TRIPARTITE PARTNERSHIP IN SINGAPORE

Mr Cyrille Tan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House recognises tripartism as a key competitive advantage of Singapore, and calls on Government, employers and unions to further strengthen tripartite partnership in Singapore so as to enhance Singapore's competitiveness as we face new and greater economic and social challenges in the 21st century.

Trade unions affiliated to the NTUC have always looked after the interests of the workers. We make sure we know what the workers want and what they are worried about. As our economy is closely linked to the world economy, we have to pay close attention to outside forces. We must anticipate changes and not be overtaken by events.

Two months ago, the NTUC used scenario planning tools to plan for the next few years. We have identified a number of key concerns. I will share with this House today our top three concerns, and how we propose to deal with them.

Key concerns

Sir, our first key concern is how to make our trade unions more useful to our members, to companies and to society.

To stay relevant, we must have programmes that workers find interesting and of practical value. We must mobilise workers to make their companies more competitive. We must always consider national interests before taking any action. In other words, we must add value - to workers, to companies and to society.

Our workers are better-educated and many have travelled quite a bit. They are more sophisticated, more discerning, and even more demanding. And they have different needs which we must cater to. We must find new ways to recruit members, and deal with workplace problems. That is why we must respond well to the changes. That is why our membership has been going up. In many parts of the world, where trade unions operate in traditional ways, membership has declined sharply.

Companies, too, have to cope with rapid changes. They have to become more productive, innovative and nimble. If we as trade unions hamper their efforts to restructure, to become competitive, then they will resent our presence. But if we can work with them to move ahead of competition, they will accept us as partners. Indeed, there are some employers who have openly described unions as useful partners.

Our unions have helped make Singapore a better place to live in and do business. Because we prefer negotiations to strikes, our streets are no longer battlegrounds. Indeed, each year brings in more investments - to create more, and better-paying jobs. Our cooperatives help moderate the cost of living. Our NTUC Club has several outlets. We have resorts and country clubs. So workers can now spend their leisure in style, and at prices well within their reach. We must continue to help workers stretch their hard-earned dollars, where it matters most.

Our second key concern is whether workers can stay employable through their working lives.

Some 40% of our workers have low education, only up to lower secondary. They are older, many above 40 years. They do low-skilled jobs which create low value. It is hard for them to upgrade. But Singapore is restructuring. It is becoming a knowledge-based economy. So the low-skilled jobs will go. Yes, EDB has been working very hard. It brings in new investments. But the new factories require workers with high skills. Look at the wafer fab, petrochemicals, and the pharmaceuticals. They need workers with at least `A' levels. So when workers are retrenched from low-skilled jobs, can they find work in wafer fabs? If not, what can they do? How can we help them?

Some workers may remain unemployed, not because there are no jobs, but because they do not have the skills for these jobs. This is what we call structural unemployment. We need to improve our workers' skills. But this is something that unions cannot do on their own. It requires the combined efforts of government, employers and unions.

Our third concern is how to cope with foreign labour.

We have had foreign workers for many years. So far, they are found only in certain industries, and at certain levels. But, in his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke of the need to bring in more foreign talents to supplement our limited local talent pool. We in the labour movement support this move, as long as Government and employers work with us to retrain and upgrade our workers. We will make these foreign talents feel at home in Singapore. If the better ones want to stay and make Singapore their home, so much the better.

Critical uncertainties

Sir, we face critical uncertainties which can affect our future development.

Firstly, will our workers stay employable? In 1996, NTUC launched the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) to help our workers upgrade their skill levels. We are encouraged by the response of our workers and are grateful for the support given by Government and some employers. We must do more. We need to make SRP a national programme. It is not enough to run such programmes only for the unionised sector. Government must be prepared to invest more in worker training. So, too, employers. Workers must accept lifelong learning.

At the PAP Convention on 11th January, Prime Minister Goh said he thought it was a good idea to have a new ministry that could focus on manpower development. So workers can look forward to even more systematic training programmes.

Last year, I was in an NTUC team that made a study tour of three highly developed countries - Switzerland, France and Germany. What did we find? We found a high level of unemployment: 5.3% in Switzerland, 12.6% in France, and 11.1% in Germany. Seven out of 10 unemployed in these three countries will remain unemployed or without a job for a long, long time. They are caught in structural unemployment. They do not have skills to take on high-paying jobs that are being created. Can we upgrade our workers' skills fast enough to avoid structural unemployment?

Another critical uncertainty: Can we continue to attract quality investments? Practically all countries in the world are now pursuing the market economy, with slight variations. And many have two factors which potential investors find attractive: a large domestic market and an abundant natural resources. We do not have such advantages. Business and wage costs are also higher in Singapore. Of course, we have many plus points in Singapore going for us. We have political stability and industrial harmony. Our workers are more skilful than those in developing countries. But these countries are improving their capability. We are also competing with developing countries for quality investments. Can we continue to get such investments?

Our third concern is whether NTUC's symbiotic ties with the PAP will remain strong. PM Goh touched on the symbiotic ties when he addressed the PAP Convention. He said, and I quote:

"We should strengthen our symbiotic relationship with the NTUC and the unions. Union members and workers have benefited from the policies and the attitude of the PAP towards them. For example, the PAP Government has helped workers to enjoy similar leisure facilities as their employers, management and professionals. Union members, in turn, have supported the PAP in implementing its programmes."

To underline this symbiosis, he has asked the PAP and the NTUC to jointly organise a seminar to discuss the impact of the regional currency and economic turmoil. During our scenario planning sessions, we did consider various joint efforts by the NTUC and the PAP.

The symbiotic ties will be maintained, only if the young in both the unions and the PAP forge a close understanding. The young have not had the kind of shared experiences the older generation had - in working together to overcome crisis. We have a difficult year ahead of us. It would be useful for the trade unionists and PAP activists to work together to overcome problems.

The PAP-NTUC symbiosis has led to Singapore making good progress. This symbiosis is based on trust, on mutual benefit. Membership of the two organisations will remain and depend on personal choice, as it has been all along. There is no law that says that the NTUC and the PAP must work together. For example, if the Government were to ignore workers' interests, there will be calls from the labour movement to review the relationship with the Party. Also, if unions act irrationally, there is no reason for Government to offer a helping hand. So we must continue to nurture the PAP-NTUC symbiosis, and not take chances with it. Without this symbiosis, it is not possible for us to operate the tripartite system.

