Hansard, Friday, 4 September 2020

Order. I wish to inform hon Members that, pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Standing Order 100, I have appointed Ms Foo Mee Har to be the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Mr Ang Wei Neng to be the Chairman of the Estimates Committee for this Parliament.

1 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Manpower in light of more companies being put on the Fair Consideration Framework watchlist, whether the Ministry will consider naming the errant companies to serve as a deterrent to others.

2 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether the Ministry will name the companies that have been placed on the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) watchlist for potentially discriminatory hiring practices; (b) whether any of the companies previously placed on FCF watchlist have been removed from the watchlist; and (c) if so, what are the criteria used.

3 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower whether she can provide an update on the latest tripartite discussions relating to fair employment practices, in particular discriminatory hiring and human resource practices, including nationality, race, age and religious-based discrimination.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 1 to 3 together?

Please do.

Thank you. Members have filed a number of Parliamentary Questions on the topic of fair employment practices – some are for the next Sitting and others are for Written Answers.

I appreciate that these questions are of concern to Singaporeans and seek Members' understanding to take these related questions together, so that we can deal with them more holistically.

Ms Foo Mee Har asked how employers’ employment practices are monitored and employers held accountable. Ms He Ting Ru asked about tripartite discussions on discriminatory practices.

Sir, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices spell out the principles and practices that all employers are expected to abide by. In practice, MOM works closely with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices or TAFEP to follow up on all complaints of potential malpractices at workplaces. All forms of discrimination are covered, including for age, gender, ethnicity and family circumstances. We also monitor the workforce profiles of firms for potential unfair hiring practices against Singaporeans.

For example, MOM has regularly taken employers to task for pre-selecting a foreign candidate and disregarding qualified local candidates. This year alone, 90 employers have had their work pass privileges suspended because of infringements under the Fair Consideration Framework or FCF, including for age and gender discrimination. This means that the company cannot renew existing work passes or have new applications approved – some for as long as two years. These penalties are serious and the employers know it. To stay in business, it will be necessary for them to boost local employment.

To questions by Mr Louis Chua and Mr Seah Kian Peng, there are currently about 400 firms placed on the FCF Watchlist for having a higher share of foreign PMETs compared to their industry peers, or high concentrations of a single foreign nationality source. Employment Pass or EP applications from these firms are held back, while TAFEP engages these firms to help them improve their human resource practices.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Louis Chua suggested publicly naming firms placed on the FCF Watchlist. Mr Chua further asked for these firms’ access to Government grants and tax incentives schemes to be withdrawn. As I explained in Parliament on 1 September 2020, unlike firms whom we have taken to task for infringements, firms on the FCF Watchlist have not flouted any rules. Instead, we identified them through proactive surveillance. We are watching them.

Members may recall that on Tuesday, I shared a few examples. Upon investigation, we found some employers to be genuinely unfamiliar with local recruitment channels or whose recruitment had been limited by directives imposed by overseas headquarters. Measures we take for these firms must therefore be proportional and also consider the impact on their existing local workforce.

In most instances, employers on the FCF Watchlist have been responsive to TAFEP’s engagement efforts and expanded their employment of local PMETs with help from Workforce Singapore. Naming these firms would likely have frustrated their local hiring efforts and is ultimately counter-productive. Instead, following TAFEP’s intervention, many firms exit the FCF Watchlist within a year. For the minority who are uncooperative, refusing to make adjustments even after options have been suggested to them, their work pass privileges remain suspended.

This approach has served us well. Since 2016, more than 1,200 employers have been scrutinised under the FCF. In all, 3,200 EP applications by these employers have been rejected or withheld by MOM, or withdrawn subsequently by the firms themselves. On the other hand, firms on the FCF Watchlist have hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs in total. So, we withheld 3,200 or rejected them, or they got withdrawn. And then, these firms collectively hired more than 4,800 Singaporean PMETs in total. That is a net gain.

This comes on top of all the local employees that these firms originally employed and continued to retain.

We plan to proactively engage even more companies under the FCF, such as those whose Singaporean Core has been weakening, or whose EP and S Pass workforce are concentrated with a single foreign nationality source. We will work with economic agencies like EDB and MAS to engage these firms to improve their workforce profiles. We will also engage the HR community to do more.

Whether or not the firms are on the FCF Watchlist, where MOM has found evidence of discriminatory hiring practices, we have taken the companies to task and publicised the names of these firms. In January 2020, MOM released the names of four employers penalised for pre-selection of foreigners or not adhering to the spirit of the FCF job advertising requirement, and one employer for gender-related discriminatory hiring. In March 2020, MOM released the names of five employers penalised for age-related discriminatory hiring.

This is no different than if the company had been charged in Court for employment offences.

On Ms He Ting Ru’s question, tripartite consultations in recent months have focused on ensuring fairness when companies implement cost-saving measures or have to retrench workers.

First, on cost-saving measures, the National Wages Council or NWC was convened in March this year and was re-convened in August. It is expected to update guidelines on managing excess manpower within this month.

Since March this year, MOM has introduced a new requirement for employers to notify MOM of their cost-saving measures. To Ms Foo Mee Har’s question, we identify companies whose notifications are concerning and TAFEP engages them to assess whether their measures are fair and reasonable. Of the 850 employers engaged, close to 40% reviewed their cost-saving measures to give more wage support to their employees. Similarly, we mediated another 1,000 or so complaints by employees.

Second, on retrenchments, MOM, NTUC and the Singapore National Employers Federation jointly updated the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment or TAMEM in March.

In addition, MOM requires employers with 10 or more employees that have retrenched at least five employees within any six-month period to submit a retrenchment notification. This covers close to 90% of the workforce in Singapore. In other words, this retrenchment requirement would already have covered about 90% of the workforce.

Through the notification regime, we actively monitor retrenchment practices. Vast majority of the retrenchments have been conducted fairly and responsibly. Firms that have not done so fairly will be investigated and MOM may take strong enforcement actions such as suspending their work pass privileges.

To Mr Patrick Tay’s suggestion to expand the notification to more employers, we are mindful not to impose excessive reporting requirements on SMEs and micro-SMEs where the effort may not be commensurate with impact. Nonetheless, we encourage these firms to still notify MOM, so that Workforce Singapore, the tripartite partners and other relevant agencies can step in promptly to provide job assistance to affected employees. We have also expanded outreach efforts to jobseekers, so that retrenched workers may get help even if their employers did not notify MOM.

Sir, in conclusion, in the current economic climate, MOM understands Singaporeans need greater assurance that they have a fair chance for job opportunities and are treated fairly at their workplaces. MOM and our tripartite partners will continue to guard against unfair hiring or retrenchment practices and take appropriate action against errant employers.

Mr Louis Ng.

Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications for the Minister. First, I think she mentioned there are 1,200 companies on the FCF Watchlist. Could I ask how many of these companies are there because of discrimination against women and on family responsibilities?

Second, on the earlier suggestion that I made this week, on whether we can legislate these guidelines on fair employment practices. I think it makes a bit of sense. If you discriminate against Singaporeans and hire foreigners, we will restrict or curtail your work pass privileges; we do not allow you to hire foreigners. That sort of makes sense. But if you discriminate against women and mothers, and the penalty is that you cannot hire foreigners, then I hope the Minister agrees with me that that does not really make sense. So, the question is whether we can legislate these guidelines, have proper penalties in place that will serve as a better deterrence against discrimination against women and mothers.

This conversation seems very intimate, with both of you standing there, across each other. [Laughter.] Please procced.

Sir, in terms of thinking and alignment of values, I feel very close to Mr Louis Ng. First, a point of clarification that the Member sought, which are the 1,200 companies that we had scrutinised over the years under FCF, what kinds of concerns did we have. As I explained, they had not made any infringements. We were doing proactive surveillance. We looked at their workforce profiles. In general, we found that there was a heavier proportion of foreigners in their PMET workforce, compared to their industry peers. So, we picked them up and tried to undersand why their workforce profiles were the way they were, and helped them to improve.

The Member has asked whether for other forms of discrimination – not nationality discrimination but for other forms of discrimination – whether legislation is the right tool and we could consider that. Perhaps, two things to point out. First, the Government is not so averse to using legislation, provided it can achieve a good effect. If I can cite the example of concerns about age discrimination. We do have the Retirement and Re-employment Act which stipulates the minimum age below which employers cannot say, "You're too old and you must retire." We also have the re-employment age legislation which compels the employers, even after his employee has reached the minimum statutory retirement age, to offer re-employment. So that we safeguard the opportunities for them to continue working – not necessarily in the same job and not necessarily holding the same pay.

Using legislative tools in order to protect the interest of workers is not so unthinkable and have been used on many different occasions.

I understand where the Member is coming from, that in terms of legislating against discrimination for gender, should we perhaps take the next step forward. I have also responded to – I am sorry, I should have done this another way – I texted Mr Vikram Nair after he gave his speech yesterday. So, I will share with Members what I texted him. He gave the suggestion that perhaps you can provide legislative levers to allow individuals who had been aggrieved by nationality bias to seek redress from the employer. And I had texted him to say that this is not unthinkable, it is something that we can discuss, whether we want to move forward.

So, my answer to Mr Louis Ng is, yes, we always keep the options open, but we must ask ourselves what is the crux here. The crux here really is that if you speak to all the women, yes, on occasions, we have identified cases where the employers, either the questions that they asked were very biased, in terms of suggesting that their family circumstances were not welcome at the workplace, or that the very fact that they were women prevented them from doing certain roles. We know of some employers like that, but they are very much in the minority. You will also see that there are many women who have gotten into good positions because their employers are quite enlightened.

So, legislation is quite a blunt tool. It basically can be quite prescriptive in nature.

What else it is that we have done to promote women in employment and make sure that they get a fair deal? We have, for example, through many years of investment in their education, helped them to acquire the skills no different from men, and they can advance. I think the other one that we have always been very mindful of, and women Members of Parliament have spoken on this extensively, it has to do with how you can improve the support that they have from the family, so that does not prevent them from making progress in their careers.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have three clarifications. The first one is, I hear from the Minister that some companies have directives from their HQ out of Singapore to ask them to practise unfair recruitment. Why can we not nip the problem at source where we inform the companies before they set up shop in Singapore? We can tell them about the guidelines.

And number two, we have also heard the Minister said they do surveillance and identify companies that have a high concentration of Employment and S Pass holders, all from certain a nationality. Can MOM be even more proactive even before they have this number that is of concern? Can you stop them from hiring anymore workers based on S Pass and E Pass, which means it is more proactive than after the fact itself?

The third one is that I would like the Minister to consider what I said in my speech on Monday, to set up a National Human Resource Committee, so that you have regular engagement with the head of human resources and personnel in the various large companies, to share with them the best practices on how to form a Singaporean Core. For example, DBS is one good example.

I thank the Member. Mr Speaker, to address the Member's of questions, I should clarify that in the instance that I described, the foreign headquarters, the overseas headquarters of the firm in concern did not direct the local office in Singapore to hire unfairly. I think no company does that. What they did, however, not recognise or did not understand our employment landscape, was that actually many of the positions that they were seeking do not necessarily require degree qualifications. For example, if they are seeking an IT role, actually our Polytechnic graduates are just as qualified, and with the right training can also do the job.

So, what the local office previously did was blindly implement the directive from the headquarters that every single one of their recruits must meet degree qualifications. When we pointed out to them that for the positions that they are hiring, Polytechnic diploma holders are equally qualified, what they then did was to take it up with headquarters and persuaded the headquarters to change the recruitment criteria. So, I hope that clarification will help.

To the Member Mr Ang's suggestion on the National Human Resource Committee, it already exists. It is called the Institute of Human Resource Professionals. They have certification programmes. They have communities of practice. We engage them regularly and we intend to do more.

Then there are other similar organisations, the Singapore Human Resource Institute. They are also very active in trying to level up HR practices in Singapore. We applaud them for the efforts. MOM works very closely with them. I think they do really want to help and raise the bar, and we very much encourage their proactive efforts.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. I would like to post three clarifications or further questions.

The first is, the Minister mentioned that most of the companies exit this watchlist after a year. But I would like to know how many persistent offenders have we seen amongst the companies who have been on the watchlist. Because this will inform us as to whether the sanctions are enough. I think this is helpful information for us to know. And second is the balance of complaints and active surveillance that has been conducted by MOM. The third is whether there are any GLCs who are currently on the watchlist.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. The third question first. I think the Member wanted to know whether we have put any Temasek-linked companies on the watchlist. The answer is no, not because they were given any special concession or treatment, but the proactive surveillance that we carried out did not pick them up.

The second question, is the balance between complaints and proactive surveillance. Actually, the proactive surveillance has brought us into more direct engagements with the companies. None of these companies would have been surfaced to our attention if not for proactive surveillance. Their employees actually did not raise the concerns with us. If you look at the complaints that were raised to MOM and the number of companies that we have scrutinised, I do not have the exact figure with me, but based on my impression also getting emails and reading all the complaints that were filed with our Labour Relations Department, I stand corrected, but actually I think our proactive surveillance has reached out to more companies.

The last question is on how many companies that have not yet exited. They are in the minority; I will put it at less than 10%. The reason why I do not give you a very specific number is because even if the company has exited from the watchlist, it does not mean we stop watching them. We continue to watch them. If they revert to the old patterns of hiring and we are concerned about their workforce profile again, then they can get put back into the watchlist.

