UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE AND INTERRUPTING THE CHAIR (Complaint) (Announcement by Mr Speaker)

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE AND INTERRUPTING THE CHAIR:

(Complaint) (Announcement by Mr Speaker) Mr Speaker: Order. I have an announcement to make on a matter concerning the conduct of an honourable Member of the House.

I have received several complaints from Members of Parliament that the Nominated Member of Parliament, Assoc. Prof .Ong Soh Khim, had uttered certain unparliamentary words towards the end of yesterday's sitting and that she also interrupted the Chair while the Deputy Speaker was speaking during the sitting of Parliament.

Having considered the words unparliamentary, it amounts to dishonourable conduct. She has also breached the Standing Orders for interrupting the Chair. I informed Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim this morning that she had no excuse to use unparliamentary language in the House and she agreed unreservedly to withdraw her remarks and to apologise to the House and for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Column: 2347

I will now call upon Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim to make her statement.

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): I am new and I have not been long in this House. I wish to apologise to the House, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker for use of any language not suitable for this House last evening.

Mr Speaker: May I make it absolutely clear to hon. Members, old or new, that the use of unparliamentary language by Members undermines the dignity and decorum of the House. Under no circumstances should a Member indulge in language that would lower the standing of this House. I will not hesitate to enforce discipline and order in the House and to uphold its good name.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Column: 2347

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head I (cont.) -

The Chairman: Head S - Ministry of Manpower. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang.

Portable Medical Benefits

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, medical cost is always the concern of the workers. With the revamp of MediShield, which is a big step forward in the restructuring of our national healthcare financing system, I think it is time that the existing employer-provided medical scheme also be revamped to supplement the national scheme. The national MediShield scheme is portable and it takes care of all the big medical bills but there are gaps that we have to close. The existing employer-provided in-patient medical benefits are not portable. Seventy percent of the employers provided in-patient benefits are arranged through the group insurance schemes. Once the workers have left the

Column: 2348

company, the benefits and the coverage are gone. So, in this case, we have to see how we can actually protect the interests of the workers.

Therefore, there is a need for employers to work closely with the trade unions and the support of different Government agencies, including the Ministry of Health, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, Ministry of Manpower and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, to study how we could restructure such employer-based in-patient medical insurance scheme funded by the employers as medical benefits in line with the revamped MediShield. This will avoid duplication and make medical benefits more efficient and portable to enable all employees to have medical coverage, not just during their employment but also in between employment and after his or her retirement.

As we help the workers prepare to face the challenges of the workplace, we also need to promote work-life balance. With the initiative launched last year, I would like to ask the Ministry of Manpower for an update and what more the Ministry will do to help to promote more family-friendly practices to help the workers to balance work-life.

The Chairman: Prof. Ong Soh Khim has just left. Mdm Halimah Yacob. Two minutes.

Better Safeguards for Workers' Welfare

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, over the last few years, with greater economic uncertainty, we have seen many more cases of employers neglecting their workers' welfare. A number of cases where employers do not pay salaries to their workers or when employers have delayed settling their workers' workmen's compensation claims, for example, the case of a foreign worker who was

Column: 2349

stranded in Singapore for more than a year and reported in newspapers, show that incidents have increased.

There is a spate of industrial accidents, resulting in eight deaths just in the first quarter of this year. In today's Zaobao , a seven-month pregnant childcare teacher was terminated by her employer. According to her, it is because of her pregnancy. Last year, a few such cases of pregnant women being dismissed were reported in the press. The number of people employed on short-term contracts and as part-time employees has also increased. Anecdotally, there is an increasing number of cases where these cases are not paid CPF contributions.

All these point to the fact that although the unemployment figure has gone down, difficult business conditions and efforts to cut corners and save cost have made the workplace a lot more difficult for workers. Invariably, workers get squeezed and their welfare gets compromised. This also points to the fact that having laws in place alone is not sufficient. What is of greater importance is enforcement of these laws. Equally important is bringing errant employers to task by charging them and making sure that they are penalised.

The question I would like to ask the Minister is whether MOM can step up enforcement action so as to better protect our workers, particularly now that there are certain categories that are more vulnerable. For example, how many employers have been charged for not paying their workers' wages? How can we reduce the long waiting time before workers are paid their workmen's compensation?

