5.05 pm The Economist notes in a recent issue: "America's economy is now supposedly on the road to recovery, but somebody forgot to tell the labour market." Merrill Lynch notes in the same article: "If the early 1990s upturn was the jobless recovery, this is the job-loss recovery." As structural unemployment is set to become a staple of the new economy, the establishment of a single agency to focus on continuing education and training of adults and employment assistance comes none too soon. This will ensure that all the well-intentioned but perhaps sometimes disparate efforts by different agencies will be better organised for greater effect. Sir, I urge the Agency to take cognisance of the following four main concerns as it pushes ahead with the two key objectives of employment assistance and continuing education and training for adults. Under employment assistance, I would like to highlight two key issues. Firstly, the Agency should look at ways to further improve its job-matching schemes and optimise the use of limited resources available. Despite the tremendous resources poured in for job matching, the success rate of such efforts has remained low, at less than 20%. The ends do not seem to have justified the means. As the Agency is to become the coordinating body for job-matching efforts, I would like to find out from the Minister how the Agency plans to undertake such coordination with the various CareerLink Centres. What would be their roles and duties as against those of the Agency? I understand, for instance, that each of the centres has different job databases. One of my grassroots members, who was recently retrenched, told me that he was given different listings when he went to different centres. It appears that many job applicants are now going all over the island to the different centres to apply for jobs. So, the number of job requests recorded at the different CareerLink Centres may be significantly lower, if these multiple visits are discounted. I urge the Agency to set up a centralised national job database, so that an applicant need only to go to one centre to apply for a job. This would not only save the time, effort and money of the applicant, but also avoid duplication of work, wastage of scarce resources, as well as improve efficiency. This centralised database can also be used to help the CDCs better link financial assistance to job placements. Those who repeatedly reject jobs must be counselled to find out their reasons for rejecting jobs. Some jobs, which have traditionally been the domain of foreign workers, are shunned by Singaporeans because of the low pay, which is deemed insufficient for the worker to support even himself, let alone his family. Besides job redesign, Singaporeans may be encouraged to take up such jobs and, at least, catch some of the fish themselves, if the Agency could work together with the MCDS and tie a subsidy or financial assistance scheme to the job placement of the worker. Additionally, feedback from one of my residents who had been retrenched and recently found a job is that, while the job-matching efforts of the CareerLink Centres are commendable, they could perhaps learn from the private sector job placement agencies to improve the success rate. This resident shared with me that he had eventually gotten a job through a private sector job agency. He said that the agency, no doubt incentivised by a commission for successful placement, was very proactive in helping him identify a suitable job. In fact, they had taken an active role and even helped him negotiate with the prospective employer to consider a slightly higher salary as a delivery driver, even before the interview. Perhaps, the Agency should consider outsourcing at least part of the job- matching efforts to private sector job agencies. These agencies already have the expertise to handle job matching, and their skills and experience should be tapped. Why re-invent the wheel? Outsourcing could help to minimise the necessity for the various CareerLink Centres with limited budget to expand their staff strength and increase resources for job matching. Secondly, the Agency should continue to help change the mindsets of both employers and employees to match the current employment landscape. The Government and the employers have constantly cited the poor attitude of our workers for the job mismatch and high unemployment rate even while we have more foreign workers than unemployed Singaporeans. There is obviously truth to this. For instance, a resident in my constituency whom we had successfully placed in a firm, came back to tell me that she had quit her job after one week as she found working at a computer, for which she is unfamiliar with, too difficult. And this was in an air-conditioned office. She asked me to help her get a stall in a school canteen instead, as she had figured that this would be much easier work. Fortunately, anecdotal evidence suggests that many laid off Singaporeans are now willing to change their expectations, take significant pay cuts, and work in industries which they might have previously shunned. For instance, I came across a 50-year-old resident who has diplomas in both computer studies and industrial relations and was previously a computer support staff. He now works as a security guard earning about $1,000 a month. He said that he has been rejected for many jobs because of his age. He has encountered numerous prospective employers who tell him over the phone that they need someone much younger. He was not even given a chance to be interviewed! MOM has tried to encourage employers to employ older workers by providing a subsidy for six months, if the firm hires a worker above 40 years old. However, there are still employers who are averse to hiring older workers even with the subsidy. In this respect, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what further plans the Ministry has to encourage employers to give older workers a fair chance to secure jobs. For a start, the Agency could work together with all the Government Ministries and agencies to encourage them to employ older workers whenever possible. Does the Minister know how many older retrenched workers the Government Ministries and agencies have employed in the last two years? Tales also abound of employers who prefer to employ foreigners as they work longer hours, do not have to go for reservist training and are not entitled to CPF. A participant in a feedback group I chaired shared that in the