And, Sir, if I may, I should also answer Mr Ang's earlier question. He said why not take an even more proactive approach. The FCF watchlist is the proactive approach. And I also said in my reply that we intend to engage an even wider group of companies to reshape their workforce profiles.

Mr Patrick Tay.

I thank the Minister for answering this Parliamentary Question and also the subsequent Parliamentary Questions. I have two supplementary questions in two areas. Firstly, on the FCF watchlist. The second question, on the mandatory reporting of retrenchments.

In the area of FCF, I have suggested of us publishing and, of course, many Members of this House as well. If there are companies that have been recalcitrant, meaning after one year of rehabilitation or assistance, they have not improved, is there a problem publicising this list of recalcitrant employers? The other one is, among these 400 firms that are on the watchlist, what proportion are MNCs, what are LLEs, SMEs and micro-SMEs?

On the mandatory retrenchment reporting, I am a bit concerned that MOM is taking the position that we do not require micro-SMEs and SMEs to do mandatory reporting. Why is that so? Because, if you see many of the malpractices, the lay-offs that are happening in the past couple of months, mostly are from micro-SMEs and SMEs. From two perspectives: one, we want to ensure fair retrenchment practices; two, we want to ensure we provide the necessary interventions from Workforce Singapore as well e2i, to assist some of these micro-SMEs and SMEs, so that we have advanced and proactive or pre-emptive steps that we can take to help these companies. So, from that perspective, I hope MOM can look at both these areas.

Just a gentle reminder to Members, please keep to your side of the Chamber. That is for Mr Patrick Tay. Please keep to your side of the Chamber. Thank you.

Sir, on Mr Tay's question on mandatory reporting, there are, as far as I know, more than 100,000 SMEs. To ask every single one of them to make a report, even if most of them have not done anything bad prima facie, we are saying that we are not very sure, and it does not matter whether we can really pick it up much from it or not.

So, I think we have to balance between whether we assume that every single one of them have retrenched in a very unfair manner and that is why the reporting will allow us to go after every single one of them, or do we ask whether there are complementary avenues.

It does not prevent the worker himself from raising the issue with MOM. I mentioned that apart from those that we have investigated after they submitted the mandatory retrenchment notification, on top of that, we also investigated an even larger number of those where individuals complained to us. So, the two are complementary to each other. It is not that we only need to depend on one tool.

On his other question about the FCF watchlist, whether the recalcitrant ones can be named, ultimately, it goes back to what our objective is. If our objective is still to try and get them to improve their HR practices, what is a more effective way of doing so? Naming them or continuing to suspend their work pass privileges? I can share with Mr Tay that in some instances, the companies have decided that it is not possible for them to meet up to these requirements and they have decided to exit Singapore altogether. And you do not even need to name them. They find that this set of conditions is not what they would like to deal with; we accept that. Whether you name them or not would not have made much of a difference. But the fact that you have curtailed their work pass privileges, that is what has really made the difference.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a clarification from the Minister. She mentioned in her speech that of the companies in the FCF framework, some were unfamiliar with MOM regulations. I would like to ask her, how many, or the proportion that were really unfamiliar with the regulations.

Mr Speaker, I do not have the breakdown here, neither do I have the breakdown that Mr Tay asked for on what is the profile of the companies on the FCF watchlist. They are a good spread, across different industries, some large, some small.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for her answers. I have three supplementary questions to raise. The first is, on the firms that had been taken to task, following being on the FCF watchlist. At the whole-of-Government level, has there been any correlation to see if these firms previously had been awarded tenders or contracts for Government or Government-related projects, and subsequent to being taken to task, whether any such firms subsequently were awarded Government tenders.

The second question is, whether as part of the paradigm of environmental, social and governance responsibility, which is increasingly being considered these days, whether some Government tenders can consider the role of HR practices either as a clear criterion or as a tie-breaker in the event of two companies having very similar value prepositions otherwise.

The third question, Mr Speaker, is to ask, whether or not, the Ministry has used or is considering using the "Mystery Shopper" methodology to look for companies with discriminatory hiring practices. Just to briefly elaborate, the Mystery Shopper approach involves sending CVs with otherwise identical qualifications, but varying the age, the ethnicity as suggested by the name, to the company. The idea is to, by doing this "A/B" testing to see whether there are companies that have a clear pattern of rejecting certain applications at the CV or resume stage. This may help identify soft discrimination before it becomes a bigger issue.

Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The proactive surveillance under FCF watchlist, is in fact, the "Mystery Shopper" programme that he has talked about. These companies did not surface to our attention because their employees said that something was wrong. And how did we identify them? Very similar to how Dr Tan has described it – a mixture of looking at their workforce profiles, a mixture of looking at how they have responded to advertisements that were put on MyCareersFuture.gov.sg. You put the two together, we see that these companies in terms of their hiring patterns, something does not look quite right. So, then, we put them on the watchlist and we engage them. We asked what is going on, why is it that your pattern of recruitment has been like that? It is in substance, nearly identical, I think, to what Dr Tan has asked.

His first two questions. I think it goes back to what our objective really is. What do you want as an outcome to for these companies that we have put on the watchlist? Is our objective that they improve their hiring so that more local PMETs can be added to their workforce? Or is our objective to frustrate them and to somehow get them to exit Singapore or to exit the business, whatever it is that they are carrying on in Singapore? Keep in mind that although we have identified these companies for proactive surveillance, for engagement, they also do have a sizable local PMET workforce. They are already hirers, employers of Singaporeans holding PMET positions.

The actions that we take must be proportional and it must also not create so much difficulties for the existing PMETs in their workforce who are local and who would very much like to keep their jobs. So, these are the things that we must keep in mind when we decide on what measures to take it. I am not saying that these measures will always be static. We will continue to look at better ways of identifying companies, more that can be picked up accurately, swiftly and at the same time, what further measures will get the companies to reshape their workforce profiles more quickly.

I mentioned on Tuesday that we are evaluating EP and S Pass applications, going to look back at whether the company has kept up its support for local PMETs in their employment. That would include their retrenchment behaviour; it will have a bearing. That will also include whether they have been responsive to efforts by Government agencies to help them recruit and train local PMETs; that will also have a bearing on their EP and S Pass applications.

So, we have a number of tools that we can use but all designed for one objective in mind, which is to reshape the workforce profiles of the companies and to ensure that they treat local candidates fairly, give them a chance to make progress in the companies. And if these individuals have not been known to them, have not been on their radar for possible recruitment and training, then we would want them to make a special effort.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Minister, just two quick clarifications. The first, is on the size of the TAFEP team that surveys, educates and takes action against companies that engage in unfair hiring practices. What is the size of that team? Is the Minister of the view that that team needs to be enlarged?

