Debated in Parliament on 17 Aug 2015.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Madam, the Employment Act is Singapore's main employment law. It provides for the basic terms and working conditions for employees, while balancing employers' need to stay competitive. It is complemented by the Industrial Relations Act. Together with our tripartite partners, we regularly review our laws to keep pace with the changing labour force profile and employment landscape. We last amended the Employment Act in 2013 to extend protection to more workers. We also amended the Industrial Relations Act in 2014 to better meet the needs of our professionals, managers and executives (PMEs).
The Bill that I am presenting today is another instance of how the tripartite partners have worked together to enhance labour standards. It proposes amendments to the Employment Act in two key areas. First, we will be requiring employers to provide itemised payslips and key employment terms in writing to their employees. Second, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will be setting up an administrative penalty framework to make less severe breaches of the Employment Act non-criminal. Let me elaborate.
The first set of amendments proposes to give itemised payslips and key employment terms in writing to employees covered under the Employment Act. On the one hand, providing such documents will allow employees to better understand their regular salary components, as well as employment terms and benefits. On the other hand, this will help the employers to prevent misunderstandings and minimise disputes with their employees. Overall, this is better for employers and employees. We plan to make the new requirements for itemised payslips and key employment terms effective from 1 April 2016.
Madam, in coming up with these requirements, MOM actively consulted and took feedback from our tripartite partners. In particular, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) gave us practical feedback about the difficulties faced by small businesses in implementing these changes. We have, therefore, made adjustments to include flexibility for employers, but without compromising protection for workers. So, for example, employers will have flexibility to issue the payslips and key employment terms in either soft or hard copy, including handwritten copies.
For payslips, even if workers are paid weekly or fortnightly, employers will be allowed to consolidate payments into one monthly payslip. For key employment terms, common terms can be provided in the company's employee handbook or website, so long as the
Page: 73
information is easily accessible to workers. In addition, key employment terms apply only to employees who work for at least 14 days continuously. This means that employers need not give key employment terms to casual workers who work only for a few days now and then.
These new requirements were made known publicly since 2014. We had deliberately given a two-year window till 2016 for employers to prepare for these changes. In the interim, we released a new set of Tripartite Guidelines on itemised payslips and key employment terms to help employers understand and implement the requirements.
We are also aware that small businesses need extra help. For example, some do not have the practice of issuing payslips and/or key employment terms. Or if they do, they may not include all the items required.
MOM has, therefore, been working with IDA and SPRING, as well as the tripartite partners, to help give smaller employers the tools to meet these new requirements. Over the past two years, we have provided an assistance package. This includes blank payslips that can be filled in by hand, free software, one-to-one hands-on assistance for SMEs, and funding support. We have received positive feedback from users on the assistance package.
Over the next few months, my Ministry will also be issuing more detailed guidelines, with sample payslips and key employment terms, to better help employers understand how to comply with these requirements. We will continue to work with our tripartite partners, industry and grassroots associations to conduct briefings and workshops to communicate these changes.
In view of the feedback from small businesses, we will give a one-year grace period in our enforcement. This means that from April 2016 to end-March 2017, MOM will take a light touch enforcement approach. Our focus will be on educating smaller employers on how to comply with the key employment terms and payslip requirements, rather than on punishing those who do not comply.
Madam, let me now move to the proposed administrative penalty framework, which will also come into effect from April 2016.
Today, all Employment Act breaches are considered criminal offences. These range from the failure to maintain employment records, which is mostly administrative, all the way to the more serious offences like non-payment of salaries which directly harm our workers. This is not proportionate.
Page: 74
The proposed framework will allow MOM to treat less severe breaches as non-criminal infringements which attract an administrative penalty instead. For a start, four breaches will be covered under this administrative penalty framework.
First, failure to issue itemised payslips. Second, failure to issue key employment terms in writing. Third, failure to maintain detailed employment records. And lastly, provision of inaccurate information to the Commissioner for Labour or inspecting officers without the intent to defraud and mislead.
What this means is that employers who do not issue payslips or key employment terms may face a financial penalty, but there will be no criminal record. This process is more appropriate for these types of administrative breaches and prevents companies from being penalised too heavily, especially SMEs.
To do this, "authorised officers" with legal and investigative experience will be appointed. For a start, the administrative penalties they can impose will range from $100 to $200 per employee or occurrence, depending on the type of breach. The officers can also direct employers to rectify the breaches. Non-compliance with these directions will then become a criminal offence.
