Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this timely Bill. As of June 2014, there were about 770,000 non-domestic Work Permit holders in Singapore. About half of those workers are non-Malaysian construction, marine and process workers who require housing in Singapore.

Presently, such foreign worker housing, whether small or large, are subjected to rigorous regulatory standards. Such regulations include the safe upkeep and maintenance of sanitary and hygiene conditions.

However, in recent months, there have been several unsettling reports that have called our attention to the poor living standards and conditions that some foreign workers are subjected to. For example, in November last year, a spot check conducted by the Migrant Workers' Centre found about 50 construction workers from Bangladesh and India being housed in two-bedroom condominium apartments along Selegie Road. Possibly the most troubling was a photograph that was published in August, which exposed the deplorable living conditions and bathing facilities that some foreign workers were subjected to when they were housed on-site at a construction site in Punggol.

Page: 47

I support this Bill, Mdm Speaker, but I would like to ask three pertinent questions. The first is: would the Minister clarify why the proposed licensing regime only seeks to target larger dormitories with 1,000 beds and over, when a large proportion of foreign workers in Singapore reside in dormitories which have less than 1,000 beds? While these smaller dormitories will continue to be caught under existing regulations, what was the reason for not including them under the new framework as well?

Also, could the Minister outline how the Ministry will keep a close eye on dormitory operators to prevent them from deliberately keeping numbers below the 1,000-bed threshold to escape the licensing requirements proposed under this Bill?

Therefore, in setting out a new regulatory and licensing regime, we must be careful not to inadvertently incentivise dormitory operators to circumvent these important requirements by deliberately operating dormitories with less than 1,000 beds.

While the majority of foreign workers have expressed their satisfaction with respect to working conditions in Singapore, many of them leave their families behind in search of a brighter future. Therefore, we should respect the dignity of these foreign workers by providing them with safe and humane living conditions. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be a move to extend the regulations contained in this Bill to dormitories which have less than 1,000 beds. Nonetheless, Madam, I support this timely Bill.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Pertaining to the threshold set at 1,000-bed spaces, I can understand the practicality of this from the Minister's explanation. However, my concern is that the smaller dormitories – 600-, 800-, 999-bed spaces – are we going to subject them to some kind of regulation? Sure, there are current guidelines that are present and in practice, but we all know that there are some improvements that still need to be done. I echo hon Member Christopher de Souza's call to update us as to whether there will be plans, going forward, for these smaller dormitories as well.

Next, Madam, whatever the size of the dormitory, all of them play an important part and role in housing our foreign workers. They contribute to the brand name and reputation of Singapore when it comes to our handling of foreign workers. Therefore, I feel very strongly about this, that we should really review this on a more practical basis.

What about employers who house their foreign workers on factory sites, in office buildings and makeshift places, including some residential areas, which are also

Page: 48

overcrowded? I hope that we can work in stronger partnership with the Ministry and the URA in handling some of these issues that we face at the ground level.

Next, can I also ask the Minister about the exclusion criteria being set at 1,000-bed spaces in the Bill as it stands? What proportion of our foreign workers currently will be excluded if we set this at 1,000-bed spaces, and what will be its target in the next three, five and 10 years perhaps?

Madam, the licensing framework is a good progressive move on the part of the Ministry and I applaud that. It is also a step in the right direction forward towards the proper management of our foreign workers and it is also linked to their welfare. Their compliance to these regulations and licensing requirements will certainly pose heavy investments in various areas, and my concern is also that this may ultimately trickle down to the employers of foreign workers. How will the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) be monitoring this as we move forward?

Next, the land prices for building dormitories have reached pretty high levels now and, at times, even unprecedented levels. For example, recently, a tender was awarded for nearly S$150 million for a dormitory for housing some 9,000 foreign workers on a 20-year-old piece of land. And this is just one example. This, again, represents the very heavy investment I referred to earlier.

Can the Ministry consider working with the relevant authorities to announce sites to be released for tender on a slightly longer term, perhaps on a yearly basis? This will help interested parties research and make more informed choices, such as sensible investment and pricing. Given the current and future climate of such developments, it is a big undertaking and bears huge risks for these employers.

Madam, finally, the current dormitory operators will be given six months to comply with the new regulations and policies. Will this time be sufficient? My concern is for the older dormitories which may need major renovations and upgrading to the stipulated standards. Will the Ministry be working with the operators to customise and give those who need a little more time to revamp their operations, logistics and practices some leeway, but, of course, with close oversight? Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill holds special significance to the work that I perform as the Chairman of the Migrant

Page: 49

Workers' Centre (MWC).

To MWC, the shortage of purpose-built housing facilities to meet the needs of our migrant workers has, in fact, been a major issue. Anecdotally, MWC's close working relationship with the operators of our commercial dormitories, as well as our housing activities for the homeless and destitute workers, has allowed our team to actually witness the dormitory rentals increase from about $170 per bed space in 2009 to about $350 today – a 100% increase within a period of just less than five years. Thus, in the last two years, Madam, calls from the migrant workers advocacy groups, including the MWC, have led to the Government's concerted efforts moving forward to open up more new supplies of purpose-built housing. This is encouraging and I must commend MOM, the Ministry of National Development and their agencies for this positive response.

Yet, Madam, our authorities have themselves continued to be mindful that such a ramp-up will not be able to render the operation of smaller dormitory types, like the factory converted or temporary dormitories, obsolete. Statistics from our authorities, as reported in the media, show that roughly half of the 400,000-plus workers requiring customised migrant workers' housing are currently accommodated in the 50 purpose-built dormitories here, while the other half continue to be housed in smaller, often less well-run housing facilities.

Madam, this is where our concerns are centred. The MWC has operated the only 24-hour distress hotline here for non-domestic workers from 1 July 2014 and has, through this facility, received quite a number of housing-related complaints from our migrant workers. Our case data shows that the complaints from migrant workers were almost all concerns about smaller factory-converted, temporary or even makeshift accommodation arrangements accommodating less than 1,000 workers. Just a few months ago, in November 2014, MWC itself responded quite aggressively to one such case in Selegie, where information uncovered by my team suggested that more than 100 migrant workers were being housed in just two small residential condominium units.

Madam, it is precisely these experiences that lead us to the belief that while the Government strives to implement a viable long-term solution for high-standard, purpose-built migrant workers' housing, we cannot ignore, and should, in fact, redouble our efforts and also regulatory control against errant housing operators, especially among the smaller, less formal housing operations, plainly because this is where the bulk of the abuses have occurred and continue to occur. Madam, we hope the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill could cover all dormitories in Singapore, regardless of size, type or management mode.

While I applaud the policymakers for this strategic piece of legislation, l seek the Government's assurance that, in the interim, before we arrive at the desired state of affairs, its strict attention to and enforcement of all basic rules and standards, regardless of types

Page: 50

and, especially size, will continue aggressively and in a coordinated, concerted fashion.

MWC and, I am certain, all the other migrant activist groups, will continue to meet our authorities halfway in this endeavour, to surface intelligence as eyes and ears, as we are closest to the ground. MWC also stands ready to come in and partner the authorities to provide temporary housing or any other kinds of assistance where investigations or enforcement action renders workers without proper shelter or other protection and care.

For example, after a fire had broken out at a workers' quarters in Geylang last December, and sadly led to the loss of lives and serious injury, the MWC team was among the first to arrive at the scene and the hospitals to offer our assistance and care to the workers. We continue to be in contact with the employers of the four deceased workers from the incident to ensure that they do right and stand by their workers and also help their next-of-kin. Recently, when the last seriously injured worker was discharged from hospital, and through his own wanting and was sent home, MWC was also on hand to offer support as well as observe the proper discharge of his employer's duties and responsibilities before he returned to Sabah.

My MWC team will continue to work with all affected employers to see how, in addition to their legal responsibilities to their workers, a shared monetary token may also be given to the families of the seriously injured and the deceased.

Madam, I would like to turn now to the feedback I have gathered from operators of larger dormitories to which the framework of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill will apply.

MWC has long advocated for on-site social and commercial amenities to be included in the planning of new dormitories. Together with health and safety considerations as well as security concerns, whether within individual dormitories or in clusters, this effort had resulted in MWC being the first to moot the idea of forming an industry association, which could, aside from their other responsibilities, present an industry representative to work with our authorities in developing and implementing the industry-wide standards. Having advised on the formation of the Dormitory Association of Singapore Limited (DASL) in January 2013, and we have been working very closely with them, I was quite glad to know that actually they are in support of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill (FEDB). I must also thank the Government agencies for helping the members of DASL to be engaged and consulted to produce such an outcome.

Madam, the licensing framework will no doubt enhance the ability to deal with large-scale public and personal security, and even health and also pandemic incidents arising

Page: 51

within dormitories. More importantly, in the longer term, dormitories will need to direct their resources and leverage on economies of scale of their business and plough these back into catering in-house to the non-work amenities and needs of their residents.

However, during our discussion, there is one worry that has kept coming up – the inadvertent creation and, much worse, perpetuation of a double standard by the FEDB's segregation of the smaller and larger dormitories. Even more worrying are the negative externalities that might arise if this "double standard" is allowed to become structured.

Madam, let me elaborate. Today, employers constantly grapple with their business costs and, depending on the considerations that drive them and the degree of importance they place on keeping costs as low as possible, many of the more errant bosses prefer to house their workers in a cheaper, less favourable and often smaller accommodation. The cases are well-publicised and we know that the phenomenon is common. What is worrying for the operators of properly licensed dormitories is how the requirements and conditions in the FEDB will inevitably lead to further increases in their own running costs that will be passed on to consumers.

The fear of this happening is that while the increase in cost of compliance applies to the larger dormitories that already practise higher standards today, the FEDB seems to leave the smaller operations to their own devices. The latter group will continue to serve a relevant purpose, as I have mentioned earlier, and it is difficult to argue with a simple economic proposition that higher costs for larger, purpose-built dormitories will make smaller, cheaper dormitories to be held to a lesser standard even more attractive to the employers. In the long term, if this preference begins to take root and the concern is not addressed, the large operators are concerned that the uneven treatment towards these two groups might pull down overall migrant housing standards in general.

I would, therefore, suggest that our authorities guard against over-regulation of one segment of the industry and, as far as possible or appropriate, apply the standards and conditions as general as possible to all. The Minister has mentioned that, actually, there are already some existing regulations for the smaller operators. I would like to ask the Ministry: why does it not just group all these regulations together under this Bill and apply it to all?

