Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The proposed amendments to the Environmental Public Health Act will achieve the following objectives: (a) upgrade and improve the performance standards of the cleaning industry; (b) increase the wage and welfare benefits of local cleaners; and (c) reduce the number of cases of high-rise littering in Singapore.

Madam, it is, indeed, timely to regulate the cleaning industry and improve the business practices and skills of our cleaners. Over the years, it has become increasingly challenging for cleaning contractors to recruit skilled local cleaners. As a result, the cleaning standard in many places has declined and more complaints were received.

The standard of services of the cleaning companies is further compromised due to cheap sourcing and intense competition. Competitive bidding for cleaning services based solely on lowest tender price has also suppressed the wage growth of local cleaners, and discouraged cleaning firms from adopting

Page: 66

innovative solutions to improve productivity and quality.

Madam, in the 15 PAP-run Town Councils, we have a total of 107 cleaning services contracts provided by 19 conservancy contractors employing 2,500 local cleaners. As part of the ongoing efforts of the Town Councils to improve our services to residents, the Town Councils had implemented the Job Redesign Programme (JRP) for our cleaning contracts a few years ago. The Town Councils adopted a three-pronged approach, namely: (a) Performance-based tender system; (b) Performance evaluation system; and (c) Price-Quality Method tender evaluation system to improve the cleaning standards of our contractors.

In doing so, we have increased the skills and wages of our Town Council cleaners. With effect from 1 November 2013, all PAP Town Councils' local cleaners are employed under the Progressive Wage Model salary structure. At the same time, the Town Council cleaning contractors have started investing in the mechanisation of various cleaning operations, such as sweeping, washing, floor scrubbing and so on.

Madam, the PAP-run Town Councils fully support the licensing of the cleaning businesses, as stated in section 80A, to regulate and upgrade the cleaning standards and productivity in the cleaning industry. While it is good to regulate cleaning firms, it would be challenging for the Ministry to enforce as there are many small-sized cleaning sub-contractors in the industry.

Many of these firms will face difficulties in complying with the licensing requirements, such as sending all their cleaners for training, keeping training records, providing written employment contracts and pay slips. Therefore, the licensing will have immense impact on SME cleaning firms.

Madam, I wish to ask the Minister how the Ministry plans to enforce the licensing regime on all cleaning firms, and what measures can be taken to assist SME cleaning firms to fulfil the licensing requirements.

Madam, section 80H (1)(c) requires the licensee to enter into a contract of service for each cleaner. As there is no definition of "contract of service" in the Bill, this licensing condition may not protect the rights and welfare of cleaners. For instance, a written contract of service could be just a letter stating the salary and commencement date of work. It may not provide employment terms and conditions, such as annual leave, medical benefits, insurance or termination notice. As such, I wish to propose to the Minister to consider incorporating

Page: 67

essential employment terms and conditions into section 80H (1)(c) as part of the licensing requirements for contract of service.

Madam, the job of a cleaner is a tough one in Singapore, and often not appreciated by many people. I would urge the Government and all Singaporeans to do more to recognise the efforts of our tireless cleaners.

Madam, each year, the PAP-run Town Councils receive about 2,200 complaints on high-rise littering. About 50% of the high-rise litter includes cigarette butts, food, rubbish, tissue, sanitary pads and so on. The other 50% are killer litter or potential killer litter, such as flower pots, bamboo poles, cages, windows, mops, glass, mattresses and so on.

Despite years of public education and enforcement efforts, high-rise littering remains a problem. These ungracious acts cause hygiene problems, and pose safety hazards to the general public. Very often, it takes a lot of effort to resolve the high-rise littering problem as it is difficult to catch the litterbug red-handed. Furthermore, the cleaning of high-rise litter trapped at building ledges, roofs or trees is difficult and costly. The Town Councils and NEA have been working closely to resolve this issue. In some cases, we encounter difficulty in seeking the cooperation of our residents to resolve the high-rise littering problem.

Therefore, I support the amendment to section 17 requiring the flat owner or occupier to provide information to the police or authorised officer which may lead to the identification of the alleged offender of high-rise littering. This new provision will deter high-rise littering, and facilitate enforcement efforts. But I am not sure whether the expansion of investigation powers of police officers and authorised officers will resolve the problem.

Madam, high-rise littering is usually attributed to two groups of residents, namely: (a) persons with mental illnesses; and (b) persons who are lazy to dispose of rubbish properly at home. Therefore, by obtaining information of the occupiers at the time of the offence, the authorities may identify that the alleged offender is a mentally unsound person.

What then can the authorities do to resolve the problem? We need further empowerment of the Police officers and authorised officers to bring such persons for proper medical treatment so as to resolve the root cause of the problem. Thus, I would urge the Minister to consider empowering the Police officers and authorised officers under section 17 to arrest and send such

Page: 68

mentally ill persons for medical treatment.

As for repeat offenders, I support the increase of penalty to impose a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both. This will provide a strong deterrence to high-rise littering. Madam, to further deter high-rise littering, I would urge the Ministry to consider investing in more technology, such as surveillance camera or DNA identification technologies, to identify offenders, and take strict enforcement action. At the same time, I would urge all residents staying in high-rise buildings to play a more active role to keep watch of these high-rise litterbugs and work closely with the Town Councils or authorities to make our living environment a safe and pleasant place.

Madam, I welcome the Bill as it puts in place a new framework to lift the low wages of cleaners and to transform the standards of this sector. It signifies a shift in the Government's mindset towards setting a sector-specific minimum wage or wage floor, something that I and a few Members have asked the Government to consider for sometime.

I commend the Government on its readiness to take this targeted approach for the cleaning sector with its preponderance of low-wage workers. This is a critical and urgent move, given how rapidly the income gap is widening and how the valiant efforts all these years to lift their wages in various ways have proven to be slow and less than satisfactory.

About 70,000 workers clean our HDB estates, offices, buildings, hawker centres and streets. About two-thirds, or 51,000, of them are resident cleaners. Yet, despite all that they do to provide us a high quality of life in this clean and green city, to keep our economy running, and to give us a competitive edge in the world, they are paid among the lowest wages in Singapore, with their median monthly wage being $815. They are working hard and playing by the rules, and they deserve a chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. That is why this legislation is so important.