Madam, we are also taking the opportunity to make other operational amendments to the Employment Act.
For example, MOM's practice is to return to the owner evidence that is no longer needed for investigations. However, this is not possible sometimes because we cannot locate the owner; or the evidence is an illegal item, such as a forged document. We are amending the law to allow MOM to report such evidence to the Courts so that it can be disposed of properly.
The law also currently allows inspecting officers to take photos or video recordings if needed during investigations. We will amend the law to explicitly say that they can also take audio recordings. This is in line with the powers our enforcement officers have under other laws, such as the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
We will also make other technical amendments to clarify our long-standing policy intent and existing practice with respect to public holidays and all family-related leave during no-pay leave. Employers are required to pay their employees holiday rates of pay or give them a day off if they have to work on public holidays. We will make it clear that this includes all non-scheduled public holidays declared by the Government, such as the SG50 Public Holiday
Page: 75
and polling days.
In addition, we will also make it clear that employers are not required to provide paid family-related leave to employees who are granted voluntary no-pay leave. This has been the practice in order to encourage employers to grant no-pay leave to employees to cater to their family or personal needs. The Child Development Co-Savings Act will also be clarified accordingly.
We propose that these amendments take effect as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill, as these are technical clarifications and nothing has changed for employers or employees.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the public, the national and sectoral tripartite partners for their views and feedback that have made this review of the Employment Act more meaningful and robust. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC), Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), Singapore Business Federation (SBF) and ASME.
The proposed amendments will raise employment standards and facilitate dispute resolution at the workplace. They will also provide employers the flexibility to manage these changes in a practical manner. Taken as a whole, they will strengthen our efforts to institute good employment norms and develop progressive workplaces for our people. Madam, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Zainudin Nordin.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the amendments to the Employment Act which I believe will be warmly welcomed by our workers.
The introduction of the compulsory itemised payslip and the key employment terms are good amendments. I have seen over the years of cases where workers do not even have proper contracts of employment, let alone know the terms under which they are employed. In these circumstances, when there is a dispute, the employers would not hesitate to read the terms to their own interpretation and advantage. The result: the workers are at the short end of the stick. They are left at the mercy and whims and fancy of unscrupulous employers,
Page: 76
and worse if they are not unionised.
In this current day and age, I think it is simply unacceptable and poor excuse if SMEs claim that they are unable to provide a simple payslip itemising the breakdown of how they derive at the wages for the employees. Nevertheless, it is, indeed, good to see that there is a grace period for implementation so that there can be no further excuses. We should just help the SMEs which are genuinely unable to give such breakdowns and move forward. We must do more to protect all our workers in the Employment Act, more so, the vulnerable low-wage workers who are likely to be ill-informed and ignorant of their rights under existing laws.
Madam, while we are debating the amendments to the Employment Act, allow me to touch on the long-term challenges of our workforce. I believe we can do more in the future to amend the Employment Act, one of which is how we can narrow the income divide and help our lower-end wage earners. I believe this can only be done through innovative and inclusive policies. We have taken the steps forward with WIS and WTS which are good policies. What we need to do is to build on them and make further refinements.
In the long run, we must not forget that our Singapore workers are at the core of every company in every industry. As we progress and develop further our economy, Singaporean workers must be the ones to benefit and enjoy the fruits of their labour for their contributions and their perseverance in our economy. Hard work and continuous upgrading must be appropriately recognised and rewarded, with opportunities and accessibility to upward mobility and a good pay to match skills. Our PAP Government came into power championing the cause of the poor and the workers in the early days, and I am happy to see that we have not deviated from these efforts over the years.
Madam, employment and employability of Singaporean workers are very closely intertwined. Efforts to create jobs must be in tandem with the efforts to make Singaporean workers more relevant, more skilful to contribute to the growth of the industry.
The SkillsFuture strategy is, without doubt, the most important policy and strategy to transform the Singapore workforce. It is crucial to strike a balance in creating good paying jobs with the supply of able and skilled Singaporean workers to take up those jobs. This must be done in a harmonious tripartite working relationship between the employers, workers and the Government. That we have adhered to this platform, to me, has put our country in an advantageous position to exploit our harmonious tripartism.
