Impact of Recent Illegal Bus Drivers Strike on Industrial Relations and Dependency on Foreign Workers

Dr Lily Neo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether he can provide an assessment for the unhappiness of the Chinese bus drivers who were responsible for the recent illegal strike and if this situation could have been better managed; and (b) does the Ministry have in place a safety-valve mechanism to step in before relations breakdown to the point of disrupting vital public transport services.

Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of the illegal strikes by the SMRT Chinese drivers, what are the learning points to avoid such an occurrence again.

Mr Arthur Fong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) how can avenues to address grievances of foreign workers working in Singapore be better managed; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider allowing foreign workers to be unionised.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what are the learning points from the recent illegal strike by SMRT bus drivers; (b) whether there are adequate mechanisms to handle the grievances of non-unionised low-wage workers; and (c) whether companies that hire large number of foreign workers are equipped to manage workers of different nationalities and backgrounds.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether the recent illegal strike by SMRT bus drivers is a wake-up call for tripartism; (b) what lessons can be drawn to ensure that low-wage workers, including foreign workers, will be treated fairly by employers and their grievances heard; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that employers will not exploit lowly educated foreign workers, particularly non-unionised ones.

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in view of the recent SMRT bus drivers' work stoppages, how can Singapore do better to maintain its excellent industrial relations track record, especially for essential services.

Ms Mary Liew asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of the recent strike by SMRT workers (a) what can be done to strengthen tripartism and ensure that it continues to be Singapore's comparative advantage; and (b) given that bipartism is a pre-requisite for strong tripartism, what more can be done to get employers to recognise and support unions at the workplace.

Page: 13

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for detaining the 29 SMRT bus drivers prior to their deportation in a prison facility when they have not been charged with any offence; and (b) what is being done to ensure that the employment terms and work conditions are adequately safeguarded for persons working in the essential services as specified in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

Mr Laurence Lien asked the Acting Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will mandate improvements in the work conditions of foreign workers and make Singapore a more competitive destination for such workers from the region to come to Singapore.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) when SMRT first became aware of the pay and housing grievances of its foreign bus drivers; (b) when the Ministry first became aware of the grievances; (c) what actions were taken by the Ministry since the grievances were known; and (d) what plans the Ministry has for improving industrial relationship between foreign workers and employers.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked  the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what is the total number of non-Singaporeans employed in the essential services listed in the First Schedule of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67); (b) what are the top five essential services that hire the most non-Singaporeans; and (c) what is the number and percentage of non-Singaporeans in each of the top five essential services.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with regard to the Ministry's investigation of the recent illegal industrial strikes (a) did the workers have adequate access to the Ministry or other related agencies to air their grievances; (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the channels available to foreign workers to seek redress on their work conditions; (c) whether the Ministry will consider allowing relevant agencies, NGOs and unions to set up a representative branch office or conduct regular dormitory visits to improve accessibility and prevent foreign worker abuse by employers or exploitation by third parties; and (d) what more can be done to prevent the exploitation of foreign workers by employers.

Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what role did the Chinese Embassy play in the resolution of the SMRT strike by Chinese bus drivers on 26 November 2012; and (b) whether there were other demands made by these bus drivers apart from salary and living conditions that

Page: 14

were made known to the Ministry via the Chinese Embassy.

I would like to thank my fellow Members of this House for the many questions, but in particular, for agreeing to defer your questions to this day. Given the importance of this topic, it was appropriate for us to air this, to address this publicly, and to have a proper Question and Answer following this response.

Let me start by addressing Dr Lily Neo, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Asst Prof Eugene Tan's queries on the causes and actions taken by the Government with regard to the illegal strike by the SMRT bus drivers. I am aware that there are many reasons offered in the various media sources about the root causes of the workers' grievances. Indeed, there have been employment issues raised with MOM on SMRT in the past. In fact, in 2010, a number of these were raised.

Those issues relating to potential breaches of statutory obligations have been investigated and dealt with by MOM, while issues not related to statutory obligations have been surfaced by my colleagues in MOM to SMRT's most senior management levels. All these were dealt with prior to the strike.

When MOM officers spoke with the PRC bus drivers on 26 November when they participated in the strike, new issues were revealed and their unhappiness boiled down to three core issues. Firstly, differential salary and increments relative to the Malaysian bus drivers. Secondly, a SMRT internal circular which explicitly excluded PRC bus drivers from a recent salary adjustment exercise and, thirdly, perceived unsatisfactory accommodation conditions.

As in most other developed countries, our labour laws will stipulate the basic employment standards, and the Government's role is to ensure that these basic employment standards are upheld. It is neither possible nor desirable to prescribe every good management practice under these laws.

