SINGAPORE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL

Debate resumed.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, even though Singapore's economy is expected to recover in the coming months, there is still no cheer in sight for the jobless. The Government and many companies continue to warn of more job losses, corporate restructuring and cost-cutting measures.

More worryingly, this phenomenon of a jobless recovery is not peculiar to Singapore. USA, the world's largest and strongest economy, has not been spared either, as even executive jobs are at risk of being moved outwards to lower-cost countries like China and India. For all its promises, there is a dark side to globalisation and the new knowledge economy and, that is, higher and speedier job obsolescence and, thus, chronic structural unemployment.

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair]

5.05 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The Economist notes in a recent issue: "America's economy is now supposedly on the road to recovery, but somebody forgot to tell the labour market." Merrill Lynch notes in the same article: "If the early 1990s upturn was the jobless recovery, this is the job-loss recovery."

As structural unemployment is set to become a staple of the new economy, the establishment of a single agency to focus on continuing education and training of adults and employment assistance comes none too soon. This will ensure that all the well-intentioned but perhaps sometimes disparate efforts by different agencies will be better organised for greater effect.

Sir, I urge the Agency to take cognisance of the following four main concerns as it pushes ahead with the two key objectives of employment assistance and continuing education and training for adults.

Under employment assistance, I would like to highlight two key issues.

Firstly, the Agency should look at ways to further improve its job-matching schemes and optimise the use of limited resources available. Despite the tremendous resources poured in for job matching, the success rate of such efforts has remained low, at less than 20%. The ends do not seem to have justified the means.

As the Agency is to become the coordinating body for job-matching efforts, I would like to find out from the Minister how the Agency plans to undertake such coordination with the various CareerLink Centres. What would be their roles and duties as against those of the Agency? I understand, for instance, that each of the centres has different job databases. One of my grassroots members, who was recently retrenched, told me that he was given different listings when he went to different centres. It appears that many job applicants are now going all over the island to the different centres to apply for jobs. So, the number of job requests recorded at the different CareerLink Centres may be significantly lower, if these multiple visits are discounted.

I urge the Agency to set up a centralised national job database, so that an applicant need only to go to one centre to apply for a job. This would not only save the time, effort and money of the applicant, but also avoid duplication of work, wastage of scarce resources, as well as improve efficiency. This centralised database can also be used to help the CDCs better link financial assistance to job placements. Those who repeatedly reject jobs must be counselled to find out their reasons for rejecting jobs.

Some jobs, which have traditionally been the domain of foreign workers, are shunned by Singaporeans because of the low pay, which is deemed insufficient for the worker to support even himself, let alone his family. Besides job redesign, Singaporeans may be encouraged to take up such jobs and, at least, catch some of the fish themselves, if the Agency could work together with the MCDS and tie a subsidy or financial assistance scheme to the job placement of the worker.

Additionally, feedback from one of my residents who had been retrenched and recently found a job is that, while the job-matching efforts of the CareerLink Centres are commendable, they could perhaps learn from the private sector job placement agencies to improve the success rate. This resident shared with me that he had eventually gotten a job through a private sector job agency. He said that the agency, no doubt incentivised by a commission for successful placement, was very proactive in helping him identify a suitable job. In fact, they had taken an active role and even helped him negotiate with the prospective employer to consider a slightly higher salary as a delivery driver, even before the interview.

Perhaps, the Agency should consider outsourcing at least part of the job- matching efforts to private sector job agencies. These agencies already have the expertise to handle job matching, and their skills and experience should be tapped. Why re-invent the wheel? Outsourcing could help to minimise the necessity for the various CareerLink Centres with limited budget to expand their staff strength and increase resources for job matching.

Secondly, the Agency should continue to help change the mindsets of both employers and employees to match the current employment landscape. The Government and the employers have constantly cited the poor attitude of our workers for the job mismatch and high unemployment rate even while we have more foreign workers than unemployed Singaporeans. There is obviously truth to this. For instance, a resident in my constituency whom we had successfully placed in a firm, came back to tell me that she had quit her job after one week as she found working at a computer, for which she is unfamiliar with, too difficult. And this was in an air-conditioned office. She asked me to help her get a stall in a school canteen instead, as she had figured that this would be much easier work.

Fortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that many laid off Singaporeans are now willing to change their expectations, take significant pay cuts, and work in industries which they might have previously shunned. For instance, I came across a 50-year-old resident who has diplomas in both computer studies and industrial relations and was previously a computer support staff. He now works as a security guard earning about $1,000 a month. He said that he has been rejected for many jobs because of his age. He has encountered numerous prospective employers who tell him over the phone that they need someone much younger. He was not even given a chance to be interviewed!

MOM has tried to encourage employers to employ older workers by providing a subsidy for six months, if the firm hires a worker above 40 years old. However, there are still employers who are averse to hiring older workers even with the subsidy. In this respect, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what further plans the Ministry has to encourage employers to give older workers a fair chance to secure jobs. For a start, the Agency could work together with all the Government Ministries and agencies to encourage them to employ older workers whenever possible. Does the Minister know how many older retrenched workers the Government Ministries and agencies have employed in the last two years?

Tales also abound of employers who prefer to employ foreigners as they work longer hours, do not have to go for reservist training and are not entitled to CPF. A participant in a feedback group I chaired shared that in the media industry she works in, she feels that between a Singaporean and a foreigner with similar qualifications, the foreigner is usually preferred. As evidenced by the recent Straits Times poll, most Singaporeans acknowledge that foreign talent has a role to play in Singapore. So, they are not saying "Foreigners - no entry". Furthermore, we do not want to impose labour market rigidity by limiting foreign workers, especially for the higher skilled jobs and, in the process, make Singapore unattractive to business.

But in a period of an all-time 15-year high unemployment rate, there is a real need to relook at our foreign worker policies to balance the legitimate concerns of the citizens as against those of businesses, the economy and, yes, foreigners. Without compromising on the premise that foreign talent is necessary to supplement our local talent and boost Singapore's economy, I think drastic times call for drastic relook at existing measures, at least on a temporary basis. For instance, the foreign worker quota could be reviewed and varied during periods of high unemployment where there should be an adequate number of locals for hire. The ratio, for example, could be tied somehow to the rate of unemployment, within a certain band, to give policy flexibility, but generally moving up when unemployment is low and moving down when the opposite happens. I note the Minister did say yesterday that the quota would be monitored and reviewed periodically.

I would now like to highlight two key issues under the Agency's second strategic thrust of adult continuing education and training.

Firstly, industry consultation and collaboration. Reading Part III of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency Bill gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Agency will be in competition with private sector organisations offering education, training and upgrading programmes, as well as with professional groups like the Singapore Human Resource Institute which seeks to develop HR best practices.

Enough has been said about public sector crowding out private sector initiatives when this House debated the Temasek Charter last year. I urge the Minister to assure the public that this is more perception than reality. Efforts should therefore be made whenever possible to collaborate with professional bodies, course providers and other appropriate organisations in the training of the workforce. These specialised bodies would know the state of the industry and understand the needs of the workforce much better than a Government agency tasked with a diverse range of functions.

In the real estate industry with which I am familiar, I have previously come across instances where attempts to initiate standards and training for the continuing education of real estate practitioners by a Government agency have been based on inadequate feedback from the ground because not all relevant organisations were identified and consulted. This would lead to time wasted, unnecessary costs incurred, and less than desirable outcomes. In its efforts to develop training programmes, the Agency should be mindful not to duplicate and compete with private sector efforts and initiatives but, rather, to facilitate any on-going programmes and courses.

