Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Manpower (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act, or the IR Act, are intended to better meet the needs of our professionals, managers and executives, or PMEs, as well as help employers and unions to work together to more effectively engage this growing group of employees. We will be strengthening an already strong and constructive tripartite partnership, and making it more inclusive.

The Industrial Relations Act, or the IR Act, sets the landscape for harmonious labour-management relations. The law helps to prevent and settle trade disputes by collective bargaining, facilitates conciliation and arbitration; and helps to provide for tripartite mediation of individual disputes. Over the years, it has allowed us to meet the growing needs of all our workers. At the same time, it ensures that our companies remain competitive and agile so that they can respond to the changing business environment, and thereby benefitting everyone.

Sir, we know that the profile of our workforce is evolving. PMEs now form more than 30% of our workforce and this proportion is expected to increase further as Singaporeans become better educated and aspire to better jobs.

As such, we need to see how this group of employees can be better represented at the workplace and how we can better embrace them into the tripartite process. At the same time, we need to see how employers can better work together with unions to engage these employees. The tripartite partners agreed that we would do this in a measured and sensible way without undermining labour market flexibility and management prerogatives on issues which the unions can enter into negotiations with management.

To enable this, tripartite partners have taken the approach of gradually broadening the options for workplace representation for PMEs. In fact, this journey started back in 2002 when we amended the IR Act to allow rank-and-file unions to represent employees in managerial and executive positions on an individual basis for limited matters. In 2011, we introduced further amendments to provide for a tripartite mediation mechanism to assist PMEs in non-unionised companies in resolving individual disputes with their employers.

In the last two to three years, the Government has also undertaken a broad review of our laws and institutions to see how we can better meet the changing needs of our workforce. As a result, we updated the Employment Act last year to deepen protection for managers and executives earning up to $4,500. We also plan to set up an Employment Claims Tribunal to provide all employees, including PMEs, with an expeditious and affordable dispute resolution mechanism; and strengthen the tripartite mediation mechanism we introduced in 2011.

In 2012, alongside the review of the Employment Act, tripartite partners agreed it was timely to review the IR Act to see how unions can play a role to better represent the needs of these PMEs. The amendments we are proposing today seek to build on these changes to further strengthen the channels of union representation for PMEs and provide them with a wider set of options for union representation. I shall refer to these workers as "executives" henceforth for alignment with the terminology in the Bill. They are the result of extensive consultations with the public, as well as more than 4,000 employers and union leaders at various platforms.

A Tripartite Consultation Workgroup with employer and union leader representatives was also set up to study issues relating to amendments in the IR Act and to develop tripartite understanding and guidelines to guide implementation on the ground.

The two main changes addressed in this Bill are:

(a) Firstly, extending the scope of union representation on a collective basis for executives; and

(b) Secondly, expanding the scope of limited representation on an individual basis to re-employment matters.

I will elaborate on each of these in more details. The first key amendment proposes to remove the legal barrier for rank-and-file unions to represent executives collectively. Executives presently cannot be collectively represented by rank-and-file unions. This prohibition was introduced in the context where the large majority of employees were traditional rank-and-file workers and executives then constituted a very thin but senior layer of the workforce of a company. There were concerns that representation of such workers by rank-and-file unions would give rise to a conflict of interest and undermine management effectiveness.

Since then, our economy has evolved and the educational profile of our workforce has improved – it has changed quite dramatically and will continue to change. There is now a much greater variety of jobs, especially at executive levels, from entry level jobs to senior management roles. Recognising that rank-and-file unions have played an effective role to help rank-and-file members address their workplace issues, tripartite partners recommended to provide an additional option for executives, particularly the more junior ones, to join rank-and-file unions for collective representation if they wish. This is an extension of the 2002 amendment, where executives were allowed to be represented by rank-and-file unions on an individual basis for limited matters.

Some employers are concerned that such representation may give rise to a conflict of interest and undermine management effectiveness. To address this concern, we will continue to exclude executives with certain responsibilities from joining the rank-and-file unions for collective representation. These include executives:

(a) who are employed in a senior management position;

(b) with substantial responsibilities for hiring, firing, promotion, dismissal and disciplinary duties;

(c) employees who represent employers' interest in union-management matters;

(d) those with access to confidential information, such as payroll and budgeting information; and

(e) whose union affiliation would give rise to a conflict of interest.

Tripartite partners have discussed a few criteria to be used to determine eligibility for collective representation such as salary levels and workforce distribution, but they recognise that company structures and pay-scales differ widely across industries and between organisations. Partners thus agreed that job function or responsibility is probably the most relevant and practicable criterion for determining eligibility, as it directly addresses employers' concerns of conflict of interest and loss of management effectiveness. This approach will also be able to take into account the organisational structure and circumstances of different industries or organisations. This is similar to the criterion for limited representation and tripartite mediation for executives within the IR Act itself.

The second key amendment in this Bill proposes to expand the scope of areas which the rank-and-file unions can represent executives on an individual basis include matters relating to re-employment.

Sir, currently, rank-and-file unions can represent executives on an individual basis in four limited areas, specifically, firstly, breach of individual contract of employment, secondly, retrenchment benefits, thirdly, unfair dismissal and, fourthly, victimisation. This provides executives with an additional and lower cost alternative to settle their employment disputes through union and management negotiations.

While the tripartite partners have proposed extending the scope of collective representation of executives by rank-and-file unions, there is still value in retaining the limited representation framework which I have just mentioned. Employers have given feedback that reward systems for executives have evolved to be relatively individualised and not all executives will desire to be represented collectively. In addition, not all existing rank-and-file unions may be prepared or given recognition to full collective representation immediately.

To further broaden executives' options for workplace representation, tripartite partners have recommended expanding the scope of limited representation framework to include matters relating to re-employment after retirement. These include:

(a) Firstly, the denial of re-employment to an employee on the ground that the employee does not satisfy the re-employment eligibility criteria;

(b) Secondly, the denial of re-employment to an employee on the ground that the employer is unable to find a vacancy in his establishment which is suitable for the employee;

(c) Thirdly, the reasonableness of the terms and conditions of any re-employment offer made by the employers; and

(d) Lastly, the reasonableness of the amount of any employment assistance payment offered to an employee.

In addition to the two key amendments that I elaborated on earlier, this Bill also proposes some amendments to improve the functioning of the Industrial Arbitration Court, by allowing for flexibility on the number of employer and employee panel members which the Minister for Manpower can appoint to hear industrial disputes as well as increasing the duration of appointment of such panel members from one to two years.

Sir, in view of the two earlier proposed amendments, consequential amendments to the Retirement and Re-employment Act and the Trade Unions Act are required. In the case of the Retirement and Re-employment Act, the amendment is to allow the unions to also represent executives under the limited representation framework in proceedings before the Commissioner for Labour on re-employment claims. Amendments to the Trade Unions Act are also required so as to enable rank-and-file unions to represent executive employees, except executive employees with certain responsibilities, for collective bargaining.

The Bill is proposed to come into effect on 1 April 2015. To supplement the proposed amendments, we have released two sets of Tripartite Guidelines at the Singapore Tripartism Forum's Industrial Relations Seminar in November last year to help prepare unions and employers early so that they can address their concerns about how they should adapt to the proposed amendments. These guidelines are the result of the extensive efforts of the Tripartite Consultation Workgroup I mentioned earlier.

The first set of Tripartite Guidelines on Extending the Scope of Union Representation for Executives spells out the various options for representation of executives and provides supplementary criteria for unions and companies to negotiate on the level of executives in the organisation eligible for collective representation so that both parties can move at a pace that they are comfortable with. The second set of Tripartite Guidelines on Expanding the Scope of Limited Representation for Executives is an update of the existing guidelines in relation to the limited representation framework, where individual re-employment disputes are included as an additional area for negotiation between employers and unions.

Following the various consultation sessions the Ministry had with employers and union leaders, there was tripartite agreement that while the guidelines should provide clarity, they should also not be overly prescriptive. This is to allow flexibility at the implementation level for employers and unions to work out the modalities that best suit the needs of executives and the organisational circumstances.

I know that in many cases, we would all like clearer and more precise directions, but the nature of the space is not homogenous. Therefore, you do need a level of flexibility and with that, we need to create that space so that the partners can negotiate and discuss what these details might be and for them to proceed from that point on. I am happy to note that the Workgroup members took this into consideration in developing the tripartite guidelines and as a result, these guidelines have broad tripartite support.

In this regard, I would like to urge employers and unions to consider the various options available to them by openly sharing, discussing and understanding each other's concerns and needs, and to work out a suitable arrangement. The guidelines will take effect together with the commencement of these amendments to the IR Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we started this very important journey to provide greater scope for representation for executives as far back as 2002. We have, over the many years, built up a very strong tripartite partnership here in Singapore. We do intend to keep to that. The basis on which we have established that successful partnership, we intend to continue with that. But the space is also evolving; the economy is evolving; the workforce is evolving, and therefore, we need to find a new formulation that can continue on this trajectory.

The legislative amendments that I have proposed will offer more options for union representation of executives at the workplace, because we do have many more executives in the workplace today, and it will continue. It will allow us to harness established channels under the IR Act for employers, executives and unions to engage in dialogue to resolve any industrial disputes.

I would like to, in particular, thank everyone who has contributed to the review, especially NTUC, SNEF and Members of this House as well as the members of this Workgroup for their contributions in developing the guidelines. MOM will continue to work with our partners, NTUC and SNEF, to communicate the IR Act changes and the tripartite guidelines to employers, unions and employees, to ensure that the proposed amendments are implemented in a way that creates a win-win outcome for both employees and employers, as we have done so over the many years. We are confident that the proposed amendments will make our tripartite model even more inclusive. It will strengthen Singapore's model of tripartism and benefit employees, unions and employers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.31 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): I rise in strong support of the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a member of the tripartite workgroup for the review of the Employment Act as well as the Industrial Relations (IR) Act. Representing NTUC and the Labour Movement, we discussed, consulted widely, reviewed, negotiated and promulgated this deck of changes with our tripartite partners, Ministry of Manpower and Singapore National Employer's Federation. I must say that the discussions and negotiations were robust. We also worked out and issued a deck of tripartite guidelines which were issued shortly after the first reading of this Bill.

