EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.21 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Rationale

Singapore today enjoys strong economic growth accompanied by plentiful new jobs - last year was an all-time high of 176,000 jobs, of which 90,900 went to local residents. The economic prospects continue to look promising. We have a strong investment pipeline with a number of large infrastructural projects being completed over the next few years. Growth is broad-based across all industry sectors, especially finance, info-communications, marine and process industries. As projected, an estimated 450,000 jobs will be available in the next five years if the economy grows between 4.5% and 6.5% each year. These positive outcomes are a result of confidence in our

Column: 929

economic and labour policies which are business-responsive and pro-growth.

Together with NTUC and employer organisations, we have established practices for a flexible labour market, which includes the judicious use of foreign labour to meet rapidly changing manpower demands. Our labour policies and harmonious industrial climate have resulted in jobs for all. Our employment rate is already one of the highest in the world - 76% of working-age Singaporeans are in employment. The strong labour market will get even tighter, as our economy grows. The number of workers needed to sustain this economic growth has exceeded the local supply.

The ability of our companies to access foreign manpower is a comparative advantage. But our foreign worker policy cannot be based on a laissez-faire approach, which will be detrimental to our overall progress. To protect the well-being of foreign workers, we have imposed conditions on employers for their housing, remuneration and medical coverage. We also carefully identify where foreign workers are needed most and allow them into selected industries. We constantly monitor the labour situation and make fine adjustments to maintain the equilibrium between our economic competitiveness and other social objectives, to enable locals to compete for jobs. For example, we allow more foreign workers in the construction and marine sectors where locals are less inclined to work; we allow a lower proportion in the manufacturing and services-related industries, and almost none in community-based shops and stalls. We have also taken a more liberal approach, with lesser controls, towards foreigners with better qualifications and skills. This is intentional, to attract skilled labour for which there is a global shortage.

Column: 930

Workers seeking better employment opportunities abroad is an integral feature of globalisation and benefits both sending and receiving countries. But we should also recognise that there are syndicates which exist in many countries that seek to exploit vulnerable foreign workers. Many exact payment through empty promises of work, only to leave them hapless and stranded in dire straits, especially in those countries which have porous systems or weak enforcement. And from time to time, it happens here and is picked up by the press. This is a continuing problem and discussed in many global forums each year. I recently attended a United Nations High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development - that was the name of this meeting - in September 2006, which highlighted the problems of illegal employment and mitigating measures needed to be taken by both the source and receiving countries. Employers in Singapore who fall prey to the temptation of cheap labour in order to make a quick profit, can exacerbate this problem of illegal employment. As our economy grows, we can expect the proportion of foreign workers to increase with labour demands, and, with it, the temptation to illegally employ foreign workers. Other countries have found that illegal employment can escalate rapidly, if not nipped in the bud. So Members may have read, for example, that President Bush is pushing through a Bill for tighter border controls but in accepting the problem as a fait accompli , legitimising the status of some 12 million illegal immigrants already in the US. We cannot afford the number, even a fraction of that number. Malaysia, nearer home, is also exploring new laws to strengthen the regulation of its foreign workforce and curb the trafficking of illegal immigrants.

For Singapore, as a small island, we need to be vigilant and manage our foreign worker population well, to ensure that it continues to contribute positively

Column: 931

to our economy. We need a robust system with effective laws, enforcement and safeguards against the illegal entry and employment of foreign workers and ensure that their well-being is protected. We have therefore in recent years expanded MOM's Employment Inspectorate and built up capabilities in intelligence, operations and investigations, among other areas. This has enabled us to step up enforcement in targeted sectors, such as the food and beverage as well as cleaning sectors, where there were higher incidence of illegal employment. We have also enhanced promotional and outreach efforts to educate employers and workers about employment and immigration regulations.

To better manage the foreign workforce in Singapore, my Ministry has reviewed the Employment of Foreign Workers Act, or EFWA. This Bill amends the EFWA to increase the penalties for selected offences, introduce new offences and augment the powers of Employment Inspectors to facilitate enforcement efforts.

