Debated in Parliament on 11 Sep 2012.
Page: 726
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".
Sir, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) prescribes the responsibilities and obligations pertaining to the employment of foreign workers. We last amended the EFMA in 2007.
In the last few years, my Ministry has taken steps to moderate the inflow and raise the quality of foreign manpower in Singapore. We want to shift from a labour-driven to productivity-driven growth model. Our intent is to ensure that we support decent and sustainable economic growth that will create good jobs and wages for Singaporeans, and to ensure that our Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. The adjustments we have made to our employment framework and regulations are aimed at supporting this intent.
Employers in Singapore are, by and large, responsible, but there are some who seek to profit by circumventing our work pass framework. As we further tighten the policies on the hiring and retention of foreign manpower, we can expect errant employers to try harder to get around the rules. This is where we are not lacking in creativity. For example, we have found some declaring higher salaries than they are actually paying their foreign workers, asking foreign workers to foot their own levies and insurance premiums, contributing CPF to locals that do not really exist or, at least, are not actively in their employment, in order to meet the required ratio of local to foreign workers, and submitting forged certificates to qualify for skilled work passes.
Page: 727
Singaporeans ultimately suffer when employers fail to pay the true costs of hiring foreign manpower or hiring foreign manpower that they are not entitled to. Local workers will lose out in employment opportunities. Honest employers who play by the rules are also unfairly disadvantaged. Besides errant employers, syndicates also profit from setting up sham operations to illegally import and supply foreign workers who otherwise should not be here. Syndicates have devised increasingly complex schemes to get around our enforcement approaches. Such operations exploit foreign workers and they also cost our local employment opportunities and cost us resources to assist stranded workers.
Sir, the proposed amendments to the EFMA will enhance the Government's ability to ensure the integrity of our work pass framework. Recognising that EFMA contraventions range widely from administrative infringements to criminal offences, these amendments will introduce a calibrated and appropriate response to different types of contraventions. In totality, the changes will allow my Ministry to step up enforcement actions against errant employers, errant foreign workers and syndicates more expeditiously and effectively, thereby enhancing deterrence against EFMA contraventions, which ultimately hurt Singaporeans.
We have made the amendments along three broad thrusts. Firstly, MOM will establish an administrative penalty regime to enforce administrative infringements to complement our prosecution efforts. We will impose significant administrative financial penalties and administrative actions, such as debarment from applying for and renewing work passes. The purpose is to deter employers from exploiting the work pass framework for financial gain. Secondly, to enhance deterrence, MOM will introduce new EFMA contraventions and increase penalties commensurate with potential profits gained from abuse of the system. Thirdly, to facilitate enforcement against common contraventions and syndicate operations of increasing complexity, MOM will include new presumption clauses and expand our investigatory powers.
Sir, let me start with the first set of amendments. All EFMA contraventions are currently classified as criminal offences. These range from breaches which are often administrative in nature, for example, the failure to pay S Pass holders via GIRO, to the more egregious and clearly criminal offences which harm workers, such as non-payment of salaries and the collection of employment kickbacks. At present, the criminal process can be lengthy and consume prosecutorial and court resources. Therefore, we need to take swifter actions against administrative infringements, rather than going down the criminal offence route, and to ensure that penalties are more severe and also at the same time commensurate with the impact of those contraventions. Employers who are trying to profit by getting round our work pass rules must be made to disgorge their ill-gotten gains through imposing sufficiently high financial penalties and debarring them from applying for and renewing foreign work passes. This would be more effective than prosecuting them in court via the criminal route.
Page: 728
We have, therefore, strengthened the process by differentiating EFMA administrative infringements from criminal offences. This is not a weakening of the process; rather it is about making it much more effective. Some existing EFMA offences will be newly classified as administrative infringements under the new penalty regime. Let me describe some examples to these details later.
We used essentially three principles to determine which infringements to classify as administrative infringements and which to regard as criminal offences. First, administrative infringements do not cause direct harm or abuse to workers. Where workers are harmed or abused, it is still important to retain the possibility of custodial sentencing. Second, these infringements would not have been regarded as criminal activities outside the work pass framework. Third, administrative infringements are those for which administrative financial penalties and administrative actions, such as debarment from application of work passes, would be effective in deterring errant behaviour. Given that administrative financial penalties have limited effect on the majority of foreign workers, my Ministry will retain all contraventions committed by foreign workers as criminal offences.
The Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will be appointed and authorised to administer the new administrative penalty regime. The Controller of Work Passes can now delegate his powers to authorised officers to administer the regime under the new section 3(3). These Commissioners will be empowered to impose administrative financial penalties, capped at a maximum of $20,000 per infringement, debar employers from applying and renewing work passes, and give directions to comply. Such directions include orders to rectify breaches, impose performance bonds to ensure compliance with rules and regulations, and direct that compensation be paid by the employer to make good any sums due to an employee.
With the establishment of the administrative penalty regime, a new section 25 has been introduced in the Bill. MOM can now prosecute infringers that fail to comply with the Commissioners' directions, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, or to both. Unpaid administrative financial penalties will be recovered by the Government as civil debts. The Commissioners will now have inquiry powers and it allows infringers to submit written representations in response to the Commissioners' findings. The inquiry process will be directed by the Commissioners, and any hearing that may be convened by the Commissioners will be informal in nature, without the presence of legal counsel, to keep the proceedings expeditious and lower costs.
Page: 729
The Minister for Manpower will be given the power to establish an independent Appeal Board to assess appeals against decisions made by the Commissioners for Foreign Manpower. The Appeal Board will consist of three members. The Chairperson would be someone who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. The Appeal Board's decision is final.
Sir, let me emphasise that this move to classify certain infringements as administrative in nature by no means represents a softening in our enforcement approach. Rather, these amendments will allow us to step up enforcement and increase our enforcement effectiveness. We expect the Commissioners for Foreign Manpower to take faster action against infringements. The maximum administrative financial penalty of $20,000 per infringement will be sufficiently high, we believe, to disgorge illegal economic profits from employers. Together, these moves should allow the Government to achieve wider deterrence against errant employers and thereby protecting the majority of employers who are fair and responsible employers.
Some administrative infringements are also related to criminal offences that preserve the possibility of harsher sentencing for employers who harm or abuse workers. For example, while failing to purchase medical insurance for Work Permit holders is an administrative infringement subject to a maximum administrative financial penalty of $10,000, the failure to bear the costs of upkeep and maintenance of Work Permit holders, including medical treatment, is an offence subject to a maximum fine of $10,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months or to both. This approach will allow the Government to calibrate its response depending on whether the employer was simply trying to save costs, or whether he was in many ways neglecting his employment obligations to the foreign worker.
I will now move on to the next set of proposed amendments. We intend to raise the signature and better define the elements of serious contraventions. MOM will establish five key stand-alone contraventions, and raise their penalties.
First, we will now prosecute syndicates that set up shell businesses and illegally import and supply foreign workers. These syndicates circumvent our immigration laws on employing illegal immigrants. They recruit foreign workers ostensibly on legal work passes, but do not provide actual employment, upkeep or maintenance. Instead, these workers are then left and forced to seek illegal employment on their own. Syndicates have also evolved from setting up pure shell businesses to setting up partial-sham businesses that may employ a few local workers for genuine business operations, while, on the side, recruiting foreign workers on false promises of employment and supplying them out illegally. MOM will adopt the same penalties for employing illegal immigrants under the Immigration Act and impose them on offenders who illegally import and supply foreign workers. This will include a fine of up to $6,000, a minimum imprisonment term of six months, up to two years, and mandatory caning for offenders that hire more than five foreign workers. Further, the court will confiscate the illegal profits collected from supplying and importing foreign workers. In determining the sum to be confiscated, the court may also separately order compensation to any workers who have suffered harm as a result of the employer having brought them into the country without providing them with proper employment.
Page: 730
Second, we will prosecute foreign workers that submit forged educational qualifications to circumvent MOM's criteria for educational qualifications, especially for S Pass and EP holders. Offenders will be subject to a maximum fine of $20,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of two years, or to both. Foreign workers have also been known to submit forged educational qualifications and subsequently feign ignorance of the submission, which hampers our enforcement efforts in proving that they had knowledge of the falsehood. Hence, we will now presume that a work pass applicant has knowledge of the information provided in his application, including that of the qualifications which have been submitted. The burden of proof will now be placed on the errant workers. My Ministry will ensure that enforcement action is targeted at culpable workers. An innocent worker can rebut the presumption by proving that he did not have knowledge of the submission of false qualifications when the declaration was made. For instance, he can prove that the employment agency or employer had submitted the forged certificate on his behalf without his knowledge. My Ministry will take action against other culpable parties, such as errant employers and employment agents, if they have abetted such acts.
Third, we will prosecute persons, including employers, supervisors, HR staff and sub-contractors, that collect monies as consideration for employment from foreign workers. We usually refer to such monies as "employment kickbacks", which workers are made to pay based on promises of employment. The collection of employment kickbacks increases the foreign workers' debt burden while disadvantaging Singaporeans in favour of foreign labour. Offenders will be subject to a maximum fine of $30,000, or to a maximum imprisonment term of two years, or to both. The court will confiscate the employment kickbacks collected from foreign workers and return the monies to the State. This is separate from the court's power to award compensation to workers who have suffered harm from the demand or receipt of kickbacks.
We will also introduce a presumption clause to make it easier to enforce against employers who demand employment kickbacks from workers. Currently, employers' illegal collection of payments from foreign workers is usually made in cash, there is no paper trail to speak off, and this seriously constrains our enforcement efforts.
Page: 731
Therefore, we will presume that any monies collected from foreign workers will be deemed as employment kickbacks, unless the purposes for which they were collected can be properly accounted for. The accused can rebut the presumption by showing that they had legitimate reasons for collecting monies from their workers.
Fourth, my Ministry will impose a maximum administrative financial penalty of $20,000 on errant employers that illegally recover employment costs from foreign workers. Under our work pass conditions, employers should be bearing costs, such as foreign worker levies, security deposits, medical insurance premiums and so on. Instead, some employers, the errant ones, fail to bear the true costs of hiring foreign workers by recovering these costs from their workers. The Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will be allowed to impose administrative financial penalties on such errant employers to disgorge illegal profits, debar them from applying for and renewing work passes for foreign workers, and impose directions on employers to compensate foreign workers for the recovery of employment costs.
Fifth, the Government can impose a maximum administrative financial penalty of $20,000 on errant employers that pay CPF to local "phantom workers" to inflate their foreign worker quota, in order to have access to more foreign workers which they do not have access to, in the first place. The Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will also be allowed to debar employers, and impose directions on employers to mitigate his wrongdoings and prevent recurrence. Although this new contravention attracts administrative penalties, persons who set up shell or partial-sham businesses using local phantom workers to bring foreign workers into Singapore and release them to find their own employment will continue to be dealt with in court. They will be prosecuted under the new illegal labour importation offence which, as highlighted earlier, carries severe penalties that may include jail time and caning.
Although there are essentially no changes to key employer responsibilities, the five standalone contraventions, enhanced penalties and two accompanying presumption clauses will enable us to step up enforcement against errant employers and syndicates and to look after Singaporeans at the same time and to make sure that we protect the majority of employers who are law-abiding and responsible.
To further enhance deterrence, we will increase maximum penalties for EFMA contraventions. The penalties have been benchmarked against contraventions of similar nature in the Immigration Act and the Penal Code. They have also been calibrated to ensure that more egregious offences attract higher penalties. Severe offences, such as illegal employment of foreign workers, will be subject to harsh penalties including a minimum fine of $5,000, up to a maximum fine of $30,000, and/or a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, for first-time offenders. This will also allow the courts to take into account any costs avoided by the employer, including medical and work injury compensation insurance premiums, security deposits and levy payments. Administrative infringements, such as the failure to terminate the employment of a foreign worker after receiving notification of the Controller's revocation of the worker's work pass, will be subject to a $10,000 administrative financial penalty.
Page: 732
I earlier mentioned that errant employers can be debarred from applying for and renewing work passes. However, creativity kicks in again and to circumvent MOM's debarment, errant employers have resorted to applying for work passes using the names of other people that are not debarred, as they continue actually, for all intents and purposes, to run the same business behind the scenes. Errant employers also get their associates to set up what appear to be new businesses, and transfer their existing business, including their workers, business contracts, and business premises to these associates. So, basically, they change the signboard. To prevent errant employers from deploying such tactics, the Controller, in the exercise of his discretion, may now debar persons who have acted in concert with or on the direction of a debarred person, or debar associates of debarred persons who are engaged in a trade or business which is substantially similar to that of the debarred person.
Aside from the key contraventions, the work pass conditions within the Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations will be updated with more explicit requirements, to provide greater clarity on employers' responsibilities. Contraventions of the work pass conditions will likewise be classified as administrative infringements or criminal offences.
Currently, the Minister may prescribe conditions that apply during the validity of the work pass. These conditions prescribe in detail the duties pertaining to all aspects of the foreign employee's entry, work, stay and conduct while employed in Singapore, as well as his departure upon the cessation of employment. To broaden the scope of employers' responsibilities where necessary, section 29 has been amended to allow the Minister to impose pre- and post-employment conditions under the EFM (Work Passes) Regulations. An example of which is the pre-employment condition that requires employers to ensure that the In-Principle Approval (IPA) letter in native language is sent to foreign workers prior to their departure, to keep them informed of their actual employment terms and reduce their reliance on unscrupulous middlemen. An example of a post-employment condition is the requirement for employers to provide upkeep for foreign workers awaiting resolution of statutory claims in Singapore, including claims under the Employment Act and Work Injury Compensation Act.