The first two grievances raised by the PRC bus drivers were in fact issues which had nothing to do with employment standards or to do with the law. Rather, they were contractual issues to do with the terms and conditions of their

Page: 15

employment. Both employers and employees share a joint responsibility to resolve such cases amicably; and the Government should be careful about interfering in private contractual arrangements which are entered into willingly by both parties and which do not breach any statutory requirements. I will expand on this later.

The third issue alleged a potential breach of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations that require employers to ensure that their foreign employees have acceptable accommodation. Following feedback from the workers, MOM promptly sent officers to check on the state of the accommodation. We found no infringements committed by the dormitory operator such as an unacceptable level of overcrowding. Although the general housekeeping conditions of the rooms the PRC drivers occupied were below par, it should be stressed that the workers are responsible for the general upkeep of their own rooms as part of the rental agreement with the dormitory.

To put things in proper perspective, with a large and diverse workforce, employment disputes are not uncommon in Singapore. In fact, employment disputes are not uncommon among Singaporean workers as well, together with their employers. I think all of us will have experienced that, whether in the capacity of employees or employers. By and large, these are settled amicably between employer and employee through grievance handling mechanisms, and sometimes with MOM's assistance as well. We stepped in to mediate in these issues.

But let me be clear about this. Whatever the workers' grievances were, we cannot condone workers in this instance, or any other, taking matters into their own hands and breaking the law. If this happens, they will be dealt with according to the law and in the case of the SMRT strike, 29 were sternly warned by the Police for participating in the strike illegally. They were then detained in an immigration depot prior to their repatriation in order to make the necessary arrangements for them to be repatriated from Singapore, and to mitigate the risk of further law and order issues arising from the cancellation of their work passes. Another five persons have been charged under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Of the five, one has been convicted for participating in the illegal strike. The court proceedings for the other four are on-going. The four drivers have just lodged fresh complaints against SMRT on 11 January, and we are looking into these complaints.

Singapore expects our citizens working in foreign countries to abide by the laws of their host countries. Similarly, we expect all foreign nationals working in Singapore to do the same. Mr Arthur Fong, Ms Irene Ng and Mr Liang Eng

Page: 16

Hwa also asked about learning points arising from this particular incident. I would highlight three broad lessons. Firstly, the importance of having a proper grievance handling system, and better workplace diversity management in companies. Secondly, there is a need for better protection of and educational outreach to vulnerable workers. And thirdly, the continuing importance of tripartism amidst a changing workforce profile.

Let me address these in turn, starting from the first which has been raised by Dr Lily Neo, Mr Arthur Fong, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Irene Ng.

There are many reasons why employment-related grievances may arise in workplaces. As I mentioned earlier, it is really not uncommon for a workforce of three million. Some relate to breaches of employers' statutory obligations, while others relate to contractual disputes. Yet others relate to non-contractual issues such as disagreements over the level of employment benefits or the conditions of work. It is not always very clear whether the disagreements arise from unacceptable employment conditions or from the unreasonable demands of the workers themselves. I think we often hear of stories from both sides of the coin. Regardless of their nature, if these grievances are not properly addressed and are allowed to fester, it could eventually lead to undesirable consequences, as in the case of the SMRT incident.

Fundamentally, it is the employer who bears the primary responsibility to address employee grievances. Employers are the ones who can take immediate remedial actions to address valid grievances as and when they arise. And if there are misunderstandings, it is also the employer who should try to communicate better to make sure that these misunderstandings are cleared up. As I mentioned earlier, and I think all of us would, I believe, agree that it is really not practical or desirable for the Government to step in and to prescribe by law all the different good management practices which we expect companies to adopt.

It is in employers' self-interest to implement effective communication and grievance management systems. These can, in turn, and they will, bring about other benefits such as better employee engagement and improved productivity.

This is also the view shared strongly by our Tripartite Partners. Both employers and unions believe that open and direct communication between employer and employee is really the key to harmonious industrial relations. In the case of unionised companies, the unions would work with management to

Page: 17

include grievance handling procedures in collective agreements.

The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) recently released an advisory on employee grievance handling that strongly encouraged companies of all sizes to put in place such procedures or to review existing ones to ensure that they are practical and relevant. So, it is not good enough to just have grievance handling mechanisms. They must be able to work and the personnel responsible for them must be able to implement them in their full spirit. I cannot stress enough the importance for all employers to give attention to this issue, particularly if they do not yet have such measures in place. This is important not just with foreign workers for the foreign labour force, but with our own Singaporean workforce as well.

If there are employers who need help and advice, they can approach the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) which has been conducting workshops and has produced handbooks to educate and equip employers with the wherewithal to implement proper grievance management systems.