media industry she works in, she feels that between a Singaporean and a foreigner with similar qualifications, the foreigner is usually preferred. As evidenced by the recent Straits Times poll, most Singaporeans acknowledge that foreign talent has a role to play in Singapore. So, they are not saying "Foreigners - no entry". Furthermore, we do not want to impose labour market rigidity by limiting foreign workers, especially for the higher skilled jobs and, in the process, make Singapore unattractive to business. But in a period of an all-time 15-year high unemployment rate, there is a real need to relook at our foreign worker policies to balance the legitimate concerns of the citizens as against those of businesses, the economy and, yes, foreigners. Without compromising on the premise that foreign talent is necessary to supplement our local talent and boost Singapore's economy, I think drastic times call for drastic relook at existing measures, at least on a temporary basis. For instance, the foreign worker quota could be reviewed and varied during periods of high unemployment where there should be an adequate number of locals for hire. The ratio, for example, could be tied somehow to the rate of unemployment, within a certain band, to give policy flexibility, but generally moving up when unemployment is low and moving down when the opposite happens. I note the Minister did say yesterday that the quota would be monitored and reviewed periodically. I would now like to highlight two key issues under the Agency's second strategic thrust of adult continuing education and training. Firstly, industry consultation and collaboration. Reading Part III of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency Bill gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Agency will be in competition with private sector organisations offering education, training and upgrading programmes, as well as with professional groups like the Singapore Human Resource Institute which seeks to develop HR best practices. Enough has been said about public sector crowding out private sector initiatives when this House debated the Temasek Charter last year. I urge the Minister to assure the public that this is more perception than reality. Efforts should therefore be made whenever possible to collaborate with professional bodies, course providers and other appropriate organisations in the training of the workforce. These specialised bodies would know the state of the industry and understand the needs of the workforce much better than a Government agency tasked with a diverse range of functions. In the real estate industry with which I am familiar, I have previously come across instances where attempts to initiate standards and training for the continuing education of real estate practitioners by a Government agency have been based on inadequate feedback from the ground because not all relevant organisations were identified and consulted. This would lead to time wasted, unnecessary costs incurred, and less than desirable outcomes. In its efforts to develop training programmes, the Agency should be mindful not to duplicate and compete with private sector efforts and initiatives but, rather, to facilitate any on-going programmes and courses. Outsourcing, so widely practised by the private sector, should be the norm rather than the exception. Already, there have been murmurings about what SPRING is doing in conducting educational courses in alliance with overseas institutes, something which the private education industry has been carrying out for a long time. Secondly, like my colleagues before me, I would like to talk about training of older workers. Adult continuing education and training would provide useful learning opportunities for older workers, especially the lowly educated ones whose livelihoods are more at risk. This is particularly crucial in the light of an ageing population and a longer life expectancy. In fact, a special task force within the proposed Agency should be set up to focus on this group of older workers who have not been adequately prepared to meet the drastically changed circumstances. Their fishing skills are outmoded. As testimony of the urgency to help older workers, based on MOM's data as at the first quarter of 2003, amongst the 75,000 unemployed then, those aged 40 and above formed the largest group at 43%. Moreover, of these, more than half (15,900) have below secondary school education. The task force can work together with the private and people sectors as well as Government Ministries to identify and/or re-engineer jobs to make them suitable and more attractive for older workers. Training courses to help older workers obtain the skills for jobs in these sectors can then be designed and promoted. The task force should look at ways to encourage employers to hire these older workers, but nonetheless competent and able. It should also look into ways to prevent age discrimination of such workers. The plight of these workers has to be championed as this problem is likely to remain with us for a long time. There was a time not too long ago when Singaporeans were enjoying high economic growth and, in the process, became asset-rich and cash-rich. Then came the unprecedented and prolonged period of uncertainty starting from the Asian financial crisis, followed by a series of shocks. Singaporeans have, in the last few years, lamented that they are both asset-less and cash-less, or perhaps now more appropriately, "asset-loss" and "cash-loss". Now, for the typical Singaporean, there is the added dread of yet another loss, "job-loss", if they are not already in this state. Helping Singaporeans to get jobs, retain jobs and remain employable over their working life should clearly be one of the Government's key objectives. Hitherto, other than defence and national development, education takes up the biggest share of our national budget. Without minimising the importance of training of our young for the future, brutal global competition is hammering home the point that the adult workforce, by sheer numbers and current contribution to the economy, deserves as much, if not more, attention and the collective efforts of the Government, employers and employees. Madam, I therefore support the setting up of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency. This signals the Government's commitment to ensure that Singaporeans will remain employable in the face of dramatic changes in the employment landscape.