Towards Stronger Tripartite Links

Sir, to meet the challenges ahead, we have to review our current approaches. We will strengthen methods which have worked to our advantage and discard old mindsets and methods which are no longer relevant.

The tripartite framework has served us well. Our objective as trade unions is to safeguard the interests of workers. We can do so effectively only if companies become more productive and competitive. Government must continue to provide good infrastructure, transparent regulations and stable conditions to attract investors. Then workers can continue to have good jobs and look forward to fair wage increases. This is the basis of our tripartite relationship.

Singapore has succeeded so far because Government, employers and workers have worked together. Where there is industrial harmony, there is social and economic development; where there is constant strife, it is difficult for businessmen, local or foreign, to make long-term plans. A strong tripartite relationship is not just critical in maintaining this industrial harmony. It is also a key competitive advantage to help us become a developed economy early in the 21st century.

Question proposed.

Mr Sinnakaruppan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

Sir, tripartism has worked uniquely for Singapore in the past. For the future, Singapore needs a vision, a view of the success that is only possible with a synergetic relationship between Government, union and employer. We need to envision and shape the future together in a proactive manner. Rose coloured glasses and a complacent hope that the future will work itself out will never guarantee jobs, neither will it guarantee the high morale, productivity and skills level of workers and to support the economy in bad times.

Sir, today, we stand at a crucial point in our economic history amidst the regional currency crisis. If steps are not taken to further strengthen the tripartite partnership, we will not withstand the onslaught of change. The time can come instead when a lot of finger pointing will take place, as everyone blames someone else for the mess, and no one accepts responsibility. Key issues in the economy and business of Singapore have to be addressed before they become major problems. Only then can we realise the interests of workers, the needs of companies, and the hopes of the Government for the nation's future.

The three partners in this relationship must continue to function like the legs in a tripod to support each other and ensure that each leg remains standing firmly so that the whole structure is stable. However, a tripod does not exist as an end in itself. It supports a greater entity; in the case of the tripartite partnership, the entity being the nation itself.

What are the hopes for tripartite partnership in the future? Tripartism can be described as kaleidoscopic. A kaleidoscope is primarily made of three strips of mirrors that are equilaterally situated to reflect the best of patterns, shapes and colours. The kaleidoscope always makes fascinating viewing. The positioning of the mirrors is strategic. Even when the different "stones" in the kaleidoscope get relocated and mix with other "stones", the views are always interesting and appealing. Needless to say, all these views are impossible without the strategic alignment of the mirrors. In fact, when one of the three strips of mirrors gets damaged, the entire kaleidoscope is ineffective and thus ruined. Similarly, the idea of tripartism is to create the best pattern of cooperation and bring out the best in each worker, with the collaboration of the employer and the union, with government. The end product, the beautiful pattern, represents the wonderful nation that results from a true tripartite partnership. However, when any strip of mirror, representing the employer, union or government, is ruined, the damage is felt by each partner in the tripartite alliance, and the end product is a nothing.

Tripartite partnership must be strengthened for the primary reason that the international business world is going to be constantly changing and increasingly competitive.

Sir, today, I would like to focus my speech on three key areas. The first two will touch on how the PAP Government can further add value to the labour movement and the third area on how the labour movement can further add value to companies.

As it has been just pointed out by the NMP, life long employability is a key concern of our workers. About 700,000 workers or about 43% of our workforce have at best perhaps a Secondary Two education or less, and many of them are above the age of 40. So they are relatively slower. It would be difficult for them to cope as we become a knowledge-based and IT-plugged economy. Keen competition demands that our workers are trained, retrained and are multi-skilled. Jobs are becoming intertwined and inter-dependent that, for instance, the traditional lines between the blue-collar and white-collar have blurred. Jobs are fast becoming a pale-blue or bluish-white kind of work.

With the regional economic crisis, the neighbouring countries are becoming significantly more cost competitive. While Singapore can still succeed in attracting higher value added investments and white-collar jobs into Singapore, our problem will be the hastened pace at which low value-added dark blue-collar jobs will disappear. What this means for Singapore, given the lower educational profile of the Singapore workforce is, as Mr Cyrille Tan has pointed out, structural unemployment. We have to take preventive action before it bites our economic jugular veins like a werewolf. Europe has been bitten very badly. Seven out of 10 workers face structural unemployment.

Nearer home, just look at what has happened to Hong Kong's manufacturing sector. I am not sure whether it is structural unemployment, but it is a very serious job displacement problem. In 1990, the colony's burgeoning manufacturing sector employed more than a million people. Due to restructuring, the manufacturing industry shrunk drastically in 1995 and shed two-thirds of the workers and only employed 350,000 workers. We could potentially face a more serious situation than what the Hong Kong lesson has shown. Smaller economies under the pressure of rising costs due to resource constraints can restructure their industrial base much faster and deeper. Presently, the manufacturing sector's share of Singapore's GDP and employment is 27% and 23% respectively. In other words, GDP contribution from manufacturing sector, 27%, number of people employed in the manufacturing sector, 23% of the total workforce. Given the lack of focus on skills upgrading and given the present gloom and doom, it is not an unrealistic scenario to imagine the manufacturing employment in the next four years shrinking from 23% of the workforce to 12%, in other words, halving in four years' time, which would result in job losses of at least 200,000 workers.

This is no glance at the crystal ball. It is a very real, highly likely possibility, if nothing is done. And the workers of Singapore are already starting to see the first signals of the looming storm'. In yesterday's Business Times, a survey of 100 companies indicates that job security rather than pay now tops workers' concerns. And, Members also must have read yesterday that Seagate Technology, Singapore's second largest private sector employer, will announce major layoffs this week. As industry rumours have it, 20% of its staff will be cut in Singapore and that this is only but the tip of the iceberg' for all Singapore manufacturing industries.

Sir, what is most worrying is that the most vulnerable group amongst the 700,000 less-educated Singaporean workers is that more than 220,000 of them are male bread-earners whose household incomes are less than $2,000. These are workers who live in 3-room HDB flats, or maybe 2-room, or 1-room rental flats and they are working as production workers or as cleaners in commerce and services industries.

Sir, the question that the Members of this House have to ask is: how are these workers going to cope with the storm that is looming when it hits them and their families? And they are no less Singaporeans than all of us in this House. They, and the many more thousands of workers, urgently need the attention of the frontbench, and not just the sympathy of the frontbench or the backbench.