Madam, as the legislation is allowed time to take effect, I would also want to urge the Government to continue close consultation and engagement with the operators and migrant worker residents especially, as well as migrant advocates, like MWC, to quickly identify and address any negative trends that may develop. Madam, I support the Bill.

Page: 52

Mdm Speaker, in between the First and Second Readings of this Bill – a period of two-and-a-half months – two stories about foreign worker accommodation, in particular, caught the public eye. Both stories unwittingly put the importance of this Bill and the scope of the work ahead to better manage and look after the well-being of our foreign worker population into acute perspective.

On 6 December 2014, The New Paper reported that four Malaysian foreign workers who were employed as cleaners died in a fire at a Geylang Lorong 4 shophouse, in Singapore's worst fire in 10 years. Two firemen and eight other individuals suffered injuries from this blaze. The unit in question – reported to be an area only slightly bigger than 1,300 square feet – had nine rooms, each equipped with bunk beds, a tiny kitchen and a toilet. The Malaysian Star newspaper, Stomp and a TODAY article reported that the premises was occupied by some 100 foreigners from China, India, Bangladesh and Malaysia, partitioned into 11 units of rooms, each occupied by about 10 people. The local Chinese newspaper Shin Min Daily News, on the other hand, reported that the affected unit of the three-storey walk-up apartment had 11 rooms, each occupied by up to eight workers, which makes for a total of about 88 people in a single apartment.

In a separate piece of news on 29 December 2014, The New Paper reported that eight blocks of HDB-managed flatted factories at Tampines Industrial Park A, comprising workshops, furniture manufacturers and warehouses, were operating as "a secret dormitory" for 1,000 foreign workers, in clear violation of HDB rules.

While these stories were headline-grabbing, other articles pertaining to our foreign workers continue to make the news. On 21 November 2014, The Straits Times reported that a spot check by the Migrant Workers' Centre found more than 50 construction workers from Bangladesh and India crammed into two small apartments in Selegie Road, as enunciated most recently by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang. It is also reported that the men "slept shoulder to shoulder, amid rotting food and soiled clothes". The same article reminded readers that the paper had raised several reports earlier on unhygienic and overcrowded foreign worker housing, recounting an incident at a Punggol HDB construction site where hundreds of workers had to use choked and broken urinals, and another story covering the plight of about 5,000 workers living at Tuas View Square in factory-converted dormitories infested with rats and mosquitoes.

A Business Times' story of the same month reported that of the 770,000 Work Permit holders, only 200,000 stay in purpose-built dormitories that this Bill will regulate, with requirements for a little less than double the amount. The rest of our foreign workers stay in a variety of places, like the putatively illegal dormitories in Geylang and Tampines, and in

Page: 53

HDB flats in some cases, and at temporary housing at construction sites, all unregulated by an omnibus act of Parliament – notwithstanding the spaghetti bowl of guidelines and restrictions governing such accommodation from URA, SCDF, PUB, BCA, NEA and HDB.

During the Second Reading of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Bill in 2012, the Minister informed the House that in 2011, MOM conducted close to 800 inspections of premises used as foreign worker housing and that in 2009, enforcement action was taken against 1,800 employers for housing their workers in unacceptable conditions. A recent Business Times' article reported that the first half of 2014 saw 360 inspections. However, the large number of these continuing violations and inspections suggest that Singapore, a First World economy by any stretch, does not host a robust enough framework governing the housing of foreign workers, even as this Bill is a step in the correct direction.

Mdm Speaker, the Explanatory Note of the Bill defines "foreign employee dormitory" to mean a premises that provides accommodation for more than 1,000 workers. By this threshold, the Bill does not address the sort of accommodation at the centre of the 6 December Geylang fire and the "secret dormitories", such as those in Tampines. I would like to ask the Minister what plans are envisaged to reduce this threshold number within the context of the Bill since it is explicitly suggested in the Explanatory Note and, separately, how this figure of 1,000 was arrived at, in the first instance, in view of the need for greater oversight, regulation and enforcement across this industry, than is currently the case.

Separately, a Straits Times' report of 19 August 2014 reported, rather oddly, that there were at least 5,000 empty beds still available at purpose-built dormitories that are covered by this Bill. The reason for this sudden turn of events was put down to more construction firms being permitted by the authorities to set up foreign worker quarters on the sites of major building projects, such as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and HDB sites. I recognise that manpower proximity to the workplace helps reduce costs for businesses, particularly construction contractors. To this extent, Government policies should support such considerations wherever possible. However, rendering such operational flexibility for businesses would have been an opportune time to introduce clear licensing requirements, regulatory standards and a penalty framework for such temporary foreign worker quarters. This would have greatly supported the contractors on the one hand and improved the living conditions of foreign workers on the other.

In drafting this Bill, I would like to enquire if the Ministry has considered, for example, introducing a separate category or categories of licensing for premises that operate as smaller foreign employee accommodation below the threshold number, so as to bring many more dormitories and places of accommodation for foreign workers under a licensing framework. Such a broad strategy would have been aligned with the purpose of this Bill, as spelt out in clause 4, which seeks to establish certain accommodation standards for foreign

Page: 54

employee dormitories; for the appropriate mechanisms to ensure adherence to those very standards; and to promote the sustainability of, and continuous improvements in, the provision of services at foreign employee dormitories.

One possible way to support SMEs and small businesses and contractors on the one hand, and the foreign worker community on the other, is for the Government to consider building and managing some dormitories for our foreign workers. For example, employers that employ 100 or less foreign workers, being more sensitive to cost pressures, can be eligible to house their workers in Government-built and operated dormitories which set the standard for the entire industry. The entry of the Government into the sector can be modelled along the entry of the Ministry of Education into the kindergarten business, which is to provide good preschool education and, more importantly, to catalyse improvements in this sector. If deemed appropriate, a fraction of the foreign worker levy can be used to establish such dormitories, with a subsidy for small companies that show real and sustained productivity improvements in their operations.

Mdm Speaker, Part 5 of the Explanatory Statement of the Bill states that the Minister, by way of subsidiary legislation, can determine that several buildings on different parcels of land can be regarded as a single boarding premises and whether all the beds therein are to be counted to determine if the total threshold number is attained. This is a positive move as it would prevent savvy operators who would nonetheless operate assiduously to work around the 1,000-bed threshold by all means, effectively negating Parliament's intent, for example, by creating sister companies through friends and families. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has determined how many additional dormitory operators are likely to come under this scenario, as spelt out in the Explanatory Note, and how many beds, so to speak, would come under the licensing framework as a result of this envisaged subsidiary legislation.

The Bill's intention to determine that several buildings on different parcels of land can be regarded as a single boarding premises should also attract potential investors. As recently as 2008, Avery Strategic Investments, an entity that was then 97% controlled by Morgan Stanley Real Estate, bought three foreign worker dormitories for $153 million when Jurong Town Corporation offered to sell these dormitories comprising a total of 13,544 beds. An officer of the minority shareholder, Averic Capital Management, was then quoted as saying, "As the Singapore economy grows, likely so will the dormitory business. We're hopeful the economy remains robust; then there will be more opportunities to invest in this asset class." About two-and-a-half years later, Morgan Stanley sought to exit the dormitory business, citing a dearth of sites made available for dormitory development by the Government, preventing them from enlarging their portfolio to spin off the business into a dormitory real estate investment trust. It was reported that the entity received expressions of interests ranging from $375 million to $450 million, a whopping $100 million more than the total cost

Page: 55

of assets it purchased a mere three years earlier.

Mdm Speaker, it is not in doubt that the market is the lifeblood of any society. However, for industries and sectors that have significant socio-cultural implications for an urban and high-density society like Singapore, the market approach should go hand-in-hand with responsibility towards our foreign workers. Apart from the dizzying dollars churned by the financial industry and the heady world of mergers and acquisitions, the concern of many Singaporeans and Members of this House, by virtue of this Bill, is primarily over the health, safety, security and safe lodging of our foreign workers.

To this end, in MOM's press release on the Bill dated 4 November 2014, under the section covering penalties, it was stated, and I quote:

"The holder of the dormitory licence will be the dormitory operator responsible for the day-to-day running of the dormitory. Nonetheless, the premises may be owned by a separate proprietor who either sublets the premises to the operator for use as a dormitory; or appoints the operator to manage the daily operations on his behalf. In such instances, we [the Ministry] will hold proprietors accountable where they, rather than the operators, have more control, for example, in making repairs or alterations to the premises."

I seek some clarifications on this point in the press release since the Bill does not make specific reference to the degree of control as apportioned between, for example, the ultimate owner of a foreign employee dormitory and the licensed operator in the event of an infraction. For example, how far would an owner or a corporate entity be held liable if it can prove it had no control in making repairs and alterations to a boarding premises? Does that mean it is not responsible should foreign workers be found living in unsatisfactory conditions?

The interpretation section of the Bill defines a "proprietor" as "includes the owner of the premises who is the lessor or grantor of the licence to occupy". Specifically, I would like to ask the Minister, how far does ownership extend, as defined by this definition? Would it cover financial institutions and funds that are the ultimate owners and who seek to unlock value in such investments? In keeping with the purpose of the Bill as made out in clause 4, would it not be less ambiguous and in keeping with the parliamentary intention of the Bill to make the licence holder and the owner or owners, regardless of their shareholding, jointly and severally liable for any infractions committed by the licence holder? A clarification of this point, in view of the Ministry's potentially ambiguous press release of 4 November, would be appreciated.

Page: 56

Mdm Speaker, if this Bill is about providing for certain standards of accommodation and to promote the continuous improvement in the provision of services at dormitories, then I would argue that a firm enforcement regime that emphasises responsibility for foreign workers up and down the value chain be enshrined by this Bill and enunciated by the Minister. This is especially so since big corporates can potentially come on board and purchase strategic stakes in foreign employee dormitories as investors. The benefits of such a prospect should not be only to unlock shareholder value. I would argue that the benefits should flow back to the industry and to society and align itself to the purpose of this Bill. In some cases, the financial heft of big corporates and holding companies and their ability to undertake independent risk assessments put them in a good position to be the quasi-regulators of this industry, by virtue of ownership, alongside the Dormitory Association of Singapore Limited.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, while I support the Bill, which seeks to regulate some aspects of foreign worker accommodation in Singapore, I fear it may be a half measure and rendered otiose if there is no parallel strategy to better regulate foreign employee accommodation per se – targeting not just big dormitory operators but the small-time businesses as well. Such an approach would be fairer and serve regulators and businesses better, too, as it would not unwittingly penalise honest businesses which operate large dormitories that this Bill will regulate who play the game by the rules and will do many Singaporeans a great service by improving the lot of our foreign workers. If Singapore manages to scale up its standards of foreign employee accommodation, our businesses are likely to attract higher quality workers and significantly lower the risk of another tragic and senseless fire in Geylang or, potentially, wanton violations of statutory regulations, as evidenced by the secret dormitories in Tampines.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to regulate operators of foreign employee dormitories with a new licensing framework to manage larger purpose-built dormitories with self-contained facilities to meet migrant workers' social and recreational needs outside work. It is a step to complement the various existing measures to manage foreign workers' housing. Mdm Speaker, I welcome this timely, long overdue Bill.