I mentioned earlier that in the specific case of SMRT, the grievances by the PRC drivers arose because of the differential salary and increments relative to their Malaysian counterparts, as well as an internal circular which conveyed the decision to the PRC drivers in really, quite an insensitive way. My Ministry has looked into these issues in detail and let me now deal with each in turn.

The Government's basic philosophy is to allow remuneration to be set according to market principles. Employers are free to determine the salary they are willing to pay for a particular job. In the same vein, workers, whether local or foreign, are free to decide if the employment terms on offer suit their needs, and whether to accept or reject the employment offer. In our structurally tight labour market, employers who treat their workers fairly and in accordance to their abilities and competencies will have a competitive advantage in finding suitable workers to grow their businesses.

On the issue of salary differentials, SMRT has explained that unlike Malaysians, the PRC drivers are not permanent staff. Moreover, they are provided transport and accommodation which have to be taken into account in their overall remuneration package.

SMRT has also explained that the PRC workers are here on a two-year term contracts. These contracts do not provide for wage increments, and the workers

Page: 18

were aware that they were not entitled to this increment when they signed on for the job.

But I would say that SMRT really could have handled the matter better by ensuring that the company's decisions were properly explained to and accepted by the workers. I call on SMRT's top management to deal with these issues decisively. This has been conveyed to them and they have indicated that this is something they are taking on seriously and are addressing.

Grievance handling procedures and communication channels cannot guarantee disputes are always resolved to the satisfaction of workers. As I mentioned earlier, it is often unclear as well, if the dispute arose from inadequate employment conditions or from unreasonable demands of workers. But it certainly helps to mitigate the risk of serious labour management breakdown when the means of communications are opened and there are such systems in place.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked if the drivers had access to the Ministry. The answer is yes. Employees who suspect that their employers have breached their statutory obligations may approach MOM for assistance. As I have said, MOM's role is to ensure that basic employment standards for all employees in Singapore are upheld. We will investigate such complaints and we do not just take the word of one side or one party. If proven to be true, we will not hesitate to take errant employers to task. For non-statutory employment disputes which are raised to MOM, we will facilitate where we can and where is appropriate, but ultimately the resolution lies between the employer and employee. It is not feasible or practical for MOM to step in on every single grievance that occur in every single company.

If for one reason or another, workers prefer not to come to MOM directly, they can also reach out to unions, or Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) such as the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC), HealthServe and others for assistance in pursuing their grievances. Foreign workers can also approach their respective countries' embassies to register their dissatisfaction and complaints, and thereafter, their embassies will raise it with us.

MOM recognises the positive roles that unions play in representing the interests of their members and in stabilising labour management relations. Unions play a very important role in our landscape. Foreign Embassies also have regular engagement and a close working relationship with my Ministry. Mr Png Eng Huat asked about the role of the Chinese Embassy in the SMRT

Page: 19

case. Throughout the incident, both MOM and MHA officers kept in close contact with Embassy officials and facilitated consular access to the affected Chinese bus drivers.

MOM further recognises that NGOs can play a useful bridging role. We work closely with these organisations and support their efforts to ensure that workers are not exploited. In fact, at the working level, a lot of interactions take place between my officers and the representatives from the NGOs on a very, very regular basis. Between 2011 and end 2012, the MWC assisted around 3,000 foreign workers by referring their cases to MOM, solving workers' employment grievances and providing interim humanitarian assistance such as accommodation and food. During this period, MOM also received close to 500 and 450 case referrals from NGOs like Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) and the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME) respectively. The majority of these cases were resolved by MOM within the month.

Several Members, like Mr Dhinakaran, Dr Lily Neo, Asst Prof Eugene Tan and Mr Cedric Foo, have asked whether special attention should be paid to essential services such as public transport to safeguard workers' interests and to ensure that labour relations in these enterprises do not break down, since that would adversely affect Singaporeans.

The Government already recognises that it is critical to ensure companies providing essential services operate smoothly with minimal disruptions. Although the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act prohibits workers employed in sectors like water, electricity and gas from going on strike, they can join trade unions. Trade unions recognised by their employers can use the legal process under the Industrial Relations Act to negotiate with the employer, and surface deadlock disputes to Industrial Arbitration Court. Those employed in essential services listed in the First Schedule, which includes public transport, can go on strike so long as they give their employers 14 days' advance notice. Such restrictions and advance notice pre-requisites for essential services are not unique to Singapore. Many countries have them as well. I think all of us can understand why such requirements are put into the law.

MOM will be working with the respective sectoral regulators to ensure that they institute robust grievance handling procedures in essential services companies to minimise the probability of industrial action. Sectoral regulators should also work with these companies to put in place business continuity plans.

