so much. Beyond the basic needs of food, water and shelter, we thrive and flourish when we feel supported in improving our abilities, pursuing our aspirations and living with purpose. We can come back stronger with setbacks if we know we are not alone.
Lewis, from the Hush TeaBar team, has, with workplace adjustments, made remarkable strides in his recovery and is now leading a team of Deaf facilitators in operations and finance. Workplace well-being has a direct impact on productivity and innovation and in the quality of life of employees. Every employee is a member of our society. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that a caring, inclusive and resilient Singapore can only come from caring, inclusive and resilient workplaces.
We must always remember \"human\" comes first when we talk about human resources or human capital. There is a great need to change attitudes and perceptions of mental health through education and legislation, from school through work. Employee well-being must be an intentional outcome of our employment policies. This may be a journey of a thousand miles. The amendments proposed by this Bill signal an exciting single step towards the direction of inclusion and diversity. I look forward to more progressive steps ahead, including those I have outlined above. Mr Deputy Speaker, I, therefore, stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill has not failed expectations and should be acknowledged for extending protection to all workers, except public servants and domestic workers, by removing the salary cap of $4,500 a month. With this change, all PMEs, who form the bulk of the local workforce, will benefit from the EA provisions. Other amendments, such as making annual leave a core protection provision and enhancing the regulation of dismissals, are also important features of the Bill.
With progress comes new limits and unaddressed issues become more prominent. I support the Bill but would like to highlight two sets of issues related to additional protection for more vulnerable workers and wrongful dismissals.
The first set of issues I would like to highlight concerns Part IV of the EA, which provides additional protection for more vulnerable workers. The key provisions in Part IV have to do with rest days, hours of work, overtime pay, retirement benefits and so on. With this amendment Bill, annual leave would be moved out of Part IV and become a core provision of the EA applicable to all workers. This is a good and logical move, but it is less progressive than it seems. Providing for annual leave is already a common practice and an irreversible norm, so the law is only catching up with reality.
The tweaks being made to the salary caps for non-workmen and for overtime compensation requirements are more important changes. The salary threshold for non-workmen to be covered by the additional protections of Part IV would be increased from $2,500 to $2,600. Non-workmen refer to white-collar workers who are not PMEs. At first glance, this struck me as a miniscule enhancement. Upon reflection and research, I still cannot put my head around the significance of a $100 increase in the threshold.
I understand the Ministry said this increase would result in half of the workforce being covered, but is this an increase from 40% to 50% or from 48% to 50% of the workforce? If it is the latter, it does not appear to be a meaningful increase. Just to illustrate, annual real wage growth in recent years is around 1.9%. This means that within two to three years, this $100 increase in salary threshold would be rendered irrelevant.
My question is why not take the progressive step of removing the distinction between workmen and non-workmen altogether? I understand from former Minister for Manpower Mr Lim Swee Say's reply to a Parliamentary Question by Ms Thanaletchmi in May 2016, this distinction is a legacy issue and the Government’s longer-term plan is to remove this distinction, given the changing nature of our workforce. In the 2014 amendment, the salary threshold for non-workmen was increased from $2,000 to $2,500. This was a significant increase, and the $100 increase this time round pales in significance, compared to the $500 increase in 2014. At this rate, how would the non-workmen threshold be able to catch up with the $4,500 threshold for workmen so that the distinction may be removed?
I understand this approach of gradually increasing the threshold is to balance employers' concern with the rise in business costs. But the $100 increase appears to be quite imbalanced against the favour of white-collar workers. I believe the increase should be more substantial to better protect white-collar workers, precisely because this segment of the workforce has become a lot more vulnerable in recent years because of technological disruptions and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI). Better still, the Government should commit to a timeframe to remove the distinction between workmen and non-workmen altogether so that companies would get the heads-up to adjust their business costs.
The second set of issues I would like to highlight has to do with the enhancements to the regulation of wrongful dismissal claims. The definition of dismissal has been expanded to cover forced resignations, which plugs a loophole that employers could use to get around wrongful dismissal allegations. However, this Bill misses the opportunity to define what constitutes dismissal \"without just cause or excuse\". The Ministry has said that the tripartite partners would be providing further guidance and clarity on what constitutes wrongful dismissal and the factors for determining the compensation amount. I have a few questions on this.
First, how would the tripartite guidelines on wrongful dismissal and factors for determining compensation amount, when they are issued, interact with the adjudication work of the ECT? What would be the legal status of the tripartite guidelines? Would the Tribunal be obliged to stay within the limits of the tripartite guidelines and, if so, would not this be undermining the purpose of having the Tribunal adjudicate wrongful dismissal claims? If not, how should the Tribunal take guidance from the tripartite guidelines? Can the Tribunal override the tripartite guidelines in specific cases due to peculiar circumstances?
Secondly, with regard to the content of the tripartite guidelines, would the guidelines cover unjust causes or excuses, such as discrimination on ethnic, nationality, age, gender, religion, marital status, disability and mental health grounds? I would like to stress that dismissal of workers because they are suffering from mental health problems should be considered wrongful, if these mental health problems could be treated and managed and would not substantially affect work performance. Mental health issues are prevalent in advanced economies, such as ours, and are often under-reported and go untreated because of the stigmatisation and lack of understanding of mental health issues. The same stigmatisation and lack of understanding are the bases of wrongful dismissals of workers with mental health issues. Another unjust cause or excuse that the tripartite guidelines should cover is related to sexual harassment, as the threat and actuality of dismissal are often used by those in power to sexually exploit their subordinates.
I am also of the view that in such cases where the Tribunal concludes that dismissal was wrongful due to discrimination or sexual harassment, the compensation and reinstatement of the workers are not good enough remedies. Such wrongful dismissals are not merely unjust; they are also egregious violations of workers’ rights and social norms. I believe that the Tribunal should be empowered to impose punitive sanctions in terms of fines and jail time for those guilty of these violations.
Thirdly, I would like to ask if wrongful dismissals would also cover cases of disguised retrenchment or false retrenchment. Disguised retrenchment refers to the serving of termination notice to employees due to job redundancy without treating it as retrenchment so that retrenchment benefits do not have to be paid. If the employment contract contains retrenchment benefit provisions, then it would be clear that such cases should be heard at the Tribunal. If the employment contract does not contain retrenchment benefit provisions, then I would like to ask do workers in such cases have the basis to claim fair retrenchment benefits based on prevailing industry norms? False retrenchment refers to the retrenchment of workers not due to genuine redundancy but on unjust grounds, such as discrimination. I believe that in such cases, it is clear, too, that claims should be heard by the Tribunal.
Lastly, with the passing of the Bill, the EA will cover high-salaried PMEs who would then be enabled to bring wrongful dismissal claims to the ECT. However, the Tribunal is limited to awarding claims up to only $20,000. Highly paid PMEs would likely be seeking claims for back wages and compensation that are much more than $20,000. It would seem to be unreasonable and unfair to open up this avenue for redress for these PMEs while maintaining the jurisdictional limit for the claims. Would the cap be adjusted upwards after the passing of this amendment? If so, what would be the new cap and why?
Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, this amendment Bill is a progressive piece of legislation that would extend the protection of our workers in the midst of economic disruptions and uncertainty. Progress brings new challenges and highlights old ones that remain in the system. I have highlighted two sets of issues.
The first set has to do with the legacy distinction between workmen and non-workmen in providing for additional protections under Part IV of the EA. It is my wish that the meaningless distinction be removed as soon as practicable and, in my view, the $100 increase in salary threshold for non-workmen eligible for the additional protections is too insignificant.
The second has to do with wrongful dismissals. While it is good that the ECT will now hear cases of alleged wrongful dismissals, it would be extremely useful if: one, it is clarified how the tripartite guidelines on wrongful dismissal would intersect with Tribunal hearings; two, the tripartite guidelines contain explicit guidance on dismissals linked to discrimination and sexual harassment; three, wrongful dismissals also cover disguised retrenchments and false retrenchments; and four, the jurisdictional limit for claims be raised to make the process more meaningful for high-wage PMEs. I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I start in Malay, let me declare my interest as the Honorary adviser to the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce. In Malay, Mr Deputy Speaker.
(In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Changing times and the evolving labour market mean that it is prudent to constantly review policies to ensure that our workers can continue to remain competitive as the world continues to change. The new amendments to the EA will bring about improved protection and welfare for the working population.
The removal of the salary threshold to cover all PMETs under the EA is a good enhancement. I applaud this move as every worker deserves protection regardless of the nature of work and their income. And, certainly, it is great news that the Ministry is proposing to raise the salary threshold on protection of working hours and overtime pay. As the median wage for employees continues to increase, rightly, so should the threshold.
However, I note that the proposed raise in salary cap for rank and file white-collar workers is only up to $2,600. While there is an increase in the number of Singaporeans who are eligible for protection, I do hope that the Ministry will consider raising the cap for rank and file office workers. For instance, I know of residents, mostly young adults – junior executives – fresh out of university, just got a new job, afraid to offend colleagues and superiors. They draw a monthly salary of about $3,000. Their employers or supervisors take advantage of their situation. I cite one particular account of a young research executive who gets paid $3,000 a month. She has to do overtime almost every day on weekdays and on weekends, and if she does not go to office, she has to bring the work home. She eventually resigned, and the employer will simply get someone to replace her, and this vicious cycle continues.
Cases like this make me gravely concerned about employers who pay their junior staff a little higher than the salary threshold, even giving them an empty executive or managerial title, where they do not actually have executive or supervisory functions, so that they can legally overwork their employee without paying them overtime.
Then there are professions, such as auditing and accounting, where pulling overnighters for days or even weeks to help clients to meet deadlines at certain periods of the year is inevitable. I think that regardless of how much they are being paid, if they are required to work for more than 10 hours for the day, perhaps the EA should make it mandatory for them to be compensated with time-off, so they can rest. In addition, with the presence of more gig workers in the local labour market, I would like to ask the Minister how will they be protected under the enhanced EA?
On the other hand, the policy’s fixation with the number of working hours could also complicate matters for companies that practise flexible working hours and allow employees to work remotely. Incidentally, this working style is favoured by the millennials and also gig workers, so we may expect more companies and individuals to be affected by the new policies.
I had the opportunity to speak to several business owners recently at a focus group discussion at the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI). One co-founder of a software and design company shared that some of his employees choose to work from home, and he is concerned that their movements will have to be documented carefully, which could lead to additional administrative burdens. Moreover, if there is no adequate solution in place to scrutinise these employees' working hours, some employees may take advantage of the situation and report longer working hours, so that they can be entitled to overtime pay, and their firms have to pay them. I believe clearer policies are necessary when we are encouraging more employers to favour flexi-work arrangements.
Another business owner I spoke to hopes for greater flexibility on mandatory leave. He personally exercises flexibility and fairness and would even allow employees to take more leave than their contract entitles them to when the situation calls for it, and when it is possible to do so. On the other hand, he has some employees who do not have to take leave, but he has to ask them to clear their leave regardless, when he could have benefited from the additional productivity, as he is afraid that he will be penalised otherwise. I hope the Ministry will consider the concerns of such employers.
(In English): As I mentioned earlier, an increase in administrative duties is one problem for companies that offer flexible working hours and remote working. Another employer I spoke to was concerned about the new policy which allows any medical practitioner to certify an employee for sick or hospitalisation leave, rather than the current approach of restricting certification to a practitioner appointed by the employer. He was concerned that other clinics, particularly private clinics, are more liberal with MCs, compared to the polyclinics and Government hospitals, whose MCs are the only certifications his company accepts. For SMEs like his, even a loss of one day’s worth of productivity poses a significant problem. Moreover, his company subsidises employees’ medical fees, so if the employee chooses to see a more expensive private medical practitioner, this also potentially leads to increased costs.
An increasingly challenging economic landscape already makes it difficult for businesses to stay profitable, especially the SMEs. We do not want to create a situation where businesses think it is more worthwhile to employ foreigners who may be satisfied with lower wages, over Singaporeans. We need to help them be more productive and profitable, so they do not have to resort to squeezing their employees. There are many types of grants in place. Questions I have in mind: are businesses coming forward to use them? If not, why not? Can we take more proactive measures to motivate and help them to do so?
Moving on to disputes and dismissals, it is a wise move to designate the ECT as a \"one-stop service\" for all employment-related disputes. Hopefully, this will shorten the amount of time for the aggrieved employee to seek help. Ideally, the cases should be heard and resolved within six months to eight months, otherwise it drags too long and the employee who is victimised is left hanging. Involuntary resignation of an employee should certainly be heard under unfair dismissals. There are many undesirable circumstances which lead to involuntary resignations, such as bullying and sexual harassment.
However, I hope that the Tribunal will be fair and objective to both sides and investigate each case thoroughly. Though less common, sometimes, it is the employee who tries to take advantage of the employer. I note that the employers are now required to obtain the written consent of their employees should they want to make any deductions from their salary for certain services, such as accommodation or amenities. Written consent may also be withdrawn, without penalty in some scenarios, by the employee in written notice before the deduction is made. But what about situations whereby the employee has clearly abused the company’s travel policies, for example, to splurge on services for personal enjoyment? Who can they seek redress from as an employer?
With all the increased functions, the Tribunal now plays a pivotal role in ensuring workplace fairness and protecting the rights of employees. What efforts will be made to ensure that the Tribunal is staffed with adequate manpower and resources to address all the disputes in a timely manner? What kind of training will the mediators and investigating officers receive? Moreover, errant employers should receive heavier penalties, especially if it is not their first time facing a dispute.
Another concern I have is the language that is used for the communication. Some complainants, especially those who are older, may find that they are more comfortable explaining their predicament in their mother tongue. Perhaps they may not even be literate in English. I note that documents submitted to file a claim must be in the English language. Otherwise, a certified translation of the document must be provided. One question I would like to ask the Minister would be: will assistance be available for those who are less proficient in English?
While we are on the subject of employee rights, I want to take this opportunity to ask for more to be done against workplace and employment discrimination. TAFEP has done a good job thus far in guiding companies to create an inclusive workplace. But I hope it can be given more powers to penalise discriminatory employers through more severe penalties. There is no room for discrimination in Singapore and our employment policies must reflect that. Otherwise, our minority and vulnerable Singaporeans will have to compromise by settling for fewer choices of employers, and this sort of situation can lead to undesirable and even dangerous outcomes in the future. I hope there will eventually come a time when we can do away with the listing of TAFEP-accredited companies, as all or most companies would have adopted an inclusive work culture.
The general consensus from the ground, I feel, is that employees are generally happy with the proposed changes, but they are concerned about how effective these new measures will be. Employers on the other hand hope for more flexibility, and there is also confusion regarding the full range of changes in the Bill. For example, although there is an Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, some employers I met are wondering whether the changes would only cover local employees, or if they would be extended to foreign employees holding similar designations and salaries. They are worried about how the changes will affect their business costs and productivity. Some of the business owners did not know about the amendment Bill coming up, and as a large number of them are in the F&B and retail segments, with high labour inputs, they feel that they could be significantly affected. To assure employers and keep them well-informed of the necessary facts, I urge MOM and the Minister to reach out and engage them proactively.
In conclusion, nurturing a fair and inclusive work culture is challenging and, certainly, it will take time and patience. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Ignorance and lack of resources could give rise to unintentional discrimination and unreasonable employment practices. These can fortunately be corrected gradually through education, assistance and mediation by organisations like TAFEP. However, when employers are deliberately depriving employees and potential employees of their basic rights, it is time to take a more heavy-handed approach.
On the other hand, we also have to be careful not to penalise the good employers who have genuine difficulties in meeting all the requirements. A good work culture is a two-way street after all, and expecting SMEs and micro-SMEs to accommodate a poorly performing employee would take a significant toll on their existing resources. Ultimately, all our local SMEs are important resources. We have to do more to engage them, understand their concerns and help them out, so that they can do well and continue to provide good jobs and a good working environment to Singaporeans. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Arasu Duraisamy.