So the clarion call is for the Government to focus more and invest much more funds on skills redevelopment of the workforce. While Government talks about `Thinking Schools and Learning Nation', it has given a disproportionately low attention to the education and training of the less educated mid-career adults in our workforce.

Sir, let me illustrate why. In the Budget for FY 97, there were a combined total of about 470,000 students in our primary and secondary schools. The Government allocated $1.83 billion to educate these 500,000 students. In addition, it allocated $78 million in Edusave bursaries and scholarships and for other scholarships. And it has set aside over a number of years a total of $5 million from our surpluses into the Edusave Endowment Fund.

In stark contrast, very little has been spent on educating or skilling our workforce. The Government funds worker training mainly through the Skills Development Fund (SDF). In FY 97, it has only disbursed something like $47 million to companies and of this $47 million, $22 million was actually collected through the Skills Development Levy from companies. Perhaps, the Government could have spent a few more millions of dollars here and there through some other training programmes. But that is the amount allocated for worker training.

Sir, there are 700,000 workers out there with less than eight years of formal education and yet what the Government invests on them sounds like peanuts' compared to what is invested in our school children. So they say peanuts attract monkeys. Perhaps in good times, the workers may be swinging from job to job, but in bad times, they will have no job to swing to. They may have to swing from tree to tree. Sir, these workers too need schemes like the Edusave. How about initiating Train-Save' Schemes and training bursaries and scholarships for workers? What about emulating the $5 billion Edusave Endowment Fund with a Worker Training Endowment Fund which could go far beyond the scope of the Skills Development Fund as the SDF has got many limitations.

Sir, please do not get me wrong about spending money on our children. I support every cent that is spent in educating our school going children. We must invest on them today to reap the benefits tomorrow. But what I am also saying is that the Government must spend just as much, if not more, and spend it today for workers who missed out on their education yesterday for various reasons. And if we do not do enough for them today, then there may be no tomorrow.

If the Government is really committed to life-long employability and implementing the concept of life-long learning, it must recognise that it has to go beyond investing in the education of the young. It must develop a comprehensive national infrastructure to develop and coordinate skills upgrading, continuing education and training. It must provide a mechanism, a nexus, beyond the schools for continuation of learning from the school to the workplace. It must provide the flexibility to ensure life-long employability of workers so that it can respond effectively to the changing skill needs of industry and business. It must provide incentives and motivation for workers to want to upgrade and learn a new skill even in good times.

It is with great hope, anxiety and high expectations that the workers look forward to the establishment of the Ministry of Manpower, as announced by our Prime Minister. It is also our hope that the new Ministry will coordinate the work of various agencies to develop a comprehensive continuing education infrastructure. A wide range of Government-funded programmes that allow for modular learning, and the accumulation of training credits leading up to various levels of national certification should be conceptualised, implemented and coordinated. A tripartite National Training Committee needs to be formed to coordinate these efforts and to provide feedback. Schemes like the ITE's Company On-the-Job Training Centre (COJTC) and NTUC's Skills Redevelopment Programme must be strengthened and beefed up to become national programmes. And as I have said earlier, Edusave concepts must be extended into Train-Save Schemes for workers.

Sir, in short, we need a paradigm shift in the way that we look at continuing education and skills upgrading. We need to take a holistic approach to succeed. We need the Government to act and act fast. We in the labour movement keenly await the formation of the Ministry of Manpower.

Symbiotic relationship between PAP and NTUC

Sir, I now like to move on to the second area in which the Government can further add value to the labour movement and that is the symbiotic relationship between the PAP and the NTUC.

Sir, the PAP has always had the support of workers. In fact, trade unionists were amongst the convenors of the Party. At the inauguration of the PAP, most of those who were present were union members. Half the Protem Committee were trade unionists. Once in power in 1959, the PAP Government set about to implement its election pledges - to strengthen the labour movement. Laws were passed to check employers from taking advantage of workers. Trade unions were given their rightful place in society.

In 1961, the labour movement was split into two, with one group (the NTUC) backing the PAP and the other supporting Barisan Sosialis. The NTUC stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the PAP in the struggle against colonialism, then against communism and, subsequently, against communalism. It is this symbiotic relationship that has enabled us to weather the storms in earlier decades. With the support of organised labour, the Government has been able to take tough decisions to overcome one crisis after another. Let me state here and now that we in the labour movement stand fully behind the Government as it takes steps to minimise the impact of the regional currency crisis.

One may ask why this unflinching support. Because the workers know that their destiny and that of the nation depends on good and effective government. Without good government, we could not have full employment, 90% home ownership, universal education, medical and other social benefits. But I am afraid that a growing number of younger Singaporeans take this good life for granted, and this good relationship for granted. The old guards in the NTUC and the PAP have made way for younger leaders who have not gone through the same experiences in tackling life-and-death issues. So will the symbiotic relations betweeen the PAP and NTUC remain strong in the years ahead?

As Mr Cyrille Tan has mentioned, we have to continually nurture this special partnership which is so unique to us and not take chances. Last Sunday, the Secretary-General of the PAP, PM Goh has called for closer ties between the PAP and the NTUC. This call has certainly reassured the labour movement of the continued commitment of the PAP and particularly under the younger leadership.

Sir, I would like now to move to this area where unions can add value to companies. While we pride ourselves in having the world's best workforce, there is still tremendous scope for improvement. One area where we lag behind as a nation, especially as seen in the BERI survey, is in workers' attitudes. Workers' attitudes are shaped largely by the workplace relationship with management and therefore the level of their motivation.

We have an excellent working relationship at the top level, between the CEOs of companies and the NTUC leaders. But the area that needs further strengthening is at the middle level and at the workplace where better rapport needs to be built between branch union officials and the middle management. Greater effort is needed to build mutual trust and understanding. We need to develop shared vision and show that if the relationship is stoked the right way, the unions can galvanize the workforce to contribute significantly and add much, much more value to the companies.