Page: 20

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked whether companies that hire large numbers of foreign workers are equipped to manage workers of different nationalities. In 2010, the National Integration Working Group for Workplaces (NIWG-W) had commissioned a study on the state of workplace diversity management across gender, age and nationality. While 90% of companies agreed that workplace inclusiveness and harmony were important to business outcomes, 27% responded that they faced challenges in managing a diverse workforce. For large companies, line managers and supervisors often lacked skills and knowledge in this regard. SMEs, on the other hand, lacked resources to raise awareness and put systemic processes in place.

Based on these findings, the NIWG-W developed a Workplace Diversity Management Toolkit. It will help employers to assess the state of inclusiveness and harmony in their workplaces, and offers examples of initiatives they can adopt. The toolkit is readily available for employers to download at MOM's website. NIWG-W is currently working with SNEF to explore ways to step up efforts to actively promote good workplace diversity management practices to more employers in a more sustainable manner.

I shall now move on to the second thrust on protection and educational outreach for the more vulnerable workers, including foreign workers, which Mr Dhinakaran, Mr Arthur Fong, Ms Irene Ng, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Laurence Lien have asked about. There have also been several expressions of concern by members of the public about our management of foreign workers.

Members will appreciate that with about 1.2 million guest workers, or one out of every five persons, in Singapore, managing foreign worker issues takes a substantial amount of my Ministry's time and effort. But it is important to watch out for this space. It is heartening to note that from a joint study done by MOM and MWC in 2011, more than nine in 10 of foreigner workers were satisfied with their overall working experience here. However, as I said before many times, while, by and large, we have good employers and Singaporeans, by and large, respect and appreciate the contributions made by foreign workers, there will be negative experiences and unhappy cases from time to time. As I said before, I do believe that we can do more in this area and I will, in this segment, outline some of the existing and upcoming measures.

Over the years, MOM has put in place a framework to ensure basic employment standards for all employees, in terms of legislation, enforcement and educational outreach. Our legislation is regularly reviewed to ensure their continued relevance and efficacy in view of the changing employment

Page: 21

landscape.

Recently, as Members are aware, we revised the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) to give the Government more flexibility and enforcement teeth against employers who exploit their foreign workers. Phase 2 of the EFMA review will continue later this year to better protect the well-being of workers, as well as ensure an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers. In addition, we are studying whether to broaden the circumstances where we allow foreign workers to change employers in instances where there has been a genuine mismatch in expectations.

We are also reviewing the Employment Act. A key area in this review is the improvement of employment standards and benefits for vulnerable employees. And this applies to our local workers as well.

Comprehensive legislative protection in turn needs to be underpinned by robust enforcement. MOM takes a serious view of employers who fail to fulfil their statutory duties under the law. Besides relying on cases triggered by complaints from employees, we also take proactive steps to detect errant employers. In 2012, MOM conducted about 3,000 inspections to detect potential breaches of the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, including more than 850 inspections of premises used as foreign worker housing. More than 350 employers were also prosecuted and convicted for breaching Employment laws during this period.

In recognition of the different circumstances faced by foreign workers, MOM further undertakes calibrated outreach efforts to educate them of their employment rights and responsibilities, and avenues for assistance. Since 2009, MOM has been issuing guidebooks published in foreign workers' native languages to all new foreign workers when they report to MOM's Work Permit Services Centre to collect their Work Permit cards. The guidebook provides information on foreign workers' employment rights and responsibilities under the law, and useful contact numbers, including those of MOM and the Police, NGOs, and Embassies of foreign workers' home countries. So, if they have issues, they can call any of these above numbers and register their concerns.

Going forward, we will enhance the guidebook to provide more information on proper channels for raising grievances and regulations on industrial actions.

Page: 22

Besides providing information on employment laws, it is important to provide foreign workers with information on their basic employment terms in advance, before they enter Singapore. Since June 2011, employers have been required to declare the foreign worker's basic monthly salary, allowances and deductions when applying for work permits. The information declared by employers is clearly stated in the copy of the In-Principle Approval letter, and a copy of this letter is sent to the worker in their native languages before they enter Singapore. We want to make sure that workers come in with their eyes fully open as to what they have agreed to and what the employers have agreed to.

MOM has also piloted a series of pre-departure orientation briefings in source countries on topics such as employment laws and employment terms for Singapore-bound construction workers. MOM is also working with our partners to produce an educational video for foreign workers before they come so that they are better informed on their employment rights and how to settle any employment disputes amicably.

