Debated in Parliament on 7 Feb 2013.
Debate resumed.
Mdm Speaker, the death toll for the tsunami that struck Aceh was estimated to be at least 300,000 and the death toll for the tsunami that hit Japan was 18,000. Although both tsunamis were similar in size, the death toll was much lower for Japan. Why is this so? It is because the Japanese had a good tsunami warning system and they had made preparations for it.
Madam, two tsunamis are upon us now. We are facing a silver tsunami. We are facing significant demographic changes and challenges in our population as stated in the White Paper. These are facts that we cannot run away from, and this White Paper served as a tsunami warning. We can choose to ignore it or we can choose to prepare for it. I think all Singaporeans, including both sides of the House, would agree that we cannot ignore this and we have to make preparation. The difference is how do we prepare: the White Paper or the alternate Workers' Party's proposal?
It is the aspiration of all Singaporean parents, including myself and many in this House, to see their children do better than them. In the 1960s and 1970s, only 10% of each cohort gets the chance to reach tertiary education. Today, we have reached 60% of each cohort. By 2030 we expect 80%. Everyone hopes their children can become a professional, manager or an executive. And this is indeed the case. We do have more polytechnics and universities now than before. We have to work hard to transform our economy to one that can provide good, fulfilling jobs for the increasing PMETs proportion. If majorities are
Page: 125
PMETs, who are the workers or staff that they will be working with? The answer is quite simple. It must be the non-Singaporeans among us. In this respect, I think we all also can agree that the only difference between the White Paper and the alternative plan proposed by the Workers' Party is the number of foreign workers that we are having.
The Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Mr Yee has put it nicely as: "There are two taps pouring into a sink. One tap is local; the other tap is foreign workers." Their alternative proposal is to switch off the foreign tap immediately. Upon hearing the business chambers' critical comments on their proposal, they immediately changed tack to say that: "If the local tap is dry, we will turn on the foreign tap so the sink will never be dry, do not worry." This shifting position of the Workers' Party is not new. I am sorry.
Let me just quote Mr Low on his position on foreign workers tightening – whether to tighten or not – and this is quoted from the Budget debate on 29 February 2012. I quote, "However, we also know that we have limited population and we need foreign workers to fill up the gap in our domestic labour market. It is not easy to strike a balance between the two." Sounds like a statement from the Minister in fact.
When pressed a little bit more, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam did ask the Member whether the Member meant that the industry which he feels has low productivity should basically get more foreign workers. This is what Mr Low said, I quote, "What I mean is that we tighten it slowly rather than tighten it at one go." I repeat, "What I mean is that we tighten it slowly rather than tighten it at one go." And I quote again, Mr Low said, "My concern is that the push you are making now by setting a target for dependency ratio and tightening it and in the process what will happen to the SMEs? Many of them may not be able to make it and there will be a lot of fall out. I am also concerned with the speed of tightening. Yes, there are low productivity industries. You want to push it up but at the same time you cannot do it suddenly because eventually we will end up with high cost of living." This sounds like a page from Ms Sim Ann's speech just now.
And I quote again, Mr Low said that, "An abrupt forced transformation of certain industries such as cleaning and construction industries could result in a rapid rise in cost and eventually end up with consumers paying higher prices." This sounds very similar but, of course, today's position is very different.
Page: 126
The alternative proposal states that there will be zero foreign workers growth from today till 2020. And, of course, NCMP Mr Gerald Giam says that he does not think that there is anything wrong with having zero foreign workforce growth in the next eight years. And just to quote Mr Pritam Singh, he just said in the House as well, referring to the construction industry: "They will have to make do with what they have and Singaporeans must accept a slower pace of construction as a result, which means they have to wait longer for their BTO flats."
On the issue of the pace of restructuring, let me quote Mr Low from his Budget speech on 29 February last year, "We all hope we can raise workers' income, the faster the better because the cost of living has been increasing. However, it will be a long arduous journey to restructure the economy and increase productivity. And I urge the Government to be cautious in economic restructuring process." And today's position is let us immediately restructure it; let us change immediately.