Outsourcing, so widely practised by the private sector, should be the norm rather than the exception. Already, there have been murmurings about what SPRING is doing in conducting educational courses in alliance with overseas institutes, something which the private education industry has been carrying out for a long time. Secondly, like my colleagues before me, I would like to talk about training of older workers. Adult continuing education and training would provide useful learning opportunities for older workers, especially the lowly educated ones whose livelihoods are more at risk. This is particularly crucial in the light of an ageing population and a longer life expectancy. In fact, a special task force within the proposed Agency should be set up to focus on this group of older workers who have not been adequately prepared to meet the drastically changed circumstances. Their fishing skills are outmoded. As testimony of the urgency to help older workers, based on MOM's data as at the first quarter of 2003, amongst the 75,000 unemployed then, those aged 40 and above formed the largest group at 43%. Moreover, of these, more than half (15,900) have below secondary school education.

The task force can work together with the private and people sectors as well as Government Ministries to identify and/or re-engineer jobs to make them suitable and more attractive for older workers. Training courses to help older workers obtain the skills for jobs in these sectors can then be designed and promoted. The task force should look at ways to encourage employers to hire these older workers, but nonetheless competent and able. It should also look into ways to prevent age discrimination of such workers. The plight of these workers has to be championed as this problem is likely to remain with us for a long time.

There was a time not too long ago when Singaporeans were enjoying high economic growth and, in the process, became asset-rich and cash-rich. Then came the unprecedented and prolonged period of uncertainty starting from the Asian financial crisis, followed by a series of shocks.

Singaporeans have, in the last few years, lamented that they are both asset-less and cash-less, or perhaps now more appropriately, "asset-loss" and "cash-loss". Now, for the typical Singaporean, there is the added dread of yet another loss, "job-loss", if they are not already in this state.

Helping Singaporeans to get jobs, retain jobs and remain employable over their working life should clearly be one of the Government's key objectives. Hitherto, other than defence and national development, education takes up the biggest share of our national budget.

Without minimising the importance of training of our young for the future, brutal global competition is hammering home the point that the adult workforce, by sheer numbers and current contribution to the economy, deserves as much, if not more, attention and the collective efforts of the Government, employers and employees.

Madam, I therefore support the setting up of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency. This signals the Government's commitment to ensure that Singaporeans will remain employable in the face of dramatic changes in the employment landscape.

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the proposed establishment of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency that will bring together various divisions of the Ministry of Manpower and SPRING Singapore. The issues that need to be addressed in tackling the challenges that lie ahead of us in ensuring employment opportunities for Singaporeans are multi-faceted and it will be good to have one agency that can focus its entire attention and energies on this task.

MOM and SPRING Singapore must be given kudos for the many and varied training and reskilling programmes that they have already developed and introduced in the recent couple of years, even without the existence of the WDA, and the generous funding that they have made available to support these programmes.

However, the support and provision of training and reskilling programmes is only one small part, in fact, the first step in the whole picture and process. What we want and need is ultimately, that the worker is placed in a job, that he stays in the job, that he makes a good contribution to his employer and that he earns a wage that allows him to discharge his financial obligations and maintain a reasonable living.

There are many other factors that will significantly impact on WDA's effectiveness and ability to deliver on this ultimate goal. These include Singaporeans' mindsets and attitudes towards work, both as individuals as well as a society; the realities that Singaporeans face in earning a viable living in the face of the complex impact of CPF contributions on take-home pay and the ability to pay mortgages on the one hand, and the issue of business cost on the other; and finally what we can do in the whole area of self-employment.

On Singaporeans' attitudes and expectations with regard to jobs, we hear different stories from different quarters. I am sure that all the stories are, in fact, true and factual and simply reflect both the diversity of people's backgrounds and experiences, as well as a society which is in transition from having known so many years of high growth and full employment to one dealing with a much less certain future.

I had spoken in this House before on the very positive experience of all parties when you have a happy confluence of determined and adaptable workers and employers willing to take on mature employees in the instance of our experience in healthcare. We must find the occasion to highlight more of such success stories. There is, however, a long way to go yet to encourage many other Singaporeans to adjust their mindsets with regard to what constitutes an acceptable and worthy occupation. This applies to both individual Singaporeans looking for jobs as well as Singaporeans as a society in how we view workers.

A recent encounter reminded me both of the progress made as well as the way yet ahead. This has to do with the area of domestic services. I served in early 1997 on the Back-to-Work Committee of the then Ministry of Labour. We had identified domestic services as an industry which had potential to solve two problems concurrently. It is a great example of the win-win solutions we are always looking for. We thought it would help solve the problems of working women juggling a career and housekeeping responsibilities, without further increasing our reliance on foreign maids on the one hand, and providing opportunities for other women wanting to get back to work in an area that they would have the necessary skills and aptitudes on the other. Since that time, quite a number of companies have sprung up, providing housekeeping services and they are doing a booming business.

I use the services of such a company to help keep my apartment in habitable condition. They send two workers in a team to do the cleaning and they actually do a very good and professional job. Just last week, I discovered that both the workers assigned to my apartment are non-Singaporeans. I was rather taken aback because I had, up to then, always thought happily that the work that the Committee that I had served on, and our recommendations had made some contributions towards encouraging the growth of a sector that provided good opportunities for Singaporeans. As it transpired, the picture was not that bad. On talking to the owner, who was surprised to get a call from me, I found that, in fact, 70% of their workforce is local. So we have created some good jobs there. However, they do face significant difficulty finding and keeping Singaporeans. In fact, they have just done a review. In a recent 7-month period, they had hired 160 Singaporeans and put them through structured training. At the end of that period, regretfully, only 20 of this group have stayed on.

One of the reasons is the same as the one that my colleague, Ms Irene Ng, has just brought up. They relate to the working conditions, such as a non air-conditioned environment. But there is also another factor that comes into play, which relates to whether the house owner would be at home or out when the housekeepers come. The latter is preferred, as the workers do not like to be seen at their work, being shy of being identified. The job is not one that they are proud to be identified with.

This is where, as a society, we must move from mouthing platitudes about the dignity of honest labour towards truly according the appreciation and respect that we should have for any worker who discharges his or her duties competently and responsibly, regardless of the nature of the work itself. These are mindset issues and the WDA will have an impossible task if we do not consciously work on our attitudes and behaviour.

Next come the realities of what a displaced worker needs in terms of earning a viable living. The company I spoke of starts their housekeepers at $1,000. In fact, the range moves up, when you get to be a supervisor, to $1,800. This is actually not bad when you look at it that way. But a simple and clear illustration of the problems Singaporean workers face, with regard to salary, was given by a Mr Jack Sim, who wrote to the Straits Times' Forum page last week. He gave a very simple illustration of why he employed Malaysian workers rather than Singaporeans and further of why it was difficult - he was not casting aspersions on Singaporean workers - for a Singaporean worker to manage on the same salary that his Malaysian counterpart would be happy to accept. He used a simple calculation of $1,000, which is easy to work in terms of percentages. It is simply that at the starting salary of $1,000, the Malaysian worker costs Mr Sim $1,030 ($1,000 + $30 levy) and a Singaporean worker costs him $1,160 ($1,000 + $160 CPF). That is from his perspective as an employer.