Mr Arasu Duraisamy (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me state my interest as an NTUC Central Committee member and a unionist.
Sir, the enhancements to the EA will be significant for our workers. These enhancements are a product of close collaboration among the tripartite partners, with the aim of ensuring reasonable labour standards for our workers while balancing employers' need to stay competitive so that they can continue to create good jobs for our workers. The most significant change in the proposed amended Act would be extending the coverage of the EA to PMEs earning above $4,500 per month. This will benefit 430,000 more workers.
Those of us who are not involved in the lengthy and relentless tripartite discussions may not be fully aware that the EA has evolved and come a long way in a short time. As our nation's manpower and employment profiles evolve following industry development and changes, it is thus timely to extend core provisions under the EA to PMEs by removing the $4,500 salary cap.
The proposed change recognised that PMEs should be accorded protection for core provisions. For far too long, they have been deprived of the Act's coverage and it is, indeed, a welcome move. These enhancements will further allow the unions to represent PMEs effectively and to increase the scope of coverage even higher.
Today, rank and file workers are better protected than the PMEs, as core provisions are extended to all workmen and non-workmen. Part IV of the EA, the time-based provisions, are already extended to workmen earning up to $4,500 a month and non-workmen earning up to $2,500 a month.
By extending the salary threshold for non-workmen to $2,600 a month and raising the overtime rate cap to $2,600 per month, it covers half of our workforce with additional protection. The extension of the coverage of Part IV to cover more non-workmen will benefit another 100,000 more workers.
While the unions welcome the move, we hope the tripartite partners will relook at the threshold for non-workmen to be increased further, as the roles and responsibilities of workers keep changing along with the constant evolving business environment. While not part of the proposed amendments, an issue of concern was that the tripartite partners deliberated extensively on whether to mandate retrenchment benefits and minimum retrenchment benefits packages.
After lengthy discussions, it was agreed that retrenchment benefits are better left to negotiations between the employer and the union, and rightly so. A flexible approach would be more beneficial to workers and businesses. We want to avoid instances where a mandated minimum package becomes a norm, even when employers could pay more. Workers will not benefit this way. On the other hand, companies may not be able to afford it if the mandated minimum package is too high, considering the business circumstances they could be facing. Over-burdening of companies at such times could end up affecting workers even more.
The subject of retrenchment is an emotional one and has financial impact on the workers. However, it might not be avoidable when companies experience difficulties while restructuring or face financial crunch. Hence, we should adopt the tripartite approach to instead: (a) issue an advisory stipulating the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefits quantum; and (b) support affected workers via programmes, such the Adapt and Grow and TechSkills Accelerator.
Mr Deputy Speaker, at the same time, I would like to urge all tripartite partners to acknowledge that workers have real fears and concerns, as the need to move into automation, digitalisation and embrace new technologies become critical for business competitiveness. Workers are worried that such changes might lead to job redundancies.
I am very concerned that there will be employers who jump in without thoughts given to how its employees might be affected. These are the unenlightened employers who see workers as digits of cost and not as assets. I urge MOM to work with the tripartite partners to educate employers and management, and urge them to work with the unions from the onset of planned automation, to take care of their workers holistically, and ensure that they would not be affected as long they are able to upgrade their skills to handle new automation processes and necessary technologies. Ultimately, workers should not be worse off.
At the recent 44th International Transport Workers Federation (ITWF) Congress held in Singapore, the subject of automation and its impact on workers were discussed. We heard from our foreign counterparts that automation has led to outsourcing of existing jobs, impacted their wages and caused displacement of the workers. We, on the other hand, are glad that the tripartite partners here agree on a pro-employability position.
As we all understand and embrace the need to automate and digitalise, we need to ensure that companies engage its employees from the beginning and to find an effective role for them. We do not want to see jobs going to other countries due to automation as stated by a dockers union at the recent ITWF Congress.
At the same time, as businesses transform and move into higher automation and new technologies, there are employers who may conveniently hire foreigners who have \"higher skills\" and citing that our Singaporean workers do not have these skills. But what have these employers done to train our Singaporean workers to take on these jobs?
Sir, I urge MOM to work with the tripartite partners and ensure proper dialogues take place between the employers and the unions when going into automation, and that tripartite guidelines be set in place to guide employers and companies when they move into automation. We should look at incentivising companies that train their workers to attain higher skills and, at the same time, pay closer attention to how we can enhance our Fair Consideration Framework.
One of the core supporting pillars of Singapore's economy is our strong Tripartism. The parties involved must have a shared vision of wanting the nation to succeed. Only then can we all have a share in the success. Tripartism has contributed to us being ranked the top 10 most competitive economies in the world and ranked No 2 for being a business-friendly environment by the World Bank. A stable, transparent and conducive business environment has ensured that companies are willing to invest and set up business operations over here and thus ensuring better job prospects for Singaporeans.
Tripartism can only succeed with strong bipartism between employers and unions with the support of the Government. Thus, I strongly urge employers to work with the unions. Let us not take labour relations for granted. Let us not forget the lessons learned from the volatile industrial climate of the 1950s and 1960s.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is upon us. Businesses here must transform and evolve in order to sustain and grow. It is critical that these latest enhancements continue as part of our ongoing journey in ensuring our employment laws stay relevant and updated so that workers are protected while business needs are addressed. With this, I move in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. The EA is the cornerstone of our employment regime. It provides an additional layer of protection for employees beyond contract law. It recognises that there are certain fundamental protections that employees and employers should not be allowed to contract out of. It also recognises that there are underlying power imbalances that may weaken the nature of the consent in an employment relationship. It is thus important to regularly review the EA to ensure that its provisions take into account the reality of the employee-employer relationship.
With this in mind, I have a number of clarifications to make on the interpretation and application of the proposed amendments.
Section 14(1) is intended to protect employees against unfair dismissal by allowing an employee to lodge a claim with the ECT where he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse. However, there is no definition of what constitutes dismissal without just cause or excuse. Without a clear definition, the protection against unfair dismissal may be ineffective because instances of unfair dismissals are often not clear cut and can be easily disguised.
Civil society groups have documented examples of such stories. In one case, a mother was told to leave when she returned from her maternity leave as the company had carried out a retrenchment exercise while she was away. However, she also reported being \"nitpicked\" and \"mentally abused\" by her superior while she was pregnant and strongly suspected that the superior took the retrenchment exercise as a chance to \"get rid\" of her.
In another case, a pregnant lady was dismissed shortly after returning from hospitalisation leave for severe morning sickness. While poor work performance was cited for the reason of the dismissal, the company did not seem to have a problem with her work performance prior to her pregnancy, even praising her for being an exemplary role model. The odd actions of her employers, such as locking her out of her work email account which she could only access using a temporary password and hiring a new person whose job scope and job title were similar to hers, only occurred after she returned from hospitalisation.
The hospitalisation and one incident of lateness to work, which were both caused by her pregnancy, seemed to have escalated into her dismissal. In a disability discrimination case, a stroke survivor with mobility issues was dismissed after a colleague had reported witnessing the individual slipping and falling on the way to the toilet.
Can the Minister provide examples of unfair dismissals? Would the Minister further consider providing clear definitions of what constitute dismissal without just cause or excuse under subsidiary legislation or as guidelines? Can such regulations or guidelines also include specific forms of discrimination on the basis of gender or disability? This would clarify for employees their rights on discriminatory dismissals and assist the ECT in adjudicating unfair dismissal claims.
Next, section 27(1) currently specifies a list of permissible deductions. No deductions beyond this limited list may be made from an employee's salary. However, this defined list seems to have been expanded by the new section 27(1)(i) which authorises any deduction made with the written consent of the employee. It appears all deductions are permissible with the employee's written consent unless it is specifically prohibited.
Can the Minister clarify if the intended effect of section 27(1)(i) is to permit any kind of deduction as long as there is written consent? For instance, section 27(1)(c) which permits deductions for meals supplied by the employer at the request of the employee will be removed. Would it be permissible for an employer to now deduct the costs of meals with the employee's written consent? If that is the case, what is the rationale behind removing section 27(1)(c) if such a deduction would still be allowed under section 27(1)(i) as long as the employee's consent is obtained?
It is worrying if section 27(1)(i) is intended to be interpreted so broadly that all deductions, unless specifically prohibited, are permitted with the employee's consent. As I mentioned at the start, our labour laws provide additional protection on top of contractual consent. Permitting deductions as long as there is written consent by the employee seems to be a regression in the protection of our labour laws. It is undisputed that, in reality, many employees can be pressurised or coerced into giving false consent.
Can the Minister confirm that the new section 27(1)(i) remains limited by prohibited deductions under other statutes, such as sections 22A and 25(6) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA)? Can the Minister also clarify whether section 27(1)(i) is subject to any other limitations?
Next, under the new section 27(1)(f), an employer can make deductions from an employee's salary to recover any advance or loan. This is a potential loophole for improper deductions to be made.
Can the Minister clarify whether employers will have to maintain and produce documentation of such loan or advance to prove the legitimacy of deductions under this section? Can the Minister also shed some light on how the written consent requirement will be implemented in practice? How will the Ministry keep track of whether written consent has been obtained and how will the Ministry ensure that such written consent is not obtained coercively?
I welcome the new section 27(1A) and (1B) which clarifies that an employee cannot be penalised for withdrawing written consent to deductions. Section 27(1A) requires that the employee withdraw their consent any time before the deduction is made.
Can the Minister confirm that an employee is only required to withdraw consent before a specific deduction transaction is made, in other words, it remains open to an employee to withdraw consent for a certain category of deduction throughout the course of employment? Further, what are the penalties and consequences for an employer who penalises an employee for withdrawing written consent?
Next, the new section 21(1A) of the Employment Claims Act 2016 allows the ECT to draw adverse inferences where a party fails to produce evidence in breach of their obligation under other written laws. Can I confirm that this would mean that adverse inferences may be drawn against employers if they fail to produce Key Employment Terms and salary slips, which they are required to maintain under the EA?
Would the Minister consider taking this a step further in future reviews of the EA and Employment Claims Act in reversing the burden of proof where the employer is required by statute to retain certain records?
Lastly, I welcome the amendments to section 89, which recognise employees’ freedom to consult medical doctors or institutions of their choice without prejudicing their entitlement to medical leave. I would further urge the Minister to extend this principle to the work injury compensation regime in future reviews of WICA.
I understand that the assessment and diagnosis of the first treating doctor who is often also the doctor chosen by the employer is often preferred over doctors the employee may subsequently consult in the assessment of permanent incapacity under WICA. It would be appropriate to harmonise the positions under the EA and WICA by recognising that the injured employee is both entitled to consult and to have their permanent incapacity assessed by a medical practitioner of their choice. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Last reviewed in 2012, the amendments to the EA are much needed, given that there are now many more PMEs. In addition, the establishment of the ECT, which oversees salary-related disputes and claims, as well as wrongful dismissal, means that there needs to be greater clarity in defining employee benefits and what constitutes wrongful dismissal.
First and foremost, the move to do away with the $4,500 salary cap for protection under the EA is very much welcome. This move will result in more than 430,000 PMEs who will benefit through greater protection under the EA. This is not a small number, and is likely to increase, given that more Singaporeans are taking on PME positions in multinational corporations, small and medium enterprises and even startup companies that are able to pay relatively well. In addition, as more of our young Singaporeans become trained for the industry, their salaries will set to grow and remain competitive. Hence, being able to provide employment protection for them under the EA is very much welcome and needed.
Second, I strongly support the move to provide all employees annual leave of seven to 14 days. Annual leave is an established industry norm and it is quite disconcerting that, even as of now, there is still a substantial number among us who work without any annual leave provision. While I welcome this annual leave provision, I question the change to provide only the seven to 14 days of annual leave to all employees, and not the one-year carry-forward of unused annual leave to all employees as well.
There are those among us who work industriously throughout the year when we are still able and healthy, but who may decide to accumulate their annual leave for a much anticipated and much saved-up family holiday or a religious pilgrimage in the following year. While I understand that such changes for employers to provide both annual leave and carry-forward of unused annual leave to the following year can cause a significant impact on employers’ manpower and budget planning, I urge the Ministry to consider extending the one-year carry-forward of unused annual leave to all employees as well. Even if this extension cannot be made in this round of amendments to the EA, I urge the Ministry to consider making this change in the near future.
Third, I strongly support the move to better clarify what constitutes wrongful dismissal that may require dispute resolution. While I do not have the statistics on hand, anecdotally, I have met residents who have lamented about their discontent with and perception of their former employers for having dismissed them because of some form of discrimination, whether perceived or otherwise, because of pregnancy or maternity leave to be taken, disputes arising out of work-related performance bonus or even claims of forced resignation.
I recall an incident where a resident was aggrieved that her employer managed to persuade her to tender her resignation through veiled threats and manipulation. It was only after she tendered her resignation and talked to friends that she realised she was manipulated and forced to resign, when she could have reported the matter to MOM instead. With the establishment of the ECT and this round of amendments to provide greater clarity on wrongful dismissal, aggrieved employees can at least seek redress and an avenue for investigation into their claims of wrongful dismissal.
Fourth, I welcome the move to accept MCs from all medical practitioners registered under the Medical Registration Act when employees apply for medical leave. From what I understand, this provision has not been amended since 1968, and 50 years is too long to have waited to make changes to this provision. While there may have been instances of forged or fictitious MCs, I believe these are few and far between now. I trust that our medical practitioners have integrity and will issue MCs only where necessary.
This amendment to recognise and accept all MCs will provide greater flexibility for employees who are unwell to see a medical practitioner nearest to their homes for medication and be given medical leave to recover. However, can this provision also include traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners who are registered with the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board? There are increasingly more who prefer to get help from TCM practitioners for their ailments, such as frozen shoulder, plantar fasciitis, or lower back pains, which can significantly affect work performance. These ailments may not have immediate cure but, with consistent TCM treatments, much relief can be achieved.
Fifth, I am heartened that within this round of amendments, there is a provision for the Minister to make regulations that protect employees' entitlements and well-being, and protect them from undesirable employment practices that manipulate, in particular, low-wage and menial work employees. I support the need to protect employees from unknowingly signing predated salary vouchers, or the need to protect them from being subjected to salary clawbacks from their employers, for instance. I seek the Ministry to clarify if and how salary clawbacks, for example, can be regulated so as to better protect employees.
Interestingly, a Business Insider article dated 28 August this year declared that following employee misconduct or declining profits, salary clawback clauses in employment contracts are \"on the rise among Fortune 100 companies, increasing by 79% from 2005 to 2010\". Have there been cases or complaints of employment contracts that have included salary clawback clauses? Out of these, how many have been couched as disincentives for misconduct or poor performance or declining business profits? How many actual cases of salary clawbacks have been reported to the Ministry even though the original employment contracts have not included such clauses?
I refer to the Minister’s written reply to my Parliamentary Question for yesterday's Sitting regarding the over-inflation of salaries compared to the actual payment of salaries. This is similar to salary clawbacks. While the number of cases reported accounts for only 0.2% of the workforce, the absolute numbers are about 8,300 cases annually, which is quite a substantial number. I am most concerned about the proportionately larger numbers of rank-and-file workers, more than eight in 10 of such workers, who have been subjected to this form of salary clawback. I hope the Ministry will make further amendments to the EA or tighten regulations regarding over-inflation of salaries declared or salary clawbacks, and take stricter actions on employers who take advantage of their employees in this manner, particularly rank-and-file workers. At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.