On PR policy, this is what Mr Low said last year, "In addition, the Government should also learn their lesson and not to be too lax in their approving Permanent Residence application as the practice of being overly relaxed in granting PR status to foreigners in the past few years has also added pressure to Singaporeans in finding jobs. This is because Permanent Residents do not need to apply for work permit and are not restricted by Government's limit on foreign workers. The number of applications for approved for permanent residents has decreased from 79,000 in year 2008 to 29,000 in 2010. Looking at the current situation, I think the Government should limit the number of approval for PR application to 30,000 a year." I repeat this, "I think the Government should limit the number of approval for PR application to 30,000 a year." Has the Workers' Party changed its position now and they want to reduce it from 30,000 now to 10,000?
This shifting position is not new. In fact, this issue of cheap foreign is not new in this Chamber. I and a few Members over the last few years have brought this up time and time again in this House during Budget debate. I had warned that the dangerous addiction of cheap foreign labour that may have numbed our enterprises into complacency and lowered productivity growth. I have proposed two options in the past. One is a gradual reduction on this dependency on foreign workers which is what the White Paper is proposing. The other is cold turkey treatment which will also be effective but many enterprises may not survive the cold turkey treatment and many Singaporeans will lose their jobs.
Page: 127
And this is the alternative proposal by Workers' Party. Is this really a tenable suggestion? It can be quite unworkable and will finish off our SMEs. Having said that, the alternative proposal may be worth considering. I would like to call upon our Workers' Party colleagues to walk the talk; to implement what they proposed in their constituency. They should consider: can they freeze all foreign workers headcount for all contractors serving their constituencies now, and get more elderly and women to take up the jobs there?
Singapore has already the third highest older worker participation rate in the world. I am not sure what other concrete suggestions the Workers' Party has to increase this further? Can Aljunied Town Council try this? I also hope they can implement what they proposed for the benefit and welfare of the workers in their Town Council, that is: strictly eight hours workday with mandatory OT (Over Time) payment for any overtime including working at home; and two weeks of child bonding leave that can be taken anytime in addition to the Government proposal of one week paternity leave; and on behalf of their Town Council staff, let me thank the Workers' Party in advance for their implementation.
Madam, however, I would like to share and echo some concerns which are already reverberating loudly in the public, both in the coffee shop and cyberspace. Perhaps both the Government and the Workers' Party can enlighten us.
What is the truly sustainable population that our 700-plus sq km island can support? What is the sustainable demographic structure; that is, what is the proportion of children, adults and elderly? What is next after the 5.9 million that Workers' Party has proposed? And what is next after the 6.9 million that PAP has proposed? Will the population still be growing or will it be at a steady state? In this sustainable population steady state, we all still want to be pollution-free with good clean air, clean water, and thriving ecosystems in our green spaces that preserve our fauna and flora and also a thriving vibrant economy that provides good jobs. I think both the White Paper and the alternative plan did not put any figures.
Infrastructure development must lead the population growth and not lag behind. I know we have a very prudent Government that makes sure public spending is sound. With the current traffic congestions and high property prices due to a mismatch in demand and supply, many are apprehensive of any further increase that will aggravate the current situation. I welcome the Government's pledge in the White Paper to build infrastructure ahead of demand. I do not think Workers' Party and our Nominated Members of Parliament will object,
Page: 128
with the exception of Nominated Member Ms Faizah Jamal, as long as proper environmental impact studies are done before development. As a show of commitment to the Government's pledge, perhaps the Government can build the swimming pool, stadium and hawker centre in Sembawang town ahead of population growth. The residents of Sembawang town have been waiting patiently for the past 12 years for these facilities. On behalf of residents, let me thank the Government in advance.
If the figures given by the White Paper and the alternative Workers' Party's proposal are only a guide to infrastructure development, then I would rather opt for a higher figure so that the Government can build and cater more facilities for all of us. Between building facilities to cater for 5.9 million population or 6.9 million population, I think the public choice is quite clear. I would rather go for more rather than less.
The third point I would like to make is, who are the PRs and new citizens we are bringing in? They must be here to complement and not to compete with existing Singaporeans. The White Paper quoted a figure of 15,000 PRs and the Workers' Party's alternative plan is 10,000 PRs. May I ask both sides what are the criteria that both sides will use to decide who gets the PR? The current PR population is about half a million and the White Paper's projection is also about half a million by 2030. There is no real increase. The Workers' Party's proposal of lowering PR annual intake will result in many foreign spouses of Singaporeans remaining as foreigners and dashing their hope to be PRs or citizens.