Their wages have remained largely stagnant for many years and, in some cases, have also declined. This is due mainly to the market trends that are out of their control. The rapid rise in outsourcing and the growth in the number of cleaning companies have resulted in increasing competitiveness of

Page: 69

subcontracting, with contracts going to the lowest bidder.

There are now more than 900 cleaning companies. At the same time, the heavy reliance on foreign workers, which are cheap with no bargaining rights, has depressed wages. These trends have combined to erode the wages, working conditions and potential collective power of resident cleaners.

The Government has been tackling these issues. It has tightened the supply of foreign workers in the cleaning sector and increased their levies. The new mandatory licensing scheme is another critical step to counter that dynamic. The challenge is how to move in a managed and effective way from the current framework to a far more equitable arrangement. This Bill provides a useful model not only for this sector, but also for other sectors which suffer chronically from low wages, such as the security and landscaping sectors.

To ensure that it provides a successful and effective model, we need to take a hard look at possible pitfalls and to scrutinise the details of the mechanism. Madam, I would like to make three points.

First, to succeed, the model must be relatively easy to implement and enforce. The principles are clear: a legislated wage floor and wage grid will be set, specific to this sector, decided by a tripartite committee which will negotiate the wages. What is not so clear are the workings of the mechanism and the objective criteria used for setting wages. It should be recognised that wage negotiations for low-wage workers for this sector all these years have not yielded significant increases. Unions in certain low-paid industries are constantly under pressure to keep wages low in an attempt to protect jobs in a competitive global economy. At their best, they work with companies to improve productivity and profitability so that they can afford to pay it. Indeed, this is the approach that the Progressive Wage Model seems to be taking.

The Tripartite Committee recommends $1,000 as the entry-level basic wage for cleaning jobs in offices and commercial buildings, as well as the F&B sector; and $1,200 in the conservancy sector. One may ask: why $1,200 for conservancy cleaners, and not $1,300 or $1,400, for instance?

It is useful to have a more systematic and objective criteria to set the wage floor, to provide wage security and fairness for the workers, and to provide predictability and transparency for the businesses.

Page: 70

For this, I would like to propose that the wage floor be set with reference to objective criteria, such as a minimum living level and inflation rate. There should be automatic annual increases linked to changes in the cost of living, with regular reviews to the wage levels.

As it appears now, the mechanism seems to depend entirely on collective bargaining by the Tripartite Committee and the ability of the members to reach a consensus. Madam, we have cause to take pride in our tripartite model but, for the purpose of law, it would be prudent to provide for contingencies. What if the negotiations were to be drawn out or to break down? Will the Commissioner for Labour intervene?

In Germany, which implements industry-specific minimum wage, it has encountered such pitfalls. Renegotiations on a sector's minimum wages are renewed regularly. But when renegotiation fails, several months may elapse, during which no minimum is in effect. Employers have sometimes seized the opportunity to hire employees at wages that are 30% below the minimum amount. This is what happened, for instance, in late 2009 in the industrial cleaning business.

It is a delicate balance to set wages at the right level. Indeed, one of the Government's major concerns of introducing minimum wages of any sort, be it sector-specific or industry-wide, has been that it would lead to a job loss, and this is a serious concern. But with the right labour measures and business incentives, and the support of Singaporeans, we can mitigate against this for this sector. There is now a tight labour market for local cleaners. Businesses need not suffer the cost inflation alone – they can draw from the various funding schemes provided by the Government and also pass some of the cost on to their customers.

Madam, it is important to prepare for the various scenarios. I would like to ask the Minister for an analysis of the impact on jobs, cleaning contracts and the steps that would be taken to mitigate the impact on those affected. This leads me to my second point.

It is important to ensure that, as this Bill pushes through the reforms, the group which we intend to help – the low-wage workers – will, indeed, see fairer wages, better working conditions and a higher quality of life.

I hear the constant mantra that wage increases should be linked to productivity. In general, that is correct. But in this case, for this sector, I would

Page: 71

argue that this productivity link should not be over-emphasised. The way I see it, we have been undervaluing and underpaying our cleaners for far too long.

We are now moving decisively, through these provisions of this Bill, to put this right, to correct an injustice, to hit the reset button, as the Minister said. So, let us pay them according to the job worth.

Education and training are important, and so is increasing productivity in the longer term. But, in the short term, we should accept that the scope for increased productivity in this sector is limited. This is not unique to Singapore. Even in Europe, they found that productivity increases in the cleaning sector are particularly difficult to achieve at the bottom of the earnings scale, compared to jobs in the manufacturing sector where productivity gains are easier and faster to achieve.

To compound the problem in Singapore, most of our resident cleaners are older and low-educated. They take this job because they cannot find a better one. Their options are severely restricted. It is a tough job. For example, a typical Town Council cleaner would have to clean two to three blocks a day on top of spot cleaning. They work from 7.00 am to 4.00 pm, sometimes later. To increase productivity, he would have to cover more blocks, or do the same blocks faster. Certainly, using machines would help. But the way the corridors of HDB blocks are designed, with scupper drains, the cleaner would typically still have to use a broom to sweep every floor. For block washing, the cleaner would use a high-pressure machine jet. But this requires strength and energy. This would usually be assigned to younger foreign workers, as our older local workers find this difficult to handle.

If it is required by fiat that they must show higher productivity for getting a wage rise, I fear that our older workers will get the short end of the stick. We need to assure our older workers that even as this Bill takes effect, they will have a place in our workforce with decent and fair wages.

I would urge the Ministry to ensure that employers do not exploit workers by increasing their workload or working hours to justify the wage increase. It should also track the wage levels closely, to monitor if they are stuck at the lowest level or if there is, indeed, progression over the years.

A related point is the pay of foreign cleaners. From an equity point of view, foreign workers should also enjoy a wage increase, which should go into their pockets and not siphoned off as Government levies. It should not be added as

Page: 72

extra cost to the business, which already pays a $600 levy for a foreign cleaner. The higher salaries should be taken off the foreign workers' levies. Presently, foreign cleaners are already paid lower than local cleaners, although foreign cleaners generally work longer hours and do a greater share of the dirtier and heavier work. As a matter of principle, we should pay according to the value of the job.

