EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.12 pm

The Acting Minister for Labour (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Employment Agencies Act in two main respects:-

(1) to confer powers on the Commissioner for Labour to ensure effective con- trol over licensed employment agencies; and

(2) to enhance the penalties for offences under the Act and the rules made there-under.

Sir, the Employment Agencies Act was enacted in 1959 at a time of high unemployment. The purpose of the Act at that time was to license employment agencies and to enable certain types of workers to secure employment through such agencies. The main concern of the Government then was to protect job seekers, especially those looking for clerical and secretarial jobs, from being exploited by bogus employment agencies.

However, the labour market situation today is marked by full employment that we have to supplement local supply with foreign workers. Government has made it clear that this is transitional and by certain dates the foreign workers will be repatriated.

Our experience has shown that most employers are not familiar with the recruiting procedures in foreign countries and have been using unscrupulous illegal agents to recruit foreign workers for them. These illegal agents are prepared to take the risk of operating without a licence, as the penalty for the offence is very light. In some instances, foreign workers particularly those from the non-traditional sources were cheated by these illegal agents and left stranded here without any employment. In this light, the present provisions of the Act relating to licensing will be amended to provide for more effective control over employment agencies which will now be licensed to recruit foreign workers.

These changes will ensure that licensed employment agencies comply with the provisions of the Act as well as the Government's policy on the issue of work permits. Under the amendments, the Commissioner for Labour, who is the licensing authority, can require an applicant for a licence to furnish a security deposit before a licence is granted and to impose conditions for this licence. The licence can be revoked if the licensee contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or fails to comply with the conditions of his licence or carries on an employment agency in a manner detrimental to the interest of his clients.

Sir, the present penalty for the offence of operating an employment agency without a licence is a fine not exceeding $500 for a first offence and a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both for a second or subsequent offence. This penalty is inadequate to deter illegal employment agents, particularly those who may wish to continue operating illegally to avoid payment of the security deposit. Clause 2 of the Bill enhances the penalty to a fine not exceeding $5,000 for a first offence and a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both for a second or subse. quent offence.

Clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill seek to enhance the penalties for the other offences under the Act and offences under the rules. These penalties were set when the Act was enacted in 1959 and are no longer adequate in the present context.

Finally, I wish to remind the House that the Government is firm in its decision to phase out foreign workers. Exceptions will be made on the basis of those who have skills of value to contribute to our economic development. Employers should not therefore misconstrue the passage of this Bill as a signal of relaxation of policies governing recruitment of foreign workers.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 3.18 pm

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a point of clarification from the Minister with regard to clause 2 (section 7(2) and section 7A). The proposed new section 7(2) says that the Commissioner may grant a licence with or without conditions and the other one is on security. I would like to know whether the conditions imply that the employment agencies will be required to furnish security for the payment of wages for individUal workers so employed, as we are aware of the recent case of some foreign workers who were not paid and there was a near-riot as a result of non-payment of wages.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the principle of this Bill which is to provide for control over persons who seek to bring in workers from overseas. I am aware of bogus operators and I support, as I said, the principle of the Bill. There is clearly a need for exercising some control over these operators and to see that foreign workers are not brought in under false pretences and left stranded in this place. But what I am not very happy about is the powers that are given to the Commissioner under this Bill and the rights or remedies that are given to any licensee or applicants for licences who may be aggrieved by any decision of the Commissioner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not the first time that I have spoken on this subject. I am alarmed, as I said - I suppose it cannot be helped in modern complexities of government - at the growing instances of powers given to Ministers and to civil servants without any recourse to the courts or proper redress or rights given to citizens who may be affected by the decisions. I think it is important to realize that whilst control is desirable, nevertheless, at the same time, care must be taken to see that innocent persons are not unjustly penalized or prejudiced by the exercise of powers given to the executive, be it civil servants or ministers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if one looks at clause 2 and it is the proposed now section 7, the Commissioner is given very wide powers. He may grant a licence with or without conditions or refuse to grant a licence. So there is absolute power given to the Commissioner without any guidelines as to when he may refuse them or when he may grant them. Then again, when we come to subsection (3) of that section 7, it says:

"The Commissioner may at any time vary or revoke any of the existing conditions of a licence or impose new conditions."