Sir, it is very critical that employers are able to meet the criteria for hiring S Pass and EP holders not only when they apply for the pass but throughout the validity of their work pass. At present, there are no explicit restrictions on the reduction of salary after an S Pass or EP holder has secured a work pass here. An errant employer – and they exist – would circumvent the salary criteria of our S and Employment Passes by declaring higher salaries to secure these passes and then sharply reduce the salaries thereafter, that is, after the passes have been issued. To close this loophole, we will require all employers who wish to reduce the salaries of their S Pass and EP holders to submit a request for re-assessment of their work pass eligibility. This will not prevent employers from reducing the salaries of their foreign workers for legitimate reasons. But all they have to do now is to submit the lower salaries for re-assessment of their eligibility of a work pass and we will consider that. If they are not eligible for their current work passes, the employer may consider downgrading to another work pass type that carries more restrictions, or try harder to recruit a Singaporean. This new requirement will be elaborated in the EFM (Work Passes) Regulations. This requirement will make it harder for errant employers to abuse the work pass framework, and help protect job and wage growth opportunities for Singaporeans. The failure to comply with this regulatory condition will be subject to a maximum administrative financial penalty of $10,000. The Controller of Work Passes may consider waiving this requirement, for example, in a general economic downturn where salary reductions may have to be made across the board to help businesses stay afloat.
Page: 733
Sir, I will now move on to the last set of proposed amendments. As I mentioned earlier, we have been encountering increasingly complex cases as syndicates devise new modus operandi to thwart enforcement efforts. Hence, we will make amendments to the EFMA that will allow us to take adequate enforcement action against errant employers and undermine syndicated operations.
Offences, such as the failure to pay salaries, are usually committed within the purview of corporate officers. However, errant corporate officers often, and almost always, deny knowledge of such contraventions, for example, when an officer overseeing salary payments claims ignorance that salaries were not paid. We will now presume that a corporate officer, who is primarily responsible and has failed to exercise reasonable supervision, has acted in neglect and is liable for the respective criminal offence or administrative infringement. The corporate officer can rebut the presumption by proving that he had exercised reasonable supervision to avoid the commission of the contravention, for example, if he had taken all necessary steps to ensure prompt salary payment and safeguard against lapses.
MOM will have enhanced investigatory powers. This includes the power to enter and inspect a premise where any work pass application has been made, where a foreign employee is working or accommodated, or any business premises belonging to the employer, at any reasonable time. This will allow MOM to assess the authenticity of the work pass applications, the existence of business operations and weed out shell businesses during upstream audits. In addition, MOM will be allowed to search a premise by force, if there is reasonable belief of a breach of the EFMA or when a foreigner can be found within the premise. MOM will also have the power to take video and voice recordings during investigations and use the recordings as evidence in Court. Finally, employers may also be asked to produce all employees, both local and foreign, to the best of their ability to assist in investigations. The enhanced range of investigatory powers is largely based on similar powers granted to MOM under the Employment Agencies Act and Workplace Safety and Health Act. So, in a sense, it is not new. Employers can be assured that only trained MOM officers are allowed to carry out such operations, as they do now under the Acts mentioned earlier. They will also exercise these enhanced powers judiciously, only when circumstances require such recourse, and taking care to minimise disruptions to genuine business operations.
Page: 734
Sir, the proposals in this amendment Bill have been refined after consultation with the public, key stakeholders, such as employers and non-Governmental organisations. Where good suggestions – and there have been many – were raised, we have taken them on board and amended our proposals. Where we have not been able to do so, we have tried to respond as comprehensively as we can and as transparently as we can with our rationale in our response paper that was published on REACH. At this juncture, I would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who has really taken their time to give us these very constructive views.
The amendments will be effected by the end of this year. We are also committed to ensuring the well-being of workers as well as an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers. Therefore, even as we debate the amendment to the Bill today, we are concurrently undertaking a separate review of this same Act, with a view to rationalise and clarify the employment responsibilities of employers, foreign workers and foreign domestic workers. Just as we have done this round, we will engage stakeholders on the proposed changes. As mentioned before, we are also going to undertake a review of the Employment Act.
Sir, this Bill, ultimately, is aimed at going after errant employers. Most employers in Singapore are responsible and fair. And this Bill, ultimately, bolsters our efforts in creating sustainable and inclusive growth in Singapore and ensuring that Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. It will do so by ensuring employers pay the true costs of hiring foreign workers and creating a level playing field for law-abiding employers. This Bill also seeks to stem the worst abuses against foreign workers. This is in keeping with our values as a society, that we believe all our workers should be treated fairly, decently and with respect, regardless of their nationality. Let me close by saying that this Bill is really about looking after our Singaporeans, that they remain at the core of our workforce, and this Bill is about the kind of people and society that we want to be. Sir, I beg to move.
Page: 735
Question proposed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to acknowledge the quick action taken by the Ministry of Manpower to plug the loopholes that are being exploited by some employers in employing foreign workers. While people might say that the crooks are always one step ahead of the law, I think, in this case, the long arm of the law is quickly catching up.
Sir, I believe it is correct that we should have a set of instruments to deal with different situations that we find ourselves in. Like having a good Swiss army knife, we should be equipped with the appropriate and effective tools for the job. Likewise, in the proposed amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, the Ministry wants to establish an administrative penalty regime and Commissioners of Foreign Manpower to complement criminal actions. I think this is a good move as it allows for certain offences to be dealt with quickly and makes the point that we will not tolerate the illegal employment of foreign manpower. This protects honest employers as well as foreign workers.
Additionally, Sir, by adding new contraventions and enhancing enforcement, the Ministry will be able to send a strong message to employers to take their responsibilities towards workers, both Singaporean and foreigners, seriously. Illegal employment of foreign workers will be dealt with firmly, and the penalties are a stiff deterrent. The proposed amendments will also go some way to enhance Singapore's position as a safe place to work, even as we compete with the region for skilled manpower. This will continue to be a constant challenge, given the economic growth that we are aiming at in the coming years.
Having said that, Sir, I would like to make a few broader points. As we all know, the issue of foreign manpower in Singapore is fairly emotive. The feedback I received from residents and fellow Singaporeans are quite clear. They are being felt everywhere and every day, be it in the MRT trains, at the workplace, in shopping centres and at the hawker centres. Or in the polyclinics and hospitals, and in our void decks and gardens, we encounter foreign workers in all these places, and many more. But is this phenomenon recent? We have had foreign workers here for many, many years. Yet, it seems that, sometime over the last couple of years, we suddenly reached a tipping point.
The daily touchpoints between Singaporeans and foreign workers suddenly became not touchpoints, but friction points. Complaints, at first soft and infrequent, became more strident, and amplified by social media, the complaints reached a point where the situation seemed intolerable.
Though I may not agree with all the views and feedback, I empathise with many of my fellow Singaporeans. The fact is that we reached a threshold that seemed to be unbearable. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it seems. But, I cannot help, Sir, but wonder − when did it happen? At what point was too many too much? If we can find this out, it would be instructive for our policymakers – where exactly is that tipping point? Find that out, and maybe save ourselves a lot of grief in the future.
Page: 736
Sir, allow me to highlight two additional points in this discussion. One, it is imperative that we manage the influx and quality of foreign workers. It has become clear that in the tug-of-war between demand for foreign labour and the stress that they put on our infrastructure, the limits of our infrastructure have fortunately won – at least for the immediate future. Nonetheless, as we take errant employers to task, we should also ask ourselves: how many of these employers had to resort to illegal ways because their legitimate application for foreign workers was turned down? Imagine a situation where a contractor submits a bid for a construction project. He does not carry foreign workers on his payroll until he is sure that he has a project to deploy them. This is a common situation. Once he secures a contract, he would be in desperate need for foreign workers. Yet, because of the tight work permit situation, he may be unable to get approvals. What does he do? Decline the project, and risk his company's viability? If he does that, he risks closing down, and that helps no one, because even the Singaporeans working in his company could become unemployed too. You could imagine that the contractor would be tempted to use other ways to get his workers.
My point here, Sir, is that even if these amendments are approved, the authorities should carefully look into the individual circumstances of each case, because not every employer who breaks the law is an evil opportunist, looking at squeezing the last buck from hapless workers. Ironically, it is these very contractors who will build our infrastructure, to alleviate the crunch that we are facing today.
This brings me to my second point. I accept that Singapore businesses must wean themselves off the reliance on foreign workers. One cannot simply expect to use larger and larger numbers of foreign workers instead of investing in productivity improvements. I think this argument is valid in most industries – increase the productivity and you will be in a better situation. However, for small and medium companies, and, in particular, in the service industry, it is more challenging to reduce reliance on manpower. Take the food and beverage industry for example. Yes, a number of companies have been able to mechanise to save labour. We have conveyor belts to serve food. We have noodle-frying robots. We even have robots that could serve as waiters, though I am not sure if this is fully implemented out there.
With all due respect, not everyone wants to eat off a conveyor belt. Some may want to be served, to have a cosy neighbourhood cafe to go to, to relax and spend time with friends and family. And if we are going to allow for this range of dining options, we have to acknowledge that certain types of food outlets are heavily reliant on manpower. Waiters, cooks, baristas, and the like – many people also prefer the personal touch. We also have to allow that in between hawker centres and Michelin-star restaurants, there should be a whole range of dining options, run by small and medium entrepreneurs, who are at the core of our economy. These offer dining options at various price points. And for particularly the small outlets − the truth, Sir, is employing Singaporeans while at the same time keeping prices reasonable has become an insurmountable challenge for them. I am regularly told that the salaries they can offer for cooks, waiters, cashiers and the like are at a level that Singaporeans are not interested in. So, the jobs are out there, but, unfortunately, Singaporeans are not interested in them.
Page: 737
It would be worthwhile for us to consider the difficulties of this group of businesses. Perhaps, we should look into how to support the employment of Singaporeans within such businesses, or open up options for the employment of foreign manpower. Sir, while on this subject, the MOM website states that service-sector companies wishing to apply for work permits, indicating lower starting salaries, can recruit workers only from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea and Taiwan. Could the Ministry explain why is this so, and consider extending the source countries so that employers have a wider choice of recruitment to support the wider range of dining options that are available today in Singapore?
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have mentioned before, the issue of foreign worker employment is emotive. Clearly, it is no easy task to come up with policies that will help us achieve our long-term goals. But allow me to set out what I believe should be our core considerations.
First, Singaporeans must always be at the heart of our foreign worker employment policy – and I would include employment under work permits, S Passes and EPs. If, for example, Singaporean workers and Singaporean businesses can prosper by allowing in more foreigners, and the cost is an infrastructure crunch, then I say, build more infrastructure.
If Singaporean workers' jobs are threatened by allowing in more foreigners, then I would say, upgrade the skills of our workers, then make them world-ready and more skilful so that they are able to compete with the best. And if salaries in certain sectors or certain jobs are too low, then maybe we can think of creative and innovative ways of giving Singaporeans additional allowances to take on these jobs. There are already precedents – many companies and even the Government give hardship allowances to people posted to more undesirable jobs, albeit overseas.
If Singaporean workers' advancement prospects are dimmed, then the Government must take a closer look at companies, particularly those with a sizeable foreign workforce, to see whether they deal fairly in offering promotion prospects. At the same time, when approving EPs, especially at the higher end of the spectrum, the Government must be convinced that the company could not find a single Singaporean capable of performing the job. If we allow the companies to decide what is good for them, then, sadly to say, they will decide what is good for their company and not necessarily good for Singaporean workers or Singapore. In addition, the Government must also be satisfied that the qualifications and experiences, as well as the economic contributions that applicants declare, are fully verified before EPs are issued.
Page: 738
I believe Sir, that if Singaporeans are convinced that the Government has their best interests at heart, through our policies and through our actions, we will be able to assuage many of the concerns that our workers have. And we may even go some way in restoring our poor broken-backed camel to good health. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, in the pursuit of economic growth, the business of bringing in migrant foreign workers has spawned into a business that has a life of its own. The very process of bringing in these workers is so lucrative that it does not matter if there are matching jobs for them. For some unscrupulous agents, it does not even matter if there are any jobs for these workers, for there is money to be made just by landing them here on our shores. And this lucrative business of bringing in migrant workers alone unwittingly benefits the Government as well because every worker comes with a levy to be paid on the dot, on the 17th of each month by GIRO, regardless of whether there are matching jobs or any jobs for these workers or not.
For some of these low-wage workers, the dream of providing a better life for their families back home became a nightmare of unpaid wages, unimaginable living conditions and unending disputes with employers over wages upon repatriation orders. We have heard and read horror stories about how some of these migrant workers are being treated, and sometimes abandoned, the moment injuries befall them. It is very sad to know that some of these workers already living in poverty back home and going into debt in order to make the trip here will end up worse than ever before because of some unscrupulous agents and errant employers.
Although MOM has no shortage of legislation to act against errant employers, to begin with, I believe many Singaporeans, NGOs and VWOs will welcome the amendments in the Employment of Foreign Manpower Bill to strengthen enforcement capabilities and address the abuses and problems faced by low-wage migrant workers.