Madam, foreign workers play a very important role in our society. They do the jobs which many locals would not or cannot do because of the poor working conditions of long hours and low pay. I am sure Members of this House will agree that without them, our economy might run to a standstill.

In order to recognise their contributions to the nation, it is important for us to uphold their rights and take care of their interests and welfare while they are working in Singapore. For a developed nation which boasts of having one of the highest GDP rates in the world, the way we house our foreign workers leaves much to be desired.

Way back in 2008, the then Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, had told the media that there were between 80,000 and 100,000 foreign workers who did not have proper housing. Why did we allow a floodgate of these migrant workers to work in Singapore without ensuring and giving them a decent place to live in? Was it an oversight or poor planning?

NGOs I have spoken to, such as the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), told me that many foreign workers who approached them for assistance live in conditions which are crowded, dirty and full of pests, such as cockroaches, bed bugs and rats.

Are there slums in our First World Singapore? Yes, by looking at the living conditions of many of our foreign workers. It is ironic to find foreign workers being housed in such appalling conditions while, at the same time, working hard to earn a meagre salary, with no minimum wage, to build luxury apartments and bungalows for Singaporeans and expatriates.

A Straits Times report by the Dormitory Association of Singapore Limited have revealed that there are approximately 200,000 bed spaces in purpose-built dormitories. According to MOM statistics, there are approximately 770,000 foreign workers in Singapore. Where are the rest of the 570,000 living? About half of them are Malaysians, who commute to work daily across the Causeway. But the rest of the workers are likely to be housed in factory converted quarters, shophouses, private apartments, bungalows and construction sites which are often poorly managed without proper supervision and likely to be at the mercy of

Page: 58

their own employers. Our liberal immigration policies have affected the welfare of the foreign workers themselves.

In order to save on costs, many employers will squeeze foreign workers, sometimes 10 to 15 of them in a small room with hardly any space to move around, although URA regulations stipulate that walk-up apartments and shop houses should not accommodate more than eight persons in one unit. By going into any apartment and shophouse in Geylang and Little India, one will find these regulations widely flouted.

The problem has existed for many years, but little has been done. Enforcement of existing housing standards is inadequate to ensure that such overcrowding does not happen. Overcrowding can be fatal, as we have seen from the recent tragic deaths of four Malaysian workers and eight injured last month when a Geylang shophouse caught fire.

Housing standards vary across different types of housing. For instance, the standards which have been set for workers living in permanent buildings under construction are far lower than that for workers living in temporary buildings on worksites.

I would also like to ask the Minister whether it is legal for construction workers to live in buildings under construction which may take two to three years to complete.

Buildings under construction are often dusty, sandy and often pest-infested, with inadequate sanitation, inferior bath and shower facilities. I have heard of dengue outbreaks which have affected construction workers at these sites. The regulations for such housing are minimal and far lower than that of purpose-built dormitories and temporary housing structures.

For example, in BCA's "Use of Buildings under Construction as Workers' Quarters Regulations 2008", it only ensures that the building is structurally safe and the rooms workers are housed in are of sufficient height and land space. Standards of ventilation in the regulations are vaguely worded. Sanitation facilities are inadequate.

The Code of Practice in Environmental Health stipulates that there should be one toilet bowl, one wash basin and one shower for every 25 male workers, whereas International Labour Organization standards stipulate that the same facilities should be available for every six persons. Are our current codes and regulations in compliance with international standards with regard to worker's welfare, comfort and hygiene?

I urge the Government to review our existing legislation.

Page: 59

Workers living in permanent buildings under construction also do not have adequate electricity at night and are usually not protected in the event of a thunderstorm. There are no facilities, such as lockers for workers to store their personal belongings and there is hardly any privacy for them.

It is also common for workers who are living in buildings under construction to be housed in the basement. When it rains, the area in which they are living in will flood. I urge the Government to reconsider allowing such forms of housing.

The Foreign Employees Dormitory Bill relies on existing regulations with regard to ensuring adequate living standards for foreign workers. They are mainly the Building Control Act, the Control of Vectors and Pesticides Act, Environmental Public Health Act, Fire Safety Act and the Planning Act.

One of the key features of this Act is the setting out of the licence conditions for a dormitory operator. I am happy to see that the licence conditions include provisions which concern the physical, mental welfare and security of foreign workers, including their meals. Standards concerning bedrooms, bathrooms and standards to prevent overcrowding are also mentioned in the Bill.

Clause 11, under conditions of licence, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider making the licensed operator keep a register of all the occupants and also to submit a monthly report to MOM.

However, these standards, which will have a positive impact on their workers' well-being, are not defined. How does this Bill, for instance, propose to look into the mental welfare of foreign workers, since it is one of the criteria? Counselling should be made available to cater to their emotional needs and others.

Provisions should also be made to facilitate privacy and proper sleep for the workers. For example, lights and music should be switched off after 10.30 pm.

I am also concerned that without clear guidelines and standards, enforcement officials will enforce these provisions arbitrarily. What safeguards are there to ensure this does not happen? Who will police the licensed operators? Is there a hotline for migrant workers to complain?

As described earlier, accommodation standards for foreign workers vary across different types of housing. The Bill would have been a good opportunity to standardise accommodation standards for our migrant workers across different housing types, such as

Page: 60

factory-converted dormitories and worksite housing. What are the reasons for not considering it? Also, are the existing provisions listed in the Bill sufficient to ensure they are properly housed and taken care of?

A comprehensive Bill for dormitories would ensure consistent standards in terms of structure of the housing, proper beddings, adequate ventilation, sanitation, number of persons per room, security of belongings, sufficient privacy, laundry and cooking facilities, waste management and access to health care.

Does the new law also apply to smaller dormitories? While we see these conditions for purpose-built dormitories as the "favoured" migrant worker housing solution for the future, we urge authorities not to overlook smaller dormitories. I am glad the Minister had addressed this issue when he introduced the Bill earlier.

We also urge the authorities to build more dedicated migrant worker recreational centres in areas with larger clusters of dormitories not covered by the Bill, ensuring the availability of right amenities and services to our migrant workers, regardless of the size of their dormitory accommodation.

I am also deeply concerned about the powers which have been given to dormitory inspectors in this Bill. Who is the dormitory inspector and what is his role? How will he or she be trained? The Bill mentions that if the dormitory officer or inspector believes that any offence under this new Bill has been committed, he or she may break open any door or window of the premises for inspection. He or she also has the power to arrest and detain someone for up to 48 hours. Why does the Bill give such broad powers to inspectors when we already have existing legislation, such as the Criminal Procedures Code (CPC) and the Police Force Act? According to sections 7 and 25 of the Bill, not having a licence to run a dormitory is an arrestable and detainable offence. What kinds of offences under this proposed Bill could be so serious that it is necessary for such actions?

I would like to ask the Minister: where are the workers in the marine and process sectors, including the chemicals and pharmaceutical sectors, going be housed when HDB flats are no longer allowed to house them after May 2015, which is only a few months away? The new larger purpose-built dormitories will only be ready in two to three years' time.

The new housing framework will lead to rising costs of doing business and, in turn, higher rentals. Is there a way to cap rentals from escalating, to prevent shortcuts in the housing standards for migrant workers?

Page: 61

In conclusion, the Bill is a step forward in the right direction for the Government to continue its enforcement on the new licensing framework policies and to achieve overall improvement on the welfare of the migrant population. I would also like to thank all those involved in the policymaking of this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, we must change our mindset and treatment of migrant workers and treat them as guests, by helping them to improve their basic working living conditions and, in turn, it will lead to better productivity and skills, which will benefit Singapore in the long run.

Madam, I declare my interest. I work in a local bank, which provides financing for foreign worker dormitories. Thank you for allowing me to join this discussion.

Presently, all foreign workers' accommodation has to meet regulatory standards set by no less than five Government agencies, namely URA, SCDF, BCA, PUB and NEA. These comprehensive rules set minimum space allocation, fire and structural safety, environmental health and hygiene, water and sewage standards to ensure the safety and well-being of workers.

However, in reality, enforcement of these standards has been a challenge. As there are so many foreign worker housing all over our small island, regular inspections of all of them are not possible. Errant employers and housing operators take advantage of this and their workers' helplessness to flout the law with impunity. Violations have been persistent and range from overcrowding to fire safety.

Hence, I agree with the Government's decision to increase the number of PBDs. Monitoring the standards of these PBDs will be more practicable and sustainable.

However, employers are naturally concerned that such a decision might favour dormitory operators and lead to higher business costs. They are worried that with no alternative accommodation for their employees, they would be at the mercy of dormitory operators. Would the Ministry consider setting up an independent council, similar to the Public Transport Council, to regulate the pricing of dormitories so that operators will compete instead on non-price factors?

This Bill encompasses additional regulations for dormitories with 1,000 or more beds. They address the management of public health and safety issues, security and public order

Page: 62

issues and the maintenance of social and commercial facilities and services.

While I support these additional measures, I would like to ask the Minister how the figure of 1,000 was arrived at. Whether it is a smaller dormitory with a few hundred residents or a bigger one with 1,000, similar problems could arise. In the event of an infectious disease outbreak, racial or national tension, for example, the tipping point can be reached at 100 or 200 workers. In any dormitory with a couple of hundred workers from a wide mix of countries, there should be measures to ensure harmonious living.

Should the hundreds of thousands of workers housed in smaller dormitories, especially those within worksites, not be protected as well by the new regulations? In addition, how will it be possible for the Ministry to ensure a level playing field for all dormitory operators with different requirements for dormitories of different sizes?