Mdm Speaker, the society and industry must, over time, through education, awareness building, industrial norms and practices, recognise the value of deep skills and in-depth
Page: 77
knowledge in every sector and industry. Workers with deep skills and expertise but who may not have formal or traditional paper qualifications must be properly recognised and remunerated. This change in mind set is what I believe will be the game changer of things to come for our workforce and workers. The efforts to promote skills upgrading and lifelong learning must have long-term impact on workers and our societal mindset in general.
Mdm Speaker, Singaporean workers look forward to the positive and upward outcomes in terms of their remuneration and the recognition of their hard work. As for our industry and the economy, it is imperative that we continue to produce skilled and abled employees to remain competitive and productive. More importantly, we must remain relevant to the world economy.
The change in our population demographics over the years must also be taken into account in looking at the overall picture of our Employment Act. Our workers are now more educated, healthier and live longer lives. We must look at how we can help these workers to stay longer in the workforce, so that they are not left out in our economic development. Our re-employment policies for seniors are commendable and we have moved the retirement age from 62 to 65. But look at the demographics again. And I think it is timely for us to move this age further, to maybe 67 or 68 before the seniors can decide to retire. The option will, of course, be for the workers to choose for themselves.
Maybe I can cite a few frivolous examples. Look at Mike Jagger, Paul McCartney, Tom Jones, Engelbert Humperdinck. They are all in their 70s. We still love them, and they are still rocking and rolling on stage.
The fact is that we have received feedback from able-bodied and capable senior workers who would like to continue to work. They are worried that they would just simply lose their jobs upon reaching the age of 65. They are still alert and full of energy. These are real concerns of Singaporean workers. We should look longer into our Employment Act amendments and see how we can further take into consideration some of this feedback and take care of our workers. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments in the Bill.
Mrs Lina Chiam.
Mdm Speaker, over the years, we have encountered and read about workers being abused by bosses and employers, especially in the areas of salary arrears, unauthorised salary deductions and handling extra tasks which
Page: 78
are not under the terms of their contract.
However, because of their status as salaried employees, they are unable to speak out against their errant bosses. Some do not wish to speak out because they are afraid of losing their jobs or their bosses might give them bad references for future potential employers should they find a new job.
Mdm Speaker, I am supportive of the purpose of this Bill which seeks to inject some provisions to protect Singaporean workers against common abuses brought about by their errant bosses. However, there are shortcomings that may affect the effectiveness of the proposed amendments to this Bill I and would like to propose the following.
Key employment terms. Under section 95A(2), an employer must give each employee a written record of the key employment terms of the employee not later than 14 days after the day that the employee starts employment with the employer. One potential issue relates to the 14-day timeframe. If an employee gets to see the key employment terms only after Day 13, after he has started his employment and finds it very unfavourable, he is being forced to accept such unfavourable conditions stipulated in the contract or to quit without a job.
Many employees holding on to current existing jobs would definitely prefer to read through the terms and conditions of their next job before they tender their resignation. What happens if they tender their resignation, only to be coerced to sign an unfavourable contract on Day 10 of their new workplace? Their former employers may have found another replacement and the worker may not be able to get their old job back. They will then be forced to accept whatever terms and conditions offered to them.
For example, if one were to view the terms and conditions only on Day 10 and found out that the job has a heavy monetary bond tied to it or has to work on weekends, should the job seeker just quit without a job or just bite the dust? Therefore, I would ask that this Bill remove the 14 days from section 95A and replace it with at least a two-week prior notice to allow workers to browse through their key employment terms.
The reason why a two-week prior notice is needed is that most employers require a two-week notice from their resigning employee so that there is some time to find a replacement for their new hire. In other cases, some employers even require a month's prior notification for tendering their resignation. This is a reasonable standpoint which is justifiable for both employee and employer.
Next, employers' obligation in relation to payslips. While this new section 96 is one step forward towards accountability, it may not be sufficient enough to stamp out abuses. Some
Page: 79
employers use cashback "under-the-table" money to solicit money from their employees. A typical crafty boss would give out written itemised monthly payslips, but to punish employees for any mistake made in the line of work, the boss could, on the pretext, ask the employee to "donate" X number of dollars' fine to charity. At the end of the month, the employee would be coerced to donate quite a sum of money in cash for mistakes he has made. It is hard to report the boss' wrongdoings because of lack of evidence. MOM relies on written proof or some video recording on how these "donations" constitute unauthorised salary deduction to weed out these errant bosses.