On the part of the unions, there is a need to perhaps review the traditional way that we do things and conduct negotiations. In Japan, for example, the collective bargaining process which is done in the months of spring is called the "Spring Offensive". It sounds very confrontational and I am sure Mr Matthias Yao will agree that it sounds like a military maneouvre. While collective agreements (CAs) still serve a very important role for unionised workers, we have to change the modus operandi. For example, a collective agreement (CA) is a document that captures what compensation and benefits that the company will provide for the workers. But, in my opinion, it is one sided. Time has come for us to move from collective agreements to partnership agreements - from CAs to PAs. A partnership agreement can go beyond the CA and include the commitment of the union and workers to a shared vision and add value to the company. One of the key ways in which unions can add value to the company that they work for is through productivity improvement.

While there are many scientific ways in which we can approach productivity improvement, to me, the fundamental factor that contributes to productivity is human attitude. The right work attitudes of staff can do wonders in enhancing productivity. Therefore, if branch unions and management can forge a closer working partnership, there can be so much more value added to companies.

The NTUC and the PSB have set up a task force to find ways for unions to add value to their companies. The NTUC will move its emphasis from productivity awareness to developing an integrated and action-oriented approach to push productivity at the unionised workplace. These could include training, quality action programmes, job redesign and enlargement. The details of these programmes will be announced in due course.

Finally, Sir, let us reaffirm our commitment to tripartism in the light of the present regional scenario. The most scintillating views on the kaleidoscope are obtained in brilliant sunlight. With sunlight, the views sparkle and gleam. Similarly, in boom times, the tripartite relationship is obviously working well. In the absence of sunlight, the patterns of colour and light are still a fascinating sight in the kaleidoscope, because the mirrors are still reflecting all available light off each other. The economic climate that we are in now is like the weak rays of sunshine. The financial and currency turmoil in the region is casting a shadow of pessimism and caution. The situation that we are in now is all the more needy of a tripartite partnership so that the three partners can reflect and bring out the best in each other, to create a beautiful pattern, a lovely society. In the absence of a strong sunlight, when the economy is down, we must ensure that the mirrors of tripartism pick up the best of colours, hues, brilliance and intensity of productivity, so that we can yield the maximum of benefit for the worker, employer and nation as a whole.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion.

The first concern of the NTUC, as Mr Cyrille Tan put it, is: how can trade unions add value to their members and to the tripartite partners? Really, the fundamental question is: how can trade unions remain relevant? To remain relevant, trade unions will have to add value to workers, employers and to society at large. It cannot keep on doing what it used to do, but to do what is useful today and in the years ahead.

The success of any movement depends on the quality of its leaders. We have been fortunate that our unions have thrown up good leaders. In the past, unions could draw from more than 90% of the workforce for members, and hence leaders. In 1970, 84% of all workers at best had primary school education. Today, that same group of workers with that kind of qualification has shrunk to 39%, which means the rest have better education. That has been the success story of Singapore. And drawing from that, if the traditional way in which we think about union membership remains the same, then unions must draw from a poorer pool of members or grassroots leaders. So the difference between the past leaders who still continue today and what we may draw on in the future would be the quality. If we are going to have the same balanced relationship that we have had all these years, then we should re-examine the scope of union representation.

The biggest worry today, as Mr Cyrille Tan and Mr Sinnakaruppan said, is whether our workers will remain employed throughout their active working life. This is the second key concern mentioned by Mr Cyrille Tan. Conventional thinking is that it is the duty of the State to educate the young to the best of their ability, until they go to work. Thereafter, further education, or upgrading of skills is the responsibility of the individual, or his employer. With faster technological change, is this still valid? Each worker now has to re-learn skills three to five times in his working life. The cost of keeping workers employable with relevant skills throughout their working lives has gone up.

Just now, Mr Sinnakaruppan mentioned that the Government through the SDF spent only $47 million in 1996. That is not the full story. For every dollar which the SDF funds, another $10 is paid for either by the employer or the individual. So our total spending on continuing education and training today is more of the order of $400 million to $500 million. And yet this is not enough. Therefore, the cost of upgrading the skills of our workers in the light of the changes around us will be very, very high. So this means that we cannot rely on old thinking about how we deal with continuing education and training. There should be a central agency to plan the manpower needs of the economy, coordinate a national infrastructure for skills upgrading, and to devise programmes to support the individual and the employers. Without this, we will be trapped in the rut.

Workers will say that they do not know what courses to take up, or that they have no time for training, since they have to earn a living. On the other hand, the employers will say that they cannot afford to train if the worker will leave for some other employer at the end of the training. In this period of uncertainty, there will be a natural tendency to cut back on spending. To the employers, I say, "Don't cut back on training." If you do so, you will be making a big mistake. Of course, you can make training more cost effective, but we should not stop training and upgrading. It is the quality of the workforce that will give you the cutting edge in competition. And one more point: It is not enough to train only the young. You need to train the not-so-young and also the old.

Training has to be a national effort, a shared responsibility. We need to find more effective ways of upgrading and channeling workers from the declining sectors (for example, consumer electronics) to new growth sectors like wafer fabrication. If not, Singaporean workers will become under-employed while new growth sectors will be overly dependent on foreign skilled workers. This is not desirable. It is also not sustainable.

Look at the structural unemployment in Europe. New jobs have been created, but large numbers of workers do not have the skills that these jobs require. Each government knows that retraining has to be done, if structural unemployment is to be overcome. But money is scarce. And even the billions of dollars they squeeze out of tight budgets will make only a small difference. This is the price they pay for the past thinking that the upgrading of skills is the responsibility of the individual and the employers. It is now a problem for the Government, and there is just not enough money. If we take care of the continuous retraining of workers now, whilst we can afford it, then the development of new sectors in our economy will be successful, because our workers will truly feel that it has all been done for their benefit.

Therefore, I welcome the proposal to expand the functions of the Ministry of Labour into a Ministry of Manpower. When there is a lead agency to deal with the matter, then the individual efforts of different agencies will move forward in the right direction. Workers will know that there is a Ministry looking after the development of our own workers. It will be a clear focal point. Continuing education and training will then be coordinated. Our workers' skills will be upgraded continuously, so they will remain employed as we bring in new investments. Otherwise, some may think the policies we are putting in place to attract new growth sectors are for the benefit of foreign workers.

Yes, as we move more and more into the knowledge-based economy, we need more knowledge workers. What is more, we need a critical mass of skilled workers in a sector before it can take off. So we need foreign talent.