On Mr Arthur Fong's question of whether MOM will allow foreign workers to be unionised, let me clarify that the law already allows this to take place. In fact, many foreign workers are already union members and have their unions representing them on employment related issues such as work-related grievances. And we have encouraged the unions to be proactive on this front, in similar fashion to let our foreign worker population know that they are free to join the unions.

This brings me to the final point on tripartism and industrial relations, which Ms Irene Ng, Mr Cedric Foo and Ms Mary Liew have asked about.

Strong tripartite cooperation has been one of Singapore's unique strengths. We have said this many times, and it is something that I would want to say again. It is actually quite critical for us and has contributed significantly. It has brought about general industrial peace; stable jobs for all our workers; and enhanced our attractiveness as a business and investment destination. We must continue to build on this foundation so that more and better jobs can be created for Singaporeans. It is not something we should take for granted, and we should continue to strengthen this relationship.

The SMRT incident revealed that industrial peace cannot be taken for granted. It was indeed, as Ms Irene Ng put it, a "wake-up call". To strengthen tripartism, we need to build upon the spirit of cooperation between workers,

Page: 23

employers and the Government.

Given the very strong commitment by the tripartite partners, I am quite confident that we will be able to reinforce and strengthen the tripartite foundation that we have built up over the years.

In conclusion, let me end by saying that it is inevitable that given the changing dynamic of our modern workforce, it will continue to pose new challenges to our existing framework for harmonious industrial relations. The SMRT incident has shown that we need to be nimble and develop new ways to address these challenges early. This will include strengthening the capacity of all parties in the employment ecosystem to minimise work-related disputes as far as possible, and resolve them fairly and expeditiously when they arise.

Mdm Speaker, three supplementary questions, please. May I ask the Minister whether there is any incentive scheme in place to encourage Singaporeans to take up employment in our essential services? May I also ask the Acting Minister what is the percentage of foreign workers being employed in our essential services, and whether he plans to tweak this percentage in the long run to reduce our perpetual reliance on foreign workers for such essential services? Lastly, the Acting Minister mentioned earlier about the notes to be taken from the last strike, may I ask whether he can now give the assurance that there are action plans in place to prevent a future strike?

I would like to thank Dr Lily Neo for her several questions. The first set of questions revolves around our essential services. This is a fair concern, and it has been expressed by Mr Png Eng Huat as well. Let me put it this way. Essential services are critical to the well functioning of Singapore's society and we should pay attention to that. Due to security reasons, it would probably be appropriate for me not to go into details as to the extent of which the numbers are involved. But, certainly, with regard to the operators themselves and the agencies concerned, we are working closely with these agencies to understand the circumstance and to make sure that appropriate measures are put in place.

As to whether there are more incentives to encourage more Singaporeans to join such essential services, the agencies are looking at how better to make employment for Singaporeans more attractive. This applies to not just those agencies alone but many other agencies providing public services. But, at the same time, I think it is to make sure that there are measures put in place to

Page: 24

manage industrial relations within these firms, and that is critical.

While we have seen the incidents through the SMRT strike of this possibility, it does not – and I stress – it is important not to generalise that there is a high risk of this happening. There are reasons why it has taken place. In this case, in terms of miscommunication, better management could have taken place. This is where companies and agencies, if they were to undertake much more positive control in terms of labour management, both with local and foreign workforce, they will essentially minimise the probability of such incidents happening.

As to action plans to prevent strikes from taking place, what we have done, together with SNEF and the unions, is to make sure that companies are aware that if we do not manage grievances within our companies, they will fester and can lead to various consequences. There is a range of actions that workers can take, and we see that happening from time to time. The best solution is, really, for companies to take this seriously to make sure that their grievance management systems are in place. We do encourage unions to maintain a good feel of the ground by working with the workers and to encourage workers to join the unions. These are all outlet valves to ensure their grievances are aired and are settled.

On our part in MOM, we remain an avenue that is opened for these issues to be raised. This is where I would say that clearly in terms of statutory violations, MOM will step in and deal with them. Where it is non-statutory, we will advise the companies, where appropriate, and step in to mediate when we need. But we are not able to apply ourselves on all grievances because clearly there are many, many different types of grievances and many of them are non-statutory.