(In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Still on the topic of protecting employees’ well-being, I would like to implore the Minister to consider making it mandatory for companies, organisations or buildings that conduct outsourcing of services, such as cleaning, delivery and security services, to provide proper rest spaces and areas for outsourced personnel, such as cleaners, despatch riders and security officers.
More often than not, we see cleaners, despatch riders and security officers who do not have proper and appropriate rest areas. This is mainly because they are not on the direct payroll of the organisations, companies or buildings they work in, and even though they work for very long hours at a stretch, they are always on their feet and without rest. When it is time for them to eat or take a temporary respite, they often have to find some dusty corner of basement carparks or in rubbish collection areas. These places are hardly ideal or even hygienic for eating and resting. I am sure we can provide a better environment and surroundings for our cleaners, despatch riders and security officers, even though they are outsourced personnel and not direct hires in that particular company, organisation or building.
The provision of designated rest spaces and areas for our cleaners, despatch riders and security officers does not cost that much.
A sheltered, well-ventilated and well-lit area with tables and chairs is all that is needed. Therefore, I implore the Minister for designated rest spaces and areas to be provided for outsourced personnel in all buildings, organisations and companies that hire such workers, in the next amendment to the EA.
(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am heartened by and supportive of the many significant changes to the EA through this amendment Bill. Nonetheless, I hope the Ministry will seriously consider the few recommendations I have made. Notwithstanding the questions I have posed and the further recommendations made, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore, Assistant Director of Allied Health Office at KK Women's and Children's Hospital and Co-Chair of the SingHealth Allied Health Executive Committee.
I would like to impress upon the House two things regarding the upcoming Employment (Amendment) Bill. Firstly, for MOM and MOH to explore allowing registered Collaborative Practice Prescribers (CPPs) who are running clinics in hospitals and polyclinics to issue MCs. Secondly, for MOM to work with the Tripartite Alliance and encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave without MC per year.
I am deeply concerned about the rising healthcare costs in Singapore and the expenditure on elderly healthcare. These are issues affecting our healthcare system and have been highlighted in the 2018 Singapore Budget.
With the increasing burden of an ageing population, along with the surge in incidence of chronic diseases and complexity of chronic disease management, we need to focus on a team-based model of care where various healthcare professionals – doctors, pharmacists, nurses, allied health professionals – come together and work in synergy to provide cost-effective care outcomes in line with MOH’s Beyond 2020 master plan.
As such, we need to empower our allied health professionals, nurses and pharmacists to take on greater roles in the area of minor ailments and chronic diseases management to provide value-based care at a sustainable cost and to actively look into ways to eliminate inefficiencies in our healthcare system.
One such approach that I would like to suggest is to allow practitioners under the recently approved CPP framework to be able to issue MCs. This framework came into operation on 1 March 2018 and certifies a practitioner under the national collaborative prescribing assessment framework to be able to review and prescribe independently within the scope of their Collaborative Practice Agreement (CPA).
This certification is done in a setting that requires the issuing of MCs, for example, in ambulatory care clinics.
All CPPs have to undergo and pass a three-month National Collaborative Prescribing Programme. In each institution, a privileging and training framework is in place for CPPs to see patients in a clinic. Practitioners must have at least three years of experience, with at least a year in team-based care before enrolling into the National Collaborative Prescribing Programme.
CPPs are regularly reviewed by the Credentialing and Service review committee to ensure safety and appropriateness of care. They are also required to maintain a competency portfolio for re-credentialing, whenever necessary.
Nurses under the CPP framework are registered Advanced Practice Nurses (APN) who have completed the Master of Nursing Programme accredited by the Singapore Nursing Board (SNB) for APN training or its equivalent and have successfully completed a postgraduate one-year APN Internship programme.
Likewise, CPP pharmacists are advanced practice pharmacists or specialist pharmacists registered with the Singapore Pharmacy Council (SPC) who have completed postgraduate training or its equivalent and fulfilled the compulsory continual professional education (CPE) points for maintenance of licensure by SPC.
As Members can see, practitioners under the CPP framework go through rigorous training, are constantly audited to ensure that high standards of care are upheld and are well-equipped with necessary industry certifications.
Currently, these practitioners can only provide excuse chits to patients. If patients require MCs, they have to be directed to medical doctors where they have to wait again for the doctors to furnish their MCs. It causes unnecessary delays to patients and can be disruptive to both the CPP and the doctor. Currently, most employers accept MCs but not excuse chits.
The reasons I have stated provide sufficient grounds for MOM and MOH to consider certifying CPPs licensed to provide MCs to the general public.
This brings me to my second point, which is, for MOM to consider working with the Tripartite Alliance and encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave per year without MC.
I am sure that everyone who works will have had to obtain an MC when they are unwell at some point in time. You might have woken up perhaps with a flu, feeling feverish and decide that you are not able to go to work that day. However, you would first have to get an MC. That would mean going to the nearest private clinic or polyclinic, queuing up with other patients and risk spreading infection.
Apart from being unproductive and potentially spreading your contagion, being out and about would exacerbate your illness when you should be getting the much-needed rest at home. One may even conveniently ask for unwarranted antibiotics since they are already at the clinic, contributing to global antimicrobial resistance problems.
Allowing employees to take up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave per year without MC will also display a strong signal of trust and partnership between employers and employees. It will also create better accountability and higher morale amongst staff because the system had shown them that their employers trust them. I understand that the current EA is not prohibiting such a practice and, in fact, some healthcare clusters and Civil Service organisations have already implemented this practice for many years, but there is a need for MOM to mandate it in the Act so that these benefits can be accelerated across the nation, rather than to let nature take its course.
I understand that there is always the perennial concern of employers – how to prevent the abuse of this system by employees who like to \"keng\"? In response to that, I would like to propose creating controls, such as audits and provisions for the privilege to be withdrawn for employees who abuse the system, and a surveillance system to be put in place to ensure that we do not miss out on cluster infections.
In any organisation, there will always be a small percentage of employees who will abuse the system. The benefits of allowing for sick leave without MC will outweigh the small number of abuse cases. In fact, even with our current situation, it is not difficult to get a day off from work by faking an illness to get an MC. A survey conducted by online portal Jobs Central in 2012 reported that almost 20% of some 3,300 Singapore employees admitted to faking an illness to get away from work at some point in time.
Should MOM and MOH choose to adopt my two suggestions, the benefits to patients and our healthcare system will be manifold. It will help organisations save on unnecessary medical claims from employees just to get MCs for simple viral infections or minor ailments. The right to issue MCs by CPPs also elevates the recognition of the CPPs’ role. It is a necessary amendment to level up the CPP model to be in line with doctors.
If implemented, necessary steps will be taken to refine the CPP model in line with industry standards to ensure appropriateness of care. This will lead to improved patient access to healthcare through right siting of patients and lead to healthcare cost containment in the long run. Doctors in the community can then be freed up to see more complex patients and be subvented appropriately based on the complexity of medical conditions seen as well as clinical indicators met.
This privilege can later be considered for physiotherapists and occupational therapists to empower them as the first triage point under the new rehab model of care. These are highly trained Allied Health specialists with postgraduate degrees and at least three years of work experience.
Overseas studies have demonstrated that patients with musculoskeletal conditions, such as non-severe back or neck pain as well as hand injuries, benefited from early access to physiotherapy and occupational therapy at the primary care or emergency department. Locally, even if early access is available to these patients, they are required to visit the doctor for an MC.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in short, these proposals will reduce inefficiencies in the current healthcare system, while allowing for better patient experience and contain healthcare costs through the optimisation of healthcare teams, without compromising clinical care. As we move into the ageing tsunami, there is an urgent need to proactively review our healthcare system and remove inefficiencies, making our processes leaner so that healthcare costs will not end up as a financial burden to our next generation. Notwithstanding my requests stated above for MOM and MOH's consideration in future EA amendments, I stand to support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.
Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Employment laws are important as they provide a legal structure to the workplace, define the responsibilities of both employers and employees, and outline regulations for resolving workplace conflicts. Having current and sound employment laws is crucial as good worker protection and fair rights enable businesses to devote their focus on productivity and profitability.
First, I welcome the extended coverage of the Act to include PMEs earning above $4,500 per month. Our workforce composition has been changing steadily over the years and, in time, PMEs will form a significant proportion of our workforce. Therefore, it is timely that we extend coverage of the Act to protect this group of workers.
But more can be done to make clearer the definitions of who are considered employees covered under the Act. Currently, a worker’s coverage under the Act consists of two main criteria: type of employee and income threshold. Intuitively, the terms \"workmen\" and \"non-workmen\" should be all encompassing. Having a third and separate category just for PMEs is non-intuitive and can be confusing as to who is considered a \"PME\" and who is considered a \"non-workman\". In practice, the distinction by type and income feels arbitrary as all employees face the same vulnerabilities by virtue of being under a company’s employment with unequal bargaining power.
Moving forward, as our workforce composition continues to evolve, MOM and the tripartite partners should consider removing the distinction between workmen, non-workmen and PMEs. I hope that, one day, we can replace these current distinctions between blue-collar workers, white-collar workers and managers, perhaps, with a singular inclusive term, for example, \"employees\" or simply \"workers\".
Next, I welcome the move to raise the income cap for non-workmen under Part IV of the Act from $2,500 to $2,600. This provides coverage for an additional 100,000 non-workmen previously not protected on hours of work and overtime.
Another piece of good news for workers is the proposed increase in the overtime salary cap for non-workmen from $2,250 to $2,600. But I would like to highlight a potential problem faced on the ground. Under the Act, if working on a rest day is requested by the employer, the rate is doubled, compared to if the work is requested by the employee. We have come across cases where employers have asked their employees to sign statements to declare that working on a rest day is self-requested. This is unfair to the employee.
Can the Ministry review this two-tier rate and remove the arbitrary distinction of rates based on who requested for the work on a rest day? This is to prevent unscrupulous employers from abusing the system, just to justify paying the lower rate. The decision whether an employee is required to work on a rest day is strictly a business call. If so required by the employer, the employee should be duly compensated at the minimum rates stipulated by law. However, if the distinction between the employer's and employee’s request is to be preserved, then we should narrow the gap between these two rates.
Next, I would like to touch on the issue of hospitalisation leave under the proposed new section 89(3). I am glad that the Ministry is proposing further changes to the Act to further clarify the confines of hospitalisation and what would constitute hospitalisation leave. I note, in particular, that the further proposed amendments would mean that an employee who is certified to be ill enough to require hospitalisation leave will qualify even if the employee had not been warded in a hospital.
However, I would like to highlight two issues for clarification.
First, will employees with infectious diseases, such as chicken pox and HFMD, be eligible for paid hospitalisation leave? A person contracted with such illnesses may not be required to be hospitalised but will require a longer period of stay at home to recover. However, clause 15 appears to cover only those patients who are quarantined by law.
Second, what about those suffering from mental issues, such as depression? According to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), nearly 43,000 people sought outpatient treatment at IMH in 2017. This is a 22% increase from 2010. Today, employees do get issued with hospitalisation leave if they see a psychiatrist. With the proposed amendment, can the Minister confirm that employees with mental issues can still qualify for hospitalisation leave?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the explicit clarification that workers should be free to seek medical treatment from the doctor or clinic of their choice and that their entitlement to medical leave should not be prejudiced by this choice. Nonetheless, workers have raised two concerns with me. One, sick or injured workers not given sufficient medical leave to recover; and two, reimbursement of medical consultation fees being tied to MCs.
Granting of medical leave should commensurate with the medical condition of the sick or injured worker. But there had been cases where employers collude with doctors to provide minimal medical leave for their sick or injured workers. A medically unfit worker would be at a higher risk of accidents at the workplace. But often, they do not raise a complaint because they fear repercussions from their employer. This is even often more pronounced if the injured worker is a Work Permit worker. I, therefore, urge the Ministry to take harsh actions against such errant employers.
Under the proposed section 89(7)(A), reimbursement of medical consultation fees can only be granted if the doctor issues an MC. Workers with chronic illnesses, such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol, have raised concerns that they would not be able to get reimbursement of their medical consultation fees as their medical conditions do not require MCs to be issued. Perhaps the Ministry can consider adding treatment of chronic medical issues as part of reimbursement of medical consultation fees.
Lastly, I welcome the move to allow the Minister to make regulations against certain unfair employment practices to protect employees’ entitlements and well-being. As we are aware, there are some unsavoury practices in the industry that should be outlawed. Foremost in mind, and as the Minister herself has highlighted earlier, would be to prohibit employers from asking employees to sign salary vouchers before receiving salaries or to sign on blank salary vouchers.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the course of my work with NTUC, I visit companies and factories regularly. On occasions, I also host our foreign union counterparts. I am often asked if Singapore is pro-business or pro-worker. My reply often is that it does not have to be “either or”. Workers are the lifeblood of a company. When workers are well taken care of and perform well, businesses will flourish. We expect companies to take good care of all our workers, regardless of collars, regardless of nationalities. On the same count, we expect companies and employers who flout this social norm and resort to unfair employment practices to be dealt with by the fullest extent of the law.
The review of the EA is crucial as our economy continues to transform and the nature of jobs and employment will continue to change in the years ahead. The proposed amendments co-designed and co-developed by our tripartite partners are timely to provide better protection and fair rights to our workers amidst these changes taking place rapidly in our workforce. It is an exemplary example of the tripartism spirit that we have in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.
Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is heartening to see the additional protection and benefits for more of our employees and workers.
The EA, and I quote from the MOM website, \"does not make any distinction between a temporary employee, contract employee, daily-rated employee or employee on tenured employment\". Hence, the stipulated minimum terms and conditions of employment applies to all. Employees working less than 35 hours a week should be made aware of the protection for them under regulations for part-time employees.
My concern stems from the rise of the gig economy, where flexi-time, temporary jobs are increasing exponentially, with more companies hiring freelancers and independent individual contractors. Based on some of the feedback I had received, there are pockets of workers who are not very sure of their employment rights and entitlements in such hiring arrangements. As a result, they are at risk of exploitative practices.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry put more effort into public education campaigns, including outreach programmes and road shows, to clarify the protection and entitlements of employees, particularly those working in sectors and positions which pay lower wages. Whether it is overtime pay, timely payment of wages, salary deductions, medical leave or dispute resolution, the Ministry must make a concerted effort to reach out to and educate temporary, contract and daily-rated employees about their rights in these areas. Sir, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Based on some of the feedback I had received, there are pockets of workers who are not very sure of their employment rights and entitlements in such hiring arrangements. As a result, they are at risk of exploitative practices.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry put more effort into public education campaigns, including outreach programmes and road shows, to clarify the protection and entitlements of employees, particularly those working in sectors and positions which pay lower wages.
Whether it is overtime pay, timely payment of wages, salary deductions, medical leave or dispute resolution, the Ministry must make a concerted effort to reach out to and educate temporary, contract and daily-rated employees about their rights in these areas.
(In English): With greater awareness and more detailed knowledge, these workers will be able to negotiate for fairer terms of employment and seek support from the Ministry in the event of non-compliance by their employers. Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business ","subTitle":"Motion","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.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Employment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.
Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Employment (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is an improvement of the current EA. However, the Bill does not appear to be updated sufficiently to take into consideration the nature of the emerging workforce in the new economy. It also does not incorporate any aspiration for a more inclusive workforce.
In this regard, I would like to urge MOM to strengthen the safety net for five groups of employees through the EA and also other measures through its partners, such as the union. The employee groups I hope MOM can further support are one, employees with a portfolio of jobs and employers in the gig economy; two, employees in outsourced functions; three, Baby Boomer Seniors; four, low-skilled elderly workers; and five, employees with disabilities.
First, the nature of the emerging workforce. Several years ago, Silicon Valley-based information technology (IT) solutions firm, INTUIT, predicted that 40% of the American workforce will be independent workers – freelancers, contractors and temporary employees – by 2020. The data that is just distributed today by the Ministry also reflect an increasing trend.