Some professional, managers, executives and techniques (PMETs) quit without a job because of employers' abusive leadership and a toxic working environment. They are jobless not because their profession is a sunset industry but because they encountered errant employers.
I would propose that rather than give "wage subsidies" or ask them to go for retraining at e2i, MOM needs to take a proactive approach to intervene whenever PMETs go to them for help about work-related issues or unreasonable behaviour from their bosses before they are "forced" to quit without a job. Bad bosses should be shamed on Jobs Bank.
When salaried workers encounter errant abusive bosses, MOM could only mediate salary disputes because they are figures which are objective. MOM could do more to go beyond the Employment Act to be more assertive in weeding out bad bosses to build that bridge between employees and employers.
There are times when the allegations are borne from personal vendettas. But there are also genuine cases. How to determine?
Perhaps, we could follow the example of the Police. If a complaint lodged by that person turns out to be untrue or he or she wilfully tries to lodge a false report, the complainant can be charged for lying. This would deter complainants from lodging false reports with MOM, and MOM officers can have the powers to arrest and charge people for wilful lying or false declaration.
I would also propose that MOM should have a "witness" protection scheme which allows complainants to seek temporary job employment in the Civil Service should they lose their jobs due to these abusive bosses. An example would be the case that happened in May 2013. An employer, Lee Yew Nam, had caused public outrage last May after he was shown allegedly slapping his worker in an online video in his office. It was only after another colleague uploaded this video that MOM took notice. Upon investigation by reporters, it was
Page: 80
also revealed that former interns had abusive encounters with the same boss.
This incident should not have happened if other bystanders had just lodged a report to MOM. But many of the former interns replied that they were afraid of losing their jobs, so they kept quiet. This incident highlights why it is important to have a security net for whistle-blowers to come forward without fear of losing their jobs.
Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.
Mdm Speaker, to keep up with the advances in our economy, the minimum standards laid out in our employment laws have to be continually updated. The rapid growth of our small city state over the last few decades has enhanced the breadth and depth of our economy, and this has, in turn, led to heavier demands on our workforce.
The workforce will be subjected to a sharp rise in demand for a wider range of specialised skills and qualifications. As a consequence, we need a more comprehensive set of laws and regulations to keep pace with and support the sophistication of the labour market. The absence of appropriate laws and regulations will affect our capacity to effectively manage the way in which the different types of manpower work together in our economy in the long run.
The key proposals in clauses 9 and 10 of this Bill set out the obligations for employers to ensure that each employee is provided with proper written or electronic records of individual employment terms as well as salary payments and deductions. These are non-trivial aspects of the employer-employee relationship and have given rise to the majority of disputed claims reported. According to MOM's statistics, the number of claims registered with the Individual Disputes Section shows that claims for arrears of wages rose 38% between 2011 and 2014, outstripping the growth in employment. As a proportion of all registered claims, such arrears accounted for the bulk, ranging from 43% to 60% in the period 2004 to 2014. Apart from arrears of wages, there are several other areas of claims related to payment of wages and allowances. The total number of such claims rose from 9,472 in 2004 to reach a peak of 15,837 in 2009, before moderating to 13,323 in 2014. These are extremely large numbers. Such incidents are not only a drain on resources; they also stoke conflict in the employer-employee relationship.
As much as we would like to approach regulations with a soft touch, a lack of basic regulations to keep up with our advanced economy will lead to gaps which could cost us our
Page: 81
competitiveness.
Mdm Speaker, the existing law has some obvious gaps. While sections 95 and 96 of the Employment Act require employers to make records of pay accessible to workmen, they do not impose the same requirement on employers of non-workmen. Further, employers are also not required to provide written records of key employment terms to their employees. Most notably, although the existing sections 95 and 96 require that records of employment terms and salary payments and deductions be kept, the criteria for determining the failure of compliance are not made clear in each of these sections. With the current amendment Bill, the proposed amendments plug these gaps by setting clear standards for compliance to be stipulated in the new subsections 95(3), 95A(5) and 96(4).