Next, I would like to check if it is compulsory for Work Permit holders working in certain sectors to be housed in PBDs. If this is, indeed, the case, what are the reasons? Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This amendment is targeted at dormitories with 1,000 beds or more. Should the Government also consider setting a limit on the maximum number of beds for these facilities?

This is because we must make sure that if a conflict unfortunately breaks out, the Government can quell the unrest effectively in the shortest possible time, so that workers staying there and the managers are safe.

In my view, congregating the dormitories at one location or spreading them out to different places, each has its pros and cons; same with putting the majority of workers up at one dormitory or separating them at different dormitories.

How to balance? The two are very important.

Besides guidelines on hardware facilities, "software" issues, such as the proportion of dormitory staff and managers to boarders and staff training, are also important.

Communication between the dormitory staff/managers and the boarders is important, so also the care and concern shown towards the workers. This can effectively prevent unhappy incidents from happening and will help employers raise productivity.

Page: 63

Every now and then, we would hear about how awful the living conditions of some foreign workers' dormitories are. Unscrupulous employers and dormitory owners, in order to profit, knowingly put up the workers in overcrowded, unhygienic and unsafe dormitories, taking advantage of the fact that the workers are not familiar with Singapore and are helpless. The reason why we keep seeing this kind of problems is because the possibility of being caught is low and the punishment is not severe enough.

This Bill is in tandem with the long-term measures taken by the Government. At the same time, MOM should conduct surprise inspections and mete out punishments accordingly against those who flout the rules and make sure employers comply. Hope we can effectively solve this thorny problem once and for all.

(In English): Madam, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member) : Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. This Bill is an important move to regulate accommodation for foreign workers, and I support it. However, I have two specific concerns which I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on.

First, given the significant impact that large foreign employee dormitories could have on the welfare of their occupants, the condition of the immediate vicinity, as well as the general state of the neighbourhood in which it is located, I am concerned that none of these factors appear to have been explicitly included in the licensing conditions.

At the moment, the licensing conditions do not require feedback from either the dormitory occupants, current or intended, the residents of the surrounding community, or any assessments of the impact on the immediate vicinity.

I see that clause 13(c) does specifically include "serious disruptions to the community" as grounds for the Commissioner to issue a compliance directive. But that appears to imply that the preceding anomaly, such as a complaint, would be required as a trigger.

Mdm Speaker, I am suggesting that accounting for such potential impact on the community should be built into the licensing requirement so that the operator is required to proactively seek community feedback as part of the conditions for renewal of licence. I am suggesting that such conditions be explicitly imposed. I am aware that it could impose additional costs on operators, which would, ultimately, have to be borne by employers. However, I believe that what we want is a system that will stand us in good stead for the

Page: 64

longer term. Hence, I believe that this would be in line with the purpose stated in clause 4(c) of the Bill.

If the regulatory burden on operators is too heavy, it will encourage flouting of the law. On the other hand, inadequate oversight will lead to a mismatch between the burden borne by employers and that borne by society. Although a balance has to be struck, it should be better to anticipate the natural concerns of the community hosting a dormitory, rather than to react to them only when they arise.

Ultimately, if operators find that they need not care for the vicinity in which the dormitory is located, the costs will be transferred to the neighbourhood, which will only increase negative perceptions and threaten the sustainability of such facilities.

My second concern is about the threshold number, which several hon Members have already spoken about before me. I appreciate that the Minister had already emphasised that smaller dormitories are not exempt from regulations. I hope you will allow me to press this point on the grounds that there are concerns that I feel exactly about the uneven treatment. Since a significant proportion of workers are housed in smaller dormitories which would be exempt from this Bill, I would like to ask if the Minister has any concerns about possible unintended outcomes. Is it the intention to impose a heavier regulatory burden on operators of larger dormitories?

This raises other issues. First, operators will be subject to different standards, depending on their size, and the enforcement could become, therefore, correspondingly more onerous. Second, if employers gravitate towards smaller dormitories because of this loophole, this could encourage the sprouting up of such smaller facilities.

As I had noted above, my concern is that when accommodation standards are unacceptable, this increases the overall cost that would have to be borne by society.

On a different note, I would like to express my strong support for the Ministry's decision to allow operators a transition period in moving to these new standards. In fact, I would like to echo Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's point earlier that perhaps we should consider allowing an even longer period of adjustment. What we are stipulating are standards that we should not compromise on once they have been met.

In conclusion, I want to urge the Ministry to ensure that enough resources are allocated to enforcement. Accommodating large numbers of foreign workers carries a cost to society as a whole. It is the responsibility of employers to fully price such costs into their operations. Workers need to be taken care of according to standards that the social conscience of

Page: 65

Singapore today requires. Very often, the social cost of accommodating low-wage workers are hidden from view and not properly accounted for. In that sense, poor quality conditions in accommodating foreign workers often push the cost to society.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines) : Madam, Singapore depends on foreign workers for many jobs, especially in the construction, process and marine industries. Most of these are jobs that Singaporeans do not want to do, but which are necessary for providing the services and infrastructure that help improve the quality of life for Singaporeans and to keep our economy growing.

Many Singaporeans take pride in the magnificent skyline of Marina Bay and the country's iconic buildings, such as the public housing project Pinnacle@Duxton, the first one in the world to have two sky bridges linking the seven towers.

Indeed, most Singaporeans live in HDB flats which are continuously being upgraded. But we know that these would not have been constructed in the first place had it not been for the thousands of foreign workers toiling day and night to build them brick by brick, sometimes, risking life and limb.

We owe it to our foreign workers to ensure they are provided with decent living conditions in Singapore and are not vulnerable to exploitation on account of their weak bargaining power and their willingness to suffer hardships just to work here.

Their main purpose of coming to Singapore is to earn money to create better lives for themselves and to send back the money to their families in their home countries. With this as their top priority, many of them are reluctant to report any abuse of their poor living conditions, out of fear of losing their jobs and being sent home.

Many of the foreign workers here have no problems with their housing but it is unconscionable that, despite Singapore's progress as a First World city and their contribution to its growth, over the years, a proportion of them have been found holed up in cheap and makeshift shelters with conditions akin to a Third World slum. We continue to read reports of such abuses today, as highlighted by other Members before me.

I know that MOM takes seriously any breach of the various regulations which protect the rights of our foreign workers. It is, indeed, assuring to know that MOM has been conducting inspections of foreign workers' dormitories and cracking down on housing

Page: 66

violations.

I share the Ministry's stand that, in the longer term, it is better to house Work Permit holders in PBDs where there are self-contained facilities to meet their social and recreational needs outside work. Such well-equipped dormitories, if run well, will provide foreign workers with a better living environment and the motivation to give of their best in their jobs here. Like other human beings, they have their legitimate needs and aspirations, to rest, play and be treated with dignity and respect.

This Bill is a significant move in laying the groundwork for realising this larger vision. But in the short term, we have to address the fact that, despite the availability of such PBDs for years, some employers have shunned them, preferring to house their foreign workers elsewhere, including rat-infested makeshift shelters.

One obvious reason for this is cost. Employers are, above all, driven by cost considerations, especially given the significant increase in foreign worker levies over recent years. They keep costs as low as possible to maximise profits. It costs $300 to $350 per head for PBDs, without including transport. It costs much less to house them anywhere else, especially onsite.

Currently, about 200,000 foreign workers are housed in smaller dormitories below the 1,000-bed threshold, including those situated within worksites. So, for example, if you take the construction sector, it is much cheaper to house them onsite in uncompleted buildings or temporary makeshift quarters. MOM, in fact, allows this, as long as they comply with the various requirements, such as fire safety and providing adequate and proper sanitary and bathing facilities.

This is an entirely rational decision, especially for large projects involving thousands of workers, as it reduces the need for the workers to be ferried to and from their workplaces and also reduces traffic congestion on the roads.

It also makes economic sense: the average salary for foreign construction workers is between $450 and $600 a month. Very low pay, with very low status. Their foreign worker levy ranges from $300 to $950, depending on their skill levels. The numbers add up.

What incentive does the employer have to house their low-wage foreign workers in the high-cost PBDs when they can get away with cheaper if sub-standard ones? This is especially so for subcontractors involved in smaller-scale projects operating on tight margins.

Page: 67

I would like to ask the Minister: given the current realities, what assurances are there that, first, employers would house them at PBDs even if more were built; and second, that the employers would not try to pass on the higher cost of such housing to the foreign workers by squeezing their salaries?

How would the market equilibrate? Evidence suggests that, for such matters, it cannot be left to the dictates of the free market. One way is to regulate the fee structure of PBDs so that prices will come down to a level that will provide a level playing field. After all, the Government gives funding assistance to existing dormitory operators to retrofit their dormitories to meet the Government's new higher standards.

To add another safeguard, it should be made illegal for employers to pass on the cost of accommodation to the Work Permit holders, just as it is now illegal to pass on the cost of the foreign worker levy and insurance premiums to them. There should also be a tightening of the permits granted for new quarters on construction sites and factory-converted dormitories.

MOM should also conduct regular spot checks and enforce stringent standards with deterrent penalties imposed on housing violations, whatever the size of the dormitory. These penalties were doubled only two years ago, when the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act was amended in November 2012. Employers found guilty of failing to provide acceptable accommodation can be fined up to $10,000, and/or jailed for up to 12 months. But since then, how many employers have been prosecuted under the Act with deterrent penalties?

I am aware that checks and inspections are labour-intensive and MOM's manpower resources are stretched. But I echo the concerns expressed by other Members on the need to pay even closer attention to smaller dormitories where the most egregious housing violations tend to take place in tandem with these additional regulations for larger dormitories under this Bill. In other words, pay more attention to the smaller dormitories even as we enforce this Bill.

It is good to see the media taking on the role of watchdog on this issue, staking out suspicious sites and exposing them. The newspapers seem to have received quite a few tip-offs from members of the public. I hope that this will have a salutary effect on employers.

But MOM needs to beef up on its enforcement, so that the public can have confidence that it will also take prompt action on a tip-off. That said, it is unrealistic, however, to rely on tip-offs for large dormitories which are closed to members of the public. Even I, as a Member of Parliament, have no access. I tried to gain access to a large dormitory recently with a polite

Page: 68

request for a visit to discuss community engagement but was denied.

This leads me to my other concern: that PBDs may become very restrictive places for foreign workers to live, confining them with strict rules governing their hours and their behaviour, especially with the additional licensing requirements under this Bill. It is important to guard against the danger of PBDs becoming more like a prison or a labour camp, rather than a temporary home for guest workers.

