RETIREMENT AGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to introduce legislation to provide for a minimum retirement age. The minimum retirement age will initially be set at 60 years of age. The Bill will also provide for the retirement age to be raised to 67 years in the future. It is the Government's intention to do so within the next seven to 10 years.

Sir, the retirement age issue has been widely publicised and discussed since 1988. I will now recapitulate the reasons for legislation to raise the existing retirement age norm of 55 years.

Singapore is confronted by two major population changes which would have severe impact on our long-term economic growth. These changes are an ageing population and the declining fertility rate. An ageing population will result in a situation where more and more workers would be leaving the workforce upon retirement. At the same time, a declining birth rate means that there will be fewer and fewer younger workers entering the labour market. This would result in a levelling of our labour force growth and, subsequently, a reduction in the size of our labour force. There would be serious repercussions on our economic potential and ability to compete in the world markets.

Sir, at present, eight working persons support one older person aged 60 and above. This ratio will fall to 4.4 to 1 by the year 2010, and to 3 to 1 by the year 2020. By the year 2030, 25% of the population will be aged 60 and above, compared to 9% today. This drastic change of population structure and its effect on the labour force cannot be ignored. We must tackle the problem now. To do nothing would severely affect our economic viability in 10 to 20 years' time. If Singaporeans continue to retire at age 55, when only three working persons are supporting one aged person, our economy cannot remain competitive and growth will certainly be retarded.

Sir, we should also bear in mind that the average life expectancy of Singaporeans has gone up from 68 years in 1970 to 76 years today. So if a person retires at age 55, he can expect 21 years of life as a retiree living entirely off his CPF savings.

It would be a waste of valuable human resource if Singapore workers retire at age 55, when they are still healthy and full of vigour. It would be ironical and would not make economic sense at all for Singaporeans to retire at 55 while increasing numbers of foreign workers are allowed into Singapore to make up for the manpower shortfall. A sensible and practical solution must be to encourage Singaporeans to stay economically active and to continue to work beyond the current retirement norm of 55 years. By doing so, workers will earn income to supplement their accumulated CPF savings and to put aside more savings in their Medisave accounts to meet the high cost of medical care in old age.

The Government, had in 1988, set a three-year time frame to allow employers to voluntarily raise the retirement age to 60 years. The National Trade Unions Congress and the Singapore National Employers' Federation gave their strong support to this voluntary effort. A survey covering 12,681 companies with at least 10 employees, conducted by my Ministry in early 1992, showed that 72% of the 1,041 unionised companies had raised the retirement age to 60 and above.

However, the response from the non-unionised companies has been unsatisfactory. Only 4.5% of the non-unionised companies supported the move to raise the retirement age. Employers in the non-unionised sectors have generally adopted a wait-and-see attitude and continued with the current practice of retiring workers at age 55. Sir, as the non-unionised sector is in fact much larger than the unionised sector, overall, only 10% of the companies surveyed have raised the retirement age to 60 voluntarily. And this was achieved after three years of exhortation, persuasion and determined negotiation by trade unionists. The Government, therefore, has little choice but to introduce legislation to raise the retirement age. We cannot wait or delay any further while the population age and our economic competitors overtake us.

Sir, in the developed countries such as Germany, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Sweden, Netherlands and Italy, the retirement age norm is generally 65 years. For some countries such as Norway and Denmark, the norm is even higher, at 67 years. In the United States, mandatory retirement age has been prohibited since 1986. In other words, US employers cannot terminate the service of employees on account of age, regardless of how old the employee is. Even in the Asian NIEs, workers are now working well beyond 60 years. For example, the retirement age norm in Taiwan is now 65. Within ASEAN, the Philippines also has 65 years as the retirement age norm.

As a country with a small population competing against the Asian NIEs and, increasingly, even against the developed countries, we should also aim to raise the retirement age norm to comparable levels. Lagging behind these countries would greatly limit our capacity to compete effectively for high value-added and high-technology investments, especially in the areas of experienced and skilled manpower.

Sir, in order to help employers adjust to the eventual higher retirement age of 67 years, the Government will raise the minimum retirement age in steps after the retirement age of 60 years has been implemented. I envisage a move to 64 years in four to five years' time, with the final change to 67 years in seven to 10 years' time.

Sir, the Bill's principal objective, the minimum retirement age of 60 years, will apply to all Singaporean workers, including those in the managerial, professional and executive positions.

Sir, I shall now highlight the main features of the Bill.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides for minimum retirement age of 60 and prohibits employers from dismissing employees on account of their age. There is also a provision for the Minister to further raise the retirement age up to 67 years in the future.

Clause 5 provides that any provisions in the employment contracts or collective agreements which provide for a lower retirement age would be void.

Clause 6 restricts the employees from contracting out of the Bill. So, employers and employees cannot mutually agree on a lower retirement age. This means that employers cannot ask employees to accept contracts of service which spell out a retirement age below that provided by law.

Clause 10 empowers the Minister to exempt any employees or classes of employees from the Bill with or without conditions. The Minister may also revoke such exemptions, vary or revoke any existing conditions or impose new ones.

Sir, in drafting the Bill, my Ministry has consulted extensively with the employers' and workers' representatives. Employers had expressed concern that the proposed law would introduce rigidities into the labour market by compelling employers to retain all their employees to age 60, regardless of the nature of their work. Clause 10 will allow such concerns to be addressed. Employers will be able to seek exemption from the Ministry for workers who are involved in jobs which are not suitable for persons older than 55 years. Where there is sufficient justification, the Minister will be able to grant such exemption.

The mechanism for implementation and enforcement of the Bill is provided in clauses 3, 7, 8, 9 and 11.

Clause 3 provides for the appointment of investigating officers to implement and enforce the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 7 allows aggrieved employees who have been unlawfully dismissed on account of age to appeal to the Minister. An employee who considers himself to be wrongfully dismissed may, within one month of the dismissal, make representation in writing to the Minister to be reinstated in his former employment. If the Minister is satisfied that the employee has indeed been wrongfully dismissed on account of age, the Minister can either order the employer to reinstate or to compensate the employee.

