Employment, Parental Leave and Other Measures Bill

Mdm Speaker, I am happy to be able to be part of the debate on this Bill.

As we chart forward an inclusive quality growth for Singaporean workers, I would like to bring forth some fundamental principles which I believe need to be discussed together. The Government's commitment to fostering an inclusive society is indeed commendable. In the last few years alone, we have seen many policy shifts and strategies that would move us clearly towards that direction.

Mdm Speaker, we must continue to ensure that Singaporean workers have a good share in the progress of our economy through concerted efforts by all

Page: 68

stakeholders. As we grow our economy moderately, we will still need to have more workers to drive the economy. There are potentially a good number of economically inactive Singaporeans who may wish to return to the workforce and I would like to see that the Government come up with more ideas on how we can help ease their way back into the workplace so businesses can tap on some of this needed workforce.

For today's debate, Madam, I will dwell a little further on the group that we often called Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs).

Madam, I hope we can agree on the point that, for a long time, we have not put them on the list of workers who would be getting protection under the Employment Act. Similarly, we also have had quite an accommodating policy when it concerns skilled and highly skilled foreign workers. This was well and good when we were still a young economy and our labour force was still lacking such manpower. Now, Singapore has clearly changed. Our workforce is more educated and more skilful than we were before. More needs to be done to serve the new generation of Singapore workforce.

Nevertheless, we also know that more protection and tighter rules cannot be the only way for us to serve the PMEs. This group must continue to remain competitive and employable. At the same time, in parallel, we must continue to adapt to the changing local workforce as the overall skills and educational profile of Singaporeans improve while, at the same time, we must continue to refine our policies and rules to care for more at the professional level.

I laud our Government's efforts to moderate Singapore's foreign worker growth while ensuring sustainability. These efforts are being felt in the industry, and many employers are now giving feedback about their challenges to get workers. The question now, Madam, is how will the Singapore Government implement this judiciously so that we can secure the interest of Singaporean workers while recognising that there is also a need for the foreign workers to complement and support the development of our economy. It is definitely not an easy balancing act.

With the introduction of the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) by MOM recently, the Government has clearly illustrated again its intent to put Singaporean workers' interest at the core of its policy and this is really good.

But, at the same time, we often hear "loud voices" from Singaporean PMEs who are concerned about their career prospects, aspirations and need for some

Page: 69

form of industrial representation and protection.

In my view, as the Government moderates the increase in foreign worker numbers, our local PMEs will still need to distinguish themselves from the competition. It is good that the education and skills profile of our locals has been improving over time and we will continue to expect them to be able to serve the highly-skilled jobs in the future. Still, the Government needs to articulate the specific plans it has about how these Singaporean PMEs will be able to gain access to good paying jobs while they can also get some industrial and basic protection under the Employment Act. I believe we certainly have a few more steps to make to ensure that Singaporean PMEs will be the main choice of employers.

As we debate this Bill today and make moves to extend the coverage of the Employment Act, it is worthwhile for us to ponder on a few basic questions, namely: first, where does MOM draw the line on which workers to protect and which to be left to fend for themselves out there in the real harsh world? As of today, the EA provides the parameters based on salaries and the role of workers in the companies.

For example, the vulnerable workers are clearly protected and the senior executives are not. It would surely help if MOM can explain the principles it uses to draw the line of this protection. A case in point would be the PMEs who work as freelancers. Their income fluctuates significantly from month to month and even from project to project. How would the proposed EA provisions on salary ceiling and protection apply to them?

Secondly, beyond this policy principle, what steps must be taken today to make sure that Singaporeans have the correct skill set, attitudes and aptitudes to take on the jobs of the future at the PME level? How can we enhance our education and training regimes to help Singaporeans upskill and regularly re-skill themselves, so that they will be attractive as talents for both our local and even foreign companies operating in Singapore, and maybe even as expatriates to be sent overseas?

So, Madam, overall, I am happy to note that the many proposed changes of the Employment Act are mainly to ensure that we remain relevant to the employment and the workforce situation in Singapore. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.

Page: 70

Mdm Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendments to the Employment Act which would help address the concerns of workers in Singapore, in particular, the Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) with respect to their workplace rights and protection.

As part of the Labour Movement, I have been advocating for these changes, in particular, stretching of scope and coverage of PMEs who have been deeply affected in many ways. Since entering this House, we have been starting tripartite discussions and looking at how we can better protect PMEs. I am particularly impressed by how forward-looking MOM and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF) have been in our negotiations and in enabling these changes for the betterment of the workforce of today and tomorrow. It has given me added faith and confidence in the spirit of tripartism in Singapore.

The two major changes of protecting PMEs earning up to $4,500 with all Parts of the Act save for Part IV, and the changes in Part IV of reducing the non-entitlement period of retrenchment benefits period from three to two years, and the raising of non-workmen salary ceiling from $2,000 to $2,500 are indeed positive steps.

The changes are not just mere enhancements but a milestone change in terms of how we anchor protection and include PMEs under the statutory umbrella since the promulgation of the Employment Act in 1968. I am especially heartened that we were able to forge a consensus together with our tripartite partners in defining what is good for workers and businesses, taking into consideration the major shifts in workforce demographic profile, changes in the employment landscape and volatile market conditions.

I welcome and commend the extension of scope of the Act to cover PMEs earning up to $4,500, bearing in mind the median income of Singaporeans was $3,480 in 2012. There are several key issues driving this set of Employment Act amendments. First, the increasing proportion of PMEs in our workforce represents an important shift as they will eventually become the majority of our workforce in future. Currently, PMEs make up about 32% of our workforce. As for PMETs, the current one-to-one ratio with rank-and-file workers is projected to increase to two-thirds of the working population by 2030. To underscore this shift, there has also been an exponential growth of degree holders from 308,000

Page: 71

in 2002 to 622,000 in 2012. This is more than a two-fold increase.

With this extension, more than half of the resident PMEs in Singapore of about 300,000 workers will benefit from the above amendments. This expanded impact will spur employers to ensure that their HR policies are contemporaneous and in adherence with the law.

PMEs earning up to $4,500 will now have added protection and have recourse when they are terminated or when they have been unfairly dismissed, but with one-year minimum service period for dismissal with notice. I know this is important because it will provide an added safety net to all PMEs, whether they are male or female, or whether they are young or not-so-young. NTUC lobbied for this fervently as there are many mature PMEs who may be susceptible.

By the same token, PMEs would also have recourse for salary payments, unauthorised deductions, public holiday entitlements and statutory paid sick leave. Female PMEs will now have recourse to maternity protection and benefits provided in the Employment Act.