We know that there is resentment among some quarters in Singapore against the presence of foreign workers in shared public spaces. But we must send a very clear signal to all that the construction of PBDs is to provide more decent housing for Work Permit holders with better facilities and space; it is not to render them invisible to the public eye or to completely cut them off from society. Already, it is a tough life for them here: they work six to seven days a week, often under hot and difficult conditions that not many Singaporeans would put up with. They are entitled to their rest, with some freedom of movement.

We should shape the attitudes of employers towards them with all the levers that the Government has at hand. They are guest workers. They are not slaves. Negative attitudes, if left to persist, would also have repercussions in the wider society. Already, there seems to be an increasing divide between Singaporeans and foreign workers in our midst. Nasty comments both ways are not uncommon in the social media. These should be discouraged and the deeper issues addressed. The Government is already tightening the inflow of foreign workers, to the point that some companies have to close shop in Singapore and move elsewhere. Despite the pain felt by businesses, the Government must press on with the economic restructuring to operate at a higher level with higher productivity.

To attract more Singaporeans into the industries which rely on foreign workers, such as construction and F&B, the wages must be increased and the working conditions and processes improved. It is also important to change the public perceptions towards these jobs as low status jobs. With these changes, attitudes towards foreign workers and the jobs that they do will also change. This will make for a more united Singapore: open, decent and fair to all.

In conclusion, Madam, as we celebrate Singapore's 50th anniversary and look with some pride at all that we have achieved, let us recall the role played by foreign workers over the years. Let us ensure that they are trained well, treated well and housed well. Hopefully, when they go back to their home countries eventually, they will have good memories of working in Singapore and be our ambassadors in portraying a good image of us as a society. With that, I support the Bill.

Page: 69

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon) : Mdm Speaker, I am pleased that the Government is addressing the concerns of poor living conditions and overcrowding in foreign worker dormitories. This Bill will certainly home in on the current shortcomings in housing for foreign workers who come here to work, and also ensuring that the concerns of Singaporeans who live near to these dormitories are also looked into.

In Chinese, there is a saying, “又要马儿跑， 又要马儿不吃草”. It means that "You can't expect the horse to run fast when you don't let it graze". But let me clarify that the reference to horses is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, it is to appreciate the hard and long hours that these workers have been putting in each day to help us realise our infrastructure developments.

If we want our construction projects to be completed on schedule and with efficiency, it only makes sense that we protect the basic rights of these contributors with adequate and proper living quarters where they can rest well after a day's hard manual work, relax and be comfortable.

I am in support of the Bill, but I believe we can do more. Firstly, why are only large dormitories with 1,000 or more beds subject to licensing? How did this magic figure come about? I would think putting a few hundred people under a roof is a sizeable crowd. It poses challenges to manage even with just 50 people under one roof, from fire safety, cooking area, toilets to space for clothes. Failure to manage the living quarters of a few hundred people can certainly give rise to problems in terms of public health and safety, security and public order.

I wish to ask the Minister how many percent of our workers are living in large dormitories with 1,000 or more beds. I strongly believe that we should lower the threshold for the Bill to include smaller dormitories to ensure that these workers have a safe and hygienic accommodation during their stay in Singapore.

Without proper supervision, there may be some errant dormitory operators who will comfortably slip past licensing requirements. There is certainly nothing to stop an operator from putting 999 workers there and thus escape scrutiny.

Last October, there was a report in The Straits Times on the living conditions at some factory-converted dormitories. There were workers who complained of being plagued by mosquitoes, rats and ants. I would be surprised if the dormitories are not infested with cockroaches and bed bugs. They had nowhere to store their groceries and food. There was

Page: 70

no proper space to dry their wet clothes and uniforms. Windows are sometimes boarded up, which meant poor ventilation. Will this Bill cover such dormitories? Will this Bill prevent such things from occurring again? Definitely not, as most such factory dormitories are less than 1,000-bed capacity.

Let us take this opportunity to examine the overall welfare of our foreign workers.

Next, not all employers are open to housing workers in PBDs. It is more cost-effective to house them in cheaper onsite facilities. Due to the limited space and lack of amenities, these facilities tend to become cramped and unsanitary. Thus, I believe such facilities, though they house fewer foreign workers, would still need to be subject to monitoring as well.

I propose making it compulsory to provide additional frequently used amenities, such as free wi-fi, TV and proper storage facilities, and recreational corners if space permits. Many own smartphones to keep in touch with their families back home.

Free wi-fi would certainly come in handy and save them some expenses. Instead we often see them squatting along the roadside or areas where they can tap on free wi-fi. Some have taken to going to HDB void decks and commercial buildings to tap on the free wi-fi, for example. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, in the past few years, Yishun Group Representation Constituency (GRC), especially Yishun South, saw many new construction projects and Build-To-Order (BTO) flats coming up, very much like bamboo shoots springing up after the rain. While it is good to help young people to fulfil their dream of home ownership, some residents are disturbed by the constructions.

Residents often told me that, every night, they would see foreign workers lingering around their void decks. Some workers would leave a large amount of trash behind, such as cigarette butts and beer bottles.

As Singapore's largest developer, HDB perhaps should take the lead to ask the contractors to provide free Wi-Fi at the workers' dormitories and some basic recreational facilities. These will not only keep the workers at their dormitories but also reduce the inconvenience to nearby residents.

We can also provide training and seminars for foreign workers to better understand and integrate into our culture. For example, short courses on not littering, safety guidelines for pedestrians and cyclists, laws and customs, will reduce the friction between the locals and

Page: 71

foreign workers.

I also received a number of feedback on foreign workers driving on our roads. Many residents feel that it is too easy for foreign workers to convert their driving licence into a local one. They feel that due to the differences in driving behaviour, culture and road conditions, foreign workers should take some driving tests before they are allowed to convert their licence. This will improve our road safety. Mdm Speaker, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill. I am heartened by the introduction of this new licensing framework which seeks to regulate operators of foreign worker dormitories. Under the new Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill, dormitories for foreign workers with more than 1,000 beds will need to be licensed from the second half of 2015. Under the proposed Bill, operators or proprietors must obtain a licence to run the dormitories and this is over and above existing regulatory standards and requirements.

The imposition of new conditions and requirements through this new licensing framework is laudable. I welcome this move as we must ensure our foreign workers have a proper living environment which caters to their well-being and health while, at the same time, ensuring the local community where they reside in close proximity is not overly inconvenienced by their presence in numbers.

Foreign worker dormitories have a huge impact on their surroundings. This is especially so when these dormitories are located near to residential communities. The proposed Bill aims to ensure safety, security and public health in the vicinity where these dormitories are housed. I spoke on this challenge last year in Parliament and I am glad that this new Bill has been introduced.

On behalf of Nee Soon GRC and, in particular, my Nee Soon East constituency, there are several blocks of flats which are in close proximity to two existing foreign employee dormitories, namely, Simpang Lodge 1 and Lodge 2, located along Yishun Avenue 7. During my weekly house visits and grassroots events, I have gathered feedback from residents as well as grassroots leaders living within a stone's throw from the lodges on some of the social disamenities which they had to contend with. I will attempt to share some of the challenges faced, what are the actions taken by us thus far and suggestions moving forward in light of this new piece of legislation. I would classify them into three broad categories, namely, (a)

Page: 72

safety and security, (b) environment and (c) transport.

The first challenge faced by residents who live at the HDB blocks in close proximity involves safety and security issues. These include congregation at void decks and open grass patches, public consumption of liquor, illegal tapping of wi-fi and cycling on pedestrian footpaths. All these create a sense of insecurity and concerned parents become worried for their daughters and children who come home in the evenings or late at night.

The second challenge involves the environment. The congregation and activities at HDB void decks and open patches have resulted in littering, with drink cans, bottles and packaging left behind, as well as noise which affects the peace and quiet in the neighbourhood at night.

The third challenge involves transport in that they fuel the overcrowding of feeder service 811 during peak hours. Although the majority of foreign workers living at Simpang lodges 1 and 2 have company-provided transport, the remainder do not. As such, they utilise feeder service 811 located nearest their dormitories daily to get to Yishun bus interchange and Yishun MRT station. This further exacerbates the already well-utilised service 811 as many of our Yishun residents, including students, use that feeder service each morning to get to school or go to work. The overcrowding occurs during peak hours in the morning and crowding at the bus interchange in the evening for the return trip.

I am glad to share that we have formed a task force a year ago. In the past 12 months, our Nee Soon East grassroots team has been working closely with several Ministries and Government agencies, including MOM, MND, BCA, HDB, Nee Soon Town Council, NEA, the Ministry of Home Affairs/Singapore Police Force (SPF) and LTA. The task force sought to address the three broad challenges shared thus far.

In the area of safety or security, Police officers from the Neighbourhood Police Centres have stepped up patrols, including deploying plainclothes officers, to maintain law and order. Auxiliary Police Officers have also been deployed at the areas of possible congregation to carry out foot patrols. Targeted enforcement against errant cyclists who ride on pedestrian footpaths has also been taken. Our grassroots volunteers also perform Citizens on Patrol to augment the forces. Police CCTVs have also been installed at the lift and staircase access points of the HDB blocks in proximity and CCTVs deployed at alcohol sales locations. We have also asked the dormitory operators to provide free wi-fi.

With respect to environmental issues, the task force and, in particular, MHA/SPF, grassroots, Town Council, NEA and Migrant Worker Centre, have also carried out numerous events and engagement sessions at these two dormitories to educate them on the laws, cultures and social norms, and help them assimilate into our country and neighbourhood. In

Page: 73

my visits during these events and sessions, I can see that the workers are supporting our drive.

As for the SMRT feeder service transport overcrowding issue, I am glad that LTA has added extra runs in the past year and other interventions like the peak period short service and a new service 803 to cater to BTOs along the route. However, we still receive feedback of crowding and we have since deployed bus ambassadors at those bus stops to ensure commuters move to the rear of the bus and queue up to board in an orderly manner.

Despite the initial successes, I urge all the partners, especially MOM, MND, BCA, MHA/SPF and LTA, to continue the good work of the task force by helping and supporting the grassroots volunteers to sustain the efforts. I submit that there should be a single point of contact so that our grassroots need not have to deal with so many different agencies. I urge also that alcohol sales and consumption be better managed, including affected areas in the neighbourhood and community.

