SINGAPORE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Mr Speaker, Sir, as Singapore stands on the threshold of creating history or a new chapter in Singapore's employment and economic development, may I make these humble observations.

The reading of this Bill is timely in view of the challenging and difficult employment situation where the skills and competencies of the Singapore workforce need a drastic makeover. This is in order that the Singapore workforce of today can stay relevant and competitive in the harsh new global economy, dominated by rapid changes and a new work order.

This Bill is a step in the right direction in addressing an array of heart-tugging events like retrenchments and announcements on restructurings that have been advocated in recent months. These range from economic restructuring to wage restructuring to CPF restructuring and pre-emptive layoffs. These restructurings are like dosages of medicine that have come one after another.

Singaporeans feel rather sedated by these continual dosages of medication for the economic ills that we are going through. At the same time, they also look forward to recover before the next dosage. As a reprieve from the over dosage, hopefully, this Bill will give a breath of fresh air to Singaporeans and a sense of hope for the long haul.

In the spirit of revitalising and promoting continuing adult education and training, employment facilitation and developing the HR industry through best practices in human capital management in an ever changing operating environment, I would like to put forward some suggestions for consideration to facilitate the implementation of this Bill.

A constantly changing operating environment means skills and knowledge get obsolete at a faster pace, making it necessary to unlearn, relearn, reskill and pursue upgrading in skills and knowledge. It calls for a drastic change in mindset for both the individual and employer. This is a sure way for Singaporeans to stay relevant and employable, and for businesses to stay viable.

Sir, I envisage that such an Agency will contribute to the economic progress of Singapore and help build a skilled, adaptable, enterprising and resilient workforce. Of particular importance is the Agency's quick response to facilitate employment for the unemployed and to partner the human capital professional institutes to develop and promulgate best practices in human capital management.

As we embark on this journey of re-making our workforce, it is important to nurture and enhance not only a pro workforce development culture but also to inculcate an adaptable mindset, not only in the Singaporean workforce, but also in business owners and employers.

Sir, recent press sentiments, for example, the article in Today, 8th August 2003, headlined "Too many statutory boards spoil the show", implied that businesses and people are not benefiting from the 70 statutory boards in Singapore. The article argues that Singapore can do with less of such regulatory bodies in order to be nimble, proactive and quick-thinking.

While the new statutory board has its roles to play, it is therefore important to dispel some of the mixed feelings and the notion that the creation of a new statutory board would add costs and inconvenience to building up our manpower capability.

Instead, I would advocate that clarity of vision and outcomes arising from the establishment of the SWDA be properly articulated.

Sir, the functions, duties and powers of SWDA are well defined. What is more important for the new statutory board to evolve, in the implementation process of each of the functions, is transparency in respect of the information and data the public needs.

This is important from the point of view of the benefits that Singapore and Singaporeans would derive from an integrated continual adult education and further training infrastructure that incorporates effective employment facilitation and creation of jobs.

Firstly, a pro workforce development culture must be inculcated to spur on the further development of continual adult education and further training of our Singaporean workforce. I am therefore happy to note that the SWDA will put in place, support and infrastructure to provide the necessary funds/incentives, and will induce employers and manpower development players to collaborate in initiatives and measures.

More importantly, can the SWDA seek ways to ensure that the weaker segments, the unemployed and the economically inactive population, of the workforce are helped to level up their knowledge, skills and capabilities and to ensure them of equal employment opportunities?

Sir, the SWDA has many challenges and issues to overcome. For example, in the area of unequal employment opportunities, can the SWDA muscle in to remove discriminatory practices in employment, promote the employment of the mature workforce, especially in an ageing population, promote innovative and new workplace practices, flexi-work arrangements and family-friendly HR policies?

In this context, the SWDA needs to provide directions to support a work culture that, for example, does away with retirement age because an ageing population dictates a need for financial independence and career options through continuous working.

The Bill should throw light on how the SWDA would focus on a healthy and productive workforce among the mature workforce and how to incentivise employers to provide jobs to the mature workforce. Perhaps a higher funding mechanism or tax incentives for employers who invest on further training and who employ more mature workforce, can tip the scale towards being pro-mature employees.