With the range of measures put in place, it is really about maintaining good harmonious relations between employers and employees, and a lot of it is actually about basic common sense, Management 101, and we do encourage, as I mentioned, companies to take heed of what is gathered and learnt from this incident to make sure that they learn to manage their workforce in a much more progressive and positive way. And that, to me, is the best solution to prevent such incidents from happening in the first place.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Cedric Foo for his suggestions. I would agree with him. For essential services, we are discussing with them, and we can look at putting in place more proactive measures. Clearly, I think HR audits and better intelligence are things which are practical, and we would see how best we could put in place some of these more proactive measures, as he has mentioned, to make sure that some of these companies and agencies are better able to stay ahead of the game. Clearly, they all take it quite seriously. So, this is something that we will work with them on, and we will explore what can be possible.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. I noted that there is a very strong emphasis placed on contractualism – the idea that the workers are bound by their contracts. As a lawyer by training, and one who teaches law, I certainly subscribe to that as well. But I think it is also important that the Government emphasises to employers the importance of fairness. The workers can look at the contract and say, "Okay, this is what I will be paid." But if they were to come to Singapore and realise that they are being discriminated against, then I think there is only so much that contracts can do; it does not take away the fact that the unhappiness remains. My second question relates to the question that I filed, that is, what is the reason for treating the bus drivers prior to their deportation as prisoners?

Mdm Speaker, I totally agree with Asst Prof Eugene Tan's assertion that contracts are important and should be respected, but at the same time, there is the issue of fairness which is something that all employers should pay attention to. As mentioned, this is good management. Good companies, as we know, are good companies because they are well managed. They are well managed on the basis of values, and it is not just what you say but how you do and how you treat workers. And a lot of it is also about how we communicate and engage. Sometimes, there are differences, and sometimes there is perceived discrimination, unevenness or unfairness. But if communications are sincere, they have an open and a good positive working relationship with their employees, whether local or foreign, that is where a lot of the problems can be pre-empted.

This, I would suggest, is something that all companies should take heed. Whether we can actually legislate for employers to learn to be fair, that is

Page: 26

difficult. What we want to make sure is that we do not want to be intrusive but we do want to encourage. That is where a lot of the HR practices are that we try to actively promote. But we need to be careful not to overdo it because there are many things that companies need to do. In fact, I would say that, sometimes, we are overly regulating things. Some of them are sensible practices which companies should adopt, but where it is statutory and required for the Government to step in to implement laws and regulations, that is something we should do.

With regard to the question on whether they were detained as if they were criminals, the 29 persons were detained at Admiralty West Prison which, in addition to being a prison facility, is designated as an immigration depot under the Immigration Act and is one of ICA's centres for repatriation operations. So, that is the context under which they were sent to that particular location.

Mdm Speaker, we should recognise how open our low-wage and low-skilled foreign workers are to exploitation by employers. Many of them do not join unions, and because of their marginalised position in society and their fears of being deported by their employers, they face huge obstacles to enforcing their basic rights. Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister three supplementary questions.

First, is he satisfied that our system adequately protects their fundamental rights and provides them fair wages, based on their skills and experience, and decent living conditions, regardless of their nationality?

Second, the Acting Minister mentioned that foreign workers are free to join unions. This is indeed reassuring. But can I ask the Acting Minister, out of the 1.2 million guest workers, how many of them actually join unions?

Third, the Acting Minister mentioned the three key issues that caused the PRC workers to mount the illegal strike. Can I ask the Acting Minister whether the PRC workers had approached MOM with their grievances and, if they had, would the Ministry have taken them seriously and help to avert such a strike, or would it have referred them back to their employer and say that this is a matter for the employer to handle?

Mdm Speaker, let me take on the last question first. The channels are open. I recognise that out there, especially online, various allegations are made. For example, let me illustrate. These are not the first complaints raised to MOM with regard to SMRT. A number of complaints were

Page: 27

raised prior to this and this has come up. These were raised in 2010, some statutory in nature, some non-statutory in nature. MOM took them seriously. We dealt with the issues, especially those that were statutory, we dealt with them and we told the company to change the practices and, as far as we are aware, those practices were changed. There were also some grievances that were non-statutory. However, we viewed that they were important enough that from a very senior level in MOM, we approached the most senior level in SMRT to register our concerns with some of their management practices. We told them basically that some of these things ought to be sorted out and that is something that they have done.

MOM deals with not just SMRT but with many companies. Grievances appear – they appear in my email in-box regularly – but whether all are valid or not, we have to follow up and investigate, and that is what our officers do. We do have many grievances surfaced. Like I said, some are statutory, some are non-statutory. Some do not provide the complete story. There is another perspective to it and it is not necessarily clear-cut that the employer is at fault, nor is it fair to say that it is always the employee that is at fault.

At the end of it, MOM has to deal with this. Where it warrants our attention, we will definitely deal with it. Certainly, from a statutory perspective, we will investigate and take action if regulations are violated. With the non-statutory and where we feel it is necessary, we will step in as well to mediate or deal with the companies or employers concerned. In other cases, where we feel that it is perhaps not as serious and non-statutory, we would encourage the employees to take up other alternative avenues. The avenues remain open, and that is important to register. We do take action and will deal with issues.

As to the numbers with regard to joining the unions, I do not have the numbers off-hand, but like I said earlier, we do encourage our unions to work with the foreign workforce to see whether they are interested in joining and to encourage them to do so. We note that, in some companies, a number of the foreign workers do actively join the unions, and that is a good thing because it allows representation and their voices to be heard and for the unions to take it up on their behalf.

With regard to fair wages, regulations and so on, as I have explained in my response earlier, we have stepped up primarily in terms of our amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) which hon Members are familiar with, and that was tabled a couple of months ago. That was the first tranche. The second tranche will take place sometime in the course of this year. The Employment Act is also being reviewed, with the whole intent to strengthen,

Page: 28

not just for foreign workers but for all our workers as well, and to make sure that their rights are protected. The position that MOM takes is this: we are not pro-employer, we are not pro-employee. However, I am also very mindful that from a general perspective, especially at the lower levels of work, it would tend to be weighted for the employer against the employee. That is something I am mindful of and I have registered that with all my colleagues. They agree that it is something to be watchful for in the process as we amend and we strengthen the regulations.

Companies are free to establish their wages and some of their contractual terms. It is a free market. This is where it is important to emphasise – it is not for us to intervene and tell companies how exactly they should structure it. Workers have a choice as well, as to where they can go. Similarly, I would suggest that foreign workers have a choice as to which country they choose to go. Notwithstanding this particular dispute and the amplification of egregious behaviour when it does take place, it is very important for us to recognise that for such a large workforce, Singapore is a fair and decent place for foreign workers to operate in. Most of our employers do not behave in a negative fashion; they are responsible. Singaporeans, by and large, notwithstanding what we read sometimes online, are welcoming, respectful and appreciative of what our foreign workers contribute to our landscape, which is why we remain a fairly attractive destination for foreign workers who are looking to earn a living, to earn enough to remit back to their families. If we were as it is painted sometimes, I do not think foreign workers would be very interested to come here. We have laws in place, we continue to strengthen them and we aim to enforce them as well.

It is important to look at it in context. But companies, like I said, do have to be fair and they have to structure their wages and contracts accordingly, because if it is unfair and unbalanced, frankly, the workers will not join them and will move somewhere else.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister to elaborate on the type of avenues that the 29 SMRT bus drivers got prior to their deportation at short notice. Should they not have been given some sort of independent hearing and its findings made public? Would such an inquiry into the incidents have offered insights into all employers in Singapore on the need to and the mechanisms for proper grievance handling?

Mdm Speaker, for the bus drivers concerned who participated in the illegal strike, let us be clear. They violated the laws and what

Page: 29

we did was to take action to deal with the particular circumstances. In this instance, the PRC drivers, the 29 who were repatriated, were interviewed and given the opportunity to air their grievances and we registered them and took action accordingly. In the investigation process, we assessed as to the culpability of the different bus drivers who were involved. There were many more bus drivers involved, but we were able to differentiate the level of involvement and the degree of responsibility each of the different bus drivers had in participating in the particular incident.

So, in our case, I would say that what we needed to do was to deal with the particular situation. Bus drivers violated the laws and we have to deal with it. In this case, for the 29 to be repatriated and made sure that investigations had taken place. We interviewed all the different bus drivers involved to make sure that they had the opportunity to register and air their concerns before we dealt with them. Obviously, there were also other bus drivers who, we felt, warranted much more serious action, and those actions are in the process of unfolding as we speak.

Mdm Speaker, just to share with the House that, of the 1.2 million foreign workers, right now about 100,000 are already union members. They make up about 15% of the union membership.

I would like to share that in the case of SBS Transit, they have about 600 PRC drivers and more than 90% are already union members. In the case of SMRT, prior to this incident, they have about 400 PRC drivers and less than 5% were union members. But subsequent to this incident, both the management and the unions worked together to reach out to the workers. As of today, about 75% of the 400 PRC drivers have already signed up to be union members.

I thank the Minister for his reply. My supplementary question relates to my Parliamentary Question (PQ), which I do not think was answered. In order to facilitate the workers to air their grievances, would the Ministry consider allowing relevant agencies, NGOs or even union branches to be situated within the dormitory compound? As we all know, the workers living in dormitories are often restricted in their movements. Therefore, by the time they go to MOM, it is typically quite a late stage. So, would the Ministry consider that, to improve the accessibility to air their grievances?

Page: 30

The second point relates to not just observing contract rules, but I am taking NMP Eugene Tan's point about fairness, in which the Ministry today considers contracts and employers where employment terms are set in Singapore. But we also know that sometimes we do have contracts being set outside of Singapore, in which today we do not recognise. To some extent, I think this also makes it much worse for the workers as they come here on a poor footing.