In particular, I hope that even more can be done to further mitigate the 811 feeder service crowding. In fact, I just did my house visits to the three affected blocks two days ago and the residents there shared that the safety and security and environment issues have improved but quite a number still encounter long waits and overcrowding on bus service 811 during peak hours as well as on weekends. This is further exacerbated by the fact that there is bunching of buses as well as commuters not moving to the rear. I submit and recommend that a 811 peak period service dedicated solely to those two bus stops within close proximity to the Simpang lodges, or a new bus service be catered to alleviate the load.

The proposed Bill assures us that the authorities have a proper system in place to tighten the control over the challenges caused by large foreign dormitories. From a worker-centric point of view, one of the gaps of this proposed Bill is that it does not cover dormitories with less than 1,000 beds, such as those located within worksites. I know there are large numbers of foreign workers living in dormitories with less than 1,000 beds.

I urge MOM to fill the lacuna by bringing these smaller dormitories within the auspices of this new Bill. In the interim, I urge MOM to continue scrutinising these smaller dormitories and not let our guard down.

Nonetheless, I am glad to note that the Bill provides for the "threshold number" of 1,000 to be replaced with a lower number by the Minister publishing a gazette notification if and when needed. I am also encouraged that this Bill will also mean dormitories can be required to provide dedicated recreational facilities within these dormitories to provide the workers

Page: 74

with breathing space and also ease the load off neighbourhood community facilities.

In conclusion, at the end of the day, we want to move towards a system where migrant workers are treated with dignity. We want to help them become socially integrated and adapted to our society through understanding our cultures, behaviours, customs, attitudes and laws. Having this new licensing framework is a good start as a good environment in these dormitories will go a long way towards increasing their productivity, and new conditions will help eradicate the social disamenities and enhance the overall living environment of the foreign workers and the residents living in close proximity to these dormitories. I support this Bill.

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast) : Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill. It is disquieting to hear of cases where foreign workers, usually Work Permit holders, have had to endure overcrowded and unhygienic housing conditions when their unscrupulous employers flout the law. Workers have been found shoehorned into cramped shophouses, apartments and temporary dormitories, living in conditions that many of us would consider uninhabitable.

I am pleased that the Government intends, over the long term, to house all Work Permit holders in PBDs, where there are self-contained facilities to meet the workers' social and recreational needs outside work. These will not only cater to the lifestyle and recreational needs of the foreign workers, but will also help preserve the communal space for Singaporeans and minimise the impact of large concentrations of foreign workers on neighbouring local communities.

I had called on the Government to pursue this very approach during the 2013 Committee of Supply debate and am thankful that they have taken decisive action in the form of regulatory provisions, the building of more foreign worker recreation centres and the rapid increase in bed supply in PBDs.

The Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill requires dormitories with 1,000 or more beds to meet licensing conditions covering a wide range of areas, from public health and safety, security and public order issues to the provision and maintenance of social and commercial facilities and services.

Mdm Speaker, clause 29 of the Bill states that every foreign employee dormitory is to be deemed a public place for purposes of enforcing laws on drunken behaviour. I am concerned that curbs on alcohol consumption at the dormitories will mean drinking at other

Page: 75

places around the dormitories. This will cause great inconveniences to local communities in the neighbouring estate. Can the Minister please clarify how this risk can be mitigated?

I support the security requirements for dormitory operators to implement computerised access systems, CCTVs, segregation gates to isolate disturbances to within the dormitory compound, and an Emergency Response Plan to deal with potential public order incidents. I am also pleased with the requirement for sick bay isolation facilities to contain any infectious disease outbreak, which could spread quickly in a densely populated dormitory.

However, given the size and footprint of PBDs, I would like to ask the Minister what measures, other than those required of the operators, will be put in place by the various Government agencies to prevent and mitigate security and public order issues, if and when they arise from these large concentrations of foreign workers.

Madam, despite the best efforts to provide for the foreign workers' needs in their dormitory compounds, it is inevitable that many will feel the need to venture outside the dormitories, into the nearby local estates. I would like to ask the Minister what planning parameters are used to determine how foreign workers' dormitories should be sited in Singapore, how the impact on local residents is assessed and what additional resources, such as law enforcement officers, are then deployed in neighbourhoods close to foreign worker dormitories.

I recognise that given Singapore's small size, it is inevitable that some dormitories will be sited near our local communities. I believe that providing transparency around this issue will help manage the expectations of Singaporeans who live close to such dormitories and help them understand the situation. It will also help assure local residents to learn of additional measures taken by the authorities to mitigate any impact on their neighbourhood, security and lifestyles.

Madam, while I applaud the Government's efforts to set out comprehensive requirements for dormitory operators, complete with hefty penalties for non-compliance, this may also lead to dormitories being dominated by a few large players. Besides health and security measures, the proposed legislation requires dormitory operators to provide workers with a comprehensive range of daily conveniences at the dormitories, including minimarts, ATMs, regular events on Sundays and public holidays, and dedicated transport to and from the dormitories.

Marginal or smaller players will be squeezed out by these onerous conditions and high investment requirements. The business of operating dormitories will need to achieve a

Page: 76

certain scale to justify the building of these facilities expected of the operator. Both the dormitory owners as well as the operators may feel the need to build financial buffers to hedge against potential liabilities. As licences will only be valid for up to three years, it will also mean that capital expenditure will need to be depreciated over a relatively short period of time.

We should be cognisant of the cost structure in this industry and how they may translate into affordability issues for employers seeking dormitory beds for their employees. I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards he will put in place to prevent cost escalation and profiteering by a few large dominant players.

Foreign worker dormitories are projected to house as many as 385,000 non-domestic non-Malaysian Work Permit holders – this is an infrastructure on a very large scale. Perhaps the Government should consider taking on the role of developer or proprietor of foreign worker dormitories, so as to disintermediate, or remove one layer of commercial profit-making. Some commercial entities may be allowed to own and develop dormitories if they intend to operate the dormitories or are meant to house their own staff, as in the case of Keppel Corp and SembCorp. This approach offers the Government more control over the dormitories' "hardware" and the flexibility to choose qualified dormitory operators whose key focus will just be to run the day-to-day dormitory operations effectively and efficiently.

The new regulations are designed to minimise the impact of foreign worker dormitories on neighbouring communities. Whilst many Singaporeans will welcome this, it is important that we do not inadvertently encourage discrimination and prejudice against foreign workers, or confine them to a ghetto, and restrict their opportunity to assimilate and appreciate Singapore's culture and way of living. We must continue to foster a sense of mutual respect between Singaporeans and these workers, who are here to do jobs we would rather not do and to help build our economy. For example, in my ward, I have found it useful to involve workers from nearby dormitories in community events and projects, as well as join our Citizens-on-Patrol, as a means to understand each other better.

Madam, whilst I support having clear penalties to encourage good behaviour, as laid out in the Bill, the powers given to the Commissioner appear sweeping. In particular, the Explanatory Notes state that compliance directives may be issued to a licensed operator without the need for the licensed operator to be heard and that non-compliance is an arrestable offence. We need to ensure that any such directives issued are with transparency and fairness and do not serve to discourage genuinely interested and qualified operators from entering this industry.

Likewise, clause 25 states that "A Police officer or dormitory operator may arrest without warrant any individual whom the Police officer or dormitory inspector, as the case

Page: 77

may be, reasonably suspects is committing or has committed an offence under section 7". Here, again, we need to ensure that enforcement of this clause is fair and proportionate. I would also ask that dormitory operators and Police officers be properly trained to conduct inspections with due respect and sensitivity towards dormitory residents.

In addition, as a multi-agency approach will be adopted to ensure that the licensing conditions will be enforced, the different Government agencies should work seamlessly, expediently and coherently together.

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, it is heartening to learn from a recent survey that an overwhelming 90% of foreign workers in Singapore are satisfied to work here, 92% plan to continue working in Singapore, and 81% would recommend Singapore to friends and relatives as a place to work. Singapore continues to depend on these workers to build our infrastructure and support our economy. The Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill is a step in the right direction towards building living spaces where all residents, whether local citizens or foreign workers, can live and work together in comfort, safety and harmony. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Pritam Singh, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, Ms Irene Ng, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Foo Mee Har for their views and support for the Bill.

We all acknowledge the importance of the Bill as a progressive and much needed measure to provide the Government with additional levers to manage larger dormitories over and above current regulations. With that in place, we will be able to better design dormitories and to deal with these issues upstream when we are designing the dormitories, so that we can ensure that we provide better living, social, recreational alternatives for workers. This will also help to facilitate the harmonious co-existence with our residents from the surrounding communities.

A number of Members raised comments on a broad range of issues, including employment standards and protection for workers. They are all important. I would like to again emphasise that the management of a foreign workforce is a very wide-ranging topic. A number of these measures are already in place. A number of major steps have been put in place in the preceding years. For example, the changes that we have made to the

Page: 78

Employment of Foreign Manpower Act represent a step in that direction.

I would address most of the concerns specific to the issues of the Bill which is about regulating larger dormitories, but I would also like to take the opportunity here to make some broader points about the state of foreign worker welfare in Singapore; they are from some of the descriptions and points raised.

It is important for the House not to have the wrong impression that there is widespread mistreatment of foreign workers in Singapore. I do agree, for example, in various instances highlighted by a number of Members – Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Pritam Singh, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Ms Irene Ng – of workers being housed in poor, unhygienic conditions. I do know because I accompany my officers when they go for inspections and I have seen many of such similar cases.

Does it mean that every single accommodation in Singapore is in that fashion? No. Are there egregious cases? There are. But I would like to emphasise that these instances that we see, they are unacceptable; and in many instances, they already violate existing laws. Regulatory agencies will take to task any person found to have violated the prevailing standards and ensure that the affected workers are relocated to approved accommodations.

My officers are out every week inspecting, following up on leads and tip-offs. Many of these do not make it to the headlines. What you see represents some of the cases that have been highlighted, some have been tipped off to the media, some have been tipped off by the public, some by the NGOs, and they are valid because there are these cases and many more that our people see. We do need to deal with them. But does it mean that, across the board, the situation is dire, as highlighted by Ms Foo Mee Har?

We have taken this issue on board. We have tried to make sure that we survey the foreign workers in a large enough sample to understand what are the conditions. Our survey showed that nine in 10 foreign workers are satisfied with working in Singapore and an equally high proportion would recommend that their friends come here to work. Again, that does not mean that there are no egregious cases.