Secondly, an adaptable mindset for both the individual and the organisation calls for an attitude that will go the extra mile to acquire the aptitude that will ultimately determine the altitude of attainment and success. In other words, so long as there is a right mindset with relevant skills, Singaporeans will overcome and prosper.

Sir, I am hopeful that employers will also look into job re-design to facilitate the employability of the less skilled mature employees. I am pleased to know that a career counselling service is being considered by the SWDA to help the job seekers. Similarly, I would like to urge that this be expanded to provide a proactive service to employers to assure them that the retrenched employees are not necessarily bad hats. And employers with jobs to offer should not shun them. A dedicated match-making role may be adopted by SWDA, so that it can assist to change the perception that the unemployed retrenched are marginal performers.

Having followed the recent discourse on the participation of our local residents in the newly created jobs, I would like to offer this humble opinion: There are non-exportable service jobs in the local retail, hairdressing, hotel and horticulture sectors. There are jobs as drivers in the local transport and logistics industry. There are jobs as nurses, care attendants and technicians in healthcare and medical welfare industry. These jobs command quite decent salaries ranging from $1,500 to $2,000 and they are performed by a large number of non-local residents.

This may not be perceived well in these difficult times. It would seem to me that one of the more urgent tasks for SWDA is to increase the participation rate of Singaporeans in these jobs that are mostly filled by non-residents.

Of course, there are also other lower-end jobs that are not filled because they are paid ridiculously low rates, eg, jobs in the construction and manufacturing sectors, which explain the low number of Singaporeans doing these jobs.

Another observation is the need for a national databank on jobs and on the unemployed in Singapore, together with a breakdown in terms of sectors, industries, executives and non-executive types. I would like to reiterate the points of my parliamentary colleagues that the perception on the ground indeed is that foreigners are taking away the jobs from locals, and that policy makers are not listening because they are not experiencing the pain that Singaporeans are going through. We need to change this perception. A national data bank will allow a more dedicated approach to be taken.

Perhaps a good start would be to review the statistics collected under the Labour Force Survey. Are there other statistics which need to be compiled and presented so that researchers and the public can be more discerning in using the statistics for studies, analysis and policy formulation?

Next, I would like to dwell on several questions that I have with regard to the provisos in the Bill:

(1) How does the transfer of the Human Capital Development Division and the Labour Market Development Division from the Ministry of Manpower to the new Agency, together with the transfer of the SDF Secretariat, the CREST Secretariat, and the NSRS Centre of SPRING better help achieve the objectives of the Government in the upgrading of workforce training and development? What synergies will be gained by placing them under the auspices of the new Agency?

(2) One of the new Agency's mandate is to expand industry-focused CET development. Does this mean that it will neglect more generic skills, like general management skills, human resource skills, and basic computer literacy to the workforce in general? Furthermore, what steps will the new Agency take to ensure that there is the integration of industry needs with that of curriculum development?

(3) Some of the industry sectors targeted by the proposed new Agency already has established training providers. For example, there is SHATEC in hotel industry, Nanyang Polytechnic in the health care industry, and so on. How will these training providers benefit from the development of CET systems and infrastructure? Will there be duplicated development and how can resources be streamlined and optimally used? Will the new Agency help new training providers come to the fore to offer new and better training programmes to industry players?

(4) In view of the relatively high percentage of unemployed executives, professionals and managers, what are some of the initiatives and programmes that will help them to cushion their existing plight? What plans does SWDA have to continue with existing programmes such as the career placement and workskills training programmes that have proven to be of benefit to the white-collar job seekers. What plans does SWDA have to enhance the existing employment facilitation infrastructure and effort rendered by the CDCs, SPEC and the self-help groups?

(5) What plans does the SWDA have for the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) in general, in terms of the number of training places by industries, types and jobs? What improvements or refined work would the SWDA make in terms of the often expressed sentiments that Singaporeans tend to go through many cycles of retraining because the training is free and they are reluctant to take up jobs for which they have been trained for?