Although such requirements may increase the costs to employers, the gains to everyone, including the employers themselves, far outweigh the costs. Without such requirements to support the rapid advances in our economy, we could see some of those advances cut back by persistently uneven standards in the application of employment norms. Ultimately, this will increase the costs to Singapore as a whole because errant employers with poor hiring practices may gain temporary advantage over those who adhere to more stringent practices. Low-wage workers, including low-wage foreign workers, are more exposed to such poor employment practices. In that sense, I see this Bill as part of the move towards pricing in more fully the participation of all workers in our economy.
Mdm Speaker, one important aspect of an advanced economy is information management. Both employers and employees suffer when outdated standards of information management are allowed. Business organisations which do not maintain up-to-date systems for managing their employees will be held back in the long run after jeopardising the competition, not least of all, in the productivity stakes. For employees, not knowing their employment terms or salary information not only undermines their relationship with their organisation, the lack of payslips poses an inconvenience to those who may sometimes be asked to show proof of wage payments in order to ascertain eligibility for various schemes.
In that sense, the present amendment is more than just about safeguarding the rights of individual workers. It goes beyond that, and brings employers up-to- date with basic human resource management standards.
I believe strongly in the need to preserve flexibility in our labour market. I have observed with satisfaction that past amendments to the Employment Act have always been careful to preserve that flexibility even while ensuring that the needs of the changing labour force profile continue to be met. In 2008, for instance, amendments addressed the increasing proportion of PMETs, the higher proportion employed in the services sector, as
Page: 82
well as the increase in contract workers. Contrary to those changes, however, I believe that the issue here today is not about flexibility.
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I would like to emphasise that the changes proposed by this amendment Bill are overdue. Ensuring transparency in the employer-employee relationship is key to building trust and understanding. The provision of proper notification of employment terms and salary payments is the type of function that information technology has been available for implementing for some time now.
Failure to provide such basic information leads to unnecessary distrust and is an anachronism for an advanced economy like ours. A 21st century economy cannot tolerate outmoded practices. When employers who do not properly account for their payments to workers, they could also likely be disadvantaging themselves through a lack of proper tracking of their own manpower expenses; by continuing to rely on unsophisticated rules of thumb to operate their businesses, they constrain their own room for growth.
A properly-organised system of payment notification for services rendered by manpower is a minimum standard. Anything less will hold us back. It could even impact productivity performance. After all, regardless of the reason an employer does not issue payslips, thriving on the ignorance of employees does not say much about the prospects for the business.
Given the benefits, I therefore hope that MOM will move on to the next step and roll out schemes to assist small businesses in setting up and maintaining their payment systems. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Thomas Chua.
In Mandarin, Madam.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Employment (Amendment) Bill seeks to make it mandatory that from next year onwards, local companies should issue itemised payslips to their employees and that during the process of recruitment, they should also clearly state the employee's job scope, working hours, salary, bonus, annual leave and benefits. These are all positive moves to help enterprises streamline their human resource management practices. Thus, I support MOM in amending the Employment Bill.
Page: 83
Generally, these are practices already adopted by larger local companies, and implementation should not be a problem for them. I would like to inform the Minister that the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) has already done a lot in helping to promote this practice. Last year, when MOM announced this plan, our Chamber immediately joined hands with SIMTech to develop a simple e-payslip software for SMEs to download free of charge. In order to encourage even more enterprises to use the e-payslip, the Chamber specially conducted 12 workshops, some of which were jointly conducted with trade association members. At the same time, SME Centre@SCCCI also proactively promoted the e-payslip to small businesses; to date it has concluded 100 advisory cases.
During the outreach period, we realised that some small business owners were not really adept in using computers or felt that it was troublesome to print from computers. Now, MOM has designed a simple paper payslip template for easy input of figures. However, the current template is only available in English and we suggest that MOM could provide the payslip in different languages to cater to the needs of small businesses.
MOM's request for small businesses to clearly state the employee's job scope is relatively harder to implement. Small businesses are strapped for manpower and it is not possible to delineate the job scope in such detail. Teamwork is even more important within small companies, where everyone works together to complete the task at hand. Moreover, as we keep stressing on raising productivity, work arrangements should be more flexible, with employees taking on more work. If the business does well, salaries can be adjusted accordingly.
When I first joined Teckwah, the company only had around 20 staff. Every time there was a major event, colleagues would help one another willingly. My mother would cook delicious food at home and bring it to the office to share amongst the staff. It was like a happy family. Later, as the company expanded, the staff numbers also increased, with different departments like Administration and Human Resource being set up. The division of labour among departments became more apparent. Whenever there were major activities, we could only rely on catered food. However, colleagues still remembered fondly the food cooked by my mother. This is the eco-system of a small company.
Delineating clear job scopes is procedurally correct. However, it may not be that applicable to small businesses. I totally understand the rationale of MOM, as it hoped to roll out the itemised payslip to protect the interests of employees. During this process, however, we need to consider the nature of small businesses. While we may rear fish, not every type of fish is suitable for the aquarium. Some bosses are worried that once they make the employee's job scope very clear, it could be even more troublesome. For instance, the boss may suddenly need the employee to help out in other areas or cover work handled by colleagues who have taken leave. Some colleagues may be reluctant to do so if it was not
Page: 84
specified within the job scope. This, too, is my concern. Hence, I would urge local enterprises to strengthen the rapport among management and workers, increase bonding and practise teamwork at the workplace.
I would like to ask the Minister, after the amendment, should our start-up companies also state clearly their job scope?
Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mdm Speaker, I am heartened to know that the Labour Movement's calls to mandate the issuance of itemised payslips and key employment terms (KETs) for our workers have now borne fruit. Mandating the issuance of itemised payslips and KET will go a long way in helping workers realise better workplace conditions and standards.
Many of our low-wage workers in sectors like cleaning, retail and even those working in SMEs do not seem to know how critically important payslips and KETs can be for their protection. These workers are often those who have very minimal education and, therefore, have no awareness that they should request for these items from their employers. The likelihood of these workers being shortchanged by their employers is very high and they continue to be at the losing end.
Without itemised payslips and KETs, it makes it very challenging for unions and advocacy arms like NTUC U Care Centre to gather information when workers come to us to seek redress on workplace grievance on issues like salary disputes or job expectations.
On the part of NTUC U Care Centre, while we are educating and raising awareness among our low-wage workers to look out for these items, we are strongly in support of the law that makes this mandatory for all employers. The low-wage workers deserve the added protection conferred upon them through this amendment.
Reading the amendment, I understand that employers are provided with the flexibility of providing a hard or soft copy in the issuance of payslips or KETs. I would like to suggest that for workers earning below $1,900, employers must be required to issue a hard copy for their workers' payslips and KETs. For several low-income workers, they may not be in the practice of relying on electronic communications and records. This may hinder the effectiveness of the amendment in protecting workers when they do not even know how to access their payslips or KETs. Hence, hard copy payslips and KETs are much easier for them
Page: 85
to manage and account for.
In addition, I would also like to call for MOM to shorten the grace period provided for employers to adjust to the new requirements from 12 months to six months. All responsible employers should already have a system of accounting for wages and the issuance of payslips should not pose great strain on their resources and operations.
Furthermore, the Ministry has clearly stated that there is an abundance of help available to get employers started on this practice. The Tripartite Partners are coming together to help employers with the tools to issue payslips and KETs in writing. With all these in place, all employers should be able to get on board within a six-month grace period. After all, MOM announced its intention to make payslips and KETs mandatory in 2014 and there has been sufficient lead time for them to take actions.
Mdm Speaker, I would also like to ask how MOM intends to educate both employers and employees with regard to the amendment in this Bill. Given the grace period, we have to ensure that we capitalise on this to ensure that the amendment gets out to as many employers and employees as possible. This includes how employers can obtain support to adjust to the amendment and also how employees stand to benefit from raised awareness of workplace rights. This amendment is a step forward in protecting the rights of workers, and everybody needs to know how it affects them to fully realise the benefits accorded by the amendment. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to address in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support this amendment in the Bill because it will provide better protection for workers, especially the low-wage workers. I would also like to propose that employers are mandated to provide printed payslips and terms of employment to low-wage workers because many of them are not so IT-savvy. I would also like to see the time period that is given to employers to make the necessary adjustments be reduced from 12 months to just six months. As the announcement for these measures was made in 2014, employers have been given plenty of time to take the necessary steps.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, please allow me to conclude in English. Mdm Speaker, the amendment in this Bill shows that tripartism is working. The Government continues to provide a listening ear to the problems faced by workers, especially those earning low incomes. Employers also appreciate the needs of workers. As a union, we believe all good things for workers must be felt sooner rather than later. Mdm Speaker, I support the amendment in this Bill.
Page: 86
Mr Patrick Tay.
Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Employment Amendment Bill. The first phase of changes to the Employment Act took place last year with the expansion of the scope to PMEs within its ambit. I am glad that this second phase of change is taking place promptly a year later.
There are three key amendments this round which will positively impact workers in Singapore. I particularly welcome the move to mandate employers to provide itemised payslips to all their employees together with their salary payments. Secondly, MOM will also require employers to provide written KET to all employees with continuous employment of at least 14 days with the company. Thirdly, employers will be required to keep complete and accurate employee records for a prescribed period of time.
As a union leader, I have encountered many workers at all levels of the hierarchy who enter into disputes with their employers often because they are shortchanged or compromised in the course of work or when terminated or retrenched. This can happen intentionally or sometimes through innocent mistakes by the employers or due to sheer ignorance of their right and the best practices. This is particularly prevalent in cases of temporary or contract employment and often involves lower-wage industries.
Mandating these three requirements will pave the way towards a fairer workplace and employment relationship for the workers of Singapore. With a clear itemised payslip, written employment contract with key provisions and well-kept employee records, it will help minimise acrimonious disputes, long legal tussles, miscommunication, stress, time and cost. This is a great boon to all workers as they can more easily overcome the need to carry out discovery, resolve and gather the evidence and facts in the course of a disagreement or dispute. It will also help build strong labour-management ties and ensure harmonious industrial relations as well as the employee relations landscape in Singapore.
Although the provisions augeur well for workers of Singapore at all levels, including PMEs, I have two areas which I urge MOM to pay particular attention to. They are the two "E"s of education and enforcement.
With the majority of Singaporean companies being SMEs, it is imperative for MOM to ensure good outreach and publicity to ensure this set of amendments and mandatory requirements are cascaded to all employers, be they big or small companies. Employees and workers also need to know their rights. This will not be an easy task and will require MOM
Page: 87
to work closely with our tripartite partners to ensure that all employers are well equipped and supported to institutionalise the systems and HR practices to comply. Furthermore, employees also need to know their new entitlements and rights. Besides those initiatives shared by the Minister, I would like to urge MOM to work out handy guides in a variety of languages, set up a hotline, operate one-stop service centres and undertake various channels of outreach to ensure that all employers as well as employees and workers are correctly educated.
Rules and laws are only as effective as when they translate to compliance and best practices on the ground. I will not be surprised that some employers will just pay lip service or do the minimum to window-dress. Such rogue employers should be taken to task and recalcitrant ones dealt with severely with penal sanctions. The enforcement capability of MOM has to be augmented and enhanced in this respect to ensure strict compliance of this new set of laws.
I wish to ask the Minister whether there are specific sectors or industries, type of companies or businesses and any particular category of workers which MOM will target at for a start in relation to the compliance of this new set of mandatory requirements. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The amendment to the Employment Act will enable the workers to have the legal basis to fight for their rights and to have better protection and fairer treatment. But the key is not having a piece of law, but enforcement and education. I urge MOM to "treat the symptom with the right medicine" and pay particular attention to the companies that have low-wage workers when implementing the law. I also urge MOM to promote this new regulation more actively so that the workers, especially the low-wage workers, can know that they will have these new rights.
(In English): In conclusion, I welcome this set of amendments for the better protection of workers of Singapore, including PMEs. It will also further enhance our local employment laws, ensure its currency and relevance and inculcate an environment and system of fairer treatment of workers. However, all this can only be achieved with proper education of employers and employees, and effective enforcement. With this, I support the Bill.
Minister Lim Swee Say.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mrs Lina Chiam, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, Mr Thomas Chua, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Patrick Tay for
Page: 88
their support for the proposed changes to the Employment Act. Mdm Speaker, I will now address the issues raised by the Members.
I agree with Assoc Prof Randolph Tan that this amendment will help to build trust in the employer-employee relationship. I also agree with Mr Patrick Tay that this will make our workplace fairer. As many Members have pointed out, these amendments will benefit all employees covered under the Employment Act, especially the vulnerable groups, who may not fully know their employment rights. It will also help employers prevent misunderstandings and minimise disputes at the workplace.
Mr Patrick Tay urged MOM to pay close attention to education for these changes to ensure that all employers, big and small, are able to implement them properly. Mr Thomas Chua also shared SCCCI's efforts to develop the free e-payslip software and reach out to SMEs, which I really truly appreciate.