Take, for example, the financial services sector. If we are to grow the business in new financial services, we must build up a critical mass of expertise, with a heavy injection of foreign talent. It is one thing to look at this from the macro view. What is the impact, seen from the perspective of the individual Singaporean? Let me cite an example from the financial services sector. Just a few days ago, a couple of employees in this sector told me that some Singaporeans feel marginalised, or sidelined. A foreign boss will recruit more foreigners, and Singaporeans are shut out. There does not seem to be a transfer of expertise. We should expect such problems. A critical mass of talent versed in new areas has to be built up from recruiting foreigners. The volume of business at the start is not large, so they do not employ so many Singaporeans. Singaporeans do not seem to be given a role. They have yet to be trained in the skills. It is only when the business volume grows big enough that Singaporeans will be brought into the business. So on the one hand, we need to explain to Singaporeans what to expect, and at the same time monitor to ensure that competent Singaporeans are also given the chance.

We should also be aware of social problems when large numbers of foreign workers from the same source country are concentrated in one place. I am not referring only to Orchard Road or Serangoon Road, but also in the factories. They tend to stick together as a social group. This leads to friction between foreign workers and Singaporean workers, in the same factory. Fortunately, these problems are not serious so far. But we should be mindful.

In view of the turbulence in the East Asian economies, there is some fear among Singaporeans of lay-offs. Yesterday morning, as Mr Sinnakaruppan said, for the first time one of our papers reported, in a long while, that the key concern of our employees is now job security. Little wonder. We read in the newspapers that over two million Indonesians have lost their jobs as a result of the current crisis. They may be joined by another million whom Malaysia intends to send home. Unemployment in Malaysia itself among Malaysians is also expected to rise. There are already more than a million unemployed in Thailand. Another million jobs will be lost in Korea through the restructuring required to restore its economy back to health. When our workers read or hear of such problems, naturally they are a little bit worried.

Quite naturally, employers are concerned about prospects in the coming months. Management will be thinking of strategies for survival. How to weather the next year or two and cost will have to be trimmed. One option is to retrench workers. We have faced such situations before. We have worked together to overcome problems. What is more, we have also put in place systems which should allow us to face downturns with less human cost. Companies should thus be better prepared to cope with the downturn. We did this through the practice of tripartism. Let us not forget that.

What did we put in place, as a result of the last recession? We wanted a system which should allow employers to reduce wage cost without having to resort to retrenchment as a first measure. We have put in place the flexi-wage system. What is this flexi-wage system? In the flexi-wage system, there are two basic components: the monthly wage and the variable bonuses. The variable bonuses should make up about 20% of the total annual wage. So in a downturn the company can reduce annual wage cost by up to 20% and still pay their workers the full monthly wage. Employers should therefore trim wage cost by reducing the variable bonus before they consider retrenchment. We put in place a flexi-wage system, not a flexi-worker system, to allow companies to cope with downturns. It is cut wage cost first, not cut workers first. Unions accept that retrenchment is a management prerogative. But if after working with employers to implement the flexi-wage system, employers do not use it, but resort to retrenchment when the company shows losses for the first time in one quarter, it will not be fair to workers and the unions who represent them. If in making use of the flexi-wage system and other cost cutting measures are still not enough, then we can accept retrenchment to keep the company viable and to save jobs. So I urge all employers not to resort to retrenchment at the first sign of trouble. If we have to accept retrenchment, who goes first?

It is popular to say that in a downturn, the foreigners should be retrenched first. But when a company has to retrench, it should retain the best team, to be competitive. So when it comes to deciding who should go, we should adopt the following:

Between two persons, the one who is clearly better than the other stays while the weaker one is retrenched. If the better worker is a foreigner, the Singaporean is retrenched. If the better worker is Singaporean, then the foreign worker goes. If both are equally good, then the Singaporean stays and the foreign worker goes. This is a sound basis to protect the jobs remaining. Most of these jobs will be held by Singaporeans.

Retrenchment, we hope, will be a short term problem. The well-being of our workers depends on our ability to attract new investments. It has to be knowledge intensive, and high value-added investments. We have to be more productive to overcome our lack of a large domestic market and lack of natural resources. That is why closer cooperation among the three social partners will be more important. Our past success in attracting investments is not something we can take for granted. The competition today is much more intense than it has ever been. We are competing with developed countries for high end investments. We have to make Singapore a profitable place to do business despite our lack of a large domestic market and our lack of natural resources.

To be a valued partner of employers, our unions must continue to do what they have done well in the past: working with employers to foster a harmonious industrial relations climate, and ensuring that the labour market remains flexible and workers employable, as my colleagues have said.

Maintaining a flexible labour market means the critical re-examination of hard-won terms of employment. We cannot assume that what we put in place in the past are still right today. We cannot assume that they have not become rigidities that make our labour market less flexible than other economies. It will not be easy to discard these hard-won terms of employment. Some of these may have been regarded in the past as essential to prevent employers from exploiting workers. So how can such terms be varied or modified without allowing abuse? That is a question together we must address.

Trade unions can also add value to employers through helping to implement programmes to raise productivity - skills upgrading, promotion of Quality Circles, setting up Total Quality Management Programmes, 5S programmes, and suggestions schemes.

When we do this, we will not be the only union movement which helps management, although conventional wisdom may think otherwise. Toyota, for example, acknowledged in the 1980s that it was union support that helped them to develop what they called the Toyota Production System, a highly regarded system which other car manufacturers wanted to also put in place. Toyota knows that it is through the years of close working relationship between management and unions and workers that makes the system possible. So it is not easy for any other company to replicate. So Toyota welcomes GM and the like to look at their system. This shows how at least in one company, management regards cooperation with the union as a critical factor for success.

Under our present circumstances, union support for management is most important today in the area of reducing unit costs, to enhance competitiveness and then it will make a difference to how well we weather the storm ahead. The NTUC and the unions aim to be a valued partner of employers. When the companies are profitable, then jobs are secure, and the economy as a whole benefits.

In what other ways can unions add value to society? In the past 30 years, the labour movement had embarked on two major programmes. The first is the development of the cooperative movement, which has benefited consumers, especially the consumers from the working class. The second is in bringing social and recreational facilities previously enjoyed only by the higher income within the means of the lower income.

In the years ahead, there are two areas where our unions can play a social role. The first concerns the aging population. This will create new needs, such as the care for the elderly. With smaller families and nuclear families, the lower income will require help most, because both husband and wife have got to go to work. Such assistance will fall outside the scope of volunteer welfare organisations. The labour movement can, and should, play a part, with support from the other two social partners.