In the economy of today, work which once meant years of commitment to a single vocation, to a single career path, to a single worksite or even one employer, is undergoing transformation. Depending on the work arrangements and relationship between a service provider and his paymasters, one can be labelled an employee – a permanent, temporary, full-time or part-time employee – or an independent contractor who could be self-employed, freelance and on-call. The lines between a regular employee and a regular freelancer or independent contractor, and between contracts of service and contracts for service are blurring and overlapping.
Employees with a portfolio of multiple employers and jobs. More entrants to the workforce in the gig or on-demand economy are becoming what management guru Charles Handy call the portfolio employees. They are a new-collar employee group who could be in traditional blue or white-collar jobs, working for several employers and engaging in what is known as a portfolio of jobs. These are the new-collar employees with multiple employers, serving at alternate different worksites, on or offline, and expected to deliver work based on either time spent, outcomes achieved or a blend of both time and outcomes. They could be, for example, an IT manager who works for several SMEs or an occupational therapist who spreads her workweek across several schools or clinics, or a cleaner who regularly cleans different homes on different workdays.
Sir, the Bill is silent on how the new legislation can ensure that this emerging group of employees with a portfolio of multiple employer and a portfolio of multiple work will enjoy an overall fair and employment package, and if there is provision to ensure that all the said employers will be jointly or severally liable for the entitlement provisions in matters, such as leave benefits, hospitalisation, medical or insurance.
In instances, for example, of a medical emergency or a fatal accident, would employees with multiple employers be protected and provided for, or would this duty be pushed amongst the different employers? These portfolio employees, will they be adequately covered or protected? What about the skills development of this category of staff for whom no single employer may feel responsible to ensure the relevance of their skills? What is the update from the Ministry on essential portable benefits, such as healthcare, workmen's compensation and disability insurance that are not tied to traditional full-time employment? Can these benefit employees with multiple employers and be delivered through, for example, a coordinating agency in Government or can there be other forms of mechanism to ensure that they are protected?
Next, on employees in outsourced functions. Sir, as companies continue with the trend of outsourcing functions that are not their core, such as in administration, cleaning or security, there emerges in the labour market another group of employees whose rights may not be sufficiently protected or provided for. These are the staff of contractors who won these outsourced functions. I have heard of contracts where employment agents require that they compensate the agency in cases of resignation, on top of the notice required for resignation. Who watches over these contracts and who watches over these workers in the lower end of the food chain? As more and more work is being outsourced, mechanisms need to be devised to coach and monitor the main labour contractors to ensure that they, too, comply with the employment legislation and the rights of their workers are protected.
Next, on the third group, Baby Boomer seniors. Sir, Baby Boomers will dominate the greying population of the developed world. In Singapore, we will see a new breed of senior citizens, those we call the \"Merdeka Generation\" who are unlike the senior citizens of the past. These Baby Boomer seniors may not retire at the specified age required. They may not just head for their overseas holidays or karaoke sessions regularly. Instead of retirement, they are likely to hit what we call \"un-retirement\" and will want to continue to be actively working either part-time or full-time in their current vocation or, for some, they might want to seek second careers. The current assumptions to reduce Central Provident Fund (CPF) rates and to continue with year-on-year contracts subject to employer offers, I think, need to be re-examined. The Government ought to review the assumptions governing employees of this new group of senior workers and better tap on this Merdeka workforce who are generally more educated and more skilled than their predecessors.
Next, on the vulnerable. Sir, I continue to urge MOM to promote the employment of Singaporeans who are vulnerable and most at risk of being left behind in our faster, smarter society. These are (a) our low-skilled elderly Singaporeans and (b) the younger and older Singaporeans with mild to severe disabilities.
On the elderly, there are many Meet-the-People Session cases that I have been involved with of elderly low-skilled workers who desire to work but they cannot find work and who are not ill or poor enough to qualify for means-testing or receive public welfare. These are seniors who may not be able to grasp the pace of the new economy and whose manual jobs are readily replaced by robots. The Special Employment Credit by the Government is a brilliant way to incentivise employers to hire more of these elderly and disabled but there are still many out there requiring support.
If legislation is also a reflection of the values of a society, is there a further space within our employment legislation to ensure that larger employers, including our Government, set aside or create jobs for the vulnerable, such as these elderly and even the disabled? I understand the role of job creation may not fall within the direct purview of MOM, but I have worked with Minister Josephine Teo for quite a while and I know she cares for the vulnerable. And I urge MOM under her to extend its influence on partners, such as the union and other work agencies, to create a more inclusive workforce.
Lastly, on the disabled or persons with special needs or the differently abled. There are many terms for them, but I will use the term \"disabled\", not out of disrespect, but because I will be referring to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Singapore has signed the UNCRPD on 30 November 2012. The Convention was later ratified in July 2013. I think all these are under the watch of Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. By ratification, Singapore is committed to ensuring that the rights and interests of persons with disabilities will be protected like the rest of the population in key areas, such as education and employment.
In education, legislation has already been enacted to make compulsory education for children with special needs a reality come next year. It is now time to start working on legislating that employers bear some responsibility in recruiting and developing staff with disabilities. Just as the Ministry of Education has enhanced its special education branch and the education of students with special education needs in mainstream schools through organisation structure and funds. Other agencies, such as MOM and the unions and other related agencies, ought to step up and focus on this segment of the workforce.
There can be novel ways to include the disabled in the workforce. To completely leave it to the Ministry of Social and Family Development to coordinate with interested Ministries and private partners for jobs for the disabled, I believe, is not committing enough. Some countries have established quotas with varying success. Others have laws to protect discrimination of staff who are vulnerable, for those with disabilities.
In Australia, the Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland governments have set public service disability employment targets of 6% to 7% as part of an economic participation plan for persons with disabilities. But, of course, it has been found that quota schemes, when not properly implemented, can backfire and result in cheating or just lip service in the hiring of the disabled. However, when there is a will, there is a way, as some European countries have found. Novel and reformed quota schemes that, for example, allow a quota to be met, not just by direct hire, but by working and encouraging an employer to contract with, for example, a sheltered workshop of the disabled for supplies or services, have been seen to be successful. So, these are different ways of including or creating a more inclusive workforce or ensuring that quota and more enlightened quota schemes can be implemented in our country.
I have served and seen enough in the disability sector to know that just relying on the compassion of employers will not result in the economic integration of disabled workers. Hence, I seek MOM's assistance to take a more active role in including legislation and other support measures to sculpt a more inclusive Singapore workforce.
Start by having Government and larger corporations lead by example and, together with other agencies, adopt more aggressive efforts to aggregate jobs that will allow them to enjoy the dignity of work by this special workforce.
In conclusion, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill is an improvement of the existing Act and I fully support it. And I continue to seek MOM and its partners to walk the extra mile to cater to employees in the new gig economy and also to cater to employees who are at risk of being excluded in the Singapore workforce.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the overhaul of our employment legislation has been a long and extensive process. I am glad to see it is finally coming to fruition.
The changes will benefit and enhance protection for all employees. Proposals, such as the removal of the monthly salary cap of $4,500, additional protection for more vulnerable employees and improvements to dispute resolution services, are greatly welcomed. One of the amendments is to increase the salary cap for paying overtime to non-workmen from $2,250 to $2,600. This is expected to benefit an additional 100,000 workers. On the other hand, the cap for workmen has been left unchanged at $4,500, since about 99% of workmen are already covered under this threshold.
However, I feel that, as a matter of principle, we should gradually remove all salary caps for overtime. If companies need to pay equally for each unit of work-time input, regardless of whether work is done within official work hours or during overtime, they would be more motivated to look into productivity upgrading measures to reduce overtime work. This will be in line with our goal of better work-life balance for all employees. Enhanced productivity also means that our workforce and companies would be more competitive.
The result will be a win-win situation for both employers and employees. All these developments will boost Singapore’s attractiveness to investors so that quality jobs will continue to be created for Singaporeans. On this note, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Manpower.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all 17 Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. It has been quite a marathon because I took the stand at about 4.00 pm; so, it was about three hours ago. Every one of you have raised important issues which I will address.
But in the interest of time and also in support of Ms Anthea Ong's very timely reminder – the importance of mental well-being – I seek Members' kind understanding that I will focus on points relating to today’s amendments and there are about 40 pages of it.
The other points, for which I have about 20 pages, are, of course, very important. But I think they can also be addressed on other occasions, or if we have some time later.
As we debate the merits of the proposals, it is useful to remember the wise words of Mr S Rajaratnam when he presented the Employment Bill to Parliament in July 1968. It is a very uncanny coincidence, but that was also the month I was born.
He said, \"The Employment Bill should, therefore, be seen in the context of the new problems an independent Singapore faces. There must be a climate of industrial peace and stability to attract both local and foreign capital. It is essential to increase the productivity of our workers, the efficiency of entrepreneurs, so that our products can compete in the stiff competitive export markets of the world. That is the intent and purpose behind this Bill. How far this Bill will succeed in its purpose will depend on both workers and employers placing national interests before sectional interests.\"
Sir, although five decades have since passed, the fundamentals have not changed. The EA exists to regulate employment practices in a balanced way, protecting workers while retaining labour market flexibility for businesses to thrive and create good jobs. A few more points are worth remembering.
First, the EA is our main but not the only employment-related legislation. It works in concert with other important pieces of legislation, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Work Injury Compensation Act, the Retirement and Re-employment Act, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. And all these to advance the interests of our workers.
Second, besides laws, our unique brand of tripartism also relies on the Tripartite Guidelines, Standards and Advisories to promote fair and progressive practices, while ensuring good employment outcomes.
Third, in everything we do, the tripartite partners strive to be pro-worker and pro-business. This has been a cornerstone guiding employment practices in Singapore that has served us well.
Fourth, in recent years, employers have been asked to take on more obligations, such as longer paternity leave and re-employment of older workers, first to 65 then to 67. As we debate EA changes, bear in mind also that the tripartite partners are always in an ongoing conversation about other areas that may see further changes in the coming years.
Fifth, the Government also plays its part for local workers. In the provision of healthcare, for example, employers' major contribution is through the CPF which builds up our MediSave. The Government’s efforts include the development of public healthcare facilities and schemes like MediShield Life, CareShield Life and Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), which together, keep healthcare affordable without placing excessive burdens on individuals and employers.
So, I hope Members can keep these points in mind as I address the specific concerns. Let me start with the coverage of the EA, and whether we can up the provisions, make them more generous.
Mr Melvin Yong asked for the distinction between workmen, non-workmen and managers and executives to be removed. The tripartite partners discussed this extensively. At workplaces, the lines between workmen, non-workmen and managers and executives are, indeed, blurring. In the EA, the distinction remains largely in Part IV. Among other things, Part IV regulates working hours, rest days and overtime (OT) payments. Including the more than 700,000 managers and executives whose work is much more varied and tends to be more outcome-based, will make our laws much more rigid and prescriptive.
To Mr Dennis Tan’s point on defining managers and executives, given that employment practices evolve constantly, the current approach of referring to managers and executives as those “employed in a managerial or executive position” while taking reference from case law works well for the tripartite partners. In a High Court ruling earlier this year, it was also made clear that the actual work requirements and individual circumstances matter more than the job title given. So, there are already some parameters we work within and they generally work well.
Within Part IV, the coverage for workmen and non-workmen has been different since the EA was first enacted in 1968. Workmen, who are manual workers, generally need more protection where OT is concerned. This remains so today. The salary threshold of $4,500, therefore, covers nearly all workmen, whereas the salary threshold for non-workmen covers about half of them.
Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if the salary threshold for non-workmen could be higher or even removed completely. Our longer-term intent is, indeed, to close the gap between the salary thresholds for workmen and non-workmen. That said, in every EA amendment, the tripartite partners consider carefully the impact on both workers and employers. When benefits are upped, so, too, are the costs borne by employers.
Indeed, former Nominated Member Assoc Prof Randolph Tan wrote an op-ed expressing some concern about the timing of this round of EA enhancements, whether businesses could absorb the impact in the current economic climate. Mr Douglas Foo also pointed this out in his op-ed published in The Straits Times yesterday and when he spoke earlier.
Thankfully, in Singapore, our union leaders recognise the need to consider the package of improvements and not just individual items. They know it is equally important to give employers time to adjust to changes that come from many directions, not just the EA.
In this amendment, the tripartite partners agreed to the major shift to extend EA core provisions to cover all managers and executives. This already benefits 430,000 managers and executives. The expanded coverage under Part IV benefits another 100,000 or so workers. So, in total, we are talking about half a million.
The tripartite partners are mindful that changes should not inadvertently affect workers’ employability. They reached a consensus that these shifts are sufficiently well-calibrated and remain committed to review the thresholds in future amendments.
Let me now turn to the gig economy – self-employed persons (SEPs). Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Denise Phua raised concerns about protections for SEPs. By their very nature, SEPs do not have the same kind of relationship with their service buyers as that between employees and employers. This is the main reason we do not attempt to regulate SEPs’ relationship with service providers under the EA.
Earlier this year, a tripartite workgroup formed by MOM had put forward a set of recommendations to address SEPs’ common challenges, some of which were outlined in earlier speeches. And in the earlier circulation of materials, I believe not only a summary of the EA changes were distributed; there was another separate circular that outlined the recommendations of the tripartite workgroup.
At MOM's Committee of Supply (COS) debate in March, I announced the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations and our implementation plan. I am pleased to share that we are making good progress and will update Members at a later date.
To Assoc Prof Walter Theseira’s point, we recognise that workers can, indeed, be wrongly classified as SEPs to avoid EA obligations. Anyone unsure of his employment status should approach MOM so that an appropriate determination can be made. In the last three years, we have successfully intervened in around 100 cases where employees were wrongly classified as SEPs and helped them to recover their due statutory benefits or CPF contributions.
Mischievous employers should take note and realise that they can be prosecuted for non-provision of salaries and benefits.
Let me now deal with the specific provisions of the EA, starting with rest days. Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong suggested double pay for work on a rest day, regardless of who requested for it. There are good reasons for the differentiation. The double rate discourages employers from asking employees to work excessively. On the other hand, the single rate if workers request to work on rest days, ensures that workers are not inadvertently encouraged to work excessively for the double pay, when actually they should be resting.
Mr Zainal Sapari is, of course, concerned that the employees do not always know that they are due to be paid at the double rate if their employers ask them to work on their rest day. Mr Melvin Yong worries that these workers are forced or deceived into declaring these as self-requested. They are valid concerns.
MOM is keen to partner NTUC to strengthen outreach for the WorkRight initiative to educate employers and employees about their responsibilities and rights. This would also address Ms Joan Pereira's concerns and raise awareness amongst the employees who have not been paid the right amounts to submit a mediation request to TADM. Let me state categorically that if an employer is found to have misrepresented the worker's request to work on a rest day, we will take the employer to task for non-payment of salary or providing false information.
Let me now deal with leave entitlements. Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked if the carry-forward specific provision for unused annual leave can be extended to all employees. Ms Jessica Tan also asked if an employer is required to pay the employee for unutilised annual leave. To clarify, annual leave provisions in section 88A used to be in Part IV and now apply to all employees. However, the employers’ obligation to carry forward unutilised annual leave to the next year remains for Part IV employees only.
The tripartite partners decided against extending the carry-forward provision to all employees which now include higher earning managers and executives – no more limit. This is out of concern for the otherwise drastic impact on business liabilities. Members who are familiar with HR practices know that, actually, you have to set aside the liability and factor it as a cost in your books, so there is a real impact.
Annual leave should be planned ahead of time to meet both employee and organisational needs, to avoid situations of unconsumed leave entitlements. If the employer is unable to approve leave due to work exigencies and the employee has shown reasonable efforts to adjust his leave plans to suit organisational needs, the employer should allow for leave encashment. This is so that the employee can benefit from his statutory leave entitlement.