What will happen to our HDB heartland? The proposed population projection in the White Paper will result in a 55% Singaporean core and 45% non-Singaporean working population. What is the percentage of core Singaporean in the alternative proposal by the Workers' Party? Where do we house the 45% non-Singaporeans? Currently, we have 1.2 million residential units with 900,000 as HDB. I understand 700,000 residential units will be added. If we maintain our current 75%-80% residential units as public housing and if 20% out of the 55% stays in private estates due to good economic prospects as proposed by the White Paper, then the remaining 35% will stay with the 45% non-Singaporeans in our heartlands. Will we reach a situation where there are more non-Singaporeans staying in the heartland? I think the housing and transportation of these 45% transient foreign workers need a review and rethink. Nothing in the White Paper or the Workers' Party's alternative proposal mentioned about them.
Page: 129
I spoke of two tsunamis at the beginning of my speech. I mentioned the silver tsunami. The next tsunami that may come earlier than the silver tsunami is the political tsunami. The shifting of our political tectonic plates is faster than most had anticipated. I am happy to hear that the Workers' Party has come out with an alternative plan which the public expects of the Opposition, too. As an elected Member of Parliament, it is also my duty to hold the Opposition accountable and make the Opposition work hard, so as not to let down the public. I must say that your alternative plan is actually very similar to the White Paper except for some tweaking of the figures to make the public happy and sway the public's emotions. It is a populist move, aimed at buying the hearts of the voters but may not be beneficial for the country in the long run.
The last GE and the two by-election results are a loud and clear warning of this political tsunami to come. Some members of the public told me that the rising tide of anti-PAP sentiments is unstoppable and has passed the point of no return. I asked why? This was their reply, "Even if the Government can deliver what was promised, Opposition will claim credit for them and the call for more Opposition will even be louder. If there is no improvement, Opposition will go to the rally to say that the Government has failed to deliver. Therefore, also call for more Opposition in the Parliament. Either way, Opposition will win".
It has been predicted by some that, one day, the PAP will cede control to govern. After the last tsunami warning, I am beginning to believe that day will come sooner rather than later. Shortly after this White Paper was released, the feedback I received from friends was, "This is a suicide paper for the PAP as it will fan more anti-PAP sentiments". When the alternative plan was released by the WP, the feedback I received from friends was, "The alternative plan will kill the economy and this is euthanasia for Singapore".
Between suicide for the PAP verses euthanasia for the country. Let me borrow a new phrase I learnt recently in this Chamber. To be "intellectually honest", my choice is clear. I support the White Paper. [Applause.]
Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Thank you, Madam. I think the Member's comment and criticism of the Workers' Party's plan is nothing new. Many of the speakers before him spoke about it. He also mentioned what I said in Parliament, some of which Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has addressed. I have explained that these are
Page: 130
things that are quoted within the context of dependency ratio, re-allocation of foreign manpower within the industry and within the Singapore context. There is no contradiction.
But he did mention that I said we can approve up to 30,000 Permanent Residents (PRs). Yes, I did mention that. That is in the context of approving PR from holders of work passes. The "30,000" number does not actually increase the population size. We are not talking about direct approval of PR from the new applications.
As for the 10,000 figure he mentioned, we were referring to 10,000 citizens. Citizens usually come from the PR pool, which are already a part of the population. So, it does not increase the total population size. There is no contradiction in what I said in Parliament and what we are now proposing in Parliament on the population policy.
He also mentioned about the Population Paper and about how the voters will vote in the future. He gives me the impression that he takes Singaporean voters as idiots, as though they cannot distinguish and simply listen to what we have to say at the rallies. I would advise him that perhaps he should not think that Singaporean voters are idiots. Singaporean voters are very sophisticated. They know how to discern what is right and what is wrong, and they will make their informed and independent decision. They will not be swayed by the PAP's —
Clarification, Mr Low, not a speech, please.
Yes, okay.
Dr Lim.
Mdm Speaker, I will quote once again. Perhaps the Member needs to turn up his hearing aid [Interruption]. This is what you said about the PR policy, I quote, "I think the Government should limit the number of approval for Permanent Residents applications to 30,000 a year." This was about approval for PRs, not talking about Work Permit or anything else. You are just saying that it was inclusive of Work Permit and everything else, so, it is not. It is just about PR alone.
Page: 131
Of course, what Mr Low has alluded to, I do not think he should use the word "idiot" in this particular Chamber. Singaporeans are smart – we all respect Singaporeans. I am very sure Singaporeans will make a very decisive choice, a very informed choice, after reading through both proposals. They will certainly not be taken in by just a rally speech.