From the perspective of the Singaporean worker, he only gets $800 as take- home pay ($1,000 less $200 employee's contribution). Of course, the $1,000 that the Malaysian counterpart brings home gets him a lot further than the $800 that our Singaporean worker takes as take-home pay. This is not a session on CPF, but I think that what he does bring home, this re-tuning of the CPF scheme, which is being mooted by various quarters recently, is certainly badly needed. In fact, the question is whether it is a re-tuning that is required or a fairly major overhaul because the issues are so intertwined and complex as to the conflicting demands that we need to see addressed. In this context, all that I wanted to say is that even as the WDA pushes ahead with the issues of training and reskilling, which the Agency will, in fact, move this in parallel, as it certainly will have impact on the success, or otherwise, of the ultimate goal of jobs for Singaporeans.

Finally, to turn attention to another approach, ie, self-employment. Much effort will go into creating jobs in which Singaporeans may be employed. But I trust WDA's remit also includes looking into supporting the creation of opportunities for self-employment or freelancing, as my colleague, Mr Ong Kian Min, has just earlier referred to.

MOM had sponsored a course last year on "How to start and run your own business". This was co-organised by the PSB Academy and DEW Credit Cooperative. I think they trained, in the period of 3-6 months last year, 1,200 people. How about supporting this effort beyond sponsoring the training? How about, firstly, extending this effort to minimising rules and regulations that prohibit or that are not helpful to helping people who actually want to go out there and do some small business or provide some services on their own? This principle of helping you how to start and run your own business is the principle that we always use, as an analogy, of teaching people how to fish.

It would be helpful then in that scenario to make sure that we are not putting a lot of "no fishing" signs on all the bodies of water that may exist. What is the point of teaching them to fish and then at every pond, every pool and every little rivulet you have this "no fishing" sign on it? With regard to these "no fishing" prohibitions, I am reminded of a story. I recently heard from one of my long-time serving Parliamentary colleagues who had to plead for 10 years before finally being able to secure a licence for a constituent to set up a little corner in a marketplace outside a clothing shop to do clothing alterations. This constituent is a woman who is single with a sick mother, whom she has to take for medical appointments and whom she has to stay home periodically at short notice to take care of. So for her, the ideal solution was the flexibility of a part-time income generation job. She was not asking for a handout. She has this skill. But it took that long to get this licence. Presumably, the appropriate authority was very mindful of the tidiness of the environment in that marketplace, in a bigger context. But I think you can see that it was not really helpful for this woman, who was trying to make a living and not having to depend on a handout.

I think there is a case to be made. We are now facing a situation that is complex and we want all the diverse solutions that we can get. Apart from creating jobs in big and small and medium sized companies, I think we should find a way so that individuals with skills can have lots of flexibility to set up and provide their own services. This too, I trust, will be something that WDA will champion.

With that, Madam, I support the Bill.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency Bill.

I think we all know that Singapore is experiencing the most difficult period of growth and development in its journey as a young nation. The country's economic growth turned sharply negative in the second quarter of 2003, falling to - 4.2% from positive growth of 1.7% in the first quarter. The volatility of Singapore's economy is becoming more and more apparent. I believe that the Singapore Government realises that an economy that is overly dependent on only electronics, shipping and financial services is prone to sharp swings. Hence, over the years, and more so recently, its courtship included chemical companies, pharmaceuticals and drug manufacturers, biotech firms, health and nutrition companies in the Government's bid to diversify.

Madam, I hope no one is still holding his breath, hoping against hope that the years of rapid and exponential growth will return soon. This realisation must set in, so that we can move forward effectively. The main story is not whether the cycle is slowing down or not, but that the economy has become more difficult to predict. Moving forward will not be an easy task, because the rules of the game have changed. The problems that we are currently facing are different from the past, hence requiring different solutions.

The two main issues that we need to look at, which were clearly articulated by the Acting Minister for Manpower, are job creation and workers' employability.

The MTI quarterly review recently pinpointed the loss of more than 20,000 jobs in the last quarter, the 8th straight quarterly decline in employment and significantly more than the 4,000 jobs lost in the first three months of the year. This trend will probably continue through 2003, and a recovery in the job market is only expected in 2004, if we are lucky. Exporters in Singapore have been slashing jobs and some are moving production to countries such as China, Malaysia and Thailand, which have lower land and labour costs. Wage costs in China, on average, are much lower than in Singapore. Some of the sobering examples, just to cite a few, are Japan's Seiko Epson Corporation, Sanyo Electric Company and Hitachi Limited, and have all cut jobs in Singapore.

Madam, we all know that everyone needs a job. Generating jobs has always been an important preoccupation of our Government. Bringing in foreign direct investments (FDI) into our economy has, among other things, created jobs for our people. However, this tried and tested formula does not yield effective results today. The reasons are: first, the number of jobs FDIs bring in is significantly and comparatively smaller. Second, the profile has changed with regard to the specific skill set that is required. Third, an issue which is quite sensitive at the present time, foreigners may be more suitable at the end of the day, either because they have the experience, fit the requirements or they are basically cheaper to hire or simply more willing.

An over dependence on FDIs is not ideal. We all acknowledge the need to develop our local industries, our home-grown entrepreneurs and companies that provide employment. While we encourage FDIs, we must also seriously commit to developing home-grown businesses.

If this is not enough, to further complicate matters, there is the destabilising effects of security or rather insecurity in the region that must now be taken into account. We know that such developments will influence investors' sentiments and decisions. Moving forward, it is going to be tougher to get FDIs.

This leads us to the most vital question: what about our workers? Are Singaporeans keeping up their employability? Even if there are enough jobs, do Singaporeans have the know-how or skills to carry them out?

Learning new skills can mean new job opportunities. Are Singaporeans willing to match employers' expectations in terms of salaries, or are employers compelled to hire foreigners to cut cost?

The way ahead is to equip our workers with the skills, the knowledge and the know-how so that they can look at the employers in the eye and tell them, "Anything a foreigner can do, I can do better."

There seems to be a need to be reminded time and time again that like hills and the open grounds, we are constantly swept by the winds of change. Progress will not come unless we have changed. I guess we realise its importance and Remaking Singapore is indeed the right thing to do. Similarly, as the economy undergoes restructuring, the "worker", being the basic unit of the economy, needs to be redefined.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, to me, the ideal worker is the "superworker", one who possesses the versatility to perform any task required of him or her because of changing conditions. The master-of-all-trades, the superworker, may not materialise, but a generalist with some value-added expertise to offer is very possible, if only the worker would change his attitude towards learning. Hence, to the workers, I would say the biggest opportunity probably lies under their own feet, be it their current job, industry they are in, their education or experience. So, do something about it.

We know that economic evolution is inevitable. Companies will always pursue the lowest cost structure, because of the tide of globalisation, because competition has suddenly become tougher and cutting cost becomes the only way to survive.

Madam, you may say that the superworker, which I mentioned earlier, is ideal but not realistic. The point is, the worker needs to understand that jobs are not "safe" any more, even skilled jobs of the white-collar type, as highlighted by the other Members earlier, once considered safe are not safe any more. Thus, our workers need to recognise that the careers that they studied for may not be able to maintain them throughout their working lives, because someone in India or China may be able to perform the same thing for a lot cheaper. Those who have spent years establishing themselves and their careers would have reached a comfort level and cannot imagine how all of that can now be at risk. Well, let me remind them that it can - all in the name of cost-cutting.