The second question takes off from comments made by the Second Minister for Manpower in the course of the debate over the last few days. Is MOM looking to beef up resources on unfair hiring practices. Could Minister share some details on what those measures specifically are?

Sir, I would have to come back to Mr Singh on the exact size of the TAFEP team. We have been beefing up, so the latest number I do not have it offhand.

Would we want to strengthen the resources? The answer is yes, but I would also say that at the same time, it is important for us to reach out to employers and to ensure that they do their part to upkeep fair hiring practices.

Why do I say so? If all of our efforts are directed purely towards enforcement, I think what you do create as an environment is one where you are always pitted against each other. You are always assuming that the employers are not trying to do their part, you are always assuming that the employers have something to hide and you are always assuming that the employers have no real difficulties that they are facing of their own.

If you interact with enough employers, they will tell you that, "We have very serious challenges also in reaching out to potential jobseekers". So, we have to take a balanced approach and ask ourselves, what is the combination of actions that will be most helpful to the employers and to the businesses, which in turn will be more helpful to expanding opportunities for our own people. That balance is one that we are always constantly trying to strike.

I was very cheered when Ms He Ting Ru asked the question of what are the tripartite discussions, the tripartite discussions are precisely this – how can each one of us do our part? The unions are reaching out to the jobseekers, encouraging them to understand where the opportunities are and to be willing to be trained for those opportunities. The employers, being cognisant of the slack in the job market, in the availability of jobseekers, possibly redesigning their jobs so that more locals will be attracted to them and also making a real effort to participate in programmes that can help them to strengthen their local workforce.

You need a combination of factors. You cannot overly rely on just one and also create an environment where there is so much distrust and no one believes that it is actually important each one does their part, to strengthen the workforce profiles within businesses and striking the right balance is what we must strive to do.

Mr Don Wee.

There are jobs with fixed monthly salary of $20,000 or above which are exempted from advertising on the MyCareersFuture. I wonder what are the measures in place to deter employers from embedding the rental allowance or the kids education allowance into their salary to circumvent this regulation.

Mr Speaker, to Mr Wee's question, would it make a difference if we set it at $25,000 or $30,000? I think the answer is that, if the company was so inclined they can package the salary in any number of ways. That is not the spirit of what we are trying to pursue.

I should also just add this as an important caveat – we are not depending only on the FCF's advertising requirement. This question of the $20,000 is only relevant for whether the job is being advertised. But, as I explained earlier, even if the job is not advertised, just using the "Mystery Shopper" approach that Dr Tan had advocated, we can still identify companies whose workforce profiles give us cause for concern.

And there are people who write to the MOM, they write in to me personally too. We take their feedback seriously, we follow up, we engage the company, we let them know that this has come to our attention, can you help us to understand what went on. If, in that process of engagement, we have reason to suspect that the companies are trying to do all kinds of things to avoid their obligations, to try to avoid good practices, then we will know what to do. It will have a bearing on their future applications. But we must wield this in a very smart way and not in a way that is detrimental to our own interests.

Ms Ng Ling Ling, next question.

4 Ms Ng Ling Ling asked the Minister for Manpower in the past six months (a) how many workers aged 50 years and above have become unemployed; (b) what is the average length of time for them to be employed again; and (c) whether such data can be reported by the Ministry to the public periodically.

5 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower how many Singaporeans have (i) been retrenched this year (ii) been placed on unpaid leave due to the COVID-19 situation and (iii) had their pay reduced by more than 50% since the start of the circuit breaker period.

6 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is being done to ensure that companies do not misuse the SGUnited Traineeships Programme and SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme to fulfil their manpower requirements; and (b) whether companies that have recently retrenched their workers are allowed to hire under the these traineeship programmes.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 to 6?

Yes, please. Just a reminder to Members to just mention the question number. That will do. Thank you.

Thank you, Sir. As for the first set of questions for this next set, I will also address questions that are for the next Sitting or for Written Answers that are related. The reason is that, this approach allows us to deal with them more holistically. So, I seek Members' understanding.

To Ms Ng's question, MOM publishes the Labour Market Report on a quarterly basis and the Report on Labour Force in Singapore on an annual basis. The Advance Release for the second quarter of 2020 estimated that there were 90,500 unemployed residents in June 2020, compared to 73,900 in December 2019. So, it is 90,500 in June 2020, as compared to 73,900 in December 2019. That is a difference of 16,600 over six months.

Of those unemployed, one in three were aged 50 and over, and this proportion has been and continues to be stable.

In comparison, about one in four persons in our resident workforce is aged 50 and over. This is consistent with the longer time they have taken to return to the workforce if they exit. Based on latest available data on the duration of unemployment, the median period for residents aged 50 and over was 12 weeks. This duration has been broadly stable for a number of years. But we should expect it to rise in times of economic downturn, as it is likely to for all age groups, although the extent really remains to be seen.

To Ms He Ting Ru’s question, preliminary figures from the survey data indicate that 5,280 Singapore Citizens were retrenched in the first half of 2020. In our labour statistics compilation, being placed on unpaid leave is captured as “temporary layoffs”. In the first half of 2020, an estimated 11,050 Singapore Citizens were affected by temporary layoffs, compared to 33,000 non-citizens.

Since the start of the circuit breaker on 6 April 2020, employers with more than 10 employees are required to notify MOM within one week of implementing cost-saving measures, such as shorter work hours or no-pay leave, that result in more than 25% reduction in gross monthly salary for local employees or 25% reduction in basic monthly salary for foreign employees.

Based on the notifications received between the start of the circuit breaker period and 20 August 2020, salary reductions of more than 50% are a small minority. We are not able to provide the breakdown between Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents as the distinction was not made in the notification by employers.

The Government continues to monitor the job market closely and adjust its measures to support workers and help businesses maintain or expand their local employment. The National Jobs Council is coordinating efforts to provide 100,000 jobs and skills opportunities for jobseekers under the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package.

Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the take-up of these programmes. MOM has started providing weekly updates on the jobs and skills situation to highlight the opportunities available for jobseekers and how they can access them. By now, more than 95,000 opportunities have been made available. These include: (a) 65,000 job opportunities, (b) close to 20,000 company-hosted traineeships, attachments or training places, and (c) over 10,000 opportunities under the SGUnited Skills Programme.

We have helped to place over 25,000 individuals into jobs, traineeships and training places. Of these, 24,000 across various age groups were placed into new jobs. About half are in the public sector, with another quarter in the Modern Services and Lifestyle sectors. The salary range of jobs can vary, depending on the sector and the specific job roles that an individual takes up.