Some may ask, "Why the need for these amendments when most companies already have rigorous HR frameworks and policies?" The stark truth is that there may be residual cases of malpractices or sheer ignorance. The Minister himself highlighted during last weekend's WorkRight campaign that MOM had 22,000 Singaporeans coming to MOM to get help for employment issues.

There are still employees out there suffering from breach of basic rights, such as maternity benefits, retrenchments and unfair dismissal. We do require the employment laws to adequately address workplace and employment issues and inequities more effectively.

In the same vein, we need our labour legislation to be regularly reviewed to stay relevant and balance the rights and responsibilities of both the employer and employee, especially in these rapidly changing employment and labour profile and evolving market. I am happy to note that the second phase of the Employment Act review is underway and I urge that we continue with this pro-active and pre-emptive approach towards our labour legislation to stay current and relevant with a maturing economy and workforce.

Page: 72

As we have a more sophisticated workforce, depending solely on legislation to foster a fair workplace would not be sufficient. Many PMEs hope that the Government can put in place a more rigorous fair employment framework and guidelines. I am glad to note these sentiments have been well addressed by MOM with the recent introduction of the Fair Consideration Framework and the robust treatment of discriminatory job advertisements.

I would like to devote the next part of my speech to examine areas within the amended Act for greater articulation and clarity.

I am glad to note that the header of section 14 has been tidied and that recourse to section 14 will now be availed to PMEs earning up to $4,500, subject to a service period in section 14(2). My question is whether constructive dismissals, forced resignations, non-renewals of contracts and non-confirmation during probation are covered under section 14. If so, I hope that the mediation officers and the courts consider each case on its merits.

With proliferation and use of electronic devices, for purposes of section 10(5), whether notice of termination of contract as stipulated in the Act in electronic forms, for example, emails, SMSes are classified as "written", as I believe to be so, by virtue of recent changes to relevant evidentiary legislation.

I am glad that we have raised the salary threshold of non-workmen under Part IV to $2,500 from the current $2,000. This is a positive step forward, as median salaries have risen since the last set of amendments in 2008 which were effective 1 January 2009 and more workers will now enjoy overtime pay. I personally look forward to the day when we can do away with this dichotomy of workmen versus non-workmen, a distinction which, at times, confuses industrial relations practitioners, lawyers and in-house counsels.

On the subject of overtime payment calculation, given the five-day work week that most companies have already moved on to, and, in some companies, the practice of working less than the usual 44 hours prescribed in the Act, would it be correct to say that overtime payment should be payable beyond the contractual working hours or 44 hours, whichever is the lower?

I also seek clarification whether one should use the contractually agreed hours or 44 hours stipulated in the Employment Act as the denominator for the calculation of overtime payment. This is an area I hope MOM can clarify as I know of many of my union members and workers, by the very nature of their

Page: 73

job, work contractually less than the 44 hours per week prescribed in the Act.

On the issue of leave computation, when I spoke to our union members who are working as airline cabin crew, when it comes to calculation of leave benefits and entitlements, their flight allowance is not factored in when in fact their flight allowances are almost as regular as standard allowances. Is there any way to close this disparity in our interpretation of pay?

The proposed amendments will be excluding cosmetic consultations and procedures which are not medically necessary for reimbursement by employer. This is a common practice. But my concern is with the definition of "for cosmetic purposes", which is sufficiently vague. In some professions, what is cosmetic in nature may well be an imperative for the worker for purposes of his health or work. Moreover, how would an employer know or is able to ascertain? What are the implications to privacy? I urge for greater articulation on what exactly is "for cosmetic purposes" and how a worker, employer or layman is to ascertain that? Does it mean an employer has the right to ask what the "MC" is for and the employee must disclose?

With globalisation and greater market competition, it is likely that we will see a greater frequency of company restructuring taking place. On retrenchment benefits, I am happy to note that the qualifying period will be reduced to two years pursuant to the proposed amendments. This is in response to changing job cycles and tenure with a growing mobility of our workforce.

I would like to use this opportunity to highlight that this would mean that all Collective Agreements between the Union and Company should be on par with this reduced qualifying period and that MOM in its conciliation and arbitration efforts to take cognisance of this new eligibility period since the amendments will take effect soon after this Bill has been passed.

In reviewing section 18A of the Employment Act, it would be useful to consider that in most acquisitions, the company that took over will usually be bigger and have more resources or manpower. As current provisions only assure that prevailing terms and conditions, such as pay and benefits, remain the same, we have not really addressed the issue of union recognition and representation through existing Collective Agreements during a change of company entity. This is of concern because when the new ownership fails, workers will bear the brunt of job losses and income.

Page: 74

While I applaud the amendments where the pre-existing Collective Agreement will be protected for at least 18 months when the business is transferred, it would be far better to safeguard employees' interests by ensuring that the acquiring company would be required to recognise the union for the taken over entity.

Similarly, an issue that has been raised by my fellow union leaders is the problem of successive section 18A transfers within a short period. This may involve workers transferred from big MNCs to companies which are smaller and financially weaker. This results in them having little to no protection even though their length of service is recognised and there is a retrenchment benefits clause because the final employer may not have the means to pay the retrenchment benefits.

It has been suggested that where there is evidence to suggest that the restructuring is not bona fide and that the transfer would be detrimental to the interests of the workers, the workers or union could raise the matter to the Commissioner of Labour with a view of delaying or preventing a transfer. I seek MOM for assurance that the Commissioner of Labour will scrutinise such repeated transfers and be prepared to exercise his powers where the transfer is to the detriment of the workers.

In addition, for greater clarity and expediency, I urge MOM to issue guidelines to clarify on section 18A transfers; first, to set out what information that the transferor/transferee must give to unions/employees; and secondly, a clearer definition of what situations and scenarios are covered under section 18A transfers, such as whether section 18A applies where the business of a company under receivership or judicial management is transferred. How about a transfer of shares scenario? Section 18A(1)(a) refers to "a person employed" by the transferor. Does it mean an "employee", as the next sub-section refers to an employee?

I would like to thank MOM for safeguarding the interests of workers in enhancing the enforcement powers, coupled with a higher penalty regime to deter potential contraventions of the Employment Act. My concern is with instances where unscrupulous employers impose their own set of fines on their employees to recover their costs of damaged goods, meals, etc, which will be categorised as unauthorised deductions after the amendments. I would like to understand further how this penalty regime can be enforced without any hidden deductions that workers will have to be worried about. Are employers allowed to impose fines at the workplaces to correct or dictate certain behaviours or

Page: 75

indirectly recover loss?

