Workplace Fairness Bill

I thank Mr Saktiandi and applaud him for his optimism. We have not passed the Bill today, yet. But assuming that we can get all Members' support today, we envisage that the second Bill will come sometime in the second half of this year. We should get the Bill implemented by 2026/2027.

Contemporaneously, we are tightening TAFEP. We are tightening TGFEP, because we need to ensure that it continues to support WFL well. At the same time, we have also committed to reasonable accommodations, how we want to step up education efforts, grievance handling and so on and so forth. So, there is a lot of work to be done and all that will move simultaneously so that by the time the Bill is up and fully implemented, all of the other supporting entities will be ready. I know that embedded in the Member's second question is that we will, indeed, be reviewing and, hopefully, increasing the resources of TAFEP. I will personally appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance for that.

Thank you for calling on me again, Mr Speaker. I missed out another clarification for the Minister pertaining to the Bill. I have asked some questions on clause 31. These are the administrative penalties. What is the range of the penalties that the Bill envisages, vis-a-vis, clause 31(A) to (I)?

The second clarification, pertaining to clause 31, again, is whether the Ministry intends for the companies that commit violations and are subject to administrative penalties, whether they will be named and if not named, at least the circumstances of their infractions made public so workers and employees alike would be educated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the first part, I ask for a bit of time for clause 31 for my team to revert. I have to admit, I am not a lawyer. So, I am waiting for the explanation to come. But broadly, the administrative penalties will be prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.

With regard to naming, what we intend to do is that for the breaches, our first approach is to engage them and provide an education first approach. Because our basic intention is that, thus far, it has worked well for us. I do not think that a particular employer would have intended or set it up to discriminate, unless they are very egregious. In which case, then, there will be the administrative and, on top of that, there will be the civil penalties.

But what we intend to do is engage them, educate them, point them to the right resources, the help and to see how we can also help them and educate them. If we are not able to get them beyond that, then obviously, we will blacklist them as a last resort, put it up in the public. But, thus far, from our past experiences, each time when TAFEP engages the companies, they have been very, very understanding and they have been very compliant. I hope that gives the Member that reassurance.

I thank the Minister for his very extensive replies to all the questions that have been raised, including my own. I just have one very brief question for the Minister. Does the Ministry have a window of time in mind, after which it will review the definition of the protected characteristic of sex, as it is set out in clauses 8C and 10?

We have plans to review. For the time itself, we need to cross the bridge first and, after crossing the bridge, work out the rest of the subsidiary legislations. Post-implementation, we can have greater clarity before we can commit to a particular timeline. But the reassurance that I want to share with Ms Usha is that we will constantly review. We will constantly improve on the framework. I am sure that given the universal huge amount of interest in this particular Bill, I am sure we will be kept on our toes.

Mr Speaker, I would just like to reiterate my clarification because the Minister did not really answer my question. So, I would just like to confirm that the MOM has not done any study into under-employment? Two, the MOM has also not —

Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I do not intend to interrupt, but I have already made it clear. For the record, I hope that this would be the last point. We are working with the International Labour Organization on the under-employment data.

When it is ready, we will release the results. So, can we please focus on the Bill.

Yes, yes. So, the Minister also denied that the effect of immigration has not altered his conclusion on the PME ratio that he had raised? Does the Minister understand my question? Because the PME ratio is not a pure ratio.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I thought you told me to sit down. I did not respond because I do not see how it is relevant to our debate on WFL today. If Mr Leong Mun Wai has a separate PQ, as how Mr Speaker has also appropriately advised, he can file a PQ. MOM will never step away from answering his PQ.