The second area is the effects of globalisation. Globalisation means that the labour market becomes more competitive, indeed a global one. High end wages will be set by the world-wide shortage of such talent, whilst the low-skilled wages will be depressed by the overwhelming surplus of this group of workers. This widening of the wage gap can create social problems. It can create social tensions. So far, we avoided those problems. Why? Because our education, health and housing policies have kept the real net gap narrower than if let to pure market forces. You take housing - a perennial subject of debate in this House. Our home ownership policy has given each one a roof over their heads, and nine out of 10 own their homes they live in. We take this for granted now. But this is one reason why we do not have people sleeping on the sidewalks, as the jobless do in the cities of the developed nations. For Singaporeans who have been prudent with their home buying decisions, they need not fear being turned out into the streets through unemployment. You see in the developed countries, a high proportion of rent accommodation. When they lose their jobs and cannot pay the rent, the landlord who is from the private sector will demand the keys back to their apartments. That is why every winter you have photographs of people sleeping on the sidewalks in New York. We should build on what we have built up so far and try to narrow the wealth gap further. So, in this, we will have to be more creative to ensure that the asset enhancement programme benefits the lower income.

Unions can play a role and add value to society with the continued support of employers and Government. But will this close partnership built up over the past 20 years last - a question which Mr Sinnakaruppan asked. Will it grow stronger? This will depend on what each of the social partners does.

The partnership between the NTUC and the PAP Government is built on personal relationships, on trust, on shared beliefs and shared goals.

However, at each general election, there is leadership renewal in the PAP Government. We also have leadership renewal in the unions through periodic elections. Personal relationships cannot be handed from one generation to another. It has to be forged anew by the successors. Therefore, to keep tripartism strong, the interaction among leaders of the PAP Government and the NTUC and the unions has to be managed. It takes time for trust to develop. Therefore, we welcome the Prime Minister's suggestion on Sunday that joint seminars for the PAP be held with the NTUC. It is as much an opportunity for the PAP to better understand the workers as it is for union leaders to influence PAP leaders who form the Government so that national policies remain pro-worker. Strengthen the links, and we can be assured that the working relationship, which has been one of our unique strengths as a country, will continue well into the next century.

For now, quite clearly the key concern of everyone is how soon the current economic problems in the region will be resolved. These problems are external but they affect us. To solve this problem, international cooperation is critical. Let us hope that there will be close cooperation and the will to accept the remedies however painful they may be.

Our response internally, in our country, must be to follow what we have done before. We have weathered different crises before, through everyone pulling together. We overcame the 1985-86 recession through the practice of tripartite cooperation. Now is the time to reinforce this.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the outset, let me first state that I have been a member of the National Wages Council for two years. The NWC is one of the key instruments of tripartism in Singapore and I have therefore had the opportunity to observe the workings of tripartite partnership at first hand.

I would like to make four points.

The first point I would like to make is that I agree that tripartism has been a key competitive advantage. It is one of the main socio-economic institutions that has contributed to peaceful industrial relationship in Singapore and has helped to achieve labour market reforms in order to lower the cost of doing business and increase productivity. This tripartite partnership has served Singapore well in three respects. The good industrial relations that we have had in Singapore cannot just be attributed to our labour laws alone which permit workers to strike only after recourse to arbitration. Rather it is due to the meeting of minds of unions, business and Government representatives, achieved after considerable discussions and negotiations. This tradition of dialogue is now well established in Singapore. Its anchor is the NWC which meets intensively for several months each year principally to negotiate wage increases. In its 25 years of existence, the NWC has indeed contributed significantly towards peaceful industrial relations in Singapore.

Second, during the 1985-86 recession, the most important policy change that turned the economy around was the one-off reduction in total labour cost when employers' contribution to the CPF was cut from 25% to 10%, reducing total labour cost overnight by 12%. Without the push from the labour unions and Government, this would not have occurred peacefully.

Third, NTUC and tripartism have also been instrumental in encouraging labour market reforms, such as the switch from fixed to flexible wages that Minister Lim Boon Heng mentioned, and in raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. It is often difficult to change established practices. But tripartism has enabled these adaptations to be made to the Singapore labour system for the good of workers and employers alike.

The second point I would like to make is that Singapore's competitive edge in the future will increasingly entail a greater dependence not on the hardware, such as physical infrastructure but on the software. This includes an innovative culture, quick response time and continued flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. All these attributes have one denominator - the ability to bring about change in society. The speed of change is crucially dependent on the organisation of that particular society and in particular on its socio-political institutions. That society which is organised in such a way that desired changes can be brought about rapidly and peacefully will be that society that can survive shocks and adapt, even ride on trends in the external environment.

I would like to outline some of the forces which are relevant to the labour market and how tripartism as a key labour market institution can help us to successfully meet these challenges head-on. The cutting edge issues in the labour market have to do with responding to three key trends in the world today - technological change, globalisation and aging. Technological change and globalisation both accelerate the obsolescence of skills and make re-training essential for continued productivity. An aging society has to consider the institutional arrangements for health care and employment of older workers. These two have already been elaborated by the union speakers before me.

In labour-short Singapore, we have yet to attain that balance of encouraging women to work on the one hand, while at the same time enabling them to continue to look after not just children but also aged parents on the other. Also, since foreign work permit holders constitute a not insignificant proportion of our workforce, we need to think of how we can increase the productivity of foreign work permit holders. The solutions to these issues are not easy because they involve changes to established norms and practices. They will take time, determination and much effort. Government cannot handle these issues alone, nor can business, nor can unions. They are best handled and discussed, implemented in the tripartite framework. The benefit of tripartism is that it forges a common vision and a common determination to implement change for the common good. I therefore agree that there is a need to strengthen tripartism to meet the challenge of change.

The third point I would like to make is to raise a proposal as to how tripartism can be strengthened. At present, the main instrument of tripartism is the National Wages Council. The NWC was established in 1972 with the objective of recommending wage increases. Over the years, it has shifted from recommending quantitative wage guidelines to qualitative wage guidelines. It has also been active in encouraging other aspects of labour market reform, such as the flexible wage system, and there has been discussion on co-payment of health care cost and increasing the female labour force participation rate. In the light of the labour issues which have come to the forefront and the need to raise tripartism to a higher plane, I would like to propose that the mandate of the NWC be broadened to include a regular discussion and recommendation on manpower issues, such as skills retraining, health care financing, working mothers and foreign worker productivity.

