SECTION_NAME:ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS: Column No : 986

EMPLOYMENT ACT:

(Amendment to provide better protection to pregnant female employees): 1.

Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will amend the Employment Act to provide better protection to pregnant female employees by providing for such employees to be paid maternity benefit at any time during the period of their pregnancy if they are retrenched or terminated from service other than due to misconduct.

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the present Employment Act, female employees whose services are terminated during the three months before their confinement are entitled to their maternity pay. This does not apply to terminations due to retrenchments and misconduct, and in addition they have to satisfy the qualifying condition of having worked for the employer for a minimum period of six months.

The Ministry of Manpower agrees with the Member that pregnant women should not be discriminated against at the workplace. In this regard, legislation can protect their rights and benefits. However, legislation is not always the complete solution. In consultations for the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package announced last year - and these were during dialogue sessions with employers prior to us formulating the M&P package - many employers, including female employers who have had families in their careers, gave us realistic feedback that if statutory benefits for pregnant employees are too onerous, some employers may choose not to employ married women. They told us that such employers might be fearful of having to adjust to and bear the costs of maternity related benefits, and that they might discriminate against all women who are of child bearing age. Indeed these female employers themselves counselled prudence and advised the Government to take an incremental approach in increasing legislated maternity benefits. This was borne out subsequent to our M&P package.

When we increased maternity benefits from 8 weeks to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, there was a small surge in the number of pregnancy related complaints received over the first five months of 2005. We received 36 cases in those five months. The usual number of cases received from 2001 to 2004 ranged from 15 to 28 annually.

This small surge indicates that we have to work together with our social partners - employers and unions - to change mindsets and facilitate work patterns so that employers and employees are able to meet both the economic needs of the company and the social needs of employees. This is the thrust of our Work-Life and other facilitation programmes. As Members may know, we launched the Work-Life Week yesterday.

MOM will continue such efforts with our partners to help us remain economically competitive, as well as to improve work conditions to promote marriage and parenthood.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Sir, I agree with the Minister that there is a need for a balance to take into account both employers' and workers' interests and we do not want invariably too much improvement or protection to result in a reverse effect of employers not employing female workers. On the other hand, the question I would like to ask the Minister is, if we give enhanced benefits as well as other benefits but, at the same time, these benefits are not protected, will it not be counter-productive in the sense that it will not be effective because the female workers will not be able to enjoy these benefits?

So I would like to ask the Minister, bearing in mind the need for this balance and also the fact that female workers whose services are terminated and without maternity benefits will find it difficult to get another employment, would not the Ministry reconsider its position and review this legislation to provide more effective protection for pregnant female employees?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I agree with the Member that where the law clearly prescribes and if employers are shown to have acted contrary to provisions, the employee who is entitled to these benefits can seek recourse. They can seek recourse either through the union who will represent them or they can write to the Minister for Manpower who can address the issue and, as I have said, we do receive some complaints and the Ministry will act on their behalf to help them receive those benefits.

But the point is: should we continue to enhance and increase these benefits and there is a balance, as the Member has rightly pointed out, to be achieved? My own sense is that we have just moved recently to enhance these benefits from eight weeks to 12 weeks plus a number of other aspects related to the Baby Bonus and we will have to work hand in hand with employers to help them incrementally accept that there is a business case and part of these facilitation methods will be what we are focusing on in our work-life harmony.

As Members know, we launched the WoW (Work-Life Works) Fund and there are many enlightened employers and CEOs who have subscribed to this fund. The basic thrust of this fund is to have employers change the HR system to build flexi-work programmes into their companies. I think that if we help employers build this flexibility they will recognise that they want to keep good employees, including female employees and especially female employees who may, from time to time, need to have flexible work arrangements to meet their other social needs in terms of being parents and care-givers. So I take it that legislation and facilitation need to go hand in hand and that helps us to achieve the balance. But my own sense is that, at this point of time, since we have just moved on a number of legislative aspects to promote marriage and parenthood, let us move on the facilitation aspects before we consider further legislation.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will not agree with me that maternity benefits are actually very basic benefits and if a female employee is retrenched it is usually through no fault of hers and therefore she should be entitled to maternity benefits if she is retrenched. Also, the existing law already provides that a female worker must have worked with the employer for 180 days. Is that not a sufficient condition for entitlement?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I do not disagree with the Member on principle and that we should try to prescribe maternity related benefits to both protect and help women at the workplace. The issue is one of balance. Currently, maternity benefits are prescribed three months before confinement. The Member has asked pointedly whether we should extend it. In other words, if a female employee is four months' pregnant and she loses her job, should we prescribe in law that she is eligible for maternity benefits? This is the point where I said that in our discussions with CEOs, many female CEOs cautioned against radical changes. Because what it could result - and this is realistic feedback from them unsolicited - is that if employers felt that the maternity benefits were too heavily prescribed in legislation, they may develop an inherent bias against employing all female employees of child-bearing age. This was the issue.

I take the point that we need to take into account the social and cultural context. In other countries, there are more benefits for maternity-related aspects. In some other countries, they are worse. We are somewhere in between. My own sense is that we have just moved last year in terms of enhancing these benefits and we have to continue the facilitation methods before we can consider prescribing more benefits.

Dr Geh Min (Nominated Member): Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he will consider a sliding scale where female employees who have worked longer in the company would be entitled to, if they are retrenched or lose their jobs, get pregnancy benefits from day one? Whereas those who have been working in the company for only 180 days it is difficult for the employers to accept that they should get benefits from the moment that they are pregnant. Can a sliding scale be considered to facilitate this principle?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I think those suggestions can be taken when we next review the larger issue of whether we want to prescribe in law greater protection and more benefits or whether it is shorter requirement before they can qualify for maternity-paid benefits or extending from three months to even longer. In other words, now it applies to someone who is six months' pregnant or more, should we reduce it even further? I think all these details can be considered. But I think the larger issue is one of balance.

There is a trade-off. If the culture at the workplace and the hiring patterns in terms of mindsets of employers do not move, the trade-off is that they can discriminate against female employees. This is a reality. This is something that we should work to change over time but I think we have to accept that this is a reality because many employers, including female employers who have themselves moved up the ranks, tell us so. I think it will be wise for us to listen to them and we will have to see and judge through our facilitation methods as we work with the unions and other employer groups when we can enhance further benefits.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, the Minister made extensive references to the need to consult stakeholders, which I agree entirely with him. Our own feedback also shows that when it comes to retrenchment of pregnant female employees, actually employers are a lot more generous and have been paying maternity benefits. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry will now initiate facilitation and consultation among the stakeholders on this issue.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: The answer is of course yes. Indeed, this is the focus of our Work-Life Programme. The Member brought up the fact that even outside prescribed legislation, employers are not obliged to give maternity-related benefits because they are not prescribed in law, but because of union representation, the employers have decided to give on their own. I laud these efforts. I think it is fair for them and if we continue to work in these efforts, when and if we change legislation, that it will not result in greater discrimination against female employees.