Over 1,000 fresh graduate trainees have taken up traineeships under the SGUnited Traineeships programme. The majority of the traineeship positions filled are in growth sectors, such as Information Communications Technology and Media, Professional Services, and Financial Services. As the process of shortlisting and selecting suitable trainees by host organisations takes time, we can expect to see more placements into traineeships and company attachments subsequently. Lastly, close to 700 trainees have enrolled in 40 courses under the SGUnited Skills Programme.

We have expanded outreach to increase awareness of these opportunities. To reach out to fresh graduates on opportunities under the SGUnited Traineeships programme, WSG works closely with MOE, the Institutes of Higher Learning, NTUC and the People’s Association. To reach out to mid-career individuals on attachments under the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways Programme, WSG organises SGUnited Jobs and Skills Fairs to allow them to apply for opportunities onsite. Twenty-four SGUnited Jobs & Skills Centres have also been set up across all HDB towns. We also reach out to both groups through digital media channels.

From January to July 2020, 36,400 jobseekers received basic career advisory or job search assistance through WSG and NTUC-e2i’s career matching services. This is 30% more than the same period in 2019, despite Circuit Breaker measures.

The traineeships and attachments do not automatically convert into a permanent job. However, we are hopeful that companies will find a good number of trainees to be a good fit and make them part of their permanent staff. This will depend largely on the fit of each trainee to the job, and the business situation and hiring needs of the host organisation when the traineeships or attachments are completed. Workforce Singapore’s experience with the Attach-and-Train programmes so far has been that host organisations that are impressed with trainees will place them in full-time positions in the companies to make the most of the time and money that they have invested in the attachment. The new Jobs Growth Incentive scheme will give greater support to businesses to expand and grow their local headcounts over the next six months. This will also help spur the hiring of trainees.

I should add that in designing the Jobs Growth Incentive, we made sure to double the support for more mature jobseekers. New local hires aged 40 and above attract twice as much wage subsidies.

For cases where the traineeship does not result in a permanent job, the experience will equip the trainee with industry-relevant knowledge and skills, and help to burnish their credentials and value proposition to other employers. The Government will also continue to support them in their job search journey, through career matching services offered by WSG and NTUC’s Employability and Employment Institute, and other partner organisations.

Ms He Ting Ru asked about the safeguards against misuse. The Singapore Business Federation or SBF, our programme partner for these programmes, scrutinises each application to ensure that host companies structure their traineeships and attachments appropriately with clear development plans, so that participants can have a meaningful experience. SBF also scrutinises the applications to make sure that the companies are not using these programmes to hire workers for permanent jobs at low cost.

Host organisations are required to declare in their applications if they had undertaken retrenchment exercises or adopted various cost-cutting measures. If there are grounds to believe that companies are replacing existing employees with trainees in similar roles, such applications will be rejected. Some host organisations have asked if they can pay more than the stipulated allowances for very attractive candidates. Instead of traineeships or attachments, they are advised to offer paid employment to these very attractive candidates, which will also enjoy significant support under the Jobs Growth Incentive.

In addition to the rigorous screening process that I have described above, SBF also assists companies to review and improve their proposals, especially for applications that are incomplete or lacking in detail. These measures are necessary so that the traineeship or attachment experience is a positive and meaningful one. This is why it has taken four to six weeks, on average, to approve the applications, to ensure that the trainees’ interests are safeguarded. SBF has stepped up resources in response to the strong interest in these programmes to process these applications as quickly as possible.

Ms He Ting Ru.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I have some supplementary questions. The first relates to retrenchment. Would the Ministry consider publishing monthly, more granular updates available, especially during crisis periods like what we are going through at the moment? This is for us to be able to monitor and see whether the many, many schemes that have been introduced are working and how effective they are, whether there are areas that need extra support.

The second is whether we will consider also publishing – because I notice the Minister answered the question about the number of Singaporeans who were retrenched, but that figure sometimes seems to also include residents – so, whether we can have a bit more granularity as well between Singaporeans and PRs? Ultimately, Singaporeans do not have the back-up option of returning to their home countries. So, I think there is some value in knowing the data about whether Singaporeans are more affected.

Thirdly, have there been any public sector retrenchments so far this year?

I have some more questions on traineeships. I thank the Minister as well on traineeships. It is good that SBF has agreed to partner with MOM. However, I am just wondering whether we can have a bit more structure in this sort of on-going assessment reports of employers who have taken part in the schemes. For example, whether there will be monitoring visits being undertaken, whether we can publish regular achievement rates and information on how successful these companies are in converting traineeships into permanent job placements. And, finally, whether the trainees themselves will be given a chance to provide feedback on the schemes and also on the specific employers. These, all together, will help everyone make sure that these schemes are not abused and are maximally effective.

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms He for her questions. The host companies for the traineeships have to submit monthly updates to SBF as to what is happening to the traineeship. This submission has to be signed off by the trainee himself or herself. SBF has also made available their staff to handle incidents where the trainee feels that the programme is not well structured or they are not learning as much as they would like. SBF commits its resources to intervening in these cases. So, this aspect of the work that Ms He thinks is important, we agree. And it is being done.

As to whether they convert into placements subsequently, we are also interested to know and we will keep track of it as best as we can. Because even if a person does not stay in employment with the host company, it does not necessarily mean that the traineeship was not useful. Quite often, individuals, having completed the training, move on to other better options for employment. So, I think we will keep track of it, but we must know that we have to interpret that data quite carefully.

As to whether the public sector has retrenched, the public sector has actually leaned forward to bring hiring in advance of our needs. Quite a large number of the positions that are made available to jobseekers are because the public sector, having looked at their developmental plans and deciding that instead of hiring six months or nine months later, bring these forward so that the jobseekers can have a wider range of options and they can also have meaningful employment during this much more difficult time.

To the question on the data, the data I described was exactly what you wanted – citizens. So, I am not sure whether that got carried across clearly enough. It was not a combination of citizens and PRs. The Member asked for citizens; we have provided the Member with the citizen data. In fact, I also contrasted it to what was happening for the non-citizens, if the Member can go back and take a look at that.

Can we report employment statistics on a more regular basis? That has been the plan. That has also been the reason why Minister Chan Chun Sing and I, almost on a weekly basis now, have been visiting companies, different sectors to showcase the job, the opportunities available. During those occasions, we always publish a job situation report, different dimensions of it.

We are looking at one of the statistics that we can provide at a more regular interval – today, it is available on a quarterly basis. We are looking at whether unemployment data can be reliably provided on, perhaps, a monthly basis. So, it is not a question of whether we can provide the statistics more regularly. It has to do with whether it is reliable and you can count on it for decision-making. And if it is not reliable because the data-set is not going to be large enough, then by providing even more granular data at even closer intervals does not necessarily help in decision-making.

Ms Carrie Tan.

Mr Speaker, firstly, I would like to the thank Minister for Manpower for a very —

You may want to take off your mask.