We will also take this opportunity to rationalise the legislative authority for all work passes. Currently, Work Permits and S-passes are regulated through a different statute from the Employment Passes. This Bill consolidates the legislative authority for all work passes under the EFWA, and renames it to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, or EFMA, to reflect its broader coverage. With the consolidation, the EFMA will be the key legislation governing the employment of foreigners at all levels in Singapore.

I will now highlight the significant provisions of the Bill.

Illegal employment

As I had earlier highlighted, the illegal employment of foreigners remains a

Column: 932

problem. Their errant employers evade levy payments, deploy these workers illegally, and ignore conditions imposed to protect their well-being. The number of illegal foreign workers arrested has increased from about 2,148 in 1995 to 2,868 in 2006. Currently, the penalties for illegal employment and levy evasion are bundled, ie, a minimum fine equivalent to 24 months of the foreign workers' levy and a maximum fine equivalent to 48 months of levy or imprisonment of up to a year or both.

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 5 and introduces stiffer penalties specifically for the illegal employment of foreigners - there will be now a maximum fine of $15,000 or imprisonment of up to a year or both, for each case of illegal employment. For multiple charges, any fines imposed would be cumulative, whereas the jail terms may be ordered to run consecutively or concurrently depending on the court's discretion. A mandatory jail term of between one and 12 months will continue to apply to repeat offenders. Any penalties imposed will be over and above the restitution of any levy evaded by such employers. Similarly, clauses 13 and 9 respectively amend sections 10 and 6A to impose the penalty of a maximum fine of $15,000 or imprisonment of up to a year or both on foreigners who are illegally self-employed, and on occupiers who permit a foreigner without a valid work pass to enter and remain at their workplaces.

Offences of deception

Next, offences of deception. We have made work pass applications user-friendly by allowing submissions through fax, mail or electronically. Work pass criteria are also made known to companies so that they have greater certainty to plan for their manpower needs. Some, knowing these rules, which are now made explicit, may choose to work around the system

Column: 933

through fraud. The number of foreigners who obtained their Employment Passes and "S" passes through illegal means, by either using fraudulent documents or over-declaring their actual salaries, has increased by nearly four-fold from 97 cases in 2005 to 374 cases in 2006. These workers have entered our system illegally and, if left unchecked, these abuses will over time undermine the integrity of the entire system. Accordingly, clause 22 increases the penalties for such offences, which include the provision of false information, the illegal trade and alteration of work passes and the possession of forged work passes, to be similar to those for illegal employment, which are a maximum fine of $15,000 or 12 months' imprisonment or both.

Clause 22 also creates a new section 22(2) which requires any employer, foreign employee or self-employed foreigner who knows or has reason to believe that an offence of false declaration has been committed, to furnish such information to MOM. For example, MOM investigators have come across cases where either the employer or employee, or both, are aware that false information pertaining to the qualifications held by the worker, or the salary to be paid, is being supplied to MOM as part of the work pass application process. However, because they use the services of a third party to submit the application, they choose to keep quiet about the breach. The new section 22(2) will allow MOM to reduce the number of fraud cases. The obligation on parties with knowledge that a deception is being perpetrated to report such knowledge to the authorities is not a new one. For example, it is an offence under the Bankruptcy Act for a bankrupt to fail to notify the authorities if he is aware that a false claim of debt has been lodged by any person under the bankruptcy. But let me assure the House that MOM has no intention of using this

Column: 934

new provision to prosecute minor, technical breaches. Rather, we would want to target those who have committed violations to circumvent our controls.

Powers of Employment Inspectors

To ensure better enforcement, the investigative powers of the Employment Inspectors are also enhanced. Similar to enforcement powers enjoyed by immigration officers under the Immigration Act, MOM's Employment Inspectors will be empowered under clause 21 to arrest without warrant both local and foreign suspects for offences of greater severity, namely, illegal employment, the active deception offences, as well as the obstruction of MOM's investigations. They will also be empowered to seize any offensive weapons when making arrests. New sections 21A, 21B and 21C are introduced under clause 21 to prescribe the manner of arrest, the proper use of restraints, and the procedure for the search of arrested persons. These are similar to the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Other amendments

This Bill makes other administrative and technical amendments to allow better administration of the Act. Clauses 10, 19 and 21G respectively clarify the application, issuance and renewal procedures for work passes, specify the circumstances and manner in which the employer or the foreign employee should inform MOM of address changes, as well as stipulate the mode of disposal of documents or articles seized during investigations.

