Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In general, our Employment Act explicitly excludes managers and executives in its scope of coverage. The Act was amended on a few occasions since promulgation and updated to offer limited protection to lower-level executives. On 1 February this year, the tripartite mediation process was introduced to cover union members earning less than $4,500 for specific head of claims. To date, the tripartite mediation panel has successfully mediated three cases involving executives with employment-related claims. The Manpower Ministry also offers PMEs a voluntary mediation route. However, I am concerned about the ambit and coverage of the Employment Act to PMEs. As our median salaries increase year after year and PMEs employment terms and contracts become increasingly complex, sometimes involving transnational and cross-border issues, I therefore ask this House how effective our current Employment Act has been in protecting the interest and providing recourse to aggrieved PMEs. The meaning and intent of the word "executive", which was provided in the Employment Act when it was first promulgated in 1968, and the meaning of "executive" today, 43 years later, I submit, surely, is dissimilar.

By the same token, we are increasingly seeing an increase in what is commonly known as "freelancers". They are independent contractors who do not fall squarely into an employer/employee relationship and, therefore, not protected by our labour legislation. We see such workers in various sectors such as tourist guides, freelance trainers and those in the creative arts and entertainment industry. They will need help too.

I have shared earlier the concerns and challenges of PMEs. We have questions to ask ourselves. What works or does not work for PMEs? Where are the new jobs for PMEs? What capabilities should we develop? Why do employers prefer Employment Pass holders than engaging our local employees? We need to examine our current national programmes, initiatives and capabilities. Are they effective? What should be the way forward?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, you are approaching the end of your 20 minutes, please try to round up.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Yes, Sir. What more can we do for this ever-growing group of PMEs who will surely form the majority of our workforce?

I have several thoughts and suggestions. PMEs will need adequate support for the "Four Ups" – up their skills and knowledge, up their marketability and employability, up their protection and up the spread of jobs and employment opportunities. I opine that the Government should work closely with tripartite partners to set up a task force to address PMEs' concerns over and above those highlighted earlier. Greater research and studies need to be undertaken to examine the short- and long-term ramifications and challenges facing this growing segment of the workforce. The issues are wide ranging and will cover, amongst others, the unemployment, employment and underemployment of PMEs. We need to find counter measures and solutions to these issues which may well involve reviewing the current legislation. And, finally, there is an entire chain of activities in enhancing the employment and employability of PMEs.

Page: 313

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, please end your speech.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Yes. We must be able to develop new capabilities to train and equip them and, therefore, I moot the possibility of creating a PME Capability Development Fund for this group of people.

Sir, in supporting the motion to thank the President, let me also call on all of us to turn any uncertainties and potential adversities to opportunities and to tap any opportunity to transform it to victory and harvest. We have so much going for us, for our fellow men and women, ourselves and for the sake of our children and their future, let us build on what we have to make Singapore a best place for all.

7.06 pm

Mdm Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion to thank our President for his Address. The President spoke about inclusive growth, and laid out the vision of providing each Singaporean the necessary platforms and opportunities to realise their fullest potential.

Sir, this resonates with me strongly. People are the foundation of any nation, but especially so in resource- and land-scarce Singapore, where people are our only asset.

In my meetings with business leaders, I often hear them lament that despite the availability of growth opportunities in Singapore, the key constraint to realising these opportunities is neither capital nor ideas, but the availability of talent. This dearth of talent has led companies to curtail their expansion plans, and some even contemplating taking their business offshore.

In the past, foreign workers and professionals have augmented our local talent pool. However, there is a limit to how many foreigners our society and infrastructure can accommodate. The Government has stated clearly the share for foreign talent will be limited to one-third of the workforce.

As we approach this limit, it is important than ever to find ways to tap on the talents of every Singaporean. Furthermore, Singapore has one of the fastest ageing populations and one of the lowest birth rates in the world. This highlights how critical it is for us to nurture every citizen and bring out the best in our people.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak today on how we can better support and nurture two groups of Singaporeans. First, I would like to begin with a subject that is close to my heart, that is how we can better utilise the potential of women in Singapore. Research has shown a clear link between gender equality and a country's economic strength. Indeed, Nordic countries that lead the world in many indicators of gender equality rank amongst the strongest global competitors with the highest standards of living.

Page: 314

The opportunity with women in Singapore was recognised early on. Back in 1975, our former Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said, and I quote, "Societies which do not educate and use half their potential because they are women, are those which will be the worse off. Those that do, and face up to problems of new social and family relationships to help working wives to bring up the next generation, are those most likely to provide better lives for their people. We cannot not educate and use the energy and ability of our women."

Singaporean women today have more opportunities than in the past. We have seen more and more women leading in their respective fields. However, we still have 58,000 women with university degrees not working, three times more than men. And despite recent gains, women's labour force participation remains low at only 57% as compared to that of men at 77%. Amongst women who work, few make it to leadership positions. Women only occupy 27% of executive-level positions, and 6% of board-level positions in Singapore top listed companies. Singapore only ranked 56th out of 134 countries in Global Gender Gap Index by World Economic Forum.