Order, order. I do urge Members to address your speeches to the Chair, the Speaker.
Mdm Speaker, my apologies. If I may, there was a table that I prepared that was meant to be distributed during my speech. If I may have your permission to distribute that table, please?
Yes, please. You may distribute the table. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.] Ms Ellen Lee.
Mdm Speaker, to Singaporeans who take pride in their country being admired by many for its modern and green environment, meritocracy, multi-racial society and hardworking citizens, this White Paper is bold and reassuring. I agree with what the Paper says – that we should act to make the future of our children and grandchildren secure. More importantly, I agree with the spirit of the Paper which, to me, is the essence of what it means to be Singaporean.
First, it is the spirit of looking at challenges boldly in the eye, not pretending there exist any easy options, not fearing that what lies ahead may be a very long and tough journey. The White Paper is the result of many people thinking about and trying to overcome a very serious problem which we have, a problem happening in 2030 which I remember first hearing in the 1980s after I just graduated. Simply put, Singapore is ageing fast and we know that fast-ageing societies, notably Japan, find it hard to grow and provide opportunities for their young citizens. So, we want to start thinking now how not to be hit by the same sad situation, which my learned colleague, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, called a tsunami.
We owe it to our children, grandchildren and future generations. But telling it straight like this has elicited responses, such as "the aged are seen as a burden to society", "there exist less unpalatable measures than having lots of foreign workers", "the Government has given up asking people to marry and have children". All these are not true at all. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo has
Page: 132
repeatedly assured Singaporeans, the White Paper is a roadmap to the future for all Singaporeans, the aged included. As for foreign workers, as explained in the White Paper, we need them to do the less skilled work because more Singaporeans will upskill and take on PMET and higher jobs. Lastly, the Government is stepping up efforts to help Singaporeans marry and have children, not slowing down.
The question is, should the Government not have said anything on the matter? To me, there is no question of leaving the White Paper alone till people show signs of receiving it well. It is an urgent matter and we cannot wait. This is the spirit of looking at a challenge in the eye and tackling it with all the Government can think of in consultation with the public.
Second, it is the spirit of optimism based on realistic judgement. The word I want to stress here is "realistic". To be realistic is to be aware and be able to accept things as they are, not as we wish them to be. To be realistic is to be practical and not deal with what is abstract or what seems ideal. Some views I know of may be summarised as such: "it will be better to persuade Singaporeans to take on jobs which they are now unwilling to do rather than hire foreigners to do them. We can get them to take up these jobs if we make it worth their while to do so."
The assumptions made here are not realistic to my mind. There have been many attempts to help Singaporeans who are not in the workforce to find employment, with limited success, for various reasons. We all see these at our MPS. Employers would often say it is difficult to find workers. To assume that the suggested idea will work is to show a lack of awareness of the stark reality.
We need to look to foreign labour to help us meet our employment needs and achieve the growth that we want. It is an ideal situation to have all the jobs in Singapore filled by locals.
The prospect of less crowded roads or trains may be an attractive one, but without foreign workers, more – not fewer or less – businesses will have to cease operations. If you ask employers to pay more for their workers and they say business costs are too high, the business will move elsewhere. In short, we have to be realistic. The Government will calibrate the foreign labour required and there is no doubt that a realistic mindset will serve Singapore better, as it has always been until recently.
Page: 133
Most people would agree that it is hard for any affluent society to maintain a high standard of living if there are few young people and lots of old people. At the personal level, a young family with members all working will live more comfortably than a family of two childless retirees. You do not have to be an expert to see this. Why then do Singaporeans baulk at the thought of more foreign labour needed, more young people targeted?
A likely cause is a keenly-felt sense, especially among less well-off senior citizens, that with the rising cost of living each year, the aged cannot afford to be sick in Singapore and before long they will be marginalised. More effort should be put into assuring Singaporeans that while it is true, costs will go up particularly when there is economic growth, things will become more expensive in the years to come, we can, on our part, prepare for the future. Perhaps we can find positive stories to share, of how senior citizens deal with worries about life after retirement, and what keeps them going. Our senior citizens and Singaporeans approaching retirement must feel that they belong here in Singapore, that ours is an inclusive society and that they matter. One good way would be to provide support to help senior citizens achieve their dreams. For instance, if a 56-year-old worker at a hospital wants to be a staff nurse and plans to first take the Normal Maths exam followed by the "O" level Maths exam, the employer – with the Government's help – should give her the support she needs so she can realise her dream and retire at the level she wants. Other senior citizens who share similar dreams will feel encouraged if all employers have the same mindset and, gradually, this lifelong learning culture will set in and become a distinctive part of our society.
