Employment (Amendment) Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

For the amended Employment Act to be effective in the long term, I believe it ought to pass three tests:

(1) Is the amended Act robust enough to cater for the future?

(2) Is it enforceable?

(3) Is it sustainable?

First, is the amended Act robust enough to cater for the workforce of the future? Sir, in a McKinsey interview with the CEO of Manpower Inc, one of the largest global recruitment agencies, several trends were observed:

  • global workforce that is dominated by older and more expensive workers;

  • a stark increase in ‘non-regular’ or flexible staff;

  • the shortened lifecycles of jobs, including hot jobs, in the IT sector, for example, the 'webmaster' which is fast disappearing, as many of us learn how to construct and update our own websites;

  • the poor job that most companies are doing in terms of training their workers; and

  • the interest in part-time jobs by older and female staff.

Sir, the workforce of the future in Singapore is one that is likely to go in the same direction, if not already there. Our future workforce is one that will be characterised by:

  • more executives and other white-collar workers on site or in home offices, as a result of our excellent education system;

  • more elderly workers, an outcome of our rapidly ageing population;

  • more disabled workers, a result of better education of students with special needs in our schools;

  • more foreign workers, due both to job preferences of locals and an overall talent crunch;

  • more part-timers, likely women and retirees; and

  • more contract workers on flexible work arrangements as companies continue to adopt the strategies of workforce optimisation through outsourcing.

Sir, the Act must be robust enough to reflect the profile of this workforce of the future of ours. Specifically, I believe that the inclusion of junior managers and professionals in the Act for some benefits is progressive. However, I seek an explanation on how the salary threshold of $2,500 is derived. I doubt many junior managers earn less than $2,500 and some fresh university graduates in fact command starting salaries of more than $2,500. So, how is the $2,500 derived and who is the specific target group intended for coverage by the Act?

Sir, I also want to commend the Ministry for the provision of the Portable Medical Benefits Scheme, which I believe is another right move to recognise contract and other temporary workers. However, the new Act is still a work-in-progress and fairly generic and traditional. I believe there is a future need for Ministry to later on further amend the Act to better suit the profiles of the workforce of the future, to address the specific needs of part-timers, contract workers, elderly workers, disabled workers and higher-salaried white-collar employees.

Next, is the amended Act enforceable? Sir, the Employment Act is the main piece of legislation governing employment practices in Singapore. Resources must be assured to ensure that the Ministry has the teeth to enforce the Act.

Whether in economic downturns or not, there is a strong need to protect the interests of the most vulnerable employee – the lower-wage workgroup amongst us. And I refer to specifically three groups, namely, the elderly, the disabled and the foreign workers (including domestic helpers) who are hitherto not covered by the Employment Act.

Sir, these vulnerable workers are likely to be the ones who will not have a voice. They are either too lowly educated, too afraid to lose their jobs or unable to articulate their concerns or present evidences in the labour courts. In an economic downturn, they are also likely to be the first to go.

We read in April this year a special report by journalist, Radha Basu, who wrote at length on the plight of the disabled, employees in our country. A few disabled people she spoke to rejected her interviews fearing that they will be fired or not be able to get a job in the future. From various interest groups, we have also heard the plight of foreign Bangladeshi Indian workers who are stranded in Singapore due to unfulfilled job promises by some employers. Many have taken up extensive loans in their home country in the hope of work in Singapore, and are now too poor to return home. The same can also be said of domestic helpers, local and foreign, who are not included in the current Employment Act. Perhaps we can take a leaf from Taiwan, which actually has provisions to work with the home countries to limit, in fact, the quantum of brokerage fees or loans before these workers secure work in Singapore.

Sir, we need more teeth to protect these vulnerable groups. I fully understand that the root causes of their plights are not simple to resolve. But unless action is taken in collaboration with the other stakeholders, for example, the home countries of the foreign workers, we will risk our reputation of being a progressive country.

I know the Minister, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Manpower are personally empathic and want to do the right thing. I, therefore, ahead of the Budget debate, urge that more resources be accorded to the Ministry to study, analyse, prioritise and address the top needs of these vulnerable groups – low-wage, elderly, disabled and foreign workers.

Last but not least, is the amended Act sustainable? Sir, I want to also call for balance and moderation as we try to protect the needs of employees and workers in Singapore.

All of us operate in an eco-system – change in one part affects another. As many of us call for more protection for the rights and welfare of employees, there is a strong need to ensure that the cost of business in human resource is moderated so that businesses can sustain and jobs are kept. Therein, I believe, lies the tension and challenge of ensuring that the triad of interests of (1) employer; (2) the employee and (3) the nation is balanced.

With the widespread introduction of the five-day work-week; generous maternity leave and childcare leave; coupled with reservist leave; paternity leave; compassionate leave; and in the case of some industries, the benefit of school vacations which add another, easily, eight weeks of leave, organisations are hard-pressed to deliver results with the same manpower. When companies find Singapore less than competitive, then the provisions may not be sustainable and in winning the war, we may lose the battle in keeping the jobs for the very people we care about. Hence, the need to moderate and think of the bigger picture as together we work to adopt an employment legislation that is viable over the short and long term.

In conclusion, I want to thank the Minister for the proposed amendments which, I believe, are definitely moving in the right direction. I support the Bill, Sir.

Community, Parliament, MPDenise Phua