$120 LEVY ON FOREIGN MAIDS

Mr Hwang Soo Jin asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs whether he will rescind the decision to impose the flat $120 levy on foreign maids in view of the fact that the measure is clearly inconsistent with the Government's objective of encouraging more married women to work.

The Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision on the flat $120 levy cannot be rescinded. The foreign workers levy, including the levy on foreign maids, is not new. It was introduced in 1982 when it was decided to take certain foreign workers off the CPF Scheme. At that time, it was clearly explained that the main purpose of the levy was to discourage the indiscriminate recruitment of foreign workers.

When the 30% ad valorem levy was introduced in 1982, the position of married working women was recognized. First, the minimum of $150 was not applicable to foreign maids. Secondly, foreign maids were among the categories not affected by the 1984 deadline for the phasing out of foreign workers from non-traditional sources. This distinction continues to be made. Thus the $120 flat levy is still lower than the previous 1982 minimum of $150. It is also much less than the $200 flat levy payable for other foreign workers which incidentally will be increased in stages to $350 in April 1986.

The previous 30% ad valorem levy was clearly insufficient to deter indiscriminate recruitment of maids or to curb the increase in their numbers. In the first six months of this year alone, there was an increase of nearly 5,000 foreign maids, much more than the total annual increase for the previous year of 3,000 which was already high. Many who had no genuine need for domestic help were recruiting foreign maids. Others were deploying them for unauthorized work. Under-declaration of wages in order to pay a lower levy was also increasing. These problems will become more acute as local incomes increase; the low cost of foreign maids will lead to an ever increasing demand.

There is no inconsistency between the $120 flat levy and the objective of getting more married women to join the workforce. The availability of a foreign maid was never intended to be, and must not be, the sole means to induce more married women to work.

There are now 106,900 married working women aged between 30 and 49 years. The argument that all or most of them should have maids is untenable. In addition, there are another 183,800 married women aged 30 - 49 who are now not working. If most or all of them are to be allowed maids in order to persuade them to work, we will then have about 300,000 maids in Singapore. The principal reason for encouraging more married women to work is precisely to reduce our dependence on foreign workers. It would therefore be defeating our objective if the entry of married women into the workforce itself swells the foreign worker population.

In many other countries, such as Japan, USA and Europe, their female labour participation rate is higher than Singapore. Yet foreign domestic maids are not available. In Singapore, too, the use of all other alternatives must therefore be continually explored and encouraged: child care centres, creches, parents-in-law, foster services and so on. If foreign maids were available to every married working woman, not only will the number of maids proliferate to unmanageable levels, worse, there will be no pressure or need felt to actively develop these alternatives.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions but I wish to ask them one at a time. The first question is: would the Minister say whether parliamentary sanction was obtained for this levy on foreign maids?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Member for Anson to point out any rule in the Standing Orders which requires me to obtain parliamentary sanction. And he should also indicate whether he is aware that the concept of the levy was introduced in 1982 and whether he, from the time that he was in this Parliament, has ever queried this in the Budget statements when he had ample opportunities to raise this query.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does the Minister not appreciate that the fact that I had not raised it in 1982 does not make my question now invalid or untenable? Would the Minister please answer: where is the legislative sanction for this levy on foreign maids?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, maids are brought in under conditions applicable to work permit regulations. Does the Member not know that an amendment to the Regulation of Employment Act was passed to impose the levy?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister be good enough to refer to the section in the Regulation of Employment Act which says hat the Government may impose a levy?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But in the case of a person who is legally trained, I think that cannot be an excuse.

Mr Speaker: What are your other two questions, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I still invite the Minister to refer to the section. I should be very pleased to see what the section says.

The other two questions are these. First, does the Minister really think that the levy had to be raised or imposed so as to restrict the number of foreign maids coming into Singapore? Does he not think that it is a specious answer? Is there no other way of controlling the entry of foreign maids other than by imposing a levy? Is the Minister really suggesting that work permits are being issued ad lib to everybody who cries for one foreign maid? Are there no conditions restricting the issue of work permits for foreign maids? I would ask the Minister to think carefully about these questions. Does he not think his answers are specious?

Secondly, may I ask was this levy imposed because it was another source of revenue for the Government? And if so, why does the Government need this money, and is it not another tax?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, l think we can now understand the points raised by the First Deputy Prime Minister if there was any doubt earlier. I have already pointed out that he was ignorant of the law when he thought he had a brilliant legal point. Now, his other two questions are meaningless.

The Member for Anson must really make up his mind. He cannot blow hot and cold. On one occasion a few months ago, he took up the cause and argued vigorously for the displacement of all foreign workers. He made allegations here that the Government policy and foreign workers here were affecting our own workers. Now a 100% turnaround - asking for different measures which would encourage more maids to come to Singapore. So he should make up his mind. What is his position? What is his Party's position on foreign workers?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I for the last time in this House appeal to the Minister to answer the questions? What has all that he has said got to do with the questions I asked? Is he not capable of comprehening the questions? Will he please answer them?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all of us have taken note of his prophetic statement. Let me say that it is pointless to answer his questions when the full elaboration of the rationale and the reasons for this levy have been spelt out by myself today as well as in the press release and other pronouncements made earlier.