Hansard Explorer

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Government has data on the prevalence of contractual notice periods for job resignation exceeding three months, including with breakdown by occupation, seniority and salary band; and (b) if not, whether it will study and publish the prevalence of such clauses and their impact on employee mobility.

Mr Speaker: Acting Minister Lau, will you be taking that question?

The Acting Minister for Manpower (Ms Jasmin Lau): Yes. Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not currently collect data on contractual notice periods for job resignations. There are also no plans to conduct a dedicated study on contractual notice periods and their impact on job mobility.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Acting Minister for her response. I have several supplementary questions. The first is on the lack of data currently and the lack of intention to obtain the data. My first supplementary question for the Acting Minister is, would we consider using the existing conditions of employment survey, which currently focuses on flexible work arrangements and leave entitlements, and extend that to also cover contractual employment terms in order to fill this gap?

The second supplementary question I have for the Acting Minister is on the principle of notice periods. Would the Acting Minister have a view on whether currently, while reciprocal notice periods protect both employers and employees, that the burdens are unequal, given that employees usually have less power to pay out large lump sums as opposed to businesses, and whether the Ministry would consider looking at this as part of the Employment Act review, which is ongoing and which has a stipulated focus to look at the interest of lower-income professionals, executives and managers, and whether this would come under the ambit of the Employment Act review?

Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his question. Like I said earlier, we currently have no plans to collect this data.

On the second question about the principle of notice period, I would like to ask the Member if he has a view about the question that he just asked. For MOM, if there are complaints regarding notice periods and there are concerns by employees about an unfairness, they can raise their case with MOM or the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), and we will deal with the cases accordingly.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low. Oh, Mr Singh?

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, just a Point of Order. My understanding of Question Time is that it is a chance for the backbenchers to ask the frontbench questions, and whether if it is done the other way around, there are opportunities during debates on Bills to do so. But that is my understanding of Question Time. I stand corrected if Speaker advises differently.

Mr Speaker: Indeed, Question Time is for Members to ask questions and for political office holders to reply. In this case, I think Acting Minister did give her view as well as also asked if the Member had a point of view as well. And it is for the Member to decide whether he or she wishes to respond. Mr Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: Thank you, Speaker. I do thank the Acting Minister for giving me the opportunity to share my perspective.

The reason for asking the Parliamentary Question to begin with was prompted by the Magistrate's Court decision in July this year, whereby the Court found that a six-month notice period was not manifestly excessive and it deferred to contractual intent between the parties.

The underlying principle I am driving at here is that it does seem to me, as an intuitive reaction, that a six-month notice period – in this case, this was a middle manager who was making $9,000 a month, and the Court ordered him to pay four months' notice in lieu, which amounted to $36,000. My intuitive reaction to that is while we may currently have a regime within the Employment Act of not regulating these contractual terms – although I do acknowledge that TAFEP has guidelines on fair employment contractual terms – I was asking if the Ministry would consider doing so. Because to me, for middle manager, six months does seem to start to verge on what I would deem to be excessive.

Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for the explanation. The context is useful to understand the reason he asked the Parliamentary Question.

I think our principle is to make sure that the contractual periods are fair between the employer and the employee. Therefore, in that situation, if both the employer and the employee had agreed that six months on both sides is what they signed on to, then there is no reason to say that that is an inappropriate arrangement.

As for the Employment Act, at this point, again, our principle is to make sure that the notice periods are mutual and they are equal on both sides and so, we do not, at this point, intend to review whether six months or any duration in particular needs to be increased or needs to be reduced.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: I do not want to belabour the point, but thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity. I just wanted to add that the Ministry has been on record for the adjacent principle of non-compete clauses and has brought in ideas around proportionality for that case.

My suggestion to the Ministry would be that perhaps we could also look similarly at notice periods, although I do acknowledge that while one is binding the employee during the employment period, the other would be post-employment.

Ms Jasmin Lau: I thank the Member for his suggestion. We will take a look over time also at whether or not there are cases raised by both employees and employers that this issue about contractual notice period is a concern. And if so, we will look into it for future reviews of the Employment Act.