To Mr Saktiandi Supaat’s question, there is no need for the employer to force the employee to take leave if an employee does not want to utilise his leave entitlements. However, we do encourage workers to take their annual leave to rest and recharge from their work to maintain their mental well-being. That is what the provisions are for.
Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about TCM practitioners. A small number of doctors have dual registration under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (TCMPA) and the Medical Registration Act (MRA). For the purposes of granting paid sick leave, employers are required to recognise the MCs issued by such practitioners in their capacity as doctors under MRA.
Ms Irene Quay asked that we also require employers to recognise the MCs issued by CPPs. Today, as CPPs are not registered under MRA, MOH does not allow them to issue MCs. We understand that MOH will need time to assess the programme as well as other new models of care before deciding whether other healthcare professionals can be certified to issue MCs. MOH will, therefore, continue to monitor these developments.
Ms Irene Quay also asked that we encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave without MC per year and she gave many good reasons why this would be a more productive approach. While we recognise the Member's call for this to be mandated, Ms Irene Quay herself also rightly pointed out that employers would need to create controls, surveillance and audit systems to ensure that their employees do not abuse the system. These will, inevitably, add to business costs. As the EA does not prohibit employers from doing so already, progressive companies are free to go ahead to offer this as part of their talent attraction and retention strategies. A number have done so. We will continue to give them flexibility to decide what works best for them.
Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong asked for clarifications regarding hospitalisation leave. Today, employers are not required under the EA to recognise an MC from private doctors, other than their own panel doctors, for purposes of paid sick leave. The amendments to the EA in this Bill will require employers to recognise MCs from any doctor, whether private or public, for purposes of granting paid sick leave.
To Mr Patrick Tay’s question, employers can recognise MCs for purposes of granting hospitalisation leave from any doctor in the private hospital. In fact, there is no evidence today that employers have refused to recognise MCs from approved hospitals. We expect that employers will continue to recognise MCs from all approved hospitals.
An employee who has chickenpox or other infectious diseases, and who is hospitalised or certified by a hospital doctor to be ill enough to be hospitalised, will be granted paid hospitalisation leave, even if he is not physically warded.
For MCs issued by non-hospital doctors, such as GPs, employers are required by law to recognise the MC for purpose of granting paid sick leave up to 14 days. The 14-day entitlement for outpatient medical treatment is sufficient to cover the vast majority of employees today, given that the average number of days of sick leave taken is 4.8 days. Employers are free, of course, to grant additional paid sick leave beyond the annual 14-day entitlement should an employee need it. And we have come across many cases where the employers, out of goodness of their hearts, extend this when the employees do need it.
Turning to clarifications on authorised deductions, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the implementation and safeguards for authorised deductions. To clarify, section 27(1)(f) remains largely unchanged. As is the case today, employers must provide proper documentation to prove the legitimacy of deductions, if they are for the recovery of any advance and loan. To Mr Patrick Tay's comment on the deduction for payment to a cooperative society, this still remains as an authorised deduction under section 27(1)(j).
To the question of whether section 27(1)(i) is limited by prohibited deductions in other statutes, the answer is yes. This was Mr Louis Ng's question, I think. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about written consent. Such consent cannot be a general clause in a contract stating that an employer can make any deduction as and when necessary. Instead, the consent must be given specifically for a particular deduction that the employee has agreed to.
Written consent given by an employee under duress will not count as valid consent. The employer must also maintain proper records to substantiate the written consent. An employer who penalises an employee for withdrawing consent may also be liable to be prosecuted under the EA.
Regulations to protect the well-being of the employee. Dr Intan Mokhtar raised the issue of over-inflating salaries declared or clawing back salaries from rank and file workers. Our law today already allows us to take action against errant employers in this regard. If the employer falsely declares the salary of a foreign worker to qualify for a higher work pass, the employer can be prosecuted for false declaration under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EMFA). Such an employer may also be prosecuted under the EA for non-payment of salary if he pays the local or foreign worker a lower salary than what is declared, for example, in the key employment terms or payslips or in the In-Principle Approval that was given to the employee. As for “salary claw back” cases being on the rise among Fortune 100 companies, we have not received such complaints from employees, but we will continue to monitor the situation.
Ms Anthea Ong asked why violations under the new section 139(2)(aa) are civil contraventions and not offences. To clarify, the Minister has the power to provide that violations of regulations are either criminal offences or civil contraventions. Civil contraventions allow us to treat less severe breaches as non-criminal infringements which attract a financial penalty. Compared to non-payment of salary, which is a criminal offence, requiring an employee to sign on a blank salary voucher is a less severe breach, which should attract correspondingly less severe penalties.
Wrongful dismissals and the compensation framework. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked for clarification on what constitutes dismissal without just cause or excuse. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked how the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal and factors for determining compensation amounts will interact with the adjudication work of the ECT.
The dismissal is without just or sufficient cause if it was on grounds, such as discrimination, denial of statutory benefits, and with the intent to punish the employees for exercising his rights. Dismissal because of poor performance, misconduct and redundancy are not considered wrongful.
As I mentioned earlier, wrongful dismissal is not a new provision in the EA and there are many cases we can draw reference from. MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal which the ECT must take into account. It would not be possible to define all scenarios of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not. Instead, a more feasible approach is to use illustrations and set out principles and parameters that the ECT must take into account when adjudicating cases.
An example of what constitutes wrongful dismissal is if an employer dismisses an employee to punish him or her for exercising a right, such as submitting a mediation request to MOM or reporting the company to MOM for an EA offence, even though he or she has performed satisfactorily at work.
In the case reported by Dr Intan Mokhtar where the employee felt that she had been forced to resign, a claim can still be lodged with TADM. If unresolved through mediation, the case can be escalated to the ECT and the same applies to persons who believe they had been dismissed due to discrimination.
Assoc Prof Daniel Goh and Mr Dennis Tan also asked if the ECT claim limit would be increased, given that we will be covering highly paid managers and executives. To clarify, for wrongful dismissal claims, there will be a separate claims limit of $20,000 and $30,000 for union-assisted cases, in addition to the claims limit for any salary or benefit owed. So, in other words, it can be up to $40,000 or $60,000, if the two are combined.
The claim limits are established as such because the ECT is meant to be an expeditious and affordable channel for resolving disputes. Cases involving higher claim amounts are likely to be more complicated and, hence, take more time and workers with claims exceeding these limits can continue to pursue their claims in the higher Courts, where it is probably the more appropriate place to do so.
There was a question on frivolous claims. Several Members asked how the adjudication of wrongful dismissals at the ECT will work. Mr Douglas Foo asked if there are any measures to prevent frivolous claims of wrongful dismissal. Mr Dennis Tan spoke about possible abuse of this recourse by disgruntled employees. These are reasonable concerns that employers generally have, now that more managers and executives are covered. Employees who feel that they have been wrongfully dismissed may first submit a request to for mediation. TADM will do its part to prevent frivolous and unmeritorious cases from proceeding. And every year, there will be some.
For cases of contractual termination, where the employer has met all his obligations, TADM will first ensure that there is a case for the employer to answer before contacting the employer to attend mediation. The employee will have to substantiate why he or she thinks that dismissal was wrongful, for example, by citing specific incidents which gave rise to the claim.
For cases like the staff who took advantage of staff travel privileges which Mr Saktiandi Supaat mentioned, if the employer has established such abuse after due inquiry, the employer can dismiss the employee without notice on grounds of misconduct.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Patrick Tay asked what support has been put in place to facilitate the transfer of the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to ECT. ECT and TADM, where compulsory pre-ECT mediation takes place, will be expanding their manpower to meet the new demands. These mediators and investigation officers involved undergo training programmes that have been designed to equip them with the relevant skills.
Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked if adverse inferences may be drawn against employers if they fail to produce documents, such as Key Employment Terms and salary slips, and also employer's past behaviour.
The answer is yes. ECT will be able to do so. The list of employment laws that ECT can draw adverse inferences from will be specified in a new Fourth Schedule in the Employment Claims Act.
As to whether we will consider reversing the burden of proof for salary claims, we are mindful that reversing the burden of proof for such cases may result in opportunistic employees filing frivolous claims. So, we would not do so for now.
Ms Jessica Tan and Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how the Ministry will be communicating the changes to the public. Actually, I think Ms Joan Pereira also mentioned this. MOM will be publishing an online guidebook shortly, summarising the key amendments to the EA, along with how employers should review their existing HR policies to ensure compliance with the Act. We are also working with SNEF, NTUC and other industry partners to hold briefings on the EA amendments over the next few months, prior to the implementation on 1 April 2019.
Let me now address questions from Ms Denise Phua and I believe also Mr Arasu Duraisamy regarding the changing nature of employment. They have asked how the EA will cater to the changing workforce, where employees may be more mobile, and have multiple employers – the portfolio workers.
As mentioned, we have other tools that complement the EA. The Member mentioned the need to better protect outsourced workers who, by the way, are still employed by the outsourced service provider which has employer obligations towards the employees. Besides the protection already afforded to them under the EA, the Tripartite Standard on Employment of Term Contract Employees will help bring about better employment conditions for such workers. The Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons also helps to shape norms and ensure the sustainability of the economy of self-employed work.
MOM and our tripartite partners will continue to keep a close watch on workplace trends like the ones that were mentioned and also others, for example, automation and flexible work arrangements, which Mr Saktiandi Supaat spoke extensively about. We will continually review the EA to ensure it stays relevant in regulating employment practices in a balanced way, protecting the rights of workers while retaining flexibility in the labour market for businesses to thrive. I would add further that the right approach may need adjustments beyond the EA which is, indeed, the reason we aim to strengthen support for SEPs through the recommendations that I circulated.
Once again, Sir, I thank Members of the House for their support of this Bill. I hope that I have addressed questions and suggestions related to today's amendments. The other points remain important and can be addressed at other platforms.
In conclusion, let me just say that the EA is a living document and a permanent work-in-progress. For this amendment, the tripartite discussions started quite early in the tenure of former Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say – and he is seated right there – and was followed through when I took over from him. Members can be certain that as soon as we start to implement today's changes, we will again be looking forward as to what more is needed for the future, and whether the person standing here to pass those next sets of amendments will be me or someone else – who can tell?
Building a tripartite consensus on what are the right changes to make, and when to make them, which employee groups to focus on in each amendment, all these deliberations take a great amount of time and effort that is often unseen. I might add that it takes a lot of mutual trust among the tripartite partners, too. Yet, this is also our greatest strength that has ensured improvements are sustainable, with no drastic U-turns every now and then, which you see in other countries – what one government promises, and then the next government comes and says they are not valid anymore. We have not seen that throughout the course of the EA.
This strength is also mentioned by many Members of Parliament, notably, Mr Douglas Foo, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Arasu Duraisamy, too. As a result, we have helped our businesses to continue providing good jobs and the vast majority of our workers to enjoy good employment outcomes.
MOM is deeply grateful to the many stakeholders in the tripartite partnership that have made possible today's changes. They have worked tirelessly to make this a reality. Let us now focus on getting the changes implemented expeditiously and smoothly. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, you want to clarify something?
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Just two points of clarification with the Minister. I thank the Minister for a very long debate. I know it is taking our time but there are two points. Firstly, on the enforcement of ECT claims. I hope the Ministry and the tripartite partners can look at the enforcement of the ECT judgments so that we have expedient and also speedy resolution and ease of resolution. That is one. The second one is on section 18A. I spoke about it and I hope the tripartite partners will work together to come up with a set of frequently asked questions and guidelines to give greater clarity before the Act is rolled out.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, on section 18A, I can confirm with the Member that his request is being looked into and I think it can be done. His question on ECT and expeditious settlement, I agree with him. Our objectives are aligned.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Ms Jessica Tan.
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: I thank the Minister for the extensive clarifications. But I still do want to ask one more point around retrenchment. While I understand the need to balance, both the cost as well as the impact on employees, but because of the disruption we are seeing in the workplace and the restructuring of businesses, inevitably, there will be impact on employees. So, have the tripartite partners come to some way of balancing both the cost and the protection for employees?
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Jessica Tan for the question. It is a very important area and the tripartite partners have had extensive deliberations on this issue. The Member, Mr Arasu \tDuraisamy, I think, articulated the thinking very well and, in fact, in a recent blog post, Mr Patrick Tay did likewise. But I think it is useful for me to state it for the record.
MOM agrees with the tripartite partners on the need to strike a balance and that it would be counter-productive to try and legislate mandatory minimum payouts in the event of retrenchment. From the employee's standpoint, any mandated minimum may become a norm even when employers are in a position to pay more and this would not benefit the workers. From the employer's perspective, if the mandated minimum is too high, then the companies may not be able to afford and they may end up becoming over-burdened at the point in time when that sum of money could affect the remaining workers. So, countries like the US and Switzerland also do not mandate retrenchment benefits.
So, given these considerations, the tripartite partners have issued instead an advisory stipulating the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefits quantum that employers should take into consideration when determining the retrenchment benefits.
In addition, since 1 January 2017, employers have been required to notify MOM of retrenchments. This enables Workforce Singapore, the unions and other relevant agencies to help the affected workers find alternative employment. According to our survey last year, around 90% of the establishments which retrenched workers actually paid retrenchment benefits even though there was no stipulated mandatory payout, of which 70% paid retrenchment benefits that met or exceeded the prevailing norms articulated in the tripartite advisory. So, I think that is a situation that is not too bad.
[(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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo.] (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)]
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]
[(proc text) Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 15 – (proc text)]
The Chairman: Clause 15. Minister.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 12 amendments to clause 15, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?
The Chairman: Yes. Please proceed.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments* 1 to 12 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
The amendments proposed to clause 15 improve the language in the law to make clear the intention for section 89(3) of the Act on Hospitalisation to cover the circumstances I had set out in my Second Reading speech, including quarantine orders, situations where the employee is not an inpatient of a hospital but is ill enough to require hospitalisation during that period, and further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for after discharge from hospital.
[(proc text) *The amendments read as follows: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (1) In page 11, line 3: to leave out \"an approved\", and insert \"a\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) In page 11, line 4: after \"prescribed\", to insert \"or is under quarantine (whether or not in a hospital) under any written law\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (3) In page 11, lines 5 and 6: to leave out \", who is discharged from an approved\", and insert \"is to be treated as hospitalised for any period the employee is not an in-patient of a hospital, or stops being an in‑patient of a\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (4) In page 11, line 7: to leave out \"approved\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (5) In page 11, lines 8, 9 and 10: to leave out \"is deemed to be hospitalised for a continuous period, beginning immediately after that discharge,\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (6) In page 11, lines 12 and 13: to leave out \"that approved hospital\", and insert \"a hospital approved by the Minister\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (7) In page 11, lines 14 and 15: to leave out \"need to remain hospitalised\", and insert \"require hospitalisation\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (8) In page 11, line 16: after \"rest\", to insert \"or further medical treatment\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (9) In page 11, line 17: after \"recover\", to insert \"after his discharge from a hospital\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (10) In page 12, line 12: after \"(7A)\";\", to insert \"and\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (11) In page 12, line 14: to leave out \"; and\", and insert \".\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) (12) In page 12: to leave out lines 15 to 20. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Clauses 16 to 29 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill reported with amendments; 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":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.\" – [Mr Desmond Lee.] (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.43 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Overseas Developments on Singapore's Waste Recycling Efforts","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"10 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether China's implementation of the \"National Sword\" policy which aims to ban the import of contaminated recyclables, has impacted Singapore's ability to recycle paper, plastic and electronic waste.