If we take a closer look at our Singapore's workforce profile, it is changing rapidly. The number of Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) in our workforce now stands at 31.1%. Resident PMEs currently stand at 638,500. We expect this percentage to increase exponentially with more embarking on tertiary qualifications and taking on executive jobs and becoming knowledge workers. Many of the new employees hired in our unionised companies these past years have Diploma and above qualifications. Many of the new jobs created require knowledge workers or PMEs.

In light of this change and development, it is imperative for NTUC and the Labour Movement to push for this review of the IR Act, a piece of legislation promulgated in 1965, to ensure we stay future-ready and relevant to our workforce and membership. In fact, I submit that it is in the interests of our tripartite partners to support this move to be inclusive and bring PMEs into the tripartite framework so as to fortify tripartism in Singapore and ensure it stays strong, relevant and continues to be the unique selling proposition for Singapore.

The introduction of individual limited representation of executives in 2002 and setting up of the tripartite mediation framework in 2011 have been two key milestones in bringing PMEs into our fold and extending union representation to them. However, in this Amendment Bill, I cannot but underline the two key changes in this Amendment Bill which are landmark changes in our journey to outreach and serve the PME populace in Singapore.

The first change is a watershed change to allow trade unions whose majority of membership consists of non-executive and non-managerial employees, commonly referred to as Rank-and-File Unions, be allowed to collectively represent PMEs.

The second change is the addition of re-employment as another head of claim under individual limited representation. These changes are by no means technical changes but substantive changes as our unions will be able to stretch their scope of representation and ensure the welfare and interests of all workers including PMEs as well as matured PMEs can be looked after and that they can be collectively represented by unions. Except certain excluded categories due to conflict of interests principles, there will not be a salary ceiling nor prescribed percentages and proportions to specifically curtail collective union representation of PMEs.

Supporting these changes, I seek Minister's clarifications on some questions which I hope he can explain and elucidate so as to aid the practice of industrial relations after these changes are passed as law.

In fact, one of the biggest challenges with coming up with the new provisions as well as the set of tripartite guidelines, is how to best define the term "executives" and consequently where to draw the line of exclusion from union representation. Section 17(3) provides for some excluded categories of workers from this new collective representation of PMEs by our affiliated unions. I wish to confirm that the intention is to only exclude those who are in senior management positions or carrying out functions that would genuinely create conflict.

I ask this because the excluded categories are the same as those excluded under individual limited representation. When limited representation was introduced in 2002, the Minister said in Parliament that the Government accepted the Tripartite Committee's recommendation that "senior management staff and certain core management personnel could not be represented. These included those involved in hiring, firing, promotion, dismissals and disciplinary duties; those with access to confidential information, such as payroll and budgeting information; those who represent employers' interest in union-management matters and those whose union affiliation would give rise to conflict of interest."

To ensure the Labour Movement and tripartism stay relevant, inclusive and representative of the workforce, we want to confirm that for every organisation, this is but a small, core group only and does not extend too far downwards. This is particularly so as with flatter organisations and matrix reporting, many employees these days become indirectly involved in supervising and appraising staff at all levels. We should aim to cut off the top and senior management only and not all other managers and executives or else this change will not be impactful and progressive.

I am glad to note that the tripartite guidelines state that employers and unions may mutually agree to use proportion of executives in the company and salary as proxies, to determine eligibility for collective representation. More importantly, company structures and staff composition vary and so we urge employers and companies to be pro-active, open and enlightened in approaching the implementation of this set of changes.

By the same token, Section 30A(2)(b) further states "performs or exercises any function, duty or power which includes decision-making, or the power to substantially influence decision-making, on any industrial matters including the employment, termination of employment, promotion, transfer, reward or discipline of other employees". We would want confirmation from the Minister that this excludes mid-level PMEs who have some supervisory functions and give input for appraisals, hiring, firing, etc, such that they too can be represented.

I also seek clarity on the final category under Section 30A(2)(e) – "performs or exercises any other function, duty or power which may give rise to a real or potential conflict of interest if he is represented by the trade union". I wish to ask Minister how far this extends. Could we have some examples of what it is meant to cover?

In the area of recognition of a trade union to represent PMEs, I also ask Minister to confirm that the union only needs to seek recognition for the new grades of executives that it seeks to represent collectively, and that this is separate from and does not affect the recognition already obtained for the rank-and-file employees as such.

Across our affiliated unions, we have started outreach to PMEs and I am very glad to share that many of our senior and top management have joined us as union members to enjoy our full range of PME benefits, short of collective representation. We continue to organise and recruit senior and top management as union members and I am glad our tripartite partners support that. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : In Singapore, the number of Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) makes up one-third of the workforce. Going forward, this percentage will continue to rise.

The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill will bring about three main benefits:

First, the Bill will enlarge the scope of union representation to allow more PMEs to have collective representation and more bargaining power; Second, limited representation will include re-employment issues which will provide better protection to the older PMEs; Third, the Amendment will make the Industrial Relations Act more inclusive and it is a very proactive and delightful development by bringing more PMEs within the tripartite framework.

I have three wishes. First, I urge employers to support unions in their extension of the scope of representation; second, I hope that more PMEs can join the union as a member, so as to enjoy better protection and benefits; third, I hope Singapore's unique tripartite relationship would continue to strengthen, and be ready to adapt to future changes of the workforce and the workplace.

( In English ): In conclusion, I applaud this set of amendments to the IR Act and thank our tripartite partners for their support. I look forward to our affiliated unions and unionised branches enlarging their scope of representation and bringing even more PME members within their membership.

In our journey towards staying relevant and outreaching and advocating for PMEs, we in NTUC and the Labour Movement will continue our endeavour and efforts in representing the rank-and-file as they continue to be the lifeline of our workforce. In fact, with this set of amendments, the current dichotomy between the rank-and-file and PMEs will become increasingly irrelevant as we aim to serve all collars of workers.

I urge and encourage all employers to support unions in their extension of scope of representation and help ensure PMEs are brought within tripartism through union representation and support. This will also further enhance our labour-management relations and build a workforce which is represented, motivated, productive, future-ready and future-proofed.

I call for PMEs in Singapore to embrace and take full advantage of this change by joining as union members and becoming a part of the labour movement of Singapore. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

4.42 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act. History has shown that strong, responsible unions are essential to industrial fair play. Without unions, industrial relations could be wholly one-sided. The unions in Singapore have played a critical role to set the standards across the board in wages, employment benefits and working conditions. It is said, "If you are making a decent salary in a non-unionised company, you owe it to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is to give out money out of the goodness of their hearts".

Given the changing profile of our workforce, the PMEs today will be the rank-and-file workers of tomorrow. The proposed amendments will allow the unions to remain relevant. With an increasing number of PMEs, the future direction for the Labour Movement is to get them organised and their union rights recognised by their employers as a condition precedent to creating a fairer workplace environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment will allow the unions to give the PMEs a greater level of protection over their workplace rights. In the past, it was assumed that PMEs have the financial capability to engage their own lawyers for any employment matter disputes but the reality is that many junior PMEs may not have the financial ability to undertake their own legal recourse, leaving them in a very vulnerable position. The ability for unions to represent PMEs will create a workplace environment that promotes greater transparency and fairness to resolve employment related disputes.

Let me share the experience of my union, Building Construction and Timber Employees Union (BATU), with one of our unionised companies. The Company underwent a major renovation. BATU had worked closely with the management on the deployment and transfer of the employees, many of whom were our union members. The management also allowed the union to negotiate on behalf of the junior PMEs as well probably because many of them were our union members and there was no concern on conflict of interest.

While management exercised flexibility in this area, however, on matters related to annual increment (AI) and variable bonus (VB), the management went by the book and stated that the settlement for AI and VB was only applicable to the rank and file covered by the Collective Agreement. Half of our junior PME union members were affected. The PMEs in different departments were given different quantum of payment. Needless to say, workers' morale was affected. With the proposed amendments, hopefully we would see less of such cases and improve the quality of workplace treatment that is fair to workers and issue on probable conflict of interest could be better managed.

The amendments would also allow the unions to have a bigger pool of capable members, including PMEs that the union could tap on to enhance union leadership. In BATU, we had experienced a situation where one of our key branch officials was asked to step down from the union committee after he was promoted to a junior manager. He could only be a union member even though the members wanted him to continue as a union leader. Even though he had no real managerial or executive responsibility, and could have continued serving in the union committee without any conflict of interest, the management was resolute in their refusal to allow him to continue in his capacity as a union leader.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there are potential PMEs who are union members that could provide strong leadership to the union. While I understand management's concerns with regards to allowing PMEs to join rank-and-file unions because of possible conflict of interests, however, allowing PMEs to be union leaders can promote a harmonious workplace environment between PMEs and the rank-and-file workers.

In one of our unionised company, the branch chairman was a PME and he was not covered under the collective agreement (CA) but the management allowed him to continue to be the branch official. As the branch chairman, he negotiated on the CA and AI for the rank-and-file workers, and attended to their workplace grievances in the company as well. In this case, our PME union official was very clear on what would be good for the management and what would fair to the workers. He was able to achieve a win-win outcome for both parties and hence, helped to maintain harmonious labour-management relationship. With the proposed amendments, I foresee that unions would benefit on having greater clarity on the PMEs that could be roped in to be part of the union leadership.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the proposed amendments would also promote greater ease and efficiency for unions and management during CA negotiations. In one of our unionised companies, the management allowed for the unions to represent the rank-and-file workers and junior PMEs as well, but insisted on separate CAs to minimise any potential conflict of interest. Even though BATU suggested to work towards one CA as many of the PMEs have no managerial or executive responsibilities and were earning below $4,500, we faced strong objections from the management. The merger could have benefited all parties in terms of common negotiation and allow for more fruitful negotiation, but the "no consent" by the management stalled the efforts for a combined CA. With the proposed amendment, we expect the above obstacles to disappear and the grey area on PME eligibility for union representation to diminish.

