Employment (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.56 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Employment Act (EA) is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for the basic terms and working conditions for employees, while meeting employers' needs to stay competitive. Since it was last reviewed in 2012, the profile of our labour force and local employment practices have continued to evolve. A review is therefore timely to ensure that the EA remains relevant.

My Ministry, together with our tripartite partners the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), carried out extensive consultations. The result is a set of substantive amendments that meet the interests of both employees and employers.

Members may be aware that the EA was first enacted in 1968 by then-Minister for Foreign Affairs and Labour, Mr S Rajaratnam. It has come a long way. Back then, managers and executives were a very small part of our workforce. There was little need to cover them under the EA. It was more than 40 years later that we started covering some managers and executives in 2009.

We have also enhanced employment protection and benefits over the years. For example, we introduced childcare leave and enhanced maternity leave in 2004. In 2009, we extended the provisions on compensation for work on public holidays and paid sick leave to all employees under the EA. Recently in 2016, we also introduced itemised pay slips and written key employment terms.

Each amendment of the EA is a result of careful consideration by the tripartite partners to meet the interests of both employers and employees. As we mark the 50^th Anniversary of the EA this year, we should acknowledge the tripartite collaboration that has kept our EA relevant and well-calibrated.

Let me provide an overview of the amendments in this Bill, which is intended to take effect on 1 April 2019. It covers changes in three key areas.

First, we will extend core provisions of the EA to cover all managers and executives. This will mean that other than domestic workers, public officers and seafarers who will continue to be covered by other Acts and regulations due to the nature of their work, all employees will enjoy the protection of the EA.

Second, we will extend additional protection under Part IV of the Act to cover more employees.

Third, we will enhance our employment dispute resolution framework.

Let me elaborate on the key amendments.

The first set of amendments extends the core provisions under the EA to all employees. These include the minimum days of annual leave, paid public holiday and sick leave entitlements, as well as other protections, such as timely payment of salary and protection against wrongful dismissal.

Today, three groups of employees already enjoy core provisions.

First, all workmen – these are our manual workers or blue-collar workers. Second, all non-workmen – these are our rank-and-file white-collar workers. Third, managers and executives with basic monthly salaries up to $4,500.

With the proportion of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) rising and expected to make up two-thirds of our local workforce by 2030, it is timely to make a more fundamental change to the coverage of the EA.

In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will remove the $4,500 salary threshold for managers and executives. In doing so, all employees whether managers and executives, workmen or non-workmen, will be covered by core provisions under the EA. This will benefit an additional 430,000 managers and executives.

In addition to the core provisions, the EA provides a set of additional protections in Part IV, such as on hours of work, rest day and overtime pay. Today, Part IV covers workmen earning up to $4,500, and non-workmen earning up to $2,500. They are collectively known as Part IV employees.

In consultation with the tripartite partners, we will increase the salary threshold for non-workmen from $2,500 to $2,600, bringing Part IV employees to half of our total workforce. In addition, we will align the salary cap of $2,250 for calculating overtime pay with the new salary threshold of $2,600. Taken together, an additional 100,000 employees will benefit from these enhancements.

As we amend the EA to benefit more employees, we have also introduced changes to better meet business requirements.

For example, currently, when workmen and non-workmen are required to work on public holidays, employers have only two options. They can compensate with an extra day’s pay or provide a full-day off-in-lieu.

We will introduce a third option for workmen and non-workmen who are not Part IV employees. Employers will be able to grant them time off for the hours worked on a public holiday, rather than a full-day off. With this change, the options for non-Part IV workmen and non-workmen would be the same as that for managers and executives.

With these changes, all employees will continue to be compensated for working on public holidays. Employers will be able to grant time off to all non-Part IV employees. Part IV employees, who have lower bargaining power, will continue to receive either an extra day’s pay or a full-day off if they are required to work on a public holiday.

Another improvement for businesses has to do with authorised deductions.

Today, the EA limits the type of salary deductions that employers can make, such as absence from work or damaging or losing goods entrusted to the employee. Such controls protect the employee’s interests, but can also inconvenience them. For example, some companies provide voluntary group hospital and surgical insurance for their employees if the employees agree to co-pay the premiums.