For example, in terms of existing regulations – in terms of enforcement – last year, MOM alone took more than 1,400 employers to task for providing unacceptable accommodation to their workers. We relocated close to 3,000 as a result of poor living conditions. We have prosecuted offenders in egregious cases. Other agencies, such as URA, NEA and SCDF have also taken errant premises owners to task for flouting existing regulations which cover areas, such as illegal subletting, inadequate bathing and toilet facilities and overcrowding. As the Government, we are not only stepping up enforcement

Page: 79

of existing requirements, but we are also continuing to review and raise these standards over time, and this is what we are going to do.

This Bill addresses one part of the issue, which is dealing with the dormitories that are far larger. The rest of the other regulations continue to be in place, tracked and strengthened over time. In particular, housing types raised by Members, for example, onsite workers' quarters – that is one area that we are looking at as well. I would also add that the authorities are also watching the density and use of these sites. Apart from managing the standards that are expected and required, we are also looking at what sites ought to be approved, where are the areas that ought to be approved and, as we build up more PBDs, we are also looking at being a lot stricter in giving approvals for the use of various premises for housing foreign workers.

Let me also state this again about foreign workers being housed in dormitories. The dormitories are more relevant for non-Malaysian workers in the construction, marine and process sectors. This group forms only about half, not the whole of the 770,000 or so Work Permit holders in Singapore. Half of them are Malaysians. Many of them commute daily and do not need dormitories, or are workers in the manufacturing and services sectors who may live in rented residential premises near their workplaces.

With regard to Ms Foo Mee Har's query on how the locations of dormitories are determined, the relevant Government agencies do take into account many factors, including technical and infrastructural constraints like suitability of roads, adequacy of sewers in the area as well as recreational and social amenities that the dormitory can support. I would also like to assure Mr Gan Thiam Poh that similar care is taken in determining the capacity for each dormitory as well as the number of dormitories allowed within an area.

This level of coordination is going on across Government agencies and we do continue to want to strengthen that. This may not always be apparent because this often takes place in the background. But this work will continue and we will continue to emphasise and strengthen the collaboration and cooperation across various stakeholders.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also raised the issue of whether employers from specific sectors should be allowed to house their workers in better-equipped PBDs. While the Government's view is that PBDs can better cater to Work Permit holders' housing needs, there are also merits to housing workers on or near their worksites. For example, this would alleviate the need to transport them back and forth. There will be an impact on productivity. There will also be less loading on the public transport system during peak hours. Therefore, such non-PBDs still remain a space which we need to look at in terms of providing housing options, provided they continue to meet the existing regulatory requirements on appropriate housing standards. Where these requirements and standards are not met, we urge the public and

Page: 80

those who are aware of such violations to raise them. Our authorities will inspect and take action. That is what a lot of officers do on a week-to-week basis.

Mr Christopher de Souza, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Gan Thiam Poh had also noted that there is still a significant number of workers who are being housed in the dormitories that will not come under the ambit of this new Bill. This is one of the common concerns that have been raised by many about why only those dormitories with above 1,000 beds; how about those with less? They suggested lowering the 1,000-bed threshold to cover dormitories housing fewer workers. Assoc Prof Randolph Tan has also asked if concerns about unintended outcomes arising from the threshold had been considered.

To put things in perspective, the threshold of 1,000 beds will cover all existing PBDs, and all the new PBDs coming onstream will offer 1,000 beds and above. That is where we are going with PBDs. It is important for us to factor in these requirements upstream, so that they are designed and worked into the building of the PBDs; not just the physical infrastructure, but the way in which it has to be run. It does not mean that the rest of the space is not being regulated; they are. It also does not mean that we will not look at whether and how to strengthen the regulations for the smaller dormitories or accommodations which house fewer than 1,000 beds.

It is a considered decision. We had also debated why 1,000 beds, should it be fewer, should it be more. We looked at the spread of the different housing types and the numbers that they house. We felt that, going forward, that is what we are going to do with PBDs – we are going to have a lot more of these and that is why it is important for this Bill to move now rather than wait for a complete solution. The rest of the other measures will unfold with time as we look into it and see how best to strengthen them.

Over time, as more PBD sites are launched, we will expect the proportion of foreign workers staying in larger dormitories within the threshold to increase. As I have mentioned earlier, we will also manage in terms of the permission given for contractors and developers, in terms of requesting various sites to house their workers. As more of these PBDs come onsite, we will also begin to take a stricter view about how workers are housed elsewhere. Therefore, you will begin to see a lot more of them shifting towards PBDs.

There is, therefore, this need to manage upstream the different dynamics that come with a larger site. As I have highlighted earlier, the 1,000-bed threshold was selected because of the different challenges posed by such larger dormitories, as well as the fact that the requirements that we will impose, such as outdoor recreation spaces and minimarts, are

Page: 81

only possible actually in larger dormitories.

For smaller dormitories – for smaller factory-converted dormitories, for example, they may not have the scale to be able to put in place some of these measures. There are other solutions. For instance, we also encourage the building of recreational centres which cater to clusters. For example, there are areas where there, perhaps, may not be so many of such PBDs but there are facilities housing smaller numbers of workers, but there is a whole cluster of them which have needs to be met, and that is where recreational centres are being built to address those.

There are practical reasons why this is so. For example, we are aware of security concerns. We are also aware of healthcare concerns. For smaller dormitories or smaller accommodation spaces, when outbreaks happen, you can manage it, you have quarantine. But when you have a much larger dormitory, the requirements are quite different, the scale is very different. We need to weave this into the design of the dormitories themselves.

Instead of just lowering the threshold, the more practical approach, we believe, is to add on additional requirements for dormitories above 1,000 beds. I emphasise again: existing regulations continue to be there. They continue to be important. They continue to cover a wide range of the concerns that we have today, and they will be looked at and will continue to be strengthened over time. But for the many PBDs that are going to come on line – the existing ones and the new ones – we do need these additional requirements because the scale of those dormitories is quite different. These requirements will be on top of the existing levers which will continue to apply.

Having said this, we will also bear in mind the suggestion, the possibility, of having different classes of licences in the future, should experience show that this is needed. Which is why the way the Bill is structured allows us to have the space to have different classes of licences and to be able to adjust the numbers accordingly, should the need arise.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Pritam Singh were also concerned that operators could potentially escape licensing by subdividing their premises to fall slightly below the threshold of 1,000 beds; or as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah mentioned, "What about the 999-bed dormitories?" We have recognised this and we know that people are very creative. Whatever laws that we come up with, they will find creative ways to circumvent them.

For the vast majority of dormitories which will be Government-tendered, the proprietors are obliged to provide enough bed spaces for a predetermined number of workers. Any request for subdivision will be evaluated and will be subjected to approval by the relevant authorities. Moreover, we have made provisions in the Bill precisely to prevent

Page: 82

this kind of gaming by empowering the Commissioner to deem a group of buildings, structures or facilities as one dormitory for the purpose of dormitory licensing. We are fully aware that there is a likelihood, in fact, in our discussions with the various stakeholders with the dormitory operators themselves, they have also raised various questions, "What happens if we have this, that and the other?" This is where we share the same concern as Members do, and we have worked it into the Bill so that we make sure we are able to prevent such gaming of the system.

Members, such as Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Ms Irene Ng, have commented on the affordability of PBD beds, in particular, that dormitories may raise bed prices in response to the cost of meeting higher regulatory standards. The Government has also been injecting more land for development of PBDs over the last few years. As PBDs are completed over the coming years, more bed spaces are coming online in the next few years, we have reasons to believe that the dormitory operators will need to keep prices competitive to attract tenants. At the same time, as I have mentioned earlier, we are also watching the space in terms of permission granted for other types of dormitories being set up, housing smaller numbers of workers in other types of accommodations.

Let me point out that the additional requirements to be imposed through this regime have been included in the tender conditions for new dormitories since last year. What it means is that the bidders of these sites must calculate the necessary compliance costs, including the additional regulatory requirements of larger dormitories as part of their overall business plans and, therefore, adjust the costs in their bids accordingly. This mechanism will also allow them to ensure that they do not just pass on the cost. Often times, if you overbid for a particular project, you will have to find ways to recover that. But when all these requirements are upfront, they will have to factor that in so that they bid accordingly. This will help to manage the cost and to ensure that they do not transfer it on to others, especially to the workers.

For existing dormitories which were not built to the new standards, as many Members have acknowledged, it is important for us to allow some flexibility on a case-by-case basis when it is extremely difficult for the dormitory to comply. We will give time and we support their effort. For instance, there may be space constraints and it might just not be possible to provide sufficient outdoor recreation space. We will provide some form of financial assistance to retrofit existing dormitories to ease operators into the new framework and reduce the need to pass on the cost through higher bed prices. More details will be provided to the industries when these are finalised.

With regard to Ms Foo Mee Har's comments on the impact of the licensing tenure on the recovery of capital investments, dormitories with longer land leases may renew their

Page: 83

licences if they comply with the licensing conditions and if the location continues to be deemed suitable for foreign worker housing.

Ms Foo Mee Har also asked about the other measures in place to mitigate contingencies involving security and public order. We have kept such contingencies in view and consulted quite extensively with the relevant agencies, including SPF, MOH and NEA, when formulating the licensing conditions. Many of the requirements imposed on the dormitory operators are devised precisely to facilitate the intervention of the relevant agencies in an emergency. We would also like to assure Ms Irene Ng that it is not the intention of the Government to make dormitories restrictive places to live in. There are also extensive requirements pertaining to areas, such as social and recreational amenities, which ensure that dormitories better meet the needs of the residents.

I would like to thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh for the suggestion to include other requirements in the licensing conditions. We have worked closely with the Members on the licensing conditions and have incorporated their inputs where possible. The licensing conditions set the minimum standards that the licensed dormitories have to comply with, and are intended to complement the broader suite of foreign worker management initiatives that I have earlier mentioned. Nonetheless, we will encourage operators to provide additional services or amenities that best serve the specific needs of their residents.

Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Patrick Tay also highlighted the importance of managing alcohol sale and consumption. In the upcoming Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill, which MHA has tabled, will deal with this issue.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan noted the importance of ensuring that the new regulations are effectively enforced. I fully agree with that. Assoc Prof Tan can be assured that sufficient resources have been allocated to the task. On the other hand, I would also like to assure Ms Foo Mee Har and Mrs Lina Chiam that we will not go overboard either and that the powers of the Commissioner and inspectors will be exercised judiciously. They will have a wide range of tools and levers that can be calibrated according to the situation. For example, the offence of running a large dormitory without a licence is a particularly egregious one. We have, therefore, made this an arrestable offence.