I am glad to note we have started tripartite discussions for Phase 2 of the Employment Act amendments, such as protection for employees in non-traditional work arrangements, such as contract workers and protection of vulnerable workers. With Phase 2 of Employment Act review, we are going into uncharted waters and there would be many grey areas to look at. I would like to call again for the same tripartite support and understanding as in Phase 1. During the recently concluded NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference last month, many union leaders expressed concerns that contract workers who have regular breaks in service are not adequately protected by the Employment Act and face challenges in representing their interests.

In terms of scope of representation for PMEs, we have to relook at how they can be better covered. NTUC and our affiliated unions are glad there is positive development in the drive by NTUC to amend the Industrial Relations Act to enable all our rank-and-file unions to collectively bargain for PMEs.

In defining who constitutes as a PME, we hope to look at stretching the eligibility criteria for union representation to as many PMEs as possible, excluding only the really senior or top management. Mdm Speaker, in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Union is very pleased to see that MOM is amending the Employment Act. There are three points that are praiseworthy. First, there are more and more PMEs in the workforce. The amendments will give better protection for them. Second, while amending the labour laws can be a very divisive process in many countries, in Singapore, however, the harmonious relationship between the tripartite partners made the amendment process very smooth. The result is better protection for workers' welfare which they rightfully deserve. Third, this amendment is only the first phase. The tripartite partners have already started the second phase discussion, focusing on low-income workers and the contract workers. I hope the tripartite partners can review and amend the Employment Act in the same spirit as in Phase 1, so that workers in Singapore can benefit.

(In English): In conclusion, each time when our labour statutes are reviewed and amended, it represents an opportunity for us to better the lives of our workers. I would like to applaud the tripartite partners for making good strides in improving the Employment Act as this deck of amendments were the result of extensive tripartite consultations and discussions. It is yet another example of how our spirit of tripartism has enabled us to reach consensus on such a

Page: 76

potentially divisive subject matter.

In many countries, amendments to labour laws are agonising affairs, often resulting in industrial action or greater polarisation between the government, business and labour. This entire effort augurs well for Singapore. It aptly embodies our mature industrial relations system and responsible employers and trade unions that are able to look beyond their narrow interest to discuss issues objectively and reach agreement for everyone's benefit.

Mdm Speaker, my speech will focus on the amendments made to parental leave as well as Child Development Co-Savings Act. I would like to seek clarifications on these two areas.

With the inclusion of the two weeks shared parental leave between parents to the existing pool of leave which include maternity, paternity and/ or adoption leave, the Employment Act and Child Development Co-savings Act will be providing new formula to compute these leaves. I would like to find out whether the new shared parental leave includes fathers of adopted children.

Can the Ministry consider legislating employers to allow fathers to take the leave flexibly by days instead of by weeks?

If the Government is leaving it to the mutual agreement between the father's employer and the father, for the leave to be taken flexibly by days instead of by block leave, these arrangements should be monitored closely and further evaluated.

Shared parental leave has to be allocated by weeks from the mother's maternity leave to father. Can the Ministry consider allowing fathers to return the shared parental leave back to the mother if it is not consumed?

Next, the Child Development Co-Savings Act will be updated to accurately reflect the policy that parents' total childcare and extended childcare leave is based on their youngest qualifying Singapore Citizen child under the Child Development Co-Savings Act.

This is done to avoid situations where parents who have both an older Singapore Citizen and a younger non-citizen child double claim leave under

Page: 77

both the Employment Act and the Child Development Co-Savings Act. I would like to find out from the Ministry on whether there are such cases happening and if yes, how many of such cases have taken place over the last five years to warrant this change?

In conclusion, I welcome the changes and hope that the Minister is able to make clarifications in his response.

Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. Like the CPF (Amendment) Bill, which this House has just passed, I warmly welcome the various amendments and additions in this Bill, including the proposals to extend the Employment Act's coverage to PMEs, to improve the employment standards for employees and to provide needed and greater clarity to the various leave provisions found in the Child Development Co-Savings Act.

As our employment landscape changes, so must the Employment Act to adjust, adapt and advance the interests, rights, obligations, and duties of all stakeholders in the employment market. So, the proposal to extend the Employment Act, except for Part IV, to cover persons employed in a managerial or executive position and earning a basic monthly income not exceeding $4,500, is timely. However, I would like to ask the Minister how the threshold figure of $4,500 is arrived at.

Page: 79

Similarly, could the Minister explain how the proposed salary threshold of $2,500, for non-workmen under Part IV of the Employment Act, was arrived at as well?

The threshold salary is pertinent when the evolving employment landscape is considered. The Population White Paper, issued in January this year, indicated that the number of Singaporeans in PMET jobs is expected to rise by nearly 50% to about 1.25 million by 2030. This compares with the figure of about 850,000 today. During the same period, the number of non-PMET jobs is expected to fall by over 20% to 650,000, compared to with 850,000 non-PMET employees today. Overall, two-thirds of Singaporeans will hold PMET jobs in 2030, compared to about half today.

That being the case, would it not be better to bring PMETs fully onboard, and not just in relation to the payment of their salaries as is the case today? Can the Minister provide a road map as to when PMEs could be brought under the provisions of Part IV of the Employment Act which is concerned with matters such as rest days, work hours, and other conditions of service? These are equally important matters as well for PMETs.

I should add that the intent here is not to be prescriptive but rather to ensure that employers do not exploit the meaning of what a "professional" job is to the extent of requiring a professional to put in inordinate working hours. Here, I am thinking of whether something similar to clause 2(17) of the Bill can be considered to set minimum levels of conditions of service for professionals.

Madam, we must appreciate that there is a asymmetry of power at the workplace, even for PMEs. We should not assume that PMEs are more than capable of looking out for their own interests and rights.

The proposed amendments to increase the pool of employees who are protected by Part IV of the Employment Act will be well-received by the labour market, particularly employees. I now turn to clause 2(29) of the Bill, which relates to overtime payments under Part IV of the Act and also sets out the set formulas to calculate such payments. Could the Minister clarify why the formula found in the Fourth Schedule is pegged at $2,250 when the salary threshold of non-workmen is proposed to be set at $2,500?

I would like to move on to the proposed amendment in clause 2(2) of the Bill on seeking redress against unfair dismissal. This provision requires PMEs to have served the employer for at least 12 months to be eligible for the redress

Page: 80

procedure. May I ask the Minister why this time bar of a 12-month minimum service period is required? In the fact sheet on this Bill issued by MOM, it is stated that, "This will provide employers time to assess suitability of the PMEs to their jobs". But an unfair dismissal is about wrongful dismissal and has nothing to do with one's unsuitability for a job. If one is unsuitable for a job and one is let go, that is not wrongful dismissal, in my view.