The EA currently does not allow such deductions even when the employees agree. So, employees have to separately reimburse the employer. The EA will be amended to allow a deduction if it fulfils two conditions. Firstly, the employee must willingly consent to the deduction in writing. Secondly, the employee must be able to withdraw his consent at any time, without any penalty. This less prescriptive approach would allow employers and employees greater flexibility to arrange for mutually agreed deductions. At the same time, employees’ interests continue to be protected. In addition, deductions still cannot constitute more than 50% of the employee’s total salary for any one salary period. Deductions for amenities and services supplied by the employer will continue to require the Commissioner’s approval.

The third set of amendments enhances our employment dispute resolution framework.

Currently, salary-related disputes are adjudicated by the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT), while wrongful dismissal claims are adjudicated by MOM. In fact, both types of disputes are often related.

To provide both employees and employers with a more convenient “one-stop service”, we will shift the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to the ECT. In line with this “one-stop service” approach, we will also expand the coverage of the Tripartite Mediation Framework to include wrongful dismissal claims.

Over the years, a considerable body of cases involving wrongful dismissal claims have been accumulated. They put into practice the broad principles used by MOM that also reflect the consensus reached between employers and unions.

The type of dismissal cases that MOM hears include not only those when the employee was terminated by the employer, but also cases when the employee resigned involuntarily. Involuntary resignation can be considered wrongful dismissal if the employee was forced to do so for wrongful reasons. For example, an employer may make work conditions unreasonably difficult, to force the employee to resign so as to deprive him of his employment benefits, and to mask the employer’s wrongful behaviour.

The wrongful dismissal cases heard by MOM have not been published thus far as there was little need to do so. With the transfer of the adjudication function to the ECT, MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal. These Tripartite Guidelines will contain illustrations of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not.

Under the Employment Claims Act (ECA), when the ECT adjudicates a case, it must take into account the principles and parameters contained in the Tripartite Guidelines. In cases where a dismissal is found to be wrongful, the ECT will order compensation or reinstatement. There is no change to the scope of remedies. Per the current practice, the ECT will take into account factors beyond just the wages or maternity benefits owed to the employee, in determining the amount of compensation.

Sir, when the EA was first expanded in 2009 to cover managers and executives, the tripartite partners agreed that managers and executives would only be eligible to claim for wrongful dismissal if they have served at least 12 months.

Following further tripartite discussion, employers have agreed to reduce this qualifying period to six months, on the basis that it would be sufficient for them to assess a manager's or executive’s suitability for the job. This is in recognition that performance in a manager and executive role is not so immediately clear, compared to workmen or non-workmen, where there is no qualifying period.

This is a win-win approach, as forcing employers to accept an even shorter period would make them more hesitant in offering employment to candidates they are not entirely sure of.

Finally, we will also make other amendments to the EA to enhance its flexibility and ensure it remains responsive.

Today, employers are required under the EA to accord paid sick leave only if the medical certificate (MC) is issued by the Government and company-appointed doctors. This provision has been in place since the EA was first enacted in 1968. As the Minister back then made clear, there were frequent absences using fictitious MCs; Government stepped in then to specify which doctors’ MCs would be recognised by law.

Today, doctors are registered under the Medical Registration Act and are subject to the Singapore Medical Council Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. Therefore, there is no longer a need to distinguish between MCs issued by different groups of doctors where paid sick leave is concerned.

Moving ahead, we will require employers to recognise MCs from all registered doctors for the purpose of granting paid sick leave. Given this widening in the recognition of MCs, it is timely to also clarify what hospitalisation entails under the EA. The clauses on hospitalisation have been in place since 1968 and the intent has been for hospitalisation leave to cover the period requiring hospital care.

However, certain ground practices have deviated from the policy intent over the years. Today, some non-hospital doctors may issue medical certificates for hospitalisation leave for conditions that do not require any hospitalisation, such as sprains. To clarify the intent, we will specify in the EA that when it comes to hospitalisation leave, employers are required to recognise medical certificates only if they are issued by hospital doctors. Employers who wish to recognise MCs from their own panel-doctors for granting hospitalisation leave are free to continue to do so.

Hospitalisation leave will continue to cover inpatient stays in hospitals and day surgeries. In addition, the post-discharge period of rest or further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for will also be covered.