I would like to thank the Minister for clarifying a lot of the questions previously. I am very heartened to know that the MOM exercises compassion in the way they approach the various challenges in hiring practices that micro-enterprises and SMEs encounter to support them to adopt the correct and desired hiring practices.

My supplementary question is related to the overarching issue of unfair hiring or workplace practices. I understand that so far proactive surveillance has surfaced more of these companies than complaints by job seekers or employees. In my encounter with my residents, I do see that there is a lot of hesitance and uncertainty by employees or jobseekers when they encounter unfair hiring or workplace practices. They are not sure or not confident of raising these issues to the correct authorities.

My question is, will the Minister consider increasing efforts in jobseeker or employee education efforts to reassure people and empower them that if they are aggrieved in any of their experiences while seeking jobs or within their workplace environment, they can safely blow the whistle. And what is the recourse that they have? Because I think they have concerns and on repercussions on the employability in the future.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her question. I can appreciate that in some instances if the persons, for example, are still employed by the company, they are very careful and want to make sure that they do not get identified as the whistle blower. We are very mindful of that and we will make all effort to protect their identity. We have to approach the companies in a smart way, so as not to reveal their identity.

To expanding the outreach to encourage, individuals to step forward, I agree with her, entirely, especially for workers who are likely to be more vulnerable and less able to appreciate how best they can advance their interests. We have a programme called WorkRight. Our officers proactively reach out to these workers who we believe are in slightly more vulnerable positions – less likely to know their rights, less likely to know what the employers are supposed to do for them and meet statutory obligations. We educate them, not just on the ground, but also through the use of the vernacular media. We will have to continue to step up these efforts and ensure that people feel the sense that they can raise these issues safely.

Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, just a short point of order. I appreciate that Members, especially new Members are keen and enthusiastic. I would just like to remind Members that for supplementary questions, they are subject to the same Standing Orders as ordinary questions. And ordinary questions shall not contain more than one issue and shall be concise. So, I would urge the Members to be concise in their questioning.

7 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Manpower whether there will be further assistance for the self-employed beyond the Self-employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS).

8 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current amount disbursed under the Self-employed Relief Scheme as compared to its budgetary allocation; (b) whether there are plans for more allocations should the economic outlook remain bleak beyond the next one year; and (c) what are the various reasons for the rejection of appeals under this scheme.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 7 and 8 together?

Please do.

The Self-employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS) is a means-tested scheme to help Singaporean self-employed persons or SEPs with less means and family support to tide over this period of economic uncertainty. Eligible SEPs receive three tranches of $3,000 each in May, July and October 2020.

The income eligibility criteria for SIRS covered over 80% of Singaporeans with taxable income. The annual value (AV) of the housing criteria covered about nine in 10 owner-occupied residential public and private properties. As a proxy for family support, the spouse's income is also considered.

Over $1.1 billion has been disbursed in the first two tranches. With the third and final tranche, SIRS is expected to cost $2 billion in total, almost double the original $1.2 billion set aside. This is a significant expansion of an already sizeable programme. Altogether, about 190,000 individuals have received SIRS, with about 100,000 qualifying automatically, and 90,000 through application.

We have been exercising flexibility in the qualifying criteria to support more SEPs. About two in three applications have been approved. In the remaining one-third, applicants may have been earning much higher incomes, residing in high value properties or own two or more property with their spouses. As SIRS was intended to support SEPs, persons who were previously unemployed or had regular employment, were redirected to the COVID-19 Support Grant. Where there were other areas of need, we have referred unsuccessful applicants to the appropriate agencies for follow-up assistance.

As announced by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in his Ministerial Statement on 17 August 2020, the Government is studying appropriate ways to support employees and SEPs who are most vulnerable, beyond the existing schemes.

Mr Dennis Tan. Well, I would like to add, before Mr Dennis Tan begins, given the level of enthusiasm, I would like supplementary questions or SQs to just go direct to the questions and cut out the preamble. I would like to limit every speaker to just at most two clarifications. Do not load on your SQs with tonnes of clarifications, please, so that more Members can ask questions. Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one supplementary question. With the expanded COVID-19 Support Grant, there are some feedback that SIRS could be extended, at least at a lower payout level. Many self-employed still have income issues in meeting their financial obligations. Will MOM study this possibility?

Sir, the short answer is yes, we will study this together with MOF.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to inquire if MOM tracks the sectors that self-employed persons are from and how are these sectors doing now and will fare going forward – so that we can see what help will be needed.

Sir, the profile of the SIRS recipients mirror the profile of our self-employed persons in Singapore. Large number of them were in the taxi driving profession, some in private hire car driving, a good number of them are hawkers – people whom we are very familiar with in our work as Members of Parliament. So, the performance of these sectors, of course, vary. We will have to take these factors into consideration when we look at what to do next.

9 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the current number and percentage of Singaporeans in senior management roles at non-retail banks; (b) how has the number and percentage of Singaporeans across the entire finance sector changed over the last 10 years; and (c) what is the monthly salary of the 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile of Singaporeans, permanent residents and foreigners respectively across the sector's workforce.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have provided most of the data Mr Chua asked for in my speech on the financial sector on 1 September 2020, but let me do a recap here.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore or MAS started compiling detailed manpower data in the sector in the last few years. Total employment in the sector grew from 149,000 in 2014 to 171,000 in 2019. So, about 22,000 financial sector jobs were created over the past five years, with 15,000 going to Singaporeans. Based on MAS' estimates, about 70% of the workforce are Singaporeans, 14% Permanent Residents or PRs, and 16% foreigners.

If we zoom in on senior roles, Singaporeans account for 44%, PRs 20% and foreigners 36%.

The proportions vary across activities. In 2019, for senior roles in retail banks' local functions, Singaporeans accounted for about 70%. In non-retail banks, where there is a higher concentration of regional and global functions, the proportion is lower. Singaporeans accounted for about 40%.

But as I have explained, while the share remains stable, the absolute number of Singaporeans holding senior level positions has been growing at a healthy pace as the base has expanded. Two thousand six hundred Singaporeans now hold such positions, 900 more than five years ago. That means an increase of 50% by absolute numbers.

The Member has asked for a comparison of 25th, 50th and 75th percentile salaries of Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners in the financial services sector. However, such a breakdown would not be meaningful, as we are not comparing like for like. A foreigner at the 50th percentile of foreigner's wage level in the financial sector could be hired for a very different role, from a Singaporean at the 50th percentile of the Singaporean wage level.

Notwithstanding, let me try to address the Member's queries by taking a broader view of the data, while taking care of the interpretation.