On clause 2(7), which deals with deductions for accommodation, amenity and service, the 25% sub-cap is necessary to prevent employers from making inappropriate salary deductions. A suggestion for future amendments is to better specify what "service" includes, and to emphasise that an employee not only must accept these deductions but that they are not to be imposed on the employee. An employee must have a genuine choice whether to accept such accommodation, amenity and service.

Madam, the Bill also enhances the penalties for failure to pay salary, and also provide for enhanced powers for employment inspectors in their jobs. The inclusion of the appropriate legislative text in clause 2(22) of the Bill on the criminal liability of a body corporate and the rebuttable legal presumption that an offence committed by an corporate employer is attributable to a real person should clarify that officers, members and partners of a body corporate, unincorporated association or partnership cannot hide behind the corporate veil.

Madam, the Employment Act is Singapore's primary labour law. Timely and robust reviews are crucial in ensuring that the Act remains relevant. Much as the Act needs to balance the rights of employees and the interests of employers, I hope that employees and employers alike, whether Singaporean or not, will not regard the matter as a zero-sum equation. It is not a case where if the employee "gains", the employer "loses" and vice-versa. Much as it is a cliché, in employment matters, the goal should be a "win-win" situation.

It is fair to state that an employer who fulfils its legal and ethical obligations as an employer is more likely to have a committed and motivated workforce. And that is certainly a pivotal factor to a company being competitive, innovative and resilient. This Bill sets the tone for a fair workplace, and I hope it would nudge employers into seeing their important role in this larger scheme of things.

I would like to conclude by quoting Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam from his 29 October speech at the NTUC Ordinary Delegates Conference. I quote, "Workers are not just an essential part of the economy.

Page: 81

They are at the core of Singapore society."

So, everything to do with workers – wages, employment conditions, the workplace environment – everything to do with workers is at the "core of what we are trying to do in building an inclusive society." In the Singaporean context, workers increasingly are PMEs. Madam, I hope that, in time, the Employment Act will cover PMEs and the whole array of employment conditions.

This Bill deserves the strong support of this House and I commend MOM for effecting the changes and for recognising that the workplace is very much an integral part of the social compact and how it plays a big part in our combined efforts towards an inclusive society. On that note, Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I will focus on the amendments to the Employment Act in this Bill.

I have several questions regarding the amendments to section 30 pertaining to deductions for accommodation, amenities and services provided by employers to their workers.

First, how is the value of these deductible expenses determined? Has MOM conducted any inspections to determine if the prices charged by any employers are excessive?

Second, is the value of the accommodation based on the actual cost or the market value? If it is based on the market value, these employers could potentially profit from providing accommodation to their workers, since private market rentals are very high. I note that section 27(1)(c) allows for deductions for only the actual cost of meals but section 27(1)(d) does not specify "actual cost of accommodation". Can the wording of the latter be changed so that employers are only allowed to deduct for the actual cost of accommodation?

Third, what can "amenities" and "other services" include? Unscrupulous employers could potentially throw in anything as a service or amenity, in order to deduct their workers' salaries and reduce costs. I understand that some workers earning less than $800 per month still face deductions to their salaries. This could lead to financial hardship for them and their families, as their salaries may fall even further below subsistence levels. Would the Ministry consider

Page: 82

prohibiting salary deductions for workers who earn below a subsistence threshold?

And fourth, I note that the protections under section 30 are still subject to mutual agreement between the worker and his employer. While one could argue that the worker is free not to sign the contract, in reality, most low-wage workers are not in a strong bargaining position to refuse. This makes it more necessary for the law, and not just the contract, to protect the worker.

Next, on penalties. This Bill specifies in section 34 the penalties for failure to pay salaries in accordance with the Act. A first-time offender will be liable to a fine of between $3,000 and $15,000 and/or a six-months' jail and a subsequent offence could double that.

Madam, non-payment or late payment of salaries is a concern for many workers. Stiff punishment must be meted out to errant employers who fail to meet their obligations to their employees, in order to send a strong deterrent message. However, the penalties do not guarantee that the worker will actually get paid what is owed him. While section 134 stipulates that the court can order fines to be paid to the aggrieved worker, this is discretionary. Can the fines imposed be automatically paid to aggrieved workers, so that they receive all of their salary arrears?

The amendments to section 40 allow workers in "essential services" industries to work for more than six consecutive hours without a break or more than 12 hours a day and without being paid for overtime work if it does not last for more than three weeks. Currently, this exemption is granted mostly for ad-hoc work exigencies, like accidents, unforeseeable interruptions and urgent work, or defence and security duties.

This amendment could greatly increase the number of workers in Singapore who do not enjoy the work hour limit protections under section 38(1). It will now include workers in the broadcasting, newspaper and postal services, and even bulk distribution of fuel and lubricants, from among a list of 28 essential services listed in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

What is the reason for including these new exemptions and in what way was the previous list of exemptions insufficient? More importantly, how will the Ministry ensure that essential services workers are not made to work excessive hours without breaks, rest days or overtime pay, over an extended period of

Page: 83

time?

The insertion of a new subsection (4A) in section 88, increases flexibility for employers to compensate employees who work on holidays by granting them time-off in-lieu or overtime pay. It also specifies the number of hours of time-off in-lieu, depending on whether the employee worked a full-day or a half-day during a holiday.

Madam, holidays are very important for workers, as they provide them a day to spend with their families and recuperate from work. A disruption of a holiday due to work exigencies should be properly compensated by the employer.

This Bill allows the employer to grant only part of a day off to replace a full day of a holiday work, "as may be agreed between the employee and his employer". Why is it necessary to give this additional option to employers? It could give employers a way to avoid fully compensating their employees for holiday work, as the employee will find it hard to refuse a lower compensation. Why not take away this option so that it will be mandatory for employers to either compensate their employees with extra pay or time-off in-lieu in proportion to the time spent working on the holiday?

The Bill introduces a new section 105, which gives inspecting officers the power to arrest without warrant persons suspected of committing offences under this Act. It includes powers to "use all means necessary to effect the arrest". Section 105D provides for the inspecting officers to be armed. However, in section 103, these inspecting officers have no such powers. They are allowed to examine, search and retain evidence but not to arrest suspects.

I would like to ask the Minister: why is there now a need to give inspecting officers powers to arrest and restrain people suspected of violating the Employment Act?

With these new powers, will inspecting officers be given the same level of training as police officers to ensure that they do not use excessive force when conducting the arrest or restraining suspects?

Lastly, the Bill raises the salary threshold for employees covered under the Employment Act to $2,500 for non-workmen but keeps it at $4,500 for workmen. According to MOM, this will allow the salary threshold of non-workmen to catch up gradually with workmen and in the longer term, will allow the removal of

Page: 84

the demarcation between these two groups of workers. May I ask the Minister, how long it will take to remove this demarcation, and what are the existing obstacles to its removal?

In summary, Madam, I am glad to note the introduction of some new protections for workers and some PMEs in this Bill. I have mentioned a few concerns about salary deductions, penalties, exemptions from work hour limit protections, compensation for holiday work and the powers of inspecting officers. I hope the Minister will address these concerns in his response.

Mdm Speaker, I am heartened that enhancements have been made to the Employment Act to better protect our workers in Singapore. Our Government's commitment to make legislative amendments to accommodate the shifts in our workforce and workplaces is indeed commendable.

The Bill has been extended to offer protection to our PMEs in this workforce. This is significant, taking into consideration our economic growth and global prominence as a regional launch-pad into the Asian markets. It is inevitable that the PMEs in our workforce today will become the rank-and-file workers of tomorrow. Thus, they deserve employment protection that the changes to the Employment Act offer.

Today, I would like to touch on three areas.

Firstly, eldercare leave. Our younger workers today have different aspirations. They look for work they enjoy, they want to have fulfilling careers and a better-quality life. The introduction of the Enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package earlier this year and its incorporation into the employment legislation was an incentive to younger working Singaporeans to get married and have children. It helps reduce the dilemma of caring for the child with enhanced paternity, maternity and childcare leave. This was a milestone because it forces us to rethink our approach to work and life, and know that with higher productivity initiatives at work, a fulfilling life outside work is indeed now a possibility.

Singapore is also facing the challenge of an ageing population and the numbers of Singaporeans who are above 65 are expected to grow from 9% in 2010 to 20% by 2030. Many filial Singaporeans face the prospect of caring for ageing parents who are vulnerable and need to be taken care of. Medical developments have allowed our elderly family members to live longer and stay mobile. However, it does not mean that they do not need care or assistance at all. The Civil Service took the lead in December 2011 with the introduction of the two-day parent-care leave. A medical certificate is not required to be eligible to apply for parent-care leave. Their annual leave is also not affected.

Since the Government took the lead two years ago, only some enlightened employers have introduced it. I have urged for the legislating of eldercare leave at our NTUC's National Delegates' Conference in 2011 and again at our Ordinary Delegates' Conference last month. Mdm Speaker, you too spoke about it passionately recently. Can the Minister look into making eldercare leave

Page: 90

mandatory? It is about time that all our workers are given the flexibility to manage the added demands of caring for their ageing family members.

Secondly, restrictive clauses in employment contracts. Many world economies are faced with issues related to unemployment, but our Singapore Government, together with our tripartite partners, has continued to create good jobs for Singaporeans, and we are thankful for that. Working in Singapore is now a necessity, due to the rising cost of living expenses and to build our retirement savings.

Employment contracts in Singapore are often fair for both employer and worker, where the employment and termination terms of the employment agreements are concerned. However, there are restrictive clauses that are overlooked by the workers and subsequently used as reasons for termination or even to the extent of preventing workers from seeking other employment.

Restrictive clauses prohibit workers to work in a similar job for another company after they resign. They are sometimes masked as non-competitor clauses. Is it fair if a trained accountant is no longer allowed to practise accountancy anywhere else if he resigns? Or if a professional trainer is prohibited from training in another company or in an individual capacity after resignation? Such restrictive clauses are unfair to the workers because it prohibits the use of their professional skills to earn a decent living. How are the workers going to earn their keep and feed themselves if they cannot make a living doing what they are trained or skilled to do? The right to work should continue to remain a right of the worker. The responsibility is on the employer to retain their workers through employment incentives, and not restrictive clauses.

I would like to ask the Minister: in the second phase of the review, is there a possibility to abolish the use of restrictive clauses in employment agreements altogether?

Lastly, contract workers. Offering workers contract employment instead of traditional full employment has become more prevalent in Singapore today. Amendments to the Employment Act to improve protection for contract workers are not addressed in the existing amendments, and I do hope that this will be a priority as contract workers in Singapore need protection as well.

Contract work offers short-term employment. When viewed from the perspective of a one-year work contract compared to the possibility of working

Page: 91

for some 40 years perhaps till retirement, there is almost no job security. If a worker goes through three months' probation for a one-year contract, this results in having only eight months of job security because, in the final month, the worker would be worrying about where his income will come from when the one-year contract expires. We should consider restricting the probation period of contract workers to one month from commencement of the contract.

The other consideration pertaining to contract work would be the period of continuous employment. When good contract workers are offered an extension to their employment contract, some employers insert a break in between employment contracts to circumvent the accumulation of the period of continuous employment so that they are not eligible for benefits like retrenchment payouts. I would like to suggest that the Employment Act protect the workers such that as long as the worker has not been employed elsewhere between the employment contracts, the worker is deemed to have been under "continuous employment". I understand these aspects of contract employment will be looked into in Phase 2 next year but I would like to reinforce that it is important for us to address these lapses sooner rather than later.

In conclusion, Madam, the amendments are positive steps forward to protect our workers, but I hope that these issues I have raised on eldercare leave, restrictive clauses in employment agreements and the issues faced by contract workers be given due consideration by the Government and be incorporated into the proposed amendments. With these comments, Madam, I heartily support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, it is said that the measure of a society is found in how they treat the weakest and most helpless citizens. While I applaud the move to offer more and better protection to a group of PMEs, I think more can be done to help the low-wage workers especially in the areas of mandatory payslips, payment for working on rest days and statutory medical benefits.

On the issue of payslips, a Forbes survey was commissioned by NTUC's Unit for Contract and Casual Workers in 2011 to focus on working conditions faced by low-wage workers. Sample size of 400 low-wage workers in each of the following sectors were taken – namely those in the logistics, cleaning, food and beverage, retail and landscape sectors. Close to 59% of the cleaners shared that they did not receive any payslips; it was 51% for those in F&B; 44% for

Page: 92

logistics; 49% for retail and a whopping 71% for workers in the landscape industry shared that they did not receive any payslips.

Potentially, there are just too many low-wage workers that are not issued with payslips making them vulnerable to be taken advantage by irresponsible employers who do not issue payslips, possibly, to cover their tracks against unlawful employment practices or underpaying their workers.

Mdm Speaker, the Minister has shared that instead of legislative amendment to make issuance of payslips mandatory, it will be substituted with tripartite guidelines with a view of phasing in the requirements over time. I support this move provided it is an interim measure to enable employers to prepare the necessary structure and processes to help businesses to adjust. However, I would like the Ministry to share the timeline for payslips to be eventually made mandatory under the Employment Act (EA).

Being given a payslip is a basic employment right. Unless backed by legislative action, the problem of non-issuance of payslips to workers, especially low-wage workers, will persist and everything might be status quo with the tripartite guidelines having little impact in providing better protection for workers. Moreover, it will make it more challenging to help these workers over issues of non-payment or underpayment of workers' salaries.

Mdm Speaker, on payment for working on rest days, currently the EA sets the distinction for double pay to be accorded only when the worker is asked to work at the request of the employer, and not at their own request. Unfortunately, some irresponsible employers will pay the workers working on their rest day as if it was requested by the worker even though it was actually on the employers' request. Many vulnerable, old, low-wage workers suffer in silence and would not dare to report to MOM for fear of losing their job, or worse, be completely unaware of the fact that they were underpaid. Sometimes, helping them with their claims is also a challenge because they do not have any payslips.

I would like the Government to consider amending the Act where workers working on rest days are paid double salary regardless whether it was requested by employee or employer. Mdm Speaker, the current provision of medical benefits by employers in the current EA only covers payment for medical consultation. I would like to urge the Government to consider amending the EA to make it mandatory for employers to bear the payment for outpatient medicines as well. Already being in a low-income bracket, low-wage workers find themselves burdened by the cost of outpatient medicines, placing

Page: 93

them in a difficult financial situation. If the impact on business cost is a concern, may I suggest that the Ministry mandate for employers to be responsible for only claims for outpatient consultation and medicines from Government polyclinics to be a statutory provision under the EA?

Mdm Speaker, I understand that it could be challenging to adopt some of the proposals that were raised during the public consultations. Yet, I do not doubt that everyone agrees that more must be done to protect low-wage workers who are vulnerable because they are the group that would most likely be taken advantage of by irresponsible employers.

Last week, NTUC launched a one-stop centre for low-wage workers, called U Care Centre, aimed at providing these workers with guidance on work-related issues and opportunities to help them earn a better living. Through advocating fair employment and fair wages, the centre strives to be the voice with weight that can lead to faster change for our low-wage workers to have a better life. I look forward to the support of the Government to make this centre sustainable in its quest to make a difference to the life of low-wage workers.

If our hands are tied in amending the EA that could have offered better protection to help low-wage workers, then let us free our hands to support this dedicated centre for this vulnerable group of workers. I believe that the Government can and will be, as it has always been, generous with funding support that can help workers. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Madam, I support the amendments in the Employment Act. However, I feel that more can be done to provide better protection to low-wage workers. I hope that the suggestion by the Manpower Minister that the proposed issuance of payslips is embodied as a Tripartite suggestion will merely be an interim measure. Many low-wage workers do not receive payslips and this can complicate the resolution of cases related to the payment of salaries. The Tripartite partners can discuss further to ensure that the amendments to the Employment Act that make the issuance of payslips mandatory can be implemented in a way that is acceptable to employers, especially the Small and Medium Enterprises, or better known as SMEs.

I also hope that the Employment Act can be amended to make it mandatory for employers to give double pay to workers who are protected under section 4 of the Employment Act, if they work during their rest days, regardless whether

Page: 94

they are asked to do so by their employers or on their own accord.

I also feel that we can help this group as well by making it compulsory for employers to pay for their medical costs for outpatient treatment received at Government polyclinics. At present, the Employment Act only makes it mandatory for employers to bear the consultation costs for their workers' outpatient treatment.

I admit that many of the suggestions to provide better protection for workers are not easy to implement. Therefore, I hope that the Government will implement other measures to provide protection to low-wage workers.

Last week, the NTUC launched a one-stop centre to help low-wage workers and champion their rights at the workplace. I hope to receive support from the Government and Tripartite partners in this effort. NTUC will continue to be the advocate for low-wage workers in order to help them to get better pay, manage the rising cost of living, lead better lives and be respected and valued for the work that they do.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, despite my view that more can be done to offer more protection for the vulnerable, low-wage workers, I believe the proposed EA amendments are in the right direction and I strongly support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the various Members for their views and their broad support for the proposed changes to the Employment Act (EA). I will now address some of the issues raised by the Members.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan asked how the salary thresholds were arrived at. For non-workmen, the increase from $2,000 to $2,500 corresponds to the general increase in median salaries since the EA was last reviewed in 2009. For PMEs, we covered those earnings up to $4,500 for salary protection in 2011, and the tripartite partners, in their negotiation, agreed that it was too soon to revise its threshold.

Assoc Prof Tan also talked about extending Part IV of the EA to PMEs. I mentioned earlier that Part IV protection is generally accorded to more vulnerable workers and many of the time-based provisions, for example, hours of work, rest days and so on, are less relevant to PMEs due to the nature of the work. I have also explained why the tripartite partners felt it was not unreasonable for employers to ask for qualifying period for PMEs before they can seek redress for unfair dismissal. Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and the UK, also impose such conditions for PMEs. There is no qualifying period for employees to seek redress for dismissals without notice.

Mr Patrick Tay sought clarification on whether the notice of termination can be in electronic form. We take the view that employer and employee may agree to accept notice via electronic means, such as e-mail, as long as the information is accessible and usable for subsequent reference.

Mr Patrick Tay also asked for clearer articulation for the definition of "cosmetic" treatment. As mentioned earlier, the assessment of whether a treatment is cosmetic or not will be based on the opinion of the medical practitioner. We are studying how we can provide greater clarity to doctors when operationalising this.

Mr Tay also sought clarification on the computation of overtime (OT) pay. Indeed, OT should be payable beyond the contractual working hours. However, employers are given flexibility on the rate of OT pay if the contractual hours are below the statutory limit of 44 hours, after which a minimum of 1.5 times rate

Page: 99

must apply. We think that this flexibility is important or else employers may consider offering shorter contractual working hours, to the detriment of workers. Ms Foo Mee Har did say that Singaporeans work one of the longest hours already. As for the computation, there is a prescribed baseline formula which employers can refer to.

Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Gerald Giam also talked about compensation for PMEs required to work on public holidays. Given the nature of PME jobs, our intent remains to give employers the additional option of giving time-off in-lieu, instead of just keeping to the current rules, which allow the employer and employee to agree to substitute any other day for the public holiday or pay an extra day's salary. The duration of the time-off in-lieu can be mutually agreed between the employer and the PME to enhance the flexibility. Only where there is no agreement does the law clarify that it should be four hours if the PME works on that holiday for less than half a day, or a full day if the PME works for more than half a day.

As we safeguard the interests of workers, we also cannot forget that at the same time we also need to balance this with employers' needs, as Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Dhinakaran, a businessman himself, noted. Drastic moves that hinder business operations could actually inadvertently affect the employability of the very workers that we are looking to help.

The payslip issue which I elaborated earlier was one such example of trying to maintain that fine balance. We agree, in principle, that payslip is the correct way to go and that is where we intend to go too. But what we recognise also is the difficulty that some small businesses face.

Another is the employment conditions imposed by employers that Ms Mary Liew raised; or also the exclusion of allowances from employee entitlements that Mr Patrick Tay mentioned. All these add up to the balance that we need to look at when we deal with these issues.

There are many reasons why employers introduce employment conditions or clauses to protect the commercial interests of their companies. Where clauses are unreasonable or not aligned with the EA or other employment legislation, our laws will take precedence, nullifying those clauses, which means that employers do not have a free reign in terms of what they set in their clauses. Similarly, employers structure compensation packages to meet specific needs. We are, therefore, careful not to make a one-size-fits-all pronouncement that will inadvertently introduce labour rigidities. We will continue to work with

Page: 100

tripartite partners to prevent abuse in a targeted fashion.

Mr Zainal Sapari has proposed mandating more protection for our low-wage workers, such as greater medical benefits, greater compensation for work on rest days and shorter qualifying period for sick leave entitlements. I fully understand and appreciate where Mr Zainal Sapari is coming from. Vulnerable workers do deserve our special attention not just in terms of the workplace but across in the many different dimensions for which we have many different assistance programmes that are available. But we also need to be mindful that if we begin to impose too many conditions, we also do run the risk that, inadvertently, we might tip the balance and affect their employability itself. Then we end up hurting the very people that we are trying to protect. So, while the concerns are valid and we continue to look at this base of protection to see how we can expand it, we have to continue to watch carefully because we do not want to end up hurting the very groups themselves; being mindful that the workspace and in terms of the Employment Act is one dimension. For them, it is a multi-dimensional issue in terms of addressing the concerns and needs of these Singaporeans which are valid.

The tripartite partners must continue to watch this space diligently and to debate this to make sure that we look after the workers. At the same time, the Government, on a whole-of-Government perspective, must look at this holistically to make sure that the different schemes are available to address the different needs for the different contexts. Overall, I believe that the current proposals maintain a reasonable and a good balance. We will continue to watch that and continue to evolve that space together with our partners.

But legislative changes, as I have mentioned, are clearly not the only means we have to assist our low-wage workers. This multi-faceted approach on the employment front revolves around one key thing, which I strongly believe is that work is really the best form of welfare. It is about the ability to continue to create good jobs and to raise employment standards. Creating good jobs means that we also need to make sure that the economy remains competitive, that employers have a viable business model that can go on because, in turn, that will also create opportunities for our people.

We also need to look at short-term expenditure and longer-term retirement needs. These will include Workfare Income Supplement, and sector-specific initiatives to raise the employment standards and benefits for low-wage workers, especially in the cleaning and security industries.

Page: 101

It is really multi-faceted. While we look at a specific Act today, there are also other corresponding efforts that are trying to uplift the workers in the specific area of concern. We have also been raising awareness of compliance with the Employment and CPF Acts, as discussed earlier under the WorkRight campaign and to ensure that the rights of vulnerable workers are protected. Those are fundamental because they ensure that the various schemes that are available can actually reach the very people that we are trying to help.

Beyond MOM, like I said, there are many different assistance schemes that are available in terms of housing, healthcare and education. For example, the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) allows Singaporeans from lower- and even middle-income households the convenience of seeking subsidised care at private GPs and dental clinics near their homes.

I do applaud and recognise our partner NTUC's efforts to widen the outreach and make assistance more accessible through the U Care Centre. That is an important development and we strongly support that. With our tripartite partners, we will continue to review and enhance the ways we extend targeted assistance and support to low-wage workers as we strive towards a more progressive and inclusive society.

In terms of enforcement, Mr Gerald Giam asked for the rationale for the enhanced investigatory powers. While there is a need for employment inspectors to have such powers to secure the immediate cooperation of suspects to facilitate investigations, in cases of failure to pay salary which our Ministry considers as one of the most serious offences, similar powers are already accorded to employment inspectors under the EFMA. All employment inspectors will have to be adequately trained to execute arrest and search of suspects. MOM will exercise the new power of arrest judiciously.

Members have made other useful suggestions pertaining to the Industrial Relations Act and the second phase of the EA review. One such area is mechanisms to resolve employment disputes which Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Hri Kumar talked about. MOM and the tripartite partners are actively looking into this. I have talked about this briefly before, and I will be giving more information on this probably in the first half of next year.

Mr Zainal Sapari also called for greater accountability on service buyers for outsourced workers; while Ms Mary Liew, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Patrick Tay proposed improved protection for contract

Page: 102

workers. All these will be addressed. They are important issues. It takes some time to address because for contract workers, there is really a wide range of different contexts in which contract workers operate and all these will be addressed in the next phase of the Employment Act review by next year.

Ms Mary Liew and Dr Chia Shi-Lu suggested mandatory eldercare leave. I agree in principle that it is important to encourage support for elderly parents. However, as Ms Liew also noted, the Government has recently taken significant steps with a series of family-related leave schemes as part of the Marriage and Parenthood package. We are mindful that we should allow businesses to adjust and we do not have plans to legislate any family leave schemes at this present stage.

As for Dr Chia's suggestion of a national code of employment conduct, he would be pleased to know that the tripartite partners have come out with Guidelines on Best Work-Life Practices to encourage companies to grant non-statutory leave to employees for family-related issues.

Ms Foo called for greater support for flexible work arrangements and I echo that. This involves quite fundamental shifts in terms of the cultural and mindset shifts in our workplaces and especially with the mindsets of employers. I would suggest among employees themselves, I think a lot of it is also brought upon by our own desire not to seemingly lose out and frankly a lot of it just revolves round bad habits that are in the workplace, both from the employer's perspective and even ourselves as employees.