While I support the proposed amendments, I would like to suggest that MOM reconsider the guidelines on excluding salaried staff that have access to confidential information such as budget and finances of the company, or the salaried and personal records of other rank-and-file employees. There are instances where the staff are often tasked with mere processing and the nature of the job is mostly administrative. As such, they may stand to lose out more from being excluded from the CA, especially so as they may not be earning much to begin with. While I understand the concerns of including such staff, we should try to push to include rather than exclude as many as possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : The amendment to the Industrial Relations Act will allow more PMEs to be represented by the unions during the collective agreement negotiations as well as in the prevention and resolution of disputes at the workplace.

Among the amendments proposed to the Industrial Relations Act is for the unions to represent PMEs in issues related to re-employment practices. Presently, many workers, including those who are PMEs, are still healthy and wish to continue working. With this amendment, if employers do not allow a PME who is a union member, to continue working when the worker reaches 62 years old, the union can initiate discussions with the employer to ensure that the justification or compensation given is reasonable.

( In English ): The profile of our labour force is changing. While rank-and-file workers have been the backbone of the Labour Movement, the rising numbers of PMEs is a force to be reckoned with. To be free, employees must be given a choice regardless whether they are rank-and-file workers or PMEs. To have choice, they must retain in their own hands the rights to union representation and be part of the union family. I support the Amendment Bill.

4.51 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I do wish to highlight my interest as I am also the Managing Director of an MNC operating in Singapore.

PMEs make up more than 30% of the workforce in Singapore and employment of PMEs is growing faster than that of non-PMEs. Based on the latest Labour Force Report in Singapore 2013, the profile of PMEs reflect the higher educational profile of PMEs and the median age of PMEs is 41 years of age with professionals at the youngest at 37 years. With the growing proportion of PMEs in the workforce, it is, therefore, important that there be consideration given to how the interest of this group of employees is to be represented.

To address concerns of conflict of interest and the undermining of management effectiveness by employers, currently only executive unions can represent employees in managerial and executive positions on a collective basis. The Amendment Bill to the Industrial Relations Bill is recommending that constraints for collective representation for executive employees by the rank-and-file (R&F) unions be removed.

To prevent conflict of interest, I support the recommendations in the Amendment Bill to exclude from collective representation by rank-and-file unions, executive employees with specific roles and responsibilities. These include: executive employees in Senior Management positions who have substantial decision making role on industrial matters – someone who represents the employer in Industrial negotiations; executive employees that have access to confidential, budget and financial information including HR data; roles which perform or exercise any function or duty of power that may give rise to conflict of interest if they were represented by the trade unions. These are real conflict of interests as they impact policies, they impact decision making in an organisation and it does undermine the effective operations of the organisation.

Sir, we will all agree that PMEs are a heterogeneous group and have varied interests. I am recommending that guidance to employers on benefits for collective representation need to be considered at the company or the firm level rather than across an industry or job roles. PMEs have varied job scopes and responsibilities. Therefore, to try to classify collective representation of PMEs within an industry would be difficult. To do it by job title may also not be viable. This is especially the case for global companies as their HR policies and benefits are determined at a global level while taking into consideration the local laws in the country of operations.

The Tripartite Guidelines on Expanding the Scope of Limited Representation for Executives, which was released on the 26 November 2014, indicates that apart from using specific responsibilities, Unions and Employers may agree to adopt salary level as a proxy to determine eligibility. I suggest that rather than focusing on how much PMEs are paid, as responsibilities may be very different, it may be more appropriate to look at other factors or concerns impacting the role. For example, the hours of work, work flexibility and performance. Employers and unions should ensure that there is a framework of performance for employees and how performance is assessed. With regard to employee performance, to ensure that executive employee's interest are considered, employers need to have a clear process for performance feedback and management for executive employees. Feedback on performance must also be given to executive employees in advance and not only at the point of notification for dismissal.

While the Tripartite Guidelines indicates that the rank-and-file unions may represent its executive members individually for dismissal without cause and excuse, employers should still have the right to terminate for compliance, misconduct and poor business outlook and prospects.

The recommendation of the tripartite partners also indicates the expansion of the scope of limited individual representation for executive employees to include re-employment benefits. Given the profile and growing proportion of PMEs in the workforce, the question I am asking is, should re-employment be included for collective representation? Should unions and employers be negotiating a framework whereby the conditions or considerations for re-employment be outlined for PMEs? This may then minimise disputes regarding re-employment for executive employees.

I do want to, however, sound a note of caution. While it is important to take care of the interest of PMEs as they are a growing population of the workforce, the concerns of employers with regards to management effectiveness being undermined with increased union representation of executive employees cannot be ignored as this will impact decision for placing operations in Singapore and ultimately jobs.

The Act does try to address some of these concerns by outlining the scope of union representation by excluding executive employees with specific responsibilities as outlined earlier. The Tripartite Guidelines do supplement this by clarifying participation of executive employees in industrial actions. Taken together, there is some clarity to employers on the scope of representation as well as the participation in industrial actions for executive employees.

For management effectiveness, the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act does make it not an offence for employers to require as a condition of appointment or promotion of an executive employee with the specific responsibilities outlined, that the individual is not permitted to assume office or be a member of the rank-and-file union.

I do ask that once the Bill has been passed, that it is important that the Tripartite Panel considers putting in place timeframes for the dispute resolution process. This will ensure that executive employees concerns are dealt with expeditiously and with efficiency. In addition to building timeframes for efficient resolution dispute, I suggest that the panel considers the dispute mechanism so as to find the most effective way to resolve employee and employer concerns. As discussed earlier, the concerns of PMEs are varied and complex and trying to classify concerns by PME roles or across an industry may not be feasible. The recommendation is that concerns be taken at a company level.

Ultimately, for the amendments to be effective, the Unions will have to convince both PMEs, as well as employers, of the benefits of increased representation. Sir, with the above considerations, I support the Bill.

4.59 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker Sir. Today, the lines between rank-and-file workers and professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) are blurring. I am not referring to inflated job titles but indeed, the scope of work of a blue-collar worker versus that of a white-collar worker is no longer as clearly defined as before. In some cases, the way workers are categorised into PMEs or rank-and-file by firms may not truly reflect the actual work done or responsibility held.

In current context, the work of a worker may change or be enhanced or expanded over his employment term. He or she may also be given greater autonomy to execute more important tasks. Many rank-and-file workers have also upgraded their skills and progressed to more senior positions and hold greater responsibilities.

The Industrial Relations Bill amendments in 2002 allowed for limited representation for executives by a rank-and-file trade union. This latest amendment to the Bill is a timely one. As indicated by several other speakers earlier, the statistics are showing that the demographics of the Singapore's workforce are changing very quickly. More than one in three employees is a PME today and we will expect to see by 2030, two in three being PMEs at the workforce.

Today, the current workforce is made up of different groups of workers. Some within the existing group of rank-and-file workers are moving up the ranks, with better skills acquired and experience accumulated and educational qualifications obtained over the years. There are also increasingly more new entrants to the workforce who have tertiary education.

I would like to declare my position as the Executive Secretary of the Education Services Union (ESU) who today represents five out of every eight private education workers. Of those members that we represent, more than half have tertiary qualifications. Being knowledge-based workers, the private education sector is one whereby we expect to see more PMEs joining this particular workforce. Within the rank-and-file category, we also know of many union members who have upgraded and advanced in their careers. And to this end, I also represent the Singapore Shell Employees' Union (SSEU) and many workers there share the same trend. The revisions to this Bill are, therefore, timely and responsive to their needs.

Many workplace issues faced by our junior or mid-level PMEs are no different from those experienced by rank-and-file workers. In our experience, we have encountered several who have got workplace grievances, such as disputes over employment terms or retrenchment issues in his or her course of work.

According to the Ministry of Manpower's Labour Market report for the third quarter of 2014, PMEs made up two in three of the residents who were laid off. Over at the NTUC Devan Nair Institute for Employment and Employability, we see more PMEs seeking career coaching and placement help. This was previously mostly serving our rank-and-file workers but more and more PMEs are requiring assistance at the workplace.

Under existing laws, unions can assist PMEs individually in areas of retrenchment, unfair dismissal, breach of contract and victimisation. The amendments to the Bill will allow the union to represent our PMEs as a group by our rank-and-file unions and also to be able to individually represent them, if they face re-employment issues.

The amendments to this Bill not only set up a useful framework but also guide the tripartite partners to work out the terms of reference, the working mechanism, the facts to be surfaced in terms of disputes and areas where the stakeholders will have to do more work rather than just depending on the Bill to set up all the required efforts to be done.

For the amendments to work effectively, we have to go back to the basics. In Singapore, we have strong fundamentals that are built on tripartism. The tripartite partners – Government, employers and the trade unions - have established trust and forged close working relationships over the years. We share a common vision to achieve continued sustainable growth and a better quality of life at the workplace for our workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our strong tripartism ensures that implementing and educating stakeholders on the intent of such amendments will be executed effectively. Together, we have seen through several major initiatives, such as the re-employment policies and managing excess manpower during the last economic crisis in 2009. Our tripartite partners have been able to navigate the changes together, and work out a set of guidelines to aid in the smooth implementation of any challenges and new policies that will benefit the workplace.

In my experience, some employers have shared that they are worried about how the new amendments may constrain their business operations. One way to addressing their concern is to ensure that they have a clear and good understanding of what the amendment to the Bill serves to do, to look at the spirit of the law and to work with the tripartite partners to ensure that their line supervisors, their HR and their senior management understand this particular amendment.