Last year, in Tampines Changkat, my constituency, we held a Model Cleaner Award competition. We invited residents to vote for the top five cleaners, one from each RC Zone. It is our way of recognising the good cleaners in the estate. And all five cleaners that the residents voted for were foreign workers. The residents recognise their hard work. So, why then should a foreign worker who cleans the blocks as diligently as a Singaporean worker, or, as is often the case, more diligently, continue to be paid $800 a month while a Singaporean would be paid $1,200 a month under the Progressive Wage Model? Let the foreign worker also enjoy a fair wage. This will help to build a more stable and harmonious labour environment, given Singapore's high reliance on foreign workers in such sectors and also a more decent and fair society.

My final point is on the increased penalties for littering. I welcome this. I am not so sure, however, if the response of litterbugs to big fines is one of remorse and shame or one of anger at the Government for fining them. Will they go, "Oh dear, I am so sorry that I was caught littering. I will never do this again", or will they curse and swear at those who have identified, nabbed and fined them?

I would ask for more emphasis on the Corrective Work Orders (CWOs), which will help to bring home the point that this is an anti-social behaviour, it is irresponsible and, at the same time, give them a sense of how it feels like to pick up after residents. And I would especially ask the Minister to consider forcing litterbugs to do CWOs in their own neighbourboods, for those who litter in their neighbourhood. Be a cleaner for a day in their own block. This would raise public awareness of the working conditions of a cleaner, as well as respect for the job. Ultimately, what would improve the working conditions of cleaners would be if there would be less litter.

There is an unfortunate attitude among some who think that because they pay the Service & Conservancy Charges (S&CC), they can litter at all hours of the day and there will be a cleaner to pick up after them. And if the cleaners do not pick up fast enough, it is the cleaners' fault. Their dogs can urinate in the lift or staircase landing; they can leave rubbish all around the bins but not in the bins; they can chuck their bulky items – cupboards, mattresses – all over the

Page: 73

place, anywhere, because they pay for the cleaners to remove all these. Madam, we must correct this attitude firmly. It is important to register the point that the cleaners are not servants. They are professionals deserving of consideration and respect.

If there is less rubbish left at the corridors and staircase landings, less urine and dog poo in lifts and corridors, fewer soiled pads and less leftover food thrown from windows, this will save a lot of time for the cleaner. And this will contribute to a reduction of cost for the client, in this case the Town Council and, ultimately, also the residents. Then, Singaporeans can justifiably take pride in being part of a clean city, because they help to keep it clean, rather than a cleaned city, as the Minister mentioned, which is maintained by an army of underpaid workers.

In conclusion, this Bill is a critical move to raise the wages of resident cleaners to enable them to secure a decent pay rise and feel a little more valued, a little more respected, a little more self-sufficient. If this model succeeds, there will be more low-wage people with more money in their pockets and with a better future to look forward to. We realise that such a development may be strongly resisted by certain vested interests. However, the alternative is to continue living with a large group of working poor and growing inequality, which will threaten to erode our social cohesion and the relevance of our social compact. On that note, I support the Bill.

I support the Bill but I have some concerns that I hope the Ministry can address.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to first address the new licensing requirement in the Amendment Bill. According to NEA, the new licensing regime for the cleaning industry will incentivise businesses to improve standards and productivity, and also help to enhance the professionalism and image of the cleaning industry.

In its current state, without the new licensing regime, almost 82% of the population enjoy a clean environment, as reported by the last Town Council Management Report (TCMR). All Town Councils receive a Green Mark in the area of cleanliness. Even without a 100% trained workforce today, cleaning companies, serving a large part of Singapore, are doing a decent job, according to the TCMR. So, is there any study done or proof that by imposing a 100%

Page: 74

training compliance licensing requirement in the cleaning industry, standard and productivity will improve? I am thus concerned that the Government may be adding a lot more administrative burden on an industry which is already known for cheap sourcing practices, low wages, limited productivity gain and high turnover. The focus on getting all workers trained at each licence renewal cycle may take centre stage at the expense of further wage increases and productivity gains.

The new 100% training compliance licensing requirement will increase business costs for cleaning companies. It is costly to get all workers, local and foreign, trained under the Environment Cleaning WSQ (EC WSQ) Certification. A training grant for local cleaners is welcome. But the bulk of the cost pressure will come from training foreign workers under the new licensing regime. Will an assessment-only pathway (AOP) be extended to foreign cleaners as well? How much will AOP cost per session per worker? Will the foreign workers be classified as technically skilled after going through EC WSQ? Will the company then enjoy a lower levy payment, now that its foreign workers are technically skilled after going through EC WSQ?

It is also difficult to maintain a 100% trained workforce in an industry known for high attrition of workers. Local cleaners come and go in this industry. How would a cleaning company ensure all its workers are trained at any one time? If a company were to hire a group of local cleaners prior to renewing its licence, is there enough time to get these workers trained to meet the 100% training compliance requirement? Is NEA going to make AOP readily available to help such companies on short notice?

Looking at these scenarios, I have a few proposals for NEA to consider.

First, I propose to NEA to allow a company with new local hires of less than three months to be given a grace period to be trained at the point of renewing its licence. This will not only give the company more time to comply with the training requirement, it will also give the company more time to assess if these new hires are suitable for the job, and vice versa. This is to acknowledge the high attrition of cleaners in the industry.

Second, I propose to NEA to exempt part-timers from the 100% training compliance requirement. A cleaning company is in breach of licensing conditions any time it hires untrained part-timers for urgent jobs. This is not a technical breach but a material breach, and the company may risk having to pay

Page: 75

a fine or having its licence suspended or revoked.

Last, I also notice that the new licensing regime seems to have taken a leaf out of the Clean Mark Accreditation Scheme (CMAS). And for some unknown reason, the new licensing regime not only subsumes the gist of the CMAS, it now makes the scheme compulsory for all companies that wish to acquire the new licence. Does it mean that the company now has to go through two assessment processes to comply with the new licence conditions?

I would thus propose that companies that have enrolled in the voluntary enhanced CMAS be exempted from the licensing requirement. This scheme is reported to be jointly developed by multi-agencies in consultation with industry representatives and unions. The scheme is comprehensive right down to paying resident cleaners progressive wages and more. Surely, any company that volunteers in this scheme is more than qualified to be in the cleaning industry.

There are many unanswered questions in this piece of legislation. I hope the Minister can shed more light on this new licensing regime and provide more clarity for companies in the cleaning industry to move forward.

Next, I support the move to enhance the investigative powers given to a Police Officer or an authorised officer to gather information from any occupier or owner of a flat, which may aid in the identification of the alleged offender in cases involving littering from a residential flat.