Across the financial sector, the median wage band of Singaporeans – because we collect the data by wage bands – the median wage band of Singaporeans is $6,000 to $8,000 monthly wage. While that for PRs and foreigners, they are similar, at the band of $8,000 to $10,000. In the senior level positions, about half of Singaporeans earn above $30,000 per month. It is the same for foreigners, while almost two thirds of PRs in the senior positions do.

Both sets of data are as one would expect. Financial institutions very often bring in higher earning foreigners to perform specialised, or regional and global roles, and our rules constrain the flow of those who come in at the lower level. One would also expect those with stronger profiles and track records in Singapore to become more successful in attaining PR status.

In other words, these data show outcomes which reflect the fact that we regulate the inflow of foreigners and apply selective criteria in granting PR from those who were previously foreign PMEs. If there was no regulation to control the inflow of Employment Pass holders and no criteria and conditions for PRs based on their track records, these earning differentials will naturally narrow or disappear.

We should focus our minds instead on the essential issue, which is how we can provide the best opportunities for Singaporeans. As I explained in my speech earlier this week, we do this by staying open to the expertise that we need to grow as a global financial centre, investing in Singaporeans’ capabilities at every level and by ensuring fair employment practices amongst financial institutions.

MAS has been building our local talent pipeline for the financial sector and grooming more Singaporeans to be leaders and specialists, including giving them international exposure. Our local talent pool has been expanding and we will continue to collaborate and work with the industry to continue this effort.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as an employee of a financial institution here in Singapore. I would like to ask a clarification to the Minister. In terms of the proportion of Singaporeans, I think it was 70% of the financial services workforce, 44% in senior roles and this has been relatively stable over the past years. I would like to ask if the Government or MAS has undertaken a study to assess why is it that, given the history of Singapore's status as a financial centre, why is it that more Singaporeans are not moving up to the senior roles and in terms of where do we want to be in terms of the strong Singaporean Core? Would MAS or the Government have a specific level they have in mind?

In relation to that, I also understand from the Minister's speech that there is the Finance Associate Management Scheme to groom young undergraduates and Singaporeans. How about in terms of supporting the middle management across the various spectrum, to support them into these senior roles?

Mr Speaker, Mr Chua may not have heard my speech properly earlier this week and may not have heard my reply properly. He asked why is it that not more Singaporeans are moving up to senior position roles. That was exactly what I was trying to explain that, indeed, more Singaporeans have been moving up. The percentage has not been moving – maybe that is why the Member misunderstood. The percentage stayed at about 44%. But the base has grown. As a result, the absolute number of Singaporeans that moved up to senior roles have increased.

In my reply just now, I should have mentioned, it is not just Singaporeans taking up these senior roles here. They are now also going out, taking up senior roles overseas. I gave some examples during my speech.

We are able to do all this only because we continued to bring in expertise; at the same time, work with financial institutions, invest in our local expertise, grow our own timber. That is the way that we grow the sector and when the sector grows, there will be more opportunities. Singaporeans are holding our own and taking and seizing some of these opportunities.

So, the Member's second question, how do we support middle management in moving up, is exactly what we need to do. Grow the sector. If we keep saying, "Let's just be a pond. Shut ourselves out from the lagoon and the lagoon shuts itself out from the sea", then we will always be a small pond. You can develop your middle management to take up senior positions, but your market will be small.

Let us take a different approach. Be open to the world, make ourselves that global financial centre, work with the financial institutions, invest in our people. Then, I think middle management can move up to take up senior positions.

Next question, Mr Chua.

10 Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) to date, what is the total number of employees supported by the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS) with breakdowns according to (i) SMEs and non-SMEs respectively and (ii) employers' aggregate revenues of less than $10 million, between $10-100 million, between $100-$250 million and more than $250 million respectively; (b) what is the total dollar quantum of JSS payouts granted to companies with breakdowns according to (i) SMEs and non-SMEs respectively; and (ii) employers' aggregate revenues of less than $10 million, between $10-100 million, between $100-$250 million and more than $250 million respectively; and (c) what is the total number of employees supported by JSS and total dollar quantum of JSS payouts granted to companies that do not experience a fall in aggregate revenues in the first half of 2020.

Since the introduction of the Jobs Support Scheme or JSS at the Unity Budget in February, over $16 billion of payouts have been disbursed to more than 150,000 employers. This has helped to support the wages of over two million local workers. $15.5 billion of the JSS payouts went to SMEs. This accounts for 73% of the local workers supported by the JSS. [Please refer to "Clarification by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance", Official Report, 4 September 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 6, Correction by Written Statement section.]

As labour cost share of business costs tend to be larger for SMEs compared to larger firms, the JSS, as a wage support scheme, provides greater support for SMEs.

As for the breakdown by revenue bands – below $10 million, between $10 million and $100 million, between $100 million and $250 million, and above $250 million – the dollar payouts are: $5.8 billion, $4.0 billion, $1.6 billion, and $4.9 billion respectively. The corresponding proportion of local workers supported by the JSS is: 46%, 24%, 9% and 21% respectively.

We do not have data on which companies had no drop in revenue in the first half of 2020. We do not collect such data at such short intervals, so as to ease the administrative burden on firms. As an alternative, we have made use of other sources of data, reports and industry feedback to provide different levels of JSS support to different sectors, based on the impact of COVID-19. This ensures that we strike a balance between being more targeted in our assistance and the speed in disbursing support.

Mr Louis Chua.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the answer. Just few clarifications. In terms of the revenue requirement, may I ask if the Ministry would consider granting additional support to companies who may have suffered a sharper decline in revenues as opposed to some of the companies which is right now classified under Tier 3B, for example, which potentially may even have their revenues increased during this period, put more resources to companies which may have suffered a greater fall in revenues rather than from an overall sectoral approach.

I think, as I mentioned in my reply, we do not collect the data in order to ease the administrative burden of firms in terms of the level of revenues to which they may have suffered. But the tiered approach provides a fairly quick, fairly good approximation of the sectors and these measures are being reviewed, even as we speak.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

11 Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether the Ministerial Statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 17 August 2020 in respect of the fifth set of COVID-19 support measures will be considered and debated in Parliament; and (b) whether the revised spending plan will need to be approved by Parliament.

12 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the basis for announcing the additional $8 billion financial measures on 17 August 2020 and whether Parliament will be able to seek clarification on the financial measures.

13 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) what is the reason for the recent Ministerial Statement on further support measures being delivered via a broadcast and not in Parliament; (b) whether this is permissible under parliamentary procedures; and (c) whether and when MPs will have the opportunity to debate the measures in the Ministerial Statement in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will answer the next three questions together.

Yes, please.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace. It has demanded swift and robust responses from the Government. From February to June, we committed close to $100 billion in COVID-19 support, over four Budget packages, to support our people and businesses.