Employers can also work together with the unions to develop and enhance their existing employment contract and terms. With fairer and more reasonable contract and better workplace practices, this will bring about a higher level of trust and transparency between the employer and employee, whether they are rank-and-file or PMEs. In this way, I believe that companies will continue to thrive because they can engage their PME staff better or work through issues together in a harmonious manner.

It is imperative that we continue to work together as unions, employers and the Government, to expand the areas where we can better look after the needs of our workers. In supporting this Bill, I believe the tripartite partners will demonstrate the resolve to move positively in the right direction and strengthen our collective competitiveness. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the amendments to the Bill.

5.06 pm

Ms Lee Li Lian ( Punggol East): Thank you, Sr. According to Singapore Workforce 2014 by MOM, the number of resident PMEs has increased by an average of 4% per annum over the past 10 years. Today, PMEs comprise about 31% of the workforce and this number is expected to continue to grow. With the growing proportion of PMEs in the workforce, amendments made to this Bill to provide better protection for more workers is thus welcomed.

I have two clarifications on the Bill.

The first one, according to section 17, sub-section (3), there is limited representation for executive employees. This could possibly include employees who are in junior or mid- level management, with job functions that includes managing, directing, legal, human resource and finance.

What could these employees do when they want to seek redress?

Given that employees in Singapore could be multi-tasking within the company; this could lead to many employees having limited representation under this Act. This could also lead to contractual manipulation by employers to restrict their employees' rights. What can be done to prevent this?

In addition, is there any person or class of persons which the gazette had declared not to be employees for the purpose of this Act?

For class of persons with limited representation under the Act, should their occupation be stated explicitly in the gazette or the Act itself to avoid confusion and surprises? What can the Ministry do to help employees make an informed choice when accepting a job offer or taking on additional job scope? What does the Ministry intends to do to generate more awareness among employees about this Act, especially those with limited representation?

Next, this Act also excludes trade unions which have not been given recognition by an employer to act on behalf of employees. In order to know if there is adequate representation, how many trade unions have applied to be accorded recognition by employers and how many have successfully done so?

In conclusion, I look forward to the Minister's clarifications on the points raised.

5.08 pm

Mr K Karthikeyan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Tamil, please.

( In Tamil ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : I thank the Deputy Speaker for the opportunity given to me to take part in this debate. I am glad and honoured to speak and share my thoughts on this important issue which is close to my heart, and the hearts of my fellow unionists in the Labour Movement.

Sir, every job has its own professionalism, and not many colleges and universities teach about running a Union and the closest is the Human Resource Management (HRM) course taught in UniSIM. Many rank-and-file union leaders have pursued their career in HRM and even have gone further to foreign universities to master this subject. Indeed, Sir, this job requires passion more than knowledge.

With the changing demography in many parts of the world, developed and developing nations are seeing more executives and managers in their workforce. Singapore is not spared either. Our statistics shows there are more professionals, managers and executives in the workforce. When faced with a dilemma in a legal issue, people approach a lawyer. Similarly, employees in whatever position they are in the company want assistance on work-related issues they also want a professional to handle their grievances.

The union leadership covering the majority of the workforce will be relevant in solving issues and managers and executives can provide leadership to the Labour Movement. With this amendment to the IR Act, many stand to benefit the coverage of the union, and many are now deprived of that. To my knowledge, there are companies who provide benefits below the Employment Act for those beyond the coverage.

Sir, unions were representing about 80% of the workforce in the past, with this new amendment, unions will be representing close to the past percentage. With the influx of professionals, managers and executives, the rank-and-file members will stand to benefit with their expertise.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to-date, many PMEs are not informed of the reason for their retrenchment, termination and dismissal. With these changes in the law, they will be covered for re-employment in addition to the four areas in the past. This is most welcome by the PMEs and the Labour Movement.

( In English ): As Singaporeans aspire to study further and start their working lives as PMEs, they will heave a sigh of relief that our law will look after them in the most important aspect of their careers. They also know that they can seek help from a professional unionist when the need arises.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I commend the good efforts of the Ministry. Our challenge now is to work together as tripartite partners to change the mindset on the ground. I am encouraged that the public sector will lead by example. The rest of us should not wait. We all can play our part. Let us all change together.

This amendment portrays a strong tripartism which many nations are envious of. Sir, I support the Bill.

5.13 pm

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Sir, since 2010, the Government has made tremendous efforts to rationalise the structure of the labour force to ensure that it is placed on a more sustainable footing. The move away from excessive reliance on foreign manpower has been at the centre of such efforts. I have been particularly heartened by the Government's decision to take the hard choice of keeping to a consistent line on the gradual pace of increasing foreign manpower levies. I have no doubt that such a policy will stand us in good stead in the long run.

Limiting the growth of foreign manpower has been a necessary if difficult move, but will not by itself be sufficient to produce the transformation of the labour force we need as rapidly as we would like.

Sir, the transformation can be quickened by creating a more conducive climate for change as well as deepening the extent to which labour market participants can involve themselves in that change.

Hence, apart from just focusing on foreign manpower limitations, the Government has also worked on other fronts, including encouraging increased labour force participation of older workers and women, promoting continuing education and training, and emphasising the deepening of skills before the pursuit of qualifications.

In 2012, in recognition of the ageing of our workforce, a new re-employment law was introduced.

Sir, the current Bill before us takes account of the changing profile of the labour force, and is another important policy response that will enable the Singapore workforce to meet its challenges in bridging that gap in transformation.

Contrary to the view that we should reduce or slow the curbs on foreign manpower, I believe what we should do is to accelerate the pace of the adjustments at all levels so that the ultimate objective of a more sustainable, productivity-enhancing, model of labour force growth can be achieved sooner.

Advancing the activism of labour unions in these areas of change can help to propel the labour force towards that goal faster. This is how I interpret the implications of the amendments in this Bill. Singapore's record of industrial harmony has been a key pillar of its success, and is another debt we owe the pioneer generation who built this nation of ours. The harder that workers of our pioneer generation toiled, the more self-effacing they were, and the quieter they remained about their achievements.

In the next phase of our nation building, workers will continue to be a key factor. Hence, it is important for labour unions to remain as representative as possible in the face of changes in the profile of the labour force.

Although increased union activity could increase costs for employers, such activity need not be always be an impediment. As disruptive technologies pose a huge challenge to workers as well as their employers, responsible unions can instead drive change in the right direction. In order to nurture a resilient and sophisticated workforce in response, the union movement can play an important role through its membership base to effect change in areas such as workforce upgrading as well as improvement in work processes.

Apart from collective bargaining, this Bill expands rank-and-file union representation of individual executive employees to disputes in re-employment. This is an important new step, building on the labour market flexibility that resulted from the introduction of the Retirement and Re-employment Act of 2012.

Sir, this Bill is an important demonstration of the continuing policy responsiveness of this Government in labour market matters. It sees to the changing needs of workers as a result of evolving conditions in our labour market.

I have only one question about this Bill. I would like to know why the Bill makes such a limited expansion in the number of areas where rank-and-file unions are allowed to represent executive employees. There are other areas where allowing such representation would be useful. Just as re-employment is a growing area of concern for an economy with an ageing population and a limited indigenous labour force, fair competition for jobs is also important. At the moment, such matters come under TAFEP. I would argue that labour unions should be allowed to represent executive employees in hiring disputes. Labour unions are well-placed to move beyond the emotive aspects of such disputes and to engage constructively with employers to understand the situation from the employers' perspective. For a country which has been reliant on and benefitting from foreign manpower for as long as we can remember, this is not a trivial issue and adding a union perspective in dealing with hiring disputes will be an important addition.

By availing union representation to executive employees in hiring disputes, local workers will be given deeper assurance of the protection they can depend on, while unions will gain a broader understanding of the true state of the level and type of competition local workers face and, hence, be equipped to conduct more effective advocacy on their behalf against actual hiring biases. Ultimately, beyond approaching the issue from an adversarial perspective, more can be done to deepen our understanding about the trade-off between labour market diversity and nurturing of local talent that enter into every employer's hiring consideration. Given the fact that the openness of the labour market has been an important contributor to our economic development, it would be important for the union movement to play an active and responsible role in preserving the delicate balance in hiring that is key to that openness.

Beyond hiring disputes, there are other areas which concern executive employees that would ultimately impact the development of the local workforce. In general, I believe, it is useful to see the Bill in a larger context.

Sir, throughout the world, labour unions are transforming, moving beyond confrontation and seeking to re-position themselves to address contemporary issues such as international competition. With a broader scope of representation, unions can take the initiative to approach employers and explore concerns about issues such as job matches and a workplace that is more conducive to productivity.

In conclusion, I believe that the importance of the Amendment Bill is that it recognises that changes in the labour market should be supported by a more responsive framework in the laws governing labour union representation. Without the support of an up-to-date legal framework, workers will feel unrepresented and unions risk becoming irrelevant.

In this day and age, most union leaders, especially in Singapore, understand that it is better to increase the value of workers to employers as a means of getting a better deal. They understand that calls for pay increases that are unsupported by improved performance could simply translate into lower employment.

For this reason, I urge the Government to continue to explore expansion of areas in which rank-and-file unions can represent executive employees and to consider ways to strengthen the capacity of responsible unions in engaging employers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.20 pm

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill was proposed to allow PMEs to participate in collective agreements. I am heartened to know that the recommendations by the tripartite workgroup are generally well-received on the ground and the Ministry is taking proactive steps to extend collective representation to PMEs, who, in the past, had limited access to union representation.

A resident of mine wrote to me, who is working as a PME for a local company, telling me that he had a dispute with his former employer. According to him, his former employer did not pay him his salary, did not contribute to his CPF, and did not reimburse him for his petty case expenses. He made a complaint to MOM. MOM, after investigation, ordered his former employer to reimburse him his salary, CPF contributions, and petty cash expenses in full. His former employer is currently disputing MOM's order at the High Court and the resident now has actually spend thousands of dollars to engage a lawyer to file the claim against his former employer.