Yet another reason for the initial reservations expressed could be the refusal of some of our people to accept that, as a small nation state with no natural resources or hinterland to count on, our options are not as many as we might have wished for. We simply have to focus on our people, their brain power and their willingness to work hard and be creative.
A caller, responding to a question on the new Marriage and Parenthood Package on a TV show, expressed his concern that if Singaporeans are given too many subsidies, they would lose the incentive to continue working hard. Indeed, working hard and, more importantly, working smart, have helped us to stay ahead in the global competition for growth opportunities. We have to communicate clearly that seizing growth opportunities is not what Singapore's future is about. It is about building a happy home for ourselves. Many arguments about how the Government cares only about making money missed the point that growth makes it possible for us to pay for a nicely renovated flat, wholesome and delicious food on our tables, good books and enrichment
Page: 134
classes for our children, good caregivers for our aged parents, grandparents and so on. Money is not the goal, using money wisely to make life better for ourselves and our family is the goal. The logic is straightforward but many Singaporeans failed to appreciate the Government's approach to seizing growth opportunities because there are those who pretend there exist better options which other countries have and trumpet them while ignoring the crucial differences, such as we are uniquely small and without any natural resources to help us in a fiercely competitive world.
The next point I would like to raise is the extent to which teenagers and young adults identify with the future presented in the White Paper. The White Paper is their paper and perhaps this should be underlined for them – the future is theirs to shape, to preserve so that, in turn, their children would do the same, too. A simplified White Paper would make a good Youth Day present for all youths to read and appreciate what the country has done for them. Being better informed than youths a generation ago, it may be asked why they should believe what has been proposed would happen.
The reply to this is simply that the Government's track record in finding a way out of a tough situation speaks for itself. Think how our NEWater has solved the problem of our having to buy lots of raw water overseas. Think SARS which no one knew much about when it first appeared here except that it could kill you. Picture for yourself what the future will look like and get involved in the envisioning process. Another question would be: so what if we do not care about what happens? Think of places like Italy where graduates leave the country in despair to seek their future elsewhere. Think how Japan has to borrow money to take care of its huge number of very old citizens. Enough of thinking, now act. I suggest we ask schools to discuss the White Paper during Character and Citizenship Education class to gather their students' thoughts and feelings, too. Give them a taste of what it means to plan for the future, about which nothing is certain. In short, let us engage our youths, invite them to share their views, for we have begun on a massive project to create the best home for ourselves, together. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Parents hold high hopes for their children, especially in this fast-changing era where we are facing global competitions. Expectations from the parents are even higher nowadays. Parents pinch and scrape, look for the best school, best teachers, best CCAs, so that children can optimise their potential, acquire a skill and finally stand out. In short, parents put their children's future at the forefront, so do grandparents. I will do the same for my grandchildren. Every one of us must
Page: 135
seriously ponder what we must do to ensure our children's future.
Facing the challenge posed by a rapidly ageing population, can we still just remain status quo? Can we ignore the impact on economic growth by the ageing population simply because we want to avoid traffic congestion and the feeling of "is this the Singapore I am familiar with?" brought about by the influx of foreign workers? Look what happened to Japan; we cannot make a choice that is detrimental to the next generation. Refusing to import foreign labour to supplement the shortfall will not be workable; many companies will close down or leave Singapore due to manpower shortage. Singaporeans, in turn, will lose their jobs. Our children, like many University graduates in Europe, will leave Singapore and seek work elsewhere simply because the Government cannot guarantee a job after their graduation. They live and work alone in a foreign land, much to the pain of their parents.
I believe the proposals in the White Paper are to safeguard Singaporeans' and their children's interests, and to ensure a correct path to the future. We can solve the problem of inadequate infrastructure; we have the faith and the ability. I hope Singaporeans can give the Government time and have faith in the White Paper. We can give our children a bright future and shape them into the pillars of the nation to continue Singapore's stability and prosperity.
