That would not be a viable alternative to what we are proposing now, which is a 5% cut on the part of the employers' contribution rate. The reason is that doing away with the employees' contribution does nothing to minimise cost. It does nothing to help employers shoulder the burden of an increasingly aged working population. While it will of course increase the workers' take-home pay, it does not make retaining older workers more attractive. So I am not in favour of reducing the employees' CPF contribution rate. Dr Toh also suggested that the PAP signals its support for older workers by fielding more older election candidates. I do not know how that has been linked with retirement age. But let me reassure Dr Toh that it is not true that the PAP only fields young candidates. He himself mentioned Dr Richard Hu. He stood as a candidate in the 1984 general elections, and has gone on to become one of the most notable Finance Ministers. He was way over, I think, 55 when he stood for election. PAP fields candidates for election based on their ability to contribute to the political process. It cannot be that the candidates are fielded just because they belong to a certain age group. I think that would not do our political system much good. But where we come across or where we can persuade people who are in the older age group, and who are able to contribute to the political process and offer leadership capability, then I am sure that the PAP will consider such candidates. Dr Toh and, I believe, a few other Members have also asked whether the provision under clause 10 for the Minister to exempt certain classes of workers will be made known. Yes, the intention is to gazette an exemption list when the Retirement Age Bill comes into force. I think the categories of workers that we have considered for exemption could include some of these employees who are in positions or employment approved by the Minister or such other persons appointed by him where being of a particular age or in a particular age group is a job requirement, for the reason of safety or for any other reason. So employers will have to apply to the Minister for such exemption. Other categories of workers to be exempted are those employees who have entered into a fixed term contract of service. As I have mentioned earlier on, we intend to exempt this group of employees to ensure that the labour market remains flexible and adaptable. We will also be exempting persons whose employment is of a casual nature, as I mentioned earlier on. We will also exempt all foreign workers in Singapore who are here on either work permit or employment pass. They will be exempted. Because it is not the intention of the Government to ensure that all foreign workers get a job in Singapore up to the ripe old age of 60. They are here for a short term. When they have finished their short employment in Singapore, be it two years, four years or six years, they must go back. These are some examples. Other examples of exemptions are students working on a part-time basis. As you know, during vacation, many students take on part-time employment. It is not the intention of the law to include such student workers under the provision for minimum retirement age. Dr Toh questioned the need for clause 5 which invalidates any term of contract of service which is less favourable than that prescribed under the Retirement Age Bill, and whether or not it is back-dating the provisions of the Retirement Age Bill. Let me assure him that this is necessary in order to protect existing workers who may well have entered into contracts previously where the retirement age norm is 55. It is also not a new principle in law to have such provisions to nullify contracts made previously. If the Member looks at section 8 of the Employment Act, he will find a provision which is very much similar to what is provided for under this Retirement Age Bill. Otherwise, a large number of workers who are presently working will not be able to enjoy the benefit of working to age 60, because they all have entered into contracts of service, whether written or verbal, where the retirement age norm is 55. So it would then take a very, very long time for the retirement age of 60 to become a norm, a practice, if we do not make all previous contracts void. Dr Toh also asked how much it will cost the Government to implement the Bill. It will cost the Government some money in order to set up the infrastructure that is necessary to investigate and to conciliate whenever complaints of retirement or unfair dismissal on account of age is brought to the Ministry's attention. But, as of this moment, I am not able to tell him exactly how much that would cost. Mr Umar, who also spoke up in support of the Bill, sought reassurance that workers will be able to withdraw their CPF savings at the age of 55. I have already given that assurance earlier on. Dr Soin, together with several other Members, including Mr Shanmugam and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, questioned the feasibility of implementing this law in view of the fact that employers today can terminate a worker's service, whether it is on a fixed term contract, or they can terminate the service by giving due notice, and, in some cases, even without giving due notice. While it may appear a little difficult, my Ministry has, in fact, been regularly handling such complaints about termination of services. We will be able to treat such complaints of termination on account of age, as we have been treating various complaints brought to our attention for wrongful dismissal. Under section 14, subsection 2(a) of the Employment Act, employees, who make complaints that they have been wrongfully dismissed or unjustly dismissed by their employers, will give their reasons for thinking that it is unjust. My Ministry, on receipt of such a complaint, will call up the employer and seek explanation from the employer. And it is really up to the employers then to explain why the termination of service under the Employment Act is justified and it is within their right to give notice or even terminate the service of a particular employee without notice. So, in effect, employers must defend their action to terminate the service of an employee once a complaint has been registered. Otherwise, we will infer that the employee, whose service has been terminated, is right in assuming that he was unjustly or wrongfully dismissed and we will make the appropriate recommendation. Although it may appear a little difficult, my Ministry has been dealing with such cases and we should be able to continue to conciliate and adjudicate when complaints are brought to our attention about wrongful dismissal or dismissal on account of age. For Members' information, let me give some statistics. Last year, my Ministry received a total of 2,785 complaints concerning claims relating to terms and conditions of services. Out of 2,785, 601 cases were complaints of unfair termination of service by employers. We also received a total of 33 cases from employees who accused their employers of wrongful dismissal. We have, in all of these cases, been able to resolve