Littering from a residential flat is beyond just an anti-social behaviour. It poses a danger to lives and properties as well. Recently, I have a resident who was a victim of a reckless act committed by his neighbour which, thankfully, did not result in any serious fire in his house. And the cause of it all was just a tiny cigarette butt. Littering from a residential flat is hard to eradicate, and even harder to prosecute, due to the great difficulties in acquiring the necessary evidence to prosecute the alleged offender.

Many a time, residents, town councils and even MCSTs are at a loss on how to eradicate such anti-social behaviour. I hope these enhancements to the investigative powers of a Police Officer or authorised officer in cases involving littering from a residential flat will aid the collective effort by all stakeholders to make our living environment safer for all flat dwellers.

Page: 76

In conclusion, the Minister has said that we are becoming like a "cleaned" society rather than a clean society. So, the problem confronting our cleaning industry lies beyond raising standards and productivity. The Ministry must embark on its sustained and comprehensive campaign to keep Singapore clean so that our hardworking cleaners will not be overworked and taken advantage of in our clean city.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which marks a milestone change in improving the prospects of lifting cleaners' wages. There is market failure in determining the wages of the cleaners. Cheap sourcing and competition from foreign workers have depressed their wages for a long time.

There is a general trend among service buyers to select their cleaning service providers on the basis of price as the only criterion, without considering the quality of service, the working conditions and personnel training or even the professionalism of the companies bidding for the contract.

In the past, many service providers who have invested in training and equipment may still be at a disadvantage because other service providers leverage against them during tender competition through undercutting the price by depressing cleaners' wages or cutting corners to save costs.

By doing so, the cleaning industry is devouring itself from within through nonsensical pricing, with the service buyers cheering them on this uncontrolled race to the bottom on cleaning contracts. The result, all too often, is that cleaners' wages are low and their employment conditions precarious.

This Bill is a game changer in the industry because it would create a level playing field for service providers and they now have to compete with each other based on their cleaners' training, productivity and their professional track record since wage costs would be the same across all parties. It also creates a level playing field for service buyers because their competitors are also facing the same cost pressures while trying to maintain business competitiveness.

Mdm Speaker, in the grand scheme of things, mandating the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is perhaps the easiest thing to do in our effort to help cleaners earn better wages. However, the road ahead is still fraught with challenges for us to ensure that the Bill achieves its intended outcome to

Page: 77

improve the lives of our local cleaners.

A concerted effort must be taken to ensure effective implementation and compliance within the industry. Many cleaning companies have expressed support for this Bill, but they are concerned whether service buyers of their existing contracts would allow for contract sum re-negotiation to enable them to pay their cleaners according to the Progressive Wage Model.

They shared that their profit margins are thin at between 10% and 15%, with wages forming 80% of the total cost. Unless the service buyers allow for contract renegotiation, their continued operations may be untenable.

Mdm Speaker, the Progressive Wage Model may send shock waves through the industry, and cleaning companies will face difficulty in absorbing costs and staying afloat. If there is a way for all cleaning contracts to be renegotiated, I would like the Ministry to seriously look into this. I know this is a long shot, but I believe we must legally allow service providers affected by this Bill to renegotiate their contracts and allow them to withdraw, without penalty, should any service buyers refuse to renegotiate.

The Government has shown strong support for the Progressive Wage Model when it was first announced in 2012. Many cleaners working under Government contracts are already receiving wages recommended by the Progressive Wage Model. I hope all Statutory Boards and Government-Linked Companies would be next to support their cleaning service providers by agreeing to contract renegotiation. The private sector and MCST must also follow suit.

As service buyers, they must do the right thing and stop this modern-day slavery. Making it hard for service providers to pay wages according to the Progressive Wage Model on the excuse that the contract sum has been previously agreed upon is akin to the service buyers being unfair, cruel and without any sense of righteousness.

In some countries, service buyers or management are awarded the Golden Vacuum Award if outsourced cleaners working for them have poor working conditions and are getting low salary. Why the name Golden Vacuum? It is because these service buyers "suck the cleaners dry" through cheap sourcing. I want to believe that no management, company or any organisation here will take pride to be shortlisted for this award and will do the right thing to help the

Page: 78

cleaners earn fair wages and have good working conditions.

Mdm Speaker, another concern expressed by service providers is the practice of imposing punitive and exorbitant liquidated damages for minor breaches in the service agreement. Service providers are worried that service buyers may attempt to recoup the cost increase because of PWM by imposing liquidated damages. This will lead to a vicious cycle of service providers cutting corners to save costs but at the expense of service delivery, leading to more liquidated damages.

I would like to urge the Ministry to explore the possibility of setting up an Industry Tribunal to mediate disputes over service level agreement, especially in a business environment where outsourcing is becoming more common.

Mdm Speaker, the cleaning companies were briefed that they would need to renew their licence on an annual basis. I would like to propose that the licensing checks be conducted at two-year intervals instead of one. This would ease the strain on cleaning companies to prepare and submit the requirements to NEA for auditing. Cleaning companies awarded the Clean Mark Accreditation should also automatically qualify for the licence as it has more stringent requirements.

Given that this is an industry practice that some cleaners are "cross-deployed" in terms of job requirements, I hope that MOM and NEA would allow for a reasonable grace period to allow cleaning companies to adjust the categorisation of their cleaners before taking action against non-compliance. They should be given an advisory or warning, but firm action must still be taken against recalcitrant offenders, with them being subjected to punishments as outlined in the Bill. On the part of the union, we will work with our unionised cleaning companies to ensure our union members are accorded the correct classification.

Some cleaning companies are also concerned with the training requirement stipulated for licence renewal. They would like NEA to take into account the size of the company. For a company with 2,000 cleaners to comply with a 100% training requirement is more challenging, compared to companies with a much smaller cleaning workforce. With regard to the issue of new hires raised by the hon Member Mr Png Eng Huat, there is a provision for a three-month grace period for them to be trained, based on the briefing given by NEA to the service providers.

Page: 79

Another consideration is for NEA to give recognition to in-house and OJT training conducted by the respective cleaning companies. This would make it easier for companies to meet the training requirement.

Mdm Speaker, while I welcome this Bill, I am also concerned about its possible impact on the less privileged cleaners or the very elderly cleaners. They risk being unemployed or having their services terminated if their productivity does not match the salaries advocated in the Progressive Wage Model. I hope service providers and service buyers would allow them to continue working.