Indeed, publicity and outreach have been and will continue to be important in rolling out these changes. So, over the past two years, MOM, together with our partners in the unions and business sector, has been working hard to provide the tools to help employers comply. As I mentioned earlier, some examples include blank payslips that can be filled in by hand. To Mr Thomas Chua's comment, yes, the blank sample payslips are already downloadable from the MOM website in all four languages. As for hard copies, the Chinese, Malay and Tamil versions will be made available shortly. We also provide one-to-one hands-on assistance for SMEs and provide funding support as well. Feedback thus far has been positive and we will continue to make these tools available to employers and conduct the necessary briefings to communicate these changes, especially for SMEs.
I agree with Mr Zainal Sapari that employers should provide payslips and KETs in a way that their employees can easily access and understand. Besides the languages, Mr Thomas Chua also spoke about how some smaller SMEs found it difficult to use IT solutions for payslips. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan also asked for greater assistance for SMEs which are in need. We have, therefore, allowed the flexibility for employers to decide on the form that best meets the needs of their business and employees, including providing hard copies to their lower-wage workers who may not have easy access to computers or smart-phones, as suggested by Mr Zainal Sapari. Employers who need help in doing so can tap on our assistance package, including the ready-made blank sample forms, if they do not have the IT systems to provide payslips and KETs.
Mr Zainal Sapari asked if we could shorten the length of the grace period for employers from one year to six months. However, for smaller SMEs, on the other hand, these changes would impact them the most and they have, in fact, shared their concerns and feedback through associations, such as SCCCI, ASME and the Federation of Merchants' Association
Page: 89
Singapore. Mr Thomas Chua had also highlighted some of the implementation issues faced by SMEs. That is why we have decided to provide a one-year grace period for employers, especially the SMEs, to adjust to the new requirements. The unions say one year is too long; employers say one year is too short. So, I think one year is about right.
The one-year grace period will give SMEs more time to put in place or adjust their processes and systems to implement the required changes. During this period, MOM will also take a light-touch enforcement approach, aimed at educating and helping employers comply with the higher standards rather than to punish them.
I also appreciate Mr Patrick Tay's remarks on enforcement. I would like to assure him that even as we adopt a light-touch enforcement approach, we will take a serious view of employers who repeatedly ignore MOM's advice, and deal with them accordingly. We will also continue to monitor the implementation closely over the next year and calibrate our education efforts to help small employers level up in their practices.
Mr Thomas Chua shared that some SMEs may find it difficult to provide a detailed job scope for their employees in their KET because the division of labour in smaller firms might not always be so clear. Mr Chua is right that we need to balance clarity for employees with flexibility for businesses. We will, therefore, allow employers to set out the broad job scope in KET at the start of employment to develop some common understanding of what the job entails. If there are changes down the road, we expect the employer to communicate them clearly to the employee and come to a mutual agreement. If the changes are very significant, it is good practice to issue a new KET.
Madam, to sum up, the Bill is about raising employment standards while allowing employers to adjust to the changes in a practical manner. This will set better employment norms and develop more progressive workplaces for our people.
Mr Zainal Sapari pointed out that communication and education are not only important for the employers but for the employees as well.
Mr Zainudin Nordin also highlighted the need for us to continue to refine and improve to keep the Employment Act up-to-date to ensure that the harmonious tripartism that we enjoy today will continue for a long time to come.
Mr Zainudin and Mr Zainal have also expressed their great concern for the low-wage workers. Mrs Lina Chiam has also touched on the need for greater protection for PMEs. My Ministry agrees with all these in the sense that as we move forward, as we quicken the pace of restructuring, it is important that as we try to support businesses more in their
Page: 90
restructuring, along the way, we must also make sure that our workers from PMEs to low-wage workers and part-timers and so on are treated fairly in the process.
So, moving ahead, MOM and our Tripartite Partners will continue to work together. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether there are any particular sector or type of companies that will be our immediate priority. My answer is: all sectors, all companies. I believe that by working together with our tripartite partners, we will be and we should be able to roll out this implementation as smoothly as possible.
Madam, once again, I thank our national and sectoral tripartite partners and Members of the House for their inputs and support for this Bill.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lim Swee Say.]*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 91
PAPERCUTS