Yes, Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Mdm Speaker, in the heat of a very passionate debate, I have made some very insensitive remarks about Mr Low Thia Khiang. I would like to express my sincere apology to the hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang for my comments on his hearing aid during the speech. [Applause.]
Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I have a clarification for the Acting Minister for Manpower. During his speech, he made a reference about between now and 2020, that MOM's estimates are that there is a requirement for another 100,000 foreign domestic workers to look after the elderly. Can I just confirm whether that is the correct estimation? And if it is, I would like to know why these estimations are not included in the White Paper and additional estimations which would have been helpful for Singaporeans to try and understand what sort of future we are looking at? I did mention in my speech that the White Paper is very, very thin on detail and this is exactly that sort of detail that I think would have been very useful for Singaporeans to
Page: 136
actually look at and consider.
Mdm Speaker, if I may clarify. I think what I referred to is really at 2030, the projections that we think, by that stage, addressing the elderly issues. We think that the present foreign domestic worker numbers are about 200,000. It will rise to about 300,000 by then. So, that is in excess, not between now and 2020.
I thank the Acting Minister for that clarification but I think my initial point still remains that the White Paper could have put all these information out very clearly, in particular, estimates that the Government has, but are not included in the White Paper. We have Members like Mr Lim who expect an alternative proposal. But a lot of these information, if it is not in the hands of the common man, how are these proposals going to come to the fore? So, it is important when the Government raises a White Paper that this information be provided in the White Paper itself.
Mdm Speaker : Deputy Prime Minister Teo.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to clarify that these figures were actually put out in the National Population and Talent Division's occasional paper several months ago.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply. I think then all that had to be done was to have included that paper as an annex also, and all the other information which is relevant to the White Paper so that everybody can see it holistically. This is a long-time grievance that many Singaporeans have raised about Government policies – it is all over the place.
Mr Pritam Singh, what is the point of clarification here?
My point of clarification is just that, in future, it will be helpful if all these information has been put together.
The points of clarification must relate to the speech made by the Member. So, please be reminded of that. Points of clarification are not meant as the opportunity for a debate or as a speech for Members to make. Yes, Mr Singh?
Page: 137
Mdm Speaker, I will take that into account. Thank you very much for your indulgence.
Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mdm Speaker, it is said that it is far better to foresee even without clarity than not to foresee at all. History shared that it was not raining when Prophet Noah decided to build the ark. We are discussing about a future which no one knows with certainty will hold true. It is, however, important that we do not let our present day challenges to drive out the need to plan. Planning is about bringing the future into the present so that we can act on it now.
We have heard in this House over the past few days alternative projections on labour force, GDP and population growth. Unfortunately, to the many Singaporean low-wage workers who are facing stagnating wages, coupled with rising inflation, it means nothing to them. I was driving into Parliament this morning when I asked the armed security officer about his wages. He shared with me that his income has not increased for the past seven years despite having worked in his present job for 12 years. I have also come across many workers working under outsourced contracts lamenting their wages have not increased for many years. I believe there are thousands out there facing a similar situation.
Mdm Speaker, I am truly saddened at the plight of our Singaporean low-wage workers. Without doubt, there are many social assistance schemes and other forms of financial support provided to them, but we cannot raise a person's dignity through hand-outs. I believe many of them want to raise their own families through their own blood, sweat and tears.
Mdm Speaker, the Singapore narrative for the low-wage workers must change for the better as we plan for 2030. The time to take class-based affirmative action is now. NTUC has embarked on many initiatives to help low-wage workers earn better wages through productivity improvements, skills upgrading and promoting better business practices. Even the recent 212 NWC recommendations made a bold move in recommending a quantum pay increase for low-wage workers.
Page: 138
The reality, however, is that many companies show much resistance to adopt such national initiatives to help the low-wage workers, citing cost and competition. Let me share a real case study involving one of our premier tertiary institutions. Last year, when NTUC learnt that they had a cleaning contract up for renewal, NTUC engaged them early to share on the progressive wage model, hoping that they would be amongst the first mover in helping the cleaners earn better wages. I personally attended the meeting. Despite sharing with the institution in advance, they, however, concluded their recent cleaning contract without insisting that the service providers adopt the progressive wage model, citing that official announcement of the progressive wage model was not made. If they had, the cleaners would have obtained better wages based on their skills and job nature. How many local cleaners were affected? I am not sure, but behind each of these cleaners is a family that most likely will find it difficult to cope with the rising cost of living.