The union will not able to help now without the amendment to this new Bill. PMEs like him who in the past could only seek recourse for their grievances with costly legal bill will, now, hopefully, with this new amendment will be able to have an additional avenue to address their industrial disputes.

The amendment to the Bill is also a first important step towards extending collective representation to those who needed it but were denied of it because of the nature of their job. I therefore hope that the Ministry can also consider extending the range of the collective representation to eventually allow unions to represent PMEs in industrial disputes that are currently excluded from this amendment. It was reported recently that MOM has taken actions against a maritime firm for discriminatory treatment of Singaporeans. In that particular incident, MOM's investigation uncovered that 13 Singaporeans were retrenched as a group with unfounded justifications. Although PMEs can seek recourse and resolution for such incidents through the Employment Act and Fair Consideration Framework, I am of the opinion that it is also useful for unions to be also able to represent PMEs in such cases.

Nowadays, we also begin to hear more anecdotal stories of PMEs on how their senior colleagues have been retrenched because it is less costly to employ someone younger or to hire a foreign PME. Although PMEs who are unjustly dismissed could approach MOM for assistance, the unions can act as first line of support to protect deserving PMEs from unfair dismissal through dialogues with employers and negotiations. Dialogues between union representatives and management could possibly prevent such unfair dismissals from happening and escalating to a level where the Ministry has to step in to take punitive actions against the company.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to continue in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] : Deputy Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill will allow the industrial relations in Singapore to be further enhanced. This is a win-win solution arising from the participation of and discussion between various parties. This new amendment Bill will help PMEs who are involved in labour disputes or face unfair treatment to have a convenient and effective way of resolving their disputes. More importantly, by becoming a union member, PMEs can be represented by the union and their interests be fought for. The collaboration spirit of Singapore's harmonious industrial relations will be enhanced, which will help to prevent future industrial disputes. The core team of a company can work together under a harmonious industrial relationship, much to the benefits of the company's development.

Because of this, I hope that MOM can ensure that all the employers understand and support this Bill, particularly the SMEs. The SMEs are now facing all sorts of problems; they may mistakenly believe that this is another legal requirement which could cause difficulty to them. MOM should explain to them that this is not to give them more troubles; instead, this is a new incentive and framework to help them develop.

It is necessary for MOM to introduce support packages and communication plans to encourage SMEs to understand and adopt this new industrial relations framework.

MOM should also strengthen cooperation with SCCCI and other chambers of commerce to help SMEs understand this Bill and the two tripartite guidelines.

Let the Government and the enterprises work together; let everyone in the whole company worker together to bring Singapore enterprises to a new height.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.27 pm

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I wish to declare that I work in the NTUC and am involved in the running of a number of unions.

Today, I wish to speak on two aspects of this Bill. First, I want to discuss how this Bill will impact Singapore's attractiveness to investment and to good jobs. Second, I want to give my explanation as to why I think it is right and timely to include Re-employment matters into the scope for limited individual representation.

First, my comments on these amendments and the Bill on Singapore's attractiveness to investments and good jobs.

Sir, when Singapore was a much cheaper location to base investments in, we could use factor cost advantages compared to the more developed countries in order to attract the companies to come here and put their investments here and to expand their operations over here. That relative cost advantage, together with a hardworking and fast-learning workforce, allowed Singapore to make up for what we lacked at that point in skills, in capabilities and market to some extent.

In addition to these factor costs, Singapore also offers what I would termed "systems-level attractiveness". And by this I mean, in particular, the ease of doing business, zero tolerance for corruption that enable a transparency of costs to businesses, predictability of Government policies over a longer horizon, and industrial peace through tripartism.

Businesses know that these systems-level considerations are not trivial when they compare country with country, city with city, in deciding where and when to site, to expand or move their investments and operations. They decide based on the composite assessment of cost plus these other systems advantages. They know that, Singapore knows that as well.

Over time, costs in Singapore have risen. Whether we look at land, labour or utility – over the longer period – they have risen. And it is fair to say that we are no longer considered a low-cost investment location.

Since it is clearly becoming harder for Singapore to compete purely on factor cost, it means that Singapore must focus on two key areas in order to maintain our attractiveness to good investments and the good jobs that they bring. We must improve productivity and continue to climb the value-added ladder in order to offset the cost impact directly. We must also ensure that our systems-level advantages are continually safeguarded and enhanced to help keep up our total attractiveness.

Sir, today's amendment of the Industrial Relations Act, in my view, comes under strengthening this second thrust of safeguarding our systems-level advantages through enabling the continuation of industrial peace.

How is industrial peace achieved and how is it maintained? Some people may think that maybe industrial peace can be legislated, for example, if you make a law to outlaw strikes and work stoppages. This clearly is a naive view. Believing this would be like believing that you can keep the pressure in just by keeping the lid on. You do it this way and in the end what you get is really a pressure cooker bomb.

Some others may think that industrial peace maybe can still be legislated, and this time you find another law, perhaps the Employment Act, and then you put all the terms under that and you guarantee that. In my view, that would be an impractical view because what the Employment Act can do is to specify minimum standards for all companies and industries; in other words, every business that operates in Singapore. It will not be able to be all things to all kinds of employees, companies and situations. So, if you were to rely on the Employment Act alone, I think you will tend to gravitate to the lowest common denominator and, in fact, create and suffer a high degree of rigidity.

The Industrial Relations Act, therefore, offers a viable way forward. Building upon the requirements of the Employment Act, it allows companies and their unions to work together flexibly for win-win outcomes that benefit both shareholders and employees. It allows for the customisation of arrangements that best address the needs and concerns of the stakeholders at the enterprise level.

Some employers may hold the view that allowing unions to represent their workers in industrial relations will reduce their degrees of management freedom, and feel that, really, if it was not possible to not have unions, then it might be better to limit the role of the unions as much as possible. While I can understand this point of view, especially if these businesses have had prior negative experiences elsewhere in the world, it is not the situation here in Singapore.

This brings me to a key point. I think amending the Industrial Relations Act in a manner proposed is an absolutely necessary step. However, I also wish to say that the effectiveness and value of the Industrial Relations Act in operation depends critically on the effectiveness of tripartism because it is tripartism that gives Singapore's industrial relations its spirit.

How can we then describe this Singaporean spirit of tripartism? Tripartism in Singapore has been painstakingly fostered, tested and strengthened over the past four to five decades – through good times and crises – to manifest that collaborative and forward-looking essence. It is both pro-business and pro-worker at the same time, and it can adapt dynamically as companies, industries and the economy go through ups and downs. The deep mutual trust nurtured among the three parties to this relationship is both a lubricant and a safety catch. This is not theory that I am talking about. This is a proven fact here in Singapore over many years.

So, the core question is this: would allowing general unions or rank-and-file unions to also represent managerial and executive members, subject to the exclusions for conflict of interests, be more likely to crimp management and make running businesses harder, or more likely to bring the fast-growing number of PMEs within the benign and I would say even benevolent coverage and care of Singapore's proven win-win tripartism, thus reinforcing the prospects for continued industrial peace and attractiveness to investments?

To me, the historical evidence over these past decades is so clear – inclusion within tripartism is the wiser choice for all.

The alternative to this would be to deal with challenges in industrial matters on an ad hoc a nd scattered basis, making such handling not only more complicated for companies but also beyond the ability of tripartism to help should things go haywire.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I move on to my second aspect which is on the inclusion of re-employment. We all know that the Retirement Age Act was amended in January 2011 to include re-employment as a general statutory obligation on employers when their workers reach 62 years of age, and that law took effect from January 2012.

It is common knowledge that the labour market is very tight, and many companies face genuine difficulties in meeting their manpower needs. This tightness is forecasted to continue.

Re-employed manpower is not only a good source of headcount, but also of experience and networks. At the same time, mature workers reaching the statutory retirement age want to have the chance and choice of continuing to contribute and earn income.

Under the re-employment law, individual workers who feel that they have not been fairly treated by their employers can take up the matter themselves with the Ministry of Manpower, and there is a conciliation and arbitration mechanism in place to deal with such complaints.

Rank-and-file workers may already be represented by their unions, if they are members, for re-employment issues. As for managers and executives who are members of rank-and-file unions, they cannot at this point be represented by their rank-and-file unions for re-employment issues as only four categories have been legislated for such individual limited representation, namely, retrenchment; unfair dismissal; victimisation; and breach of contract.

Therefore, as the ranks of the PMEs swell, and as more baby boomers reach retirement age in the coming years, we should be proactive in working out viable systems arrangements within the tripartite framework to handle this important area promptly and with fairness.

The proposed amendment to include re-employment as a fifth category under the limited representation is, therefore, both timely and prudent.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore has to find ways to maintain our attractiveness to investments and business so that our citizens can make a better living and have good prospects. The world is a volatile, uncertain and complex one. Our own demography and workforce structures are changing. In the midst of all these, we must devise arrangements to maintain fairness, stability and advantage so that our people's future will continue to be hopeful.

These amendments to the Industrial Relations Act will help us move in that direction. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.37 pm

Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Zainal Sapari, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Ang Hin Kee, Ms Lee Li Lian, Mr K Karthikeyan, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang and Mr Heng Chee How for their views and support for the proposed changes to the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Lee Li Lian sought clarification on the five grounds of exclusion from collective representation with regard to the extent to which the exclusions will kick in and cases where union affiliation could give rise to conflict of interest. Mr Zainal Sapari suggested not excluding from collective representation salaried workers who merely process confidential information and who do not hold senior positions in their companies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, tripartite partners have carefully considered the criteria to determine eligibility for collective representation, and consciously decided not to be overly prescriptive. In determining the classes of employees to be represented, it is important to preserve flexibility for employers and unions in their negotiations. As the proposed amendments are meant to allow executives greater access to union representation, the exclusions are generally not meant to apply to junior executives. Furthermore, employees who are tasked with mere processing of confidential information would generally not be executives, and hence are not included in the scope of this Bill.