(6) In view of the high number of unemployed and their lack of labour market skills and knowledge, would the SWDA consider extending the life and workskills programmes as they are serving a critical need under the current high unemployment situation?

Sir, the important point is that we have to ensure that those who have gone for retraining will eventually take up jobs offered to them. A monitoring system that will penalise those who decline job offers and incentivise those who retain their jobs should be considered.

(7) Some important industry sectors seem to be missing from the ones targeted for help and for action by the Agency, for example, the financial sector, the education sector, information technology, the media sector, and the arts sector. Would the Agency also consider working closely with executives in these sectors to ensure that their training needs are provided for, and that there is sufficient choice out there for people who want to pursue further adult education in these sectors?

(8) In involving itself with employment facilitation, can the Agency elaborate on how the Agency will integrate and streamline with the self-help groups, the CDCs and the MOM CareerLink Distributed Centres such that we will not see duplication of resources? Sir, it has been confusing to Singaporeans. Many who are looking for simple information or answer feel that their experience is like looking for a needle in the haystack. We need to be clear on who is in charge of what and where Singaporeans can go to to look for this service provider. WDA needs to be clear here.

Finally, may I ask the Minister on the basis and criteria for the composition of the members of the Board of Directors of the Agency? The Minister has cited rich diverse experience of the Board that he has identified. But we would like to know more specifics on these criteria. There are a number of credible employer groups and professional bodies with resources that the WDA can tap on. Combined, these institutions represent a significant number of companies and professionals that deal with human capital issues as their main business. In my opinion, the Agency would have much more to gain to have them on the Board.

I look forward to the Agency incorporating my suggestions. On this note, I would like to support the passing of the Bill.

Mr A Nithiah Nandan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill for the formation of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency.

Being a trade unionist, I am deeply concerned and involved in workers' training. I am very glad that we will now have a Government agency that would look into skills upgrading, training and retraining of our workers - the only natural resource of the nation. It is very timely and appropriate under the current industrial environment where workers need to keep pace with technological changes and the structural change of our economy. It would also add emphasis on the importance of training and retraining of workers to the employers. And, especially now, Sir, when we are experiencing an increase in retrenchment of workers in the various industrial sectors, the relevance and urgency to have such an Agency is very obvious.

Sir, I would like to outline some of the areas that I hope the Agency would give additional attention when carrying out its functions.

(1) Provide training for older workers on jobs that are available in the industry and suit their age profile;

(2) Identify needed skills in the various industries and provide opportunities for multi-skill training for the workers which would enhance their employability;

(3) To equip professionals and executives with relevant skills needed for the emerging economy;

(4) Explore the possibility of providing entrepreneurial

training;

(5) Collaborate with the training providers, adult education agencies and employers to formulate a training schedule that would suit and allow the shift workers to be trained and upgrade their skills and potential. In this respect, Sir; I wish to say that this has been a perennial problem for the shift workers;

(6) To explore the possibility of setting up a database with information on the structural and technological changes in the employment and business sectors, which could be used as a guideline in formulating training programmes that would suit the requirement of the industries and hence the employability of the workers. Employers have a greater role to play in this respect, with the unions helping to motivate the workers to accept training.

Sir, the most important challenge facing us today is the plight of the low income workers. Despite the affluence that we seem to see around us, we still have approximately 400,000 workers with low education and skills and amongst them, there are quite a number earning just above the poverty line.

Sir, we need persistent efforts and find innovative ways to help these groups of workers, who are our citizens, to break out of the poverty trap and to allow them to have a stake in the economic progress of our country. Macro-level policy of providing training facilities and subsidies alone will not be effective to these workers. A much more holistic approach is needed, such as providing skills training during working hours and make provision so that family commitment will not be a stumbling block for them to go for training. I would suggest that a special task force be set up within the Agency to address this problem not only at the macro level but also at the individual worker's level.

Sir, before concluding, I wish to also highlight another issue of work redesigning. This has become an important issue with the number of retrenchments taking place and the number of Singaporeans out of work. I hope the Agency will give its due consideration for job redesigning and retraining of workers so that Singaporeans could take up jobs currently done by foreigners.

Sir, for this Agency to succeed in its mission, I call upon the employers to play a greater role and give every assistance and adopt a proactive approach to workers' training and retraining.

Finally, the Agency must set up certain targets for itself, otherwise it will be just words and statements. So I would like the Agency to come up with targets, especially for the 400,000 workers who have below Primary 6 education and low-skilled. They should set up targets, and after one year, in this House, we should take stock of what the Agency has done for such workers. Then we will be really approaching the problem head-on.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, I would like to focus on two vulnerable groups which need particular help to cope with the ongoing economic restructuring. The two groups are women and older workers, especially those with lower skills. I would like to urge the WDA to factor in their concerns in their planning and programmes. Let me explain why.

First, the women. Women, especially those above 40, tend to be hit harder by economic restructuring because of their relatively lower level of skills. They also tend to be more concentrated in sectors sensitive to international demand conditions, such as the retail and travel-related sectors, and in production jobs which are migrating to cheaper locations. Women are also over-represented in clerical and administration jobs and they are often the first targets of downsizing measures.

Another trend: employers are more and more looking for workers who are willing to do shift work in the evening, late night or weekends. Women find it hard to take on these shifts and these demanding jobs because of their family responsibilities. They have to go home and take care of their children or their ageing parents. It is especially hard for divorced women and widows who have to support their children, and also single women who have to support their ageing parents.

For the same reason - their family commitments - these women find it hard to enrol for skills upgrading courses. They have not gone for training not because they do not want to or because they do not see the need for it, but because they need to go home after work to care for their family. As a result, these women are left either without a job, or with a low-wage and low-skilled job with little prospects of improvement.

To make it harder for them, there is also the prevailing notion that women are secondary earners and, therefore, perceived to be more dispensable in the labour market. At the same time, more and more, we see women needing to join the labour force to help maintain the household, especially when their husbands are losing their jobs. And, more and more, we see women with low-skilled jobs being haunted by job uncertainty. Just last night, it came to my attention that two sisters, in their 40s and 50s, lost their jobs over one weekend. That was a big blow to their family.

Sir, we need to make it easier for women to take up the job opportunities and to stay employable. It is especially important for women to work as long as possible as they have a longer life expectancy and may not have enough savings for their old age. But these women may face work and training barriers that have nothing to do with their attitudes.

A big barrier for women, especially the low-skilled women, is the lack of good quality yet affordable childcare arrangements. The long-term solution to this problem is to supply more affordable childcare facilities. But in the short-term, we can help reduce this barrier by providing a childcare subsidy to women who take on training courses and need to find childcare arrangements for their children. The subsidy should end when the training course ends. This childcare subsidy should be incorporated into the training package for low-skilled women, and perhaps also for women in general. Such a scheme would help support skill development and the labour force participation of women.

Sir, women are a resilient lot. In the past, when faced with hard times, women would on their own go out and hawk food. They would set up shop to cater food from home. But these days, such jobs are no longer available. It requires a heavy investment upfront to get a hawker stall and just to run a little shop at home to sell food requires getting different licences from the relevant agencies. They need training and help to negotiate the more complex self-employment landscape today. While we are integrating the different bodies into a new agency, there is also a need to integrate our economic and social agendas and not see this as a MCDS problem or a CDC problem. It is also a MOM problem. We want women to work and upgrade their skills, and yet raise their families as the primary caregivers. We do not want them to rely too much on foreign maids, yet we want women to have more children. At the same time, we lecture women when we see that they do not want to take shift work or work overtime.

I would urge the new Agency to take responsibility for developing a strategic plan for women's employment and training, taking into account the women's role as primary carers at home and also their qualities. The proper infrastructure and facilities should be put in place so that they can take part in the labour market and all the opportunities that will be created.

The new Agency should also be the lead agency in the drive towards more flexible working arrangements and conditions.

Now, on older workers. We continue to hear, until today, complaints from older workers that they could not find a job because of their age. I think many of my fellow MPs have raised this and the Government often cites the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme as an example of what has been done to help these workers above 40. I know the statistics. The programme has helped almost 12,000 older workers find jobs. But this is actually a small drop in the ocean. Somehow, talking to older workers, they do not see this scheme as helping them. And so they continue to complain. Perhaps this is because of ignorance, or it could also reflect the limitations of this scheme. I would urge the WDA to embark on the kind of exercise that the Education Ministry did to change the public's perception of the Institute of Technical Education (ITEs), that is, to invite MPs and grassroots leaders and the media to visit companies which support the PJTP scheme and see for themselves how useful it has been in helping older workers. Otherwise, the scepticism will remain.

At the same time, the Agency should work with the relevant agencies, including the labour movement, to push the effort to redesign jobs for older workers and to create better working conditions for them. We talk about upgrading the skills of workers but it must go in tandem with upgrading the conditions at work.

I know one beehoon factory in Defu Lane which hires about 50 workers, and most of the workers are above 45 and lower-educated. They are still short of workers. In this factory, all the workers are lined up in a row. They blow-dry, cut and pack the beehoon. I know the employer, and so the unemployed residents that come to see me and beg for a job, I will just refer them to this employer of the beehoon factory. When they come to me, they always tell me, "I will do the job. Any job you give me I will do. I am that desperate." But at the beehoon factory, none stayed beyond a few days. The reason: the factory has no air-condition. It cannot be air-conditioned, the employer tells me, because the beehoon cannot be damp before sealing. He said that factories in the region are also without air-condition for the purpose of packing the beehoon.

Sir, on the one hand, we cannot expect Singaporeans, who are used to a certain comfort, to go and work in a sweatshop. But, on the other hand, I think we need to try and help these workers by helping SMEs to upgrade the working conditions to see how they can fit the environment around Singaporeans. It is like you have been for a long time trying to smash a round peg into a square hole and getting really frustrated at this round peg. Why is it not fitting? But I think we should also look at the square hole and see whether we can make it more round and if we can find a mid-way to meet the two. At the same time, we must moderate the expectations of workers, of course. But I think SMEs especially need help to redesign the jobs and upgrade the working conditions so that Singaporeans can take on those jobs.

Sir, the labour movement is now working with 50 employers to redesign jobs and is working hard behind the scenes. I urge the WDA to promote the need for more job redesigning among more employers so that we can have more jobs created for Singaporeans.

Sir, much has been said about creating jobs for Singaporeans. I just want to add one last point about this issue. I hope that in the process of emphasising the need to create more jobs for Singaporeans - and I support this fully - we would not send a wrong signal to foreigners that they are not welcomed in Singapore. Because if we keep on saying that, yes, we are only creating jobs for Singaporeans, if I were a bright kid in Malaysia, China, India or Australia, I would think twice about coming to Singapore to study. Because after graduating, will I find a job or will the priority or preference be given to Singaporeans? It would affect my decision whether to come to Singapore.

Sir, I hope that, while it is populist and perhaps sounds very good to say that we only want to create jobs for Singaporeans, we must also be careful about sending the right signal. Because foreigners who come here, they do help Singapore to grow, and eventually, some of them may strike roots and become Singaporeans - like myself.

On that note, I support the Bill.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to focus on another group of workers. According to MOM's Labour Market Report for the first quarter, job retrenchment is fast extending beyond the older and less educated to include better educated, mid-career workers. This is reflected by statistics that show that professionals, managers, executives and technicians form 43%, the largest group of locals retrenched.

Sir, two other significant pieces of information in this Report bear out further the changing profile of retrenched workers. One third of those retrenched were either degree or diploma holders. And 60% of those who lost their jobs were people in their 30s and 40s. I am concerned about this. Degree and diploma holders are people the State has invested most heavily in over many years through our education system. Those who are unemployed in their 30s and 40s are people in the prime of their lives. Many with heavy financial commitments have difficulty in seeing through when they lose their jobs.

What is even more alarming is the difficulty with which these people can find new jobs. In general, re-employment prospects for all those who lose their jobs have deteriorated in the past few months. Around half of those retrenched remain unemployed after six months. Degree holders are the worst off. The re-employment rate for those in the 40s is 41% and those in their 50s is only 33%. In other words, more than half do not get re-employed even after six months.

Sir, some of these people are friends of mine. And I can feel their sense of loss. They too have invested heavily in their earlier education, in terms of time and money. And, today, they have been told that they are no longer required. And the reason given to them is a very loose term that we nowadays call "economic restructuring". It is a very high-sounding word - "restructuring". But to many people nowadays, restructuring is a dirty word, that means bad news. It is like when your banker calls on you and tells you that it is time to restructure your loan, you know that you are in trouble. To such people, labelling their predicament as an exercise in pre-emptive layoff, as we now call it, and describing the prospects of being re-employed as dim, even if the economy turns around, because of what is now termed as a possible jobless recovery, is like rubbing salt into wound. However you describe it and no matter what reasons you give, no matter how you tell people what drastic changes the whole world is undergoing, a loss of job to someone means a loss of income and the ability to feed himself and his family. It is a loss of your own dignity when you lose your job.

I remember that when the Asian financial crisis first hit us some years ago, we had our first retrenchment exercises in many years. In the early stages, there were actually people who did not mind getting retrenched because they had a golden handshake and many even went on a holiday first because they knew that they could get another job when they came back. But as reality set in, that the economy would not recover that fast, people then began to fear that they would lose their jobs. Today, the unemployed harbour no false illusion that a job is round the corner and many are prepared to work for lower wages.

I think the challenge that faces us today is not just to get people to change their mindset about the type of wages they can look forward to in future. I think it has to do also with getting people to understand that in times of big changes, as we are now going through, the biggest change that will have to take place is to be with oneself. In practical terms, how do you convince an accountant, or an engineer, or a bank officer in his 40s, who has lost his job, that he has to reinvent himself, and what new skills can you ask him to pick up?

And, Sir, I think this would be one of the challenges facing the new statutory board, the setting up of which must receive the full support of the House. Retraining our workers and equipping ourselves with new skills is not a panacea for all our ills. But it will go a long way in ensuring that our people become employable when the economy turns around. Retraining our workforce, upgrading their skills, these are not new things to us. We already have a slew of programmes - work skills training programme, People-for-Jobs Traineeship, WISE and BEST - and multiple agencies ( EDB, SPRING) and the labour movement handling all these programmes. But as I understand it, even if the number of people going for retraining has increased over the years, demand for retraining still falls below available training places.

One of the principal tasks of this new agency will be to ensure that the demand for places is kept up; in other words, people want to continue to upgrade themselves. And I would say that we would need some coordination of our efforts. To achieve this, WDA, now that it is an amalgamation of many agencies offering the different programmes, must be able to communicate clearly to workers what types of available programmes match their learning abilities and aptitudes so that we can equip them with the right skills that will make them employable in the future. While retraining must cut across all levels of the workforce, I hope that the Agency would pay strong focus on these people who are mid-career professionals and executives as they are likely to be the one group which would be the hardest to retrain and rematch with jobs.

Sir, this statutory board, in my opinion, is probably the most important one that we are setting up in recent times. I was very encouraged to hear the Acting Minister conclude yesterday in his statement that his mission is to get the jobs back for Singaporeans. And I am sure that all Members of the House would also want him to succeed in this mission fast. Therefore, I would like to urge the House to give this Bill its unqualified support. 4.55 pm

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency Bill.

Currently, there is an extensive range of workforce development programmes and initiatives being managed by the Ministry of Manpower and the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING). The new Workforce Development Agency's objective is to bring most of these programmes under one roof and provide better coordination of these programmes in addition to developing new ones. I would like to raise some concerns about the reassignment of the existing initiatives and programmes.

At present, SPRING runs a total of eight workforce development initiatives. Three of these, namely, the Skills Development Fund, CREST (Critical Enabling Skills Training) and National Skills Recognition System, will be transferred to the new WDA. I would like to know what would happen to the others, like Work Redesign, People Developer, Industry Capability Upgrading and On-the-Job Training.