Secondly, is there a need to review the number of inspectors that the Ministry employs to ensure enforcement? Thirdly, what more can we do to educate workers on their rights because sometimes, by the

Column: 2350

time they discover that they have been shortchanged or they have a problem, it may be too late? What more is being done to educate them?

The Chairman: Your time is up. Mr Teo Yock Ngee. Three minutes.

Workmen's Compensation

Mr Teo Yock Ngee (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am requesting for an update on the review as regards the salary of employees in respect of the Workmen's Compensation Act and also Part IV of the Employment Act. This is an old question. It has been raised in this House several times. Nevertheless, it is worth looking at it.

Prior to 1st July 1992, if a non-manual worker's total earnings exceeded $1,250 per month, he could not claim workmen's compensation under the Act. After the review, with effect from 1st July 1992, the salary of employees, for purpose of claiming the above-mentioned, was amended to $1,500, which was a 20% increase. Slightly more than three years later, effective from 1st November 1995, it was again raised to $1,600, an increase of 6.67% which, I believe, was based on the increase in the median salary of workers in Singapore. The respective provisions of the laws were again amended.

It has been more than nine years since the last amendment. May I know what is the position of the Ministry?

I am sure we are fully aware that this is also tied to Part IV of the Employment Act, which contains provisions on rest days, hours of work, holidays and other conditions of service. The provisions of this Part actually apply to workmen and employees who are in receipt of salaries not exceeding $1,600 a month, not including additional wages such as overtime payment, bonus payment, annual wage supplement and productivity

Column: 2351

incentive payments. Almost all the relevant clauses in the collective agreements signed between the employers and unions representing the employees are pegged to this salary of $1,600 for purpose of claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act and computing the overtime payment in accordance with Part IV of the Employment Act.

Therefore, I would like to urge the Ministry to expedite its review process. This is absolutely necessary as the workers in the lower income group would no doubt benefit more, not so much on the claims, but also the additional wages they could receive for their cooperation, support and hard work.

Workers' Salary Claim Held on Trust

Mr Low Thia Khiang: MOM transferred a sum of $25,000 to the Government fund in 2004. This sum consisted of labour court award and salary settlement payments due to workers who are owed money by their employers. The Ministry has not paid the sums over to the workers. I think this is due to an inefficient tracking system. MOM has now required employers to issue cheques in the name of the workers, who are the claimants, instead of MOM, and that the claimants are to collect their cheques within a week. If the workers fail to do so, the unclaimed cheques will be returned to the payers.

While this may enable MOM to pass the audit by the Auditor-General, is this a responsible solution in helping the workers or is it just an easy way out? First, the employer is now answerable to the workers and not MOM. If the cheque is dishonoured, can the workers afford to sue? Many of them will not have the means to do so. Secondly, the timeframe for collection of cheques is very short. If the cheques are not collected within a

Column: 2352

week, can MOM, in good conscience, return the cheque to the employer and then wash its hands off the case? Perhaps MOM should take a cue from the Public Trustee's Office which insists on payment for damages of traffic accident victims to go through their bank account and it will ensure that the victims are paid directly.

Volunteer Work Leave

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Sir, in my maiden speech, I suggested that we have two days of paid leave for employees to do volunteer work. I would like to develop this further to see if the Ministry of Manpower is open to the idea.

It may seem like an odd request, but Singapore is an odd country when it comes to volunteer work. Although our volunteerism rate is catching up with other developed countries, what sets us apart is that there is a drop in the percentage of volunteers when they go into the workforce and it is the reverse elsewhere. Our work-life commitments are such that people may think it is difficult to fit in volunteer work with the demands on their time. Or they may think that volunteer work is the domain of the youth or retirees.

The challenge then is to nurture a culture that appreciates and recognises volunteers. For its part, I think all the Government needs to do is to be supportive and provide avenues for the rest of us to take.

Paid leave for volunteer work fits the bill. Immediately, volunteerism becomes accessible to everyone. If you know that two days have been set aside for you to volunteer, it heightens your consciousness of community service.

It is a great way to get started. According to a TODAY's article this week, new volunteers prefer "short-term goal,

Column: 2353

oriented assignments". This is prevalent around the world, but need not be seen as negative, as the work could evolve into "something more meaningful", said the report.

Paid leave for volunteer work has also become the most popular form of support. It is big in Japan and the US. Up to 40% of Australian companies offer paid leave for volunteers and staff are more than willing to take it. There are several ways this can be implemented. Companies can adopt a charity for a year, making it easier to institute a volunteer programme for which staff can use their leave. Or staff can be free to volunteer with organisations in which they have an interest. There are over 1,000 registered charities in Singapore and more than 800 Institutions of Public Character that could qualify for this policy. It should not be difficult for employers to get written or stamped verification about use of leave for volunteer work. For more flexibility, employees can use the leave on an hourly basis based on the needs of the VWOs they work with.

These are all possibilities. What is certain is that numerous studies have shown that paid leave for volunteer work helps to build employee morale. It helps to sustain volunteerism rates and helps to promote good corporate citizenship.

In other countries, paid leave for volunteer work is left to companies to decide. But few companies in Singapore provide for this. I know DBS offers its staff two days and KPMG has a community day each September for staff to volunteer.

I would like to ask if the Ministry of Manpower is willing to grant two days' paid leave for local volunteer work under the Employment Act.

The Chairman: Mr Tan Soo Khoon is not here. Mr Ong Ah Heng.

Column: 2354

Foreign Domestic Workers

Mr Ong Ah Heng: ( In Mandarin ): Sir, under the new maid guidelines, the maid must be 23 years old and has completed eight years of formal schooling. Because of this stricter requirement, Indonesians maids cannot come to work in Singapore, and the maid agencies face acute shortage of maids to meet the demand. Can MOM consider opening other sources of supply of maids?

Prime Minister Lee recently announced the lowering of maid levy by $50, resulting in an increase of demand for foreign domestic maids. I am afraid a lot of Singaporeans have the mentality of "You have it, I must also have it!". In fact, when given the keys to their HDB flats, many people saw the terrace houses nearby and thought, "People can stay in terrace houses, why can't I?" So, they start installing false ornamental ceilings with cornices and hang up chandeliers to satisfy their ego.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any special measures to control the influx of maids due to the reduction in maid levy.

Ratification of ILO Convention 138

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, Singapore has no child labour. This is obvious to Singaporeans and foreigners alike. Our children are most precious to us and we take great care of their welfare. Hence, in my view, Sir, there is no difficulty for Singapore to ratify key international conventions which deal with the rights of the child. One such international convention is the International Labour Organisation's Convention 138 on minimum age for admission to employment. This is considered a core human rights convention to protect children. Convention 138 is one of the most highly ratified conventions of the ILO. A total of 135 countries out of 176 member states have already ratified it,

Column: 2355

including many developed countries which also do not have child labour.

Sir, in the past, we could not ratify Convention 138 because our Employment Act is not in line with it. Under this Convention, children are not allowed to enter the workforce before the age of 15. However, children between the age of 13 and 15 may perform light work if it does not affect their education. Beyond 15, they can work as long as the work is not dangerous or hazardous to their health. With the amendment last year, our law is now in line with the Convention. There appears to be no other difficulty in ratifying this Convention.

In response to my question in Parliament last September, the Minister had said that the Government would ratify Convention 138 expeditiously. Can I get a clarification from the Minister as to how soon this will be and how expeditious?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Sir, I would like to thank Members who have spoken on workers' welfare. As we move forward and even as we improve the flexibility and responsiveness of our labour force, we must look after the interests and well-being of our workers, both local and foreign workers.

Workers' safety and workmen's compensation are integral components of basic well-being. So I am pleased to inform Mr Teo Yock Ngee that MOM has reviewed the existing workmen's compensation system. We agree that it can be further enhanced to expedite the assessment of compensation for injured workmen. Specifically, we will be setting up a medical board to assist in the settlement of disputes over medical assessments. I think this is the way forward. We want to make sure that the assessment can be concluded expeditiously.

Column: 2356

Mr Teo has asked how workmen's compensation is computed and whether it is adequate. Workmen's compensation is calculated based on the average monthly earnings of the injured worker and takes into account factors such as the injured worker's age, his potential loss of earnings and the percentage of permanent incapacity he sustained. The definition used is in line with international standards. Where the injured worker is unable to perform the essential actions of life, it will also take into account the cost he will incur for constant care.

MOM periodically reviews the Workmen's Compensation Act to ensure adequacy of coverage of our workforce. The Act which applies to manual workers and non-manual workers with monthly earnings not exceeding $1,600 covers about 47% of the workforce. On average, only 2% of the cases reported to MOM were rejected yearly over the past four years on the ground of income exceeding $1,600. So the proportion of workers who could not qualify to claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act is really small. But even for workers who are not currently covered under the Act, many of those who are in industries with higher risk exposure, such as marine and petrochemical, already enjoy various forms of insurance coverage provided by their employers.

Sir, let me now talk about salary payment raised by Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mr Low Thia Khiang. Apart from safety, salary payment by employers is another integral part of the basic well-being of our workforce. There is no excuse for employers not to pay salaries to their workers punctually. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked about the non-payment of salaries, where there have been a few high profile cases last year involving large construction companies defaulting on the salaries of both foreign and local workers. In particular, the case of Wan Soon Construction, which involved some 440

Column: 2357

workers, mainly from India, Bangladesh, China and Thailand,

attracted much media attention. Fortunately, that case was resolved amicably with the aid of the Indian High Commission. The Wan Soon case illustrates to us the importance of early reporting of salary arrears. Early reporting prevents salary arrears from accumulating and enables MOM to resolve disputes more expeditiously.

4.00 pm

The total number of cases involving salary arrears in the non-unionised sector last year fell by 4% as compared to 2003, that is, from 6,690 in 2003 to 6,422 last year, and it fell by 34% as compared with 2002. The number of companies who have defaulted on employee CPF payments has likewise come down since 2002. So, the situation has improved over the last three years. Sir, notwithstanding this, MOM will continue to strengthen our enforcement measures, including targeted audits of companies in selected industries with high incidences of salary arrears. We will also step up the prosecution of companies who deliberately flout labour laws, and directors or other managers who act irresponsibly in the management of their workers' well-being.

To ensure the payment of salaries in sectors with higher default rates, one measure which is being studied is to require employers to pay their workers through GIRO. Errant employers who default on salaries could be flagged out.

Let me now touch on other benefits, including extended maternity leave and childcare leave.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has asked for an update on the implementation of the extended maternity leave and childcare leave, which were launched last year. I am pleased to inform Members that both have been well accepted by employers. Following a series of briefings for HR practitioners and union leaders to explain

Column: 2358

the policy rationale and provide practical guidelines for implementation, most companies are now able to implement these benefits without any difficulties.

My Ministry is also administering the Work-Life Works!, or WoW!, Fund that provides funding to companies to implement worklife strategies. Since the launch of the fund in August last year, we have approved 15 applications at a total cost of $343,000.

Sir, the Government strongly encourages volunteerism and for employers to support their employees who contribute their time to charitable causes. Most volunteers willingly take their own time and leave to do this. There is no necessity to legislate paid leave for volunteer work as proposed by Ms Eunice Olsen, as this might dilute the sacrifice of their efforts.

Mr Yeo also suggested a revamp of the existing employer-provided medical benefit scheme to enable employees to enjoy medical coverage, not only during employment, but also in-between employment and post-retirement. Following the recommendation by the Economic Restructuring Committee to implement either the Portable Medical Benefits Scheme (PMBS), or the Transferable Medical Insurance Scheme (TMIS), a set of tripartite implementation guidelines was issued on 1st October 2003. However, the progress of both the PMBS and TMIS has been slow, with only about 400 companies having implemented either scheme. Under the PMBS, employers make additional monthly contributions to their employees' Medisave accounts to pay for the premiums of MediShield or MediShield equivalent products. As the PMBS rides on the MediShield scheme, many employers have been waiting for the result of the MediShield review by the Ministry of Health.

MOH has recently announced changes to the MediShield Scheme. In this regard, I agree with Mr Yeo that employers, trade

Column: 2359

unions and related Government agencies, including MOM, MOH, MOF and MAS, could work together to examine how PMBS or other employer-provided medical benefits schemes could be refined and integrated into the revamped MediShield framework.

On foreign domestic workers raised by Mr Ong Ah Heng, Sir, let me say that in this area we have done a lot. Mr Ong has asked whether we are willing to review the inclusion of new countries, such as Cambodia and Vietnam, as source countries. Sir, there are currently many approved source countries from which employers can recruit foreign domestic workers (FDWs). The list includes Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The existing list of approved source countries is able to supply sufficient foreign domestic workers who can meet the new entry requirements. The $50 levy reduction which will take effect from 1st April will further ensure that employers could afford to pay more for better quality foreign domestic workers from existing source countries. Nevertheless, my Ministry will continue to monitor the situation and review this, if it is necessary, in future.

Mr Ong expressed concern that the number of foreign domestic workers may increase significantly in response to the levy reduction. Employers who need foreign domestic workers could employ them, but they must also ensure that their foreign domestic workers are being well taken care of. Those who have not done so have been banned from hiring foreign domestic workers.

Sir, Mr Ong also talked about new measures taken by MOM to check for the quality of foreign domestic workers. The FDW entry test should not be viewed in isolation. My Ministry has introduced

Column: 2360

several measures to raise the quality of FDWs. In January this year, the minimum age for new foreign domestic workers was raised from 18 to 23 years old, and they are required to have had at least eight years of formal education. The entry test is meant as a broad tool to verify that they can read and understand basic safety instructions, as well as have some numeracy and literacy skills in order to perform household tasks and communicate with the employers. English is used because it is the working language. The recent Straits Times feature on foreign domestic workers also highlighted language barrier as the main cause of misunderstandings between the employers and foreign domestic workers. Dr Chia Boon Hock, a psychiatrist who monitors foreign domestic workers' suicide rates, was quoted as saying that foreign domestic workers who “do not speak English well�? are “like lost souls�? in a “strange new land�?. Nonetheless, my Ministry has been practical about the entry test, and as far as possible, most of these questions are picture-related or picture-based. Sir, we welcome feedback from Mr Ong, other Members and other interested parties. We will periodically review the format of the test so that it could be re-configured to better meet our goals of bringing in better qualified, more mature, foreign domestic workers.

Finally, Mdm Halimah Yacob has again asked whether the Government will ratify the International Labour Organisation Convention 138. Now that the Employment Act has been amended to raise the minimum working age to be in line with the requirements of Convention 138, we are working towards ratifying the Convention within this year.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question on the change in the procedure by MOM to require an employer, instead of MOM, to pay the salary arrears. The employer is required to

Column: 2361

pay the claimant by cheque, and the claimant has to claim the cheque within one week, otherwise it will be returned. Why does the Ministry change that? Is it fair for the Ministry of Manpower to do that, because the workers may not be able to collect the cheque within a week, and what happens if the cheque bounces? What are you going to do?

The other point I cited is the Auditor-General's report 2004 that about $25,000 was transferred back to Government fund. MOM held in trust the unpaid salary of workers, but failed to track them down, and so the amount was not paid to the workers, thereby requiring the transfer of the money back to the Government. What are the circumstances for MOM not being able to track down the addresses of these workers?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I do not have the information with me at the moment. But it is precisely because it is very difficult to track the workers and MOM may not necessarily know the whereabouts of these workers. So it is easier for us to require the employers to pay directly to the workers.

At the same time, the figure mentioned by Mr Low about the money being transferred back to the Government indicates the difficulties in us tracking the workers, especially foreign domestic workers. Sir, whatever measures we take may not necessarily be foolproof. What we want to do is to ensure, in the first instance, that the number of cases of non-payment of salary is reduced. And one way to do it is by requiring employers, in some industries, to pay their workers through GIRO. So it is easier for us to minimise the problem of non-payment of salary and that would reduce the problem for the workers in future.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: A point of clarification, Sir. Since the Ministry cannot grant two days of paid leave, I would just

Column: 2362

like to ask if MOM intends to encourage companies to offer paid leave for volunteer work and, if so, how. Because, like in the UK, the Government is encouraging employers to do this, and Government departments are actually taking the lead. Maybe our civil service could do the same.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I think we should leave it to employers to decide for themselves whether they want to grant paid leave, unpaid leave or other forms of encouragement to the workers to engage in voluntary work. The Government, in general, encourages voluntarism and we will always encourage civil servants to show examples. But requiring or advising companies or even encouraging them to offer paid leave may instil rigidity in the system and it does not necessarily encourage further voluntarism. So we would like to use persuasive ways to encourage companies to further encourage their employees to do voluntary work.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, just two clarifications. First, I would like to thank the Ministry. I think it is really wonderful news that the Government will be ratifying Convention 138 this year. I think that is a major step ahead.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that last year 6,420 employers did not pay their workers. I would like to ask how many of them have been prosecuted for not paying wages to their workers. And I would like to ask what is the success rate for the workers in terms of recovering the wages from the employers.

Secondly, there is a WoW! Fund to help companies to introduce flexible work arrangements. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary inform this House what is the utilisation rate and what more could be done to encourage employers to make use of that fund to introduce flexible work arrangements at work?

Column: 2363

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I do not have the information the Member has asked for on non-payment of salaries and how we have helped workers to get back the salaries owed to them.

On the WoW! Fund, I mentioned earlier that $343,000 had been disbursed to 15 companies. We will continue to encourage companies to make use of this. The information is on our website and through industry groups and our tripartite partners, we will disseminate the information to companies so that they could implement further worklife strategies, which will benefit not only the workers but also the companies themselves.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, presently MOM does not allow Singaporeans to marry foreigners who had worked in Singapore on a work permit before. This applies even if the foreign worker has left the country and returned to their home country. The ban seems outdated, Sir, and I would ask the Minister to kindly review it, given that Singaporean men are already travelling in droves to Vietnam and other countries to look for brides. It seems unfair that foreigners who have worked in Singapore before on a work permit would be discriminated against in this quest for love. I think it is also very painful for us to see residents coming to us saying they are separated by the Ministry of Manpower from their wives and children just because of this policy which needs to be reviewed.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I do not propose to wax lyrical about the quest for love, despite the amount of time we have. It is not our intention to separate families. That is certainly not the thrust of our policy. In no way do we want to be that inhumane. But I would approach this practically.

We do have 600,000 foreign workers, and if we liberalise, we must liberalise

Column: 2364

surely, even if for a small group, hundreds of thousands. This is because the stock accumulates. If we say that it only affects you when you are here, and when you leave, the stock out there, and the stock in here, is increasing aggregately all the time. So after a while, you may have actually a few million people that could churn and change your society. So we accept that we are a small country and that there needs to be some restriction. It is a practical approach. We are not ideologically bound by it, but it is a practical approach. What we do say to the foreign workers is that, "If you do want to come and work here, these are the rules. It is transparent. You agree to abide by them. If you do not, then thank you very much. Please understand our position and you may choose not to work here. If you choose not to work here, you are free to marry."

Singaporeans are free to go anywhere they want to look for spouses. In fact, that is part of the entrepreneurial spirit. So I would say that our foreign worker policies are guided more by practicality rather than ideology, and it is just one way that we have to manage a large proportion of foreign workers.

4.15 pm

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, I am happy that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is in support of my suggestion to try to push for the integration of the private medical insurance schemes so that medical coverage could be made portable.

Could I confirm with the Ministry whether it could facilitate such a meeting of the employers, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Finance and Monetary Authority of Singapore to try and see how we can actually study and make all these private insurance schemes, which currently are employment based, to be integrated with MediShield, so as to make the medical benefits portable?

Column: 2365

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, we can do that. We can study all options that will enhance further the medical coverage.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the impression I got from the reply of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is that the Ministry of Manpower is trying to wash its hands and take the easy way out of the issue.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, I just want to go back to the point that the Minister made about the stock of people available for marriage if we liberalise these rules. That argument pre-supposes that everyone who has ever worked in Singapore would marry a Singaporean man. I think what we are looking at is to enlarge the pool of women that are perpetually available to give Singaporean men the appropriate choice. I think that is what essentially we are looking at.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I think that is a sensible approach. But we can do that after the fact. And we do not want the whole group of foreign workers saying, "Let me fall in love. Let me marry and then try. Even if I marry and have no children, then let me try harder." We want to give a very strong signal - please don't because it will make it difficult for you. It will make it difficult for us. Please understand our position.

In reality, when things happen, we are not uncaring and not unseeing. We do say yes sparingly to maintain the policy, but we do. So we have to implement this policy in a humane way, and yet be able to understand and be realistic that these large numbers can change our social fabric.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, on CPF investments which I raised just now, people were saying that the money that we have in our CPF accounts was given to the Singapore Government Investment Company (SGIC) to invest. In return, it

Column: 2366

will pay a fixed interest rate. I do not know how true is this. That is why, in my speech, I asked that since SGIC has consistently had good returns above the international benchmark, if SGIC is directly investing the CPF money, perhaps we can get a better return than the current interest rate. Is this true?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, our current CPF system pays interest to the Ordinary and Special Accounts. These interest rates are in terms of Singapore Government special securities provided by MOF. So what Mr Low says is not true - that CPF money is put into SGIC specifically to invest and there is one to one market-based return for the interest rates.

Indeed, for CPF to pay 4% and 2.5%, as Members have previously explained, sometimes it is above the market yield. So if we look at the 10-year bond yield, 4% is certainly much higher than our current 10-year Singapore Government securities yield. We have said that in the longer term - and we have said this publicly - we should move towards this long-term yield, and we need time for our own instruments to mature before we know what the right rate is. Currently, we pay 2.5% as a guaranteed floor, and 4%.

As to Mr Low's specific question on whether we should put it to SGIC to manage, I think it is theoretical. What we are studying is a particular framework which members can tolerate risk levels and which may provide higher yields than fixed-term instruments. This is a complex situation. I do not think we can do it without broad consultation and to bring to the House. So I would say that we are looking at issues but nothing has been firmed up yet.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, the conduct of Government as an employer is always looked upon by the private sector as a model. So with regard to the employment of older workers, I would like to ask the

Column: 2367

Minister whether the Ministry will be the champion in terms of encouraging the public sector, the statutory boards and the civil service to employ people beyond 62.

Secondly, we have so many awards in Singapore for businesses. Would the Ministry consider creating an award where we have a champion of older workers award on the part of the employers? That will be a recognition of employers who champion older workers by employing them. Will the Ministry consider such an award?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I will put that suggestion to the tripartite committee. At face value, it seems sensible for us to promote employers as well as for Government to take the lead.

Dr Loo Choon Yong (Nominated Member): Sir, on behalf of the stork, I would like to approach the Minister again. While understanding the reason for giving a clear signal of no to these work permit holders to get married to our citizens, there are other people within this category, such as technicians, nurses, and I think they will actually benefit us. We will get a lot more babies for Singapore if we apply this on a selective basis. So I would suggest that perhaps the Minister review this policy in the interest of having more babies, as we are trying so hard to do. We even have the five-day week so that we can make babies - not me, but the younger people.

If the nurses and so on were to fall in love, marry and have a family here, they will also help the healthcare industry. So I urge the Minister to reconsider. If we say no, we are actually penalising our citizens who cannot marry them.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, Dr Loo may have misunderstood the system. That

Column: 2368

restriction does not apply to nurses and technicians. In fact, for those who are brought in currently under Q and S passes, there is no marriage restriction. This policy is not applied unthinkingly. As I said, it is a practical approach. Those whom we feel can sustain themselves and their families in Singapore, we do liberalise and do not apply any marriage restrictions. But for those whom we feel that, both by the numbers and their ability to support themselves in our society will make it difficult, we apply a practical approach.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister concerning the safety and health framework. I agree with the Minister on the three principles of reducing risks - to promote self-regulation, to have ownership for safety, and also to use penalty to develop a safety culture. But what is important in terms of reducing risks, I think we have to have a framework to avoid risks in the first place. For example, in the construction industry, we need to look into durable design, maintainable design and safe design. I think we need to have a framework so that upstream, we will avoid risks rather than to look into reducing risks. I just want to check whether the Ministry is working with BCA and MND to look into this area.

Sir, the second question is on ownership. It is good to have ownership but we need to build the capabilities of the various stakeholders in the industry. So, what kind of framework do we have to facilitate capabilities building in the industry, especially in the construction industry?

Thirdly, the penalty. It is good to have a penalty but we need to have an enforcement agency and we need to have, again, a certain framework where there is a check and balance. And we do not want to interrupt with the operations

Column: 2369

too much as to hamper productivity. What is the framework to carry out enforcement to ensure safety on site?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me thank Mayor Teo Ho Pin for his points. Let me take them individually.

In terms of reducing risks, he is right. That is one of the cardinal principles which we enunciated - first principle that we should reduce risk at source. Specifically, the UK has what they call the construction, design, management (CDM) legislation, which basically means that you should try to design out risk. When we visited these corporations during our trip, they said, "Yes, let's build it into the legislation." So I teased them and said, "If Norman Foster decides to build a weird gherkin, will you speak to Norman Foster?" They said, "Yes, we have done so, and he has changed the design."

So, in their system, they have internalised these aspects and they have designed out risk, not only to build but to maintain. How long will we take to get there? I think it will take some time. We will build the legislation for that but we need to involve our stakeholders as well.

On the second point about ownership, what framework do we want to put in? I agree with him that it cannot be done in vacuo. We will have to build a structure and a platform that the industry and partners can congregate and move from. And this is exactly the idea that we have started in terms of the Workplace Safety and Health Council. The Council will comprise representatives - top management - who will steer and drive reforms, and they will be the ones who will set standards and advise the Ministry on what needs to be done and what can be done. The Ministry will still continue to set standards and overall targets.

For enforcement, I agree with him that capabilities will have to be built as we

Column: 2370

move into this new framework. That is why we are stepping up our own MOM's enforcement agency. We will be sending safety officers for longer attachments to places with better safety records - Sweden, UK - for them to learn how to regulate in this new framework. I am confident that if we put this framework into place, we can build a safety culture. But we will provide periodical updates. The Workplace Safety and Health Council will give annual reports so that we all know where we are headed and whether we have improved.

Dr Geh Min: Sir, a point of clarification. I am glad the Minister made it quite clear and I agree with him that most Singaporeans take their family duty seriously and fulfil them conscientiously. But one of the examples he cited, I believe, is the 91% joint ownership in HDB flats. From what I understand, if a couple splits up, their assets in the HDB flat are not split equally but according to what each contributed. In other words, the message is still - what you put in, you get; what I put in, I get. It is "I first" culture.

Yes, I understand from the Minister's reply that CPF is, as he said, first, an individual pension fund. I understand that self-sufficiency is an important message, but there is a fine dividing line between self-sufficiency and selfishness. What I was asking the Minister was: could the CPF be adjusted slightly to regard the family unit as the integral unit rather than the individual?

While I understand that MOM's primary function is to look after the workers, I think you cannot disregard the homemakers.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, there are a few issues. One of the specific circumstance is where couples split up, what goes to each party, that is a specific question. Let me look into the details. What the Nominated Member of Parliament may be

Column: 2371

alluding to is that for individual spouses, the amount that was used from the CPF to purchase the flat, even after divorce, goes back to the individual member. This would be no different, for example, when we protect the CPF even from liability from creditors. So let me look into the issue because it is a specific question. I do not have the answer at hand. It is not our intention to disregard homemakers. We value them. But as she rightly pointed out, it stands as an individual account. But we do make provision for members to contribute to their family members in a number of ways. For example, you can use Medisave for relatives, you can use CPF to buy jointly for houses, as I showed you the figures, they indeed do. And 94% of spouses own the assets from which the funds may have come predominantly from the other partner.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr S. Iswaran) in the Chair]

4.30 pm

The third point is that we do a lot of top-ups, both from your CPF and cash amounts. But because it stands as an individual account, we say that you have to put aside enough for yourself before you can do top-ups. So I think the philosophy is correct. Whether we can move at the margin, I think we can. There will always be room. As for the specific question, I invite the NMP to raise a specific Question for Oral Answer so that I can have more of the facts at hand to answer.

The Chairman: Mr Yeo, do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their comprehensive response to our concerns and questions raised. I am particularly pleased with the Minister's reassurance to

Column: 2372

strengthen Government's efforts to help Singaporean workers face employment challenges and his commitment to make Singapore a safe workplace for all. With this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

The sum of $173,058,340 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $47,547,200 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.