11 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether there are plans to build a complete plastic recycling infrastructure in Singapore to cope with all our recyclable plastic waste instead of having to export it overseas.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA) is in close contact with the waste and recycling companies in Singapore and understands that our recycling industry is able to sell their plastics and paper to overseas markets. Some of the recyclables collected in Singapore are processed locally by recyclers, such as TES and Cimelia, which treat e-waste. Some local companies are also processing our plastic waste, for example, A~Star Plastics and Plaspulp Union Company. We will continue to monitor the developments relating to China's ban on imports of certain unprocessed waste.
Meanwhile, we are building up the local recycling industry. Where possible, we want to better extract resources from waste and close the waste loop domestically. NEA is currently studying e-waste and plastics recycling solutions and technologies available in the market and assessing their suitability for adoption in Singapore. The findings will help us further develop Singapore’s recycling capability as part of our Environmental Services industry transformation efforts.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lessons for Singapore from October 2018 Hong Kong MTR Breakdown","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"12 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Transport (a) what are the lessons that can be learnt from the Hong Kong MTR breakdown in October 2018 as a result of a system glitch; and (b) what measures have been put in place to prevent such incidents from occurring in our MRT system.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: On the morning of 16 October 2018, train services on four major Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway (MTR) lines were affected for up to six hours. Train services remained open but had to operate at reduced speeds and lower frequency, resulting in longer travelling times for commuters.
Investigations by Hong Kong authorities are still ongoing. Initial findings released by the Legislative Council Panel on Transport indicate that the incident was caused by a signalling system failure. There was a loss of synchronisation among the signalling systems used by the four rail lines. The signalling systems of the four lines are interconnected by design, and are provided by two different suppliers, Alstom and Siemens. The suppliers use different system settings. For normal functioning, the data transmission from these different signalling systems must be seamlessly synchronised at all times to ensure that the two systems communicate with each other for delivering train control commands. Interconnection of the two systems is achieved through the computers which connect the systems. Unfortunately, the synchronisation failed on 16 October. It was rectified only after the operator isolated the connections between the lines and rebooted all computers. These are preliminary findings and are subject to further investigation which is ongoing.
The likelihood of a similar loss of synchronisation among the signalling systems of our different Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) lines is low. First, the signalling systems for the Circle Line, Downtown Line and North East Line operate as separate systems. They do not require any synchronisation. Second, although the North-South and East-West Lines share the same signalling system, it is provided by the same supplier, Thales, and have the exact same settings. Hence, there is no need to synchronise across different systems from different suppliers.
However, the Hong Kong incident is a timely reminder that MRT lines are highly complex engineering systems. We must never let our guard down. Our train operators must develop deep engineering expertise in the systems we procure. They must devote sufficient resources to engineering and give top management attention to operation and maintenance. As the MRT network upgrades and expands, different generations of technology are acquired and have to work seamlessly together. The resignalling of the North-South and East-West Lines is an example of how complicated the project is. The resignalling of the North-South Line was eventful precisely because of such complications. The lack of engineering hours to carry out essential testing added to the already challenging task. After the train collision incident in November 2017, the public supported more engineering hours through ECLO – Early Closure and Late Opening. That has made a significant difference to the resignalling project for the East-West Line, which has been carried out more smoothly compared to the resignalling project for the North-South Line.
Another lesson from the Hong Kong incident is the importance of standardisation, I made this point in a recent speech to our engineers. As our rail network becomes more extensive, we need to think about how we can better standardise systems across the rail network. By 2030, we will have eight MRT lines. Is it wise to end up with eight different systems, whether it is for signalling, trains or power? If we do, our engineers will have to learn eight different systems, multiplied by as many different assets. This will not be a good use of limited engineering talent, not to mention the higher holding cost of spare parts, loss of economies of scale and greater complication in operations.
The Hong Kong incident is unfortunate. Each incident is a reminder that unplanned incidents can happen to the most competent operator. We will continue to monitor the outcome of the investigations of the 16 October incident in Hong Kong and put in the necessary measures to mitigate any similar vulnerabilities in our own rail network.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mandating Home Protection Scheme for Those Who Service Loans for HDB Flats with Cash or CPF Funds","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"13 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether HDB will reconsider to make it compulsory for HDB owners who either use cash or CPF to service their housing loan to sign up for the Home Protection Scheme (HPS); and (b) in the past three years, how many HDB owners did not use CPF to service their housing loan instalment and did not purchase HPS as well.
Mr Lawrence Wong: About 20% of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat buyers in 2017 who took a mortgage loan used cash to service their loans. Among them, four in 10 did not voluntarily take up the Home Protection Scheme (HPS). Effectively this means that around 92% of recent HDB flat buyers with outstanding loans are covered under the HPS policy or have voluntarily taken up HPS. Besides HPS, some home buyers may have purchased mortgage-reducing products from the private sector. We do not have detailed records of such purchases, but many commercial banks offer such mortgage-reducing insurance products as part of their loan financing package to home buyers. So, the overall insurance coverage may well be higher.
HDB will continue to work with CPF Board to further encourage take-up of HPS. We will continue to monitor the situation and assess whether to implement further measures if the need arises.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Lowering CPF Payout Age","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will consider lowering the CPF payout age to the retirement age; and (b) whether exceptions can be made to grant a CPF member an early withdrawal or payout of his CPF funds where the member has no choice but to retire early.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Central Provident Fund (CPF) Payout Eligibility Age is currently at 65. This was raised gradually from age 62 in 2007 to ensure that Singaporeans, who are living longer, are able to set aside enough CPF savings to meet their retirement needs. There are no plans to lower the CPF Payout Eligibility Age.
With our re-employment laws, more than 98% of private-sector local workers reaching age 62 who wish to continue working are offered re-employment. A similarly high proportion, or 97.5%, among those reaching the age of 65 were offered re-employment.
Members who have stopped working because they are terminally ill or permanently incapacitated can approach CPF Board for early withdrawals of their CPF monies. CPF Board will carefully consider their appeals and approve those with valid medical grounds.
In other cases where the member has stopped working, the reasons would vary widely and appeals for early CPF withdrawals are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A key consideration is the member’s retirement adequacy. From the age of 55, members can withdraw their CPF savings above the Basic Retirement Sum if they have made a sufficient property pledge. It would not be in the member’s interest to further deplete his retirement savings through additional early withdrawals.
Instead, we work closely with the tripartite partners to help the member get back to work, through heavily-subsidised job assistance programmes, such as Career Trial and Professional Conversion Programmes. If the member is among the small minority that was not offered re-employment due to lack of suitable vacancies, he would have been given an Employment Assistance Payment (EAP) by his employers to tide him over a period of time while he looks for another job. A member who has exhausted his EAP or face financial difficulties in the interim may also access a range of social support, including ComCare Short-to-Medium Term Assistance, which provides a combination of employment assistance, cash allowance, rental, utilities, as well as referrals to other agencies for further assistance, depending on the member's needs.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Limiting Number of Massage Establishment Licences Within Defined Locality","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"15 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what has been the highest number of massage establishment licences issued to outlets within the same building and within the same neighbourhood precinct; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider a cap on such licences issued within a defined locality, especially where such congregation of massage establishments is in close proximity of residential housing.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Member asked about the highest number of massage establishment (ME) licences issued within a building and a neighborhood precinct. On the former, People's Park Complex has 12 licensed MEs. The Police do not track such data on a precinct level.
It would not be meaningful to look at such figures on their own or, for that matter, impose caps on the number of MEs allowed per locality. The Police assess applications to operate MEs on a case-by-case basis. They consider factors, such as the suitability of the location, whether the proposed ME will cause disamenities to the surrounding areas, as well as the characteristics of the businesses there. The Police also take into account feedback from the residents and the Advisers.
The Massage Establishments Act that came into force earlier this year was introduced to reduce the disamenities from MEs. Operating hours for all MEs, other than those in designated areas, such as Orchard Road or Marina Bay, will be restricted and, in particular, they must close by 10.30 pm daily. The conditions for MEs in Housing and Development Board estates are even stricter. They must obtain a Category One licence under the Police licensing framework, obtain CaseTrust accreditation, put in a minimum capital investment of $50,000, and have a minimum floor area of 100 square metres.
The Police will continue to take strict enforcement action against errant MEs. Unlicensed ME operators face a fine of up to $20,000, or five years' imprisonment, or both. Licensed ME operators who commit regulatory breaches face a fine of up to $10,000, or two years’ imprisonment, or both.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Companies that Have Tapped on Lean Enterprise Development Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"16 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the number of companies that have tapped on the Lean Enterprise Development Scheme (LEDS) since it started; (b) how do these companies perform in terms of achieving the outcomes of becoming more manpower lean, having a stronger Singaporean Core and a better quality workforce; (c) how are the outcomes measured and monitored to determine the success of the scheme; and (d) which industry or sector has been most impacted by LEDS.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Lean Enterprise Development (LED) scheme, started in October 2015, is an umbrella scheme for enterprises to access Government support for productivity improvement or manpower-lean initiatives, through grants offered by Workforce Singapore (WSG), Enterprise Singapore (ESG) and other sectoral development agencies, as well as the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute.
The LED scheme aims to make transformation and innovation more pervasive among enterprises of different sizes and across different sectors. We have made good progress so far. As at September 2018, over 11,000 enterprises have tapped on the LED Scheme.
Usage of the LED scheme is broad-based. The top three sectors – Construction, Food Services, and Wholesale Trade – account for about a third of the enterprises which have benefited from the scheme. The others come from a diverse range of industries and include many traditional businesses.
We do not use a single metric to assess the impact of LED projects. This is because the LED scheme supports a range of objectives and outcomes, depending on the transformation needs of enterprises. For example, enterprises that are just starting their productivity journey may receive funding support to procure ready-to-go productivity solutions identified by economic agencies. Enterprises looking to build deeper capabilities may partner agencies to develop more customised technology solutions or business process improvements. Others may receive support to redesign jobs, for example, to ensure that older workers can continue to be productively employed.
Together with other initiatives to promote industry and business transformation, the LED scheme has contributed to Singapore’s productivity growth of 2.6% per annum over the last two years, and real income growth of 4% per annum and 5.4% per annum at the median and 20th percentile levels respectively.
We will continue to work with industries, industry associations and enterprises to grow businesses in a manpower-lean manner, which would, in turn, help create better employment outcomes for Singaporeans.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Arson Linked to Illegal Moneylending","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"18 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Home Affairs for the past five years, including the first eight months of this year (a) how many cases of arson relating to illegal moneylending have been reported; (b) how many cases have been solved involving the arrest of the (i) culprits who set the fire and (ii) mastermind behind the arson; and (c) whether the Ministry can consider increasing the punishment for crimes involving arson and illegal moneylending.
Mr K Shanmugam: From 2013 to 2017, about 170 cases of unlicensed moneylending (UML) harassment involving the use of fire were reported to the Police. For the first eight months of this year, about 13 cases were reported.
Overall, there is a steady decline in harassment involving the use of fire. There were about 20 cases in 2017, compared to about 50 in 2015.
The Police have solved about 80% of the cases from 2013 till the present. This year, the Police have solved all the nine cases reported between January and July 2018; investigations into the cases reported in August are ongoing. In 2016 and 2017, the Police crippled at least 10 UML syndicates through the arrest of more than 70 persons.
The Member asked if the Ministry of Home Affairs would consider increasing the punishment for crimes involving arson and illegal moneylending. There are currently no plans to do so, as the penalties are adequate. Under the Moneylenders Act, offenders found guilty of acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender, committing or attempting to commit any acts of harassment where there is property damage or hurt caused to another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, as well as caning of not less than six and not more than 12 strokes, and shall also be liable for a fine of between $5,000 and $50,000. Repeat offenders are liable for enhanced punishments.
In a recent case in November 2017, Police arrested a 29-year-old man for committing a series of UML harassment, including setting fire to two debtors' residence. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane.
The Police regularly review their strategies to keep the UML situation under control. This includes stepping up enforcement efforts, enhancing public education and leveraging the community to fight the UML scourge together. Footage from Police cameras have also been used to solve UML-related cases. The Police will continue to take a tough approach to clamp down on all manner of UML activities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Achievement of Key Performance Indicators for SkillsFuture Study Awards","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"20 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Education what are the key performance indicators and the percentage of these indicators that have been met under the $19.91 million programme for the SkillsFuture financial year 2017/2018 study awards.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The SkillsFuture Study Awards encourage Singaporeans to develop and deepen specialist skills in areas of demand. They are nominated and awarded by Government agencies overseeing various sectors. As at September 2018, about 2,300 study awards have been given out over the last two years across 40 areas of specialisation, such as Air Transport, Early Childhood Care and Education, Infocomm Technology and Logistics.
We will monitor the training outcomes of award recipients after they have completed their course of study. These could include expanded job responsibilities or enhanced job performance resulting from the training. However, this data is not yet available as most award recipients either are still pursuing or have only recently completed their training. We intend to make public the information once they are available.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Applications for Financial Assistance Scheme in Past Five Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"22 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (a) in the past five years, how many applications under the Financial Assistance Scheme have been received by the Ministry; (b) how many of these applications have been successful; (c) what are the reasons for the unsuccessful cases; and (d) whether the per capita income criterion can be reviewed and the per capita income increased so as to extend assistance to more students from the middle- and low-income families.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Education in Singapore is highly subsidised at all levels, and the Government provides a range of financial assistance schemes to those who are in need so that no one is deprived of education because of their financial circumstances.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) Financial Assistance Scheme (MOE FAS) for Singaporean students is designed to support school-going students from the low-income families. To benefit more students, MOE has raised the income eligibility cap for MOE FAS from a gross household income (GHI) of $2,500 or per capita income (PCI) of $625, to GHI of $2,750 or PCI of $690 from 2018. There is no cap on the number of students who could receive the MOE FAS each year as all who meet the eligibility criteria will be awarded the MOE FAS. About 51,000 Singaporean students are currently receiving benefits from MOE FAS. In addition, the Edusave Merit Bursary is given to students from lower- and middle-income families who have performed well and meet the income criteria.
For students who require financial aid but do not qualify for MOE FAS, the schools will assess and provide help through the school-based financial assistance. MOE provides schools with additional resources to manage this additional aid provision.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Structural Gaps in Existing Support Programmes for Low-income and Vulnerable Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"23 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether there are structural gaps in the existing support structures for low-income and vulnerable families in Singapore and, if so, what are these gaps; and (b) what are the specific opportunities for the community to assist and augment the existing support structures to close these gaps.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Government is committed to building a fair, inclusive and caring society where all Singaporeans have opportunities to do well and progress.
In the past decade, outcomes for the low-income and vulnerable families have improved in various aspects, such as education, employment, income, housing and healthcare. Nonetheless, our system is not perfect, and the Government will continue to work with the community to find ways to do better.
First, as the economy matures, we recognise that one's family resources or disadvantages may be passed on and amplified in the next generation, which will affect social mobility. Hence, the Government will continue to invest even earlier in our children's educational journey, especially for those from disadvantaged families, through initiatives, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency's (ECDA's) KidSTART pilot. ECDA will continue to increase the number of accessible, affordable and quality preschool places, and partner the community to reach out to children from low-income families who are not attending preschool to better understand their reasons for non-participation and facilitate enrolment.
The community plays an important role to complement the Government's efforts. For example, to support low-income families where parents are working at night, community initiatives, such as CareNights@Morning Star by Temasek Foundation Cares, provide free night care for their children.
Second, with a volatile global environment and the emergence of new technologies, the sense of economic insecurity among Singaporeans may increase. The Workfare Income Supplement scheme helps lower-wage workers raise their incomes and encourages them to stay employed by providing Central Provident Fund (CPF) top-ups and cash supplements. The Adapt and Grow initiative helps unemployed and at-risk workers to take up new jobs as quickly as possible. SkillsFuture provides Singaporeans with training opportunities for lifelong learning and reskilling, so as to equip them with industry-relevant skills and broaden the opportunities that they can access throughout life. The Government will also continue to support the training and upskilling of lower-wage workers through Workfare Training Support, to achieve sustainable productivity and wage growth.