I have many more cases to share, but when a premier academic institution of higher learning shows resistance to efforts to help low-wage workers, I am worried what the situation would be like for the low-wage workers in the year 2030.
Madam, to change the narrative for our low-wage workers, what we need now is for the Government to be more aggressive in its measures to improve the wages of Singaporean low-wage workers. Without doubt, the Government has instituted a range of measures, like the Inclusive Growth Programme, Workfare Training Scheme and Workfare Income Supplement, targeted at raising the salaries of low-wage Singaporean workers sustainably over the longer term. The Government must continue to improve on these narratives.
The Government has taken the right step to award its cleaning contract only to companies that have been awarded the Clean Mark under the new cleaning accreditation scheme and who have agreed to adopt the Progressive Wage Model for their workers. This requirement has the potential to impact 7,000 local cleaners working under Government contract but we still have another 50,000 local cleaners out there working and not earning wages as recommended by the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners. Cleaners are not the only group of low-wage workers.
According to MHA, there are 65,679 unarmed and 6,408 armed private security guards licensed by the police as of July 2012, but only about 36,000 are actively working as guards, as reported by The Straits Times in September last year. It is estimated that Government agencies engaged a total of approximately 1,200 security officers and 1,800 armed Police officers. While there has been
Page: 139
much progress to raise their productivity and wages, the security industry is in a vicious cycle characterised by long working hours, low basic salary and, for some, even stagnating wages. I would like to urge the Government Ministries to work with the unions and industry players to help these security officers. Let us work on the Progressive Wage Model using our police officers in MHA to benchmark their salaries. This is a good narrative that will be welcomed by many security officers out there.
Mdm Speaker, there are many Singaporeans earning low wages in many other industries, such as retail, F&B, landscape and others. Many Singaporean low-wage workers are vulnerable because of the business practice of outsourcing. Competition amongst service providers inadvertently leads to cost-cutting and this manifests itself in the form of low salaries for their workers. To make matters worse, contractual obligations spanning a few years at fixed contract price means that the salary of these low-wage workers will stagnate. Many Singaporean low-wage workers are working for companies who are successful because they are operating based on a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment.
Last month, a resident came to see me during my Meet-the-People session. She has been working with the Postal Service for the last 17 years as a postwoman and earning about $1,700 per month. She shared that, this year, her employer changed her terms of remuneration to $1,062 per month for the same amount of work. NTUC is following up with this case but, if it is true, then this is an example of companies operating based on a low-wage, low-benefit model of employment. We must change this narrative now if we want the Singaporean low wage workers to believe in the vision we have for 2030.
Mdm Speaker, some have opined that one of the best ways to help low-wage workers get better wages is to get them to be union members. This, however, is not necessarily true. While unions can ensure they are accorded their statutory benefits according to the Employment Act, it is a challenge to negotiate for better wages if the workers are working under an outsourced contract with their salaries largely determined by what the company is getting from the Service Buyers.
Recently, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) made a call to the Government to reverse the policy of tightening the inflow of lower skilled foreign workers. The Singapore Retailers Association (SRA) said that the retail sector was finding it extremely difficult to hire Singaporeans and urged the Government to rethink its labour policy. The Singapore Business Federation echoed similar views. Government has given subsidies for them to restructure
Page: 140
and improve their productivity but we know it is not easy. It takes time. I can understand why they want the policy to be reversed. Madam, I am concerned, if we were to reverse the policy, about the impact it will have on our low-wage and older workers whose wages may be stagnant due to cheaper foreign competition.
The demand for low-wage workers will continue even up to 2030. What can we do now to convince the Singaporean low-wage workers that the future will be better, come 2030?
Mdm Speaker, to improve the narrative for our local low-wage workers as we prepare for "a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore", or "a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore" as the Workers' Party prefers to call it, we must act now to value every work and every worker. In NTUC, we coined this term "Cheap is no good; good is not cheap". Regardless of what we call the White Paper, it is said that "all the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today". Let us plant the right seeds for the Singaporean low-wage workers now in order for them to enjoy the blooming flowers in the year 2030.
For a start, I would like to call on the Government to make it mandatory now for all companies to adopt NWC's recommendations, specifically to those pertaining to low-wage workers. We must be bold to reduce the rising income gap by taking more affirmative action plans to help our local low-wage workers.