The specific executives or classes of executives who are eligible to be represented will ultimately depend on the circumstances and structures of the organisations. Employers and unions should work closely in the spirit of cooperation to reach an agreement on the issue of eligibility.

As I highlighted earlier, we all would generally prefer more prescriptive definitions, we would like clearer parameters, but the world has changed. It is a lot more difficult to define the specific roles for each of these PMEs, as executives. As I have mentioned, in different organisations, you have different structures. In a particular organisation, an executive may hold certain responsibilities. In another, it could be quite different. So, we believe that in the spirit of tripartism, this space afforded both employers and unions would allow the negotiations to take place. We need to learn to embrace that change, and to embrace that space that we have in order for us to carve out what we define as a common space for everyone to move on.

In our consultations on the Bill, employers have raised concerns on the impact on business operations and managerial effectiveness. We have heard Ms Jessica Tan's concerns and this is echoed by many of the companies out there. We understand that. It is important to realise that there are conflicting needs – unions, workers, employees. Employees may prefer much more extensive inclusion, more inclusive approach, whereas companies would have reservations, and both views are valid. Ultimately, we need to find a halfway position not so much directly in the middle, but a formulation that works best for all parties concerned and ultimately benefits all of us here in Singapore.

So, let me first assure the House that the proposed amendments that we are debating today are meant to provide those additional options for employers and unions to consider. Employers and unions can adopt the modality and arrangement that best suits the structure and circumstances of the organisation and the needs of their executives. To address the employers' concerns, we have, as mentioned, taken the approach of allowing flexible implementation on the ground to take into account the differences that exists across industries and organisational circumstances, and, in the consultation, that has come out quite clearly.

In response to requests from employers, tripartite partners have released a set of guidelines ahead of the legislative amendments to help prepare unions and employers early and address concerns that they had about how they should adapt to the proposed amendments. Again, this is the guidelines that are issued by our tripartite partnership, and we have taken on board many of the various views and concerns expressed by many of you here in the House.

Employers have also highlighted in our consultations that the needs of the executives are different from the rank-and-file employees. Executives are a heterogeneous group, with a more individualised pay structure. Their remuneration package includes items such as performance bonus or wage increment which are pegged to their individual performance, rather than being fixed. In addition, the pay structure of the executives in multinational companies is typically determined, as highlighted by Ms Jessica Tan, by the global HR policies that are beyond the shores of Singapore. These conditions make it challenging for us to negotiate for traditional collective agreement items, such as wage increments or bonuses.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as mentioned earlier, we do want to avoid a narrow prescription of the arrangement that unions and employers should have. In fact, that is the wise approach to take in this instance. Both parties should be given the maximum amount of leeway for them to work out an arrangement that best suits the needs of their executives. This round of amendments will broaden the range of options for unions and employers to consider.

For example, tripartite partners noted that granting recognition for collective representation of executives may not necessarily lead to collective agreements. Collective representation should focus on what is of collective interest to the executives. For certain companies and executives whose employment terms and benefits are highly individualised, the union can assist the executives in other areas which may be more important to the executives, such as career and skills development. The outcome will, therefore, be one where unions, executives and employers can all benefit.

Mr Patrick Tay also sought clarification on the union recognition process to represent executives. Unions who have been accorded recognition by the company for rank-and-file employees will have to seek recognition for the new classes of executives that it seeks to represent collectively.

I would like to thank Mr K Karthikeyan, Ms Jessica Tan, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan and Mr Heng Chee How for their support for expanding the scope of limited representation to include re-employment disputes.

The Retirement and Re-employment Act (RRA) that came into effect in 2012 covers all employees. This amendment complements the Re-employment Act to allow rank-and-file unions to represent its executive members in negotiations with employers on an individual basis for re-employment matters.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan also suggested that we further expand the scope of limited representation to represent executives in ensuring fair competition for jobs. These are important concerns for executives and my Ministry has introduced the Fair Consideration Framework in 2013 to address these concerns.

Limited representation for executives, on the other end, largely focuses on end of employment issues, such as dismissal, breach of individual employment contract, retrenchment benefits and re-employment, for which unions can help in resolving disputes for their executive members who have been employees of the organisation. Thus, limited representation is perhaps not quite the right mechanism to deal with the issue of fair competition for jobs. For that area of concern, we have introduced other measures in this House previously.

Ms Lee Li Lian asked what can be done to help the executives who remain excluded by the proposed amendments. She would be pleased to note that the upcoming Employment Claims Tribunal, which I had mentioned earlier, will cover all employees including executives earning above $4,500 and regardless of job responsibilities, and provide them with an expeditious and affordable channel for resolving their various employment disputes, which we know crop up from time to time.

Ms Lee also asked about the number of trade unions that are approved for representing executives for purposes of negotiating with unions. We have received feedback from NTUC that some unions have discussed and worked out agreements with management on the forms of representation for executives. However, we do not have the official statistics as yet.

Since the introduction of the limited representation in 2002, many unions have recruited many executives to join their ranks. This is not a new move. We started this move quite some time ago. We are building on it. Mr Ang Hin Kee and Mr Zainal shared about how their unions have built up over time to serve more executives. I am heartened to hear about the good progress made by the rank-and-file unions, which have benefited many junior executives.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang spoke about the transition that unions have to go through in response to the changing workforce profile. Rank-and-file workers will remain the core of rank-and-file unions. I would strongly encourage the unions to persevere in reaching out to the executives, so that they can also better serve the needs of this growing group for a more inclusive Labour Movement. And with the proposed amendments, rank-and-file unions can serve the needs of all classes of workers.

This transition is not just for the unions. Government and employers have to evolve as well. I have outlined earlier the slew of initiatives that the Government has rolled out targeting the executives. Employers too need to step up to these changes and work with the unions in addressing the needs of their executives.

To sum up, this Bill will provide additional options for workplace representation of our executives. There will be an additional avenue for executives to seek collective representation. Limited representation will continue to be an option to help executives address their individual disputes at the workplace, including re-employment disputes. I would like to assure Ms Jessica Tan and Members of the House that my Ministry will ensure that disputes arising out of the implementation of the IR Act will be dealt with in an expeditious and efficient manner.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a culmination of tripartite partners' efforts over more than a decade to make our model of tripartitism more inclusive. It is timely for us to review how we can expand and deepen our tripartite model to benefit rank-and-file employees, as we have done so over the years, as well as to look after the growing number of executives in our workforce.

I would like echo what Mr Heng Chee How shared about the industrial relations and the industrial peace that we have enjoyed, how important that has been for all our well-being. It is not something we should take for granted. We often do take it for granted in Singapore. In fact, we would be hard pressed to find the occasions where these conflicts come to a head, but it is common in many other countries. It affects investors' confidence as highlighted by Mr Heng Chee How, there are many different factors that investors look at when they consider moving to a particular country.

Indeed, compared to the past, we are not as cheap as before. That is simply because we have developed and that is a good thing. But we need to retain the competitive advantage because when companies and other investors are confident in Singapore and they anchor themselves here, they create opportunities for our people and that is important.

Our unique tripartite model has been a key competitive advantage for us in our 50 years of nationhood, and that has enabled companies to invest in Singapore for the long term with confidence. This tripartite partnership where the unions, employers and Government continue to work closely together is not something that we want to take for granted. As the world evolves, as the society evolves, we need to evolve our model of tripartism as well.

With this round of amendments, more disputes can be addressed early at the enterprise level, between unions and management. It will allow management now to bring to the fore PMEs, and for executives to be represented by a partner whom they are familiar with and whom they have had a constructive relationship with over the many years. This will allow and provide avenues to further strengthen the labour-management relationship at the organisational level and allow our model of tripartism to be a continued source of strength for Singapore, ultimately benefiting all Singaporeans.

So, once again, I thank all our stakeholders, including Members of the House, for their suggestions and inputs, for their support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do the Members have any further clarifications?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [

Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: ].

Bill considered in Committee.

Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: "The citation year ‘2014’ will be changed to ‘2015' as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement."

Clauses 1 to 17 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Emerging Gaps in Singapore's Sports Participation: ###### 5.53 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Benedict Tan, you have a maximum of 20 minutes.

Dr Benedict Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interests as the President of the Singapore Sailing Federation and Sports Patron of the Singapore Disability Sports Council.

In my clinic each day, I see lots of students from our local schools, with their parents in tow. At some point during the consultation, the Singaporean parent will ask, "Dr Tan, can you write my son an MC to excuse him from PE and sports? At the same time, can you also ask the school to allow him to use the lift?" You will see a similar dialogue with pre-enlistees or their parents requesting for excuse letters or permanent downgrades. Many doctors will tell you that these are common scenarios.

I see students from our international schools as well, such as the United World College and the Singapore American School. No, it is not the MC that they are after. Rather, they want me to sort out their injuries so that they can continue and finish the baseball season, and be fully fit before the swimming season begins! It is very common for students from the international schools to do multiple sports - with full support from their parents.

When I see such contrasting attitudes, it worries me. I am worried because this is just one manifestation of a systemic disease in Singapore's sports participation framework.

Singaporeans are pragmatic – we are goal oriented and we monitor closely our key performance indicators (KPIs). We pay close attention to what is tangible and measureable, that is, medals and grades. Without fail, before each Major Games, the media will ask me, as President of Singapore Sailing, what is our medal target and whether we are on track.

Do they ever ask me whether our sailors enjoy sailing, whether they are familiar with Singapore's rich maritime history, whether our sailors see sailing as a lifelong pursuit, whether they are inculcated with the desired values, or whether we have sailors who sail for reasons other than medals? I wish they did, because those are the pertinent questions that matter much more than the medals.