It is also imperative that the Commissioner has the powers to use compliance directives to respond effectively to disorder and risks to the dormitory residents' health and safety. In such exceptional circumstances, when time is of the essence, the Commissioner needs to have the power to direct dormitories to comply immediately with the necessary requirements, even if these have not been communicated beforehand. As many Members have shared, for instances of violations, we do take these quite seriously. The changes we have made in EFMA in the preceding years and some of these measures we are putting in

Page: 84

place are to give the authorities more clout to be able to step in, in a much more decisive fashion. We are going to do the same for dormitories and housing arrangements for fewer than 1,000 workers.

Nonetheless, there will be appropriate appeal and review mechanisms, including for compliance directives and the modification of licence conditions under both normal and extraordinary circumstances. For instance, for the modification of licensing conditions, the Commissioner must give a notice period of at least 14 days, during which the operator may make written representations. Clause 13(2) also states clearly the circumstances under which the Commissioner may issue a compliance directive, for instance, when the dormitory has contravened a licensing condition.

We also recognise that, from time to time, there are genuine issues on the ground that even the best of regulations might not have been taken fully into account, particularly in areas where there are high concentrations of foreign workers. Agencies have, therefore, been working with Members and grassroots leaders to tackle the challenges on the ground, and we will continue with these efforts. I am glad that Mr Patrick Tay agrees that these interventions have helped to alleviate the challenges faced in his constituency and we will continue to work closely with him to address the remaining issues.

On this note, I would also echo that whatever regulations we put in place, whether it is managing dormitories of 1,000 beds and more, or smaller, even in the present situation, we do see violations. My officers see violations every week. Are we able to eradicate them? It is probably difficult and probably not possible to say we can eradicate them completely. But we must endeavour to eradicate as much of them as possible. This is where we do need the strength of the regulations and the laws for us to be able to take action. We do need enforcement to be strengthened. That is something that we plan to do.

We have been carrying out enforcement and we do plan to step up efforts. We do need the community, just as in terms of managing the congregational issues that we face on the ground, we also need the community to provide us with information for us to act. We do receive many leads and so on, but we have also been on many wild goose chases – times when we were given information and we carry out the inspection and nothing is there. So, we also need to evaluate that. But information is important, whether through industry insiders, members of the public, the media or NGOs. It takes the community to play a part. When egregious cases are noticed, give us information and we will endeavour to act on it and take the necessary action.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill will enhance the levers to address the different dynamics that come with larger dormitories. This Bill also seeks to provide a good and safe living environment for dormitory residents and manage the potential impact on surrounding

Page: 85

communities.

This Bill does not address all issues pertaining to the management of foreign workers. It is meant to address a particular trend; it is to address dormitories housing more than 1,000 foreign workers, because that is where we are going with a lot of PBDs. Existing regulations are in place, we will continue to work on them, along with other measures to better manage our foreign workforce in order to better look after them. They play, as many Members have highlighted, a very important role in building up Singapore, and it is our responsibility and duty to look after all our workers, whether foreign or local.

Notwithstanding what we see sometimes online, I do believe that many Singaporeans do appreciate the contributions of foreign workers. In fact, in many of the surveys and in many of the conversations I have had with foreign workers, many of them are happy here. It is not a perfect life by any means, but many of them appreciate the kindness and warmth shown to them by the many Singaporeans whom they come into contact with on a daily basis.

I echo Ms Foo's sentiment that we do not, and should not, inadvertently encourage discrimination or prejudice against foreign workers. To address what some critics have from time to time claimed, it would be wrong to associate the steps that we are taking to make dormitories safer, more secure and better able to meet the needs of the residents with the xenophobic sentiments.

Once again, I do very much thank Members of the House for their support of the Bill. Many of the views that you echo and the concerns you have expressed, I share them wholeheartedly. As I have said, this Bill is meant to address a particular space. The space is a very large one. There are existing measures in place, there will be new measures and new initiatives put in place to further improve it and we look forward to Members' suggestions on how best to do that.

As several Members alluded to, we do want to manage the common spaces so that we, and our residents, whether local or foreign workers as well, can all live and work together harmoniously, and we look forward to working closely with employers and industry, who play a very important role in shaping this, and with Members of the House to achieve this outcome. With that, thank you very much.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Minister. The Minister mentioned that the Bill targets those dormitories that are housing 1,000 workers and above. But this Bill's name is "Foreign Employee Dormitories Bill". Why do we not call the Bill the "Purpose-Built Dormitory Bill"? That is, we call a spade a spade. It is still important for us to ensure that all the other dormitories are properly regulated. Because of the fact that many Members have raised the concern, may I now ask the Minister if he would recognise that there is a big gap? In his reply, he mentioned that, currently, there are already a lot of existing regulations to regulate the other dormitories. But how are we going to enhance them?

I would also like to ask the Minister: why do we not consider, like the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill yesterday, grouping all the other relevant regulations into the Bill to make the whole regulatory regime more comprehensive?

Mdm Speaker, it is important for us to understand that this Bill addresses a specific issue, which is how best to regulate the larger dormitories, basically 1,000-bedders and above, because we are building PBDs of that size. It does not mean there are no regulations in place; it does not mean that the present regulations governing the welfare of the foreign workforce are inadequate. There are, for example, in the many instances highlighted in the media, the egregious cases we have seen over the past couple of months – in fact, over a long period, there have been various issues that have been cropping up – all those cases violate existing regulations.

What we intend to do is to make sure those regulations remain in place. They continue to remain in place, even for the larger dormitories. But the larger dormitories bring with them a different scale, which is why it is important for us to provide some of these added requirements, because the scale adds a very different dimension to it.

Now, does it preclude that we, going forward, do not bring in some of these measures for some of the smaller dorms? It does not preclude that. Does it mean that we will not eventually have an over-arching Bill that brings in together everything? No, it does not preclude that either. What we are saying is that there are already a lot of measures in place and continue to be in existence. We do not want to wait for this mother-of-all-Bills to cover everything, because it is pressing for us to address the 1,000-bedders and above, because these PBDs are coming online. We want the contractors and developers to build this into the requirements and to the design of not only the physical infrastructure, but in the way in which they are run, so that the playing field is clear, all these things are fused in and we do not need to do this retrospectively. We will continue to work on this space to improve the management of our foreign workforce, whether in terms of their living or working conditions.

Page: 87

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the follow-up question. We will go after the owners of the assets. The point that the Member raised in his speech was about eventually going all the way up to even the stakeholders, investors and so on. But in this particular case, we want to deal with the owners of the assets, those who are managing the dormitories and take action against them.

Mdm Speaker, I share the concerns raised by the hon Member Yeo Guat Kwang on the need to have a more comprehensive regulation that encompasses as well the smaller dormitories. I understand the Minister's point that the smaller dormitories are already governed by the existing regulations. But the concern that many Members here share is that while we have tough laws for the smaller dormitories, the enforcement may not have been as tough.

That is why one of the questions I raised in my speech was: within the last two years ever since the Act was tightened and penalties increased for housing violations, how many cases have been brought to bear and with deterrent penalties on errant employers? While we have this new tough Bill for 1,000-bedders and above, we would like an assurance that the smaller dormitories will not escape the gaze of MOM.

My other question is to clarify whether the Minister is saying that the direction where MOM is moving is towards encouraging, or maybe a gentle persuasion for, employers to go into PBDs; or is he tightening the screws in terms of tightening permits for new quarters, squeezing out available options in the market for smaller dormitories so that they will be herded into PBDs?

Mdm Speaker, I am not sure "herding" will be the appropriate term to use in this context. But the idea is that, going forward, we will be building more PBDs of that size. We would like to shift more of the housing accommodation needs of our foreign workforce into that sector. It does not mean that the need for some of these factory-converted dormitories (FCDs) does not exist. We do know there are also many FCDs, for

Page: 88

example, that do need regulations and which are of a suitable standard to provide housing and accommodation for the foreign workforce. There is a reason for that, because housing them, for example, onsite, would actually be a lot more productive, would save a lot of time, I think for the foreign workers themselves as well. But the standards must be met.

As we go forward, as we build and provide more of this bed space elsewhere, we would also look at the approval process for the different accommodation for workers. For example, URA has also issued some guidelines on some of the areas. If we have a number of FCDs and we feel that the density has exceeded what we feel is comfortable, we will place a cap and basically not allow further FCDs on those premises.

But as we have more PBDs, we will begin to see more and more of our foreign workforce living in those conditions. And there are better controls, which is why it is important to bring about this Bill.

It is also important to understand – and I have emphasised this repeatedly – that bringing about this Bill does not mean that the accommodation spaces and the needs of the workers who are staying in dormitories which are smaller than 1,000 beds are not important. They continue to remain important. And it continues to be important that we not only regulate but regulate them effectively.

The reason why this Bill is in place is so that we can make sure that these measures and parameters are worked in early. The existing space for some of the smaller living accommodation and spaces do remain important. They are quite substantial in numbers and we do want to make sure that the regulations continue to be enforced.

What the Member raised is not about the regulations not being comprehensive. It is about enforcement. Is it sufficiently effective? So, we recognise that. Enforcement is in place but we will step it up.

Madam, I would like to ask the Minister on the point I raised about the risk of dormitories in the future being dominated by a few large players, given the comprehensive range of facilities that is required and also the investment. I have asked the Minister whether the Government would take on the role of a developer or proprietor for foreign worker dormitories so as to remove one layer of commercial profit-making.

All the Government needs to do is focus on appointing people who are good in dormitory operations and these people do not have to have a lot of investments and they

Page: 89

focus on the day-to-day operations of the dormitory, making sure they are run effectively and efficiently. So, maybe a little bit like going back to the old days of JTC building worker dormitories so that this does not have to be because I think the risk of the very comprehensive set of regulations and the hefty penalties may preclude some of the smaller players from coming into the space. After a few years they may be worried about having discussions about cost escalation and monopoly by a few large players.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for her question and concern. We will watch this space. I am not sure whether it is the role of the Government to step in to build these dormitories and manage them. Whether the Government-linked companies or JTC steps in or not, that is a decision that they have to take. But we recognise the concerns that the Member has raised. It is something that we are fully aware of and we will track the developments as they go on.