Second, as there is quite a large number of low-wage workers, I would like to call upon the Government to recognise industry-wide agreements incorporating the Progressive Wage Model, especially for those industries dominated by low-wage workers, such as in cleaning, security, retail, landscape and F&B, to ensure fair and good employment terms and conditions for these workers. This agreement can be reached through national industry-wide collective bargaining, between employers' associations like SNEF, ASME or SBF with NTUC or industrial unions. This agreement would be binding on all service providers and service buyers in the industry.
Third, I would like to urge the Government to review the Employment Act to make it more favourable to low-wage workers, given the changing employment environment. While the unions can negotiate for better employment terms and conditions through our collective agreements, there are many Singaporean low-wage workers that are not union members or working for unionised companies.
Page: 141
Even within the Government sector, there are 2,931 Division IV officers, and 73% of them are earning gross salaries of between $1,001 and $1,400 per month, and another 16% were drawing monthly salaries above this level. Can the Government Ministries and Statutory Boards be bold enough to have higher performance bonus rates for this group of officers? Can the Government also consider making service buyers responsible for the employment terms and conditions of the outsourced workers working under the service buyers' contract? This would encourage more responsible outsourcing by service buyers.
Mdm Speaker, it is said that a society or a nation is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; the last, the least, the littlest. What we can do in the future is judged by what we can do now.
Madam, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The White Paper on the issue of Singapore's population increase by 2030 has led to a heated discussion among Singaporeans, with many of them worried about the implications if Singapore's population reaches 6.9 million. However, this issue is important because Singapore's future may be affected if nothing is done. This is due to Singapore's very low fertility rate and the increase in the number of senior citizens.
Madam, among the issues of concern to the Malay community is the ethnic proportion, as mentioned by Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Intan Azura. Many among our community are worried that the percentage of Malays in Singapore will decrease due to immigration policies relating to the entry of new Singapore citizens from countries like China, India and the Philippines. If we compare this with the 1970s, the percentage of Malays in Singapore has decreased from 15% in 1977 to about 13.4% presently.
Although our Prime Minister and the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, have said that the ethnic balance will not be affected and will be maintained, this issue is still a matter of concern to our community. How can this balance be maintained if more non-Malay new citizens are going to be accepted in the coming years? May I know if efforts to attract Malay PMETs from other countries are being done? And are these efforts effective? If they are not effective, how will the percentage of Malays be maintained?
Page: 142
Madam, there are those who said that citizens from the Philippines who will be accepted as Singapore citizens will be categorised as "Malays" because, historically, they are considered to have the same roots as Malays. Is this true? If it is true, this will mean that even though the percentage is maintained, the identity and the meaning of the label "Malay" will change, because many Filipinos are Catholics and, culturally, there are not many similarities with our Malays.
Some also have the perception that due to the lack of Malay foreigners who wish to reside in Singapore, the Government has taken new citizens who are Muslims, even though they are not Malays. Statistically, will these new citizens who are Muslims be considered as Malays? I should think not.
Mr Zainal, you may want to round up your speech now.
Mdm Speaker, please allow me to conclude in English and allow me to share a posting on my wall by a well-respected friend, "Perhaps, the way forward is to let people see the full picture, give the worst case, the best case and the ideal scenario of the population problem. Give the consequences of each option in not only GDP growth, but also consequences in social, transportation, childcare, education and etc." We still have time. While I support the Motion, I hope that the Government will address the concerns and allay the worries of Singaporeans on the various issues and convince Singaporeans that we have them always at heart.
Yes, Minister Tan.
Mdm Speaker, I wish to make a point of clarification. The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh made a big issue of the lack of details in the White Paper, in particular, with reference to the number of foreign domestic workers that we might need in the future. If I may draw the House's attention to the White Paper, on page 40, under the subsection, "Complementing the Singaporean Core with a Foreign Workforce", chapter 3.2.3, we talked about more foreign workers will also be needed to build housing, transport and other key infrastructure and to do conservancy and maintenance work; footnote 11, where we project that by 2030, 250,000 to 300,000 work permit holders will be needed in construction, and so on, and then 28,000 foreigners in healthcare and 300,000 as foreign domestic workers. More details can be found in NPTD's occasional paper. I would like to add that, perhaps, it would be useful to actually read the Paper and the details before commenting.
Page: 143
PAPERCUTS