For consistency, certain provisions that are currently under the Immigration Act are also replicated under this Act, including the exemption of the decisions of the Minister and Controller of Work Passes in relation to the issuance, suspension and revocation of work passes from judicial review.

Column: 935

The proposed amendments introduced under this Bill will enhance the regulation and protection of our foreign workforce. It will help minimise the number of illegal workers and their negative social and economic consequences, even as our workforce grows. A well-managed foreign workforce with proper safeguards for their proper deployment, health and well-being is important to ensure that our economic growth is sustainable and virtuous over the long term.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.35 pm

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, we recognise and affirm the contributions of migrant workers towards our economic development. Migrant workers, together with our local workers, have enabled our economy to sustain the growth momentum and helped us attract investments and grow industries. Take the local factories and restaurants, for example. They would not have survived without the number of foreign workers or employees who make up the shortfall in our local workforce. In turn, these workplaces continue to provide our local workers with employment opportunities.

Sir, NTUC is concerned about the welfare of all workers, local or migrant. The labour movement has always recognised and accepted the need for foreign workers to supplement our limited human resources, and appreciates their contributions to Singapore's economic development. Thus, the labour movement has constantly called on the Government to strengthen efforts to stamp out the problem of unscrupulous employers who use non-documented workers and ignore the conditions imposed to safeguard workers' well-being. Illegal or non-documented migrant workers are most at

Column: 936

risk of abuse and are without protection. To safeguard both the interests of local and foreign workers, we should not allow any foreigners to work in Singapore illegally or being illegally redeployed.

While a large majority of our employers are responsible employers and treat their migrant workers well, there are some black sheep who will ill-treat their migrant workers, as seen from the isolated incidents that continue to be reported in our media. Thus, I strongly welcome the amendments. I think the mandatory one-month jail sentence for second conviction of any employer employing foreign employees without valid work passes is a strong enough signal. But I wonder why MOM did not impose mandatory sentence on those who give, sell or forge work passes. I think MOM should.

Sir, the situation of migrant workers in Singapore, primarily a host or receiving country of migrants, is generally good and we should continue to make Singapore the choice destination for migrant workers from the region. But, at the same time, I hope that MOM would also regularly review and strengthen the legislative protection for our local workers. We should not allow any disparity in the treatment of locals and migrant workers, and being perceived as giving more protection to migrant workers than locals. Our world Number One workforce deserves a world-class legislative protection and work conditions.

Sir, currently, the employers of work permit holders are required to ensure the well-being of all their migrant workers under the work permit conditions provided by the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (EFWA). I think MOM should also increase the penalty against employers who breach these work permit conditions. At the present moment, the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000 or a jail term of up to six months. I also hope that the list of

Column: 937

the work permit conditions be revised regularly to enhance protection. I would also like to know whether MOM would include an amendment to safeguard workers against ill-treatment by unscrupulous employment agents, rather than just employers.

Besides regularly monitoring the situation and reviewing the foreign manpower management framework and relevant legislation, I think the Ministry should also explore practical ways to reach out and generate awareness in helping migrant workers better understand and exercise their rights in Singapore. It is also important for the Ministry to reach out to and generate awareness among the SMEs so that they would understand their legal obligations.

Sir, at the end of the day, revised legislation and regulations are just means to an end. More responsible employers and caring workplaces will remain as the key to safeguard the welfare of our workers, regardless of nationality and background.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Sir, I rise in support of the amendments proposed under the Employment of Foreign Workers (Amendment) Bill.

The amendments have a two-fold purpose: firstly, to consolidate the various legislative authority for all work passes under the Employment of Foreign Workers (Amendment) Bill and, secondly, to increase the penalties for selected offences, introduce new offences and enhance the powers of Employment Inspectors to facilitate enforcement orders. The increase in penalties will ensure that those who violate the Act will be sufficiently deterred, as otherwise the

Column: 938

Act will lose its effectiveness and offences will continue to be committed with impunity. We certainly need a strong regulatory regime in order to provide better protection to our foreign workers, otherwise our image and ability to attract global talents will be affected.