Mdm Speaker, the effectiveness of this Bill relating to the mandatory adoption of a Progressive Wage Model requires every cleaner, every cleaning service provider and every service buyer to do their part. Cleaners must acquire the necessary skills to provide better cleaning service and do their utmost to upgrade their productivity. Service providers must pay cleaners based on wages stipulated in the Progressive Wage Model and invest in equipment for greater productivity.

On the part of service buyers, they must best-source and move away from head-count contracts. Contracts must not be one sided, with all risks borne by the service providers. It is important that service buyers work towards establishing long-term cooperative relationships with their service providers to establish mutual trust to ensure no party tries to outwit the other in their attempt to survive in this competitive business environment. It is estimated that for most building owners, cleaning costs make up a very small part of the overall costs of maintaining a property, so that significant improvements in wages could be introduced with very little effect on the returns from rental income or impacting overall costs.

Establishing a long-term relationship may also entail service buyers giving the incumbent a percentage discount on the tender price, during evaluation, to prevent a situation where cleaners' salary are cut upon contract renewal. When all stakeholders work as one, the future of the cleaning industry will be brighter. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill is a proposal that is very welcomed by the Labour Movement because it can bring about a great change to the lives of 55,000 cleaners in Singapore who have been receiving low wages all this while due to the negative practice of outsourcing based on the lowest

Page: 80

price. The arrival of cheaper foreign workers has also hindered pay increases in this sector.

The requirement imposed on cleaning companies to practise the Progressive Wage Model will bring about wage increments to cleaners that commensurate with the skills, productivity and responsibilities that they have.

The effectiveness of this Act depends on the ability of each stakeholder to play its part. The cleaners must undergo training and learn to operate machinery that can help them to become more productive. Cleaning companies must pay reasonable wages based on the Progressive Wage Model. They must also equip their workers with cleaning equipment that can make the job of cleaning easier, since many of these cleaners comprise mature workers.

The service buyers must also practise best-sourcing and avoid fixing the number of cleaners required. This is to allow cleaning companies to provide the best service using technology. They must also be willing to pay for contracts at a reasonable price in order to obtain good quality cleaning services.

(In English): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners for their work in uplifting the cleaning industry. I would also like to express my appreciation to those involved in the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill for supporting to make a difference to the life of the cleaner. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill enhances the powers of the Director-General of Public Health to improve the state of cleanliness and public health in Singapore. A prominent feature of this Bill is a new requirement for all cleaning companies to be licensed and adopt the tiered wage system for their cleaners.

The Government's intent appears to be to use licensing to compel all cleaning businesses to adopt its Progressive Wage Model (PWM). The PWM consists of a ladder of wage levels which is supposed to provide a pathway for cleaners to progress to higher wages as they become more skilled, more productive and take on higher responsibilities. The PWM was introduced to counter the practice of cheap sourcing which, the Government says, prevents the market from working well, to translate training, standards and productivity

Page: 81

gains into improved wages for workers.

The Government has taken pains to emphasise that the PWM is not a national minimum wage because it believes that wage increases must be driven by productivity growth. Hence, the PWM does not just set wage floors; it also prescribes requirements for training and certification for cleaners.

I welcome any measure that will raise the incomes of low-wage workers on a sustainable basis over the long term, and I am glad to see the wage floors introduced in the PWM. However, the PWM contains several big assumptions which must be questioned. It assumes that training and certification will translate to better work performance, which will improve cleaning standards and lead to productivity gains, which will then justify higher wages.

I am not fully convinced of the causal link between training and improved productivity in the cleaning industry. What studies has the Government done to validate this assumption?

For the Environmental Cleaning (EC) Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) programmes, does the WDA require training providers to administer pre- and post-course evaluations and assessments to measure training effectiveness? If so, can the Minister share how these assessments prove that the EC training programmes conducted so far have translated into better work performance and improved business outcomes for the cleaning companies and the cleaning industry as a whole?

Let us dive a little deeper into what the EC WSQ programme entails. The basic EC WSQ Certificate requires general cleaners to undergo up to 122 hours of classroom training with approved training providers. This is over 15 working days for a full-time cleaner, or 30 working days for a part-time cleaner. It should be noted that many cleaners work part-time.

The core and elective units in these courses include: perform basic cleaning of hard floor surfaces – 24 hours; perform basic cleaning of washrooms – 32 hours; perform basic cleaning of carpets – 24 hours; and demonstrate an understanding of the local cleaning industry – 12 hours.

And that is just for the first level of certification. The next level, the Higher Certificate in Environmental Cleaning, demands another 16 working days of training, while the Advanced Certificate requires another 21 working days. During this time of a nation-wide manpower crunch, it would be a significant

Page: 82

strain on cleaning companies to have to release each of their cleaners for so many days of training.

More importantly, do general cleaners really need so many hours of classroom training to perform their work well? I believe for most general cleaners, on-the-job training, hands-on experience and a good working attitude will be more effective and productive than 15 working days of classroom training. Furthermore, the methodology for many of these courses includes lectures, AV presentations and written tests. This might present a challenge for the many elderly cleaning "aunties" and "uncles".

These courses do not come cheap either. The total course fees for the basic WSQ Certificate in EC are over $2,000 per trainee. Yes, there is Government funding of up to 90% of course fees for Singapore residents, but this funding is still taxpayer money.

There are only five approved training providers for this programme, including NTUC Learning Hub and ST Electronics (e-Services). With over 55,000 resident cleaners and many more foreign cleaners to train, I wonder who is benefiting more from this mandatory certification programme: the cleaners or the training providers?

Even the Government seems to recognise that training can place a burden on companies and is not always necessary to improve work performance. Because of this, WDA allows an Assessment Only Pathway (AOP) for cleaners to obtain their WSQ certification without having to attend classroom training.

To comply with the licensing requirements and the PWM, there will be many more costs for cleaning firms, over and above the higher wage bills. These include the cost of training, the cleaners' absentee hours, the cost of training administration which includes submission of claims, cost of assessments and penalties for any non-compliance.

Will cleaning companies, many of whom are already operating on very thin margins, be able to bear all these costs? Is the Government prepared for the possibility that many of these cleaning companies will have to shut down as a result of these compliance costs? If this happens, many cleaners will lose their jobs and may not be able to easily find jobs in other companies because they do not hold the necessary WSQ certifications. We have to keep in mind that many cleaners are elderly workers who are not able to easily adapt to a new work environment. What is the Government's plan to help these workers,

Page: 83

beyond existing social assistance schemes?