Sir, employing more women in the workforce contributes far beyond having more pairs of hands, or achieving egalitarian ideals. Women bring unique – and I emphasise unique – talents, skill sets, life experiences and perspectives to the workplace. There is a body of research which suggests that companies with a strong women representation at board and top management roles are also the companies that perform best.

The challenge of women juggling work and family demands is the key reason for low women representation in our workforce as women continue to be the primary caregiver. Close to 90% of women stop work due to family responsibilities. Over the years, I myself have counselled many female colleagues who struggle with the choice of staying at home or continue working, usually after having children. They are typically at the prime of their careers. They feel a strong sense of guilt of not having enough time for the family, yet they feel a strong sense of loss for giving up the career they have built and the financial security that comes with it. Juggling work and family can be a delicate balance. I remember my own days as a young mother, rushing home to see my sons during lunch break, that was the best reward for my working day, and that was usually only 15 minutes before I had to dash off again to drive back to the office for the next meeting. Being away on business trips was often a very miserable experience.

Sir, in modern Singapore, women who choose to work should be supported so that they can work and take care of their families at the same time. But in order for this to happen, they need ready access to child and eldercare services, they need their husbands as joint partners in raising their families, and they also need employers and the Government to adopt family-friendly policies. We still have some way to go in providing these. For example, despite the many discussions I followed in this House around flexi-work arrangements, women here continue to struggle with the painful choice between full-time work or no work, as flexi-work and part-time work arrangements, including home-based work, are not readily available. Sixty one percent of women who are not working have indicated they would work if flexi- and part-time arrangements were made available. Sir, being one of the most highly connected, technologically advanced countries, Singapore has all the natural levers to support flexi-work. Not leveraging this to enable women to stay in the workforce is truly a missed opportunity.

Page: 315

In addition, more can be done to help women to go back to work, especially those in the lower income group, as this will mean helping their families with extra income to improve living standards.

NTUC's Back to Work programme has helped 8,000 women return to the workforce, but there are still more than 235,000 economically inactive women between the prime ages of 25-54 that could be re-inducted. I have met a number of female residents who are frustrated of not being able to even land a job interview despite pursuing numerous training programmes, having taken some time off work. The reason is very simple: employers are not confident about their ability to adapt to the work environment, especially older women who have stopped work for some time. So, in many cases, the employer's concerns have less to do with the applicant's relevant skills, but more about her fitting into the working environment.

Sir, taking inspiration from the successful Jobs Credit Scheme, can we not consider a special grant to encourage employers to offer re-induction to women returning to the workforce? Under this scheme, which I will call the Re-entry Scheme for the purposes of this discussion, companies can obtain a grant from the Government for a limited period of time, perhaps three to six months, for hiring women returning to the workforce. This is to ease the re-induction of women into the workplace by immersing themselves in the operating rhythm and orientating themselves to the rigour of a new job. The Re-entry Scheme will help offset the employer's cost for on-the-job training for these women as well as any redesign of work arrangements necessary. Yes, this will be an investment by the Government, but this is an investment that is completely – completely – targeted to developing the vocational skills of the worker for the task she is already hired to do, rather than training given in the hope she will find a job. I would further recommend that this scheme be extended to older workers for the same purposes.

Sir, the experience of other countries and our own suggests that meaningful changes will not occur naturally. Instead, they are the result of determined and sustained Government interventions, regulations and provisions. We have only seen a mere increase of 5% in women labour force participation in 20 years. In the meantime, our fertility rate has slid to a historic low of 1.16. This contrasts starkly with countries such as Norway, where gender equality and female friendly employment policies make it easier for women to raise families whilst enjoying successful careers and financial security. Norway's women labour participation is at a high of 80%, and not surprisingly, the fertility rate at a respectable 1.96. Our lack of progress in this field is all the more conspicuous when stacked up against our many achievements and progress in many other areas such as the economy, education, environment and health.

What does it take to keep this issue at the top of the political and social agenda, to drive it to resolute and urgent action? Today, the issues highlighted are spread across Government agencies co-ordinated by an "office" within MCYS, which itself oversees a wide range of concerns from social welfare, youth, sports, community bonding to ageing. Can women and family not be represented by a dedicated Ministry, as in the other countries such as Sweden, New Zealand and Malaysia? There should be enhanced levels of resources, a strong mandate and authority to prescribe and enforce, rather than be left to the best efforts of the occasional campaign or promotion by different agencies. The integration of work and family is a national concern, and deserves to be addressed with the right policies, and a comprehensive strategy. Society should be educated and stakeholders should be given clear targets to aspire to.

Page: 316

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is time for us to give this area the impetus it deserves. Our success in doing so will mean higher household incomes, more fulfilling lives and happier families. And very likely, it will mean more babies. And we will have provided employers in Singapore an enlarged pool of talent who brings unique skills. Sir, this is a win-win-win scenario for the country.