I do not think legislation itself will solve the more fundamental issue. Indeed, we are trying to press ahead to encourage companies to implement work-life strategies, to find different schemes to incentivise companies to move along those lines as part of the effort to attract and retain talent through various schemes. We also see the response from many younger Singaporeans today, and companies have to pay attention to this. I believe the market will soon have to begin to adjust as well. It is really in the interest of companies to do so in this tight labour market.

Like Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Foo Mee Har, I also agree that the evolution of work arrangements does make it increasingly difficult to draw a line between the workmen and non-workmen. I have mentioned this before as well. We do need to work towards removing this distinction in a practical way in the medium term.

Page: 103

Ms Lee Li Lian asked for the rationale for the CDCA amendment. This is to make clear that parents who both have an older Singaporean child and a younger non-citizen child should not claim leave under both the EA and CDCA.

Many of you have raised a range of issues; many of them technical and very specific in nature. My Ministry's officials will be quite happy to work with you to provide and our tripartite partners to issue clarifications as appropriate.

I would like to conclude by supporting Assoc Prof Tan's call for shared effort to build a more inclusive society. Overall, I believe that this Bill supports our journey forward to develop progressive workplaces for our people. A lot of us spend a lot of time at the workplace and I think it is also appropriate that these workplaces need to be great workplaces. They need to be progressive workplaces.

Madam, to sum up, this Bill is about better protection for more workers but still at the same time giving employers the flexibility to continue to be able to sustain their business to remain competitive so that they can continue to provide good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. Once again, I would like to thank all our stakeholders, including many Members of the House for all their suggestions and inputs for the support of this Bill.

Madam, I have two clarifications for the Minister. First, regarding the deductions. How does the Ministry monitor employers, especially employers of low-wage workers to ensure that the deductions are not excessive and unreasonable? Second, regarding the prosecution and the fines, if an employer is prosecuted, how will the Ministry ensure that the employer actually ends up not just paying the fine but also pays the worker?

Mdm Speaker, with regard to the deductions, it is an area of concern which is why we moved some of the changes here. Deductions for accommodation and amenities and services – one of the questions that was raised by Mr Giam earlier – should be factored at the actual cost and be accepted by the employee. Deduction for amenities and services is not common. Employers need to apply to the Commissioner before deducting for amenities and services. So, there are checks in place, but I do fully recognise that there are concerns about the imbalances in the relationship between employers and employees. So, should we find that deductions are excessive, we do encourage

Page: 104

workers or those who are aware of these cases to flag it up to MOM so that we can go in and look at it in detail.

With regard to the second question, I would refer Members to my earlier response in the way we enforce non-payment or late payment of CPF. The priority really is to make sure that the entitled monies are provided to the people. That is the first priority, and we find that, in most cases, employers begin to move once we go in. We then move on to the prosecutory stage.

That is the way we approach it. We find that, by and large, employers do respond. Where they do not respond, that is when we bring in the full letter of the law in order to punish the companies. But we will at the same time make sure as far as possible to extract the monies to be made payable to the people. There will be circumstances where, perhaps, not so much because of the recalcitrants but because of closure of the companies and so on, in those extreme cases, there will be challenges in recovering the monies. But, in most cases, we are able to recover the monies.

I would like to ask the Acting Minister in order to effect the positive change needed against long hours of work, and given the minimum protection on overtime that we currently have in our laws, both at the non-workmen level and definitely at the PME level, how would we motivate employers to re-engineer the work processes so that people do not have to work excessive hours? What would be the mechanism going forward for us to rethink about this critical issue of excessive hours that people put in if employers are not subject to either compensation and, therefore, cost? What would be the motivation for them to critically think about changing the ways of working?

Mdm Speaker, work-life balance is something that I am particularly concerned about. We have a 44-hour work week. It translates to about nine hours a day. We do want to make sure that as far as our workmen are concerned, the appropriate limits are put in place, the OT is in place. That part is being addressed.

The Member's concern is with regard to PMEs. Many of us here in this House work fairly long hours, too. Some of us work long hours, some of us are also employers and we also subject our colleagues to those long hours. How do we address that? It is a big cultural change. For one reason or another, we have developed a culture of being hardworking; but taken to the limits, there

Page: 105

will be disamenities in terms of morale, in terms of staff engagement and so on.

Enlightened companies do recognise that. You do find increasingly more companies, and we will begin to see more companies, embracing flexible work arrangements at the workplace. We strongly encourage that.

It is in many ways a movement. Can you really mandate that change? I am not sure that it is necessarily the right way to do it for PMEs, but the effort is there. It is not just for the Government. The Government needs to signal in terms of the way we manage our Ministries and agencies, as well as companies that are progressive. We need to celebrate those progressive work practices, share them and to see how – rather than a decrease in productivity – that you would deepen staff engagement, possibly staff retention, and that turnover is less. It does not impact necessarily the bottom line.

That is the ongoing effort that we have to put in place. But, at the present, we do not believe that legislation itself will change that issue. We are putting in efforts in terms of incentivising, in terms of resourcing pro-work-life balance arrangements, and in terms of the tripartite effort to encourage this to take place in our workplace.

It is going to take time. We are un-doing many years of habit that has been put in place but it is an important objective to work towards. I do urge every individual to look at it from his or her own perspective as an employee, particularly in your own workplace. There are changes we can make. We should endeavour to do that.

Mdm Speaker, I would be much obliged if the Minister could explain why the overtime rate payable for non-workmen is capped at $2,250 when the salary threshold for such non-workmen under the Bill is $2,500.

We have increased the threshold to $2,500. Every worker up to $2,500 will be entitled to OT. We took a while to negotiate between the unions and the employers. We decided that $2,250 would be that cap. Meaning that anyone who earns up to $2,500 would be entitled to OT but the calculation would be based on the $2,250. This was basically a negotiated outcome that we feel met the desire to provide coverage for a lot more workers but, at the same time, managing the costs for companies. This is not static. Over

Page: 106

time, we will see how that evolves.

I would like to find out whether the shared parental leave includes fathers of adopted children. If not, why not?

Mdm Speaker, adoptive fathers can apply for Government's paid paternity leave, childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave as long as they meet the respective eligibility criteria.

Mdm Speaker, earlier in my speech, I asked the Acting Minister for more clarity on certain situations that fall within the auspices of section 14 as well as transfers which are tantamount or are covered within section 18(a). I was just asking the Minister whether his Ministry would be able to provide some answers and some clearer articulation on that.

Mdm Speaker, I would be quite happy to provide the specific responses to Mr Tay's questions.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin].*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*

Page: 107