I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister regarding how the wage levels under the PWM were derived. The PWM for office and commercial cleaners dictates a wage floor of $1,000 for indoor cleaners, $1,200 for outdoor cleaners, $1,400 for multi-skilled cleaners and $1,600 for supervisors. F&B establishment and conservancy cleaners have slightly different wage levels.

How were these wage levels derived? In other countries, minimum wages are set in a much more transparent manner, using factors like age, industry sector, skill level, or cost of living and the wage required to cover the basic needs of workers and their families. Which factors were considered and what was the methodology used by the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners (TCC) in setting the current PWM wage levels?

I note that section 80H(3) of the Bill states that the Commissioner for Labour shall consider the recommendations by the TCC in setting the PWM wage levels. In order to increase the transparency of these wage setting exercises and provide better guidance for other industries, I would like to propose that section 80H(2) and (3) be amended as follows.

First, to require the TCC to publish a report explaining its methodology of how it derived its wage recommendations; and, second, to require the Commissioner to explain his reasons for differing, if at all, from the TCC's recommendations.

Madam, the Government has said that this is not the beginning of a national minimum wage policy, but a targeted sectoral approach to upgrading skills, quality and wages. However, by introducing this Bill which targets the cleaning industry, it has swung from a laissez-faire free market approach of letting companies determine their workers' wages, to one featuring a high degree of micromanagement of cleaning businesses by civil servants.

This is, in fact, a more intrusive and interventionist approach than a national minimum wage. A national minimum wage approach leaves it to companies to adapt and respond to the minimum wage levels set by the Government and the methodologies used are transparent, taking into account cost of living, economic conditions and labour market factors. The PWM leaves most of the adaptation and response to Government bureaucrats, most of whom have little industry experience.

Page: 84

Are we sure that civil servants can do a better job at improving the productivity of the cleaning industry than the cleaning company bosses?

Madam, the Government has announced that it will soon extend the PWM to the security industry. Will it also become a template for some other industries employing low-wage workers? If so, it is important that we embark on the correct approach to raising wages, and not go overboard in introducing bureaucratic micro-management of businesses and industries, which might end up hurting both the businesses and the workers they employ.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill. I walk around my HDB estate regularly to have a feel of the local environment of the constituency. Each time, when I see a large amount of litter around the estate, I feel a sense of disappointment. The presence of the litter is not due to the lack of effort by the Town Council cleaners. Instead, they are the result of inconsiderate actions of a small number of people who litter and who make the living environment unpleasant for the rest of the residents.

I checked regularly to ensure that the Town Council cleaners carry out their work. However, despite all the hard work that they do, the estate can never be clean enough unless everyone does their part to keep the estate clean.

During a recent "Clean the Town" exercise which my Town Council carried out, I had picked up the following items from the ground floor of some of the

Page: 88

flats: cigarette butts, soiled tissue paper, bottle caps, empty cigarette packages, plastic bags, styrofoam boxes, straws and empty bottles.

My cleaners and residents also feedback to me that they have seen sanitary pads, packets of unconsumed food and even human waste being thrown down onto the ground floor by inconsiderate upstairs residents. Unfortunately, NEA finds it difficult to track down the culprits as it requires 24 hours' surveillance of the suspected flats. Even with the high-rise CCTV, it is usually difficult to determine exactly which person in the flat unit is the actual offender who throws the waste litter from the flat.

The latest amendment to the Act gives the NEA a boost to track down the offender and to take action against that litterbug. Clause 5(5) of the bill imposes an obligation on the flat owner or occupier of the flat to provide certain information required by the police to identify the person who was at the flat at the time of the offence. This will certainly help the police or NEA to identify an offender who deliberately throws litter down from the flat.

With this amendment to the law, hopefully, we will be able to reduce the number of incidents whereby recalcitrant offenders can get away from being punished even though NEA knows clearly which flat is responsible for the litter. For those residents who are innocent of any littering offence, they do not have to worry because all they have to do is to provide the details of the person who was occupying the flat at the time of the offence. Hopefully, this law will enable Singapore to remain a clean and green country with a living environment which residents will be proud of.

I have a few questions to ask the Minister regarding this part of the Bill.

Under clause 5(6) of the Bill, what is the intended meaning of "without reasonable excuse"? Under what circumstances would the Minister accept as "reasonable excuse" from the owner or occupier of the flat unit?

Next, in the event that the owner of the flat provides information that there is more than one person occupying the flat at the time of the offence, how would the police or NEA be able to identify the actual culprit who committed the littering offence?

For the punishment under clause 5(6), other than doubling of the fine, would the Government also consider imposing a Corrective Work Order as punishment on the person who, without reasonable cause, failed to provide

Page: 89

information required by the Police? And this is to cater for a situation whereby the offender may be financially unable to pay the fine.

Would the Government also consider DNA testing of the "matter" or "thing" being thrown or discarded so as to identify the person who threw or discarded the "matter" or "thing"?

Finally, Sir, for persons who are found to be suffering from some mental illness and who have littered, urinated or defecated in public, what would the Government do about such offenders? Whilst I am sympathetic towards their mental condition, sometimes, the Town Council is under great pressure to find a solution to provide an acceptable and pleasant environment for the rest of the residents.

In respect of clause 5(4) of the Bill, may I ask the Minister whether this would also extend to owners or persons in charge of a heavy vehicle which leaves construction debris like sand or cement onto the roads? Can MEWR take stricter action against such heavy vehicles to deter such vehicles from leaving debris along the road which, in turn, causes danger to other road users?

Next, Sir, moving to Part IXA of the Bill, I support the move by the Government to improve the wages of our cleaners. Very often, cleaners are low-skilled and not well educated residents. As a result, they do not get to enjoy the improvements to living standards which many Singaporeans take for granted. Regardless of how else they improve their skills, there is a limit to the increase in productivity which employers can ask from these workers. As a result, the wages of cleaners have remained generally low.

Whilst the Government and the unions can continue to push for improvements to the productivity of the cleaners, I feel that, as a nation which has done well economically, we should do more to help our lower-skilled workers secure a better wage and to have improvements to their living standards. Asking the cleaning companies to implement a progressive wage plan for their cleaners and to ensure that the cleaners continue with upgrading courses is something to be strongly encouraged.

Hence, I support this Part of the Bill as it will improve the wages and working conditions of our cleaners. There are many details which are not available yet as they are dependent on the recommendations of the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners. However, I do recall reading an article by Prof Tommy Koh in 2012 where he compared the wages of a cleaner in Denmark, Finland, Norway

Page: 90

and Sweden where the wages of the cleaners in those countries are between $2,850 and $5,500. Would the Government be prepared to eventually push the wages of the low-wage cleaners and other low-wage workers to a higher level, not necessarily of that amount but to a higher level, so that there is eventually more equity in income distribution? This may, of course, mean higher taxes and higher costs of living for all Singaporeans. What is the Government's view on this?,

May I seek just a minor clarification from the Minister – does this section apply to self-employed cleaning ladies who clean offices? What about self-employed cleaning ladies who carry out cleaning of residential households? There are quite a few such small businesses and many of them are wondering what is the impact to them and their livelihood once the new law is in place? Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and I note that both sides of the House have expressed support for this Bill. If I may take the liberty of summarising the issues and questions being raised, I think it is in the following order.

First, why are we having licensing? Secondly, is there a link to productivity? Third, why have training? Fourth, what are the implications on jobs and contracts? Fifth, why are we focused on locals only or primarily?

And then there was a cluster of other issues related to littering, basically questioning our tone, our attitude towards increased penalties, increased surveillance, as well as a few technical questions which Mr Lim Biow Chuan has raised.

I want to commend, especially Mr Patrick Tay, for his speech. It is the most comprehensive exposition of what the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is, and, perhaps, it is no surprise because he is speaking from the union.

So, let me address the first issue: why licensing? The concept of progressive wages was not invented in this House. It was not invented by my Ministry or by NEA. It originated from the NTUC. And NTUC felt that we should have a ladder and this ladder should be predicated on productivity, training and

Page: 91

capability, and, underlining that, is this value of a fair wage for our cleaners.

They first proposed this idea about two years ago and the rest of us in Cabinet felt, "Yes, this is a good idea". The fact that it targets especially a segment of our workers who are older, less educated and have been vulnerable to cheap-sourcing, made it more attractive. So, we said, "We support it and, in fact, Government will lead by example." So, we said, "Government will only contract with companies that have voluntarily come onto the Clean Mark scheme". I believe the PAP Town Councils coordinated by Dr Teo Ho Pin also voluntarily came onto this.

The Government even provided more. MOF said, "Well, for all Government contracts, if the employers make adjustments to their workers' pay, we will also find ways to help such enlightened employers financially." Members will recall that, in fact, in the last Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Wage Credit Scheme in which the Government pays 40% for wage rises which employers make last year as well as this year, and I think for another year forward.

The point is that it was a good idea. There was no shortage of support, even financial support, but it was not enough. It did not take off. My question was: why? When we went around and we asked employers, "Do you think cleaners should be paid more?", everyone said "Yes". Employers said "Yes". But the key problem they identified for us was the lack of a level playing field which means, "Yes, fine, I believe my cleaners should be paid more; I want to pay my cleaners more; I want to give them good terms; I want to have proper terms of employment, payslips and all that. But my competitor is not bound by such and because my competitor is not bound by this, he has an unfair advantage, he undercuts me and I won't win future contracts."

And even though the Government and the PAP Town Councils have taken the lead, they said, "Well, thank you very much but you constitute a small fraction of the overall market. In fact, if you want me to voluntarily bind myself to such enlightened employment practices, it's not worth my while." Some companies will actually say, "In that case, I don't want to touch Government contracts. I don't want to touch PAP Town Council contracts. I want to go after the bulk of contracts out there which operate on cheap-sourcing."

I have explained all this at length so that Members understand why we took this step of licensing. It was not a step which this Government embarks on lightly. As many Members in this House said, we want to be careful not to

Page: 92

micromanage; we want to be careful not to increase costs. We do not want to add administrative burdens to our companies, especially our SMEs, at a time like this when they are facing so much stress because of the curtailed access to foreign labour. Nevertheless, we decided to go for licensing in order to achieve a level playing field. That is the answer to the first cluster of questions.

Then the next question: is there a link to productivity? Can you really improve productivity in cleaning? The answer is: it is very difficult but there is a role and a place for training. For instance, to operate a machine does require some minimum instructions, it requires familiarity and the fact that the cleaner may be older or less educated, in fact, makes it even more important that we train them on how to use this.

I think Mr Giam tried to say, "Well, we are having excessive burdens – number of hours of training." As far as this legislation is concerned, the minimum requirement is one module – eight hours. The module costs slightly over $200, of which the Government will fund 90%. So, in fact, you are talking about $23.

Members of this House will agree that providing a modicum of training, heavily subsidised, so that our workers really can take advantage of new tools and new technologies is viable, is worthwhile and is not an unnecessary imposition of a burden or an unjustified burden on our companies.

Next question and this was an important question: "Why did you choose this route of a Tripartite Cluster?" Mr Giam unfairly said, "This is a bunch of civil servants sitting down, micromanaging, deciding salaries." Absolutely not the case.

The Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners consists of the unions, the employers and the people in the industry. I took pains just now in my opening speech to say this is not a minimum wage by political decree. I do not want that. I hope wages in the future will not be set by Members in this House. It should certainly not be set by the civil servants either. It should be set through a tripartite process of consultation and consensus involving employers, employee groups and the unions.

Why do we want to do that? Because after almost 50 years of running Singapore, we have found that our model of tripartism is a key competitive advantage. Yes, I know it is not easy and, from time to time, there will be long arguments. But this system has worked well and our clear guidance to the

Page: 93

Tripartite Cluster is that, "Whatever you do, do not kill this sector; do not destroy jobs, do not deny job prospects for the people in it." So, I would urge Mr Giam and others to give the Tripartite Cluster an opportunity. Let them prove that their recommendations are realistic and practical, both in terms of wages as well as terms of employment.

And, again, I will give Members the assurance that we are not trying to burden our companies. You can ask me details and I will tell you I do not know the details because I do not want to wade into the details of exactly what is printed in the payslip, what is printed in the terms of employment. I would rather that it be determined by people who are in that sector and, hence, the primacy of Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners. I would urge this House to have faith, let us see how this works. I am sure we will need to make adjustments over time and we will make the necessary adjustments.