Restructuring or Remaking, the message being sent out is clear: the people need to change before it is too late. By that, I mean the employer, the employee and the establishment. We need to have a broadly educated workforce that keeps on learning. With the establishment of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, the Government has institutionalised life-long learning for the workforce.

It represents an earnest and proactive effort by the authorities to help the people and the economy become more resilient and increase the possibility of life-time employability. However, I hope the Agency will not make its operations a labyrinth of rules and regulations that it becomes a hurdle rather than a door for the workers to enter and realise their ambitions. The Agency should judge its success not by the monies it has amassed from fees, grants and donors, but by the number of workers it has reached out to and assisted them in their retraining.

It is probably appropriate also to remind employers that they should not see the birth of the Agency as the beginning of the end of their role in employee training programme. We know of many workers who have gone further up the career ladder than they thought they could. Why? For some, it is because they know their own potential and they develop it. But for others, it is because someone else, often the employer, thought that they have the potential to go higher and gave them the training and support. This is where employers, human resource professionals, should continue to look out for these people, and render them the support and encouragement to upgrade their skills and knowledge to enable them to move ahead.

Employers should also shift their thinking and be more magnanimous towards training and upgrading. With the opening of new opportunities as Singapore undergoes economic restructuring, employers should be sympathetic towards workers who seek training in an area perhaps quite unrelated to their field of work. Employers must overcome any selfish thoughts of denying the workers the training for fear of losing them in the months ahead.

We know that there are people who have undergone one form of training in the past, trudging to change career path midway through life, holding the view that he has perhaps gone down the wrong road. I feel that if someone is going down the wrong road, then he does not need motivation to speed up. What he needs is education and training to turn him around to the lane where he will excel and thus become a multi-disciplined worker.

In conclusion, I urge the Agency, the workers and employers alike to please take full advantage of this opportunity, as a platform for everyone to move in tandem with the Government's role to remake and take our nation to a new era of economic development and growth.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Madam, I rise in support of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency Bill.

In every parliamentary sitting in the last year and a half or so, we hear Members' concern about the unemployment conditions facing Singaporeans. The unemployment rate has been creeping up steadily from 2.4% in March 2001 to 4.5% in March this year, and we are told that it may still go up.

Various schemes have been put in place - from the financial assistance programmes for those affected by retrenchments and unemployment to the employment assistance programmes like the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP) and the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme (PJTP). We have also heard the Ministry of Manpower giving figures of how many Singaporeans have benefited from these programmes. But the reality remains - 75,000 or more Singapore residents are still unemployed, with one-third remaining unemployed for at least six months. We have seen the impact of prolonged unemployment on their self-esteem and on their family members - most importantly, on their survival and their ability to meet basic needs.

The Bill proposes the setting up of an Agency that will consolidate the efforts targeted at ensuring the Singapore resident workforce is competitive in the global market. The Agency also aims to ensure that Singaporeans remain employable for as long as they are able to. This is important at a time where streamlining and retrenchments seem to be the order of the day.

In the spirit of streamlining and consolidation, the proposed Agency brings together several divisions of MOM and other related secretariats. It is hoped that this will further enhance our efforts at addressing the employment and unemployment issues comprehensively for the whole must be bigger than the sum of its parts.

Madam, the issues we are facing, and thus facing the WDA, go beyond helping Singaporeans remain employable and competitive. No one wants to be nor to remain unemployed. The social support system that is currently in place is not a disincentive to work. It is sometimes confusing when we read in media reports that there are jobs out there but there are no takers, ie, the common complaint that Singaporeans are choosy and fussy. Such attitude is apparently changing and it is certainly an encouraging sign.

I think the fundamental issue today is that there are just not enough jobs to go around. The Acting Minister tried very hard yesterday to explain that the fundamental issue is to bring the jobs back to Singapore. MOM's labour market report for the first quarter of 2003 showed that as at March this year, there were only 24 job vacancies for every 100 unemployed persons. If we exclude the construction industry, the ratio was 21 jobs for every 100 unemployed persons. I hope the figures I am citing are correct for they are obtained from the MOM website, and I hope I am interpreting them correctly too. The reality today is "jobs no enough". So no amount of changing attitude towards jobs is going to help if the jobs are just not available.

In this regard, Madam, WDA should seriously look at self-employment as an option for the unemployed. We know that the Self Employment Training Programme, or SET, has been introduced to help entrepreneurial Singaporeans in self-employment, creating jobs for themselves and for others in the process. The programme is currently managed by SNEF and I think WDA should further enhance the outreach of this programme to more unemployed Singaporeans. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister how successful has the programme been so far since its launch and what further support is needed by the budding entrepreneurs to facilitate their efforts at starting up a business. Will WDA look into enhancing this programme by meeting the other needs of these budding entrepreneurs? WDA should also look at setting up a one-stop information and consultancy service where these budding entrepreneurs can seek the necessary assistance. For example, the unemployed who intends to start a small business may need assistance in participating in a simple tendering process. WDA should also continually monitor and review governmental policies and procedures that inhibit the process of setting up small businesses here - the "No Fishing" sign highlighted by Dr Jennifer Lee earlier.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the last year or so, I have lost count of the number of times I have spoken to residents about the importance of training and retraining. It has been a cliche, somewhat. I find it hard to believe that while 80,000 people have benefited from the SRP, we still have thousands who remain unemployed. It is not clear the proportion of those who have undergone SRP through surrogate employers like NTUC and the other self-help groups. But official figures show very few participate in SRP through their employers. What is clear is that I have heard repeatedly the lament of many residents about having gone for training under the SRP but not able to secure jobs after that. To such individuals, prolonged unemployment, despite conscious effort to train, retrain and seek jobs, will affect their sense of self-esteem and hope immensely.

Madam, I think one weakness in the present provision for training assistance is the catch-all, rigid structure of the training and retraining programmes. Training programmes are developed by the authorities, MOM, SPRING and NTUC and while they design these programmes with the requirements of the concerned industry in mind, they may not be fully in sync with the latest industry requirement. This is reflected in the Employer Support Training 2001 Survey conducted by MOM. It was reported that only 16% of the employers who sent their employees for training, sent them under the SRP. It was also reported that 48% of employers who sent their employees for training and another half of those who did not send their employees for training, gave the irrelevance of the training as the reason for not utilising the SRP. Thus, whether they send the employees for training or not, almost half find the training programmes not relevant to their operations. This, despite the SRP supporting more than 1,300 course modules in more than 30 industry sectors! Are we barking at the wrong tree?

Madam, staying abreast of new industrial trends is important as most industries nowadays face a shorter shelf-life of skills, hence relevant skills at a certain point of time may quickly become obsolete. Training programmes that reflect and address the varying and constantly changing demands of industries are thus necessary.

There are several examples in the region that we can study and perhaps emulate in this regard. Hong Kong's Employee Retraining Board's "Tailor-Made Programme" and Australia's "New Apprenticeship" programme are examples we can look at to better tailor training programmes to suit industries' needs. Hong Kong's Tailor-Made Programme consists of ERB and the training body collaborating to develop a training scheme that would equip trainees with the exact skills most vital to the survival and competitiveness of the industry. The "New Apprenticeship" programme in Australia employed a similar approach as there is close partnership between the training bodies, the employers and employees to ensure the relevance of the training programmes and for all three parties.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, another aspect of training and retraining that the new Agency needs to address is the extent to which the workforce and the industry are aware of these training and support programmes. In another MOM's study titled "Adult Re-training 2000", it was reported that only 33% of those surveyed had gone for training. Amongst these, only 12.5% reported utilising funding from the Government, primarily the SDF. More than one third had self-funded their training, while close to 60% had received partial or full support from their employers. The perception, perhaps, is that one has to find one's own funds to be trained or retrained - thus the lower rate of participation in training due to lack of personal funds. This lack of awareness of support programmes seems prevalent among the employers too, with more than one third reporting not being aware of the SRP, as reported in the 2001 survey on employers.

Madam, this is going to be the umpteenth time I am going to call on employers to do their part in the training and employment equation. The MOM's survey highlighted that only 22% of the firms surveyed had a formal training policy. There is a strong association between having a formal training policy and sending employees for training. I urge WDA to work closely with the employers and formulate some clear guidelines for employers to have such policies. Such guidelines should also ensure the minimum period of continual training employees should be entitled to in a given year. The work place must provide the environment that promotes the value of lifelong learning to ensure that the workers consequently internalise these values.

Madam, whenever a new agency or body is set up, much hype and hope often surround it. Discussions revolve around stretching its potential and maximising its reach. We must ensure that this new agency lives up to its mission of being a catalyst for the workforce and not just another bureaucratic set-up.

Madam, related to this issue is the current lack of a comprehensive and complete database for storing job seeker's information. The database at CareerLink does not comprehensively track the history of employment and training offered to a job seeker with essential information like detailed information of the courses the job seeker had attended, the personality profile or his level of employability. This results in difficulties in profiling the job seeker. Without detailed profiling, emplacement will be harder as the placement officer will not be able to attain a good job match and placement due to the lack of information. I urge WDA to address this gap in the system.

I believe the Agency will enhance the existing system of assisting our unemployed workers. This system must assist the workers overcome their barriers to securing employment. It must ensure that programmes and services are accessible. It is not sufficient to match the qualification and experience of the job seeker to the available jobs.

There is a need for more qualified job counsellors to provide a more comprehensive and systemic approach in helping the job seeker be placed in a job. There must be a thorough assessment process that will provide a better picture of the needs of the job seeker. Indeed, the job counsellors must not just facilitate but attempt to ensure that the job seeker overcomes whatever barriers that are in his way of getting a job. In this regard, we can study the examples of Hong Kong's Job Matching Programme and the UK's New Deal programme in which job search support follows up and monitors a job seeker's progress till emplacement.

Madam, these barriers go beyond the need to improve the individual's skills set. That can be overcome by ensuring that he gets the necessary training. There are also other real barriers that arise from the costs associated with job search. Transportation for job interviews, work clothes, interpersonal skills in presenting oneself at job interviews are real barriers to the man in the street seeking employment. The barriers are heightened with increasing period of unemployment, with his self-esteem lowered and sense of helplessness and frustration raised.

Often times, his financial obligation to his dependants forms the bulk of his thought process as he considers what job to take. The Agency must work with the relevant social support agencies in assisting such individuals.

Madam, it is easy for us to tell the people to tighten their belts, spend less, do not use their airconditioning, do not allow their children to watch television too much, and take whatever job that comes. The latter is a perennial problem encountered by many of us who meet them - they are not willing to take up the job that is offered because sometimes it is hard to live on an income of $1,000 or less as a cleaner, having to support a wife and four school-going children. Having been unemployed for some time, the arrears to some of the household expenditure would already have accumulated, making the financial hardship more acute. These are real issues faced by the unemployed. The WDA must recognise these issues and make available a more systemic assessment of the needs of the unemployed for it to be effective. It must work closely with the CDCs and other social service providers. Today, the financial assistance schemes are pegged to the person's effort at seeking employment. It must go beyond that. Given severe shortage of jobs available, and to encourage the unemployed "not to be choosy", financial assistance programme should address the shortage of the funds needed by the family to continue its functioning, even after the unemployed head of household accepts a job offer that may pay lower than his previous salary. These are the jobs that the foreigners come here to do. We can encourage Singaporeans to take up these jobs. Yes, it is what is left on the buffet table as the Acting Minister suggested yesterday. Yes, it may still be nutritious, but it may not be enough for him to ta pau (pack) back and place on the dinner table for his family.

Madam, today financial assistance is generally stopped once the person is gainfully employed. The assistance for such individuals must be provided based on the needs of the family. There is thus a need for closer collaboration between WDA and the CDCs and others in the social service sector in this regard. Otherwise, WDA will have a hard time understanding why the unemployed individuals are unwilling to accept a particular job offer - ending up labelling them as unmotivated.

In conclusion, Madam, we have and are still going through a very difficult patch in our country's life. Singaporeans are struggling to make ends meet. Even those who have jobs are struggling with pay cuts and the threats of retrenchment. The setting up of the WDA provides a ray of hope - with a more comprehensive and systematic effort at making our workers more world-ready. We have asked much of the people. They have been swallowing pills after pills, no matter how bitter. We must understand and empathise with their position. We must provide an infrastructure that enhances their sense of competence in managing the challenging environment through this comprehensive programme of giving them jobs and assistance wherever necessary. They must feel mastery over their destiny.

It is thus imperative that the WDA work closely with the social support agencies in setting up this comprehensive system that will achieve the dual objectives of ensuring the unemployed Singaporeans take up the jobs and still be able to support their families.

Madam, we may teach them how to fish and they may try hard to fish, but let us help them when the season is bad and there is very little fish to catch for that day and what they catch is not sufficient to feed their children. It will give them the sense that life can and should go on, and that tomorrow may be brighter, with more fish to catch.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Mdm Deputy Speaker, we are facing the challenges of globalisation. There are two options open to us. First, we can be an ostrich and bury our head in the sand, with the hope that when we take our head out from the sand, everything will be back to normal. Then we will be able to become an ostrich again. The next option is to become the legendary phoenix. Legend has it that the phoenix jumped into the fire, and after the baptism of fire, it became born-again and re-emerged a glamorous and dynamic "fire phoenix". Our choice is very obvious. We want to be a phoenix. But why? We often hear Singaporeans complain about their unwillingness to take a more difficult choice or embark on a more difficult task. Yes, no doubt, it is difficult to make hard decisions.

The setting up of the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) now is very timely. This will help our workforce make the difficult but correct choice, thereby be a part of our transformation to the new economy, and face new economic challenges associated with globalisation. However, helping our workforce to make the choice of transformation is never easy. First of all, the WDA must produce results to prove to our workforce and our workers here, to persuade them that transformation is possible and restructuring is inevitable. This is something we have to do, because this is the only way to ensure that our workforce has its heart in Singapore. All Singaporeans will be able to continue to have jobs and enjoy a good standard of living. That is the only way out.

To change the attitude of the older workers and persuade them to embrace lifelong learning is quite a difficult job. But this is something we must do, whether we like it or not. WDA is established with this target in mind to convince Singaporeans to re-visit the offer of jobs and the opportunity of retraining and re-skilling which they have previously declined. However, the WDA must first show some results through some real action to be convincing. Only then, can they succeed in changing the mindset of the people.

Secondly, the WDA should have a correct focus on our employment situation. To forecast on the future employment scenario is very difficult. As the Minister has said, we have to cooperate with the EDB and other Government agencies to touch ground with the various industries, so that we know their needs and the development trends in the various industries. Only then, can we develop programmes to train our workers and equip them with the appropriate skills to meet the future challenges. Otherwise, the training would be in vain. For example, if we manage to convince the workers to be trained in biochemistry which was thought to be the industry with great potential, and suddenly we find that this industry is not taking off, all the sacrifices by the workers and resources invested therein will be in vain. What is going to happen to the poor workers who are now armed with irrelevant skills and no jobs? This will then give rise to yet another round of structural unemployment.

The third point is that the WDA should strive to provide a one-stop service for all our workers. At the moment, if Singapore workers want to learn, upgrade their skills or acquire new skills, they do not know whether to go to NTUC, SHRI, MOM, SPRING, IDA, or CDC. There are so many agencies to go to before they can identify the courses suitable to them. When they go to a website they look at the SRP, OJT, PJTP, SMC and what have you, there is a whole string of acronyms. There are so many different training schemes. They are puzzled and confused. As such, WDA must provide a one-stop service which is user-friendly. There should be specialists who are able to understand the market requirements and would be able to help the workers with proper counselling and advice, and match them with the jobs available and suitable to them. Arrangement should also be made to keep a register of those who are looking for a job, with all the particulars fed into a database. Only then, will it be encouraging for the workers to accept training and embrace the culture of lifelong learning.

Madam, I believe that most Singaporeans want to become phoenixes. WDA is the agency that will help them become phoenixes. I firmly believe that so long as we have confidence in this transformation, despite the difficulties and frustrations, we will be able to remake Singapore, and our workforce will become even stronger and more competitive, to justify our ranking as a world-class workforce.

Madam, I support the Bill.

Dr Gan See Khem (Nominated Member): Madam, when I first read the name of the new Agency, which is the Singapore Workforce Development Agency, I thought it smacks a little bit of the 1960s. But after deliberations in this House earlier and when the Acting Minister for Manpower ensured the House that this Agency will be devoted to the mission of developing Singapore's human capital and add value to our workforce, I am much heartened, and I fully support this Bill with no change of name because I think a rose with any name is just as sweet.

Human capital, without doubt, is the most valuable human resource we have in Singapore and WDA is entrusted with the role of enhancing the value of our national wealth. We very much support that from the private sector. There are discussions from yesterday and the whole of today where many of us lament on the loss of jobs in Singapore. This is a mega trend affecting not only Singapore but in the US and there is little that we can do as a nation and we have to look at the positive side on how to increase the employability of our workforce.

What we really do not want to see, after the formation of WDA, is a society in Singapore where we are chasing papers. We could get more training, we could get more certificates, but it would be very dampening if it does not result in the outcome which we want, which is continual employability. In order to do what WDA sets out to do, which is to enhance our human capital and get them employed, I think we need to change not only the mindset on the part of the WDA, in terms of its mission, but also on the part of our local talent.

My colleagues have earlier spoken widely about the training and retraining of women, the blue collar as well as the elderly. I would just want to spend a few minutes talking about the white collar. The first wave of unemployment that has hit the US was the loss of jobs for the blue collar, which is what we have faced in Singapore. The next wave of job losses in the US is the loss of jobs for the white collar and something which is on the horizon for the Singapore workforce. So I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the mindset changes that we need to make for the local talent.

We saw in the papers recently that many young graduates are still not employed. Many graduates and professionals are finding it difficult to get jobs, and I have seen over a hundred Bachelor of Business Administration and MBA programmes in the market. People are being upgraded and they are getting educated, but they still cannot find jobs. How do we address this issue?

A major part of the change in the mindset of the graduates and the professional workforce is that they must realise that jobs now do not move on a vertical path, meaning that you do not get a job because you have a certain degree or qualification and you expect to progressively move up the organisational structure. The professional workforce must realise that they have to develop distinct competencies other than the degrees and being able to work in project groups because the careers of the future actually move along a horizontal bend where the professionals group together looking for projects, they succeed in the projects, make themselves more marketable, and they can get on to bigger and better projects, thereby enhancing their employability.

This is a scenario of the future, very much like in the movie-making business. Nobody employs all the movie stars, all the technicians, all the crew members all the time. The studios cannot afford to do that. Every time a new movie is being contemplated, a cast is put together and that cast works together for 10 months, 24 months, it needs to make the movie, the cast disbands and moves on. I think the opportunity for the white collar of the future is very much going to be project-based.

The other issue is that whilst we are talking about enhancing the employability of our local talent, we also must be mindful that, whilst the Government and the EDB are trying to bring jobs to Singapore by encouraging investment in Singapore, this is not going to be the easiest route. So I hope WDA would also look into training our Singapore talent for the regional and international markets. Singaporeans must feel that they have that distinct competency, the skills, the knowledge set that they can go out of Singapore to find jobs, develop even more skills and experiences and come back to Singapore, thereby enriching our Singapore talent pool with more depth and breadth. So that would be a challenge our local talent needs to develop. And for those of our local professionals and white collar who are still employed, they must continue to enrich themselves and think about re-engineering themselves and adding value to the workplace. Very few companies would retrench a staff who can continuously bring new value, ideas and new markets to the company. And one of the best ways of avoiding retrenchment is to make sure that you are not obsolete.

The role of WDA, I have no doubt, would be much more efficient than what we have now, which is multiple agencies working in collaboration for the same outcome. The problem-solving abilities of the management team that WDA has put together, I have no doubt that it would be a very capable team. But in today's competitive world, it is not enough to be just efficient. I would hope that the team at WDA will not be happy by asking themselves: are we doing things right? Because in this day and age, doing things right, you can still go very wrong. What the team should be looking at is asking themselves: are we doing the right thing? Because the business environment changes tremendously and fast these days.

The WDA team, we hope, would develop a much more conceptual and strategic thinking mindset and always asking not only about efficiency, but what other values that we can bring to enhance the value of our human capital in Singapore. Because we need to look at employability, not only for the current industries, current jobs, but also for newer challenges and future jobs. We hope that the team would scan the environment regionally and internationally to find new niches and to study these new market opportunities and study their feasibilities.

We have read, and my colleagues have mentioned earlier, that in the US nowadays, white-collar jobs are moving offshore. They are moving to India and China. Whilst our wages may not be as competitive or as low as in China and India, I think Singapore and the Singapore brand of professionals do carry a premium value. So, I would urge SWDA to consider a study into the possibility of forming large manpower firms. If jobs are not coming to Singapore, we have to go out and find the jobs for Singaporeans. Can we form these big manpower firms, go to the US and compete for the outsourcing of certain business functions that the US firms now want to contract out because the cost of conducting these services in the US is too expensive?

Earlier on, we have known that US firms and banks are sending out all the backroom operations in the banking industry to India. Cost centres have now been set up in India and the Philippines. The next wave would be the outsourcing of specific HR, finance and accounting functions. There are opportunities and we should look at the setting up of these manpower firms that will compete with Chinese and Indian counterparts to be the outsourcing centres for some of these functions. Singapore has a terrific brand name, our professionals are recognised worldwide for their competencies, and I can envisage that, if we try to develop these manpower firms, we can successfully compete for, for example, accountancy services.

Yes, Singapore's cost will still be higher than those in India and China, but if we are able to produce superior customer service, companies in the US may be willing to pay a 15-20% premium to outsource the services to Singapore companies rather than the ones in India or China.

SWDA has put together a very long list of things that it wants to do, and whilst I appreciate the ambition of SWDA to be a one-stop shop to satisfy the training, job matching and employment-seeking activities in today's difficult environment, I would like to urge SWDA to focus on policy issues and on looking for new niches and opportunities, and to work with the private sector in fulfilling some of these needs.

With that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.

The formation of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency is indeed timely as Singapore restructures its economy to cope with globalisation. With increasing competition, there is an urgent need for Singapore to develop new niches in its only key strategic resource, ie, human resource. The formation of the SWDA will provide a one-stop agency to help Singaporeans to develop their skills to enhance their employability.

The integration of the Skills Development Fund, Critical Enabling Skills Training (CREST) and National Skills Recognition System (NSRS) as proposed by the Bill, will further facilitate skills development among Singaporeans. The Agency will have more flexibility and be able to respond much faster to global market changes which affect our economy and our workforce. In the global economy, speed of change is of the essence to maintain competitive advantage and increase business profitability. In Singapore, we have to continually strive to keep our business cost competitive and, at the same time, focus our efforts to enhance the value of our human capital. Otherwise, our workers will not be able to command a reasonable salary to sustain a good quality of life.

Madam, Singapore is faced with an aging workforce and increased competition from many countries. To sustain its long-term economic growth, we must identify niche areas in both our local market and the global market. As identified by the Government, we will develop the manufacturing and services industries as the twin engines for our economic growth. But is our present workforce ready to support and drive these two industries to world-class standards?

Based on the experience of the Community Development Councils in job assistance services, we find that many job seekers, especially those aged 45 years and above, do not have the relevant skills or appropriate mindset for many jobs in the manufacturing and services industries. This is a real concern. Employers also find these older workers to be slow in learning and some are unwilling to work in certain work environments, such as shift work or clean rooms. This situation will worsen if companies continue to improve their business operations with higher technology, and our older workers remain slow in learning the relevant skills. At present, we are faced with such skills and mindset mismatch problems.

With rapid globalisation, industries and companies will change more rapidly in the future. Our workers will face structural unemployment more frequently, if we do not plan the skills development of our workforce properly. Therefore, we need to adopt a flexible and sustainable approach towards developing our human capital in Singapore. We must develop a quality workforce which is of world-class standard. The desired outcome of a world-class workforce should be one that is diligent, positive and flexible. Our workforce must have the ability to respond quickly to the changing needs of the marketplace. With an agile workforce, we will be able to seize more opportunities in the global economy.

Madam, how do we enhance the employability of Singaporeans? We need to adopt three different strategies for three categories of adult learners/workers, namely:

1. The employed, ie, the existing workers;

2. The unemployed job seekers; and

3. The potential entrants to our workforce.

To be effective, we must understand the needs and aspirations of these three groups of adult learners. At the same time, we must help them overcome the various constraints they face and facilitate their learning processes. I would like to suggest three strategies in training and nurturing a world-class workforce.

First, Place and Train schemes for unemployed job seekers. We should place more emphasis to encourage more companies to adopt Place and Train schemes, such as the People-on-the-Job Traineeship scheme (PJTP). This will help our unemployed job seekers to return to the workforce as quickly as possible. I understand that more than 5,000 firms have participated in the PJTP scheme, benefiting over 12,000 Singaporeans. We can further expand this scheme to all strategic industries to encourage more Singaporeans to upgrade their skills.

More support and incentives should be given to firms which are providing on-the-job training. Such schemes will provide better opportunities for job seekers to learn new skills faster and apply them immediately in their respective jobs. It will also enable the job seekers to earn an income while undergoing skills training. This will provide better incentives for them to make changes and adjustments in their work environment. Besides providing incentives for firms, we should also render support to job seekers who take up Place and Train jobs. I would like to propose giving a special or start-up allowance to encourage more Singaporeans to join those strategic industries with Place and Train schemes. In addition, the Government can support firms to recognise their long service contribution of their workers

Second, Continuing Skills Development for the employed, ie, existing workers. In order to avoid structural unemployment, we need to develop a passion for lifelong learning among our workers. Both employers and employees must constantly identify new skills to learn, so as to keep pace with developments in their respective industries. Continuing skills development should be encouraged among workers so as to keep our workforce equipped with the relevant skills for competition and employability purposes. But, how do we facilitate the continuing skills development efforts of our workers? And how can we incentivise employers to continually train and upgrade the skills of their employees?

Madam, we need to allow more flexibility for workers to learn new skills, both within and outside their work environment. One key motivation of any adult learner is the recognition of the skills they learn. We must review our National Skills Recognition System to increase its acceptance among employers. At the same time, we must also have better quality control of the training service providers and the respective testing bodies to ensure that high standards are attained.

Companies must also make efforts to adopt best practices and document their work processes to facilitate training and retraining of their staff. In addition, they should be encouraged to continually redesign their work processes so as to enhance the value of work of their workers.

Third, self-learning for potential entrants to workforce. To be a world-class workforce, we need to widen the scope of learning of our workforce, especially new entrants to the industry. Lateral thinking, creative learning and various self-improvement skills should be introduced to adult learners more comprehensively. These learning opportunities must be readily available and flexible enough to allow adult learners to seize. Faced with various constraints, such as work and family commitments, adult learners often cannot find time to self-learn new skills or knowledge. There is a need to set up a network of physical and virtual training or learning institutions. The use of IT will provide an excellent platform for self-learning. More interactive on-line learning should be introduced so that adult learners can expand their knowledge and expertise.

Madam, we must provide more opportunities for our workers to learn creative and self-improvement skills early, especially when they are young and energetic. This will enable them to apply these skills in their work earlier and gain more experience to add value to their companies.

In conclusion, I support the Bill, and I hope that the Singapore Workforce Development Agency will provide an integrated solution to nurture the development of our human resource.

Ms Olivia Lum Ooi Lin (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will make this speech as short as I can.

Firstly, I support the SWDA Bill, and I believe that it will allow better focus to be placed on training of our workforce so that they remain relevant. As an Agency solely dedicated to oversee the welfare of our workforce, it will definitely be in a better position to facilitate employment and implement measures to protect the interests of Singaporeans, both in terms of employment as well as business sustainability.

Over yesterday's session, we had heard many Members voice concerns that foreigners are taking away jobs from the locals. However, I would like to present another view, ie, the view as seen from the business sector. In this regard, I would like to quote the example of local textile companies. I know that this is an unpleasant taboo subject, but I feel the need to speak up on their behalf because they do play a part in our economy as well as provide employment opportunities. In Singapore, the textile industry is viewed as a sunset industry. It is not glamorous, and certainly not hip. Most Singaporeans would not want to work in such companies. However, some of these firms are profitable, and whatever employment policy we implement, we should make an effort to make sure that such companies stay afloat. I personally know of one local textile company which employs about 900 workers. Of these, 600 are locals and the remaining 300 are Malaysians. This company has been operating in Singapore for more than 20 years now. Many of these 600 local workers have been with the firm for a long time now and most are close to retirement. When these workers retire, younger ones need to be recruited. This is where the firm has been facing an uphill task in recruiting locals.

The boss told me that when they tried to employ those retrenched workers from the hi-tech industries, such as the electronics industry, many were not interested to join them and often, the reason cited was that these Singaporeans felt that working in a textile company is just not the "in" thing.

I was told that their workers earn wages ranging from $1,500 to $3,000 a month per worker, with 8-10 working hours per day on the average. They are facing a major problem in recruiting workers, while they continue to receive good orders from the USA and Europe. This company is earning money from overseas and bringing this money back to Singapore.

To remain competitive and maintain profitability, they need a minimum workforce. Unfortunately, over the past few years, the number of workers employed here has fallen from 1,200 to 900 due to an ageing local workforce. The alternative is for the firm to wrap up here and move elsewhere totally. However, the boss has not pulled out altogether, because he is considerate for his long-time local employees and he knows that once he closes down his factory here, these 600 workers would be out of job. Hence, while he expands his business overseas, he hopes to continue to operate his factory here for as long as possible.

One may think that such companies belong to the sunset industry, but we must recognise that they do play a role here in providing employment, as well as inject into the economy. For example, the company ships all their textiles overseas. Hence, they need transportation and shipping companies to handle their goods. This creates business opportunities for these associated business partners and, in turn, it also provides employment opportunities. In addition, the annual revenue is more than S$100 million. Thus, they also, for example, provide good business for the financial sector. I would like to know how WDA can help such companies in their workforce problems.

I hope that the WDA would not only focus on the interests of the local workers and partnership with MNCs and services industries, but also consider the business interest of some local SME companies, such as this. If we do not take care of this type of business, there is no employment to talk about in the first place and the continuing retraining effort would be irrelevant.

Often, my friends in the private sector complain that the Singapore Government is overly-protective of the Singapore workers and hence, we have cultivated a population that is picky and spoilt when it comes to working conditions and environment. I hope that the WDA would seek inputs from the private sector when it comes to recommending policies that would affect not just the Singapore workforce, but also the business sector.

I also hope that WDA would put some of these old industries in their radar screen.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mdm Deputy Speaker, as Members have been asked to be brief, I should try to be equally brief.

I am deeply heartened by the overwhelming positive response from the many Members who have supported this Bill. I think we have all agreed that we need a central coordinating body such as the Workforce Development Agency. I have been heartened by Members' comments and positive response. In fact, I was keeping a running commentary of the adjectives on the Workforce Development Agency. Adjectives have been used - timely, necessary, better focus for training, unqualified support, much heartened. We have been called "a breath of fresh air", "a ray of hope", "a rose", except one, when we were called "a spade". To Mr Chiam, the WDA does not mind being a spade if it helps him to dig a hole in Potong Pasir. We would be a spade to help his residents get jobs.

There have been many suggestions, too many. In fact, I think my staff downstairs are now scratching their heads and going crazy and saying, "My golly! What have we gotten ourselves into?" We would have to take time to take all these numerous suggestions, look at them seriously, compartmentalise them, priortise them, and decide what we can do.

I would like just to spend a few minutes explaining what our main role is. As a Member quite rightly pointed out, we cannot be all things to all men. Employment is not a single agency's objective. It is many agencies. But we are very clear on what WDA's main role is. We would be the champion for Singaporeans' workforce development. Yes, as Ms Olivia Lum said, there would be other agencies that need to champion various sectors and various industries remaining in Singapore. But we are completely pro-Singaporeans because this is the way we can help Singaporeans keep their jobs. But it does not mean that, as an overall administration, we would not also help other sectors remain here.

WDA seeks to be the hub that would bring all these spokes of training, all these various agencies, in alignment, so that training would be better coordinated. As a hub, it seeks to provide an integrated framework for all the training providers to articulate the various parts can fit into a whole. It is Singaporean worker-centric.

Therefore, I understand some concerns about what we are taking from SPRING and what we are leaving behind. SPRING would continue to exist as it focuses on companies at national level. But when it comes to worker training, we would put the integrated programmes under one whole.

Much has been said about changing mindsets and imparting attitudes. I agree. That is absolutely critical. But as I have realised, that is one of the hardest aspects to do and it is not a point in time when you can say that you have done it and people have understood. It is a continuous process. So while much of that has to go on, as Mr Tan Soo Khoon said, lifelong learning, Mr Ahmad Magad, Mr Ong Kian Min, Dr Jennifer Lee, of trying to change the mindset of employees, employers, changing stereotypes, WDA would continue to focus on certain aspects. As I have said, we will build the skills, resilience and the agility of the workforce. We will have to map skills. Yes, we will also have to teach Singaporeans both the hard and soft skills - literacy skills, critical thinking skills, teamwork, internationalisation skills. As Dr Gan See Khem suggested, we have a Strategic Manpower Conversion Programme for internationalisation efforts.

At the end of it, we must make training not only more effective but more believable. Singaporeans must believe that training makes a difference. I can understand why Mr Chiam See Tong feels that it may not be effective. We would not discriminate against his residents in Potong Pasir and, in fact, I encourage his retrenched workers in Potong Pasir to come to WDA and prove him wrong that if we can find them a job, train them, it would make him believe. At the end of the day, that is what must be delivered. We must stop training for training's sake.

As all of you have said, we must be market-responsive, industry-relevant. We have to take this very seriously because, at the end of it all, there may not be enough jobs for new entrants if we do not upgrade.

Therefore, we will strengthen this nexus between training and employment and we will place priority on job-seekers and target them to fill specific positions. We will work with the industry. Yes, as Dr Teo Ho Pin said, we will put more place and train programmes and we will find people jobs and give them the relevant skills they need. We will tie training with financial assistance and other measures that he has talked about.

I now want to focus on some special groups that Members have mentioned. Yes, we will focus on professionals, executives, managers to cope. We would also help those who want to be self-employed, the entrepreneurs, the older workers. All this needs to be done. They are too numerous and I do not intend to go into details. But they are on our radar screen and we would take all your comments into consideration.

I want to end off by saying that the WDA cannot be all things to all men. In fact, that would be a disastrous starting point. We want to be very focused. Yes, the point of focus would be how do we get Singaporeans jobs. We must never lose sight of it. But we are also mindful that to fulfill that objective, we would need to work with many agencies.

Therefore, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would reiterate my last point that we would require the same unanimous support and cooperation of workers, employers and strategic partners to tackle this problem of workforce competitiveness and unemployment. We must meet our challenges head-on, but together, we can renew heightened hopes to our workforce to help them stay employable and even more competitive.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can the Minister please comment on this issue of discrimination against the older workers?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mdm Deputy Speaker, we understand the dynamics that occur at the workplace and our approach is that, yes, there is a preference for certain employers as they do. We do not think legislation is the way to go now. We believe in equipping the workers with the necessary skills, sometimes, we may want to aid them, like our People-for-Jobs Traineeship Scheme where we pay half the salary for six months, and that is to allow the worker to prove himself, because that is sustainable. We will continue with these efforts and with some success, we have placed 12,000 workers in that scheme. I believe that we can do much more in those fields.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mdm Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 50 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Second Schedule -

The Chairman: The Acting Minister for Manpower has given notice of an amendment to this Schedule. The notice of amendment is notified in the Order Paper Supplement. As inadequate notice has been given of this amendment, it is subject to the assent of the majority of Members present. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 27, item (1), to leave out "paragraphs (b) and (c)" in the second column and insert "paragraph (c)".

Item (1) of the Second Schedule concerns a consequential amendment to section 6(1) of the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board Act (SPRING), on the functions of SPRING. The deletion of sub-paragraph (b) to the section was originally proposed, as a new statutory board is intended to be the primary organisation responsible for development and upgrading of skills and expertise of the workforce. However, as under that provision, SPRING has a wider mandate in that it includes the promotion of the growth of small and medium enterprises and other enterprises requiring assistance, we have decided to leave paragraph (b) in the SPRING Board Act.

Amendment agreed to.

The Second Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.