MOM has been criticised by some NGOs for not doing enough to help these low-wage workers in the past. I once volunteered for a VWO which specialises in helping migrant workers and I was given such a feedback as well. MOM has enough legislation to deal with errant employers and foreign workers' abuses but, for some reasons, it was slow or reluctant to bite.
Page: 739
With this amendment, I urge the MOM to step up its enforcement. Going forward, MOM should also look into promoting responsible employment, especially for employers of low-wage migrant workers. While enforcement has a role to play, a mindset change will have a bigger impact on our society as a whole. Singapore is a First World country and we should reflect that in the way we treat migrant workers. With that, I rise in support of the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, may I begin by commending the work of the Acting Minister for Manpower. In March this year, he told this House that he would tighten foreign labour policies so as to slow down and manage the growth of the foreign workforce while also ensuring that the employment rights of workers are upheld.
This amendment Bill before us is largely in the right direction. I hope the Ministry of Manpower will continue to be guided by these twin principles. Singaporeans want the Government to be serious about enforcing our foreign manpower regulations and we want to be a humane society which guarantees that the workers, foreign or local, are treated decently and not exploited. The new section 22A of the Act, as provided by clause 17, which punishes employers who deduct money from workers' salaries to pay for levies or other costs that they themselves are liable for is a case in point. This is a good move. Nevertheless, the NGO Transient Workers Count Too still voiced their concern, that is, "Lack of simple mechanism for workers to recover their monies and compensation even so ordered by the Ministry of Manpower". Can the Minister respond to this?
In being serious about enforcing our foreign manpower regulations, granting inspectors higher levels of authority, such as the right to enter premises and to take audio/video evidence, is critical. The amended powers of employment inspectors laid out in clause 12 are, therefore, important. Industry observers are generally of the opinion that the gap between the practice and principles of the amended Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will be the problem. I say this not to state the obvious but to draw attention to clause 8 which concerns levies. Focusing on levies as an instrument of control may not be better than using foreign worker quotas. Business owners are unlikely to be incentivised to hire Singaporeans over non-Singaporeans because they can always pass on the additional cost of the levy to the worker or to their business customers. Even if stricter foreign worker quotas are implemented, the Government will not lose out in revenue collection since the levies here have been increasing. Increasing levies is a win-win situation for the Government. More revenue is collected and foreign manpower is controlled. But we also need to think of employers, especially those who run SMEs. How can we help them if they are squeezed by increasing levies? Can more be done besides asking them to increase productivity levels?
Page: 740
Regarding the Employment Pass (EP) minimum wage, errant employers will simply work out an illegal arrangement to receive consideration from the employee in order to meet the declared remuneration of the EP holder. After some time, the EP worker could then have a more favourable case to apply for PR status. This may circumvent the quality of our assessment. Perhaps, the Ministry of Manpower could also focus on tightening the enforcement of this specific abuse in this system.
Finally, I would like to say a quick word on the larger debate on foreign workers in Singapore since this Bill is clearly linked to it. While most Singaporeans agree that we need such measures in this Bill to wean off our over-reliance on cheap foreign labour, we also acknowledge that SMEs who rely on cheap foreign labour are facing re-adjustment pains. Indeed, I have received such feedback from such SME owners personally. But let us not write off the complaints of Singaporeans as being paradoxical. They both have a point. I believe we should be talking about striking a balance here.
We can assure SMEs that as long as they adhere to the law, they should not have to fear about the new enforcement rules and penalties in this Bill. In terms of re-adjustment of their businesses, I believe the changes in foreign worker quotas can be made gradual enough to accommodate this. On a larger scale, re-thinking of Singapore's economic model of growth is required in tandem. This can be addressed in future debates during the course of this Parliament. Nevertheless, I support this Bill.
Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg 788-789.] Mr Speaker, I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, and the Managing Director of Pacific International Lines.
This amendment Bill clearly stipulates the penalties against errant employers and employment agencies that contravene the Employment Act. Indeed, currently, there are many industry practices that contravene the Employment Act, with many employers taking the risk by flouting the law. For example, the creation of phantom employees in order to increase their foreign manpower headcount; reducing the wages of foreign workers and collecting work permit renewal fees from foreign workers, and so on.
Whatever the difficulties these employers face, these illegal practices have damaged the image of Singapore businesses and affected the foreign workers' motivation to work. Therefore, errant employers and agents should be punished.
Page: 741
Today, I would like to share some of my views.
After tightening the flow of foreign workers to Singapore, many Small and Medium Enterprises now face greater pressure in terms of manpower resources and operating costs, especially in the services sector. Many companies are starting to feel the effect, and companies feel a greater sense of urgency to restructure their operations.
We agree with and support the Government's strategies and policy directions, that is, companies should restructure and upgrade, to reduce dependence on foreign workers, increase productivity and raise real incomes of local workers. But employers, employees and companies must also be realistic and make adjustments. In order to cope during this transition period, besides guidance and assistance from the Government, SMEs also need to make adjustments internally, and they also need the support of society as a whole.
In actual fact, the purpose of importing foreign workers is to complement the insufficient number of workers in Singapore. This morning, I read an article titled "Employers, Speak Now or Pay the Price" in The Straits Times, which really set me thinking. The writer, Leslie Fong, felt that we should not take a one-sided view when discussing the issue of foreign workers. Singaporeans' lives can no longer do without foreign workers, especially when it comes to jobs with poor working conditions, which are difficult to do, with low pay, long hours and in far-flung places. Braddell View Estate is now in the midst of recruiting volunteers to help maintain the cleanliness of the estate, illustrating the resulting effect of reducing foreign workers. How should we deal with this problem? Perhaps, we can learn from the experience of other cities and countries.
Those who have travelled to Australia will remember the excellent work done by their local tour bus drivers. In Australia, the tour bus drivers take on multiple roles: they are drivers, tour guides, service crew, and also help spread cheer to others. From these bus drivers, tourists can see that they have passion for the work that they do, and the importance of professional training. If the drivers had not been trained systematically, they would not be able to take on multiple roles and would not be able to increase their income. This example also reminds us, when there are limited resources, restructure and change are the best solution. It is a matter of "survival of the fittest" and those who are unable to adapt will be eliminated.
In terms of adapting to the environment, we can look at Hong Kong. I go to Hong Kong every month, and the high level of service in Hong Kong is well-recognised. The people of Hong Kong are highly adaptable. When faced with difficulties, they are always able to turn stress into a source of motivation, and win high praise through their thoughtful, meticulous and warm services. They are able to endure hardship, are diligent, with a strong fighting spirit, adaptable, progressive, flexible and self-reliant. We should learn from them.
Page: 742
From the corporate point of view, if we do not have enough workers, then we must think of new solutions. For example, like the Australian bus drivers who take on multiple roles, why can Singaporeans not do the same?
My colleague tells me that during lunch-time at the food court in Raffles City, management staff wearing ties are helping to clear plates and dishes. This is a classic example of shortage of workers. Is there really no other solution for the food and beverage industry?
In Japan, one worker can look after the entire shop, as the workflow, interior design of the shop and processes have been carefully designed. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman talked about this in this year's Budget. In Korea, food courts in major shopping malls have special counters for the return of food trays, and customers leave their trays and utensils on the counters after their meal. With this, they could reduce the workload of clearing tables, increase productivity and reduce dependence on manpower.
From the employees' point of view, everyone would like to lead a happy and fulfilling life. But society cannot be customised to suit every individual. We have to accept reality, learn to love the job that we are doing, and do it to the best of our ability. If employees think of ways to improve the workflow, not only will they benefit from it, their companies will also benefit. What employers need to do is to ignite employees' passion for their jobs, strengthen their sense of identity towards work, provide adequate training, and create an innovative culture among employees. Personally, I only discovered recently that innovation can actually be taught. In fact, innovation and creativity often come from within the company. Given the right inspiration, employees often can zoom in on the problem and find new ways to improve efficiency.
The illegal employment of foreign workers highlights the severe shortage of manpower, as well as other problems, for example, the local workforce structure, employee training programmes, and ways to improve workflow. To turn the situation around requires the collective effort of the entire society. For example, food court operators must provide relevant facilities and Singaporeans must slowly adjust to the self-service model, and return plates and dishes to collection points after using them.
Manpower shortage is a long-term problem. If we do not solve it, the problem will become worse. Punishing employers and employment agencies is the right thing to do, but it is critical to find a solution to the problem. With regard to tackling the foreign worker issue, I believe that companies, employees and, in fact, the entire society, has reached a critical juncture for change. So, as long as the tripartite partners work closely together, we can definitely find a solution. In conclusion, I support amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
Page: 743
Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN MANPOWER (AMENDMENT) BILL
Debate resumed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, we are introducing an amendment to our Employment of Foreign Manpower Act which aims to further strengthen our legal framework to dissuade abusers and award stringent punishment to offenders.
As we aim to position Singapore as a global city for global talent and skilled labour to come here to grow our economy, we need to ensure that our laws and regulations also incorporate the safety and welfare of this group. As such, this Bill is timely as it will help assuage the grievances of several innocent foreign workers who have come to Singapore to make a fair and decent living.
At the same time though, we must ensure that such laws and regulations protecting foreign manpower do not impede adversely on operations and the bottom-lines of our businesses. I am aware that many businesses, particularly the SMEs, are facing a difficult time coping with the rising costs of doing business in Singapore. These include costs of manpower as well, especially since the Government has taken steps to reduce the dependence on foreign workers. While this forces companies to look deeper into productivity – and that is a good thing – we also need to be more mindful that we should not burden our SMEs with too high costs. And this is the fine balance we must try to attain.
Therefore, I generally support the motion, Sir. However, I want to highlight some grey areas which remain open and pose significant challenges in terms of practicality. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the following:
Today, we have a number of foreign workers who are jobless and victims of deceit. These victims often knock at our doors seeking resolution and justice against offenders. Some of these examples include:
(a) Victim is promised an engineer job back home by his agent and paid agency fee accordingly while being given manual work in Singapore;
Page: 744
(b) Victim is hired by agent as a cook but is instead being employed in a construction site where his ability and aptitude is completely out of place and, eventually, leading to his termination;
(c) Victim is being assured of two years' contract, the agency fee has been paid up but employer runs into trouble and asks employee to return home earlier;
(d) Victim gets injured while at work but employer denies compensation and cost of medical treatment; and
(e) Victims are staying in Singapore to be witnesses in cases which are in progress for months and years while they are being unemployed, with their active work permits already revoked.
Sir, these are the cases where workers are suffering from agony for a second time while waiting for the judgement, or they already have suffered at the hands of the errant employer or the agent. These workers without working rights are a liability to the country and also a potential source of social problems. The issue here is created by the inordinate time taken for the dispute resolution processes to be completed and the lack of a right to make a living for the foreign worker.
I would like to suggest that the Ministry establishes express special benches to hear such cases in a short period of time and deliver enforceable and binding judgements. The workers can then leave the country upon resolution, thus easing the burden and problems for all. Further, the Ministry should consider short- term work permits to allow them to work in the interim period while awaiting judgement so that they are not a liability to the state in any form.
The amendments seem to come down rather heavily on faking credentials. While the spirit is welcome, there are grey areas which are particularly making low-wage and less educated workers vulnerable. A lack of understanding of legal implications and English language on the part of the workers may allow the agents to exploit the situation and have employees sign on blank documents. Widespread education of penalties on employees for falsification of data should be done both in Singapore and in foreign countries of interest.
The proposed new section 22B makes it an offence to "obtain a work pass for a foreign employee for a trade or business that does not exist, that is not in operation … and fails to employ the foreign employee". In cases of companies whose object is to supply workers to other companies, this is a reality leaving workers in Singapore without jobs and income. The law is clear in its intent. But there should be further detailing to ensure that contracting companies or agent companies are having the foreign workers on regular payroll and not keeping the workers as an available pool for subcontractors. This can be done by having electronic time sheets using biometric and itemised salary slips and paying their salaries direct into their bank accounts to avoid disputes on outstanding wages, and so on. Wage disputes are often a big proportion of contentious issues for foreign workers.
Page: 745
One of the root causes for disputes is false representation and false promises made by agents about the job scope and benefits while the employees are still in their home countries. Besides, the dispute often stems from the huge amount of monies paid as agent's fee in the home country, in addition to any monies being paid later after arriving in Singapore. Most of these agreements are verbal and cash transactions which cannot be verified. The goal should be to root out possibilities of misrepresentations by middlemen. Although the rules and regulations are in place, the Ministry should have tighter guidelines and monitoring of agents who may act in collusion with several other people within and outside Singapore to give false hopes and promises to innocent and gullible workers. The number of agents and their methods of working need monitoring and control to eliminate any possibility of abuse of the law. We should perhaps regulate this profession in order to monitor standards and quality as well as ensure that the integrity of the profession is not compromised.
Sir, while dealing with foreign manpower problems, it will be a good idea to explore working with the governments of those countries, the main ones in particular, especially through their Embassies in Singapore. They can help in endorsing foreign credentials and spreading the rules and tight regulations including penalties for offenders in home countries. Exploring possibilities of working with authorised employment bureaus in foreign countries may possibly limit pranks by middlemen.
Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill aims to strengthen the law and ensure justice prevails besides upholding Singapore's reputation for sound employment practices. Practical and simple dispute resolution practices with a strong will may be the next step the Ministry would want to focus. I support this Bill, Sir.
