MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT - ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR - 1ST APRIL, 1980 TO 31ST MARCH, 1981
Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Buona Vista is correct that I did inform Parliament in 1979 that the Workmen's Compensation Act would be amended to provide for fairer compensation for injured workers and dependants of those who died. Since the Act was last revised in October 1975, the income of workers has risen substantially. Using NWC increases over these years, a worker with an income of $330 per month in 1975 would today be earning $470 per month, an increase of 42%. My Ministry is at the moment finalising the review of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the revision to the rates of compensation would take these factors into consideration. With regard to CPF insurance, two schemes are being considered at the moment. The first is in the form of life insurance and is designed to provide a lump sum income-related payment to the dependants of a CPF member if he dies while under the cover of such a scheme. The second is closely related to mortgage reducing insurance. The aim of this scheme is to provide those members who are using their CPF contributions to repay mortgages on their HDB, JTC and HUDC flats and houses an insurance cover such that their outstanding mortgages will be repaid if they die before discharging the mortgages. This will ensure that their dependants will not be deprived of a roof over their heads when the members die. These two schemes shall be administered by the CPF Board and the premia for such covers shall be payable from the members' CPF contributions. The Board has appointed a firm of consulting actuaries to carry out feasibility studies on the two schemes as well as to draft out the details. Officers of my Ministry and the CPF Board are working with the actuarial consultant to put the finishing touches to the scheme. When ready, they will be submitted to the Government for consideration. 3.15 p.m. I agree with the hon. Member for Alexandra that there is a need to revise the present wage coiling of $750 per month provided under the Employment Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Ministry is aware that over the years since the wage ceiling was last fixed in 1968 for the Employment Act, the wages of workers in Singapore have increased substantially. On the basis of NWC recommended wage increases alone, a worker earning $750 per month in 1972, prior to the introduction of NWC increases, would be enjoying a salary of about $1,399 per month in 1979. As I have said just now, we are finalising the review of the Workmen's Compensation Act and will be submitting the proposal on the revised wage ceiling, as well as other amendments, to the Government for consideration. But as for the Employment Act, a major review of the legislation is being made. The wage ceiling is among the amendments being considered. The views of the employers' organisations and trade unions will be sought before amendments are tabled in Parliament. Coming to the Member for Khe Bong, under the Central Provident Fund Act an employer must pay CPF contribution for his employees not later than 14 days after the end of the month; employers with a workforce of 500 or more are given up to 21 days to make the payment. In the case of employers of seamen on foreign-going ships, they are allowed one month and 14 days to make the payment. Any employer who fails to pay within the relevant period is liable to pay interest on the overdue contribution at the rate of 1 1/2% (and not 5% as stated by the Member for Khe Bong) or the sum of $5 whichever is higher. I think these prescribed periods for payment are reasonable. However, where employers have acceptable reasons for late payment, the liable interest could be waived in part or in full by the CPF Board. In the case cited by the Member for Khe Bong, had the cheque with the date written as "2-11-1980" been presented to the CPF Board, it would have been accepted and not returned to the employer for the date to be changed into the locally accepted form. In fact, American companies as well as some local employers had had their cheques accepted by the Board even though the dates on their cheques were not written in the locally acceptable form, that is, with the date first, then the month and the year. The CPF Board returns cheques to employers for correction only when ambiguities are found. In such cases, if late payment results, the Board will waive the interest, provided it is satisfied that the ambiguities are not made intentionally for the purpose of delaying the payment of contributions. In the particular instance quoted by the Member for Khe Bong, I shall ask the CPF Board to reconsider the case again and, if it is a genuine case of misinterpretation, I shall ask the Board to refund the interest to the employer concerned. The Member for Toa Payoh has asked for the establishment of the mandatory system of retrenchment to be reported and also an avenue to establish that retrenchments are actually bona fide. He also said that some employers took undue advantage of the recent NWC increases to reorganise and in so doing retrenched the older and higher paid staff. My Ministry is aware of the likelihood of abuse of the present move to restructure our economy and of the problems that can arise out of retrenchment. In my address to the National Convention on Industrial Relations for the 1980's on 10th January this year, I had cautioned managements that they should not, under the guise of upgrading, retrench older workers merely to save on the wage bill. I also urged them to be sensitive to the problems created by retrenchment and to consult unions to ensure the smooth implementation of a reorganisation programme. Retrenchments should be a last resort. Efforts must first be made to retrain and redeploy the redundant workers. The Member said that some companies retrenched workers who were mainly in the 40-49 age group. He may wish to know that during the period July 1979 to February 1980, 342 workers were retrenched partly as a result of the 1979 NWC wage increase. 