At present, there is limited discussion within the NWC on these issues as the predominant topic is wages. What I would like to see is an enlargement of the agenda of the NWC to include manpower issues as well as wage negotiations. This would amount to a formalisation of the existing system of the NWC supplemented by ad-hoc tripartite committees. In order to reflect its enlarged mandate, the Council could be renamed, for example, the Tripartite Advisory Council on Manpower. This Council could be a body which the proposed new Ministry of Manpower could tap for advice and recommendations.

The fourth point I would like to make is to reflect on the Asian currency crisis and its implications for Singapore and tripartism. The Asian currency crisis has come as a tremendous shock to us in Asia because of its magnitude and the suddenness of the contagion effect. It reminds us of how volatile the international economic environment can be. And that no matter how strong a country's economic fundamentals, interdependence means transmission of this volatility. It is in these volatile and uncertain times that the strength of a country's social and political institution is tested. The ability to rally a country in times of crisis is primarily a task of the political leadership. But that task is made easier if there were already in place mechanisms to achieve that common mindset to take the pain and bite the bullet. This is where the consensus building practice of tripartism has a significant role to play. The tripartite partnership, built up carefully over the years in good times, is there when you need it in bad times. I therefore see tripartism not merely in economic terms, not merely as a competitive advantage. I believe it goes beyond economics. It is an institution that contributes to the very fabric of socio-political stability in Singapore.

I also believe that the Asian currency crisis has added an urgency to the task of productivity enhancement in Singapore. Right now, we are affected by the crunch in regional demand and liquidity. However, it is during the recovery phase and beyond when the affected countries are on their way out of their present troubles that there will be a stronger effect on Singapore's competitiveness. We should therefore strengthen the tripartite partnership now in order to implement further productivity enhancing and other labour market reforms in preparation for a more competitive future.

In conclusion, I am optimistic about Singapore's future in the midst of the currency crisis not only because of our strong economic fundamentals but also because of strong socio-economic institutions, such as tripartism.

I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I also believe in tripartism partnership among the Government, employers and workers. But tripartism to me must be real. As I see it in Singapore today, tripartism seems to be dominated by the Government or the PAP. We have a Minister who heads the labour movement and, as I look through the NTUC magazine, I notice that almost all or every one of the unions is headed by an MP or a Minister. As an outsider who looks at the situation today, it would appear that the labour movement is controlled by the PAP. Therefore, under these circumstances, I do not think that there is true tripartism. I hope that the NTUC can be given more independence, let it mature and let it have more leaders coming from the ranks. This in the long term would serve Singapore well because if we have patriotic, honest, good and true union leaders, the workers will surely follow.

As I see it, or at least the average Singaporeans seem to see it, the NTUC seems to be more interested in doing business rather than taking care of the workers. The NTUC leaders appear to be entrepreneurs rather than union leaders. So I hope that the union leaders are not too interested in the business aspect of NTUC but concentrate more on the interest of the workers. An important area in which the NTUC can do is to improve the educational level of the workers. The Minister has said just now that the education of the workers has improved. Twenty years ago, 84% of the workers had either primary or lower than primary school education. Today, the figure is about 39%. Probably, this is due to the fact that 89% comprises all the old workers and they are just dropping out of the labour force, and not through the efforts of NTUC.

As I read the latest copy of the NTUC News, it says that, in fact, 74% of Singapore's workforce in the manufacturing sector are semi-skilled or unskilled and 43% of the workers do not have secondary education. This does not augur well for Singapore to go into the 21st century where technology, as you have heard many speakers say, would be advancing by leaps and bounds. Unless you have a basic secondary education, how are you going to learn all these new skills?

As for foreign workers, apparently 93% of them are unskilled, as expected. I do not think the foreign countries would be sending their skilled workers to Singapore.

The real big task of the NTUC is to improve the skills and education of the workers and this is not an easy task. This is in fact a tremendous task and is going to cost, as we have heard, about $400-$500 million. So every possible help should be given to Singaporeans, ie, parents, young Singaporeans and workers, to improve their skills. This is a priority of the NTUC.

Of course, the other priority would be to improve the attitude of the workers, ie, to motivate them, to want them to work and to learn new skills. I think these are the twin tasks of NTUC. One, train and improve their skills. Two, motivate the workers, change their attitude and make them willing workers.

May I make a few suggestions as to how this can be done? I know the NTUC has suggested that the ceiling of the Skills Development Levy be raised from $1,000 to $1,500, to collect more money from the companies to train workers. That is one way. May I suggest other ways? The NTUC should look into an apprenticeship scheme to improve the skills of the workers, to make them skilled and semi-skilled workers, and not only that, perhaps also to craftsmen. They should try to find a way from the many precedents in other parts of the world where apprenticeship schemes are successful. We should try to implement one in Singapore which suits our condition.

The other point is that we should scrap early streaming in our schools. This is not a good thing educationally, especially in terms of motivating our future workers when these kids leave school to enter the workforce. We should give the workers' children an equal chance in education. In fact, I have been suggesting for many years that we should build libraries in all HDB precincts. As books are expensive, the children of workers are not exposed to books, so they do not have a chance of learning the reading habit early. So if the workers' children are taught to read from young, we will definitely get a better educated workforce.

The other point is perhaps the HDB could help. I have travelled to many countries and in fact, training is done not by the government but by the private enterprise. In the other countries, they have one advantage and that is they have cheap rents. Anyone who has the skill and wants to teach it for a living, he could do so because he could easily rent the premises to do it. But in the Singapore context, rents are very high and so small institutions or schools cannot be started because of the high rents. If HDB could give facilities to Singaporeans who have some skills and who want to teach, we should try to charge them at a lower rent because, in law, education is in fact considered to be charity. So people who want to impart their skills to others, in fact, it is a charitable act and this cannot be clamoured for by other professions or trade unless they can be proven to be a charity, just like HDB has already made a precedent by giving space for childcare and kindergarten centres operated by some religious bodies. They should also do that by giving space to other Singaporeans who would like to teach some skills to workers.