Sir, this appeal procedure is similar to existing appeal procedures for wrongful dismissal provided in the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act which was introduced in 1968. The procedure has stood the test of time and has worked well for us. It also allows the aggrieved employee to pursue his complaint without having to incur substantial legal costs.

Sir, though the Bill will give workers the right to work up to 60 years and beyond, I wish to stress that employers' right to terminate employees' service on grounds of poor performance or ill-health, or to dismiss employees on ground of misconduct, would not be abrogated. These are established rights of the employers. It is not the Government's intention to compel all employers to keep poor performers or ill-disciplined employees. It is important that we continue to maintain a disciplined and productive workforce.

Sir, employers have also voiced their concerns that this law would result in higher labour costs since the current wage scales are still very much seniority-based. They are also concerned that having a higher percentage of older workers will result in higher cost in terms of medical expenses and longer annual leave entitlements, among other cost factors. They have therefore been reluctant to employ workers beyond the current retirement age as they fear doing so could affect their cost competitiveness.

To address such concerns, the Government has decided to lower the employers' CPF contribution rate for employees from age 55 to 60 years by 5 percentage points. This will come from the employers' contribution. The total contribution rate for this group of employees would accordingly be adjusted from 25% to 20%. The CPF adjustment to reduce the cost burden of employers will help them to remain or to become even more competitive and, at the same time, enhance the job security of older workers.

Sir, the adjustment to CPF contribution rate for older workers � this 5% reduction on employers' contribution for their older workers � would not affect their retirement income, housing and medical needs. In particular, it would not affect the Medisave needs of older workers because they would be able to continue to contribute to Medisave at the established rates. Projections of CPF balances at age 60 show that, apart from providing for the average worker's housing and medical needs, his CPF balance, after the 5% reduction, would still be sufficient to provide him with a monthly annuity which ranges between 20% and 40% of his last take-home pay. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the additional five working years will ensure that an older person will continue to have a regular income and CPF contributions to boost up his CPF and Medisave savings. By the time he retires at 60 years or older, when we change the minimum retirement age in future, the worker will have more retirement funds to see him through his old age.

Sir, I would urge employers not to treat this 5% CPF adjustment as a windfall gain. With increasing numbers of older workers continuing to work up to 60 years and beyond, employers must invest more in training and upgrading the skills of older workers. Such training investments will become more and more important as companies move up the technology and value-added ladder. Many of today's older workers are also generally lower educated and less skilled. Hence, employers should not view the 5% CPF savings as purely an incentive for them to retain older workers. They should make use of this 5% saving to meet the additional cost of skills upgrading and re-training for older workers and, where unavoidable, to prepare older workers for redeployment within the company. The CPF adjustment should, therefore, benefit both the employers and the employees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the raising of the retirement age would not affect the existing CPF withdrawal age which will still remain at 55. Although Singapore workers can continue to withdraw their CPF savings at age 55, I would like to urge all workers to continue working up to the age of 60 and beyond. It is in their own interest as well as in the nation's interest that they continue to work as long as they are able and in good health.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 1.32 pm

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Bill.

The labour movement has been pressing for the raising of retirement age for a number of years. The question of whether legislation should be introduced to regulate retirement age has also been debated in recent years with the employers' federation and the trade unions holding rather different views.

In 1989, the Government gave employers a three-year grace period to voluntarily raise the retirement age of their employees. This deadline has come and passed but the progress made, particularly in the non-unionised sector, has been disappointing. While the majority of the unionised companies have raised their retirement age to above 55 years, only 4.5% of non-unionised companies have done so.

Sir, when retirement at 55 years was the norm in the 1950s, life expectancy of Singaporeans then was below 65 years. Today, the life expectancy has gone up to over 75 years but, unfortunately, many Singaporeans are still forced to retire at an early age of 55 years. The Singapore workforce is aging while the economy is increasingly constrained by a shortage of labour. It is ironical that experienced and skilled Singaporeans are forced to retire at 55 years when most of them are still healthy and fit.

Sir, I therefore welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to raise the retirement age to 60 years and eventually to 67 years. Why 67 years and not 68 years or 70 years is something which I suppose only the Minister can answer. But I would say that the plan to raise the retirement age progressively by legislation is a step in the right direction.

Sir, I would like to make some comments on the specific provisions of the Bill. I believe the Bill covers all full-time employees. What about temporary workers and those regular part-time workers who work for less than eight hours a day? I know of employers who employ temporary workers more or less on a permanent basis. There are also workers who are employed to work for four or five hours a day instead of the normal eight hours. And these employees are actually permanent workers but the employers choose to call them either temporary workers or part-time workers so that they can exercise their discretion in hiring and firing easily. Should these workers not be covered under the Bill?

My concern also applies to workers who are employed on fixed-term contracts. I would like the Minister to clarify the question of people who are employed on fixed-term contracts. In fact, I would like to caution against the possible abuse by employers who may resort to employing workers on a contract basis even though their need for employees is for the long term. In other words, the employers may just keep on renewing the fixed-term contracts instead of placing them on permanent employment. And we can end up with employees being employed permanently on fixed-term contracts and are not covered under the retirement age legislation. So there must be a way to check the employers from getting round the legislation.

Sir, clause 10 of the Bill provides for exemption from the Bill. This means that a company can apply for some of their employees to be exempted from the Bill. I urge the Minister to be cautious in granting such exemptions. If the exemption is granted too liberally, it will defeat the purpose of this Bill. Whether we like it or not, there are still some deep-rooted beliefs of prejudice against the older workers that they are not capable of performing certain duties well. I believe we should not be bound by the conventional notion or prejudice. I suggest that the Ministry scrutinise every application for exemption stringently. I would also like to seek the Minister's assurance that the Labour Ministry would seek the union's views before granting any exemption. In other words, do not just listen to the employer's side of the story, but get the views of the union and employees as well.

I believe the Ministry is considering the suggestion to exclude seamen from the proposed legislation. I would like to urge the Minister to consider the decision carefully. Although many of the seamen are employed on fixed-term contracts, there is a sizeable number of gradings and officers who are employed on a permanent basis similar to that of the shore-based workers. Some of the collective agreements signed between the employers and the unions have already provided for retirement age of up to 60 years. Exclusion of the seamen categorically from the proposed legislation will be a retrogressive step. There are adequate provisions in the proposed legislation to exclude those seamen who are employed on fixed-term contracts. There is, therefore, no necessity to single out the seamen for total exclusion from the Bill which will only jeopardise the jobs of those who are employed on a permanent basis. I would appreciate the Minister's clarification of his position on this matter.