Mr Speaker, allow me to discuss the amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Bill from two different perspectives: the perspective of the foreign workers themselves and the perspective of the employers. I have four issues to raise on each side.
Let me start with the foreign worker perspective. The first issue of kickbacks and churn. In order to get the foreign worker perspective, I went to visit several foreign workers last Sunday at one of the bigger dormitories in Singapore. These dormitories house about a thousand men from Bangladesh, India and China. All of them share similar living and working conditions, 10 bunk beds to a room, no mattresses, but their financial circumstances were very different, depending on what country they come from and what type of employment agencies they used. Some of the younger workers I spoke to, have to pay as much as $7,000-$8,000 in their first year. They get sent back and then they hope to come back in their second year, but they have to pay another $4,500 in fees. Thus, I hope that these tougher penalties will stop such kickbacks and exploitation and, hopefully, lead to lower costs for these foreign workers. This should lead to better and fairer treatment for them.
Page: 746
The second issue is a longer employment term. Will MOM also consider granting a longer employment term beyond one year especially if the worker has done a satisfactory job? Currently, many get sent back after a year and they do not even break even.
Thirdly, heavier penalties on workers. Incidents of forgery of certificates or falsification of documents will mean workers are penalised with up to 24 months in jail or 12 months for employers. Can we justify workers having such heavier penalties for the same crime?
Lastly, cutting back on welfare. Would MOM ensure that higher levies imposed next year will not lead to employers cutting down on providing basic welfare for their employees to save costs? Whilst these workers build beautiful skyscrapers for us, they do return each night to fairly spartan living conditions. Any worsening of these conditions could spark more social issues.
I now go on to the employer perspective. In order to get the employer perspective, I spoke to business associations, employers and even some insurance companies that provide coverage for these workers.
Firstly, finding the perpetrators of kickbacks. Because of these kickbacks, some companies have been able to hire foreign workers through S and Employment Passes at effectively lower costs than they should be. This in itself is a deterrent for productivity gains. As the Acting Minister himself said, most of these kickbacks are received in cash. Hence, it is very difficult to prove that such errant employers are receiving kickbacks. Hence, any increment in penalty may not have a significant deterrent unless such enforcement measures mentioned in clause 12 can be effective in apprehending such employers. So, the question is: will these amendments be effective in finding the perpetrators?
Secondly, more clarity on stiffer penalties. The Acting Minister did bring up the myriad of increment in penalties. These penalties have been increased to a new maximum of $20,000-$30,000 in cash, caning and imprisonment. The question here is one of clarity for determining the penalty and the extent of the civil servants' empowerment and the determination of whether it is a financial penalty, caning or imprisonment. Hence, I think it would be good to have a clearer or, perhaps, a simpler structure on these penalties, instead of the current way of meting out a combination.
Thirdly, raising productivity of foreign workers. As we embark on productivity gains for local workers, will MOM also consider allowing foreign workers to improve their productivity by allowing them to multi-task, that is, whilst their work passes may specify a single job description, can they be allowed to advance on, take on more, or can their existing insurance policies be extended for more coverage?
Page: 747
Also, we hope that the changes in DRC does not mean that employers have to let go of their more experienced and productive workers. With tighter ratios, it will also be more difficult for employers to plan their employee training, hence impeding productivity gains.
Lastly, the timing of these tightening measures. Higher levies, heavier penalties and tighter ratios mean higher costs for employers. In fact, one can argue that what caused many Singaporean employers to break the law initially was the sharp rise in labour costs caused by the tightening measures that started in July 2010. Now with margins being squeezed further by global economic headwinds, some local employers have to choose between closing down their businesses or resorting to even cheaper labour. If more SMEs close down, the risk is that lower wage Singaporeans who are hired in this sector will suffer. Hence, I would suggest that there may be a time to review this approach of restructuring our economy and I question the timing of such measures now. This tightening is a self-imposed supply side constraint that can result in slow growth and high inflation.
Finally, I will summarise the objectives of these amendments. The first objective of preventing exploitation of foreign workers from unscrupulous employers is to be applauded and fully supported. The other objective of ensuring that Singaporeans are not denied jobs when employers circumvent these rules to hire cheaper foreign labour needs to be questioned further. I would argue that if we are indeed successful in our efforts to improve the skills, productivity and wages of our lower income Singaporeans, then they would not want to take up these jobs left behind by low-wage foreign workers.
I would argue that most Singaporeans aspire towards better paid jobs through skills upgrading. Hence, rather than focusing on squeezing employers to reduce their dependence on foreign labour for lower skilled jobs, why not channel our resources and efforts on improving the skills of our lower wage Singaporeans instead? This will enhance their employability and ultimately raise their standard of living. This is what inclusive growth is all about.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The amendments are needed to bolster the integrity of the framework governing the employment of foreign manpower, in particular, the unskilled and low-skilled foreign workers on Work Permit Passes.
The fact that the amendments are needed reflects poorly on the various parties involved in the employment or perhaps one should call the exploitation process of transient migrant workers in Singapore. It also reflects on us, in some respects, as a callous society in which some seek to profiteer through unscrupulous means given our persistently high demand for such workers. As a society, we should not tolerate such conduct.
Page: 748
It is sad that these foreign workers are seen in blatantly instrumental terms. Most, if not all, of these workers see employment in Singapore as a means towards a better life. As many Members have observed, many of these workers incur huge debts in order to have the opportunity to work in Singapore. It does not help that these unscrupulous employers and employment agents would treat these people like chattels and exploit the Work Permit Pass regime for financial gains.
Sir, the Bill must send an unequivocal message that as a country that is heavily dependent on foreign manpower, the exploitation of foreign workers will not be tolerated. As such, I welcome provisions in the proposed amendments that seek to increase the penalties for the various offences, both administrative and criminal ones. This can help ensure that the penalties are commensurate with the potential profits to be made. Our employment laws must have that deterrent effect.
Given the increasing sophistication of syndicate operations, our laws must be strengthened to deal with them. I support the inclusion of rebuttable presumption clauses, such as the proposed section 22A, as well as the expansion of investigatory powers such as those found in the proposed section 16.
Similarly, it is only proper that the proposed amendments seek to provide the relevant authorities with the power to impose a confiscation order to ensure the adequate disgorgement of illegal profits gained from such operations.
Sir, like the Immigration (Amendment) Bill which this House deliberated upon last month, this Bill will strengthen our border security. But, more importantly, it should enhance the protection for the several hundred thousand of transient migrant workers already in Singapore, and the many more who will seek employment here. That is the least we can do for these workers who often risk life and limb because of the very innate human aspiration to want a better life for themselves and their families back home.
Sir, many of these transient workers do the "3D" jobs – the dirty, degrading and dangerous jobs – that Singaporeans shun. Their labour is essential to the completion and upkeep of many of our public and private infrastructure projects, and their efforts help enhance our living environment as well. But we often take them for granted.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that the Manpower Ministry will continue to ensure that the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act is regularly reviewed so that our legal regime is up to the challenge of providing adequate protection to the foreign workers. These amendments that this House is considering today are long overdue. I sincerely hope it is not because the primary beneficiaries are non-citizens of Singapore.
Page: 749
Sir, this round of proposed amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act is specifically targeted at empowering the Ministry of Manpower to step up enforcement against errant employers more expeditiously and effectively. Sir, I am pleased that the Minister has given his assurance and commitment that a review will be done on key employer responsibilities vis-a-vis the rights of transient foreign workers. That is the logical and humane step to take, and I believe a greater focus on and attention to the rights of the workers is long overdue.
Our approach in the management of foreign workers has focused very much on public education. But there is a limit to what public education can do with regard to our treatment of transient foreign workers. While public education efforts should continue, enhancing the rights of these workers will be crucial in protecting them. We should not fear expanding the very basic suite of rights for these workers and enlarging the narrow scope of employers' responsibilities for these workers.
To be sure, there have been improvements in the regulatory regime on the employment conditions of foreign workers and a greater awareness of the basic rights of these foreign workers. Progress has been made over the last few years but we still have a long way to go. We should not relent in our efforts.
Given the significant number of foreign workers in Singapore, the ill-treatment of foreign workers can also undermine bilateral relations between the foreign workers' home governments and Singapore as well as Singapore's international image and branding. But, more importantly, beyond that, we have to do the right thing ultimately, for as all human beings, regardless of their station in life, are entitled to dignity and respect, particularly when they seek dignity through work.
Our focus on the regulatory framework must not result in our ignoring the equally important role of adequately protecting the rights of the foreign workers. Sir, on that note, I welcome the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. It really goes without saying that foreign workers have contributed significantly to Singapore's economic growth. However, over-reliance on cheap foreign labour has had negative effects, not least of which is the disincentive to increase productivity and wages.
The Government has implemented measures to ensure that Singaporeans remain at the core of our workforce. This includes compelling employers to face the true costs of employing foreign labour. It is therefore important to ensure that the playing field is kept level and these efforts are not undermined by employers who resort to illegal means of procuring and employing foreign labour.
Page: 750
This Bill, which tackles these issues amongst others, is therefore well intentioned. That said, I would like to seek clarification on three issues from the Acting Minister. First, the proposed new sections 7(4C) and (4D) of the Bill allow the Controller in some instances to debar a person from applying for or being issued with a work pass. I understand the need for this amendment – it deals with previous offenders circumventing their debarred status by enlisting the help of others to employ foreign workers. However, the net may be cast too wide.
There are two categories of persons who are debarred. The first is those who act in concert with, or at the direction of, the debarred person in connection with the employment of any foreign worker. This clearly makes sense and is directly relevant to the problem.
The second is more problematic – it covers associates of the debarred person who are engaged in substantially the same trade or business as the debarred person. There is a broad range of people who are defined as "associates", and may catch people with little connection to the debarred person. To give an example, a person whose partner in a partnership is a relative of a debarred person and who is engaged in a similar trade as the debarred person may find himself unable to employ foreign workers because he is deemed an "associate" of the debarred person.
The answer I suspect will be that it is necessary for the Controller to have a wide discretion to do his job, and he will know how to properly exercise it. But that should not be the starting point. Surely, there must first be some evidence that the associate is acting with, or at the direction of, the debarred person. If so, that will be caught by the first category and there is no need for the second. Not being able to employ foreign workers may well break a business, and we should not draft our laws in the name of expedience to give such wide discretion as to make things less certain for employers.
There is, of course, the option of appealing to the Minister under section 7(5). But this process may prove too long, onerous or costly, particularly for SMEs. And who is going to do the job while the appeal is pending?
Could the Acting Minister therefore clarify how the subsection relating to "Associates" will be applied? In particular, under what circumstances will an "associate" be debarred in the absence of any evidence that he is working in concert with, or at the direction of, the debarred person in relation to the employment of foreign persons?
Page: 751
My second query relates to the protection of vulnerable foreign workers. The proposed amended section 5(7) imposes a longer maximum term of imprisonment of two years on foreign workers who work without a valid work pass. In contrast, employers who employ foreign workers without a valid work pass are only subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months. This limit of 12 months applies even on a second or subsequent conviction. This disparity in sentencing appears anomalous. First, there are cases where illegal foreign workers are victims of human trafficking, and have been lured to work in Singapore under false pretences. In such cases, surely the employer is more culpable if he hires him. Second, even where trafficking is not involved, greater culpability lies with the employer where he has deliberately hired illegal workers to cut business costs and compete unfairly. In fact, it is the demand for illegal employees from these errant employers that fuels the supply. Could the Acting Minister therefore clarify the reasons for the difference in punishments?
Related to this issue is the repealing of section 15 of the Act, and replacing the burden of proving the truth of the contents of a written application for a Work Pass with the presumption that the foreign worker had knowledge of the information provided in the application. This presumption has the effect of making it easier to convict foreign workers. However, the reality of the situation is that foreign workers are in a position to be exploited by unscrupulous employers. If an employer chooses to falsify the contents of his application to aid his application, the foreign worker in question is unlikely to protest.
The point to be made is really this: the foreign employee or worker is in a vulnerable position relative to the employer. He is likely to be less informed about his obligations. He is also unlikely to question his employer's actions because of the financial pressure he is under. The amendments to sections 5(7) and 15 are not reflective of the power imbalance between foreign employees and their employers. Specifically, the fear of criminal sanction may prevent illegally employed workers from coming forward or seeking help, even in extreme circumstances. Employers may use the threat of exposure against foreign workers to keep them under control. The increase in the maximum imprisonment sentence for foreign employees under section 5(7) may aggravate this problem.
Enhancing penalties against illegal foreign workers and making it easier to prosecute them is not a deterrent. That presumes they know the law, which is unrealistic. The focus should therefore be on restricting the demand for these foreign workers. We should enhance penalties against errant employers. We should also consider alternative approaches. For example, granting amnesty or repatriation for illegals who turn themselves in and testify against their employers.
My final query relates to section 25. This provision reclassifies certain offences under the act as "prescribed infringements". These prescribed infringements attract a financial penalty, and deal with situations such as employers inflating their foreign employee entitlement. While this scheme allows such cases to be settled quickly and easily, justice may be compromised. One reason is that the standard of proof has been lowered to a balance of probabilities unlike the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". Furthermore, section 25(4)(c) states that no party may be represented by an advocate or solicitor. In the case of SMEs, this may be difficult if they do not have in-house legal expertise to deal with such matters and make effective representations. Hence, this new scheme again has the effect of trading fairness for administrative efficiency. There is no reason why the employer should not be allowed legal representation if it wishes it. I hope the Acting Minister will be able to address my concerns regarding this new provision as well.