Mdm Speaker, with regard to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's first suggestion, it is something that we can look at in terms of whether we are able to enhance the access that foreign workers may have, especially in situating something or others in the dormitories. But I would say that the most expeditious would be telephone numbers. They could call a range of agencies concerned. As I have mentioned earlier, these numbers are disseminated. I will take a look at the process again to see whether we can enhance that further. But I would say that that is probably the fastest way to get in contact. And they have a choice. They can call MOM, the unions and the NGOs, and the embassy numbers are also provided. This is a very thorough range of avenues that is available. The key thing is really to educate them that these numbers ought to be used when they do have issues, register the complaint and then we can fix up appointments or whatever to follow up. I would suggest that that might well be the most expeditious and effective way to register their concerns.

On the point raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad with regard to contracts signed outside of Singapore, that is something of concern because they may actually sign a contract in their regional state or city, and then that might actually be quite different, depending on what the agents do. It is something we recognise. But our challenge is we do not have the remit to go upstream to govern that because a lot of that operates in another country. What we have done to overcome that is with the In-principle Approval (IPA), meaning that when companies here apply for their work permits, we want them to define what exactly are they requiring the workers to do, what are the contractual terms, pay and so on. Register them, they are recorded in the IPA, this is translated into the native language and issued to the workers before they come. Whatever the workers have agreed with whoever they are supposed to have agreed with in their own local contract in their country, the final document that they received for the IPA would determine "This is exactly what you are going to do, how you are going to be reimbursed and so on", and to make sure that at least that tallies.

That is an important step to take. I would recognise that there are limits to how much I can control upstream. But this is an important measure so that at least they can say, "Wait a minute. What I have agreed to with my agent or whoever differs greatly from what is being issued from Singapore" and,

Page: 31

hopefully, that would raise alarm bells for the workers themselves for them to resolve the issues and take action accordingly. If it turns out to be completely not what they had signed themselves up for, then they will have other recourse to take at that stage.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I agree that foreign workers have a choice before they come to Singapore. The issue is that, after they have come to Singapore and feel that they are locked in to an unfair contract, then they really feel they do not have a choice.

This is where, as we have covered, we need adequate union representation and the proper use of existing dispute resolution mechanisms. I have two follow-up questions: one, how does the Ministry ensure that the foreign workers are adequately represented by the unions, particularly where they form a minority group within that union? Hence, the union might just represent the interest of the majority group. And two, how does the Government encourage the use of the Industrial Arbitration Court − which was not mentioned earlier − as the port of call before an industrial dispute gets out of hand, and to ensure that access to this Court is assured for aggrieved workers?

Our present experience with the unions is that they do actually look out for foreign workers. In fact, we do have the unions highlighting concerns to companies and to us when these issues are raised. This is something the unions do take seriously, in terms of their responsibilities. As mentioned earlier, as a wake-up call, I think this is a useful reminder for all of us to make sure that whatever channels are available, workers and the unions play a very important role. I have very little doubt that the unions take this responsibility in representing all their workers seriously, meaning that if there are concerns raised by the foreign workers, even though they may form the minority, these things will be registered and will be brought upstream. This is something that we will re-emphasise to our union colleagues as well.

With regard to avenues to the Industrial Arbitration Court, all these remain open. I think there is a due process. I deal with a lot of these issues, whether local or foreign, and many of these will go through the appropriate steps, especially when statutory violations occur. Eventually, the access to Industrial Arbitration Court is available, and no one is denied that right to go through some of these processes. It does take time and investigations need to take place. We want to make it as expeditious as possible and we find that in most disputes,

Page: 32

we are to resolve it pretty much in a month or so, or no more than three months. Complex cases will take longer. For some settlements, there might be complications, for example, with medical disputes or companies which are not able to pay up. To address this, because of security bond and other measures, we have various levers in place to work with the companies to make sure that adequate compensation is provided for. This is something that takes time, but it is something that we, by and large, are able to settle quite expeditiously. So, no foreign worker, and, in fact, no local worker either, will be denied that avenue.

I am looking at, as part of our improvement and strengthening of the Employment Act, whether we would be able to establish a different body to deal with some of these non-statutory concerns. I would say that this applies to not just low-wage workers, whether local or foreign, but even for some of the junior PMEs, there are concerns. Sometimes, it is non-statutory issue and we are not always able to step in. But rather than resort to the civil courts, we are exploring whether something of that nature could be set up as an intermediate body to assist them. This is something we will surface through consultation and we will gather suggestions and ideas. In fact, a number of these have been surfaced. It is something that we can explore.