Clause 7(3)(b) allows the Minister to order compensation to employees who are unlawfully dismissed by their employers. If the intention of the Bill is to extend employment to 60 years and beyond, then ordering compensation will not achieve the objective. The worker will still be out of a job. I would like to ask that, as far as possible, the Minister should order reinstatement rather than compensation. Some companies may not mind paying compensation to get rid of their older workers, especially if they find it cheaper in the long run. Should compensation be ordered as a last resort, the amount should be large enough to serve as a deterrent.

Sir, some companies pay employees a gratuity when they retire. Some also offer early retirement benefits which allow employees to collect a gratuity when they retire early for whatever reason. With the new legislation, it is feared that the workers may now be deprived of such gratuities if they retire before 60 years. I seek the Minister's assurance that existing gratuity schemes be allowed to continue so that no employees will lose out when the law comes into effect.

Finally, Sir, the question of CPF. The Minister has announced that the employers' CPF contribution rate will be further reduced by 5% for those aged between 55 years and 60 years. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider reducing the employers' and employees' contribution rates by an equal amount instead of reducing only the employers' contribution rate. So instead of reducing 5% from the employers' contribution rate, why not reduce 2.5% each from the employers' and the employees' contribution rates. I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider this suggestion.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Mr Speaker, I rise to support this Bill.

With the life expectancy of our citizens now at 75-76 years, it is important that we address positively ways to encourage our workers, who are fit and healthy, to continue to work for as long as possible. Hence, I welcome the provisions in the Bill, firstly, to raise the minimum retirement age of employees to 60 years or such other age up to 67 years as may be prescribed by the Minister and, secondly, to prohibit employers from dismissing employees below 60 years of age or the prescribed retirement age on the ground of age.

Sir, as the Minister has stated, adequate notice has been given to the employers to prepare for the raising of the retirement age to 60 years. They have been given about four years to make the necessary adjustments on a voluntary basis. Even though the progress was good in the public sector and the unionised sector, the figures given by the Minister show that progress in the non-unionised sector was sluggish.

Sir, to maintain the retirement age at 55 years is a waste of valuable human resources given the tight labour market today. Further, with the aging population, it is imperative that we do all we can to motivate our older workers to remain in the workforce. The proportion of our population above the age of 55 years is projected to increase to 15% by the year 2000. If the retirement age is continued to be held at 55 years, our dependency ratio, that is, the average number of dependants per working person, is estimated to increase from about 0.6 now to 1.3 by the year 2030. However, if the retirement age is raised to 65 years, the dependency ratio will only be 0.8.

Sir, a high dependency ratio will bring with it grave social and economic problems. I would, therefore, like to stress that we must create a work environment that will help and motivate more older workers to remain in employment as long as possible if they are fit and healthy. We must, therefore, move towards a retirement age of 67 years quickly.

Sir, this Bill will provide a legal basis for employees to remain in the workforce up to 60 years and beyond. We have now to work on proposals to enable the provisions to be brought into effect at a cost which the economy can bear.

The Minister has announced that the current CPF contribution rates for workers between 55 years and 60 years will be further adjusted, namely, by a reduction of 5% of employers' contribution. Sir, I suggest that we consider this proposal in a very cautious way. Despite what the Minister has said that the new rates will be sufficient to meet workers' needs for Medisave and housing, I think we really have to take a look to ensure that workers will have enough savings in their Medisave account to cater adequately for their medical and hospitalisation needs when they grow older and more prone to illness. As it is, their Medisave contribution rate will be raised from 7% to 8% by 1st July this year. Secondly, many workers in the age group of 55-60 years are still servicing their housing loans with their CPF. We must make sure that they would not have problems here.

Workers have pointed out that employees aged 55 years and above have already lower CPF contribution rates. Hence, they have asked: why is there a need to reduce the rates further? I would like to ask the Minister to consider the proposal again and see whether there is a real need to reduce the CPF contribution rates of workers above 55 years.

Sir, the area which we should focus on is the education, skills training and upgrading of our workers. More needs to be done by the Government and the employers to help particularly the older workers to go for education and skills upgrading.

Sir, in the paper on the "Implementation of the Strategic Economic Plan" on page 100 of the Economic Survey of Singapore 1992, it is stressed that in the long run, the "capability" factors which include such areas as the quality and skills of the workforce and productivity are more crucial than business costs to Singapore's competitive position in the global economy. Table 1 of this paper on page 102 of the Economic Survey of Singapore 1992 gives an inter-country comparison of the educational profile of the workforce. Only 22% of our workforce have educational levels of post-secondary and university compared to 40% for Taiwan and Hong Kong, and 50% for South Korea. Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a Table which I have prepared. This is a Table on educational qualifications of employed persons, 15 years and over, taken from the Labour Force Survey 1992. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.]

Looking at the data on the highest educational qualifications of employed persons aged 15 years and over in the Labour Force Survey 1992, about 720,000 of the 1.57 million persons employed, ie, 46% have education at the primary/lower secondary level and below only. Many of them are in the age group of 20-49 years. In fact, if you look at the Table, for the employed persons in the age group 20-29, 29,000 have not attended school/lower primary school and another 137,000 had only primary/lower secondary education. Sir, all these workers will continue to be in the workforce for many years. They have to ensure, therefore, that their educational and skill levels will be continuously upgraded during the course of their working life. If you want them to be in the workforce for a long time, ie, up to 67 years, then we must encourage them to look into their education and skill upgrading. Government, employers and unions can work together on this.

Sir, the contribution and productivity of the older workers can be raised if we have schemes which can motivate them to improve their educational and skill levels on a continuous basis throughout their working life. With their experience and wisdom, they can make an effective contribution to enable their companies to be competitive and successful. We must pay them fairly and equitably according to their contribution, performance and productivity. Age is then a secondary factor. With education and skills and a keen desire to improve quality and productivity, they can be paid good salaries which both their companies and the economy can bear without any adverse effect on our competitiveness.