I would say that the SNOC, MCCY, and Sport Singapore have done a thorough job of reviewing our High Performance Systems over the years – from the Sports Excellence (SPEX) Programme in the 1990s, to the Committee on Sporting Singapore (CoSS), Project 08/12 Go For Gold and the Olympic Pathway Programme, to the current High Performance Sports (HPS) Programme. Through such comprehensive initiatives, our elite athletes have progressed to the point where we are winning Olympic medals, and last year our sailors won Singapore's first two YOG Golds. On the academic KPI, we have done exceedingly well, topping the IB exams for the fourth consecutive year and achieving the best showing at the "O" levels in 20 years.

What we need to do now is to pay more attention to mass participation, where the results and benefits are less tangible. Yes, we had Sports for Life in the 1990s, and the current Vision2030 master plan adopts a more holistic outlook, and we have introduced ActiveSG. Nevertheless, there appears to be worrying trends emerging in our local sports culture. I highlight 10 of them.

One, Singaporeans are not exercising enough. The 2011 National Sports Participation Survey revealed that only 42% of Singaporeans exercised at least once a week, down from 50% in 2005. Compare this with Finland's enviable 76% in 2005. Participation levels fell amongst Singaporeans below 60 years of age, particularly those in their teens, which fell by 16% to 68%. This does not bode well for our future. On top of that, blue-collared workers recorded a larger decline in sports participation compared to professionals, managers, executives and businessmen (PMEBs).

Two, too many of our young are not enjoying sports. When I ask my patients from the local schools if they look forward to their school's Sports Day, I get a cynical look. When I ask a patient from UWC the same question, she said, "We all love it – it's so much fun!" She continues effusively, "Sports Day is run over three whole days and everybody participates and gets to try multiple sports. There're aquatics, games, and athletics. We are rotated from one station to another, and end up trying a lot of things. You don't need to be good, and it is do-able for everyone!"

When young Singaporeans have a pleasant introduction to sports and physical activity, the exercise habit is likely to continue into adulthood and beyond. We need to review how we approach physical activity promotion across various groups, especially the young. We may have the best-laid policies and plans, but let us see how we can do better in bringing these into fruition.

Three, our motivation for being physically active is questionable. Do we do it because it is simply the natural thing to do, or because it is part of our culture and tradition? Or do we participate in sports to accumulate CCA points or notch a higher level of attainment under the Leadership, Enrichment, Achievement, Participation and Service (LEAPS) 2.0 framework; for direct school admission (DSA); or for a shorter BMT?

In our international schools, the norm is to participate in at least one sport. Many participate or compete in multiple sports despite the fact that the international schools do not award CCA points. In fact, do we really treat sports as truly "co"-curricular? In January 2000, MOE acknowledged the integral role of co-curricular activities in achieving the desired outcomes of education by replacing the term extra-curricular with co-curricular. It is work in progress, and I look forward to more and more Singaporean parents – and consequently their children - adopting the right mentality, participating in CCAs for the right reasons.

Four, there are not enough opportunities to learn sports. Again, citing our international schools as an example, there are ample opportunities for their students. For each sport on the comprehensive menu of sports that they offer, there are teams of various levels, including beginners. Another one of my patients from an international school was not much of a basketballer when he enrolled in the school, so he simply joined the novice team. As he got better, he progressed to team C then B, and eventually ended up in team A.

Contrast that with our local schools where parents have told me that if you are not good enough for the school team, you are not offered to a chance to participate in that sport at all. Take sailing for example. In the past, there were multiple entry-points into sailing. It did not matter if you did not start sailing in Primary school, you still had another chance to try out sailing in Secondary school, and if you missed that, there is still the Junior College and Polytechnic. Now, apart from the international schools, hardly any local school in Singapore will offer to teach you sailing. They accept only ready-made sailors.

I find this disappointing because a significant number of national sailors did a credible job of representing Singapore even though they started sailing relatively late. Stanley Tan and Stanley Chan got introduced to sailing through their Junior College. Stanley Tan went on to represent Singapore at two Olympic Games while and Stanley Chan is a multiple Asian and SEA Games representative and medalist. Despite such success stories, their Junior College has since shelved their sailing programme.

If our schools do not undertake to accept new entrants to various sports, there will be no future Stanley Tans or Stanley Chans. An FAS survey of 100 Primary schools earlier this year found that nearly one in two children wanted to play football, but only 5.9% of boys and 1.6% of girls were given a chance to.

Five, are our schools too focused on winning medals, at the expense of sports participation? Even school teams face the threat of being scrapped simply because they can't achieve a podium finish. The 14 December 2014 issue of The Sunday Times cited a veteran football coach who said, "My principal said the football team will be scrapped if we don't reach the nationals tournament." Is winning the only thing that matters to our schools? While policies have shifted, how can we help the policy implementers put it right?

Six, Singaporeans are struggling with their fitness levels. A lecturer at one of our Polytechnics estimates that 70% of Poly students fail their NAPFA test. Another lecturer at a different Polytechnic cited a failure rate of 60%-70%. Pre-enlistees struggle to get fit for national service and many NSmen struggle with their IPPT as well. MINDEF's recent simplification of the IPPT format and increased flexibility in the IPPT Preparatory Training (IPT) are steps in the right direction, as keeping the status quo will not yield better results.

Seven, reduced fitness levels in turn lead to increased obesity rates and a heavier burden of chronic diseases. Singapore's prevalence of obesity rose from 6.9% in 2004 to 10.8% in 2010 while diabetes rose from 8.2% to 11.3% in the same period.

Eight, our sports events can be more veteran-friendly. One is never too old to participate in sports and there is ample medical evidence that one can benefit from exercise even if one starts late. What message are we sending when Singapore's biggest marathon offers older runners only one age category, that is the above-40 Masters category? Lumping a 60 year-old runner together with a 40 year-old in the same competitive category can only discourage the 60 year-old even before the race has started.

When I was at the International Sailing Federation meeting last November, there was naturally and understandably a lot of emphasis on youth sailing and how to attract young people to the sport. Hence, I was impressed with the insight of a windsurfing official who reminded the meeting that, in fact, the biggest market for windsurfing is actually the older age groups.

Nine, the physically challenged are still facing significant barriers to sports participation. For the disabled, sport offers a beacon of hope and is an important avenue for reintegrating into society. Desmond Tong lost his right leg in a motorcycle accident in 1999. After the accident, his life went into a tailspin, he dropped out of university, was ostracised by his friends, and became depressed and suicidal. Through sports, he has since picked himself up and has been training diligently to do Singapore proud in the archery event of the ASEAN Para Games to be held in Singapore in December this year. His main obstacle now is not his missing leg, but the fact that he does not have a 70-metre range to practice after he finishes work on weekdays. Jason Chee, who lost both legs and his left arm while serving on a Navy ship in 2012, now represents Singapore in table tennis. Together with his doubles partner Darren Chua, he won a bronze medal for Singapore at the ASEAN Para Games last year. Jason is also now training hard for the next ASEAN Para Games. What is his number one obstacle? Jason says, "Transport to and from my training venue."

Dr William Tan, a long-time advocate for challenged athletes, added that apart from permanent training venues and transportation, another major obstacle faced is funding. Dr Tan shared, "The financial support from the existing carding system is meagre for challenged athletes. Any financial support received goes mostly to transportation costs."

Ten, the struggle for recreational space, especially for sports, is escalating. Agencies like NParks, URA, PUB, and SLA have been very progressive in optimising our shared spaces. As a result, we witness water sports in the heart of our CBD in Marina Bay itself, beautiful running tracks along our waterways, recreational activities on various reservoirs, and ciclovia – the closing of a section of Orchard Road to cars one evening a month in favour of pedestrians.

In a highly urbanised Singapore, there will always be challenges when it comes to sharing spaces. Take, for example, the constant struggle between cyclists and other road users or pedestrians. Last November, Eric Khoo, the organiser of the HolyCrit cycling race in Tanglin Halt explained that he did not seek permits from the authorities primarily because an estimated $25,000 to $30,000 in compliance costs that is needed.

The sailing community could not continue its proud tradition of the popular Round Island Race because permits would not be granted. Maritime security and safety are certainly valid concerns, but we need to push the boundaries and take a leaf from others. If other countries were as conservative as us, there would be no Sydney Hobart Race or boating activities in the busy Sydney Harbour or San Francisco Bay.

Each of these points represents a major obstacle to Singaporeans adopting an active lifestyle. Collectively, they form a formidable barrier to sports participation. Each of these issues falls under the purview of a few agencies. This is reminiscent of the fishball stick anecdote that Prime Minister Lee shared at the last National Day Rally. I hope we would not need a sports equivalent of the Municipal Sports Services Office to systematically address these multifaceted challenges. But let us not wait till our obesity levels catch up with the West, or for our healthcare costs to creep further up, or for the pipelines to our national teams to run dry before we strengthen our resolve to address these emerging gaps in Singapore's sports participation. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I call Minister Lawrence Wong, I just want to let Dr Benedict Tan know that my favourite subject in school was physical education. Minister Lawrence Wong.

6.09 pm

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Tan for his observations and his suggestions to improve sports participation in Singapore. Dr Tan spoke of several emerging gaps in our sports participation and trends that he had noted of some concern in our sports culture. These were, in fact, surfaced in our extensive conversations when we did our Vision 2013 masterplan. That was a masterplan for sport. It was an exercise that we undertook in 2011.

I should highlight that when we had these conversations while we heard many of these concerns, we also heard many positive things and one of the things that struck me when we had many of these conversations was that Singaporeans do continue to have a strong interest in sports. It is not just the people who had experiences in the past and reminiscence about the good old days.

Young Singaporeans, too, continue to have an interest in sports and there is nothing like sports that continue to excite us, that continue to stir our passions and bring our community together. You can certainly see that and sense that when you go for sporting events. There are many more in our calendar. They are all well attended and you can feel the excitement among the participants there at all of these events, be it a football game or say when we recently won the Asian Championships for netball in the New Singapore Sports Hub, the crowd was cheering for Team Singapore and the excitement was palpable.

