MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT - ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1978 TO 31ST MARCH, 1979
Sir, the exercise on consolidation of 1973-77 NWC allowances into the salary scales has caused great concern especially among Division II, III and IV officers. The Public Employee headlines in January 1978, screamed, and I quote: 'Salary scales extended, disparity in incremental rates ...... AUPE calls for meeting with Finance Ministry to resolve problems.' There should not have been problems in the first place if the Union was consulted and the salaries consolidation worked out sensibly. In February 1978, the Public Employee again headlined on the same subject: "AUPE makes proposals to Ministry of Finance to rectify anomalies." Does the Ministry of Finance not realise that good industrial relations means discussions and sorting out matters with the unions before implementation? If this had been done, there would have been no anomalies. What are the anomalies? When will they be corrected? The nature and principles of consolidation as outlined by the Ministry of Finance and I quote a letter dated 31st October, 1977 from the Ministry: 'The new consolidated scales compromise such gross salary points rounded up to give rational salary points and rates of increments.' This was further explained in the annexure to the letter: 'The new consolidated salary points comprise existing salary points plus the 1973-77 NWC allowances payable rounded up to the nearest multiple of $5 so as to give meaningful new salary points and incremental rates.' Unfortunately, Sir, here "meaningful" must have meant "with less meaning" because to the Division II, III and IV officers in that order, the meaning became more and more garbled. Most of the Division I officers had their salaries rounded up by a number and in multiples of $5 on consolidation whilst many Divisions II, III and IV officers had their salaries rounded down on consolidation. Injustice speaks loud but falls on deaf ears. My hope is, Sir, that the Hon. Minister will give the House the assurance that these anomalies are rectified with haste. Let the workers, the ones that have been unfairly treated, appreciate that a wrong can be righted. I have many documents in my possession that would further strengthen my case. But I am sure the Hon. Minister, being a just man, has been convinced by what I have already said and would take steps to correct the position in favour of those disadvantaged, after going much deeper into the matter. Sir, could I move to another area. On the 20th April, 1976, two almost similar circulars were issued to All Permanent Secretaries on the "Abolition of Acting Allowances in the Civil Service". One was signed by the Permanent Secretary (Prime Minister's Office) and the other by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Budget). The circular tediously outlined the cessation of the then going system of acting allowances with effect from 1st July 1976, and its gradual replacement by responsibility allowances, and the modification of grading appointments into departmental designations. Paragraph 7 of the circular states: 'it is recognised, however, that a number of appointments in the Civil Service in Divisions I, II and possibly III demand higher responsibilities from officers holding such appointments. These appointments demanding higher responsibilities will be considered and graded by a committee consisting of PS (PMO), PS (Finance) (Budget) and Secretary, PSC representing the Commission, and the list of such appointments will be submitted to the PSC for approval and published in the Government gazette.' After some years to study, the Responsibility Allowance Circular was issued by Permanent Secretary (Finance) (Budget) dated 1st March, 1978, stating that with effect from 1st March, 1978, the very day that the circular was issued, the Responsibility Allowance System would be introduced and acting allowances would cease. Sir, the introduction of the Responsibility Allowance System meant a substantial loss in quantum of allowance as against the Acting Allowance system, although the job performed is exactly the same. From more than $200 per month, acting allowances dropped to $150 per month for Division I officers, $75 per month for Division II officers and $50 per month for Division III officers. Are these drastic reductions in allowances justifiable? Sir, in addition, officers will need to perform the duties of the approved responsibility appointment for 60 days or more. Acting allowances were paid when officers performed acting duties for two weeks or more. It must be stressed that duties performed remain unchanged. The only change is in terminology - "Acting" to "Responsibility". Where, Sir, is the justice? Then again, unsure of the circular issued on the 1st March, 1978, a further circular was issued on the 3rd March, 1978, by the Permanent Secretary (Prime Minister's Office) extending to Superscale Officers eligibility for a responsibility allowance of $150 per month if they are called upon to perform the duties of Permanent Secretaries. The earlier circular disallowed substantive Superscale Officers from obtaining the allowance. The latter circular also disallowed Division I officers on probation from qualifying for responsibility allowance payments. I do not wish to comment on the sudden changes in two short days to warrant the issue of a second circular, Sir. I leave that to your better judgment. I also believe Appendix A of the first circular lists out the approved responsibility appointments. Strangely enough, contrary to paragraph 7 of the circular dated 20th April, 1976, which I quoted earlier, there were no Division III officers and very few Division II officers on Appendix A. Could the Hon. Minister tell the House how many Divisions I, II and III officers are on Appendix A? Why are Divisions II and III officers being discriminated against? Sir, I would like now to speak on consumer protection. Safeguarding consumers from products that are dangerous or likely to injure health is a major area of consumer protection. A consumer safety policy boasts of the principal objects of ensuring that goods available to people present no undue risk; that people are warned about hazards they may find in products and advised on how to avoid them; and that unsafe goods can be withdrawn from sale or modified immediately. The main legislation dealing with consumer safety is the Consumer Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Minister to make regulations prescribing safety for any class of consumer goods where such action is considered to be expedient to prevent or reduce the risk of death or personal injury. Actual and potential risk pointed to the need for a general statutory power enabling the sale of hazardous goods to be prohibited. The Minister has still got to lay down safety requirements by means of statutory regulations. In addition to the Consumer Protection Act, the Medicines Act provides for the control of medicines throughout all stages of manufacture, import, storage and distribution. The Act introduced a comprehensive control of medicines based on safety, efficacy and quality. The Sale of Food Act, the Environmental Public Health Act, the Public Utilities Board Act, the Radiation Protection Act, and existing regulations to some of these Acts provide for consumer health and safety protection in their respective areas. As every consumer wants a safe product, safely designed, safely made and safe for use or consumption, a product minus all reasonable hazards to health and safety, and as Government wants to ensure that its people are guarded against unsafe and hazardous products, it is of vital importance to all concerned that consumer products presenting potential hazards be made as safe as is reasonably possible. As a matter of principle, consumers naturally desire and demand product safety. Manufacturers, in the wake of much consumer activism, cannot but overtly think about it and most times work towards achieving it, whilst Government supports it and where necessary, enforces it. There are, however, some grey areas in legislation for product safety in Singapore. This resulted in the formation of the Consumer Protection Co-ordinating Committee in May 1975, comprising the Director, Consumer Protection, in the chair and representatives from SISIR, the Department of Scientific Services (then the Chemistry Department), the Ministries of Health and the Environment, PUB, the Registry of Trade Marks and Patents and CASE. Consumer protection in product safety is a major in the Committee's terms of reference. However, the committee met but thrice, in June and October of 1975 and in February of 1976. As the committee is defunct, matters affecting the health and safety of consumers is being directed by CASE to what it considers the relevant Ministries that can assist. This, in addition to being time consuming, also posed problems of cost and areas of responsibility. There are at present many potentially dangerous products that need attention. Some of these were listed for the attention of the Consumer Protection Co-ordinating Committee but were kept in abeyance.