EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 732

EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

5.12 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Prime Minister announced during our recent National Day Rally a set of measures for a more supportive environment to have children and raise families in Singapore. The measures

Column: 733

included extending maternity leave from eight to 12 weeks, and two days of childcare leave for each parent. The amendments in this Bill will effect those measures.

The Bill also amends the Employment Act in two other areas. First, to allow companies to implement flexible work schemes to optimise their manpower resources and, second, to raise the minimum age of employment for children and young persons. I shall take the House through each of the amendments in turn.

Extending Maternity Leave

First, extending maternity leave. Two sets of regulation presently prescribe rights and benefits of maternity leave. Currently, employees covered by the Employment Act (EA), irrespective of nationality of the child or mother, are entitled to eight weeks of maternity leave for all births. Employers must pay for such leave taken for the first two children. Employees who are managers, executives and confidential staff are not covered under the EA.

For the third child only, there is a separate scheme under the Children Development Co-Savings Act since 2001 which provides for eight weeks of maternity leave for mothers of Singapore citizens for legitimate births.

To achieve a better environment for families, my Ministry set up a tripartite panel (National Tripartite Advisory Panel to Develop Family Friendly Workplaces) to formulate workable recommendations that were appropriate to Singapore's context. This included the length of maternity leave. We also garnered feedback from 11 focus groups, comprising employer and employee representatives from industries such as banking and finance, electronics manufacturing, hotels and restaurants, civic and community groups.

Column: 734

We paid particular attention to women's views. After extensive consultation and deliberation, the tripartite panel recommended four additional weeks, bringing the total to 12 weeks for maternity leave.

This panel also recommended that, subject to mutual agreement between employer and employee, there should be flexibility to take

the additional four weeks spread over the six months following the birth of the child. This would minimise the impact of continuous 12 weeks' absence of key employees, especially small and medium sized enterprises. It would also allow some employees, if they wanted to, to return to work after eight weeks on half-day or shorter work-week arrangements.

We have accepted these recommendations. Clause 7 of the Bill therefore extends maternity leave from eight weeks to 12 weeks. A new section 76(1)(c) provides for up to 24 days to be taken flexibly over the six months following the birth of the child, based on a maximum six-day work-week. For companies working less than a six-day work-week, the number of flexible days of leave can be adjusted to be consistent with four work-weeks.

Let me now turn to the issue of maternity pay. The Tripartite Panel assessed that our companies' cost competitiveness would be affected if they had to foot the wage bill for the additional leave. So, the Government will fund the additional four weeks for the first and second child and the full 12 weeks' leave for the third and fourth child for mothers of Singapore citizens. The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports will shortly be presenting those amendments under the Children Development Co-Savings Act (CDCA). The CDCA will also be amended to provide for 12 weeks' leave and pay to cover the first to fourth births of all

Column: 735

qualifying mothers, irrespective of position. Managers, executives and confidential staff will consequently have expanded rights to paid maternity leave.

We have also taken the opportunity to address the situation faced by mothers with multiple births. Under current laws, these mothers are not eligible to further employer-paid maternity leave after the first birth, since they would already have two or more living children. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that these mothers will, in future, be entitled to employer-paid maternity leave for the second confinement.

Childcare Leave

The Tripartite Panel acknowledged in its report the importance of developing family-friendly workplaces in Singapore. In addition to extending maternity leave, the panel also wanted two days of childcare leave for working fathers and mothers who have any child under the age of 7, regardless of the number of children and with no preconditions, such as illness of the child.

This recommendation is reflected in clause 9 of the Bill. This childcare leave is meant for every parent, mother or father, to spend time with their children - to care for them, to tend to their needs or, if they like, just to appreciate each other. In that respect, it is different from annual leave.

Although managers, executives and confidential staff are excluded from this Act, our experience is that, by and large, all companies extend the same leave benefits to executi7ves as they do to rank and file employees in order to maintain consistency. As they did for maternity leave, companies are encouraged to extend childcare leave to all employees, including managers and executives, as a matter of good human resource practice.

Column: 736

The two days are to be taken during the calendar year or by mutual consent any specified one year period. During the transition for the remaining few months of this year, I would like to encourage employers and employees to accommodate each other's needs in deciding on the number of days of childcare leave to be consumed. Some unions have suggested one day of childcare leave for their members for the remainder of this year or a total of three days of childcare leave to be consumed from 1st October 2004 to the end of 2005.

The Employment Act sets minimum standards for childcare leave. For employers who have the resources, I urge them to provide more than the two-day minimum or other forms of family care leave.

The tripartite partners will continue to promote family-friendly workplaces. This will raise employee satisfaction and productivity, both at home and at work. If employees are enabled to take better care of their young children and other family members, they will also be better workers.

Facilitating Flexible Work Schemes

Let me now turn to the second set of amendments contained in clause 3 of the Bill which facilitates flexible work schemes.

With rapidly changing market demands and volatile cycles, companies must have greater flexibility in scheduling work arrangements. Our existing legislation, which stipulates premium rates for overtime (1.5 times) and rest day (which is 2 times) and that the payment of overtime must be in cash, has hindered the implementation of flexible work schedules. In other words, in practice, during periods of peak demand, companies have to pay more for overtime,

Column: 737

and this is correct. But when demand is down, they have excess workers on the payroll. This results in retrenchments during lull periods. Then when business picks up, companies must hire again, including many whom they had let go. This is inefficient.

We must allow companies that face uneven demand due to the nature of operations, or seasonal and business cycles, flexibility to adjust work schedules. A few companies have implemented such schemes on a pilot basis after consultation with and agreement from their unions and Government. Let me give you some examples. One company, instead of cash payments, offsets overtime accumulated as paid time-off to the workers. The equivalent premium rates of 1.5 times for overtime work and 2 times for rest day work are maintained. In another company, overtime payment at premium rates is paid in excess of contractual hours not on a daily or weekly basis but bi-monthly or quarterly basis. These are positive examples of the efficient use of manpower.

Hence, the Economic Review Committee recommended that companies should be given exemption from the relevant provisions to allow flexible work schedules. The Government has accepted the recommendation. This provision is effected in clause 3 which allows the Commissioner for Labour to exempt companies from cash payments and/or at premium rates to employees, for overtime, rest day and public holiday work.

A set of tripartite guidelines has been formulated in consultation with employers and trade unions on the circumstances under which we will give permission for flexible work schemes. Various conditions will need to be observed to ensure that the interests of workers are protected. Companies that apply for exemption must provide income stability for workers, and

Column: 738

ensure their safety and health is not compromised. They should also demonstrate that greater profits that result from the more efficient use of manpower will be shared with their workers. The guidelines will be disseminated to employers and the unions and workers. In addition, MOM will appoint a tripartite working group to assist the Commissioner for Labour in assessing applications for exemption by companies.

Raising the Minimum Working Age in accordance with ILO Convention 138

Next, raising the minimum working age in accordance with ILO Convention 138. Let me turn to clauses 2, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which relate to the employment of children and young persons in industrial, non-industrial and light work. The present provisions allow for the employment of children aged between 12 and 14 in "light work", and under parental supervision. In practice, child employment is negligible in Singapore as children below 14 are either in schools or approved vocational institutions. Young persons, currently defined as persons between the ages of 14 and 16, may be employed in industrial undertakings, unless there is a specific prohibition in relation to that undertaking prescribed by my Ministry. No restrictions are imposed on persons aged 16 and above.

The Minimum Age Convention of 1973 (No. 138 of ILO) is one of its eight core conventions. In essence, it stipulates that children should not enter the labour force before the completion of compulsory education, but in any event not before reaching the age of 15. However, children aged between 13 and 15 may perform light work, if it is not prejudicial to their educational activities. Beyond 15, they are permitted to take up employment, except for work which is dangerous or hazardous to health. For

Column: 739

such work, the minimum age is 16 if their "safety, health and morals" are fully protected, and they receive proper training in the relevant branch of activity.

Singapore is against all forms of exploitation of children and imposes strict standards in the employment of youths. In 2001, Singapore ratified ILO Convention 182 on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour. We will take this opportunity to raise our minimum working ages to be in line with Convention 138, and in due course to ratify it as a continued commitment to the protection of our children and youths.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

First of all, I am very happy that the amendments will raise the minimum permissible age from 12 to 13 years for employment for light work and raise the permissible age from 14 to 15 years for non-hazardous industrial work. This is a positive move to make our requirements in line with ILO Core Convention 138, and I hope of course this will lead to early ratification of the Convention by our Government.

As recommended by the Economic Review Committee, the amendment empowers the Commissioner for Labour to lawfully approve applications for flexible work schedules without being bound by the existing overtime and rest day provisions which require the companies to pay the rate of payment for overtime and the rate of payment for work on rest day only in cash. With the amendment, companies can now use the accumulated overtime work to compensate employees in the form of paid

Column: 740

time-off, also called compensatory time-off, during the lull period.

Sir, optimal use of manpower holds the key to success in the new economy. With the changing business environment and the need for an improving quality of life for all the workers, there is motivation in the search and implementation of more flexible working arrangements. The benefits of flexi-work practices have been well-documented in many management and human resource literature. Studies have shown that the introduction of flexi-work in developed countries has resulted in lower absenteeism, increased productivity, higher employee retention and savings in overhead costs, not to mention a higher employee morale.

In general, the unions in Singapore support flexible work arrangements. It allows flexibility in managing manpower resources in accordance with market conditions without having to resort to other cost-cutting measures, such as retrenchments, shorter work-week or temporary layoffs. It also provides and promotes a balanced lifestyle by allowing workers to take time off during non-peak periods. At the same time, employers do not have to sacrifice any productive time.

However, for implementation of such a scheme, support from unions and workers is key. And unions and workers must be consulted before implementing such a scheme by the company. The initial stage of implementation is also crucial. The scheme should be implemented as a pilot project to first gauge its effectiveness. So a timeframe of six to 12 months for these pilot projects could be set. There should also be regular reviews and communication between management and workers.

The Ministry must ensure that such a flexible work scheme would not undermine the employees' interests and that there are proper safeguards against

Column: 741

abuses. Flexibility should not affect the workers' income stability and should not be carried out at the expense of the safety and health of the workers. In terms of workplace safety, some union leaders had proposed that, under the flexible work scheme or flexi-time scheme, the maximum working hours in a day should remain at 12 hours, and employees should still be entitled to the same number of rest days per week, current leave benefits, and so on. Additional incentives should also be considered in the granting of approval of such schemes by the Ministry of Manpower.

Unions in Singapore are prepared to work with companies on their proposed flexible work projects so as to help workers understand and appreciate better the objectives of such changes and their benefits. It is in the union's interest to help workers keep their jobs and have greater certainty in their income. There need not be conflicting objectives if union and management are able to work together for a smooth workplace transformation and thus enable workers to remain employable. As a labour MP, I have the opportunity to actually work with some of the companies who have their pilot projects implemented. ST Aerospace is one unionised company that has successfully implemented a flexi-time scheme. Feedback from the management, union and employees has been positive as the scheme is seen to be beneficial to both the company as well as employees.

One important principle which ST Aerospace adopted is to grant paid time-off to employees on days when there is no work scheduled for them. The paid time-off will be deducted from the overtime work accumulated when the employees have to work overtime, based on the rate of 1.5 times for work beyond the contractual daily and weekly working hours, as stipulated in the Employment

Column: 742

Act. The same principle also applies to the rate of payment for work on their rest day, ie, two times.

Through this arrangement, ST Aerospace has been able to better utilise its manpower resources and also share the productivity gain with employees, ie, all the employees in ST Aerospace can look forward to additional incentive bonus payments. There are savings also on travelling time and cost for the workers.

Sir, therefore, flexi-work arrangements can lead to a win-win situation for all stakeholders, as businesses and workers stand to benefit. For this to happen, my stress is again on communication and trust between the company and employees, and regular reviews of performance measurement, work targets and objectives are also critical.

Companies should also recognise that flexi schemes aim to achieve greater flexibility and optimise manpower deployment to strengthen their competitiveness. It is not a reduction in the cost for overtime payment and rest day work. Management should not see this amendment for greater flexibility as a new avenue for cost cutting. For flexible work arrangements to gain wider acceptance, more needs to be done to promote the benefits for both workers and employers. The challenge for the tripartite partners now is to balance the need to provide flexibility for the companies and to safeguard the interest of the workers.

On the other amendments for extended maternity benefits, I would like to urge all employers to grant extended maternity leave to their employees during the transitional period, ie, after 1st August 2004 and before 1st October 2004. I also hope employers could be more accommodating to employees' requests to take the additional 4-week

Column: 743

maternity leave flexibly over the six months from the birth of the baby.

In conclusion, Sir, the law will only set the minimum requirement on this issue. What we need to do now is to publicise and promote the best practices and get more workplaces to follow the early adopters.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me preface my remarks by putting on record that I am speaking today as a member of the Steering Group on Population responsible for the recently announced package of parenthood measures. It is not my intention to query the Committee on its recommendations, as is implied in today's Straits Times , where I have been unwittingly misquoted. Doing so would clearly be odd, since this would be tantamount to questioning myself, as I too played a part in coming out with the measures.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill puts into statute what the Procreation Committee has recommended and the Government has accepted. The Bill focuses on two aspects of these incentives, ie, extension of paid maternity leave, and introduction of paid childcare leave.

Sir, by most accounts, the new baby package has been well received. Many Singaporeans strongly support the measures. This was also the feedback the women MPs have received thus far from our dialogue sessions with various women groups. And, indeed, this should be no surprise, because the package was developed only after extensive consultations from a broad spectrum of Singapore society. However, some concerns have been raised which may warrant further review and action. I would like to highlight these under two of

Column: 744

the key amendments covered in this Bill as well as raise two other issues.

Firstly, extension of maternity leave to 12 weeks and up to the fourth child. Besides extending paid maternity leave to 12 weeks up to the fourth child, the Bill provides some flexibility to not only the female employee but also her employer by allowing the employee the option of taking the last 4-week block of post-natal leave any time within six months of the birth, as long as her employer is agreeable. This arrangement could help mitigate the employer's worries about work disruption and impact on cost and productivity due to the extended maternity leave. At the same time, it could alleviate some of the employee's worries about being unable to keep up with developments at work due to her prolonged absence and/or potential discrimination arising from the longer maternity leave. For, indeed, whilst many women agree that extra maternity leave beyond eight weeks is handy and helpful, there are also others who hesitate to support the extension, as they genuinely fear increased discrimination in the job market against female employees.

At our dialogue sessions with various women groups, the issue of discrimination, particularly against pregnant women, consistently gets aired. In almost every session, someone would bring up a case of discrimination against pregnant women that she knows of. In one instance, the participant who is a professional said that she herself lost her job after she became pregnant and felt that she was a victim of discrimination. This fear of discrimination prompted another lady participant in her late forties to remark that one positive outcome for older women, who would not benefit from most of the new baby measures, would be the increased attractiveness of hiring them - botox, liposuction or otherwise - since they are unlikely to go on long maternity leave.

Column: 745

Sir, on a more serious note, whilst the number of cases of discrimination against pregnant women at the workplace may not be large, these practices should not be condoned. The National Tripartite Advisory Panel's recently-issued set of Guidelines on Family Friendly Workplace Practices advocates non-discriminatory practices against female employees who are pregnant and employees with young children. This is a commendable positive first step. However, I would like to urge the Ministry to do its utmost through various measures, such as acknowledging and rewarding pro-family employers and strongly penalising errant ones, to help prevent discriminatory practices.

Sir, I have also heard some comments that, even taken as a whole, 12 weeks or three months of paid maternity leave do not constitute sufficient incentive for couples to have more babies, and that the physical demands of caring for and taking time to bond with a newborn warrant longer maternity leave. That may well be so, but policy making is always about trade-offs.

Speaking as a member of the Procreation Committee and having weighed the scales as deliberately and carefully as we possibly can, I must conclude that the needs of employers should not be forgotten. Even progressive, enlightened, pro-family companies need to deal with very practical issues of managing workload during periods when one or more staff may be on maternity leave. The bias against women employees that some employers may have is unfortunate and not something this House should condone, but the commercial demands of the marketplace are imposing and cannot be ignored. We should therefore avoid making it even harder for companies by extending the maternity leave any longer than is helpful.

Secondly, child-care leave. The second innovation, ie, parental childcare leave, is

Column: 746

totally new. It is common practice in some countries in the west and, though arguably belated, it is a welcome addition. To some, two days of such leave per year per parent do not seem to be much, and one can argue that nursing a sick child, accompanying one to his or her harrowing first day in school, attending graduation concerts or term-end parent-teacher meetings all add up to more than two days.

But one must concede that such paid childcare leave imposes a cost on the company's bottom line, and it is once again a question of balance that needs to be achieved. Moreover, one should view this statutory childcare leave as a minimum which sets the tone for more companies to adopt pro-family workplace practices. This does not preclude employers from giving more than the mandatory two-day childcare leave per year, which is already being practised by some MNCs.

One can also complain why the Bill cuts off the age of the child for which such childcare leave applies to seven years. Why not 12, as some have argued? In fact, a mother at a dialogue session even said that childcare leave should be given to those with teenage children, as such adolescents could need even more attention. There is no magic number. Again, it is a reflection of the balance the Committee has sought to achieve between the demands of the employer and the family.

Thirdly, employees not covered by the Employment Act. Concerns have also been raised regarding women in middle management positions who are not covered by the Employment Act although they would be covered by their maternity benefits under the Children Development Co-Savings Act which is under the ambit of the MCYS. Those who are in this category, especially the lower middle white collar female workers, worry that

Column: 747

they may not be accorded similar leave and other benefits as the rank and file employees, and that they may be discriminated against with no recourse from legislation.

Again, the National Tripartite Advisory Panel, mindful of such concerns, has, in its guidelines for pro-family workplace practices, advocated the equitable application of employment practices and benefits to all categories of workers, including staff who are not covered under the Employment Act. While anecdotal evidence suggests that most companies adopt such a practice to maintain consistency, there could be some bad apples. As MOM is principally in charge of labour and industrial relations, I would like to urge the Ministry to vigilantly monitor such situations and advise employers against adopting a short-term view in their HR policies.

Finally, paternity leave. Some Singaporeans have also expressed disappointment that paternity leave has not been included in the package of procreation measures announced. This, in my opinion, is an issue which warrants review in the future. If indeed fathers are bearing equal or significant responsibilities in child-rearing, then a rethink of this policy is warranted.

The two-day childcare leave per year which the father can now take is a step towards encouraging and allowing fathers to bear equal parenting responsibilities. For now, this seems sufficient, as statistics from even the most liberal western countries indicate that most men do not take paternity leave. In Britain, according to official statistics, only one in five working fathers exercised his entitlement to two weeks of paid paternity leave which was instituted in 2003. Figures from the European Commission in fact show parental leave

Column: 748

take-up rates of near zero for men, compared to over 90% for women, except for some Scandinavian countries.

It appears that men do not take paternity leave, as they worry about what their colleagues think about them, as well as the fact that their employers may hold this against them. Hence, paternity leave would only serve its purpose if employers are sufficiently enlightened and ready to provide such leave, whilst fathers must indeed want to take leave to share in the parenting responsibilities and not, as I have overheard some men allude to for now, to play golf!

Sir, in conclusion, I should add that the baby package is exactly that, a package. The effects, which we all hope it will produce, stem not from the individual elements - whether it is maternity leave, baby bonus, funds for companies to hire consultants to develop a work-life culture - working in isolation. Rather, all the elements are intended to function in unison to provide the web of incentives and create an environment which is more conducive to bear and rear children. As the slogan goes, we want to make Singapore the best place to live in and, may I add, now, to have children.

As a nation, we take great pride in being No. 1 or a close No. 2 or 3 in many areas, eg, airport, seaport, garden city, national competitiveness. Sir, procreation is definitely not one of our strengths. Perhaps, our dismal performance in this area is ironically a result of our scintillating performance in so many other areas of national life.

I humbly submit, therefore, that the package of measures remains a work-in-progress. Recognising this, the Government has now formed a new National Population Steering Committee under the charge of the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, to look at all aspects of the population issue and

Column: 749

coordinate the efforts of all relevant Ministries and agencies. We will need to continually monitor and tweak the measures even as societal norms and expectations change.

Sir, with this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Employment (Amendment) Bill.

The Bill covers three areas: the provision of extended maternity leave and paid childcare leave; the raising of the minimum age for the employment of children and young persons; and the flexibility accorded to companies to optimise their manpower resources. I will touch on all the three aspects.

I strongly welcome and support the amendments providing for extended paid maternity leave and two days of paid childcare leave. These amendments are forward-looking and will contribute positively towards developing a more conducive environment for people to start families and have more children. It will help in our efforts to promote a healthy balance between work and family.

The NTUC was an active member of the National Tripartite Advisory Panel to develop family-friendly workplaces that came up with these suggestions, and we strongly supported the change. We feel that the extended paid maternity leave will benefit all female workers and is of particular significance to the lower income, as they do not benefit as much from the tax benefits. In a recent survey which the NTUC Women's Committee carried out among 1,200 union members, more than half indicated that cost is one major factor for them not to have more children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am also particularly happy that the maternity benefits of female executives, managers

Column: 750

and confidential employees will now be given statutory protection. I will touch on this later in the debate on the Children Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bill, as this is a matter which is not covered under the Employment Act.

Another serious anomaly which is now being removed is the decision to allow mothers with multiple

births in the first confinement to continue to enjoy employer paid maternity leave for the second confinement. The current law, which penalises these mothers by denying them the paid maternity leave when they give birth the second time, is unfair and should be removed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, both the extended maternity leave and paid childcare leave are progressive benefits. By allowing even fathers to take the paid childcare leave, the law is helping to create an environment where fathers can play a bigger role in their children's lives.

The extended maternity leave would considerably enhance women's welfare. They have a longer period of rest after childbirth and more opportunities for bonding with their newborns. However, for these amendments to be truly effective, employers too must play their part. Women continue to be concerned that employers may discriminate against them because of these benefits. This view is fortified by some of the recent letters to the newspapers by women complaining about the attitude of employers towards pregnancy. There is a set of tripartite guidelines that have been formulated to discourage discrimination. The guidelines are fairly detailed and attempt to provide benchmarks on what constitute enlightened human resource practices in the treatment of pregnant female employees and those with young children. As the guidelines do not have the force of law, however, women remain concerned that they may be discriminated against. So having the guidelines alone is

Column: 751

insufficient. So I would like to ask the Minister what steps would be taken to educate businesses on their role as socially responsible employers and to prevent discrimination against pregnant women and those with young children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now come to the second important area of the Bill, and that is the amendment to facilitate the flexible work schemes. Our unions agree with the principle that with rapidly changing market demands or volatile cycles, businesses must have greater flexibility to schedule work arrangements. We understand that this is necessary to help businesses create new jobs and retain existing ones. The ERC had suggested amendments to the Employment Act to empower the Commissioner for Labour to exempt companies wishing to introduce flexible work arrangements. However, even the ERC recognised that whilst flexibility is a virtue, there must be safeguards against abuses. In its Report, at page 98, paragraph 2, the ERC stressed and I quote, "... on the need to provide flexibility to companies without undermining the interests of workers and productivity gains from optimal utilisation of manpower resources should be shared with the workers."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, broadly, the current amendment will pave the way for two types of flexibility in scheduling work. One category will be those related to the nature of the business which makes it difficult to space out work evenly during normal working hours. One example is the aerospace maintenance sector where aircrafts do not come in during the normal hours of work and there could be long periods where workers have nothing to do followed by long periods of extensive overtime. This situation is clear and will cause no difficulty, especially if there is no reduction in the rate of overtime

Column: 752

payments. What we need to be careful though are situations where flexibility or exemptions are granted for companies facing the normal peaks and troughs of business cycles and where a reduced rate of overtime work is allowed. This is a much more nebulous area which must be guided by clear and transparent guidelines, defining the circumstances in which it would be allowed. I must stress that our unions are very responsible and even now, when circumstances justify it, have used their discretion to allow flexibility. They view this as a win-win strategy because, even though workers take home less overtime pay, they do not lose their jobs. The outcome is clear and defined. Along the same line, if this amendment will help workers to retain their jobs or ward off layoffs, we can support it. But, as pointed out by the ERC, safeguards are necessary to prevent abuses.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I note that the tripartite guidelines will address some of these concerns. I would, however, like to stress a few critical factors that are important to workers. Income stability is one critical factor. Flexibility should not result in a situation where workers' incomes fluctuate so drastically from month to month that they have difficulty fulfilling their monthly obligations which are fixed. In many sectors, workers depend a great deal on overtime to supplement their monthly income. So the aggregation of the overtime period should not be too long as to impact on their livelihood.

Health and safety, Sir, is another important factor and should not be compromised under any circumstances. I would also like to urge the Minister to ensure that unions and workers are consulted before such exemptions are granted. And there must be a process in place to periodically review whether the exemptions should continue to apply.

Column: 753

Also, we have to ensure that lowering the rates will not result in a disincentive for workers to work overtime. If so, workers may find it more attractive to take on a second job rather than to perform overtime which then weakens the impact of this amendment.

Sir, an equally important point to gain workers' confidence in a flexible work scheme is to ensure that gains arising from improvements in productivity are shared with workers and they are rewarded during better times.

Flexibility, Sir, should also not be granted in such a manner as to be counter-productive to the recent measures to promote family-friendly work practices. We cannot talk about flexibility for people to take care of their family but, at the same time, also insist that flexibility for companies to save costs is paramount and no other consideration should apply.

Whether or not these amendments will work and spawn more flexible work schemes depend a great deal on the trust and confidence that exist in the workplace. Employers are well-advised to invest heavily in winning the trust and investing long-term in the welfare of their employees as this will facilitate the implementation of any flexible work scheme.

I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that exemptions from overtime, rest days, public holiday work will not be abused by employers. Also, can the Minister give an assessment on the number of companies that are likely to apply for the scheme?

Finally, Sir, I strongly support the amendment to raise the minimum working age in accordance with ILO Convention 138 on the minimum age for employment. With this amendment, the minimum permissible age for work in non-hazardous industrial undertakings will be raised from 14 to 15 years of age, and the minimum

Column: 754

permissible age for light work for children is also raised from 12 to 13 years of age. As the Minister had mentioned, child employment is negligible in Singapore and there is no reason for us to continue preserving the existing law. The NTUC has been advocating for our laws to be amended to be in line with the ILO Convention 138 for a long time. I am glad, Sir, that this is finally being done. I am also heartened by the Minister's statement that, in due course, Singapore will ratify Convention 138. I would like to urge the Minister to consider doing so quickly, as with this amendment, there are no more reasons for Singapore not to ratify this Convention. In fact, Convention 138 is one of the most highly ratified core conventions of the ILO, and 135 out of 176 countries have already ratified it. We, Sir, certainly do not want to be the last few countries in the world left that have not ratified Convention 138.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, the extended maternity and childcare benefits in the Employment (Amendment) Bill form a key plank in the Government's pro-family policy. But for the plank to be effective, I would argue that it needs to be not only in the right place but also reasonably balanced and nailed in with the correct force. And right now, as it stands, my concern is that it may not be all that balanced. I would like to highlight, in particular, three areas and deal with each in turn.

First is the balance to be made between the responsibilities of the father and the mother. Second, the balance between the right to have babies and the right to work, and the right not to be discriminated against. And third is the right of married working mothers and balancing that with the right of unwed mothers who were abandoned by their men and have to cope with raising the children on their own.

Column: 755

First, on balancing the responsibilities of men and women in raising their children. As has been pointed out by my colleagues before me, a concern is why the Government has not put the case for paternity leave. We know all the arguments as to why it is not legislated this time round. The reason given is that most fathers do not make use of it, going by the experience of some countries, that this is not something, as the Manpower Minister, Dr Ng Eng Hen put it recently, which would have reflected what society wants now. I am sure Dr Ng has consulted many young families and young fathers, but I have also talked to some and they have told me that they would have appreciated paternity leave to help their wives after childbirth. Many younger fathers want to be involved. And if you go to pre-natal classes, you can see very eager young husbands helping their wives and wanting to be involved in the process. If you go to hospitals, I hear that husbands are keen to be in the labour room, to be with their wives to watch their babies emerge for the first time. They do not want to be left out of the joys of parenthood and the Government should not make the decision for them. They should open up the choice to them, not decide for them, whether they would use the extended paternity leave or not even if they were provided for.

In any case, it seems very odd to me that just because the Government does not think that fathers will make use of the leave, it should not be provided for. It is almost like saying, if many workers do not use up their entire annual leave entitled to them, for instance, they are very hardworkers, then as a matter of policy, all workers are no longer entitled to their annual leave. The issue is surely not whether fathers will make use of the leave fully. Rather, it is whether we believe that fathers should share the responsibilities of raising a child and, if so,

Column: 756

we should send this signal as a society by legislating paternity leave. And if necessary, we can encourage fathers to take their paternity leave. This also would help us to even out the playing field for employment which leads me to the second point.

As has been pointed out by my colleagues before me, some women worry about discrimination, whether the extended maternity leave and the childcare benefits would cause employers to discriminate against them, affect their chances for promotion, the chances of being hired for the job. And we have heard of cases where women are asked at the hiring stage whether they have plans to have babies, how many children do they have or are there any childcare arrangements, as if they are not to be assessed on their own merits. It does not matter if you have a PhD or Master or whether you are a hardworker. At the end of the day, at the sub-conscious, what matters is how many children you have and whether you will be committed at work or as productive.

And we have also heard of women being passed over for promotion because they were pregnant or have plans for more babies. Yet, no man is ever asked at job interviews or promotions, "Will you be taking time-off for reservists?" Or whether they would be asked whether this would affect their productivity or performance at work since they have to go for reservist for so many weeks at a time. Men are also not asked, at the point of hiring or in terms of consideration for promotion, whether they would have more children or how would they take care of their babies. So we should change the mindset of the employers towards parenthood to take the larger national view and, at the same time, to protect women from possible discrimination because they are presently sharing a greater share of the load in raising their families.

Column: 757

I would ask the Minister what assurances he could give to pregnant women and women with young children that they would not be discriminated against.

Some women say they have little option but to resign from work after their maternity leave is over because the employers either have replaced them at work or have closed the door and the possibility of working out some other flexible arrangements, such as part-time work. This is especially the case in SMEs.

In some countries like the UK, the law provides for the right to return to work after maternity leave, paternity leave, or adoption leave. The Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 2002 and the Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002 in the UK, for instance, provide for the right to return to the job in which she was employed after taking the leave for maternity purposes, or if it is not reasonably practicable for the employer to permit her to return to that job, then to another job which is suitable and appropriate on terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have applied had she not been absent. So the right to return to work is enshrined in law, but we do not have that. I would ask the Minister whether this would be considered and whether the Minister would also encourage employers to look beyond giving mothers a stark choice between coming back to work immediately at the full pace of work, back to the normal workload, or the choice of not coming back to work at all.

I would suggest that the Minister should also encourage employers to go the route of part-time work, which is part of the framework, and I would ask the Minister to see whether they could provide for the right to part-time work, which is provided in Switzerland. In fact, in Switzerland, on top of 16 weeks' maternity leave, it provides for the right to

Column: 758

part-time work until the child is eight. It has the highest percentage of women in part-time work at 56.5%. And studies show that in Switzerland, the decision to have a family and to have more children depends directly on the job and career of women. The Netherlands are also known for the high level of part-time work, especially for women, and this is considered to be one key reason for the success of Dutch dual income families in having children.

Sir, I am happy to note that a new subsection has been inserted into the Employment Act to give greater flexibility to women in determining when to take the last part of her maternity leave. I would like to clarify with the Minister whether this would mean also that she has the option of not taking the full maternity leave but to come back earlier and to maybe work out some part-time arrangements and for the leave to be extended proportionately.

Finally, on the balance between married women and unmarried women and who have children. Sir, married and working women employed, or self-employed, are eligible for 12 weeks of Government-paid maternity leave. I understand that unmarried mothers do not qualify for the extra one week of Government-paid maternity leave. Sir, some of these unmarried women have written to me. They are concerned because they see themselves as victims of circumstances. Many of them have been already dealt the emotional blow of being abandoned by men. They now have the responsibility of single-handedly raising a child in the competitive world. They want to also work. They want to earn enough income to give their children a better life. We need not add to their plight by withholding benefits which would help them to be better mothers and to raise their child better. They are in a more difficult situation, one would argue,

Column: 759

than working mothers who have the support of their husbands to help raise their family. The Straits Times reported recently that there were 501 births registered without the father's name in 2002.

I understand the Government's concern, whether by extending the benefit to this group of unwed mothers, it would unwittingly send a signal of encouraging this trend or undermining the family as an institution. And I share this concern. But, at the end, it is the innocent children who would suffer from their continued exclusion from society by discriminating against unwed mothers.

Sir, it would seem to me that the better solution would be to educate the men to take greater responsibility for their actions and for the women that they impregnate and for raising a family, and not punish the women who have to bear their children. Rather than abort these children, these women had taken the decision to raise them and give them a better future. We should not place extra burdens on their shoulders.

Sir, in devising social policies, often we have to engage in difficult trade-offs. The best that could be done, as a general rule, is to maintain a precarious balance that would prevent the occurrence of desperate situations or intolerable choices. That is the first requirement for a decent society, one that we could always strive for.

Sir, in conclusion, I would hope that we could look at the balance that we have put in place, in terms of the balance between the responsibilities of the father and mother in raising a child, the balance between the right to work and the right to have children, and the balance between unwed mothers and mothers who are married and who have husbands to help them at home. I think with a better

Column: 760

balance throughout, we could achieve a better society for all.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about the effect of clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 states that, "The Commissioner for Labour can exempt employers from paying employees for extra work done after considering the operational needs of the employer and the interests of the employee."

Sir, under the current Employment Act, employees who earn not more than $1,600 per month are entitled to additional remuneration for doing extra work under the Employment Act, in which clause 3 referred to. Currently, if an employee requests to work on a rest day, he is entitled to his usual rate of pay and if he works overtime, he would be paid at least one and a half times for each overtime hour. If an employer requests the employee to work on a rest day, the employer has to pay double his employee's daily wages, plus overtime pay. In addition, if an employee works more than the maximum of 8 hours per day or 44 hours per week, he is entitled to overtime pay. And, if an employee works on a holiday, he is entitled to an extra day's salary in addition to his pay for the day.

Sir, under clause 3 of this amendment Bill, it says that the Commissioner for Labour can exempt certain employers and employees from the entitlement to be paid for extra work. The implication of the amendment is very wide, since the section referred to in clause 3 of the Bill sets out both the basic pay and the extra pay for additional work. It would seem to be wide enough to allow the Commissioner to permit employers not to pay at all for extra work done by the employees. Is this the intention of the Bill or that it would help employers with uneven demands, as mentioned by the Minister?

Column: 761

Sir, the Employment Act supposedly exists to protect workers, but the rationale stated by the Government to allow the Commissioner for Labour to exempt employers to pay workers for extra work done is to help employers. The amendment says that the Commissioner for Labour would need to consider the interest of the workers in deciding whether to exempt the employers from paying the employees for extra work. How would the interest of the employees be protected if they are not paid?

Sir, since we are dealing with employees earning not more than $1,600 per month, these are the very employees who have weak bargaining positions and need legislation to protect them, especially during this period of unemployment or employment uncertainties. However, this amendment is doing the opposite. The Minister has said that there would be guidelines. But, Sir, guidelines are guidelines. How does the Ministry of Manpower ensure that employers would adhere to the guidelines and the employers would not abuse the so-called flexible work scheme, whereby they do not need to pay workers for their extra work?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me thank the Members for their responses and their queries. I would try my best to answer some of them. I think whenever you have a situation where Members say they strongly support, it tells us that we have done something right, especially when it is women saying it. Sir, this, of course, pertains to maternity leave. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Dr Amy Khor, Mdm Halimah and Ms Irene Ng have raised some issues. Let me take these aspects separately because maternity leave and the other amendments of the Employment Act are quite different.

On discrimination, many questions were asked how do we ensure that these

Column: 762

very changes that sought to help women do not result in them being discriminated. This was also the question that we considered, which is why, based on the National Tripartite Advisory Panel (NTAP), we decided to extend to 12 weeks. Employers who were represented at NTAP sensed that this is what they could bear. That is the first point.

The second point is that Government undertook the responsibility to pay for such leave so that the financial burden would be less on the employers. We would continue to do our part in promoting best practices, as Members have asked for, by issuing guidelines. We started up a fund, some Members may have read about it, called the WOW Fund, Worklife Works Fund. Some Members in this House have been asked to help us. Dr Jennifer Lee has agreed, and we have also gotten some representatives from the community to help us push these initiatives. And that must be done. In other words, we must send positive signals. We must continue, as Mdm Halimah and Dr Amy Khor have said, to highlight employers who are good examples. But let us also be realistic in what I think would make companies sit up and practise. Companies would listen to moral persuasion, but they are more likely to come on board if they really believe there is a business case of good HR practices and that it makes sense to their business. From that point of view, it is quite instructive that many companies had already adopted family-friendly practices, even without the need for legislation.

So, if you take a scan of companies in Singapore, the ones who have the most, if you like, generous benefits in terms of pro-family practices, are also the ones that are most profitable. The MNCs realise one cardinal rule of profitable companies and, that is, in order for your employees to be productive, they need to

Column: 763

be able to take care of their other domains - family, children, parents and themselves. Up to a certain level, if you require more from your employees, you must actually find means to help them take care of their own needs. For example, IBM, even before this, they already had five days of family leave. No reasons need to be given. You can take it. And many other such companies have already practised or have in place these practices. Indeed, if you look at case examples of progressive companies, they have shown that they could have a win-win situation and that it need not mean that if you give provision for your employees to take such leave, that your productivity goes down. Indeed productivity goes up. Most employers are enlightened and they understand this. We have many good companies and management that understand this cardinal rule and so I am quite optimistic.

The second protection really is the tight labour market. If there is economic growth and companies and employers need people to meet their orders, they would hire. So our economic fundamentals must be correct. There is also a self-protection element in terms of employees. I meet many people. I know women who are equally productive at home and at work. And I do not see employers discriminating against them. In fact, they would go out of their way to employ such women because it also makes sense that a woman who can manage a husband and children can also manage businesses well. So I do not think that I get the same sense, as some Members have said, that this increase in four weeks of maternity leave would result in discrimination. I do not get the sense that there is a prevalent practice and I do not think that we should continue to push that as a typical behaviour of employees. I do not get that sense.

Column: 764

Yes, obviously we would get isolated incidents of complaints, as we do. In fact, in a labour market that is difficult, the cries that discrimination occur at work are quite rampant. It may or may not be the operating aspect, but this is quite true. So people say they are discriminated because they are older, lack certain skills, whether it is race, education aspect or age. So I would go back to the fundamentals and say, if we have a tight labour market, and if the economy does well, I think discrimination, by and large, usually diminishes. As I have said, our economic growth forecast is 8-9% this year. Jobs would be added and I think the labour market would continue to be tight. Our projection shows there would be a shortage of workers for the jobs that would be created.

We also listen beyond Government funding the four extra weeks - Ms Irene Ng has pointed this out - and we have allowed flexibility for these four weeks to be spread out over six months. She asked: what does it mean? Can they come back part-time? The answer is yes, by mutual consent. For that four-week period, they can devise any combination. It is up to them, but it has to be by mutual consent. So, if she decides that she wants one day a week, spread out I do not know over how long, it is up to them. It has to be done over six months. I suppose there is some mathematical formulation that they have to agree on.

Members also spoke about why paternity leave was not introduced. I made some comments following our press conference when announcing these measures. Yes, I did say that it did not reflect society's needs at this point of time.

Let me contextualise those remarks. As Dr Amy Khor has said, this is a package and there are practical concerns. In other words, every time we introduce a measure, there is a cost to it and there

Column: 765

are trade-offs to be made. Between paternity leave and maternity leave, we would have to cost the paternity leave that would be taken, and the sense was that women need more the period of four weeks to recuperate and bond with their children, and it will be better used.

If we had cost paternity leave, we would have had to forgo some other elements within the package. So it is a practical consideration. And we were governed by what is more useful, what will be better made use of, what do people need from the consultation, not as much as we wanted to send a signal. I agree completely that fathers need to share parenthood. I cheer the fathers who are involved with the birth of their children, as it should be. But if there was a trade-off between four weeks of maternity leave and paternity leave - it would not be two weeks of each, it would probably be three weeks of maternity leave versus one week of paternity leave - because we have to cater for more men working and men earning more. It is not quite symmetrical. In the package, if we introduce paternity leave, it would have actually taken up sizable chunks from what we could provide. And the package already costs $800 million. So there was a finite limit to the resources that we could spend.

Members also asked about unmarried mothers. Ms Irene Ng brought this up. Yes, there was a social signal to be sent. This is a marriage and procreation package. Yes, we do empathise with these mothers. Our intention was not to make it harder for them. But this particular package should not be seen as a be-all end-all of all incentives. There is a HOPE scheme which is particularly catered for unmarried mothers or other mothers who have to meet eligible criteria which are fairly beneficial, and there are many other schemes within the Government which they can ascribe to. I agree that we need to send a social signal

Column: 766

that in marriage and procreation, we must have agreed that the best environment which children are born into must be a nuclear family. I know that Members do not disagree with that.

Let me now touch on aspects related to flexi time. Mr Low Thia Khiang said that he does not see how these schemes help employees. I think the union members have quite eloquently articulated the case that interests of workers need to be protected. I accept that. The worst protection for an employee is for him to lose his job. And just like flexible wages, this ability to maximise resources allows our companies to maximise their manpower. It reduces the need for them to retrench workers, and that surely must be the greatest protection of income stability.

Will we protect workers' interest when they apply for exemptions? Yes. And that is why I have said that the Commissioner for Labour will appoint a working committee, which will include union representatives, when they are assessing the applications. I have said specifically what companies need to demonstrate when they apply for an exemption. So it would not be a case where the company says, "I have this. I am going to apply for exemption and expect to be exempted." It is not so. First, the Commissioner for Labour will have to see that indeed that there is a business case, there is volatility in the cycles, there is a lull period and peak period which the company must adjust to. Second, it must ensure that workers' health and safety are protected. Third, as I said, there has to be income stability. This is not just a cost cutting measure. Fourth and, more importantly, the profits gained from the more efficient use of manpower resources will be shared with workers. So we will consult the unions. In fact, the union will be in the committee advising the Commissioner for Labour. And I would encourage workers, if they

Column: 767

feel that they will be discriminated against and their interests would not be protected, to join the union and get their union to represent them. I know full well that the union will represent them adequately and eloquently in the working committee that advises the Commissioner.

Let me also thank Members for supporting our measures to change the minimum age. Let me first acknowledge that NTUC has been pushing for this for a very long time, and we have acceded. Mdm Halimah now says: can you ratify ILO Convention 138 quickly? My answer is that we will do it expeditiously.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.