So, I believe that many Singaporeans, young and old, continue to enjoy sports and they want to get involved in Sports. What they need is perhaps more opportunities to participate and to experience the joy of sports together. And that is why we launch ActiveSG last year as a national movement for sport. Through ActiveSG, we are bringing together a wider range of sporting programs to the community, relevant for different skill levels and different age groups. For example, we partnered the Singapore Athletic Association to introduce kids athletics programme, so they use modified equipment, such as lower hurdles, foam javelins to develop their motor skills. For seniors, we have weekly gym orientation programs, we invite them to come to the gym, work out and we give them tips on how to use the gym equipment.

I agree with Dr Tan that we must continue to find opportunities for older Singaporeans, active seniors, to engage in sports to stay healthy. When ActiveSG organised the Singapore National Games last year, we made a special effort to reach out and to encourage many active agers to take part in the masters category of the game. One of them is Mr Mike Ang, I met him at the closing ceremony of the games. He and his team mates participated in futsal. They are alumni from St Michael's Secondary School and they have been crazy about football since the 1960s. So, they participated in football, said this was a good opportunity for them to relive their football days. They made it all the way to the quarter finals before they got kicked out, but even so, he said that if the match had been longer, his team would have won. Clearly, the competitive spirit is there, and I am sure he will be back again for the next national games.

There are also many ActiveSG programmes that we are running to encourage busy Singaporeans to maintain an active lifestyle. We have something called urban trekking. I asked them what urban trekking is. It is basically walking, but you use walking poles, like ski poles. So, it is like Nordic walking for a full body workout. We introduced this at five sports centres and the response has been very good.

We are also organising more outdoor activities and that is why we launched Sundays at the Park, for example, to bring sports programmes into the neighbourhood green spaces, where they are convenient, where they are accessible to the public, especially the seniors. We started off with just four parks and now we have gone into 12. The programme is so popular at Choa Chu Kang Park that participation quickly increased from 50 in the first session to about 250 residents now.

These are some examples of what we are doing, and have been doing, particularly after Vision 2013, the exercise we conducted in 2011. How do we know that these efforts, including the ActiveSG programmes, are making an impact? Well, I will share with the House some indicators.

First, ActiveSG has grown quickly and steadily in its membership. Less than a year after its launch, we already have more than 670,000 members today, and these are not passive members. These are members who are actively using our sports centres and facilities and participating in the diverse range of ActiveSG events, from learn-to-play sessions to sport camps and workshops. For example, over the recent December holidays, ActiveSG organised an in-line skating competition at the Pasir Ris Sports Centre. This was a competitive event, but the parents we spoke to were less concerned about winning than being able to bond with their children.

One parent, Mr Ang Joon Hiang, was grateful for this opportunity to bond with his son, because they took part together in the father-son category, and he requested for more of such family-friendly sport activities in the future. We see many such parents and children groupings coming together to participate in our programmes.

They are doing it not for medals. They are not doing it for CCA points or grades, but they are doing it because they enjoy the game. They have the opportunity to spend quality time together as a family. So, that is one indicator of a success.

Another indicator which I would share is that we are seeing a change in the numbers coming to our swimming pools as well as the profiles of people coming to our swimming pools. In the past, our swimming pools or swimming complexes were left very much for serious swimmers to come and then they swim laps. They do regular training in the swimming pools.

Now, we are putting together more fun and innovative programmes in the pools. We have aqua, basketball, we have aqua spinning; it is cycling in the water, so that there is less impact on your knees – very popular with the elderly. We have flippa ball, which is a modified form of water polo. It is a junior version, so it is good for the kids.

So, with all these programmes, we are seeing an increased in the number of people coming to the swimming pools and also a change in the profile. We are seeing more families spending their weekends at our swimming complexes. This reminds me of one of our sports pioneers Mr C Kunalan told me when I launched ActiveSG last April. He said that he hoped ActiveSG will kick start "a new trend of families having a sporty life instead of just spending weekends at the shopping centres."

Now, I do not want to cause more problems for the retail market, but I do believe we are making progress in shifting mindsets. If we continue with these efforts, we can shape new and positive habits towards sports participation.

The third indicator is goes back to participation: we know from our surveys that the overall sports participation rate is, in fact, on the rise. Dr Tan cited the national sports participation survey in 2011 where he mentioned correctly that the proportion of Singaporeans who exercise at least once a week dropped to 42% and that was from 50% in 2005.

This national sport participation survey is done once every five years. So, the next one is in 2016, but in the interim years, in the years in between, we do some annual surveys, some annual dipsticks to get more updated data on sports participation. I am glad to share that our latest surveys for 2013 and 2014 show that the overall participation levels have in fact gone up to above 60%. We are not quite at Finland's level, which is about 70%, but we have made progress, and I think we should continue to make progress. This is also consistent with anecdotal feedback. It is not just about the surveys, because as I have mentioned, if you look around you, besides what we are doing for ActiveSG, in recent years, there have been many more sporting events. The calendar is filled with many sporting events. The number of running events is on the rise. Apart from serious running events and marathons for the fitness buffs, you have many fun community runs, all of which are very well-subscribed.

Cycling is another sport that is gaining popularity very quickly. The number of participants in the OCBC Cycle Singapore doubled from 5,400 in its inaugural year, to 11,500 cyclists last year. This is more than doubled, actually.

These are several efforts of what we are doing to provide more programming opportunities, and more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate in sports. We are seeing some results.

Besides these programming activities through ActiveSG, we are also doing more to address another concern that Dr Tan raised, which is to ensure that there is sufficient spaces and facilities for sports to be carried out, particularly, given our constraints of land. That is why I had announced previously in Parliament that we are working on a long-term sports facilities masterplan. We have five regional sports centres mapped out for this masterplan, the first of which is being built in Tampines. We are now planning for the next one in Punggol. There will eventually be five regional sports centres. At the town level, we are also adding new facilities and we are planning for a new sports and recreational centre, for example, in Sembawang. We are progressively improving our existing facilities, like the Ang Mo Kio swimming complex.

At the local level, that is, at the HDB estates, we are creating more sports facilities. We have started work on sports facilities within the precincts at Boon Lay, Jurong Spring and Tampines. We will gradually increase these sports facilities across Singapore, in tandem with the implementation of the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP), under MND. We are doing this in tandem with the NRP roll-out.

To make the most of our limited land space, we are also working with MOE to open up sports facilities in schools so that these can be made available for the public's use, after school hours. These are what we call the Dual Use Scheme facilities. It is used for school purposes, and for public sporting use.

We have already opened up many facilities. In fact, for new schools, we are ensuring that all new schools are built and designed with dual use in mind. So, sports facilities in all new schools will be designed for dual use. They will be implemented as such. For existing schools – close to half of them – already operate on this dual use model. Our aim is to eventually open up all of the schools with dual use, so that the school sports facilities can be opened up to the public. This year, we are going to make further progress by putting out 15 more indoor sports halls and 10 more school fields.

Dr Tan also raised several observations about the role of schools in promoting sports participation. I do not intend to get into all the details here. Some of these are probably more relevant to be addressed at the school level. So, it is a very specific level, for very specific feedback. I want to assure the Member that my Ministry – MCCY – and MOE are working closely together with Sports Singapore to address all of the concerns.

I would like to share three broad areas – very broad, but very important shifts that we have already made, particularly to address this issue of mindset and culture. First, we want to expose our students to sports through a quality and rigorous Physical Education (PE) curriculum. The lesson time set aside for PE has been increased to at least two hours per week. MOE has also revised its PE and sports development framework in the past year to emphasise holistic development and to encourage lifelong participation in physical activities. So, the idea is to give students more opportunities to acquire fundamental motor skills, to gain exposure to a variety of sporting experiences and to participate recreationally in physical activities. Hopefully, many more of them would be like our Deputy Speaker and would be able to cite PE as their favourite subject in school.

Secondly, MOE has also replaced the CCA-point system with a revised co-curricular recognition system that places more emphasis on participation. The new system recognises participation in sports activities outside school, such as those organised by the community clubs and the National Sports Associations (NSAs). Under this new system, students who engage in recreational sports can also aspire to achieve good CCA records. Again, an important shift, because it addresses some of the concerns that the Member raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have less than a minute before we run out of time.

Mr Lawrence Wong: There are these things that MOE is doing. I would not elaborate further. We can share more, and if the Member has specific questions on MOE, we can address that separately.

I just want to go straight to a particular point on sporting opportunities for the disabled. This is a very important point that the Member raised and it is something close to our hearts as well. We want sports to be inclusive, and we want to provide opportunities for all members of our society to participate in sports.

We have been providing more support for para-sports, for our athletes with special needs. In fact, we have enhanced our high performance sports system to provide more support to all athletes, including para-athletes. In our system, we provide equal support to both able-bodied and para-athletes. For example, we have an athlete like Laurentia Tan who is a paralympian, who today receives $90,000 of funding support a year. It is not just meagre support for transportation allowance. Ninety thousand dollars a year in the form of stipends and grants to support coaching, competition, equipment. We are providing more support for both able-bodied and para-athletes. It is not just financial support but support in many other areas. For a para-athlete like Nurul who plays boccia. She has spinal muscular dystrophy. She sits on a wheelchair and she takes a ramp to let the ball down to play bocce. We are working with Nanyang Polytehnic to do research on the design of the ramp, so that through research and development, we can improve the design and make it better for her. So, this is the support that we give to her.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would just say that this year presents us with a wonderful opportunity to further excite and inspire Singaporeans about sports participation because this year, we host the SEA Games in June and we host the ASEAN Para Games for the first time in December. Of course, we are working very hard to make sure that we organise a good Games for our friends from the region, but we also want to make sure that we leave behind a lasting legacy for the Games, for Singaporeans. That legacy must be one where we get more Singaporeans onto our journey of sports, participating in sports, supporting our Team Singapore athletes and ultimately, living better through sports. Thank you.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at 6.25 pm.