The Government has been monitoring the economic conditions and having regular interactions and dialogues with citizens and business leaders. The coverage of some key schemes, including the Jobs Support Scheme, was going to end in August. Businesses were concerned if the support would be extended. Many jobs and businesses may be at stake if we did not announce our policy measures in time.

To ensure that we gave businesses and workers clarity on the Government’s continued support, on 17 August, I laid out further COVID-19 support measures via a television broadcast. Our businesses and workers have found this reassurance useful in their decision making.

The COVID-19 situation has affected the projected spending of some Ministries and projects. For example, delays in major construction projects such as new MRT lines have decreased development expenditure. To meet changing needs, MOF reallocated unutilised funds from these areas to fund the extension of these measures. As I stated in my 17 August statement, the measures will be fully funded by re-allocation, with no further increase in the Government’s overall expenditure. We do not plan to draw further on Past Reserves for this set of measures.

MOF briefed President and Members of the Council of Presidential Advisors. To ensure accountability to Parliament, we will present a Third Supplementary Estimates and Third Supplementary Supply Bill in the next Parliament Sitting in October. These will reflect how funds will be re-allocated across different Heads of Expenditure. The Supplementary Estimates will be considered in the Committee of Supply and the Bill will go through the First, Second and Third readings in Parliament.

The Government is responding swiftly to a fast-evolving situation and will share its plans with the public in a timely and clear fashion, while ensuring full accountability for the use of public monies.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Thank you, Sir. I noted in the latest Budget Estimates released on 17 August, the projection for revenue continues to come down. If I remember correctly, it is $5.1 billion compared to what was indicated in the Revised Estimates in the Fortitude Budget.

So, can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister whether there are further scope to reallocate monies from the Development Expenditure to fund further spending for this current FY as well as the spending in the next few years.

Also, constitutionally, we need to balance our Budget in each term of Government. So, I would like to ask how would the Government weigh the consideration of reallocating funds set aside for expenditures for Development Expenditures which is investment for the future as well, versus further draw down on the reserves.

Well, I thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for pointing out our revenues are continuing to come down. For this financial year, the main underutilisation comes from development spending caused by delays in construction, as workers were in the dormitories and were unable to continue their work. For this financial year, there is still some scope – albeit very limited – for us to consider reallocation across the various Heads of Expenditure.

But for future years we are now carefully revewing the timeline for many of the development projects. So, we must continue to budget very carefully, in reallocating revenues, monies from the Development Expenditure. And the reason why we are first using the Development route first instead of tapping on these reserves, is that we have underutilisation this year because of construction.

But going forward, as Mr Liang Eng Hwa has pointed out, our fiscal position will be challenging – revenues are coming down while some expenditures are continuing to go up and the situation continues to be very fluid. We do not know how the COVID-19 pandemic situation will continue to play out, a point which I emphasised in my speech earlier on in the Debate.

MOF will have to examine the various options very carefully but with the clear goal of enabling us to navigate through this very major crisis and to emerge stronger.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 14-25, 27-28, 30-34, 36-40, 42-53, 55 and 57-61 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 26, 29, 35, 41, 54, 56 and 62 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [31 August 2020]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]

[(proc text) 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan] (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate.

A month ago, a young girl emailed me to inform me that she had seen me and my grassroots leaders working together to resolve school traffic problems in her neighbourhood. She also wanted to do her part for the community and had worked out a plan with her two sisters. They had pooled together her prize money from sports tournaments and their combined Edusave awards money. Their parents matched the sum dollar-for-dollar. They wanted to donate the entire sum to the community and asked me what use it could be put to.

It just so happened that my team has been distributing free meals to vulnerable residents at Clementi Avenue 4 since the start of the Circuit Breaker. The number of beneficiaries under this programme had increased from 30 to 90 people. I told the girls that their donations would help to cover the costs of five meals and invited their family to join us in the distribution. The residents were very moved to hear that such young girls had paid for their meals.

The mother told me that her father used to be a construction worker and they would have to go without meals at times because his job was unstable. Now that she has the opportunity of guiding her daughters to give back to the community, she has this special sense of satisfaction.

I was also very touched by the mother’s words. In fact, meal programmes are not new. Many charity organisations do this. However, this was a first in my community. Normally, we would issue cheques or grocery vouchers to residents who apply for financial assistance. During the Circuit Breaker period, we were worried that some of them would not be able to buy their own groceries and meals, which was why we decided to set up this meal programme. We observed that as many people walked past the distribution point, some who are in need would approach us and apply to join the programme. Those who are not in need also noticed and commended us for organising such an initiative. Some residents, like the three sisters, who are in a position to give, even offered to sponsor a few meals or some daily necessities to be distributed together with the meals, giving full play to the kampong spirit of looking out for one another. While the Circuit Breaker period has ended, some people still face financial difficulties and we plan to carry on with this programme for as long as we can.

This might be a small anecdote, but it does reflect that our community is undergoing changes because of COVID-19. The pandemic has hit the economy hard and affected the ability of some families to fend for themselves. However, it has also ignited the spirit of mutual help in our community. The Government has introduced many large-scale assistance programmes for Singaporeans, but there are finer areas where the grassroots can make themselves useful.

I have seen more residents engage in charitable work and even become volunteers. Our team of volunteers have become more like social workers, actively organising various assistance programmes. For us Members of Parliament, we also seem to have become a clearing house to match donations to needs. The items I have received and given out range from face masks and hand sanitisers to food, second-hand laptops and cash donations. We have been kept busy, but we also learn to adapt, transform and grow.

During the debate over the past few days, we have had in-depth discussions on economic issues. I would like to talk about the social aspect, especially the building of our society post-COVID-19.

While we will prevail against COVID-19 one day, life will probably not return to what it was. In her Address, President Halimah Yacob noted that the global and domestic situations have changed and there would be no going back to the status quo.

Rather than long for the past, we can seize the day and shape the future. Let me start with the ways in which we have surpassed ourselves in this pandemic.

While fighting the pandemic, Singaporeans have been surpassing ourselves in many ways. I am not only referring to the courage of healthcare staff or the dedication of frontline personnel. I am also referring to ways in which each and every one of us has been stretching ourselves.

First, many of us have acquired new DIY skills, especially during the Circuit Breaker – cooking, baking, growing vegetables and sewing masks, to name a few examples.

Baking is both a hobby and also a wage-earning skill. Sales of baked goods and desserts were suspended during the Circuit Breaker, but home baking also flourished. Now, when I make door-to-door visits, I sometimes am presented with cakes made by self-professed “Circuit Breaker Bakers”.

In the early weeks of the pandemic, face masks were in short supply. Those who could sew answered the call to make fabric masks for family, friends and strangers. I, too, joined in. In the process, I learned that my sewing machine was not as difficult to use as I had imagined – the key was whether I had the motivation to figure it out.