Third, low-income and vulnerable families often have complex needs and require coordinated help from multiple agencies. The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will work with other Government and community agencies to enhance our social service delivery and strengthen our social service network of support. For example, we are progressively equipping frontline officers with knowledge of different help schemes and services, so that they can help families access schemes and services to meet their needs holistically.
We are also sharing information and assessments across agencies to reduce the need for households in need to submit multiple applications. We will also facilitate the appointment of a lead agency to coordinate support for complex cases, to ensure that agencies' interventions work in tandem with one another, to help families towards longer-term stability.
To strengthen support for vulnerable families living in rental housing, MSF and the Ministry of National Development will bring together community partners to provide more targeted support to rental families and work with them on a joint plan of action. We will set up white spaces at or near rental clusters where volunteers, civic organisations and corporates can establish and run customised services and programmes.
To enable and support community efforts, MSF and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth have been gathering community partners through SG Cares Community Network sessions to facilitate cross-agency conversations and collaborations among community partners so that they can better support areas of need in the respective towns. With a common picture of the community's needs and assets, community partners can pool their resources more effectively to co-create customised local programmes and services. The Ministry of Health will also step up support for low-income and vulnerable seniors through the Community Networks for Seniors, bringing together Government agencies, community partners and volunteers to promote active ageing and provide health and social care services.
Supporting our low-income and vulnerable families requires a whole-of-society approach. We invite everyone from all sectors to join us in this collective effort.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Recourse for Children with Chronic Conditions Who Are Refused Health Insurance and Not Eligible for MediFund","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health with regard to children with chronic conditions who are refused health insurance and are not eligible for MediFund due to income criteria, what recourse do these children have should they come down with other chronic diseases unrelated to their existing illness and which requires financial aid.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Regardless of whether they have private health insurance, all children can benefit from Government healthcare subsidies as well as tap on MediSave and they are all covered under MediShield Life. Those who need additional financial assistance can also apply for MediFund.
Singaporean children, including those with chronic conditions, would receive subsidies of up to 75% at polyclinics and Specialist Outpatient Clinics. Those who require inpatient care can receive up to 80% subsidy at our public hospitals. Children who are Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cardholders can enjoy up to $480 annually in subsidies for treatment of chronic conditions at participating CHAS general practitioner (GP) clinics. CHAS subsidies for managing chronic disease will soon be extended to all Singaporeans.
On top of Government subsidies, MediSave can help pay for chronic disease bills under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP). Since 2015, all Singaporean newborns receive a $4,000 MediSave Grant for Newborns. So, even newborns would have MediSave balances they can tap on. Children who do not have enough MediSave and those with higher medical bills can tap on the MediSave accounts of their parents.
MediShield Life covers all Singaporean children from birth, including those with congenital and neonatal conditions, regardless of whether they have private health insurance. Hence, parents can claim MediShield Life payouts for their children if they are hospitalised or require dialysis and chemotherapy for cancer.
MediFund provides a safety net to help those who are unable to afford their healthcare bill, even after Government subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave. Eligibility for MediFund is determined by the individual MediFund committees of each institution, taking into account factors, such as the patient's financial background and the bill size. They have the flexibility to extend MediFund assistance to middle-income patients facing extenuating circumstances.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Appeals by Singaporeans Aged 62 and Above to Use MediSave Beyond Withdrawal Limit","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"25 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Health in the past two years (a) how many Singaporeans aged 62 and above have made an appeal to use their MediSave beyond the withdrawal limit; (b) how many of these appeals have been successful; (c) whether the Ministry can review and increase the withdrawal limit; and (d) whether the withdrawal limit can be lifted for those aged 80 and above.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Over the past two years, the Ministry of Health (MOH) received about 200 appeals from patients aged 62 and above to use their MediSave monies beyond the prevailing withdrawal limits. These appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors, such as the need for more complex treatments, unforeseen complications and financial difficulties that make it hard for the family to pay the outstanding bill. About half of the appeals were approved.
The MediSave withdrawal limits are set to be sufficient for the vast majority of subsidised healthcare expenses, after Government subsidies and MediShield Life payouts. In 2017, MediShield Life and MediSave together were able to cover about 92% of the post-subsidy bill for inpatient hospitalisation and day surgeries. For seniors aged 80 and above, more than seven in 10 hospitalisations in subsidised wards did not require any cash payment, and more than eight in 10 paid less than $100 in cash.
There are no plans at present to lift the withdrawal limit. We do, however, recognise that the elderly have greater need for healthcare. In recent years, we have enhanced outpatient subsidies and introduced MediShield Life, and these have improved affordability for all Singaporeans, especially the elderly. We have also introduced targeted initiatives, such as the Pioneer Generation Package, specifically for the elderly. As for MediSave withdrawals, we just raised the annual MediSave limit for outpatient chronic treatments from $400 to $500 in June this year. At the same time, we lowered the minimum age under the Flexi-MediSave scheme from age 65 to 60, so that more Singaporeans can use up to another $200 of MediSave flexibly each year for outpatient care.
MOH will continue to monitor the affordability of subsidised care. Any further increases in MediSave withdrawal limits, whether for outpatient or inpatient care, should be considered very carefully and balanced against the longer-term sustainability of MediSave accounts to serve the needs of Singaporeans. We will also continue to consider appeals for usage of MediSave above the withdrawal limits and extend MediFund to those who need additional financial assistance.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Jumbo Flats as Category Separate from that of 4-room Flats for HDB Rental","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"26 Mr Ong Teng Koon asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider jumbo flats as a separate category from 4-room flats in setting the occupancy cap for renting out HDB flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: As Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats primarily serve to meet the housing needs of flat owners and their family members, there is no limit imposed on the number of family members who can live together in an HDB flat.
HDB only imposes an occupancy cap on flat owners who rent out their flat or bedrooms to unrelated persons. The occupancy cap minimises disamenities caused by overcrowding in our public estates and maintains a conducive living environment for all residents.
From 1 May 2018, the occupancy cap for 4-room and larger flats, including jumbo flats, was revised to six persons. This is aligned to the occupancy cap for private residential properties of all sizes.
Nevertheless, should flat owners need to exceed the occupancy cap when renting out their flat or bedrooms, HDB may exercise flexibility based on the circumstances of each case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Simplifying Process of Cross-jurisdictional Recognition of Authenticity of Documents Issued by Public Authorities","subTitle":"Singapore’s intention to sign Hague Apostille Convention","sectionType":"WANA","content":"27 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Law whether the Government intends to sign the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation of Foreign Public Documents 1961 (Hague Apostille Convention) so as to rationalise the current practice of legalising public documents by consular officers and simplify the process of cross-jurisdictional recognition of the authenticity of documents issued by public authorities in Singapore and, if not, what is the reason.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Law is currently studying the Hague Apostille Convention to determine the implications of Singapore signing on to it. We are consulting with domestic agencies and stakeholders to find out their concerns about the Convention. We have also engaged in discussions with representatives from the Hague Conference, as well as agencies from Contracting Parties to the Convention, about the practicalities involved in implementing the Convention.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Reasons for Rise in Child Abuse Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"28 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Social and Family Development with regard to the rise in child abuse cases within the family (a) what is the nature of the abuse; (b) what is the profile of the perpetrators; and (c) what are some of the main reasons behind these abuse cases.
Mr Desmond Lee: In 2017, the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) Child Protective Service (CPS) investigated 894 cases of child abuse. This is an increase from the 873 cases investigated in 2016, and 551 cases in 2015. The nature of the cases includes physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect. In most of these cases, the perpetrator is a family member.
The reasons for child abuse are often complex and complicated. For example, caregivers of abused children may themselves be in difficult circumstances and under stress. The problems caregivers face can often have direct impact on children. Many child abuse cases investigated by CPS involve families with multiple stressors, such as financial problems and unemployment. We have also encountered caregivers who themselves had a prior history of abuse or neglect as a child, are battling drug addictions or mental health issues, or had trouble with the law.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Key Performance Indicators for Scheme to Help Hospitals Scale Up Adoption of Smart Technologies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"30 Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching asked the Minister for Health what are the key performance indicators and the percentage of these indicators that have been met under the $62.5 million pilot to scale up hospitals' adoption of smart technologies as part of the Smart Nursing Ward initiative under the Healthcare Industry Transformation Map.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Nurses make up the largest proportion of our healthcare workforce, constituting more than 40% of the workforce in public hospitals today.
In March 2018, the Ministry of Health (MOH) launched the Healthcare Productivity Fund – Smart Nursing Ward Programme, a key initiative under the Healthcare Industry Transformation Map. This programme supports hospitals in improving nursing processes and adopting smart solutions so as to reduce our nurses' administrative load and enable them to focus more attention on direct patient care.
Some of the areas being looked into include inventory management, materials delivery, patient monitoring and patient transport. Some technology solutions being explored include Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. For example, AMRs were earlier piloted in some of our public hospitals to transport items, such as consumables and medication. One deployment saved as many as six Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). Under the Smart Nursing Ward programme, we are exploring to expand the use of these AMRs, by deploying them to deliver medical instruments. This aims to save time for nurses from walking back and forth between sterilisation facilities and Operating Theatres, enabling them to focus on direct care.
As part of the programme's eligibility criteria, proposed projects are required to strive for at least 10% nursing time-savings. As the programme was only launched in March 2018, many of the projects have just been initiated or are being explored. It is thus premature to assess the progress.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Proposed Foreign Acquisition of Hyflux's Shareholding on Singapore's National Taps Water Supply Strategy","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"32 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether the proposed acquisition of a substantial shareholding of Hyflux Ltd by a foreign company will have any material impact on two of our national taps (NEWater and desalination); (b) whether steps are taken to mitigate any potential impact on end-consumers and businesses in terms of water supply and pricing; and (c) whether there will be any adverse risk to our water security.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) key interest is to safeguard Singapore’s water security and confidence in our water supply. Hyflux is currently involved in two desalination plants under the Design, Build, Own and Operate (DBOO) arrangements. Hyflux owns Tuaspring Desalination Plant wholly via its subsidiary and has a 30% minority stake in SingSpring Desalination Plant. Hyflux does not own or run any NEWater plants in Singapore.
PUB has been closely monitoring developments relating to Hyflux's debt situation and its business reorganisation. As reported in the media, Hyflux has entered into a restructuring agreement with an Indonesian consortium, SM Investments Private Limited. This is a commercial matter and restructuring discussions are ongoing. It will, therefore, not be appropriate for my Ministry to comment on the details. Nonetheless, Members can be assured that we will not allow our water security to be affected.
The DBOO model allows us to tap on private sector expertise to deliver cost-effective solutions for NEWater and desalination. We have welcomed participation from both local and foreign companies.
At the same time, water security is critical to Singapore's survival. Where we have allowed private sector participation via the DBOO model, safeguards are in place. PUB has adequate measures to ensure DBOO plants remain in operation and supply is not disrupted. It is a top strategic priority of the Government to keep our taps flowing.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Retailers' Concerns over Existing PMD Stocks that Do Not Meet New Fire Safety Requirement","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"33 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Transport with regard to the fire safety criterion for PMDs (a) how does the Government plan to address the concerns of retailers who are holding stocks of devices that do not meet the requirements but are unable to sell them due to declining sales; (b) whether interim assistance can be provided for retailers to ensure that some of their devices meet the UL2272 Safety Standard; and (c) whether the authorities will allow alternative safety standards beyond UL2272.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Since 2016, there have been more than 80 fire incidents involving motorised personal mobility devices (PMDs), posing a danger to the users, their immediate families and their neighbours. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) made known its intention to study and apply product safety requirements on PMDs in November 2017. After studying the available international standards, LTA announced in September 2018 that the UL2272 standard will be applied to the sale of motorised PMDs in Singapore from July 2019, and to the use of motorised PMDs on public paths in Singapore from January 2021.
To mitigate the impact on PMD retailers, LTA has provided retailers with a transition period of nine months to switch their inventories to comply with the regulations. Retailers can also choose to re-export devices that do not comply with the standard.
To support the retailers during this transition period, LTA has been engaging retailers to address their queries and to provide more information on the testing and certification process for UL2272. LTA is also working closely with accredited certification bodies to make testing and certification more easily accessible to the retailers.
LTA is also open to considering other safety standards which are found adequate for reducing fire risks for motorised PMDs and are suitable for our local context.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Traffic Signal Countdown Timers at Traffic Junctions","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"34 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Transport whether LTA will consider installing traffic signal countdown timers at traffic junctions, given that many countries have implemented the timer with a view to improving road safety.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: In 2003, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted a traffic signal countdown timer trial at the junction of North Bridge Road and Rochor Road over a period of six months. The trial showed that countdown timers did not improve road safety. Some motorists accelerated to beat the red light, increasing the likelihood of rear-end collisions at traffic junctions.
Over the years, we have continued to monitor the experience in other countries that have conducted similar trials. Overseas jurisdictions that have installed traffic signal countdown timers also did not observe any significant improvement to road safety. Hence, LTA has no plans to install traffic signal countdown timers at traffic junctions.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Circular Economy Framework for Waste-producing Sectors","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"35 Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the circular economy framework in place for various waste-producing sectors in Singapore, including those for packaging and electronic products; (b) whether the current legislation is sufficient to sustain a circular economy in the waste sector; and (c) if not, whether there are plans to introduce further legislation.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The circular economy framework is aimed at closing resource loops and creating economic opportunities by maximising resource use and minimising waste. Key elements include sustainable production and consumption, as well as managing waste as a resource, such as by promoting the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle. These elements are already embedded in our existing policies and form the basis of our strategy towards becoming a Zero Waste Nation.
We will introduce new legislation to implement Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for e-waste by 2021. EPR adopts circular economy principles by incentivising better design of electrical and electronic products to make them last longer and easier to recycle, while ensuring that these products are properly collected and recycled at their end-of-life.
Another example of the circular economy is the industry-led Singapore Packaging Agreement, where companies commit to reduce packaging waste through changes in packaging processes, designs or usage practices, or recycling of packaging waste. We will build on this to introduce mandatory reporting of packaging data and packaging waste reduction plans in 2020. We are also studying the feasibility of extending EPR to manage packaging waste.
Our industries have also adopted circular economy principles in their business models. For example, many construction companies recycle demolished concrete into aggregates which can be used to construct roads or manufacture concrete. In 2017, the recycling rate of construction and demolition waste was 99%.
My Ministry is working on a Zero Waste Masterplan. We will consult our stakeholders, including households, businesses and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and invite feedback and ideas. At the same time, we can all play a part in the circular economy. Consumers can repair damaged furniture, appliances and clothes and prolong their use, or share less commonly used household items with neighbours. The industry should design products to last longer or to make recycling easier. Our NGOs can help rally the ground in this effort. With our combined efforts, we can move closer towards becoming a Zero Waste Nation.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Waiving Requirement for Consent from Ex-spouse for Listing of Children as Occupiers in HDB Flat Application","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"36 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether the Ministry will consider waiving the requirement for ex-spousal consent on who can list the children as occupiers in a HDB flat application if the ex-spouse has already purchased a private property or a HDB flat following the divorce.
Mr Lawrence Wong: Parents with shared care and control have equal right to list their children in their flat application. Hence, the requirement for one parent to obtain agreement from the other is in place because we respect the right of each parent to purchase a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat with their children.
While we encourage parents to resolve matters in the best interest of their children, we understand the concern that reaching mutual agreement might be difficult in some divorces. In such situations, HDB adopts a needs-based approach and exercises flexibility on a case-by-case basis. In particular, if the ex-spouse has purchased another property, we will, indeed, take that into consideration in our assessment of the case.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Assessed Threats of Rising Sea Levels to Reservoirs, Coastal Areas and Reclaimed Land in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"37 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what are the assessed threats of rising sea levels to our reservoirs and coastal areas, particularly reclaimed land, and what are the measures to boost the protection for these areas.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Climate change is real and we are already seeing some effects in terms of changes in our weather. Another effect is potential rise in sea levels. This is a complex issue with far-reaching implications, especially for an island city-state, such as Singapore. To understand the assessed risks and impacts of long-term sea level rise on our coastal areas, multiple agencies are working together to study this issue carefully.
We have taken early steps to protect our coastal areas. Currently, over 70% of our coastline is protected from coastal erosion through hard structures or stone embankments. Since 2011, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) has revised the Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage to raise minimum reclamation levels for newly reclaimed lands and minimum platform levels for coastal developments by one metre, to at least four metres above the mean sea level. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has also raised some roads near coastal areas, including a stretch of Changi Coast Road and Nicoll Drive. We are building future developments at higher platform levels as a safeguard against rising sea levels. For example, Changi Airport Terminal 5 will be built at 5.5 metres above the mean sea level.
More will be done. In 2015, the Centre for Climate Research Singapore, a department under the National Environment Agency, projected that Singapore could experience sea level rise of up to one metre by 2100. Building on these findings, work is currently ongoing to assess the risks and impacts of such long-term sea level rise on Singapore's coastal areas. Government agencies are developing a national framework for coastal protection, which includes developing long-term plans to protect vulnerable areas from sea-level rise. These plans and framework will help us to take timely and concrete steps to guard against sea level rise in the long term.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Air Filters Effective in Filtering Out Harmful Effects of Second-hand Smoke","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"38 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry is aware of any air filters available in the market which have been proven to effectively filter out the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in private homes.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: We are unaware of any air filtration technology which would be effective at filtering out the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.
The toxic constituents of cigarette smoke are both particulate and gaseous in nature. Residential air cleaning technology is unable to adequately remove all of the gaseous components, such as formaldehyde, benzene and carbon monoxide.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Impact of Foreign Student Holiday Work Passes on Jobs and Internships for Singaporean Graduates and Undergraduates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"39 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower in the past three years (a) how many foreign students have been issued work passes under the Work Holiday Programme; (b) which types of industries and jobs do they usually work in; and (c) how has this impacted on jobs and internship opportunities for Singaporean graduates and undergraduates.
Mrs Josephine Teo: The Work Holiday Programme (WHP) allows eligible students and young graduates of universities in nine countries or regions to work and holiday in Singapore for up to six months. The WHP is subject to a quota of 2,000 applicants at any one time, which is shared amongst the nine countries or regions that are part of the WHP, namely, Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
In the past three years from 2015-2017, on average, 2,800 applicants have been issued a Work Holiday Pass each year. This Pass grants them the right to stay in Singapore for up to six months and gives them an option to work without applying for an additional work pass. The Ministry of Manpower does not collect information on the jobs and industries that the WHP holders work in. Some may not work at all.
The WHP has not affected jobs and internship opportunities for Singaporean graduates and undergraduates. Based on the Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the Institutes of Higher Learning, in each of the last three years, about nine in 10 economically active graduates from the autonomous universities (AUs) and polytechnics were employed within six months of graduation. This is about the same level as before the WHP was introduced.
The internship participation rates for polytechnics have also remained stable for the past three years and the rates for the AUs have been increasing gradually. Today, approximately 98% of polytechnic students and 70% of AU students would have done at least one internship by the time they graduate. Our polytechnics and AUs also provide overseas exposure opportunities for our students and completed over 1,600 overseas internship placements in Academic Year 2016/2017.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Effectiveness of Efforts to Attract and Retain Singaporean Medical Students Studying Abroad to Work in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"40 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health with regard to the increasing number of foreign doctors in public hospitals and polyclinics (a) whether there is success in efforts to attract Singaporean medical students studying abroad to return to work in Singapore; (b) whether there is success in retaining those who returned to Singapore beyond the three to four years which they are required to serve in a public hospital; and (c) what further measures is the Government considering to reverse the shortage of Singaporean medical staff.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: To meet our medical manpower needs, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has steadily ramped up intakes of our medical schools by 40%, from 354 in 2012 to 500 in 2018. Our medical schools will remain our primary source of new doctors.
An average of about 200 overseas-trained local doctors returned each year in the last three years, more than double that in 2010. As our local pipeline has grown significantly over the years, we expect our need to recruit overseas-trained doctors to moderate and stabilise in the coming years.
Of those who returned and registered with Singapore Medical Council between 2010 and 2012, more than nine in 10 continued to practise in Singapore even after five years and about four in five stayed in the public sector for five years or more.
Our public healthcare institutions will continue to provide a conducive work environment for all healthcare staff by improving work processes for doctors and adopting technology to streamline workload. We are also providing more training and development opportunities for career progression. Our healthcare staff, including doctors, also have a wide range of opportunities to work in different institutions and settings within the healthcare sector.
Beside doctors, we are also stepping up recruitment and retention efforts for other healthcare professionals like nurses. Over the years, we have increased salaries and broadened opportunities for nurses, including providing greater autonomy in their roles, and increasing opportunities and funding support for training. The intakes of our local nursing courses have also increased significantly from around 1,500 in 2012 to more than 2,100 in 2018.
MOH will continue to review our manpower strategies based on projected future healthcare needs, taking into consideration the changing healthcare context, and ensure we have adequate manpower supplies.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Cases of Windows of HDB Flats Being Dislodged","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"41 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for National Development (a) in the last three years, what is the number of reported cases of the windows of HDB flats being dislodged and falling to the ground; (b) what is the average age of such HDB flats; and (c) whether HDB can include window replacement in the Home Improvement Programme as many home owners may not be able to afford the replacement cost.
Mr Lawrence Wong: In the last three years, there were 117 incidents of fallen windows, affecting about 0.01% of Housing and Development Board (HDB) residential units. The average age of HDB flats involved in such incidents is about 33 years.
Windows come in many sizes and designs and would have to be custom-made to suit the preferences of residents. Flat owners also have the responsibility to ensure that the windows in their flat are well maintained so that they do not fall off and endanger the public. They are, therefore, in a better position to decide when and how to replace their windows. There are also existing programmes in the Community Development Councils for residents who need financial assistance with small scale home renovation and maintenance works.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Review Retirement Age for Police Officers","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"43 Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are any plans to review the retirement age of 55 years, including that for senior Police Officers, given that the nature of policing has changed to require even more experience and knowledge.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had extended the retirement age for Home Affairs Uniformed Service (HUS) officers just five years ago, when it was raised from 50 to 55 years. We will continue to periodically review it, as the general retirement age increases, and Singaporeans live longer and healthier lives.
When HUS officers reach the age of 55, some of them may be offered extension of service.
As for those for whom we do not have posts to re-employ, MHA is investing significant effort and has put in place structures to systematically help them find new employment. We outlined these measures in a reply to a Parliamentary Question in February this year.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Actions to Mitigate Rain Splashing into Common Corridors for HDB Flats that Have Gone Through HIP","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"44 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Minister for National Development with regard to HDB flats in Boon Lay constituency which are more than 30 years of age and have completed the Home Improvement Programme (HIP), what more can the Ministry do to mitigate rain splashing into the common corridors, lift landings, corridors and front doors and windows of these flats.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The lift lobbies and common corridors at Housing and Development Board (HDB) projects are designed to be naturally lit and ventilated. This open concept design is eco-friendly and lowers maintenance costs.
During a heavy downpour, especially during the monsoon season, some rainwater splashing along the more open areas like lift lobbies and common corridors is inevitable. For weather protection, common corridors are, therefore, provided with an extended overhang, that is, a canopy. While this is generally adequate to minimise rainwater splashing during normal rainy days, it may not be able to fully prevent the corridor from getting wet during heavy downpours accompanied by strong winds.
When HDB receives feedback from residents, it will assess the extent of the rainwater splashing. If the splashing is severe and likely to damage the main entrance door of the unit, HDB will provide a rain screen, subject to the Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) fire safety requirements to ensure that there is adequate open space and cross ventilation at the common corridor to facilitate the quick dispersal of smoke during emergencies, such as fire outbreaks. The provision of rain screen is a cost-effective solution, and residents can submit their feedback to HDB whenever they identify the issue, regardless of whether their units have undergone the Home Improvement Programme (HIP).
Members who have feedback on issues related to specific blocks can approach HDB so that we can look into the details.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Suspicious Mails Reported to Police by Postal Services","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) in the last three years, how many reports of suspicious mails stopped by postal services have been reported to the Police; (b) whether there has been any person apprehended; and (c) what measures are put in place to ensure the timely reporting of such detected mails.
Mr K Shanmugam: When a suspicious mail is discovered, the standard operating procedure is for SingPost to refer it to the Police and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), who will respond to assess the threat, and contain it if necessary.
From 2015 to the first half of 2018, there was a single case of suspicious mail that was stopped by SingPost. In that case, which took place in 2016, a parcel containing foul-smelling liquid was detected. Police and SCDF responded and determined that there was no threat and no malicious intent. There were consequently no arrests.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Telecommunication Outages in Past Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many telecommunication outages have occurred in the past three years; and (b) what measures has the Ministry put in place to prevent the occurrences of these outages.
Mr S Iswaran: A reliable and resilient telecommunication network is critical to our Smart Nation ambitions. That is why the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Infocommunications Media Development Authority (IMDA) work with key telecommunication operators to ensure good service quality, including through IMDA's Quality of Service frameworks.
Since 2016, the number of telecommunication outages has averaged 10 outages each year. These outages were mostly due to cable cuts by contractors, or faults in the telecommunication networks.
MCI and IMDA have taken measures to minimise the risk of outages. IMDA requires key telecommunication operators to regularly audit their networks to ensure that they are on par with international best practices. IMDA also educates contractors to avoid cable cuts when carrying out earthworks. IMDA also penalises telecommunication operators which contribute to outages, or which fail to restore disrupted services quickly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Successful First-timer Applicants Receiving CPF Housing Grants in Last Three Years","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for National Development what is the total number of first-timer applicants who have been successful in receiving CPF Housing Grants in the last three years according to (i) flat type, specifically BTO and resale HDB flats, (ii) type of grant received, (iii) quantum of grant received in multiples of $10,000 and (iv) purchase price of flat after grant, with a breakdown based on the price bands of $50,000 and below, $50,001 to $100,000 and above $100,000 in multiples of $100,000.
Mr Lawrence Wong: First-timer households purchasing a new flat from the Housing and Development Board (HDB) enjoy a subsidised flat price, and may receive up to $80,000 in housing grants, comprising the Special Central Provident Fund (CPF) Housing Grant and Additional CPF Housing Grant (AHG). They may also receive up to $120,000 when purchasing a resale flat, comprising the CPF Housing Grant, AHG and Proximity Housing Grant. Between July 2015 to June 2018, about 47,700 first-timer households received CPF housing grants for their flat purchase, as detailed in Table 1 below.
Housing grants are generally tiered by income so that more assistance is provided to lower-income households. Refer to Tabel 2 below for the number of first-timer households receiving CPF housing grants, by grant quantum.
After factoring in housing grants, close to 80% of first-timer households paid $400,000 or less when purchasing a HDB flat, whether from HDB or the resale market (see Table 3 below).
4 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Education (a) to date, what is the number of courses that have been accredited by SkillsFuture; (b) what is the number of applications for accreditation that have been rejected; and (c) what are the main reasons for rejection.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Currently, over 30,000 courses are funded by SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). Since 2016, SSG has rejected over 4,000 other courses as they were not work skills-related.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Percentage of Students Living in HDB Flats under Public Rental Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Education for each year in the past five years (a) what is the percentage of students living in HDB flats under the public rental scheme; and (b) what is the average and median household income of students entering the (i) Normal (Technical), (ii) Normal (Academic) and (iii) Express streams, respectively.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: Over the last five years, approximately 2%-3% of our students were living in Housing and Development Board flats under the public rental scheme. The Ministry of Education does not collect data on household income of students.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal to Mark Examination Scripts Electronically","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Education with regard to the proposal to mark examination scripts electronically (a) whether the time saved from having to count physical scripts in the current system be well compensated by the need to scan and digitise the scripts in the new system; and (b) what are the identified risks of an electronic and digital system for the marking of scripts and how can they be managed.
Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) has conducted a pilot trial on the scanning and digitisation of a sample of 2017 national examination answer scripts. The trial also included the marking of these digitalised scripts online. SEAB has received positive feedback from markers, including improved administrative efficiency.
Examination boards in the United Kingdom (UK) and Hong Kong have been conducting electronic marking for some years. The known benefits include reduced effort from administrative processes and physical movement of scripts, improved quality in marking and better anonymity of scripts.
Due to the large number of subjects offered at the Singapore-Cambridge GCE-Level examinations and the high volume of scripts handled each year, changes to the examination processes have to be carefully planned and considered. It involves trialling to determine the required changes to the format of the answer booklet, adequate investment in information technology infrastructure and devices and training of markers. SEAB will also have to ensure that the integrity of the national examinations and timing for the release of the examination results are upheld.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Average and Median Starting Monthly Salaries for ITE, Polytechnic and University Graduates","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower for ITE, polytechnic and university students who graduated in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively (a) what were their average and median starting monthly salaries; (b) what were their average and median monthly salaries five years after their year of graduation; and (c) whether the Ministry will start collecting such data on post-graduation salaries, as requested in (b), if it does not already collect it on a regular basis.
Mrs Josephine Teo: Based on the annual Graduate Employment Survey (GES) conducted by the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs), the reported median gross monthly starting salaries of Institute of Technical Education (ITE), polytechnic and autonomous university (AU) graduates in full-time permanent employment from 2008 to 2012 are given in Table 1 below.
The GES does not track graduates' salaries by cohort five years after their graduation. However, the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents is available from the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Comprehensive Labour Force Survey (CLFS). The majority of fresh graduates from IHLs would be in their mid- to late-20s five years after leaving school.
Table 2 below shows the median gross monthly income from 2013 to 2017 of full-time employed residents aged 25 to 29 – those with post-secondary non-tertiary qualifications, that is, ITE or equivalent; diploma and professional qualifications, that is, polytechnic or equivalent, and degree qualifications.
To give us more insights into their employment and income, MOM and the Ministry of Education are exploring tracking graduates' salaries by cohort over a longer period of time.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":209,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/annex-Annex 1.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":210,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/annex-Annex 2.pdf","fileName":"Annex 2.pdf","sectionType":"OA","file":null},{"annexureID":461,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/annex-Annex 3.pdf","fileName":"Annex 3.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":462,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/annex-Annex 4.pdf","fileName":"Annex 4.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":1502,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah Developers 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah Developers 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1503,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mrs Josephine Teo","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-Josephine Teo EA 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Josephine Teo EA 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1504,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Douglas Foo ","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-Douglas Foo EA Bill 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Douglas Foo EA Bill 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1505,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-20 Nov 2018 - Mr Zainal Sapari - Employment Bill.pdf","fileName":"20 Nov 2018 - Mr Zainal Sapari - Employment Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1506,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Saktiandi Supaat","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-20 Nov 2018 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Employment Bill.pdf","fileName":"20 Nov 2018 - Mr Saktiandi Supaat - Employment Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1507,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-20 Nov 2018 - Dr Intan Azura - Employment Bill.pdf","fileName":"20 Nov 2018 - Dr Intan Azura - Employment Bill.pdf"},{"vernacularID":1508,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Joan Pereira","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20181120/vernacular-Joan Pereira EA 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Joan Pereira EA 20 Nov 2018-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}