Overall, the amendments will provide a more coordinated and coherent approach in regulating the employment of foreign workers. Under the current regime, some aspects of the regulation are governed under the Foreign Workers Act and the other aspects are governed by the Immigration Act, which is under the ICA. This is not only confusing for companies and workers, but I am also sure it increases the complexity in regulating foreign manpower on the part of MOM, the primary agency in dealing with workers of all nationalities.

Sir, Singapore's development today would not have been possible without the contributions of our foreign workers. They have contributed much to our efforts to develop into a world-class, dynamic and globally competitive workforce, ranked as the number one workforce by BERI for many years. Hence, our broad approach and strategies in managing foreign manpower is on the right track, and this Bill will further strengthen and enhance our position.

However, I have a number of observations to make and some clarifications to seek from the Minister.

I notice that a new definition has been inserted under section 2 of the Act. A new word "employ" has been inserted. The word "employ", as defined by the Bill, means to "engage or use the service of any person for the purpose (a) of any work; or (b) of providing any training for that person, whether under a contract of service or otherwise, and with or without salary".

Column: 939

I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on the exact meaning of this provision, as it seems to be very broad, particularly the words "engage or use the service of any person for the purpose of providing any training, whether under a contract of service or otherwise, and with or without salary". This provision can be interpreted to mean that it is acceptable for an employer to bring in foreigners as trainees, without having to employ them under contracts of service and without having to pay them any salary.

If this is the interpretation, then there are serious concerns of the potential for abuse and whether this would open the door for really cheap foreign workers to come in as trainees, to the detriment of local workers. I hope that this is not the intention of the law, and it would be of great help if the Minister could clarify this point in this House.

This clarification, Sir, is also important in view of the recent announcement made by MOM that, with effect from 1st December 2007, undergraduates and graduates from overseas will be allowed to work here for short stints. They can work for up to six months and are not restricted to specific types of work. They are also not subject to minimum salary requirements, as mentioned in the MOM's press statement. Although the intention is to encourage more foreign students to come to Singapore and sink their roots here, the issue is whether this greater liberalisation of foreign students coming here to work, coupled with the new definition which I alluded to earlier on, will open the door for cheap labour in Singapore.

In fact, I think that the law should provide for the reverse, ie, anyone being employed in Singapore as a student, trainee or otherwise, should be considered as employees so that they are covered under the Employment Act and are paid

Column: 940

salaries before work passes can be issued to the employers.

Broadly, Sir, our strategy in employing foreign workers to augment our local workforce is a right one. Last year, although we created 176,000 jobs, we were not able to get Singaporeans to take up all the jobs and, as the Minister mentioned just now as well as on various occasions in the past, about 450,000 jobs would be created over the next five years. As a result, last year, almost half the jobs had to go to foreigners. Whilst I support this flexibility, I would also like to suggest that the Minister continue to monitor the impact of this policy of greater flexibility in the use of foreign manpower on our more vulnerable workers, specifically our low-wage workers, the older workers and the women who are currently out of the labour market. The last two categories were also touched upon by the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers. The tripartite partners have been collaborating very closely in order to assist our older workers and low-wage workers through job redesign and skills upgrading. It is important that our foreign manpower policy augments these efforts and not weakens them, as the concern is that the easy availability of foreign workers may discourage some employers from embarking on these initiatives. We have seen the great increase in the use of cheap sourcing and contract workers, and this has generally led to a decline in wages of these workers. We have done a fair bit for our low-wage workers, particularly with the introduction of the WIS, but that is not the panacea, as having a job and earning better pay is the real, long-term solution for our low-wage workers.

Sir, one common complaint that I hear from our women who want to go back to work is that there are just not enough part-time and flexible work options for them. This is one area where employers need to put more efforts and be more

Column: 941

innovative in helping our women who want to work to return to the workforce or to help those who are currently in the workforce to continue working. I hope that the easy availability of foreign workers will not dampen our efforts to retain and attract women back to the workforce.