The next question was the implications on jobs and contracts. You are absolutely right. We must be extremely sensitive to whether or not we end up destroying jobs. That is the key worry when people start talking about minimum wages or wage floors. I have said just now we do not want to be ideological about this matter. I do not want to get into the theoretical discussions about the pros and cons of a minimum wage. But I just said we are primarily concerned about making sure that our cleaners continue to be able to get jobs that they want and they get paid a fair wage which, in any case, all the employers seem to believe they are entitled to and can achieve if there is a level playing field, if there is adequate training and there is adequate access to the technology.

The next question, I think, was Ms Irene Ng's, "Why only locals?" Again, I do not want to get into an extended debate but the first point I would make is that my primary responsibility is to Singaporeans. Second point I would make is that when foreign workers come to Singapore, they come on agreed terms and there is no reason for us to insist that those terms be exactly identical to the terms of employment and to the wages of locals. They are coming from foreign lands with completely different cost structures. They come here with their eyes wide open, they come here voluntarily and we should allow that market to continue. Otherwise, if you consider what we are doing now on the supply of foreign labour and if you are to suddenly make a quantum leap in wages for foreign workers, I think you will well and truly kill our local companies. So, no, I am not focusing on foreign labour sources for cleaners. I am focusing on ensuring that Singaporean cleaners get a fair and decent wage.

The next list of issues was with regard to littering. All Members who spoke agreed that there was a need to enhance the penalties – regrettable but

Page: 94

necessary. In fact, there is a deeper issue behind that. I think Ms Irene Ng alluded to that. If the probability of getting caught is low, then once in a blue moon, someone gets caught for littering, that person gets very angry, very surprised and very shocked, and says, "How come I am the one who gets booked and not someone else?" I have told NEA that, henceforth, we are going to adopt an approach of increased surveillance and we have to increase the probability of getting caught. The idea is not to catch more people or to collect more fines. In fact, by simply making it clear to everyone that if you are irresponsible and you litter, the probability of you being identified and prosecuted is high, I am hoping that increased deterrence will, in fact, mean fewer people get prosecuted, fewer people pay fines. After all, my ultimate objective is to reduce the amount of litter and to reduce irresponsible behaviour within our estates.

There were other questions: "Do we need higher tech?" I think many Members, including Mr Png Eng Huat, supported the use of high-rise surveillance cameras. This cannot be the complete solution. It is one measure. But we cannot put high-rise surveillance cameras on all blocks of flats all the time. So, we need to target where the problem is most difficult. On this point, I would also add that the Town Councils have to cooperate with the NEA, because if the Town Councils make it difficult for NEA to install these high-rise surveillance cameras, we cannot do our job, we cannot help you identify culprits and we cannot deter people in your precincts.

There was an interesting suggestion about CWOs. Yes, I agree with the Member. I think CWOs should be publicised and I think we should make them do work in their own neighbourhoods. Hopefully, the fear of peer pressure from your own neighbours who know that you have littered your own area will make them think twice. In fact, to be honest, although I do not have the exact figure here, the recidivism rate, that means the rate of re-offence of the CWOs, is significantly lower. So, I will take the point that we, perhaps, should ask for more of such sentences in the future.

I just want to address two other technical points. There was a question on whether the self-employed are covered by this Bill. The answer is no. If we read this Bill, it is really going after outsourcing companies which employ people or engage people in order to provide cleaning services to other entities. So, for a person who is directly self-employed and looking for casual work, this Bill will not impact their ability to find work or their ability to continue making a living.

Reasonable excuse: that was a question from a lawyer, so I had to consult the AGC. This was basically with respect to asking an owner to furnish details

Page: 95

of the people who are occupying the flat and, therefore, may have contributed to high-rise littering. An example of a reasonable excuse will be if you, the owner, were to say you were overseas, the flat is unoccupied and the flat was burgled at that time, so clearly the owner did not know who was in the flat and who could have contributed to the high-rise litter. That is an example which the AGC has informed me. We will have a reasonable approach to this issue.

Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by saying that, at the end of the day, our approach to this has to be based on values. The first value is fairness. That is why we want to give cleaners who work so hard a fair wage. Second value is that of responsibility. We are responsible not only for ourselves, our families and our own homes but also for our neighbourhoods. If there are irresponsible members in our community, we must be prepared to act against them, to deter them and to, hopefully, put them on the right track.

Finally, let me thank all Members and, especially the trade union movement, because this Bill and this very major move to institutionalise progressive wages through licensing would not have been possible without the support and active formulation of the unions.

Thank you and just quick answers. As far as this Bill is concerned and the imposition of licensing, we just want to focus on the workers first. As long as the worker has gone for that one module, he will qualify as a trained worker. If a company finds that there is greater value from sending more workers for additional training modules, for instance, the company may have some very sophisticated equipment or very sophisticated purchasers who want special services, we should not stand in their way.

The point I want you to understand is that we are putting in just a minimum requirement and we will be guided. And I accept the Member's point that we should not train for training's sake and we should not unnecessarily inflate expenditure. I accept that point.

The second point is that he was asking for the TCC to publish its deliberations. Again, in the spirit of not being overly intrusive, I will take this as a suggestion from the Member. We will convey that to the TCC but I do not want to prescribe that; I certainly do not want to make that mandatory within a legislative framework. As I have said before, this is a unique feature which we have in Singapore. This is tripartism that works. It has worked so far and without us having to be overly intrusive, without asking them to be overly officious, and everybody just takes official positions, digs trenches and becomes defensive about it. This has worked. Let tripartism work.

The third issue is plans to help workers who are out of jobs. First of all, I really do not believe cleaners will suddenly find that there are no job openings. In fact, because of the shortage of labour and especially the reduction of foreign labour, I think the opposite is going to be true. There are going to be far more job vacancies than cleaners available. The question will be whether the cleaner will want to work. And I think the answer to that question is – will he receive a fair wage? Will he receive good terms of employment? Will he be working for an enlightened employer?

Beyond that – as I have said earlier – do not view this progressive wage as a magic bullet or the final solution. As I have said just now, there will still be

Page: 97

low-wage workers, even at $1,600, they will still qualify for Workfare. And the entire suite of Government support for low-income families will apply. So, the point is that the amount of support which we will continue to give will be extensive, will be comprehensive and will be integrated.