Page: 752
Sir, this Bill is an important and timely legislation. It seeks to tighten regulations on the employment of foreign manpower to ensure employers do not exploit foreign workers. It is also to prevent companies from circumventing existing foreign worker quotas, and hiring foreigners at a cheaper rate, thus denying Singaporeans from getting employment.
This tougher legislation is also welcomed as it protects foreign workers, whom we all agree must be decently treated. We rely on foreign workers for their contributions to our workforce, in building our infrastructure and looking after our families, thus we must be fair to them. How we manage and treat our foreign workers certainly have an impact on Singapore's reputation.
There is a need to be strict and not allow companies to circumvent the rules, otherwise, the recent moves to tighten the tap on foreign workers will not be effective and will never effect the change we want to see eventually.
I am also glad to note that the new laws will accelerate the punitive processes. It is good that infringements which do not cause direct harm to foreign workers – such as those circumventing foreign worker quotas – will be categorised as administrative offences. I am hoping that with this delineation, these cases can be dealt with much faster and more efficiently.
However, those who commit offences, such as receiving kickbacks, will be classified as criminal offenders and will be brought to court appropriately. These must all act as deterrent factors to employers. Those who are faced with costs issues and problems should find ways to resolve their staffing issues, rather than utilise illegal options, which can lead to their detriment.
Sir, I would like to ask, how widespread is the current practice by companies who flout the rules to gain access to cheaper foreign labour? How many employers have been convicted in the last five years? And which industries are the most notorious or the most commonly affected?
With the new legislation, how about enforcement? Without effective enforcement, some companies may be even bolder, when they know how to circumvent the system.
Page: 753
Sir, in this Bill, we have clause 4, which states employers must act "in accordance with the conditions of the work pass". Clause 12, section 16b, where "employment inspectors and authorised officers will have the general power to enter and inspect any premises or part thereof", and clause 12, section 16c, where the range of powers has been expanded and "employment inspectors are given power of forced entry onto premises" as well as other responsibilities.
Can I please also request that these inspectors do not just look at employment breaches when they visit the sites because they can, at the same time, also assess if there are issues such as accommodation issues, unsanitary living conditions and other related issues and also let other personnel follow up on these matters. It is not uncommon for us on the ground to see that Government department officers working in silos and we get deviated all the time. Very often, the "no wrong door" policy does not work.
Sir, let us take an example. Not too long ago, my feedback on unsanitary and over-crowded, living conditions in an apartment, a single apartment, which was filled with foreign workers, took longer than expected to be handled and processed. When efforts were initialised at my urging, illegals were found, and just in that one particular site, 18 dengue breeding sites were located in that one apartment. So, there are multiple breaches and issues in just one location and I hope all these can be sorted out together at the same time.
I urge that community and ground feedback must be taken seriously and acted upon expeditiously as well. The Minister himself has mentioned how employers are getting very creative at circumvention. And, thus, all these show that we must certainly work very closely with the community.
Now, Sir, employers will have to pay for the upkeep of their foreign workers who are waiting for claims to be resolved. Those who fail to do so can be fined up to $10,000, jailed a maximum of one year, or both fined and jailed. What about deducting from foreign workers salaries for payment of acute medical care required by these workers whilst they are still being employed? I see this very often when the foreign workers come for acute medical illnesses, not requiring hospitalisation and they actually have to enquire on the costs because they state that this amount would have to be deducted from their salary for that particular month. So, I hope MOM can clarify and advise on what is accepted practice pertaining to this matter.
Finally, Sir, since the last Budget announcement was made to cut back on foreign manpower quotas in the various industries and sectors, how are we progressing in this area? Are we enroute to achieving the targets that we have set in the various industries? Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Page: 754
Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. The introduction of this amendment could not have come at a better time as we engage in our National Conversation to decide the kind of society we want Singapore to be. I am certain that the narrative of a big-hearted society includes the graciousness and respect accorded to our fellow men, both locals and foreigners alike. Certainly, in our Singapore Conversation, we do wish for our country to be an inclusive and gracious one; a country that cares for her citizens and others who live and work here; a country that not only optimises its local talents but also welcomes and appreciates foreign talents to supplement and complement its workforce.
The latest World Economic Forum Report ranks Singapore second, next only to Switzerland, as the most competitive economy, and first for efficiency of its goods and labour markets. As we pride ourselves for being a First World economy, we must never become Third World employers where the rights of our local and foreign workforce are compromised. Our local workers should not be marginalised nor our foreign labour be cheated, used and abused.
Sir, I fully support this Bill. We must send a strong and clear signal to unscrupulous and errant employers, employment agencies and syndicates who deliberately contravene the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act to profiteer from the work pass framework. For these amendments to yield the desired results, we need strong deterrent laws coupled with rigorous enforcement and ample avenues for such cases to be surfaced.
Working in a foreign country can be challenging for anyone, including Singaporeans. Thus, it is wrong and naive to believe it is different for foreign workers. Our forefathers, who are immigrants themselves, have contributed to the development and progress of Singapore. We are where we are today because we are a migrant society. Our foreign workforce complements our local workforce in areas of inadequacies of manpower and skills set. To continue Singapore's path of growth, the contribution of foreign workers is inevitable. We need to appreciate their contribution and respect them as fellow human beings. Thus, having good recruitment and employment practices, pertaining to foreign workers, will strengthen Singapore as an attractive and credible destination for experienced and skilled foreign workforce, who can help us achieve productivity-driven growth.
In the management of foreign workers, employment agents play a key role. In recent years, especially with the spurt in the number of foreign workers in Singapore and low barriers to entry, employment agencies have proliferated to about 3,000 now. As a result of stiff competition for business, many employment agencies have resorted to cutting corners contributing to a spike in the number of complaints against errant employment agencies.
Page: 755
In 2010, the then Minister of State for Manpower, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, told this House that there were more than 1,200 complaints from employers, foreign workers and members of the public regarding employment agency malpractices. This represents an 80% increase compared to the year before. I hazard a guess that with more than one million foreign workers and 3,000 employment agencies now, the number of complaints on errant employers and employment agencies can only go up.
Hence, there is an urgent need for more legislation on employment agencies that play a key role in managing foreign workers. We need to also enhance our enforcement against errant employment agencies and employers from profiteering from foreign workers. We need to send a strong signal of our intent to be a civil society by respecting the rights of the foreigners who have left behind loved ones to make a living here.
I am happy to note that section 25 would address this anomaly. The Ministry of Manpower has done much to improve our employment practices of foreign workers such as the living conditions and transportation safety. I would beckon the Ministry to continuously strive to review and raise the standards of our recruitment practices of foreign workers.
Currently, all employment agencies are not restricted to who they can employ to perform recruitment or placement work. Recruiting workers to do work that they are not qualified or employed for will lead to shortcomings and malpractices as evident in the case of the Nightingale Nursing Home.
Sir, I have been told anecdotally that such malpractices are not confined to Nightingale Nursing Home. Rather, it is just a case that the Nursing Home was more unfortunate than many to have been caught whilst others are still lurking in the shadows. We have also heard of cases where foreign workers were paid less than the amount stipulated in the S Pass applications, paying exorbitant agency fees, kickbacks and received unfair employment terms.
We need to continually ensure all key appointment holders and staff performing recruitment or placement work are appropriately qualified so as to raise the standards and accountability of the employment agency personnel. Audits and checks should be done to ensure that such personnel attained the "Certificate of Employment Intermediaries" and equip themselves with the necessary knowledge of relevant legislation and regulations.
Sir, before coming to Singapore, many of these foreign workers borrow huge amount of monies to pay their recruitment agencies. As a result, most of these new Work Permit holders work almost for free in their first year as the entire year's salary goes towards paying off these debts. It is only in the second year that he gets to keep anything of his pay. Whilst I understand that the Manpower Ministry have regulations to manage and control how much employment agencies can charge foreign workers, such regulations are not widely known, much less these foreign workers. Many companies will still find ways to be creative and contravene these regulations. How may MOM be more vigilant in guarding such contravention?
Page: 756
Finally, I support the legislative amendments to strengthen our enforcement capabilities and tighten the integrity of the work pass framework. The increased penalties and imprisonment against errant employers, employment agencies as well as workers with less than genuine qualifications will not only deter breaches of the work pass system but also help to create and protect employment opportunities of our local workers. However, Sir, all these laws and penalties would amount to nothing without enforcement. I hope that the Ministry will put teeth to these amendments by devoting adequate resources so that errant cases can be expeditiously investigated and resolved.
Another channel of enforcement is to set up a framework to encourage the public and victims to blow the whistle on employers' wrongdoing and to report malpractices that could be improper, illegal or negligent behaviour. Whistleblowers are also to be protected for public interest, to encourage people to speak out if they find malpractice in any organisation or workplace.
Singapore workers are already working one of the highest numbers of hours per week. We are in a full employment situation. Many companies are experiencing real problems of a shortfall of labour, and I believe the Government and related agencies are not spared too. With the further tightening of foreign workers' employment, what would be the implication on our Singapore economy?
Yes, the influx of foreign workers was at a pace that caused some uneasiness and placing a squeeze on our infrastructure. But we must guard against drastic cutbacks and forcing companies to scale down, close or relocate altogether because they simply cannot find sufficient workers. Singaporeans too will also be displaced when this happens.
Our unemployment currently stands at the low end of 2%. This is the envy of many countries around the world. Although it is a happy situation, it poses a challenge to many companies in Singapore, from the service, manufacturing to construction sectors. Many companies are struggling to fill up job vacancies in their organisations and many more are finding it increasingly tough to employ Singaporeans, especially in meeting their employment of foreign workers' quota.
Sir, this tough, aggravated and rather desperate employment situation will only prompt more employment agencies and employers to be more creative with the law. Whilst the Bill is timely, we have to look at mitigating such contraventions by having a comprehensive workforce strategy – aligning talent needs with educational institutions, improving pipelines, tapping on our latent workforce, renewing our trained and skilled foreign labour, attracting foreign talents, upgrading our existing staff and enhance productivity.
Page: 757
Mr Speaker, Sir, creating a just and fair employment environment will no doubt send a clear and strong signal to show our social graciousness and appreciation to the contribution of our local and foreign workers. Sir, with this, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Proposed amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) are broad-ranging and timely. They were finalised after public consultation which involve intensive discussions with key stakeholders in June and July this year.
I am glad that the Ministry of Manpower and its Foreign Manpower Division and Legal Division, made the effort to seek and consider the views from the employers as well as the non-Governmental organisations who put forward their recommendations and observation on behalf of the foreign worker population in Singapore. Their efforts should be lauded.
I note that this round of proposed amendments to the EFMA focused on ensuring the integrity of the work pass framework in three main ways. This is especially crucial given the unequal relationship between employers and their foreign worker employees. I am, thus, in support of the amendments that would be made in this round of review, namely, the establishment of an administrative regime to complement the prosecution of employers who flout the rules; increased deterrents against EFMA contraventions, especially with respect to the upkeep and maintenance of workers awaiting resolution of statutory claims as well as compliance with salary thresholds for both S and Employment Pass holders and, finally, enhanced administrative powers to facilitate the enforcement of EFMA contraventions.
These targeted measures addressed the areas that are in pressing need of review and reform at the moment and will go some way towards deterring some of the most serious abuses against foreign workers. This is certainly a good step forward and ought to be lauded in terms of addressing the imbalance in the employer and employee relationship, an imbalance that is still all the more stark in the context of foreign worker employment. I believe there is still much room for further work, in particular, in terms of delineating and defining the rights and responsibilities of both employers and foreign workers which would help manage expectations between these two groups.
As much as enforcement plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of all parties involved, changes are needed in relation to key employer responsibilities and the consultation process should continue so that our existing framework may be better refined in order to meet the legal and broader social objectives of protection and integration. I am heartened by the steps the Government and, in particular, the Ministry of Manpower are taking in the direction of ensuring better legal protection for the foreign worker population here in Singapore. The often invisible workers whose silent contributions to our physical infrastructure tend to go unnoticed.
Page: 758
I would like to highlight the important role the Government has to play in regulating and ensuring that foreign workers' rights are upheld primarily because of the unequal relationship which leaves foreign workers vulnerable at times. Here, I would like to highlight the issue of housing and accommodation for foreign workers which is important and urgent enough to be singled out. Under Part 2 of the First Schedule of the EFMA (Work Passes) Regulations, employers are required to ensure that their foreign workers have acceptable accommodation.
I have previously raised a number of Parliamentary Questions on the subject, highlighting concerns about the existing monitoring and regulatory frameworks which were in turn met by assurances from the Ministry that the Government will continue active enforcement as well as review the administrative requirements and penalties to ensure their adequacy.
With that in mind, I believe that even more active enforcement and what is currently in place is needed. There are still many unresolved issues in relation to accommodation. For example, the difficult living conditions that some workers are still housed in. Others live in overcrowded dormitories. May I ask the Ministry how he intends to ensure that sturdy and reliable accommodation is provided for workers by the companies?
Finally, apart from the above-mentioned changes to the existing legal structure which I support, I believe that it is time for Singapore to move beyond mere legal regulation and towards cultivating a culture of respect for our foreign worker population, be they construction workers or domestic helpers in our homes. Legal rules and regulations can only go so far. The true success of these legal reforms will depend very much on the renewing of our approach, treatment of and engagement with our foreign workers. All workers, whether Singaporean or not, deserve to be treated with dignity. All of us live on our precious island together, and it is on this basis that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Bill. This Bill contains amendments that are urgently needed to shore up the integrity of the work pass framework, and further strengthen the enforcement regimes against unscrupulous employers that exploit vulnerable foreign workers.
Page: 759
The Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) prescribes the responsibilities and obligations pertaining to the employment of foreign workers. The foreign worker population in Singapore is significant – it currently stands at 1.2 million, or one third of the total workforce. So, it is critically important to regulate the conditions of their employment.
Given our current reliance on foreign labour in many industries, we have to ensure Singapore can continue to attract the right number and quality of foreign help. This includes the protection of foreign worker's basic rights and well-being.
At the same time, we need to safeguard the interests of Singaporean workers, and to ensure that employment conditions of foreign workers do not adversely impact local job opportunities, wages and working conditions and that our citizens remain at the core of our workforce.
This amendment Bill comes as a welcome addition to on-going efforts by the Ministry to improve the plight of work permit holders, including the recent range of measures catering to foreign domestic workers, such as mandatory rest days; safety rules on the cleaning of windows and the new Settling-in Programme.
Sir, the Bill's new presumption clause on "kickbacks" presumes that any monies collected from foreign workers are collected as consideration for employment, and will attract a maximum fine of $30,000 and/or two years' jail. I hope this presumption clause goes a long way towards deterring the illegal practice by employers and their intermediaries, both foreign and local, of demanding exorbitant fees from foreign workers. I get consistent feedback from foreign workers, from Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar, that this practice is persistent and widespread. They are expected to pay thousands of dollars, often in cash, to secure or renew their employment in Singapore. These transactions often involve multiple parties, all part of well-organised syndicates. Not only do such practices subject poor foreign workers to long servitudes of crippling debt, but they also deceptively position Singaporeans at an unfair disadvantage to foreigners, by distorting the true level of foreign worker wages.
I also hope that the other amendments in the Bill to enhance the investigative powers vested in the enforcement officers in the conduct of their investigations; to enhance the prosecutorial powers as well as to increase the severity of penalties for infractions will all help put a stop to such pernicious practices.
Sir, the new regulations are welcome. But the tighter regulation must be coupled with effective enforcement in order to have any meaning for those who are bent on circumventing the law. My concern is whether or not the Ministry has the necessary manpower and resources in place to conduct investigations and checks. The Ministry may wish to time their implementation of these rules with their readiness to step up checks, using a special enforcement task force. I believe it is important to send a strong signal: heighten deterrence early on and leave employers in no doubt as to the Ministry's resolve to weed out errant players, in order to achieve the maximum effect of the legislative amendments.
Page: 760
Apart from stronger laws, I hope the Ministry will also consider addressing the problem of unscrupulous intermediaries, by setting up the necessary infrastructure to link job seekers directly with their potential employers. Such disintermediation also increases productivity and improves communication between legitimate parties.
Other problems commonly faced by non-domestic foreign workers include provision of acceptable accommodation, prompt salary payment and excessive working hours and overtime over sustained periods that could be detrimental to health and safety. Would the Minister please share how the proposed amendments will help address this set of common problems faced by foreign workers?
Sir, enforcement efforts can be further enhanced by foreign workers themselves, if they come forward to expose errant employers. Unfortunately, too many do not understand their rights, their avenues for redress or the procedures for reporting abuse. Many foreign workers suffer exploitation in silence, fearing the loss of their jobs; and often not without justification. For example, one Bangladeshi worker related how he had once joined a group of 25 workers to complain about their errant employer to MOM – in the end, 20 of the complainants lost their jobs as they were terminated shortly thereafter.
There is a hotline at the Ministry for callers to report on worker abuse, and the illegal employment and deployment of foreign workers. If whistle-blowers can be assured by MOM that they will assist them in finding another job in Singapore, it would help remove the fear amongst these vulnerable workers of being punished when they help to bring errant employers to book. In this spirit, I applaud the amendment that requires employers to maintain the upkeep of workers who are awaiting resolution of their complaints, prior to repatriation.
Sir, the proposed Bill focuses mainly on lower level foreign workers who enter Singapore on Work Permit. I am disappointed that no measures were introduced to address concerns in regard to employers' obligations and responsibilities in hiring foreigners on EP, who compete for professional, managerial and executive jobs.
I had spoken in this House on this subject in the past, urging the Ministry of Manpower to moderate our liberal policies for EP holders. Unlike those on Work Permits who are subject to levies and dependency ratios, EP holders simply have to meet a minimum salary threshold of $3,000 per month with specified education qualifications. To ensure that companies develop a strong core of Singaporeans amongst PME jobs, I had called for employers to be obliged to show that they had attempted to employ Singaporeans first, before they consider foreign executives. I had further urged the Ministry to consider that, when employers cannot find a qualified Singaporean for the job, they are then obliged to invest in the training and development of Singaporeans to fill those jobs.
Page: 761
In response, the Minister had expressed concerns that these measures would subject employers to additional administrative hurdles, lengthen hiring process and add more friction, costs and rigidities to their procedures. Whilst I agree that additional measures may impact labour market flexibility, I am not convinced that employers, relying only on guidelines by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, have delivered the desired outcomes. Our EP framework should ensure that as we welcome foreign professionals who bring specialised skills and expertise, Singaporeans are first considered for the jobs they can perform and they want to perform. This is currently missing.
Sir, I find it puzzling and ironic to read in the tripartite guidelines for hiring and developing a Singaporean Core that employers are advised, and I quote, "to ensure that jobs advertised must be open to Singaporeans". In most other countries, it will be taken for granted that locals should be considered first for jobs, and employers are expected to demonstrate that they had made a great effort to do so, before considering foreigners. Employers are also mandated to pay foreign workers the prevailing market salaries for locals so that the same occupational group, are not compressed by the presence of foreigners in the workplace who are willing to take less for their work. Many other countries even require employers to comply with dependency ratios for nationally strategic sectors, such as banking in Dubai.
So, for a start, I urge the Minister to consider including a broad statement of principles in the EP framework designed to send a strong signal to employers regarding their obligations and responsibilities in developing a strong Singapore Core in the workforce. This is to ensure that the access to foreign executives does not result in Singaporeans being adversely impacted in job opportunities. With this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I reiterate, once more, my support for the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the Chairman of the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF), NTUC Migrant Worker's Centre (MWC). As Chairman of the MWC, I speak for the organisation and the thousands of migrant workers out there when I say that we welcome these amendments.
The MWC was set up in 2009 as a bipartite initiative by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF). MWC aims to champion fair employment practices and the well-being of the migrant workers in Singapore for sustainable growth by doing the following: promoting equitable employment practices; raising awareness of the migrant workers' employment rights; providing interim humanitarian assistance and aid for distressed migrant workers working in Singapore. And, more importantly, to promote social integration among the migrant workers and their co-workers who are the locals.
Page: 762
Our goal as a labour organisation is to show compassion to those who have left their homelands in search of a better life here in Singapore and in doing so, contribute to our economy as well as national development. MWC, through its humanitarian efforts, helps maintain Singapore's position as a desirable destination for migrant workers around the region and enable us as a nation dependent on such labour to thrive.
Apart from advocating migrant rights, we have also put our mission into action. For example, we set up a Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund recently to fund the humanitarian activities so as to sustain such an effort. Not only do we give migrant workers an avenue to seek recourse against errant practices, our interventions also help the worker to stay the course and allow authorities time to investigate and prosecute in cases of wrongdoing. Since 2009, we have provided emergency housing and subsistence to more than 4,000 migrant workers who found themselves mistreated, abandoned or left without work by errant employers.
Sir, our migrant workers have left home and travelled far to work here to support their families. It is not an easy life and we, as Singaporeans, must show compassion. For those among us who game the system and abuse labour rights, MWC has long advocated for MOM to step up enforcement of all the recently tightened manpower legislation. And we are happy that the protection for migrant workers' rights has improved considerably in these renewed laws.
The amendments to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will send a strong message that offences that were traditionally considered administrative or technical breaches are now, in fact, criminal ones. These breaches bring real harm to people and wreck lives in the process and should rightfully attract criminal sanctions. MWC is also pleased that MOM has heeded its repeated call to step up enforcement activities to make headway in weeding out malpractices by the errant employers, intermediaries and workers themselves.
The new regulations will better clarify the true social and economic cost of hiring migrant workers. Singaporeans would then benefit as they will not have to compete unfairly with "cut-price" migrant workers.
Moving forward, more importantly, we need to address the issue at root. Quality is the key. I would repeat my call to the Ministry of Manpower to consider the WSQ skills certification, or a better way of skills qualification, as a pre-condition for the renewal and application of Work Permits. We need a benchmark. The Ministry of Manpower can also consider tying the application of Work Permit to the employment of local older workers. We believe that a qualified and better skilled worker is not only more productive, he is also easier to train and integrate, and is less likely to come saddled with huge agency fees or false educational qualifications. And these better ones should be allowed to stay longer and work here for more years. That will also further cut down costs.
Page: 763
As the authorities take new steps to address errant employers and intermediaries, more should also be done to deter and prevent workers who do not meet the job requirements to enter and work in Singapore. MOM should review these requirements regularly to ensure that we are constantly moving towards a workforce augmented by migrant "knowledge-workers", "skilled-workers" and not just low-skilled or illegal workers. These not only compete unfairly against Singaporeans because of their low cost, they are also the most prone to abuse.
I urge MOM to seriously consider basic qualifying criteria for all migrant Work Pass (WP) holders. WSQ can be one framework and should be made a qualifying standard wherever applicable, given that it is already the basic qualification proxy for Singaporeans, in addition to being a nationally recognised, objective standard administered by the Government. So, why not?
Sir, another area that should be reviewed is that of employers' responsibility of foreign workers' medical expenses. Under the proposed amendment to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers are not allowed to recover cost such as insurance or foreign worker levy from the foreign workers, but it is more critical to ensure that all employers will provide sufficient medical coverage for their workers. MOM should come out with clearer and more specific guidelines on this.
At the end of the day, we bring in the foreign manpower to supplement our manpower shortage. It is important that we create a level playing field by ensuring that employers do pay the right cost to employ a migrant worker. In addition to the regularly strengthening of the legislative protection, I would also like to urge MOM to consider providing more support to labour organisation like MWC. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill which will help to better manage the growth of foreign manpower and to introduce a suite of deterrent measures against errant employers who flout the work pass framework. As we undertake to better manage the inflow of foreign manpower, it is also imperative that we have more robust counter measures to mitigate against the unwanted social impacts and ensure our foreign manpower is fairly treated.
Page: 764
I am heartened to note that some of the penalties will be further enhanced in this amendment Bill. The penalty for the illegal hire of a foreign worker without a valid work pass will see an increase of fine amounts from $5,000 to $20,000 and jail term increased from one to two years. Notwithstanding, there are improvements which can be made in the work pass system to address the root cause of the problem. I am referring here to the greed of employers who embark on hiring illegal foreign manpower merely to save on costs.
I would like to highlight the reported case where two years ago, an employer left his foreign employee by the road when the latter suffered a fall and injured his head and legs. All these were sustained in the course of work whilst at a condominium lobby fixing the ceiling lights. It is tragic to note that he was not sent to the hospital for treatment as the employer was fearful of being apprehended for hiring illegally. The errant employer has since been sentenced to a fine of $12,000 and nine months' jail. The punishment is pale in comparison with the loss of a human life. This begs the question of whether the more punitive measures will be fully effective and adequate in eradicating these heartless employers.
More often than not, foreign workers usually enter into an inequitable arrangement with the employers due to the huge debts they owe to foreign labour agencies merely to get a job and work in Singapore. With the further tightening of foreign labour quotas for various sectors, I am concerned about whether our enforcement efforts will be stepped up to wield the strong arm of the law against unscrupulous employers and labour agents. I would like to submit that we should close the loop tighter, in terms of developing a more comprehensive solution, in addressing the problem of illegal foreign workers, their upkeep and any potential issues as highlighted above.
At present, there is no restriction on the number of foreign labour supply agencies as long as they are registered with the Ministry of Manpower. However, this does not mean that these agencies will not go into illegal hiring or, worse still, turn out to be shell companies which just pocket the agency fees of the foreign workers. I would like to urge the Ministry of Manpower to take a stricter view and set a quota on the number of labour supply agencies for each economic sector and that there should be regular audits carried out of their employment practices. The owners of the employment agencies should also meet essential requirements such as a sound background, appropriate qualifications/training and experience. The quality of hiring and adherence to work pass framework can then be better ensured. There should also be better supervision of employees of the labour suppliers and agencies to ensure that both owners and their employees adopt proper hiring strategies in compliance with current laws, regulations, tripartite guidelines and practices.
While punitive measures against errant employers will be introduced, the onus of proof is challenging. A certain portion of foreign workers only receive their salary in cash. There may not be any salary or pay slips issued to the workers. At the same time, employers may threaten to terminate these workers if they would report to the authorities about underpayment or working overtime without payment. As mentioned earlier, these foreign workers may still be owing thousands of dollars to employment agencies even before coming over to Singapore. They would not want to risk their jobs. We do not know how many of such cases there are. Salary arrears or tracking can be difficult for foreign workers who are sometimes illiterate. These are complex issues that will be faced in the enforcement of the law. Employers can also claim that the salary deductions are legitimate and within the boundaries of the law.
Page: 765
Another area of concern is about the re-categorisation of the penalty regime into criminal offences and regulatory breaches in the amendment Bill. While I understand that the rationale is to achieve greater expediency with the outstanding cases, we ought to be careful with the signalling effect to the employers. Does it mean that those categories of offences under regulatory breaches which do not cause direct harm to foreign workers be seen to be settled with ease and treated with less rigour? For example, the inflation of foreign worker quota is listed as an administrative breach. This could have serious implications as any additional foreign worker hired is depriving our citizens a job opportunity. Many Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs) have shared with me about their worries of their jobs being displaced in a restructuring exercise when it turns out that employers have decided to replace them with S Pass holders or EP holders. What is even more difficult to ascertain than a foreign worker quota is the actual job scope that the foreign workers are tasked with. For example, an S Pass holder may be delegated jobs that are executive in nature while still holding on technical responsibilities. Here, we would have lost two jobs which could have been filled with Singaporeans.
Fair wages for foreign workers is another important issue that is not addressed in the Amendment Bill. If employers are the critical link in this process, we ought to carry out a deeper cost-benefit analysis in hiring foreign workers. Let us face this – the levies, training, food and accommodation paid to upkeep a foreign worker in Singapore has a direct correlation to the final wages that they are paid. This, in turn, provides a direct comparison point in hiring a Singaporean. If the wages paid to foreign workers are too low, they are tempted to flout the law in taking on more jobs illegally. They may not be able to have enough to survive in Singapore. We should not earn the unwanted reputation of being a sweatshop bent on exploiting foreign workers. Would it be possible for the Ministry of Manpower to collate and publish data on how foreign workers are paid in Singapore in different economic sectors?
Fair sustainable wages for foreign workers are also in reality determined by the employers' ability to pay them. In the application process for foreign workers' permits, there should be closer scrutiny by the Ministry of Manpower on the financial situation of these applicant companies. If a company's revenue streams are vulnerable and at the same time it has incurred huge debts, the foreign workers that it is seeking would definitely be left in the lurch when the company collapses or when the business fails. Hence, there should be tighter financial screening as well as criteria established. Maybe we can even have a situation where the approval of Work Permits is not just based on the sectoral quota but also the market capitalisation of the company.
Page: 766
On regulating the inflow of EP holders, I share and second the hon Member Ms Foo Mee Har's earlier point on the Singaporean first approach for PME jobs. Ms Foo is herself an employer in the global banking giant. I am heartened she shares the same views as me − a trade unionist.
To conclude, I welcome the measures introduced in the amendment Bill. Nonetheless, I would also like to urge more efforts be put into resolving fundamental issues such as effective enforcement against errant employers, control of foreign labour agents and fair sustainable wages for foreign workers.
Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me at the last minute to raise some questions. Personally, I support this Bill. However, I would like to find out from the Minister how many cases of forgery have actually been uncovered each year by MOM regarding S Pass and EP applicants.
Secondly, what makes me puzzled is why can there not be a system whereby people can make a check first, before the foreign workers are allowed in? I notice that under the current system, the foreign workers are allowed in first, and then we verify, and we set up enforcement teams to "catch" them. So, my question is: can there not be a check first, even before they are allowed into Singapore?
Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this motion as the Bill serves to further enhance the Ministry's investigatory powers and introduces a more calibrated approach towards addressing the various offences committed by employers of foreign workers. While changes to the Bill are intended to have a systemic impact on foreign worker issues, I support the call by my fellow Parliamentarians to urge MOM to give a sharper focus on some details of the intended changes in order to prevent any possible loopholes that may be exploited by employers to the point that the impact or outcome desired by introducing these amendments are negated. As the saying goes, "The devil is in the detail".
Sir, we have to be mindful that when measures or laws are introduced in order to tighten certain processes in the hiring of foreign workers, some employers and syndicates get creative and try to find ways to get around the laws. The law has to try and pre-empt these creative tactics and stay several steps ahead of these perpetrators. Where it is not possible to do so, then tough measures will have to be taken in order to ensure that there is some sense of equity and that law abiding companies and the Singapore workers at large are not placed at a disadvantage.
Page: 767
Sir, I support the move that requires employers to pay S Pass holders fixed monthly salaries that are not below the threshold set. There have been cases where employers put up applications for S Pass holders with salaries that appeared to meet the basic requirements but, in reality, these are not the true wages paid by the employer. A union leader shared with me a story where his employer declared that they were paying an S Pass holder more than $2,000 but in effect the worker was getting a much lesser income. The shift allowance was added to top up the difference to meet the S Pass qualifying income criteria despite this worker not working under shift. This is an abuse of the system as it puts other law-abiding companies at a disadvantage and it leads to an imbalance of opportunities for Singaporean job seekers as it deprives them of job opportunities in the company. We do not want to create a situation where the loophole makes it more compelling for an employer to engage an S Pass holder over a Singaporean with the same skill sets and qualifications just because it is cheaper for them to do so.
Sir, I would thus like to call for a system where employers have to clearly state the breakdown of the salary of their S Pass workers so that there is clarity on their basic wage and how much is being paid for other allowances. Currently, the law requires S Pass holders to earn at least $2,000 without specifying whether the salary is indeed $2,000 or the gross payment made to the S Pass holders is $2,000. There must be greater clarity on what the salary requirement entails at the point of application for S Pass holders.
On another aspect of salaries, Sir, I would like the Ministry to consider making it mandatory for all employers to pay the salaries of work permit holders via GIRO. This would help to protect these workers if there are salary disputes as there will be official paper trail that keeps track of what has been paid and when. Making this mandatory will help facilitate investigations for such disputes and will establish the facts of the case more clearly and conclusively.
Moreover, a mandatory salary payment through GIRO would mean that employers have to help our foreign workers open a bank account. Many cannot open a bank account because their employers are holding on to their passports. We, the union, have received feedback from our foreign worker members that without a bank account, they do not have a safe place to keep their hard-earned income and risk it being stolen at their dormitories. Making salary payments through GIRO mandatory will help alleviate some of these problems faced by foreign workers.
Sir, I would also like to highlight the issue of accommodation for foreign workers where there have been many contraventions. In 2001, a total of 1,069 employers had either been given warning letters, or offered composition fines, or convicted for their failure to provide proper accommodation for their foreign workers. Between January and June this year, there have been 531 similar cases of unacceptable accommodation which takes the form of makeshift shelters, bin centres and illegally converted factory premises.
Page: 768
Sir, there are 702,000 Work Permit holders of the 1.15 million foreign workers, but only 300 dormitories for foreign workers. The remaining Work Permit holders are probably housed in workers' quarters, private housing estates or through the HDB flats, some of which may be illegally sublet. Recently, a foreign worker cleaning supervisor shared with me that in the place where he is putting up, there are nine workers sharing a 3-room HDB flat and the number can go up to 15 people.
Sir, some of these practices may not be legal but the employer may decide to risk it due to the difficulty in securing accommodation for the workers. The onus is on the employer to provide accommodation for their workers and ideally, of course, we would want all of them to follow the laws, but in order for this to happen, there must be more land space provided by the Government for more dormitories to be built. Many employers face problems securing apartments for their workers as it is difficult for them to rent private apartments, and even those who manage to do so may face complaints from neighbours. Sir, I support the Motion.
Sir, I thank all the Members who have given their views and voiced support for the Bill. Members have recognised the rationale of these amendments and understand that ultimately, it is the interests of Singaporeans that are at stake here. Honest business owners will be disadvantaged and Singaporean workers will ultimately lose out if we do not take these steps.
Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Dhinakaran, Mr David Ong, Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Mr Teo Siong Seng and Ms Tan Su Shan commented on our broader manpower policies, particularly in relation to the tightening of our foreign manpower framework. This is important. We have debated it on various occasions. And some Members have also called for more to be done to encourage and equip locals to take up jobs in industries with many foreigners. So, these are important. We have discussed it on various occasions, as well as with the public. We will examine them closely and deal with them. However, as they are not the subject of this Bill, I will focus on addressing the specific comments and concerns which are directly related to the amendments and enforcement of the EFMA contraventions.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef had queried how widespread these malpractices are. It is difficult to ascertain the exact extent of some of these problems − because employers and sometimes workers themselves reap immediate benefits in not complaining. However, we anticipate that the imposition of foreign labour tightening measures will tempt errant employers to try harder to circumvent the work pass framework. We are fully aware that this can happen, and it will happen. Thus, in proposing these amendments to the EFMA, the Ministry of Manpower has moved to pre-emptively deter more widespread contraventions. We will constantly track how the situation evolves and if need be, to make future adjustments.
Page: 769
Now, allow me to summarise the concerns and questions that have been raised about the details of the proposed amendments to the EFMA. On one hand, some Members feel that more needs to be done to protect vulnerable workers, and raised concerns that the proposed changes might be construed as going soft on errant employers, or that certain proposals might penalise too harshly workers who are coerced, or have committed offences inadvertently. Conversely, other Members have also raised concerns that these measures will add to the challenges that businesses, notably SMEs, are already facing in operating in a tight labour market with rising business costs.
Finally, Members called for concerted efforts to be made in stepping up enforcement in order to give real teeth to these legislative amendments. As you can see, there are, as with all cases, divergent tensions. There are different interests and they are all valid in their own ways. We have to figure out how best to navigate that space.
Let me first address the broad group of comments that more should be done to protect vulnerable workers and related questions on our treatment of culpable but inherently vulnerable workers. Let me first make some general comments. Do abuses exist? They do. In fact, we could swap stories. They are all fairly dramatic in their own right. What is consistent is that they are all unacceptable. The reality is not all the stories are always wholly accurate. Even in our own internal investigations, certain issues arise and we will try to probe and sometimes, we will unravel details which fundamentally change the context and the feel of those issues.
The fact is abuses do occur but stories amplified are not necessarily wholly accurate. Nor do they make the problem chronic, meaning that most Singaporean employers are fair and reasonable. Just because there are abuses and dramatised in many ways and sometimes accurately as well, do not make our Singaporean employers unreasonable, unfair and abusive.
In our efforts to look after our foreign workers – which is the correct thing to do – we should not at the same time paint an inaccurate picture of our businesses in Singapore as well. We will deal with all cases put before us. Over time, we have also realised that not for a lack of desire but if the laws and regulations do not permit certain actions to be taken, we would have to figure out how to get round that. So, hence, the adjustments and amendments to this Bill to make sure that some of these gaps that might have existed in the past are breached so that we can continue to make sure that the appropriate actions can be taken.
Page: 770
Mr Patrick Tay was wary that we might send the wrong signal to errant employers by choosing to enforce certain infringements under the new administrative penalty regime, notably the use of phantom local workers to inflate the quota for foreign workers. As I said earlier, we are by no means softening our approach. Since most employers who use local phantom workers are seeking to bypass the work pass framework for economic gain, we should hit them quickly and hard where it hurts most − which is in their pockets. With the new regime, enforcement will be swifter and financial penalties will be high enough to disgorge their illegal profits and hence, deter employers from such wrongdoings. The adjustment from just purely a criminal route to an administrative route is not about efficiency, it is about making sure that these moves are effective.
One example of how the administrative penalty regime will help us enforce against errant employers relates to a point by Mrs Lina Chiam. She asked my Ministry to do more to prevent salary collusion between EP holders and their employers. Indeed, under the new administrative penalty regime, the inaccurate or erroneous submission of information, such as salaries, is punishable by an administrative financial penalty of up to $20,000. Under the employment of foreign manpower regulations, we will also make it an infringement if employers reduce the salaries of the S Pass and EP holders without submitting a request for re-assessment of their work pass eligibility to the Controller of work passes. This infringement will be punishable by an administrative financial penalty of up to $10,000 per infringement.
As several Members have also pointed out, many foreign workers do pay high fees to secure jobs in Singapore. These fees typically consist of: (1) fees paid to agents in their home countries, some of whom may have given them false promises about their employment terms here; (2) fees to Singapore employment agencies; and (3) possible kickbacks to the employers themselves.
In this Bill, we have introduced a standalone provision against a collection of such employment kickbacks with increased penalties of up to a maximum fine of $30,000, or a maximum imprisonment of two years, or both.
In response to Ms Tan Su Shan's concern about uncovering such kickbacks, we have created a clause that any employer collecting monies from workers will be presumed to be taking a kickback, unless he can show that the collection was conducted legally and that they have valid grounds for it. Also, let me clarify that my Ministry does not restrict Work Permits to just one year.
Mr David Ong and Ms Foo Mee Har have also called for measures to encourage workers to whistle blow on employers who contravene the EFMA. Whistle blowing would play an important part in uncovering some of these cases, and this is certainly an area in which we are working out the details.
Page: 771
Mr David Ong and Mr Patrick Tay also raised pertinent points on issues related to the role of employment agencies in the recruitment process. Sir, we recently conducted a fairly fundamental review of the Employment Agencies Act and effected the changes in April last year. One of the key initiatives was to curb the excessive charging of fees by Singaporean agencies to the worker. Fees are now limited to no more than one month of his salary for each year of the duration of the approved work pass or employment contract, whichever is shorter, subject to a maximum of two months' salary. Local employment agencies are also prohibited from abetting or taking employment kickbacks, and the earlier measures described will kick in if this happens.
However, a significant part of what foreign workers pay is actually paid in their home country. I think it is difficult for us to extend our jurisdiction upstream into those countries. We cannot police the recruitment practices of foreign employment agencies outside our jurisdiction who are responding to the demand by their countrymen to come to work in Singapore. What we can do – and what we can try to do better and to do well – is to make sure that we get our act right in Singapore.
Reducing the number of work permits or guaranteeing the length of employment of a foreign worker, as suggested by some Members, will have the contrary effect of raising the value of a work permit and result in foreign workers being willing to pay their home agencies even higher fees. We will continue to work closely with foreign embassies and relevant Ministries in labour-sending countries to eliminate recruitment malpractices and improve the recruitment process. We do know of these problems. As I mentioned earlier, there are jurisdiction limitations but it does not stop us from continuing to work with some of these countries to see what else we could do.
Mr Patrick Tay suggested stepping up enforcement against employers who illegally employ foreign workers. Under section 5 of the Bill, MOM is increasing the penalties for the illegal employment of foreign workers.
I noted Mr Hri Kumar's concern that the maximum imprisonment of two years for foreign workers who work without a valid work pass is longer than that of a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months for employers who illegally employ foreign workers. I share his concern at face value, if we were to look at it from that perspective. However, I think it is important to look at the discussion in context. The courts have thus far typically awarded fines only and not jail terms for illegal employment offences, regardless of whether they were committed by employers of foreign workers. That is what happening presently. In any case, we should view these proposed penalties holistically. The penalties for illegally employed workers and employers who hire them differ in several ways. For employers who illegally employ foreign workers, we will impose a mandatory minimum fine of $5,000 per charge on first-time offenders and the mandatory minimum fine of $10,000, again, per charge plus a minimum imprisonment term of one month on repeat offenders. There are no corresponding minimum fines or imprisonment terms for foreign workers. Further, employers who employ more than one illegal foreign worker would potentially face multiple charges and therefore be subject to heftier total penalties.
Page: 772
Mr Hri Kumar further pointed out that some illegally employed workers might, in fact, be victims of human trafficking. I fully acknowledge his concerns. However, the possibility that some of them might be innocent victims should not lead to a lax enforcement approach towards all foreigners trying to work here illegally. Rather, the approach that my Ministry and the Ministry of Home Affairs have adopted under the National Plan of Action against Trafficking of Persons is to put in place procedures to identify victims who have been coerced or deceived into false labour situations. Labour trafficking victims will not be prosecuted as illegal workers. Under the national plan, we also intend to take appropriate action against those who are found guilty of offences that amount to trafficking in persons.
Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang expressed hopes that these proposed amendments would address common problems faced by foreign workers such as medical coverage for foreigners who do not enjoy any of the healthcare subsidies that are given to local workers.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also sought clarity on whether it is acceptable to make deductions from workers' salaries for the cost of medical treatment. The work pass conditions currently already impose requirements on employers, including provisions on ensuring acceptable accommodation, the prompt payment of salary, the provision of medical treatment and ensuring the safety and health of the workers at work. To answer Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef's queries specifically, arrangements for foreign workers to pay part of their medical bills are only allowed for employers of non-domestic foreign workers. Businesses that wish to have such arrangements for their employees' medical costs may do so provided that the part of the medical cost to be paid by the foreign worker is only for costs that have exceeded the minimum $15,000 mandatory medical insurance coverage. Under these amendments, the penalties for contravening the work pass conditions will be increased to a maximum fine of $10,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months or both. We will continue to take to task employers who are remiss in their obligations.
Ms Tan Su Shan also questioned the supposed disparity between the penalties for the submission of forged educational certificates by foreign workers and falsification of documents by employers. To clarify, there is no disparity. The penalty for the former is a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of two years or both. Under the increased penalties for section 22(1)(d), the provision of false information to the Controller of Work Passes, employers who falsify documents will likewise be subject to a maximum fine of $20,000 or a maximum imprisonment of two years or both.
Page: 773
Mr Hri Kumar had concerns that the introduction of the presumption clause for forged educational certificates will make it too easy to convict foreign workers, particularly since they are less likely to be informed about their obligations or might feel compelled to go along with their employers or agents who falsify documents. It is really about recognition of the imbalance in their relationship. I think that is a fair concern. But as a matter of principle, I think we all agree that any party who submits any application declaring certain facts about himself or herself to the Government should also at the same time bear responsibility to its contents. Errant foreign workers have been known to submit forged educational certificates to circumvent S Pass and EP controls or collude with foreign employment agencies in their home countries to submit forged certificates and subsequently feign ignorance.
In response to Mr Gan Thiam Poh's point, we investigated about 300 such cases last year. We have encountered many cases where workers denied that they signed the application form or claimed that they signed blindly without knowing the contents of the form. Such a defence is easy to raise but it is very difficult to rebut as ultimately the knowledge lies in the mind of the beholder. For example, we had a case last year where a worker was actually acquitted despite confessing that he knew that the forged certificate had been prepared by his agent. His defence was that he was unaware that the forged certificate was part of the stack of supporting documents for his S Pass application that he had, in fact, personally submitted to the Ministry.
Sir, such cases amply demonstrate the need for a presumption clause. An innocent worker can rebut the presumption by showing on a balance of probabilities that he was duped or intentionally kept in the dark on the submission of the forged qualifications. So, please, do be assured that my Ministry will exercise judgement in assessing any worker's defence to ensure that no truly innocent worker is unfairly prosecuted as a result of this presumption. To ensure that workers are cognisant of their responsibilities, my Ministry has put up signs at the Work Pass Services Centre in native languages warning workers not to put their signatures to forged educational certificates and assuring workers that no action will be taken against them if they report the forged certification abuses by their employment agencies or employers to MOM officers immediately.
Let me address the concerns raised by various Members, including Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Dhinakaran, Mr David Ong, Mr Teo Siong Seng and Ms Tan Su Shan that as MOM steps up enforcement against EFMA contraventions, employers, especially SME employers, may find it more challenging to operate. I would like to emphasise that none – and I repeat – none of the measures in this Bill are aimed at increasing the duties of honest employers which make up the bulk of all employers. In fact, our measures are aimed at helping to make sure that we level the playing field for law-abiding employers by penalising unscrupulous competitors who under-cut costs by bypassing the work pass framework.
Page: 774
Mr Kumar has sought greater clarity on the circumstances under which an associate would be debarred and raise concerns that such a broad definition of the term "associate" may result in people with little connection to the debarred person being caught. Our target is offenders who circumvent debarment by using associates that re-employed foreign workers on their behalf. If we try to be too narrow or prescriptive in our definition of "associates", offenders easily and very easily resurrect their businesses and continue to employ the foreign workers. This will make a mockery of our penalties.
Let me share some real cases to illustrate. A cleaning company and its HR manager were both charged for making false declarations to the Controller and were thus debarred from hiring foreign workers. The HR manager's husband was a manager in the original company, proceeded to set up a new company. This new company was identical to the original company in all material respects – same management, same services and even same cleaning equipment and actually the same foreign workers – just under a different name.
In another case, shortly after a seafood restaurant was debarred from hiring foreign workers, we found that a new seafood company, with a strikingly similar name, had been set up. It had put in applications for work passes, relying on foreign quota obtained by CPF contributions to several local workers, of which two were directors from the original seafood company. Both companies shared the same registered address. When my officers visited the address, the signboard of the original seafood restaurant was still there. So, they did not even change the signboard. The workers were even wearing the old uniforms. Everything was new in name only. These things happen. I think that is where we realise over time that in certain cases, you will find that sometimes, when incidents are reported, we were not always able to proceed and prosecute effectively because in the regulations and laws, we did not have all the space available for us to move accordingly, hence the amendments to this Bill.
So, in short, debarred persons have exercised high levels of creativity in the past to get round our debarment rules and I am sure they will be exercising their creativity, going forward. But because we can expect that they will just continue along this path, we have sought a wider berth for the Controller in this instance. If we leave exploitable loopholes, we will really risk undermining the effectiveness of our enforcement efforts and deterrent measures. The amendments in this Bill are not just about amending the Bill itself, but to facilitate enforcement. In fact, other Members have highlighted that my Ministry should increase the rigour of its upstream checks to better regulate which businesses are allowed to bring in foreign workers.
Page: 775
Mr Patrick Tay suggested that MOM consider issuing work passes to businesses based on assessment of their market capitalisation to ensure that only financially viable businesses are allowed to employ foreign workers. I appreciate Mr Tay's intent and would like to clarify that we already require construction and marine companies to show documentary proof that they have on-going projects before work passes are issued.
Mr Zainudin Nordin, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Dhinakaran, Ms Foo Mee Har, Ms Tan Su Shan and Mr David Ong have also highlighted that our proposed amendments to the EFMA must commensurate with downstream enforcement efforts. I agree, and MOM is committed to doing so. As I mentioned earlier, Commissioners for Foreign Manpower will now have the powers to order administrative, financial penalties, debar employers from hiring foreign workers and impose directions on employers. Such directions to remedy, mitigate or eliminate any effects of any infringement will include compensating workers when their employers recover employment costs, like levies, from them. Failure to comply with the Commissioner's directions will be a prosecutable offence, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 or to a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, or to both.
Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Christopher de Souza wanted assurance that more will be done pertaining to the management of foreign workers being housed in unacceptable accommodation. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef also noted that enforcement efforts should not be carried out in isolation. I fully agree that Government agencies should not work in silo and we do not. There is close coordination between the relevant Government agencies, and MOM frequently conducts joint inspections with agencies, such as the Singapore Police Force, ICA, CNB, NEA, SCDF and URA on foreign worker housing, immigration as well as employment-related offences. I, myself, have been to a number of these inspections. And Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef might be pleased to note that as a result of her complaints on some of the potential unacceptable housing in the Geylang area, I have been down to check the appropriate establishments in the area to make sure these actions are carried out appropriately.
In 2011, MOM conducted about 3,000 inspections, including close to 800 inspections of premises were used as foreign worker housing, to enforce against breaches of our work pass rules. These efforts have shown results. In 2009, enforcement action was taken against 1,800 employers for housing their workers in unacceptable conditions.
In 2011, the number of employers taken to task was 1,000. The number of foreign workers relocated by MOM out of unacceptable accommodation into proper housing has also fallen from 18,800 in 2009, to 8,000 in 2011. We will continue our efforts to facilitate acceptable accommodation for foreign workers.
Mr Dhinakaran called for the expediting of investigations to reduce the length of stay of workers who are kept in Singapore as prosecution witnesses. In fact, with the enforcement of prescribed infringement under the new administrative penalty regime, cases will be concluded more swiftly and workers will be able to return home earlier. Non-culpable workers who remain can avail themselves of our temporary job scheme or find a new employer.
Page: 776
Even as we seek to achieve more expeditious and effective enforcement against contraventions, I agree with Mr Zainudin Nordin and Mr Hri Kumar that we should not compromise fairness for the sake of expediency. The new administrative penalty regime that MOM will put in place will have appropriate safeguards to ensure that the infringer is not denied his fundamental right to be heard and that natural justice is upheld. The infringer would be made aware of the case and evidence against him, and he would be given ample opportunity to respond. The infringer would also be able to appeal against the Commissioner's decision, should he also choose. Such appeals would be entertained and would be directed to an Appeal Board which would consist of three members and be chaired by a person qualified to be a judge of the Supreme Court and legal representation would be allowed there.
Some suggestions made by Mr Dhinakaran and Mr Patrick Tay to facilitate the compliance and enforcement of the law, including mandatory salary pay slips for foreign workers so as to keep them informed of the actual salary components and authorised salary deductions. Mr Zainal Sapari further suggested making it mandatory for work permit holders to be paid via GIRO to facilitate investigations of salary cases. These are useful suggestions and we will take them on board.
I agree with Mr Dhinakaran, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Hri Kumar that we need to inform foreign workers of their legal rights and responsibilities, changes to the law, avenues for redress or the procedures for reporting of abuse. We have indeed stepped up publicity targeted at foreign workers. To empower workers to make informed decisions about working in Singapore, my Ministry revised the in-principle approval letter for work permit holders last year to include key employment terms and translated all these letters into the workers' native languages. My Ministry has also piloted pre-departure briefings in BCA's overseas test centres in workers' home countries such as China, India and Bangladesh. We will also reach out to foreign workers with these messages through various channels when they are in Singapore, including a foreign worker handy guide and a foreign worker newsletter, and through road shows held in worker dormitories and areas where they frequently congregate. We will be quite happy to entertain further suggestions and ideas about how we could do this better.
Sir, I believe that this Bill will allow us to step up enforcement against the circumventions of our work pass framework, whilst adopting what we believe is a balanced and calibrated approach for the various parties. I want to assure Asst Prof Eugene Tan that we are concurrently undertaking a separate review of this same Act to ensure an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers. Let me emphasise again that these amendments are really targeted at employers who are irresponsible and who are abusing the system. The majority of employers can look forward to this Act in terms of protecting them and to making sure that the playing field is level for all.
Page: 777
I would like to conclude by echoing Mr David Ong's sentiment that these amendments should be seen in the context of all our efforts to build a big-hearted society that shows graciousness and respect for fellow human beings, whether they are local or foreign. Once again, I thank Members of the House for all their suggestions and input, and for their support of this Bill.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Tan Chuan-Jin].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 777
PAPERCUTS