Sir, the other category of Singaporeans that I am concerned about is the older PMETs. The picture is still not so rosy for them, despite what the statistics show. I welcome the WDA's efforts to introduce a new programme, called the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP). I would like to urge MOM to consider scaling up this programme to cover more sectors and reach out to more older PMETs who are facing the squeeze. This is important as the greater liberalisation of the "S" passes from an initial start of 5% to 10% and then to 15%, barely two years later, would mean that employers now have greater access to younger and better educated foreign workers who can be employed on lower pay, for a longer period and from any part of the world.

Sir, I support the need to have foreign workers to uphold our own local workforce to meet the needs of our economy, but I would, at the same time, like to urge MOM to monitor the situation closely so that our more vulnerable workers are not affected and also our efforts in other areas, such as promoting the employment of older workers and women under the back-to-work programmes, are not compromised.

Finally, Sir, I agree with the amendment to paragraph 13, that a work pass holder shall not allow any other person to have possession of his work pass. But the law is unclear about what happens if it is the employer who insists on keeping his workers' work passes, as is usually

Column: 942

the case as some fear that their workers will moonlight or abscond. Greater clarity on this would have been useful. I would also like to urge MOM to communicate and educate our foreign workers on the changes under this law and the new penalties and how it would affect them, so that they are not caught by surprise, and that the greater protection that is intended to be accorded by this Bill will reach them and benefit them.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

3.43 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, it is said that strong fences make good neighbours. Nowhere is this more true than in the area of people relations.

Sir, these amendments make former grey areas into black and white. It requires both employers and fellow workers to observe a stricter worker regime. For example, it requires an employer of an employee or self-employed foreigner, who is aware of the commission of a false declaration offence, to notify the Ministry of Manpower. So, once one is aware of false information being supplied to the Ministry, as part of the work pass application process, one now cannot keep quiet.

The proposed amendments are necessary. I support them for three key reasons. First, to ensure the employers do not flout the rules and, in the process, create an uneven playing field for themselves against others who are good and compliant employers.

I support it also because it will be a step forward in ensuring that it does not lead to a displacement of local workers in favour of foreign workers, a point which Mdm Halimah and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang have also made.

Column: 943

I also support it because, at the same time, it will serve to safeguard the well-being of foreign workers themselves. Indeed, as our country progresses and with the strong economy that is fuelling strong job growth, we have to be mindful of such concerns. All too often, we know the sentiments expressed by some Singaporean workers that their jobs are slowly but surely being taken away by foreign workers.

Sir, I declare my interest as the Advisor to the Amalgamated Union of Public Daily-Rated Workers (AUPDRW). Most of them are in the vector control unit and many of them are actively cleaning the streets. From a membership of some 30,000 in the past, they now have less than 10,000 members, and it looks like this will continue to decline. How is this so? Well, much of the work has gone to foreign workers. Understandably, there is some frustration and not a little resentment towards these workers. They tell me: why do they get the latest machines? Why do they sit around on buggies when others, ie, the local workers, are in the drains clearing out the rubbish by hand? They cost less to employers. They also get free transport and housing, whereas the AUPDRW workers have to pay for everything. So, in the end, some of our local workers may lose out.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): 3.45 pm

Madam, these are the raw emotions of workers on the ground and such amendments to the Bill may not reach their ears. However, I believe that such tightening of the rules is necessary to demonstrate our sincerity towards regulating the sector. It also shows that there is a genuine and fully costed demand for workers which will reflect their true market cost. It helps us to explain to our local workers that

Column: 944

their foreign colleagues are not under-cutting the market in devious ways and through no fault of theirs, but that of their employers. It also serves to ensure that good and compliant employers are not disadvantaged. So the proposed amendments to this Bill address and allay such concerns. But it is just the beginning. The enforcement must now follow and be up to par. For sure, good rules, if strongly enforced, are the first step towards good labour relations.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm.

Sitting suspended accordingly

at 3.49 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm

Column: 944

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Ms Indranee Rajah) in the Chair]: