Committee of Supply – Head S (Ministry of Manpower)

Picking a leaf from our recent experience with the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) and the growth trajectory of freelance workers or what many call the "gig economy" workers, the Labour Movement hopes more can become union members and enjoy the plethora of offerings NTUC and our unions offer. At present, the Trade Unions Act requires a person to be in a "contract of service" to join a trade union. Freelancers who are in a "contract for service" may not be full-fledged union members per se. As such, I suggest MOM to review the Trade Unions Act to allow freelancers to be union members without compromising or contravening traditional collective bargaining and representation.

By the same token, can we also explore ways where our freelancers can be better represented and protected of their fundamental rights as workers through amending existing employment laws such as the Industrial Relations (IR) Act or introducing new legislation to accord them better protection than just what the Small Claims Tribunal and Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) can do at the moment.

Mr Chairman, based on the MOM's latest 2020 labour statistics, own-account workers, defined as persons who operate their own business or trade without employing any workers – this includes taxi drivers, property agents, tour guides, freelance artists – account for 9.7% of the total workforce, or 228,000 workers, up from 8.8% in 2019.

While some own-account workers are truly independent, such as working proprietors, there are many who offer services as part of a wider organisation, such as taxi drivers, private hire car drivers and food delivery riders.

The COVID-19 pandemic has arguably pushed more workers into the so-called gig economy. Such a rise can also be attributed to the advent of aggregated apps such as Grab and Deliveroo, which have provided platforms for people to seek assignments in exchange for monetary incentives.

We have to recognise that this is a sizable population of the workforce that is not protected by employment laws and regulations. These own-account workers are not deemed as employees of companies and the companies are also not obliged to provide CPF, medical insurance and other employee benefits for these people. Moreover, the own-account worker's income is subject to incentive structures which companies can have the power to change at any point in time, without notice, and often do not require consent.

Many of these workers end up stuck in the cycle of insecure work, reducing their opportunities for career advancement and, as access to credit is restricted, exposing them to greater risk of financial shocks.

For many of these own-account workers, especially in the ride hailing and delivery industries, they exhibit many employee-like characteristics such as working exclusively for one company and/or having fixed working arrangements and key performance indicators (KPIs) which are tied to that of the company.

On 19 February, the UK supreme court has upheld a ruling that Uber's drivers should be classified as workers rather than independent contractors. California's Proposition 22 ballot measure, passed by the voters in the November elections, could also serve as a third way of classifying such gig economy workers. It allows companies to offer private hire drivers partial benefits such as a minimum base pay that is higher than the minimum wage and healthcare subsidies for some drivers, depending on the number of hours that they work.

I would like to ask if more could be done to protect the interest and provide a safety net for this group of workers, such as mandatory insurance and minimum levels of benefits and protection for them.

Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore's economy is built around a strong Singaporean Core and supplemented with migrant workers in specific industries and jobs.

Let me first discuss the Progressive Wage Model (PWM), which is critically important for all Singaporeans. As a business owner, I support the PWM. A standalone minimum wage is too general and does not address sustainability and progression issues. In contract, PWM factually is a progressive and sustainable model where wages are paid in tandem with the necessary skills and productivity required for a specific sector.

Employers are showing that they do care about our lower wage workers and their livelihood. As such, I strongly urge the Government and the Labour Movement to further hasten the implemention of PWM in more sectors. We need to have advanced conversations with industry partners to prepare employers so being ahead of the curve is necessary.

Today, the PWM is implemented by sectors, which is a vertical approach. We also need a horizontal approach to include smaller enterprises. Smaller businesses do not have economies of scale and do need a longer runway to prepare and scale up to pay their workers and concurrently remain viable.

A good example are our hawkers. As we celebrate our successful inscription onto the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural of Humanity and appreciate our hawkerpreneurs, we must recognise that they cannot offer the same salaries and benefits as other food operators such as restaurants.

I spoke to Mr Lennon Peh, a hawkerprenuer in Bukit Panjang who sells mee rebus and mee siam. He shared that his largest operating cost today is manpower cost, ahead of ingredients and rent. He is also facing higher cost of cleaning and dishwashing and finds it difficult to make up cost by selling his mee rebus and mee siam at a higher price. In his own words, "a hawker centre is meant to provide affordable food to Singaporeans and I will cause disappointment to customers if I increase prices."

There are clear challenges in passing on costs. In addition, we need to consider that any cost increase to adjacent verticals will affect another sector. For instance, the introduction of cleaning PWM could have increased the cost of dishwashing and cleaning, thereby increasing their operating structure. Hence, a targeted approach for smaller enterprises is necessary to keep their business sustainable for themselves and workers, and cost affordable for consumers.

As we progress economically, I urge the Government to work together with the industry players to go into more details, to carefully and sensibly curate and develop bespoke PWM strategies to support all Singaporean business.

Now, allow me to focus on our foreign workforce. MOM has two main levers for managing our jobs and employment and they are the foreign worker levy and Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC). Our foreign manpower policy has worked well for Singapore to strike a balance in providing jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans and concurrently supporting the economy with adequate manpower to continue businesses, thereby, economic growth.

Having said that, we must continue to finetune our foreign manpower policy to ensure relevance and calibrate it to meet changing socio-economic conditions. Manpower is essential for businesses to grow. And as they grow, more good jobs will be provided for Singaporeans. As a business owner myself and through conversations with other business owners, the severe challenge of our current policy is the inability to first find the necessary local manpower to grow the business.

Noting the above business owners' concerns, I would like to call on the Government to apply the foreign worker levy lever instead of the DRC lever to a very select group of enterprises that are restarting and/or pivoting their existing businesses.

In my maiden speech, I suggested that we need a different approach for firms re-starting and pivoting after the challenges of 2020. Manpower resources are necessary for these businesses to pivot, and the adjustment of levy is a temporary measure to assist them to have interim stability of their manpower base to transit. Perhaps, adopting a pilot approach with a few identified companies could yield greater insights and allow us to test such options first.

Next, I would like to propose applying and calibrating DRC in accordance with sub-sector nuances and differentiations, in particular, the services sector. The services sector forms a large part of our economy and a differentiated quota would be more targeted and beneficial. Each sub-sector has different job demand among Singaporeans, and businesses in each sector have various abilities to adopt automation to reduce manpower needs.

For example, different players in the foreign worker-dependent industries, like the food and beverage, and cleaning and maintenance, have different base resources and allure as employment choice. Hence, we need to be more surgical in applying DRC in each sub-sector, ensuring that there will be no net increase to the foreign worker population in Singapore based on current DRCs.

I believe that our relentless focus to accelerate the PWM adoption plus this fine-tuning of our foreign worker policies will be important levers to prepare us for a better future.

Mr Chairman, there are some jobs that Singaporeans are just not interested in. In my engagements with residents, I know that some would shun jobs in the marine, off-shore, maritime and manufacturing sectors.

Some parents would even hope that their children working as safety supervisors, engineers and technicians could change to safer occupations or office jobs.

In November 2020, there were reportedly 6,370 jobs are on offer in the manufacturing sector, with one in 10 from the hard-hit marine and offshore sub-sector. Within the sector, electronics, precision engineering and food manufacturing had the greatest number of available openings. We can do all what we can to persuade, to promote these jobs but Singaporeans are just not interested in taking up jobs in these sectors.

The foreign worker quota for S Pass workers in the construction, marine shipyard and process sectors will be cut. The cuts to the S Pass sub-Dependency Ratio Ceiling, or DRC, is in two phases.

The first tightens the sub-DRC for S Pass workers from 20% to 18% on 1 January 2021. The second step will cut this further to 15% on 1 January 2023. If these sectors are not able to attract sufficient Singaporean workers despite job redesign, improved wages, then their business operations would hit a standstill. Where there is justification given by these employers, can the MOM consider giving more latitude for the issuance of S Pass and Employment Pass so that the business can keep on going?

Mr Chairman, while the Workers' Party welcomes the recent tightening of work pass requirements, there remains a need to review other aspects of these requirements.

One aspect is the issue of unaccredited certifications, which has been in the news again of late. Holders of certificates from degree mills and unaccredited schools have perplexed Singaporeans in previous incidents and may uncertain the belief that all our work pass holders can do the job they claim to be able to do on paper.

To be clear, such academic qualifications may not be forged and we have a system in place to deter forged qualifications. However, these unaccredited qualifications are viewed with scepticism by our citizens and the various degree mills that offer academic degrees and diplomas for a fee with little to no real coursework, give little confidence.

While MOM has indicated its risk-based approach in dealing with such matters and employers do have a primary responsibility to ensure the authenticity and quality of the academic qualifications submitted, this approach should improve so that the trust necessary for Singaporeans to accept truly talented foreign PMETs in Singapore can be improved. Therefore, I urge MOM to consider mandatory Educational Credential Assessments, or ECAs, for all Employment Pass and S Pass job applicants that need University degrees and diplomas. The cost to be borne by the applicant.

Such ECAs would only be accepted from a panel or Government appointed established independent consultants. The ECA report will be sent to the relevant agencies, the prospective employer and the applicant. This is not a novel idea since our medical and legal professionals have a list of recognised institutions that have only recently become narrower to uphold the standards of professions. I urge the Minister to look into this.

Chairman, COVID-19 has had a major impact on the way of life for many of us including that of our foreign workers. During the pandemic, NTUC's Migrant Worker' Centre worked hand-in-hand with our stakeholders on the ground to contain the outbreak in the migrant worker dormitories. This experience had brought to light the problems faced by our migrant workers in their dormitories, and underscored the immediate need for us to improve their living conditions. This includes the need to review how foreign worker dormitories are regulated, and if these regulations should be reviewed.

Currently, the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act, or FEDA, ensures that the accommodations of our foreign workers are regulated and must comply with a list of requirements to ensure the health and safety of their residents. However, FEDA only applies to larger dormitories that accommodate 1,000 or more workers.

In view of the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, I would like to ask MOM if there are any plans to further regulate the living conditions of foreign workers in dormitories that house lesser than 1,000 workers, such as increasing the scope of FEDA to smaller dormitories.

Chairman, SMEs in Singapore are among one of the worst hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially those whose workers are housed in dormitories. With new standards for migrant worker dormitories to enhance workers' well-being, dormitory operators said it would see at least 50% higher cost to implement in existing dormitories.

Under new MOM specifications, dormitories will have no more than 10 beds per room, with only single-deck beds and 1 metre spacing between them. Each room now holds 12 to 16 beds.

I am fully supportive of giving our foreign workers better living conditions. We value them and we must treat them humanely and give them proper housing.

JTC used to run these dormitories before they were privatised and taken over by commercial operators. In the 1970s, to attract labour for the industrial estate, flats were constructed by JTC, which was responsible for developing and managing Singapore's industrial estates and their related facilities, was providing low-cost accommodation for workers. Will JTC help SMEs by coming back into this role of managing some dormitories? This can offer some competition with the privately-run dorm so that there could be healthy competition helpful for SMEs.

Mr Chairman, it was disappointing to note that despite the pandemic exposing our vulnerabilities arising from our over-reliance on foreign labour, the Budget did not present new measures to fundamentally move our economy away from that over-reliance, apart from a tightening of the S Pass quota for the manufacturing sector.

It would have been a golden opportunity to commence the needed restructuring, at a time when the size of our foreign workforce is down significantly, due to the pandemic, when businesses are looking for new ways to rebuild economic activities, a time for a "Reset", as Institute of Policy Studies, or IPS, calls it.

With only minor tweaks to our work pass and work permit requirements, it is to be expected that the presence of foreign workforce in our economy will remain as large as ever.

Despite our objection to the continued over-reliance on foreign workforce, that is a matter of disagreement over what is the best policy for Singapore, and does not translate into disrespect for the foreign nationals working in Singapore. The contribution of foreign workforce to Singapore's development has been significant and they deserve to be protected as well, just like our local workforce.

Our laws, such as the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF), the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, and the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act, are meant to prevent discriminatory practices and protect both local and foreign employees.

According to the MOM, a rising number of employers have been penalised for illegally underpaying foreign employees. The severity of the COVID-19 pandemic's spread in dormitories has also exposed the harsh conditions many foreign workers live in, and exposed many inadequacies in the way we manage their welfare. Also, instances of discriminatory hiring practices and violations of the FCF have been highlighted by the public.

Given our large and growing foreign workforce, does the MOM have sufficient manpower and resources dedicated towards enforcing the relevant laws and regulations? Is it able to assure Singaporeans that its resources have been put to good use, and that its enforcement has been effective?

Moving forward, how will MOM manage the balance between local and foreign workforce to ensure they complement one another, not replace? With reference to the recent discovery of work pass holders declaring qualifications from an Indian University selling fake degrees in their applications, how will MOM ensure the integrity of its list of accepted Universities and qualifications for work pass applicants?

What is the plan to prevent a recurrence of severe outbreak of contagious diseases in foreign workers' dormitories? Can the Minister update us on the improved standards for new dormitories and is the Ministry working on this in conjunction with NGOs? How much has been spent on rehousing foreign workers during this pandemic?

To protect our foreign domestic workers from abuse, will the Minister consider adding an item in the six-monthly medical examination report asking doctors to indicate if they noticed any signs of abuse?

Thank you, Chairman. I would like to take my two cuts together. I would like to extend my appreciation for our FAST and ACE teams in MOM who have worked tirelessly to care for our migrant workers.

I wish to encourage our team with a story. At the peak of the pandemic, this volunteer asked a migrant worker who had been quarantined, if he had updated his family about his situation. He said no, he did not want his family to worry about him and added "because I'm in Singapore, I know I would definitely come out of this alive." To our MOM and MOH teams, thank you.

At the same time, the pandemic has revealed gaps in the living conditions of many of our migrant workers. There is more we must do for our migrant workers, not just in the interest of public health, but because it is the right thing to do for our fellow men.

My first cut relates to the regulation of living conditions in the Factory Converted Dormitories known as FCDs. These dormitories are regulated by the Foreign Employee Dormitory Act, or FEDA, which cares for the health and safety of our migrant workers. However, FEDA presently covers only dormitories that house 1,000 workers and above. Extending FEDA regulations to the smaller FCDs will impact over a 100,000 more workers.

I would like to highlight two areas for FCDs with cooking spaces to be regulated in. First, hygiene. A visit to some kitchens in FCDs will reveal the presence of stray animals that roam freely as well as unclean food preparation and disposal areas.

I would like to highlight two areas for FCDs with cooking spaces to be regulated in, first, hygiene. A visit to some kitchens in FCDs will reveal the presence of stray animals that roam freely as well as unclean food preparation and disposal areas. These kitchen spaces must be regulated to meet basic hygiene standards. The second area for consideration is the persons-to-stove ratio. Each day, migrant workers return from work in large numbers because of the long wait to cook. Some go to bed hungry as they would rather rest. A sensible ratio of pax-to-stove will allow for better access for food preparation. For many, being able to prepare their own food is not just a matter of saving money but a small piece of comfort from home they taste at the end of a long day.

I would like to ask MOM about the approach to improve and regulate living conditions in the FCDs moving forward.

My second cut is on ensuring safe food access for our migrant workers.

Many workers stay in dormitories without cooking facilities and purchase food from caterers at their own cost, ranging from $120 to $150 a month. These meal packages include breakfast, lunch and dinner. Caterers deliver their lunch together with breakfast in the morning, some as early as 5 am, which means that lunch is prepared way in advance. The earliest preparation time we understand is at 5 pm the day before. Thus, our workers eat their lunch long after NEA's recommended time of four hours after food preparation.

At the worksite, lunch packages are often left in open spaces or under the hot sun because of the lack of food storage areas. When it rains or when stray animals get to them, the food is inedible and they go hungry. Other times, they have hard, cold rice and sour vegetables to eat. Such treatment of our migrant workers cannot and must not be tolerated in Singapore. For one, could we have employers provide lunch at the worksite? It is important that any increase in costs is not passed on to the already low-wage migrant workers.

As suggested by some industry caterers, would it be possible for a part of the workers' levy to go into the provision of safe and nutritious lunch for the worker? Access to safe food is a human right, not a privilege. I would like to ask the Ministry how might we better protect our migrant workers' rights to safe and nutritious meals without passing on further costs to them.

Chairman, the underpayment of foreign workers and Pass holders is not just a travesty against foreign workers; it sabotages Singaporean workers by undercutting their wage competitiveness. Unscrupulous employers take advantage of the significantly imbalanced negotiating position of foreign workers and coerce them to return a portion of their salaries in cash. Foreign workers are usually in debt by way of agency fees owed back home or to middleman employment agents, many of whom are outside Singapore's jurisdictional reach. The foreign workers in question would unsurprisingly be more concerned about their prospects for continued employment or employability in Singapore. In such a scenario, the disadvantages of reporting an errant employer to MOM can far outweigh the advantages.

The Minister for Manpower, arising from Parliamentary Questions filed by Workers' Party Member of Parliament Mr Faisal Manap and Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai, recently confirmed that about 190 employers were found underpaying their foreign employees every year between 2015 and 2019. That total corresponds to close to 1,000 employers over a five-year period. The total number of foreign workers who were underpaid was not disclosed, nor were any details of restitution made to these workers disclosed as well. Can the Minister make these details known?

The Minister also shared that the number of errant employers caught was the result of improved detection capabilities and education efforts to encourage foreign employees to report salary irregularities. Minister committed that the Ministry would continue to take strong surveillance and enforcement action.

Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, it is an offence if employers do not pay their foreign employees their contractually stipulated salaries or inflate their foreign employees' salaries with no intention of paying them the amount declared to MOM. Sir, I believe it is time to come down harder on errant employers who denied their foreign workers and Pass holders a fair wage and, in doing so, also lower the employment opportunities of Singaporeans who are qualified to do the same jobs.

Compared to the numbers from 2010 to 2014 where 60 errant employers each year were found to have illegally deducted the salaries of their foreign workers, the numbers are clearly on the increase. One direct way to resolve this matter would be to raise the deterrent effect of the enforcement regime by increasing the penalties for underpayment of foreign workers and Pass holders under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

A second approach could be to tweak the law to require an errant employer, in addition to criminal penalties, to pay the foreign worker a penalty amounting to six months of the foreign workers' wage for each instance of intentional underpayment to circumvent MOM regulations. This amount would represent a punitive element that seeks to activate a behavioural effect to nudge foreign workers to proactively report employers who do not pay their declared wages, as required by MOM.

Sir, migrant workers help to build our nation. I thank them for helping to make Singapore the shining red dot we are today.

Many of them invest a significant amount of money to come to Singapore. They have to pay agent fees to even secure a job here. This means when they first step foot on Singapore soil, they are already thousands of dollars in debt.

It is not enough to say that these fees were not paid in Singapore. These agent fees affect how effective our labour laws are. It results in a huge power imbalance.

When migrant workers are saddled with huge debts, they are less likely to speak up against errant employers who flout Singapore’s labour laws. Agent fees paid overseas undermine our labour laws.

Will MOM look into this problem and study the possibility of establishing direct recruitment channels through its licensed Overseas Testing Centres to cut out the middlemen? Will MOM also increase penalties for companies who are found to collect such kickbacks?

Next, this COVID-19 pandemic has shown that we need to do more for our migrant workers and I am glad we are.

Currently, the Foreign Employees Dormitories Act (FEDA) covers only licensed dormitories housing more than a thousand workers.

In 2017, I spoke up about the need to ensure that accommodation for migrant workers that fall outside FEDA are of equivalent standards to the larger dormitories. Surely, a dormitory housing 999 workers is no different from a dormitory housing more than a thousand workers.

MOM responded that FEDA imposes additional conditions on larger dormitories because of higher concentration risks there. MOM also said that smaller accommodation types are still required to comply with comprehensive guidelines.

COVID-19 has shown that we need to relook how we regulate risks in dormitories. More importantly, this is not just the issue of managing risk but of ensuring that every migrant worker helping to build our homes also has a decent home to return to at the end of the work day.

I hope that MOM will increase the coverage of FEDA.

Sir, additional processes have been put in place for employers of foreign workers seeking entry or re-entry into Singapore. After getting MOM approval for the workers, there is now an additional requirement for employers to apply for slots for their entry into Singapore on specific dates. It was explained that there is a need to stagger the entry of foreign workers to reduce the risk of imported COVID-19 cases. I believe employers understand the rationale, especially since Singapore has had a major headache dealing with outbreaks of COVID-19 in foreign worker dormitories.

The issue with the implementation is the uncertainty it creates for employers. Employers are advised by MOM to apply for workers to endorse a specific date, only to receive replies that the slots are full and to re-apply on a specific later date, with the cycle repeating itself. For employers working on construction projects, not knowing when approved workers can enter Singapore, renders them unable to plan when work can resume. Some are working on key infrastructural projects which promise enormous social benefits, such as new MRT lines. Other employers might be waiting for new domestic workers to assist in desperate family circumstances.

Can the Ministry clarify how many daily slots are available for entry of foreign workers into Singapore and how these are allocated?

Chairman, the workers in both the pest management and strata management sectors perform integral and important services. Our pest management workers safeguard public health by providing essential services, such as preventing the spread of dengue and rodent and pest infestations, while workers in the strata management sector perform the important and demanding task of managing estates and providing all with a conducive and safe environment for us to work and play.

Some work has been done to acknowledge the essential work done in these sectors. The pest management sector was subsumed under the Environmental Services Industry Transformation Map in the hopes of transforming and uplifting the sector to provide good and sustainable jobs to Singaporeans. In addition, the Facilities Management Skills Framework was launched in September of last year to provide the industry with information on the occupations, skills and competencies, and the possible career pathways available. The development of an FMC Accreditation is also underway which will encourage higher management competencies and skillsets for workers in this industry.

While this is encouraging, I would like to ask MOM what plans they have for these two sectors in the near future and to consider the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model so that more workers benefit from a clear career progression pathway, coupled with the relevant skills, improved productivity and commensurate wages.

Sir, the Progressive Wage Model for the lift and escalator sector was approved by the Government in 2018 after a tri-sector committee comprising of union representatives, the Government and lift companies made its recommendations.

Arising from this agreement to raise the wages of Singaporeans and PRs in the lift and escalator sector, a move that all Singaporeans should support, it is inevitable that some maintenance costs for lifts and escalators will rise.

The lift and escalator industry is one with relatively high barriers to entry and it is dominated by a handful of major players.

Some years ago, arising from a number of high profile accidents in the Town Council setting, many Town Councils moved to, as far as possible, tag the maintenance of their lifts to their original equipment manufacturers. This was also done in anticipation of a smoother rollout of HDB Lift Enhancement Initiatives.

Currently, Town Councils are in discussions with various lift companies that seek to increase the maintenance costs of lifts in HDB estates arising from the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model in the lift and escalator sector. In tandem, lift companies are also increasing the fixed schedule of rates for their lift parts. The latter move should not have any direct connection with the rollout of the Progressive Wage Model in this sector as the costs of spare parts generally rise in tandem with inflation, accounting for a reasonable 3% to 4% increase in costs for Town Councils.

In my discussion with lift companies as an elected Member of Parliament of Aljunied/Hougang Town Council, the starting position of some lift companies has been to throw in a steep increase in maintenance cost. One major lift company started with a more than 40% jump in lift maintenance fees, positing that costs would likely rise by 40% on account of the implementation of the Progressive Wage Model in this sector. When this company was questioned what percentage of this increase would go to workers, considering it maintained thousands of lifts across various Town Councils and should benefit from significant economies of scale to accommodate a mandated rise in wages through the PWM, company representatives demurred and argued that a rise in excess of 40% was just an opening position and that this amount was subject to negotiation.

Sir, I recognise that such discussions with lift companies are commercial arrangements. The argument from some, when a minimum wage like the Progressive Wage Model is applied, is that costs will rise and the burden will have to borne by consumers. But it would appear that some vendors could take advantage of the Progressive Wage Model to profiteer under the pretext of increased costs. In view of the design of the Progressive Wage Model, and the extended conversations that take place between union representatives, the Government and the companies, I would like to know how the tripartite partners ensure that the prospects of profiteering by unscrupulous vendors is kept in check under the guise of rising wages for workers. This is especially in sectors like the lift and escalator sector where a number of the major players dominate and have a large footprint in that sector.

Sir, I filed this cut before Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon delivered his speech last Wednesday, where he recommended the setup of a committee to guard against companies profiteering from the rollout of the Progressive Wage Model. To this end, what role do Government bodies like the BCA, for example, play to ensure that the interest of Singaporean HDB dwellers and other consumers are protected from unjustified hikes in the guise of adherence to the Progressive Wage Model, in this case, in the lift and escalator sector? Thank you.

The Progressive Wage Model currently covers three industry sectors – cleaning, security and landscaping. It will cover the lift and escalator maintenance sector by 2022, and there are now discussions to implement PWM in six more sectors. Based on MOM labour force data, apart from the aforementioned sectors, there are still more than 80,000 Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents aged 50 and over, working in other sectors earning a gross income of less than $1,000 a month. These include 27,300 in transportation and storage, 10,900 in public administration and education, 8,000 in manufacturing, 7,400 in health and social services, and, if we include those earning less than $1,500 per month, the numbers more than doubled.

Can the Minister share whether MOM has plans to roll out PWM in these sectors and, if so, what are the broad timelines for doing? The NTUC wants to look at a vocational PWM for lower wage occupations, like clerks, general machine operators and electricians. How does MOM plan to implement PWM for these vocations, given they cut across multiple sectors? What levers will MOM use to impose wage, training and career progression requirements in the absence of licencing conditions?

Finally, Deputy Prime Minister Heng said that the Government's aspiration is for every sector of the economy to have some form of progressive wages. Moving forward, how will the Government roll out the PWM differently so that it can be implemented at a quicker pace and made universal? For example, which processes and requirements will be streamlined or removed to ensure a faster rollout?

Sir, about 32,000 full-time workers in Singapore currently take home less than $1,300. We must do more to help our lower wage workers and I am glad we are.

We have been expanding the PWM to more sectors. I thank the Government for its latest move in expanding the PWM to the waste management sector. I also welcome the recent announcements that PWM will be rolled out to the food services, retail, strata management, pest management, and solar technology sectors. Workers within these sectors will welcome this news. But timing is also important for them. Can we roll out the implementation of PWMs within a shorter timeframe? With the expansion to these sectors, can MOM share whether all the 32,000 workers currently taking home less than $1,300 will be covered?

Thank you, Mr Chairman. February 2021 – 11 lives were lost at our workplaces in just 28 days. This is alarming, if we compare this to the 30 workplace fatalities for the whole of 2020. Sir, all these accidents could have and should have been prevented.

According to MOM’s data, smaller construction firms with less than 50 employees, have a higher fatality rate than larger firms. While main contractors have the resources to put in place comprehensive safety measures, these sub-contractors often do not.

Many sub-contractors face manpower shortage during this period. Burdened further by the necessary safe management measures, sub-contractors often engage their own sub-contractors. I am told that there can be up to four layers of sub-contractors at one major worksite. This can sometimes lead to a situation where the eventual worker performing a high-risk task may not be qualified or trained to do so.

Sir, Sub-contracting is not inherently dangerous, as companies may need to engage a specialist to perform a part of the project. But developers and main contractors cannot lose sight of the one eventually performing the work underneath these layers of sub-contracting. How many main contractors have been prosecuted for WSH lapses by their sub-contractors? We last reviewed the penalties under the WSH Act in 2017. Is it time for us to review the penalties again? We should also mandate developers to include a safety component in their tender specifications, budget and evaluation so that good safety measures will be a key consideration when awarding projects.

Often, parts of a major project are sub-contracted to freelancers and self-employed. I urge MOM to extend WICA coverage to them, particularly for high-risk sectors, such as marine and construction.

Sir, studies have shown that fatigue is directly correlated to workplace accidents. We must, therefore, ensure that our workers are well-rested so that they can concentrate on performing their work safely. I hope MOM can set clear guidelines on rest time for workers, especially at high-risk work sites.

Also, there are only so many worksite safety inspections that MOM can do. For WSH, workplace safety, to truly be pervasive, we need a dedicated WSH representative in every company. I have spoken numerous times on this and I urge MOM to implement it quickly. We can upskill the Safe Management Officers to perform this role once the pandemic is over. Let us ensure every worker returns home safely every day.

Mr Chairman, my next cut.

Since the issuance of the Tripartite Advisory on Mental Well-being at Workplaces, many have written to me to say that this is a step in the right direction towards de-stigmatising mental health issues. However, they also expressed hope that more could be done to encourage better adoption of the Tripartite Advisory.

I would like to ask how many companies have since fully adopted the recommendations listed in the Advisory? MOM conducts the Comprehensive Labour Force survey yearly to help shape national manpower polices. Can we include workplace mental health, in particular, the adoption of the Advisory's recommendations in these surveys to help track our efforts in building mental resilience among our workers?

To drive full adoption of the Tripartite Advisory, we need to start in a targeted manner. I propose we focus on the adoption of Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs). According to a study conducted by the National Council of Social Services, less than 5% of employers surveyed offered EAP to their staff. Among the small minority that do, it is common to hear that utilisation rate is low, due possibly to poor awareness.

EAP is important as it provides an avenue for the employee to seek support for any matters that affect their mental health. Companies that offer EAP report happier employees and an increase in productivity. I hope MOM can incentivise companies to provide EAP to their staff, by creating an early-EAP adoption incentive scheme to partially offset the “start-up” costs.

Sir, it is also important that we recognise exemplary companies and individuals who have gone above and beyond their call of duty to help achieve workplace mental well-being among their employees and colleagues. By showcasing the best-in-class and good role models, we can inspire others to follow in their lead.

I am, therefore, happy to announce that the tripartite partners have agreed to recognise exemplary companies and individuals this year with the Mental Well-being at Workplaces Awards, which will be presented at the annual Singapore WSH Awards Ceremony. I would like to thank both MOM and SNEF for their strong support. More details will be announced in due course.

Mr Chairman, workplace mental health issues are real and ever-present. The Labour Movement is committed to protect the mental well-being of all workers, because Every Worker Matters.

Sir, Work Injury Compensation coverage has represented a form of worker protection that long predates even Singapore's independence. It serves as a critical bulwark to protect workers against accidents, providing them important financial relief and some degree of protection in times of uncertainty and distress. Even so, the central role of platform workers or gig economy workers in the economy over the last few years has shown no signs of abating. In a time of heightened retrenchment and lower salary prospects, such work provides an important outlet for many Singaporeans workers.

In this light, concerns abound over the lack of important worker protections for this group of Singaporean workers. Independent contractors under a contract for service also find themselves in a similar predicament. I have come across Singaporeans undertaking delivery work, like couriers, for example, finding themselves without WICA coverage. In the event they injure themselves in the course of their work, while loading their vehicles for example, no prospect of Work Injury Compensation exists for them.

Does MOM have any indication of the number of such workers without WICA coverage, especially those in the low-income bracket? Separately, does MOM have any plan to address the worker protections for such Singaporean workers? This is in light of developments in other jurisdictions, like the UK, where the Supreme Court recently recognised platform workers as employees, lending weight to important questions over the appropriate statutory protections that should be extended to such workers in future.

Sir, the issue of workplace bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, is an important and sensitive one. We had promulgated the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment some years ago as well as rolled out outreach efforts and materials when the Protection from Harassment Act was introduced. Perhaps, it is time to review this advisory and strengthen its legal and regulatory weight.

This also comes at a time when we see more Singaporeans undergoing PCPs, work trials, SGUnited programmes and traineeships in companies and businesses. This is over and above the usual student interns and contract staff.

Can we further enhance the protection and safeguard of the current employees as well as these new categories of workers in the workplace who may be subjected to workplace bullying or harassment or, worse still, sexual harassment, and other physical and non-physical abuse, including being made to work overtime and excessive hours without rest.

Sir, in my Budget speech, I spoke about women in the workplace and how important it is that workplaces must offer women real, viable choices for their livelihoods, grant them protection in the making of these livelihood decisions and to allow them to fulfil their full potential, be it at home or in the workplace.

As a nation, we must stop thinking of workplaces as a one-size-fits-all for all workers. With the new norm of flexible work arrangements and working from home, the notion of what is a workplace has been given a new breath of life. A workplace can be in the office from 9 am to 6 pm or at home from 3 pm to 12 midnight. Indeed, a workplace can be anywhere and anytime so long as there is Wi-Fi and a virtual background.

As such, these are exciting times for our women workers who are planning to return to work after a long hiatus because the typical nine-to-six office setting arrangement has never and could never work for them.

At the Labour Movement, we ask that, together with the Government, we (a) encourage our employers to open their minds to a new progressive workplace and work arrangements, and, indeed, make these the norm and mainstay in the Singaporean workforce culture; (b) support companies through financial and advisory means the process of job redesign; and (c) advise our employers on the new HR best practices that support the outcomes of the job redesign and flexible work arrangement exercises. Areas that need to be looked into are work-life harmony arrangements, fair hiring practices and performance evaluation criteria. Comparisons, fair or otherwise, could be made between workers who work from home and workers who choose to work in the office.

Could I have the Ministry update us on what their plans are for these three points?

In my Budget speech, too, I spoken about how FDWs form a vital care-giving structure for working women and that FDW partners at home allow our working women peace of mind in the workplace.

Sir, it is with solemn gravity that I raise the plight of some FDWs in Singapore. I am sure we are not strangers to the case of 24-year-old Piang Ngaih Don (Pee-eng ngay dong). Ms Piang, an FDW from Myanmar, was repeatedly abused to the point of death. To call this a cruelty would have been an understatement, and not to address this cruelty would be an injustice. Imagine sending your daughter, wife or sister away to a foreign land in hopes of a better life, only to find out that she was treated this way. My heart broke.

As a whole, it is important to be consistent as a society. We cannot afford, on one hand, to celebrate the pivotal role FDWs play in the support eco-system and, on the other hand, remain lax on protecting the dignity and even lives of our FDWs.

I would like to seek updates from the Government on their plans to protect our FDWs and the efforts in community engagement to spread awareness on the roles of our FDWs in keeping our female workforce strong and resilient.

Mr Chairman, while eligible working parents of Singapore citizen children are entitled to six days of paid childcare leave a year, this only applies to children below the age of seven. Parents whose youngest child is between seven and 12 are only eligible for two days of extended childcare leave a year, while childcare leave is held constant, regardless of the number of children a couple has.

Given that there is a rising trend of dual-income families, I would like to ask if childcare leave can be extended on a per-child basis and up to the age of 12, as our Primary school-going children would see only a degree of care if they fell ill or simply to allow families to spend more time together.

With an increasingly ageing society, there is also the duty to take care of our parents. Many companies have started to offer eldercare leave as an employee value proposition and I would like to ask if this could be considered as a statutory form of leave.

The workplace has become more pro-family over the years, with more establishments offering various work-life initiatives, such as flexible work arrangements and non-statutory family-friendly paid leave. Flexible work arrangements are important, no doubt, but it is also equally important to give our workers the flexibility to take time off without taking no-pay leave if required to take care of their children or parents.

Mr Chairman, while it can be argued that increasing leave provisions could be difficult against the challenging economic climate today, the challenges of our low fertility rate and ageing population are no less critical. If we wish to uphold the ideal of family support and enable children to play their role as care-givers to elderly parents and for working parents to look after their young children while balancing other demands on their time, then the baseline level of parental care leave probably ought to be legislated to send the right signal to society on this matter.

The second cut. In 2019, about 85% of employers offered some form of formal or ad-hoc flexible work arrangement in the workplace. However, flexible work arrangements come in a spectrum and, clearly, the level of flexibility that was in place pre-COVID-19 is dramatically different from what you have seen in 2020 and today, with work from home being the default work arrangement.

Amongst many companies in Singapore, I note that UOB has already instituted a two-day work from home policy post-COVID-19 while DBS will give its workforce the option to work remotely up to 40% of the time.

Is it now time for the Government to reflect the needs of today's employees and employers and legislate a baseline level of flexible work arrangement?

Annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave and childcare leave are but amongst the various leave provisions currently legislated for under the Employment Act, although the right number is a separate topic for debate. It is not lawful for employers to give a notice of dismissal to a mother during her absence and neither is it conscionable for employers to discriminate against hiring women and mothers.

Now, legislation is no silver bullet, but it is an all-important first step. In the same vein, I do hope that the Government, businesses and society do not view flexible work arrangements as one which has unintended consequences of reduced employability and it is imperative for all of us and the Government to demonstrate leadership on this matter.

Sir, it has been more than nine years since we introduced parent-care leave in the Civil Service. We should legislate the same leave for all other workers.

We need to remember that this is especially important for essential workers who are unable to work from home. We also need to remember we have an ageing population and more and more of us will need time to look after our parents.

We are a family-friendly employer. Now we need to be a familyfriendly Government. We should introduce parent-care leave for all employees.

COVID-19 has shown that work from home is possible. Many employers I spoke to said that they are willing to allow employees to work from home if the Government legislates this. I am not asking for employees to be forced to work from home. I understand that it is not possible for some lines of work. Some employees may also not want to. Instead, I am asking for employees who can work at home to be allowed to work from home if they wish to.

We should also allow employers to reject such requests for business related reasons. Will MOM look into legislating the right to work from home?

Many employees feel they are paid lower than they deserve because their employer mandated them to disclose their salary history. Last year, I shared in this House that a ban on salary history disclosures has helped close the gender wage gap in California. Minister Josephine said that MOM would look at this study.

I am happy to share that new research further supports that earlier study. In June 2020, researchers at Boston University found that salary history bans in the US led to employers increasing wages for all workers, but especially for women and some racial minorities. I quote, “Salary histories appear to account for much of the persistence of residual wage gaps.”

Has the Ministry reviewed these studies and whether the declaration of last drawn salary contributes to the gender wage gap here in Singapore? Will MOM consider banning questions on salary histories?