Dr Toh Keng Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are several reasons why this Bill is necessary. We have heard very cogent reasons put forward by the Minister for Labour as well as the two speakers before me. Like them, firstly, I would like to consider the demographic changes and shifts which necessitate this Bill. Like them, I also subscribe to the economic importance for having this Bill. But I would like to add that to retire a man at 55 today when he can live to 75 and beyond will be to condemn him to 20 years of fallow during which both his body and his mind decline. I regard this as wasteful and unacceptable.

Secondly, the compulsory retirement age of 55 is a legacy which was handed down to us from past administrations, and it is a peculiar mindset which dictates that a man's productive economic life and usefulness ends and goes out together with the candles on his 55th birthday cake. Today, he is an asset, but tomorrow once past 55 he becomes a liability.

Thirdly, the Economic Survey of Singapore 1992 has shown that 98-99% of Singaporeans above the age of 55 years are still economically active. In the 55-59 age group, 54,000 out of 54,800 or 98.5% remain so. And for those above 60, the figures are 52,000 out of 52,500 or 99%. In other words, the majority of Singaporeans are still employable.

The Retirement Age Bill will provide for those who wish to remain employed beyond 55 years of age. But, Sir, taking a cow to water does not necessarily mean that the animal would drink. We have seen how this is with the female participation rate in the workforce. Despite incentives like enhanced child relief, double child relief and the foreign maid levy deductions, the female participation rate in the labour force still remains disappointingly low. The labour force participation figures have also been low for those aged 55-64. From 35.6% in 1988, it only rose marginally to 38.8% in 1991. Older Singaporeans will therefore have to be persuaded to remain in the workforce. Although they are economically active, many do not want to prolong their working life as employees.

There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the attraction of being able to withdraw their entire CPF savings minus the minimum sum. This has dissuaded many workers to continue to be employed. A Singaporean earning $1,000-$1,500 per month for 10 years prior to retirement can accumulate a CPF saving of between $50,000 and $70,000, sufficient capital for a start in some small joint venture business. A solution to this would be to withhold the CPF withdrawal to 60 years of age. But I am not suggesting this because it will be a political decision with dire consequences. But what I would like to propose is that we do away with the employees' contribution altogether for those who are 55 years of age and above. Mr Goh Chee Wee has suggested that we give a half and half deduction of the 5% when this law is enacted. I do not see the rationale behind allowing a person to withdraw all his CPF on the one hand and requiring him to put in more money on the other, except perhaps when there is some topping-up to be done.

Secondly, Sir, I have alluded to the present retirement age as a mindset. This is an attitudinal position to which we should see a change. In some ways, the Government, or rather the PAP, is partly responsible for the perpetuation of this mindset. In election after election, the PAP has only fielded young candidates in their early 30s or early 40s. It is common knowledge that those above 50 are given less than a cursory glint. I am sure there must be some people who are 50 and above who are able and willing to serve when called upon to do so. We have seen how elderly men in their 60s and 70s in other countries, in China and the United States, for example, not only take on public office for the first time but continue to provide the leadership. At home, we have excellent examples in Senior Minister Lee who continues to dazzle the world with his statesmanship, Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, who took office only after his retirement from Shell and recently labelled as one of the three best Finance Ministers in the world; and former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, whose economic expertise is much sought after by many countries. The PAP can set an example and help to change this mindset by putting up some mature candidates in the next general elections.

Thirdly, Sir, is the employers' concern. When this Bill was first tabled, some have expressed worry about increasing costs and various problems. One is the lobby for CPF to be reduced. I was initially behind the labour movement in asking that CPF paid by employers should not be reduced. And I am pleasantly surprised that the Minister has announced a cut of 5% instead.

Other concerns, however, are more genuine. And this is the rising cost of maintaining the workers' health, especially now when tax deductible expenditure on health has been kept at 2% of the total payroll. Advancing age is when catastrophic illnesses like cancer strike. It is also the time when sequelae of chronic illnesses like diabetes and hypertension surface. Even minor ailments become more common. Cost sharing and health insurance may be the answers to these problems, but the premiums can be expected to be high. And cost sharing requires the unions' sanction.

Another concern of the employers is that the continued presence of older workers may not be well received by the younger colleagues, especially when the older workers' productivity falls and there is resistance to retraining and upgrading of skills. Some younger workers aspiring to rise in the company's corporate ladder may also view the older ones as obstacles to their progress. Companies, too, may be less ready to invest time, money and effort in upgrading the skills and retraining the older workers whose life span with the company is limited. It is like investing in a short-lease property. It is in these areas that unions can do much by persuading the older members to participate in skills upgrading programmes. They can also help to enlighten their members on the necessity for some seemingly painful and restrictive policies.

The NTUC has already called on the Minister for consultations before the exemptions provided for in clause 10 of this Bill are made. The clause does not specify the type of workers to be included. Presumably, these are in the traditional uniformed services and occupations such as sea-faring, commercial aviation and highrise construction where physical demands are great, and anything less than 100% fitness may be a source of danger, not only to the worker himself but to others.

I would like now to focus on some specifics in the Bill. Clause 4(1) states that the retirement age of an employee shall not be less than 60 years or such other age, up to 67 years. Initially, I thought the figure "67" was a typographical error. But, like Mr Goh Chee Wee, I think the Minister owes us an explanation on why "67", and not 68 or 66. Clause 5 states that a contract of service or collective agreement made before the commencement of this Act shall be void to the extent that it is so less favourable. Sir, to set the precedence of making an Act retroactive is undesirable. Some personnel managers I have discussed this Bill with have already found a way of circumventing this clause and clause 6 by suggesting to their workers who reach the age of 55 years of age that they resign with the full retirement benefits, like gratuities, thus making it not less favourable than after the enactment of this Bill. Mr Goh should rest assured that the workers who choose to retire or resign earlier would not be disadvantaged. Sir, all this is happening even before the Bill has been taken through its Second Reading. Whilst it is premature to ask the Minister at this stage, I would like to enquire of him for an indication as to what this Bill would cost the Government when it is applied to the private sector.

I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Umar Abdul Hamid (Ang Mo Kio GRC): ( In Malay): Being a country without natural resources, Singapore depends a lot on the labour and skills of its workers. Every working citizen is a gain to our economic system. So the contributions of workers within a certain period of time inevitably influence our growth and economic stability. The Retirement Age Bill, which seeks to raise the minimum age of retirement from 55 to 60 and thereafter to 67, is most welcome.

Mr Speaker, considering our practice of meritocracy, it is no surprise that our workers have become so used and immune to hard work and industry. They are conscious that only through diligence and effort can they ensure the comfort and future of their children. When a person retires at 55 not for any reason of health, he would tend to grow restless and bored staying at home without a permanent job. This state of boredom is understandable and can be explained on two grounds. Firstly, he is used to working, having done so for at least 30 years. Secondly, he is used to being independent, earning his own income every month. With growing awareness of the importance of maintaining good health, many workers in the country are able to carry on working even when they reach 55. This Bill will meet the needs of this group of people.

According to the Singapore Yearbook of Statistics 1991 and the weekly news magazine Asiaweek, the life expectancy of Singaporeans is estimated at 74 years. In view of this, if we fix the retirement age at 55, we will have to ask ourselves what the retiree is going to do for the next 20 years. 20 years is a long time for one to spend life in idle pursuits, at home or anywhere else, when one could still be productive. If the United States, where life expectancy is 75 years, has a law enabling retirement age at 65, there is no strong reason for Singapore not to have the same.

To prevent workers from continuing to work after 55 is to bring social problems. Most workers who are 55 and above have children who are already working and have their own families. If these workers are able to support themselves, we will be able to avoid one growing problem - that of children neglecting their parents. Not everyone among the younger generation is willing to provide their retired parents constant support and company. The trend today shows many aged couples living alone while their children attend to their own families and their own life. In this era of constant competition, practices such as this, that go against noble values like showing gratefulness to one's parents, are gaining ground among the younger generation. This is an undeniable fact, and the solution will take time. So the possibility of carrying on working depending on one's ability will in some way help the aged to continue to fill their time in a useful and gainful way.

Another point is that the skills which the worker has acquired during his working years can be put to good use. He may be 55, but in terms of skills and experience, younger workers may find him hard to match. The aged can also help to fill up shortages where they arise. For example, when the services of teachers are badly needed now, we can cope with the problem as we seek a long-term solution by extending the services of those teachers who wish to continue working after 55.

Sir, I do not agree with the suggestion by Dr Toh that workers be allowed to withdraw their CPF only at 60. May I urge the Minister to continue allowing workers to withdraw their CPF at 55.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: I rise to support the Bill.

Singapore has a tight labour market and yet the retirement age is 55 years. In many developed countries, the retirement age is 65 or 70, depending on the occupation. A difference of 10 to 15 years in the period of employment is equivalent to about 33-50% of the active adult working life of someone who starts work at the age of 25 years and retires at 55 years. Therefore, Sir, increasing the retirement age from 55 to 65 years can prolong the working life of most people by about one-third. This will be an economic boon to labour scarce Singapore. However, so far, only 5-10% of non-unionised companies have voluntarily embraced the scheme to set the retirement age at 60. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves two important questions: (1) Will the Retirement Age Bill be effective in carrying out its objective? (2) How can we ensure that employers will retain their older workers?

Let us look at three possible situations when an employer can ask an employee to cease employment. (1) Termination of fixed term contract. (2) Employee with contract but has been given agreed period of notice. No reason need be given. (3) Employee with no contract but where reasonable period of notice is given. Also, no reason need be given. In these three situations, the Retirement Age Bill can be by-passed as many employees have no long-term tenure in employment. How can the Bill overcome this problem of common law termination of employment? Why are employers not keen on retaining their older workers? I think the Minister has alluded to this, that is, in a tight labour market like Singapore the employers tend to practise the seniority-based wage system to retain their workers. However, this makes older workers less attractive to the employer as it costs more to retain such workers. To offset this higher cost to the employer, the Minister has announced a 5% reduction of the employers' portion of the CPF.

However, there can be some further incentives. Another incentive that can be offered is to do with medical bills. For employees over the age of 55, the medical cost goes up. For this category of workers, the 2% of the payroll allowable for medical expenses should be raised to 4%. A third incentive for firms that retain older workers after the age of 55 could be a higher ratio of foreign workers allowed to the firm. The Retirement Age Bill will only be effective if some incentives are given in tandem to the employer who retains older workers beyond the age of 55 years. Otherwise, the employers will not find the exercise cost effective and will find means to avoid retaining workers after the age of 55 years.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Sir, it is my understanding that the purpose of this Bill is to compulsorily force employers to raise the retirement age of their employees and to protect the older workers from being dismissed on the ground of age. With rising life expectancy, we should encourage healthy older workers to remain on their job as they would contribute to our national economy. I therefore support the spirit of this Bill.

Although the Minister says that after the Bill has been in force, the withdrawal age of CPF will remain unchanged, it is my hope that the Minister can categorically assure this House that in future the withdrawal age of CPF will not be raised to 60 or even 67 for one reason or another.

I would also like to ask the Minister the following questions: First, for workers above 55 and who continue to work, can they withdraw the accumulated CPF at any time as they so please?

Secondly, clause 5 of the Bill says that after the Act has come into effect, those employment contracts with the retirement age stipulated at 55 will become null and void. What about those civil servants who are supposed to retire at 55 to enjoy their pension? Will they be compelled to retire at 60? For example, some contract employees of the Ministry of Defence are supposed to enjoy certain gratuities upon the expiry of their contract. What will be their position? What kind of impact will the Bill have on these people? What about other contract workers? Will they suffer any losses because of this Bill?

Thirdly, clause 7(1) states that if any employee thinks that he has been dismissed because of age, he can appeal to the Minister for reinstatement. Mr Speaker, Sir, under our Employment Act, any employee, irrespective of the contribution he has made, so long as the employer gives him one month's notice or gives him one month's pay in lieu, he can be dismissed. If an employer takes such an action when the employee reaches the age of 55, then what can the Ministry of Labour do to prove that he has been dismissed because of age? How is the Minister going to reconcile the inconsistency between the Employment Act and the present Bill? 2.16 pm

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my cautious support to this Bill.

Sir, the Retirement Age Bill is a landmark legislation. It has tremendous impact on all employees. Presently, only employees earning $1,500 a month and below are protected under the Employment Act. But this present Bill, as we have here today, will cover all working people in Singapore. Although I am in support of moving up the retirement age, I think in resource-scarce and manpower-scarce Singapore, we have got to be careful in the implementation of this Bill. Therefore, I would like to urge the Minister to consider very carefully caution in two aspects. One is making void all collective agreements. This takes away the right of all individuals and companies to enter into contracts of employment. Up to now, it is only proper that we protect employees earning below $1,500 a month. But with this present Bill, which will become an Act if passed, it will protect an employee, whether he earns $1,000 or $10,000 a month. That takes away a great deal of responsibility from companies. There are many cases in which a contract of service for a fixed term is desirable and yet, under this present Bill, it is no more allowed. I believe even the Government service, especially the Ministry of Defence, has also a number of term contracts. I wonder whether the Minister will make them void or they will be exempted from the Bill.

Sir, I think there are many instances where one may have an overseas project and a person is employed for a fixed term at $3,000 a month. It is more than adequate that he knows what he is entering into. He has entered into a contract of employment with a company for a fixed term. These employees need not be protected. But under the present Bill, it protects everyone.

The second area of concern is that anyone who has been dismissed now, irrespective of his level of income or seniority in the company, can claim under clause 7, that he has been retired because of age. Again, this is a very dangerous precedent. I do not know what is the Ministry's procedure in handling such employees. Presently, those who are employed and paid a salary of $1,500 a month or below are covered by the Employment Act. There are established procedures which are followed, in which employees and employers know their rights. But with the Retirement Age Bill coming into force, the process is not very clear. A senior executive who earns a high salary can also claim that he has been asked to leave the company on account of age. Will there be a deluge or a great number of such complaints to the Labour Ministry?

The present retirement age of 55 covering employees who are earning above $1,500 makes the system very flexible. With the change to the retirement age at 60 years, the rights are taken away from the company and the employee. It will be very difficult for companies to remove an executive or senior manager who has reached the age of 55 and who may not be very competent or diligent in his job. He will just sit for the next five years on the job, because the present Bill mandates that he be given a job until age 60. These are two serious areas of concern which I want the Minister to have a look and, as far as possible, be more flexible in the implementation of this particular Act.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed pleased that after a long wait of three years or thereabouts, Government has taken action to legislate the retirement age to 60. This will not be necessary if a good majority of employers have taken heed of the Government's call made three years ago. I would have thought that in a labour shortage situation, employers would find it imperative to tap this source of labour supply, namely, those aged 55 and above, instead of retiring them at the conventional age of 55.

As mentioned by the Minister, with each passing year, there will be more and more older workers. They are expected to live longer in view of the increasing health consciousness of the population. As such, this Bill will ensure that such workers will continue to be gainfully employed and provide for a new source of labour supply which will help, overall, in deflating the increasing dependence on foreign workers. Therefore, workers, employers and the Government will benefit from the introduction of this Bill. Nevertheless, I would like to comment on two clauses of the Bill.

Clause 7 provides remedies for unlawful dismissal on the ground of age. Mr Speaker, Sir, the concern is that employers may disguise such dismissal as something else by invoking section 10 of the Employment Act. Then what happens? In unionised companies, I am sure the trade unions will police and monitor that it will never be allowed to happen. However, my main concern is for those non-bargainable workers and those workers who are not allowed to join unions by virtue of the nature of their employment. Should such actions by employers befall upon them, it may go undetected. Though the Bill provides for representations in writing to the Minister within one month of the dismissal, such workers, after being subjected to the trauma of being dismissed or terminated at a senior age, may find it undignified and not worth their while to do so, or they may lack the understanding of the intricacies of the law or the provisions of the Act to do so.

In cases of such nature, it is indeed a mammoth and difficult task to establish that the employer's actions run foul of the law. As such, I would like to ask the Minister how his Ministry is going to monitor and ensure that such situations will not happen. I would like to suggest that employers be made to notify the Ministry when terminating or dismissing such workers, who are above the age of 55, for whatever reasons, perhaps for an initial period of three years upon the implementation of the Bill.

Clause 10 allows the Minister to exempt with or without conditions any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Act. To ensure that any exemption will not have any detrimental effect or impact, I support the call made by Mr Goh Chee Wee that the views of the trade unions be sought prior to granting any exemption by the Minister. I believe this will not be a problem as the Ministry had in the past sought the views of the trade union concerned in granting applications for exemptions by employers, for example, in the limit of overtime work monthly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1986, the National Wages Council called for the implementation of the flexible wage system. In 1988 and 1989, it urged companies to raise the retirement age from 55 years to 60 or more. Under the flexible wage system, workers are rewarded according to the productivity and company's profitability. Therefore, companies which adopted the flexible wage system will not discriminate against older workers or put them at a disadvantage, as they are paid according to their productivity. Adoption of the flexible wage system would therefore render the issue of retirement age irrelevant.

The Minister has informed the House in a previous sitting that in the unionised sector, more than 80% of companies have implemented some form of flexible wage system. In the non-unionised sector, the extent of implementation has reached 70%. Therefore, unless the adoption of the flexible wage system has taken a turn for the worse, I cannot reconcile the announcement made by the Minister that the legislation of the retirement age to 60 will be accompanied in tandem with the reduction of CPF contribution rates for those aged 55 and above.

Most of the unionised companies have already raised their retirement age to 60 without the need for legislation and without the need for a cut in CPF rates. So, who are we punishing, so to speak? I believe it is the unions and employers of those unionised companies who have responded positively and responsibly to the Government's call. Contrary to what many may think, workers who are 55 to 60 years of age do still have their housing loans to service, they do still have schooling children to support, and they do still need CPF for their old age.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Bill, I have my reservation with regard to the need to reduce the CPF contribution rate in tandem with the raising of retirement age, because a good majority of companies have already adopted the mechanism of the flexible wage system to address the concern regarding the higher cost of employing older workers. Such a reduction in CPF contribution rate seems to indicate that the objectives of the flexible wage system so strongly advocated during the recession years have not been achieved. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that the reduction of the CPF contribution rates be reduced incrementally over a few years. After all, the restoration of the CPF rates for those below 55 years was done in that manner. Just as the Government has come up with a final CPF contribution rate of 20% each for both employer and employee, perhaps the Government needs to do the same for the CPF contribution rates for workers aged 55 and above.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Sir, this Bill seeks to provide a minimum retirement age and the operative provision is clause 4(2), which prevents an employer from terminating the employment of an employee under 60 on the ground of age.