82% of them were below 40 years old and only 18% were in the 40 and above age group. More than half of them have since found employment. No doubt more would have been employed if they were prepared to accept lower paid jobs. Herein lies the crux of the problem. A satisfactory solution is not easy to find. While the young may easily be retrained to equip them for other equally remunerative jobs, the older white-collar workers who are mainly in the senior clerical grades would present a difficult problem. On his proposal that mandatory reporting of retrenchment be introduced, I would like to inform him that my Ministry currently has a system requiring employers to give the Ministry and the trade union concerned at least two weeks' notice of any retrenchment, irrespective of the number to be retrenched. The employers' organisations are cooperating with the Ministry in obtaining their members' compliance on this matter. The trade unions have also been requested to keep the Ministry informed of impending retrenchments. Upon receipt of such notice or information, the Labour Inspectorate will conduct an investigation into the proposed retrenchment. This includes reasons for retrenchment, the number and profile of workers involved, and the benefits to be paid. Workers who will be retrenched will also be referred to the Employment Service for job placement. With the cooperation of employers and trade unions, the Labour Ministry is being notified of all retrenchment, especially in large companies. The Government takes a very dim view of any management that abuses its right to retrench. Although a management prerogative, the union can always discuss retrenchment with the management. In cases where management refuses to discuss, my Ministry can and will be ready to get both parties together. Unions should, in fact, refer cases to the Ministry where employers retrench older workers in the higher paid brackets under the guise of reorganisation. Investigations will be made to ensure that management has not abused its right to retrench. If it has, my Ministry will consider these cases under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act with a view to reinstatement of the retrenched workers. If these cases fall under section 81 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, they will be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court to consider reinstatement of the retrenched workers. Since existing arrangements regarding retrenchments are working well, I do not see the need at this stage to have mandatory retrenchment procedures. If at a later date it is found that a system of mandatory notification of impending retrenchment is effective in preventing abuses by employers, I am prepared to reconsider the matter again. Sir, in our eagerness to protect our workers, especially the older higher paid workers in their jobs, we should not lose sight of the objectives of our development strategies in the 1980's which have been reiterated by the Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget statement. To meet the challenges of the 80's, our existing industries have to upgrade and, wherever possible, mechanize, automate and computerise to save on labour and raise productivity. Such restructuring and reorganisation of production processes may lead to retrenchment of workers who would then be made available to the new or expanding high-value added industry. Where retraining of retrenched workers is necessary to fit them for other jobs, the Skills Development Fund will provide the financial resources for this purpose. I realise the trauma of being retrenched and the difficulties of having to find another job at an age when adjustment is most difficult. On the other hand, not to make the leap to a higher stage of economic development at a time when our economy is strong and our stock both in terms of political goodwill and financial reserve is high, we will be forever condemned to the rank of the underdeveloped countries, characterised by low income and low standard of living of its people. 3.30 p.m. The Member for Toa Payoh has also called for relaxation of the marriage policy where the work permit holder is a skilled worker. For his information, if the work permit holder is a skilled worker, the current marriage policy allows the couple to contract marriage without requiring the work permit holder to satisfy the five-year work requirement. Hence, there is no need to review the marriage policy for such cases. The Member for Toa Payoh may also be interested to know that skilled foreign workers issued with a three-year work permit are eligible to apply for permanent residence after completing two years of employment in a job relevant to their skills or qualifications. They may also rent HDB or JTC apartments. They and their immediate families may receive treatment in Government hospitals and clinics at rates applicable to Singapore citizens. Their children may attend schools here and pay old rates of school fees. So as far as skilled work permit holders are concerned, our marriage policy is, in fact, very liberal. There is no difficulty at present to get married after working, say, for a period of about two years. The Member for Toa Payoh paid compliments to the Industrial Relations Division of my Ministry. I must thank him for that. However, he has observed that some employers wilfully do not attend conciliation meetings chaired by officials of my Ministry. This is true but it rarely occurs. The Member for Toa Payoh is correct in saying that the Commissioner for Labour cannot compel the attendance of the employers at conciliation meetings held under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act. However, if an employer wilfully refuses to attend such meetings, the Commissioner can notify the Minister who is empowered under section 22 (1) of the same Act to compel his attendance. An employer who refuses to comply with the Minister's direction to attend is guilty of an offence and is liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both imprisonment and fine. So far, employers have complied with such directions. As for the specific case he mentioned about the director of a cinema who failed to turn up on two occasions at, the Labour Ministry to sign a collective agreement, I must say that I was not aware of it at the particular time. If what he said is true, I would say that the officer handling the case could have been more firm in dealing with the employer. He should have notified me immediately and I would have directed the employer to turn up or bring him to court. The Member for Kampong Kembangan raised the question of setting up an Industrial Affairs Council within the National Productivity Board, I think it is better we leave the National Productivity Board to concentrate on matters relating to productivity rather than venture into matters of industrial relations. In January, we had a seminar on Industrial Relations in the 80's where the employers, unions and the Ministry's representatives took part. In fact, I am waiting for a report on the proceedings of this seminar and the concrete recommendations made at this seminar. But, nevertheless, it is my view that matters of industrial relations should be dealt with by the Ministry and we should leave the NPB to do its main job, that is, to consider ways and means to raise productivity.