the disputes either through a process of conciliation or adjudication. So the procedure is quite established. As I have said in my Second Reading speech, it is quite well tested over the years as we have been using such procedure. And I think termination on account of age will be another aspect of the application of this conciliation and adjudication procedure. Mr Low Thia Khiang also supports the Bill. He wants a reassurance that the CPF withdrawal age will not be changed. I have already given that reassurance. He asked about civil servants and officers in the SAF who have the option of retiring at an earlier age. The intention is to exempt certain categories of civil servants including officers of the SAF, and Police officers, from the coverage of the Retirement Age Bill. Because for their specialised vocation, it is not feasible to require that they work up to the age of 60. One can well imagine that for Police officers, Army officers or Army specialists, it would be very difficult to carry out some of the duties if they have to work up to the age of 60. So the intention is to exempt certain categories of civil servants and SAF officers. He also raised the question of the appeal procedure, which I have explained earlier on, and how my Ministry will go about handling complaints from employees who have been dismissed on account of age. Mr Chng Hee Kok has essentially raised the same concern that there will be difficulty. He expects there will be difficulty in handling complaints from employees who have been dismissed on account of age. As I have explained to Members earlier on, the Ministry has a fairly well-tested and established procedure to deal with such complaints concerning terms of employment and service and also wrongful dismissal. He feels that it might be difficult, with the new legislation, for companies to remove their senior managers, because, in the past, they could just dismiss them. Now, there is this possibility that they might be asked to explain whether it is a dismissal on account of age. I think what is required now would be for all companies to ensure that they have a proper appraisal system for all their staff. And if they do have a proper appraisal system for their staff to assess their performance, then should they need to terminate the service of such senior management staff, it will be easier to put up a case that, in fact, they are terminating a person on account of his lack of performance, rather than on account of age. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Tong Kok Yeo suggested that all employers who want to terminate the services of their employees at age 55 or thereabouts should notify the Ministry. I do not think, at this juncture, it is necessary to call for such notification. it could become a bureaucratic bottleneck to require such notification. But my Ministry will be monitoring the situation once the law comes into force and is implemented, and if, in fact, there is widespread abuse, we may consider alternatives to monitor the situation which could include compulsory notification. He also suggested that the Ministry consult the unions when we are considering exemption for certain classes of workers. As I have explained in my response to Mr Goh earlier on, we will consult as and when the need arises. Mr Tong Kok Yeo also felt that with the flexible wage scheme being implemented since 1986, there should not be any need to reduce the CPF contribution rate of the employers on account of their older employees. Unfortunately, the flexible wage scheme has not worked to the extent to remove the additional cost for retaining workers. Even after six years of attempting to implement the flexible wage scheme, as a general rule of thumb, older workers are still being paid two to three times more than younger workers. So it is not as if the flexible wage scheme has already removed this wage gap between young and older workers. Therefore, we recognise that as the proportion of older workers increases in the workforce, employers could well have to bear a higher cost and this could affect their competitiveness. And in order to ensure that we do not unnecessarily dull their competitive edge, we have sought to reduce their CPF for older workers by 5%. Let me assure the Member that, as I said earlier on, the 5% reduction should not affect the older workers by way of their housing needs, retirement income or Medisave. Even with the 5% reduction, they will still be able to set aside eight percentage points for contribution to their Medisave account. In fact, by having another five more years of working life, of course, the worker will put aside much more money, particularly in his Medisave, to meet future medical expenses. Mr Tong also suggested that we consider incremental reductions of the CPF rate instead of a one-off reduction by five percentage points. We have already waited for four years for this higher retirement age to be implemented widely. But sad to say, it has not come about that way. We now want to make sure that we do not waste any more time and the way to do so would be to give employers sufficient incentives quickly so that they will comply with the principle and the objective of the law to retain all their older workers when they reach the age of 55 years, rather than to adjust the CPF rate incrementally which could well mean that it may take a longer time for this principle of retiring at 60 years to be widely accepted by both the employers and the employees. I believe that I have addressed the concerns raised by Mr Shanmugam and Assoc. Prof. Woon on the difficulty of implementing the law. While I cannot go into the specifics of how we will adjudicate, or how we will investigate each and every case of a complaint for wrongful dismissal on account of age, let me assure him that I am quite confident that the procedures that have already been practised by the Ministry of Labour are sufficiently effective as to make a distinction between a genuine termination and a termination on account of age but disguised as some other form of termination. Mr Chia suggested that those categories of workers who are exempted from the coverage of the Retirement Age Bill should be spelt out clearly. I have, earlier on, listed some of those categories of workers who will be exempted. A more comprehensive list will be issued by way of a Gazette Notification. He also asked the Government to indicate its stronger support of older workers by a wide variety of measures, including tax reduction, medical allowance and CPF topping-up scheme for senior citizens. While all this may help to signal support, what is crucial is that we take a decision now to raise the retirement age and, as and when the Government is doing well, topping-up can be considered. As we have discussed during the Committee of Supply stage, CPF topping-up will, in fact, be practised by the Government. But whether we need to make a discrimination between older and younger citizens when we do a topping-up, that is something to be considered separately. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have addressed most of the concerns raised by Members.