I would now like to address the issues faced by another group, Singapore's professionals, managers and executives which I should refer as PMEs. Hon. Member Patrick Tay has spoken at length about their plight. Let me just add to that speech that has given a lot of insights to what this group is facing. Riding the wave of our vibrant economy, many professionals and executives are going to places and I have seen many making the most of the many opportunities available to them. But I have also met many of my constituents that are also anxious, as mentioned by hon. Member Patrick Tay, about their access to quality jobs and career prospects. Some have shared their concerns of seeing large numbers of foreigners in their workplace. They fear being marginalised by the liberal inflow of foreigners and having their wages depressed.

The reality is that business is all about pragmatism – given a choice, businesses will tend towards the most expedient, convenient and cheapest options to fulfil its objectives. And with the trend of business cycles becoming shorter and more volatile, business leaders are focusing on immediate opportunities rather than on investing in long-term solutions. So if there is an easily accessible pool of well-qualified, low-cost foreigners to tap into, there is less urgency for employers to invest in grooming Singaporeans for the same jobs.

This concern is amplified by global trends that shift growth drivers from West to East. Whereas in the past, the competition for jobs had come primarily from lower cost Asian countries and primarily for lower-skilled opportunities, Singaporean executives now also encounter competition from developed but job-scarce nations of the Western hemisphere. Head-hunters tell me how attractive Singapore has become to qualified candidates from the US and Europe, willing even to take a pay cut to learn about Asia from the most cosmopolitan city – that is, Singapore! Sir, we are a small country with a limited number of jobs on offer, yet we have become a magnet for talent from all over the world. What measures do we have in place to ensure Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce?

Sir, let me be clear about the point I am making. It is not about Singapore's need to access a diverse, globally competitive pool of talent, about which there should be no doubt. My point is about (1) how do we ensure employers sustain a preference to employ "Singaporeans first"? and (2) where it is not possible, how do we persuade them to invest in developing Singaporeans with the necessary skills to step up to those jobs?

The recent changes to the Employment Pass (EP) scheme will help level the playing field on pay and increase the overall level in terms of the quality of EP holders. It is definitely a step in the right direction, but many asked, can we do more? I must say our Employment Pass system that is targeted at the executives and managers is one of the more liberal systems internationally which mainly focuses on qualifying entry salary and education levels.

Page: 317

Here, the questions that my residents often ask me: Will locals remain at the core of our workforce if employers are not subjected to quotas on their intake of foreigners? How can we be sure that employers adopt a "Singaporean first" policy by trying their best to employ local talent before hiring foreign talent? Where employers claim that it is not possible to hire a Singaporean because of the nature of the job, how can we be sure that those particular jobs are correctly specified or paid? If those skills are indeed so rare, how can we persuade employers to train Singaporeans to fill those jobs? Sir, I believe these are very valid and important questions and we must find a solution to address them in a systematic and thoughtful way. Many countries, even the Gulf States, which welcome foreigners to supplement locals, have put in place measures that deal with the issues highlighted. This allows the admission of high quality foreign talent without adversely affecting the job opportunities and wages of locals. The possible introduction of a quota system can also play a key role in protecting strategic industries and guard against vulnerability from over-reliance on foreigners in selected sectors.

Of course, Sir, it is also important we do not take any steps suddenly, as it may shake the confidence of companies that have invested in Singapore and adversely impact our global competitiveness. At the same time, we certainly should not wait till the situation becomes so dire that corrective action becomes necessary. Instead, the initiatives discussed above may be introduced in a gradual and phased manner, so as to allow businesses to adapt to the changes. But the message will be unmistakeable: That their human resource planning must adopt a "Singaporean first" policy and cater for the placement of Singaporeans at the core of their workforce. They can then take the gradual but resolute steps to systematically prepare Singaporeans for the best jobs.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mdm Foo, you need to round up your speech. We are approaching the time.

Mdm Foo Mee Har: Okay. Sir, I wish to also point out that employers stand to benefit significantly from this. It is a common practice from enlightened employers to groom local executives in their succession planning. They understand that having a strong local team enhances business continuity and operational resilience, as Singaporeans are here for the long term. They possess a special connection to the local community and a finely nuanced understanding of the local environment, a key lever for being competitive.

In conclusion, Sir, I recall once again, the President's call for us to help all Singaporeans realise their fullest potential. For the last 46 years, we have proven time and time again that whenever we put our minds and our collective will to surmounting a challenge, we can succeed. I believe that Singapore can also lead the way in realising the full potential that women can bring to society. I believe that we can, and we should give Singaporeans the first chance at the best jobs amidst globalisation. And I believe our best days lie ahead of us, Singapore will be a city of opportunities, where our people learn and grow, and be the best they can be. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on that note, I end my speech by re-affirming my support for the motion.

Page: 318