I would urge the Minister to note that while clause 4(2) refers to dismissal, nevertheless, reading that with clause 2, subclause (2), the term "dismissal" would also cover normal termination of contract, even when the contract allows termination without giving any reasons after giving a certain period of notice. What we have is a fairly serious inroad into the principles that employers are free to employ workers on such terms as they wish, subject to the Employment Act.

This inroad raises two questions. It has been explained on two grounds. First, the need to utilise fully our economic potential; and secondly, the lack of voluntary action on the part of employers to raise the retirement age.

I subscribe fully to the aims. However, let me strike a discordant note from the previous debate by asking two questions. First, do the reasons given justify making the inroad? And secondly, at a practical level, can the legislation, in fact, be enforced?

Taking the first question, on a philosophical level, we have always emphasised the supremacy of market forces. The law of supply and demand should ensure that in a tight labour situation, employers are unlikely to terminate the employment of a healthy trained worker who has just passed 55. The Minister has referred to statistics which show that only 4.5% of the non-unionised companies have voluntarily raised the retirement age very reluctantly. I am not sure what the statistics in fact show. Perhaps it may be no more than that, in reply to a question, employers are not willing to say that they are legally obliged to raise the retirement age. But, in practice, as I said, in a tight labour situation, they may, in fact, be more than willing to employ employees who are past 55. In any event, if employers choose not to do so, generally it is their choice. The employers risk their capital to obtain profit and it is for the employer to decide how best to go about getting that profit.

It is generally not for the Government to direct the employers on (1) who the employer should employ; (2) how old or what race should the employee be; or (3) what the employee's skills should be. This makes sense because, as I said, it is the employer, and not the Government, which is doing business. And that free environment encourages business by imposing few restrictions and, ultimately, benefit the employees. It is, therefore, generally in the employee's best interest for the full interplay of market forces to operate.

Exception to that rule should only be made if two conditions are satisfied. First, there is a serious social problem to be tackled, for example, the employment of child labour. Because child labour cannot be tolerated on the principle of free market. There is also a need to ensure that the basic human dignity and safety are not endangered simply based on the free market principles. That is why we have the Employment Act. Second, in addition, before the Government intervenes, it must make sure that it can, in fact, enforce the legislation.

Taking the first ground, I have already said a few words. I am not sure that the grounds that the Minister had advanced, in my view, justify forcing employers, at the threat of a $5,000 fine or a jail sentence for six months, to increase the retirement age. We go back to the free market principles. What is in the employee's best interest? To let the employers decide for themselves and allow free market forces to operate, or for the Government to direct the employer-employee relationship? Secondly, at the enforcement level, at the practical level. When it comes to enforcement, this legislation, in some ways, is an employer's nightmare and a lawyer's dream. It will, in my view, open up endless possibilities of conflict whenever the employment of a person aged between 55 years and 60 years is terminated.

The Minister may be aware that there is such a concept known as constructive dismissal in law. Whenever an employer moves an employee to a lower-paying job, or to a job with lower responsibilities, the employee could argue that, in fact, he has been dismissed from his employment. Thus, every time an employee who is within 55 years and 60 years is moved to a job with lesser responsibilities or a lower-paying job, he will consider making a complaint under clause 7 of the Bill. The Minister and his investigating officers will then have their hands full checking on (1) the reasons for every termination of employment of an employee who is just under 60 years and (2) the reasons for the reduction of salary or reduction of responsibilities of an employee just under 60 years. I am not sure that an inquiry will come up with anything substantial. The possibilities of a very large number of complaints cannot be underestimated because it costs an employee absolutely nothing to make a complaint.

There are also any number of loopholes that have been mentioned earlier, for example, the employment of temporary workers or renewable contracts which are simply not renewed. What this legislation really does is to place a powerful psychological weapon in the hands of the employees. I have listened to the reasons given and the Minister has referred to a number of countries where the retirement age has been raised. He referred to the United States, Italy, Germany and various continental countries. I would say that all countries which have attempted to regulate in great detail the relationship between employer and employee have perhaps succeeded in raising the cost of doing business. On the other hand, he has referred to the NIEs. The Minister referred to the norm in Taiwan. I notice the careful usage of the word "norm" which means that there is no legislation, I assume, in Taiwan. The only other example is the Philippines which I am not sure is the best example under the circumstances.

Sir, I do not want to be misunderstood as being against employers voluntarily raising the retirement age of the employees. I am all for utilising our economic potential to the fullest and I am encouraging, with whatever means possible, inducing and creating the right environment for employers to continue to employ workers who are past 55. In any event, I believe in the free market, and if there is a need, I believe employers would continue to employ. So I say that, ultimately, the question is whether the employers should be forced to do so.

The other social issue which the Minister may wish to take into account is that perhaps persons above the age of 45 years, but below the age of 55 years, who lose their jobs will become almost unemployable because very few employers may wish to take the risk of employing someone they know that they would have limited rights to fire such a person after the age of 55 years.

The other point that the Minister may wish to take into account is that, generally, we have created a social climate where our employees accept that it is in their best interests to have as few restrictions on business as possible. It is in everybody's best interest and given that our unions have accepted that, given that our workers have accepted that, before we move away from that principle, I would advise caution.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I share Mr Shanmugam's misgivings about the efficacy of this Bill. The Minister has already stated very cogently the reasons behind the Bill and I think we can fully accept his reasons. My misgivings centre on whether or not we can actually, as a practical matter, raise the retirement age by way of legislation. The problem is that what we are doing here is making a fundamental change to the employer-employee relationship. The key provision, as Mr Shanmugan has pointed out, is clause 4(2) which states that "no employer shall dismiss on the ground of age any employee who is below 60 years of age or the prescribed retirement age."

At present, as long as you give your employees adequate notice, a prescribed notice on his contract of service, you have to give him no reason. But now you cannot dismiss him on the ground of age. I welcome the Minister's statement that the law is not designed to ensure that people are employed for life irregardless. You can still dismiss a person for misconduct, you can still dismiss a person for incompetence, you can still dismiss a person because he is not contributing. Given this fact that you can still dismiss people for these reasons, it takes no great amount of wit for an employer who is determined to circumvent the law to find a reason to terminate an employee's service which is not connected with his age. So there is this wide open possibility of circumvention. What is the solution to that? Is the solution to that to build a super structure of rules to regulate what reasons are acceptable and what reasons are not? Because if we start going down that slippery slope, we will soon find ourselves enmeshed in a web of rules about who can be dismissed, when they can be dismissed, for what reasons they can be dismissed, and I am not sure that will be for our long-term interest.

So while the principle of the Bill is certainly laudable, I think we should have no illusions as to whether or not a determined employer can actually be forced to keep on employees past up to the retirement age that the Minister is seeking. The employer right now does not have to give a reason. Does this Bill require employers now to justify the dismissal of employees? Because if it does, again, we are talking about a very serious change.

In clause 4(3), it is made an offence to dismiss someone on the ground of age. But if the employer is not forced to give a reason, the burden of proof, in the normal way, will be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the dismissal was on the ground of age. We should be very careful about criminalising behaviour, making crimes of things, unless we are very certain that this is necessary.

In clause 7, the Minister has said that we have conciliation and I fully support that. The only way to make this Bill work is to use conciliation rather than prosecution. When a complaint is made to the Minister, he puts in an investigating officer. The investigating officer is not bound by the normal rules of law, or the rules of evidence, or the rules of procedure and he might be able to come to a more realistic appraisal of the situation. Once you start having prosecutions, you have procedural problems and you have evidentiary problems. The courts already have got a lot of cases, departmental summonses of all kinds, and I think we should be very careful about adding to their burden.

The only sure way that you can keep your job until retirement, or beyond retirement, is to make yourself useful to your employer. It is, as Mr Shanmugam said, primarily an economic thing. The other way that people can protect themselves is to join a responsible union. To expect this law to change the attitudes, to change fundamentally the relationship between the employer and the employee may be a bit unrealistic. It is open to lots of circumvention.

Sir, it is with these very deep misgivings that I support the Bill.

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. I declare my interest as an employer and I would like to speak first on the employer's behalf.

Employers do have feelings. Employers should not be seen as cold-blooded monsters. So employers do see loyalty and experience of their employees. And I think there is no problem of employers keeping their employees beyond 55, 60, or 65 years. The point is whether they are contributing and they will continue to be productive. So, basically, we have two groups of workers here. Those that can actually look after themselves by continuously upgrading themselves, especially those on the executive and managerial levels. This group of people need not worry as they can take care of themselves, so no legislation is needed. But it is the other group, ie, the less qualified, that was put up by the unionist Member, that is a problem. And I think DPM BG Lee did say about the problems of our seniority wage system where a new company and a 10-year old company doing the same business will find that the new company is in a better position. The old clerk cannot do the word processor and things like this. There is a problem in the total system. Employers actually look at the competitive environment, look at the total package and stay competitive. This is what the employers are looking at. Because at the end of the day, if simply legislating and extending the retirement age means that the company can no longer be competitive, then it may just close shop. It is not just the few jobs that it is protecting, but the total number of jobs that we are losing that is of concern.

Personally, I am sad to see good bodies laying to waste at the HDB void decks playing chess. In fact, the Minister for Health did say at the last sitting that Singaporeans can expect to live up to 80 years old. So from 60 years to 80 years, you are talking about a good 20 years. And I share the sentiments of the unionist MP that it is the training part. If we make them to continue to be useful economically, I think people will want to keep them.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister why then raise the retirement age progressively from 60 years to 67 years. Why not, at one go, raise it to 65 years, and why the magic figure of 67 years? Probably, to avoid misunderstanding, the exemption categories could be spelt out from day one, that is, which categories would stay put at 55 years, 60 years and so on. Those jobs which require more physical work and less marginal skills, are the jobs that are at stake but not those skilful jobs. The Bill actually benefits the individuals as they now have the right, especially those with marginal skills, to continue to work as their self-ego and self-esteem will continue to be there and they will have a continuous income, as the Minister has said. The employers actually also benefit under this tight labour situation where you have a lot of workers who may just wish to retire at 55 years and they are there to work and to continue to serve them. The Government will benefit as less of them will go to the Government for welfare. There is an economic contribution and they can contribute more to our reserves. So, overall, the whole of Singapore will benefit if the legislation is implementable and fair.

But there is this cost-sharing and the Minister has announced that because of costs, employers want the CPF to be reduced and the Minister has announced a 5% reduction. The question is: is it fair to the individual? To those who are not contributing, of course, it is fair; those who have no skill at all and are costing the company that much money. But to those who are actually contributing and are useful to the company, then it may not be fair to these workers. But I suppose there should be a compromise, so that employers benefit from those who are contributing and carry those who are not contributing. And the 5% reduction, as I see, is fair.

But then the question is: what about the Government? There is a price to pay here. The individual pays a price. The employers pay a price. What about the Government, other than just issuing notices and sending the errant employers to jail? Could the Government actually do more to show its sincerity of wanting workers to continue to work beyond 55 by, as suggested earlier, allowing higher medical expenditure for companies? What about lower income taxes? What about a medical allowance of $2,000-$3,000 for the older workers? What about the topping-up scheme where the Government is generous in giving $200 for the purchase of shares? What about giving a couple of hundred dollars, as surpluses permit, to these older workers and paid into their Medisave accounts?

There are things that we like to see the Government playing its part other than just legislating. A higher interest rate could be given for CPF accounts, for instance. What about discounts in public health costs, discounts in public transport and so on and so forth?

Sir, with that, I support the Bill cautiously, because the employers' worry is, as Mr Chng said, on contract employment. They may engage a consultant for a period of two years or engage a designer for all he is worth for 2-3 years. Will that right be taken away from the employers?

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.48 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm