PENSIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As Members are aware, the Government have decided to implement the principle of equality for woman officers in the Government service. The difference in treatment of woman officers is historical. It began in pre-war days when few branches of the civil service had woman officers. Only in the teaching service were women employed in great numbers compared to men but were paid four-fifths of the men's rate. In fact, with very few exceptions, the woman officers in the civil service receive roughly 80 per cent of the pay of their male colleagues. As for the conditions of service, they are also less advantageous. Woman officers lose their permanent status when they marry, for then they are required to resign and are re-employed on a temporary basis. They therefore lose their pension rights when they reach retiring age. They are also required to retire at 45 years but are not allowed to serve up to the normal retiring age which was, until recently, 55 years. This policy of discrimination against women has no place in a just society. The P.A.P. announced in the 1959 general election that it would observe the equality of status for women in our society so far as this is possible. This pledge has now been fulfilled in respect of woman officers in the civil service.

However, it will not be possible to rectify the anomalies overnight. They will have to be brought about by stages and by January 1965, all woman officers in the civil service will be paid the same salary for the same type of work as men officers. Administrative measures have been taken to carry out this policy. It is also necessary to amend the relevant sections of the Pensions Ordinance to give effect to equal terms of employment to woman officers. Woman officers appointed to the service on or after 1st March, 1962, will no longer be required to resign or to retire on marriage. They will remain permanent officers and be allowed to serve up to the same retiring age as men. It is, however, necessary to make provision that woman officers in the service prior to 1st March, 1962, can opt to retire at the existing age of retirement or to retire on marriage to qualify for gratuity. The opportunity is also taken to implement the decision to allow Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha Contingent in the Singapore Police Force to retire with full pension benefits on or after completing 15 years of service, as it has been ascertained that the average span of service of a Gurkha soldier in the British Army is 15 years. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. By this Bill the injustice that has been imposed on women officers in the civil service will be removed. I cannot help but observe that this Bill is brought in only at a time when the P.A.P. Government is having its last gasp.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee].

Bill considered in Committee.

10.31 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1-

The Chairman: There is another Pensions (Amendment) Bill which is going to Select Committee. So in clause 1 of this particular Bill which reads:

This Ordinance may be cited as the Pensions (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance, 1962.'.

probably the "No. 2" should come out. Will the Minister agree?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another Pensions (Amendment) Bill.

The Chairman: Yes, but this is being dealt with first in time, and so I think "No. 2" should come out of this Bill and should be inserted in the other (Amendment) Bill.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I see. Yes, I quite agree.

The Chairman: We will take "No. 2" out then as a typographical amendment.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2-

Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, only on a point of elucidation. Sir, the proviso to clause 2 (i) states:

'"Provided that in the case of a female officer she was in the service before the 1st day of March, 1962, and has opted to retire on or after attaining the age of forty-five years; or";'.

Does that mean that a woman who has a child and who was in the service before the 1st day of March but has opted to retire before that date - does that include women who have already retired before the 1st day of March?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, section 7 of the Pensions Ordinance allows the payment of pensions, gratuity and other allowances to certain grades of persons. This amendment is to enable pensions and other allowances to be paid to women who are already in the service but who opt to remain on the present terms. Put it this way: women officers who are engaged on or after the 1st of March, 1962, are employed on exactly the same terms as men, that is to say, even if they are married, they still retain their pensionable status. It does not affect them at all. And they cannot retire at the age of 45. They have not got the option of retiring at that age.

Now, if they were employed before that date, they have certain privileges which they may want to retain. For instance, if they marry and if they have put in 10 years of service, section 17 of the Pensions Ordinance entitles them to a marriage gratuity of one month per year of service. This section is to allow such women who want to retain these rights that they have. On the other hand, of course, they may want to opt into the new terms, and they are particularly entitled to do so, which means that they will retain their pensionable status after marriage, at a price, of course, of foregoing these benefits of marriage gratuities. I hope I have made the position clear.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I understood that that meant what the Minister has said it to mean. But my question is: on top of all that, the proviso:

'"Provided that in the case of a female officer she was in the service before the 1st day of March, 1962, and has opted to retire..."'.

Now, if a woman has opted to retire and has retired, then do the words "has opted to retire" mean that? Or do they mean that she has opted to retire but has not retired? Which does it mean?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: This is all very confusing.

The Chairman: Can the Minister answer that at this time of the night?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It means that she has opted to retire but has not retired.

I think the question which the hon. Member wants to ask really is this: in the case of women who have already retired, what are their pension rights? Now, with this amendment, when all women who take advantage of this option of a complete equality with men - whether they marry or do not get married - retire, they get full pension rights. Formerly, that was not the case. A married woman loses her pensionable status on marriage, and if she has served for say 10 to 15 years, she draws an allowance of half the full pension rights. And if she has completed more than 15 years, she gets 60 per cent of full pension rights. These quantums are regulated not by this Ordinance but by regulations. Regulation 22 sets down the allowances payable to persons in non-pensionable establishment - both men and women who have retired after so many years of service. Therefore, the eligibility to pensions of women officers who have already retired remains as before, and is not affected by this Ordinance. If we want to give them the pensions to which they would have been entitled if this policy had been in force in the past, then amendments to these regulations made under the Pensions Ordinance would be necessary. Whether or not there is a case for doing so is an extremely complicated matter. There are arguments for and against. The obvious argument is that women officers who retired before 1st March, 1962, are in a sense done out of something. Supposing she retires on 28th February, then she would have lost certain rights. Therefore, it could be said that there is a case for giving such women full pension entitlement. But there are many horrible complications. I have gone through these in some detail. For instance, some women draw pensions in respect of services both in Singapore and in the Federation. Then what do we do about that? Then certain women have drawn their pensions in the form of capital grants; others have not. Although I have not made up my mind finally on this subject, it does seem to me that the case for preserving the status quo is rather stronger than the case for making further changes to the regulations made under the Pensions Ordinance.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in dealing with women, of course, there will be a lot of complications. It could be horrible; it could be exciting; or it could be romantic. There is the other complication which I would ask the Minister to explain - if it is a complication.

What happens to a female officer in the service before the operative date? She got married, she got her marriage allowance, but can she now apply to be on the pensionable status, after having taken the marriage allowance? Would it also mean that she would have her marriage allowance deducted from her pensions?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, she can apply for transfer into the permanent service in the usual way. I think what the hon. Member meant is that they have retired on marriage and have been re-engaged on a temporary status. Such women can apply for admission into the permanent service. And if their original appointment had been made by the Public Service Commission, then the transfer would be automatic. As regards pension rights, the service in respect of which marriage allowance had been drawn, would not naturally count as pensionable service. Pensionable service would begin from the date of re-engagement.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I think what the Member for Cairnhill has in mind is this: supposing a woman gets married after 9 years of service and has drawn only one year's salary maximum. There is a maximum to the gratuity. But if that 9� years is given to her and counted in her years of service, then when the pensions are calculated, it would mean much more to her than the one year's salary which she has received as gratuity. Can she return that one year's service and claim pensions from the day that she was originally appointed, which would mean that in her old age she would have a bigger pension to live on?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That is why I say, never deal with women.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: There are two reasons. Technically, there has been a break in service because she has retired. And, of course, the other reason is that such a woman would then try to get the best of two worlds.

Mr David Marshall: They always do!

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

10.45 p.m.