First of all, will he be asked to state his reasons? As I said, I have mentioned this several times before. Will the Commissioner be required to state his reasons? This Bill makes no mention of that. Then when we come to the proposed section 7D:

"The Commissioner may revoke a licence if he is satisfied that the licensee -

(a) is contravening or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder;

(b) has failed to comply with any of the conditions of his licence;

(c) has carried on or is carrying on an employment agency in a manner likely to be detrimental to the interests of his clients."

If I may skip paragraph (d) because - that does not really matter - if the licensee has ceased to carry on employment I can understand the reason for revoking, but I am concerned about the first three conditions under which the Commissioner may revoke the licence. Again, will he be obliged or required to give reasons?

I am also concerned about the process by which the Commissioner will go about before he revokes the licence. The proposed section 7D(2) says:

"The Commissioner shall, before revoking any licence under subsection (1), give the licensee concerned notice in writing of his intention to do so, specifying a date, not less than 21 days after the date of the notice, upon which such revocation shall take effect and calling upon the licensee to show cause to the Commissioner why such licence should not be revoked."

That is all very good on paper, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I want to know is: Will the Commissioner when he gives this notice to the applicant or to the licensee set out quite clearly the reasons why he wishes to revoke the licence. And if there is any breach of any or more conditions, will he spell out what are the conditions breached? Or will he merely write to the licensee or to the applicant and say, "i propose to revoke your licence. Will you please show cause why I should not do so?" We have then a Kafka situation, where the poor man does not know what he is accused of and he is asked to defend himself against something of which he knows nothing, a case which often happens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may draw by way of analogy - taxi drivers. They are told they cannot see the complaint that is made against them. That is the sort of situation I am speaking of.

May I ask the Minister, if it is not possible to spell it out in the Bill itself today, whether he would consider setting out by way of rules and regulations the various procedures that must be taken by the Commissioner before he exercises these powers, and to see that these rules and regulations contain sufficient safeguards and remedies or rights for persons who feel they may be wronged and may be aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is the provision for a notice of appeal. Again, on paper it sounds very good. There is an appeal to the Minister. But why is it not possible to provide for an appeal to the courts? Because the decision concerns the business activity of some of our citizens and this provision is to be found in a number of other Acts regulating business activities. If it is felt that the courts should not be burdened with all this, then cannot consideration be given to the setting up of a tribunal which will hear an appeal and will give the person who appeals a right to be heard fully and will also acquaint him of the objection and the reasons of the Commissioner for his decision.

As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is alarming that at every opportunity powers are given to civil servants, ministers and others without sufficient safeguards provided for the citizen's rights and without sufficient remedies given to him. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider all this.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, the point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh who asked whether, under the proposed section relating to conditions and payment of security deposit, my Ministry will consider utilization of these provisions to ensure that the licensed employment agencies will meet their obligation for wages. This is not provided for in this Bill, and without giving a definitive answer I would like to thank him for his suggestion and will assure him that the Ministry will take this into consideration when the regulations are drawn up for the security deposit and the framing of the different conditions. I should add that the major objective of the proposal for a security deposit is to ensure that cost of repatriation will be forthcoming should they be stranded here. But I would nevertheless look into the suggestion which he has made.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to deal at length with the points raised by the Member for Anson for these are points which he has raised on diverse occasions relating to similar provisions in other Bills. He has asked why do we not provide for appeal to the courts. We have many instances of analogous legislation where administrative and ministerial decisions have to be taken, and taken fairly expeditiously. If all appeals against administrative and ministerial decisions are to go by way of appeal to the courts, obviously our courts will be completely bogged down with reviewing administrative decisions. They will have no time to deal with pressing matters, such as people charged with bicycle theft, assault on taxi drivers, commissions of contempt of court, deceiving creditors, and so on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Very funny.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, our couns must have as a priority different tasks, and also the Member for Anson is unaware of the trends in administrative law in other countries where it is impossible to have administrative action reviewed individually by the courts or by the setting up of tribunals which will result in a tremendous delay. Adequate safeguards exist. The Member for Anson must also know that under the system of administrative law which we have inherited and which operates in Singapore, any person who feels that the exercise of administrative action is contrary to the law can have it reviewed in a court of law.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

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