Of particular concern in the area of workforce development are the People Developer programme and On-the-Job Training programme. The People Developer programme offers a quality standard on Human Resource Development, which is one of the stated functions of WDA, and On-the-Job Training programme is an initiative for employer-based training to equip employees with skills to meet the challenges of the new economy. Will SPRING continue to run them, perhaps in collaboration with WDA, or will these programmes cease to be offered altogether? I would like to ask why these two programmes should not be also transferred to WDA.

But, on the other hand, SPRING is only a couple of years old and before SPRING has the chance to spring, or be sprung, we are now taking away from it three of the more important human capital development and productivity initiatives. Why are some initiatives being moved across to WDA and some being retained in SPRING? I think we should use the opportunity offered by this Bill to set this straight. Otherwise, we will have to do a reshuffle again in a couple of years' time.

Having said that, I am wholeheartedly supportive of this Bill. Due to the recent increase in the number of retrenchments, there is now more of an immediate need to reskill the unemployed and the retrenched. One group that would benefit greatly from retraining would be the low-skilled, less educated in their 30s and 40s who have a potential of at least another 20 working years or so. These are the people who have dependants, possibly at all three levels - parents, spouse and children - to support and, to top it off, various loan obligations to meet.

For many, the economy has evolved bewilderingly in such a way that, contrary to their earlier expectations, their skills are no longer relevant in a marketplace which prizes higher skilled workers. However, this is the very group of people who are the least likely to undertake continuing education due to inadequate knowledge of programmes available and lack of funds. The WDA must find ways to reach out to them and convince them of the benefits of training and reskilling at this difficult and frustrating time in their life. It is the task of the Agency to devise relevant programmes, through careful studies and close consultation with the industries, to cater to this group by equipping them with the tools to rise from the doldrums of unemployment to better opportunities in the workplace through retraining and reskilling. The WDA must also not forget that, for their programmes to truly benefit this group, they should aim unwaveringly to provide easily accessible and understood information, better incentives and funding for this group of low-skilled older workers.

Sir, I would now like to focus on another group of workers who can be helped if we have clearer standards for the various trades and businesses. In the new economy, companies have to be nimble, must retain the flexibility to downsize, right-size, or up-size, to meet the changing demands of the economy. This will result in more and more dislocation among workers and more and more people becoming self-employed, contracting to provide specific services and engaging in freelance non-full time independent jobs, either for a temporary part of their working life or their whole working life. In our daily lives, we come across various people who provide different services from white-collar ones who provide business consultancy, financial planning advisory services, even private tuition, to blue-collar services like plumbing and gardening. For the professional services, I think the consumer would take time and exercise care to gauge, find out and agree on the quality of service that he wants.

But, if you want to engage a plumber, tailor, tuition teacher, computer repairman, swimming instructor or local domestic help, how do you assess and find out what skills that person has and how good are his skills and the quality of his work other than through word-of-mouth recommendation or by trial and error? The consumer is, hence, wary about engaging freelancers and, in turn, this consumer distrust limits the potential and opportunities available to the freelancers. To grow these trades and help these individuals who have these skills to find an income, I believe we have to reduce the present obstacles of the absence of consistent quality and standards, and the lack of avenues for resolution of disputes.

For example, if you are skilled in IT and retrenched, how do you publicise your services to provide freelance IT consultancy? As a consumer, if you need a PC doctor to fix a bug in your home computer, how sure are you of his skills? Would you have more confidence if he proudly wears a badge that tells you that he meets with certain standards established by a reputable organisation and governed by its code of ethics? What if the repairman is backed by an organisation that can provide assurance of a certain quality to its consumers?

Sir, in other developed countries like the United States, there is a multitude of such organisations and associations, and their members proudly display their badge of identification. We have imported some of these foreign organisations with their established standards into our community. The Agency can fulfil its role in developing this section of the workforce by roping in or helping to set up more such local private associations that represent the various trades who can then establish and maintain the standards, have a strong code of ethics governing its members, provide training courses, recognised skills accreditation, skills upgrading and continuing education of its members and resolve disputes and complaints concerning its members. This will help promote the "cottage industries" of the new economy. Once these associations are properly established, it would be easier for those who wish to acquire new skills and enter a fresh trade whether to tide over a period of unemployment or on a more permanent basis.

Sir, I support the Bill.