As regards the apprenticeship scheme, in fact, for many centuries already, Europe has built up an apprenticeship scheme, in particular Germany has a very modern one. Germany, as we know, has very skilful workers. In fact, their engineering skills are the best in the world. So perhaps, we could also look into this. And England, of course, has a law to regulate apprentices. Perhaps, we could look into all these schemes in the other countries. In fact, in Italy, they are very good in the crafts and skills. They also have a very good apprenticeship scheme in regard to handicraft. I think we should also look into this.

Educationally, telling a child that he is a dud, a failure and that he cannot make it at an early age will in fact ruin the child for the rest of his life. This is probably why BERI reported that the attitude of workers in Singapore is not very good. From very young, we have already put them in a frame of mind that they cannot fit into society and thereafter, in fact, they cannot fit into society, even if you really want to give them all the opportunities because it has already been implanted in their minds. So how can they have the right attitude towards work? How can they be motivated? I think the NTUC should look into this area with the Ministry of Education. There must be other ways of educating our young, rather than resorting to streaming at a very early age. I think streaming has been delayed from the third year to the fourth year. But it is still too early educationally to stream a child.

If the Government is not willing to pay money to build libraries in HDB precincts, I think they can get the private sector to do it. If the private sector would like to cooperate with the Government in building more libraries, I think this should be welcomed. Again, I hope the NTUC will push for this step.

As regards educational facilities to be built in HDB premises, again, I think this should be looked into seriously by the NTUC.

May I make a last comment? I heard from the Minister that if we do have a depression and workers are retrenched, when there is a skilful foreign worker and a Singaporean who has got no skill, the Singaporean will go first. From the point of view of business, of course, this is right. But from the point of view of leaders of a country, I wonder whether we should do something about it. I have, in fact, made a comment that if this were true, I think it could easily lead to abuse. Because I have already heard of cases where companies have employed unskilled foreign workers and used our SDF funds or some kind of funds to train them. In the particular case, I heard that the foreign workers were trained to be crane operators, and they became skilled crane operators. In fact, instead of hiring Singaporean crane operators, they hired foreign crane operators, because they were cheaper. So if the Government were to make known that skilled foreign workers would be maintained and that Singaporeans would be retrenched first, I am afraid companies would start to train more and more foreign workers, so that they can be retained at a cheaper rate when retrenchment comes.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.04 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Sir, let me reply to the point raised by Mr Chiam See Tong. Just now, Mr Chiam said that many of the advisers of NTUC affiliated unions are controlled by PAP MPs. Maybe Mr Chiam has not paid attention to the development of trade unions in Singapore. In fact, in the past few decades, a lot of union leaders want MPs to be their advisers. For example, for a new Member like me, when we work with the unions we get to know the feelings and sentiments of the workers and issues which concern them most. We can bring them up on their behalf with the authorities concerned and get things solved. Similarly, because of the MPs' advice and guidance, the unions are better operationally and the workers get more benefit.

Just now, Mr Chiam said that the NTUC has been doing too many things. We have been doing many things and more has to be done. The Secretary-General has already mentioned about the training and retraining of workers, and we have discussed this both in and outside Parliament. Maybe Mr Chiam has not paid attention to this. He does not quite understand what is the meaning of tripartite relations. The Member for MacPherson, Mr Matthias Yao, has described the working of tripartism and I shall quote him. He says, "In the tripartite relationship, NTUC takes care of the workers' interest as well as that of the management. The management looks after their own interest as well as the national interest. And the Government is concerned not only with national interest but also the interest of the workers as well." This is what we mean by tripartism.

Let me give him another example. In 1967, when we were busy preparing for the Lunar New Year, a few thousand public daily-rated cleansing workers went on strike in response to the union's call. They were protesting against the Government for not adjusting their pay and claims. Subsequently, the leaders of the illegal strike were arrested. These illegal strikes caused a lot of inconvenience to the people of Singapore. The streets and side lanes were full of filth and rubbish. Families without modern sanitation had to clear their own night-soil buckets. Today, 30 years later, 100 workers who are engaged in cleansing work and environment protection have been selected as model workers and they have received awards from the Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. They flew to Perth for a holiday. I do not know how many of these 100 people took part in this illegal strike 30 years ago. But to everyone of them, this is not only affirmation of the Government in recognition of their contribution to make Singapore a garden city, it is also affirmation of the management for their work performance. It is also the trade union's recognition of their contribution. One worker said that he can never imagine receiving the award from the Prime Minister. He has never thought of travelling to Australia and this is the first time he has travelled by air.

Sir, this example clearly shows that 30 years ago there was confrontation between labour and management, but since we have tripartism, Singapore has turned from a filthy and chaotic city into a beautiful garden city.

Sir, I support the motion in the name of Mr Cyrille Tan. This motion reminds us that true tripartism is not easily achieved. It is worth our preserving it. In the midst of the regional currency crisis and when we are entering the next century facing keener competition, this is even more important. As a matter of fact, tripartism is a model that has been looked upon as a point of reference by unions of other countries, eg, before becoming Prime Minister of Britain, Mr Tony Blair came to Singapore to look at our model.

However, for tripartism to succeed, we need a good Government, an enlightened management, and responsible unions. There must also be a commonality of purpose among the three parties. The trade unions look after the interest of the workers by giving them training, retraining and upgrading to improve their quality of life and this is consistent with the objective of the Singapore Government.

With the self renewal of PAP MPs and leadership changes in the unions and industries, it is timely to reiterate the importance of tripartism and further strengthen and consolidate the spirit of tripartism.

Sir, let me give you another example to show that tripartism benefits everybody and that the trade union movement will give added value to society. For example, to solve the problem of shortage of bus drivers and to improve productivity and save cost, the bus companies implemented the OMO system, which means that the conductor's job has become redundant and taken over by the driver. Without the cooperation and understanding of the National Transport Workers Union, it will be difficult to implement this system. The drivers accepted retraining and the challenge. They not only drive but they also enlarge their job to cover the work of conductors. They now drive longer buses, double-decker buses and as a result they get better pay. Both the passengers and bus companies have also benefited. The bus companies could contain the cost while passengers enjoy the bus fares at an affordable level. Sir, if we go to London and board a double deck bus, we can still find conductors. I believe we can then really appreciate our bus drivers for their increased productivity.

We will soon be in the Year of the Tiger. Tiger Year is a tougher year. The regional monetary crisis has caused people to worry about their job security, their income and in this period of hardship, it is time for tripartism to give more play to its functions. We have gone through the difficult period of the 70s and the 80s. We are confident that we can also go through this difficult period in the 1990s.