There are also certain circumstances where we will continue to require employers to recognise MCs for purposes of hospitalisation leave. Occasionally, the hospital doctor assesses that inpatient stay or day surgery is required, but for some reason that does not happen. For example, a hospital doctor may assess that a pregnant woman requires hospitalisation for bed rest due to complications in pregnancy, but she may prefer to rest at home. There may also be other specific circumstances such as Quarantine Orders as required by law which would qualify employees for hospitalisation leave. We will provide for these situations in the Act and regulations.

Sir, there is also a need to enhance MOM’s regulatory framework to ensure that it remains responsive to the emergence of undesirable employment practices.

For example, some employers have out of convenience, or even with an intention to cover up for late or non-payment of salaries, asked their employees to sign salary vouchers before receiving their salaries, or to sign on blank salary vouchers. Such errant practices should be curbed. The worker may not realise that salary vouchers can be used as proof of receipt of payment in cases of dispute.

We will, therefore, provide in the EA that the Minister for Manpower can make regulations to protect employees from any employment practice that may adversely affect their wellbeing, including where the enforcement of their entitlements might be at risk. For a start, we intend to make it a civil contravention for employers to ask an employee to indicate receipt of salary before he is paid, or sign a receipt that is blank or inaccurate.

Sir, we have covered many changes in this Bill. With your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a handout on the key changes to the Employment Act, for ease of Members’ reference.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout (Annex 3) was distributed to hon Members]

Mrs Josephine Teo: Sir, please also allow me to summarise the Bill in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Employment Act (EA) is Singapore’s main employment law. It provides for basic employment protections and fair treatment for employees while meeting employers’ needs at the same time, to ensure that our labour market will continue to thrive.

The purpose of each amendment is to make sure that the EA remains relevant and forward-thinking. As always, the Amendment today is the result of tripartite consultation. The key areas of review are providing protection for more Managers and Executives (M&Es), allowing more employees to enjoy additional protections, and strengthening our employment dispute resolution framework.

Today, our Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) make up about 56% of the local workforce. By 2030, that proportion is expected to increase to 65%. Currently, the EA covers M&Es whose salaries are up to $4,500, to allow them to enjoy legal protection, including when it comes to sick leave, working on public holiday, and wrongful dismissal.

After discussions with the tripartite partners, we feel that M&Es whose salaries exceed $4,500 should also enjoy the basic protection. About 430,000 M&Es will benefit.

We will also increase the salary threshold for non-workmen so that more employees can enjoy more comprehensive legal protection including when it comes to working hours, overtime pay and rest day entitlement. About 100,000 employees will benefit.

In addition, in order to ensure that employees and employers can better resolve their employment disputes, we will streamline the employment dispute resolution procedures.

On the whole, this Amendment Bill is proactive and comprehensive. If passed, the EA’s coverage will expand to include higher salaried M&Es, and provide additional protection for employees. In total, more than 500,000 employees will benefit from these amendments.

At the same time, the employers can also enjoy some flexibility in their HR management, which is conducive to create a more enlightened workplace.

(In English): In conclusion, this Bill will better protect our workers, enhance our dispute resolution framework and provide employers enhanced flexibility. It will bolster our efforts to institute good employment norms and develop progressive workplaces for our people. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.18 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this amendment Bill. I declare my interest as a member of the tripartite workgroup which was involved in working out the areas of enhancements to this Bill.

The Employment Act was first enacted in 1968 to address the urgent need to accelerate economic growth and ensure a steady flow of foreign investments to Singapore in anticipation of labour market disruptions. The Act created more systematic and stable employment conditions to increase labour productivity and business efficiency to achieve these aims. Indeed, the Act is instrumental in ensuring a stable labour market, a major contributing factor of Singapore's economic growth.

The Act has been revised regularly and it is an embodiment of the delicate balancing of tripartite concerns to maximise labour force participation while ensuring that workers' rights are protected and balanced against employers' need to stay competitive to create good jobs for workers.

To ensure its relevance, this balancing act also takes into account the changing demographics of our workforce and the disruptive forces impacting work in our economy. Since the last amendment of the Act which took effect on 1 April 2014, I made calls in and outside the Parliament to review the Act in light of the changing workforce profile, rising median wages and issues that needed redress. And I am heartened that the Bill addresses a number of these issues through two broad thrusts. First, the expansion of coverage of workers under the Act; and, two, enhancements made to better protect workers' welfare.

First, the inclusion of all, I repeat, all professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) under the Act. It is a watershed moment for Singapore's labour legislation and extends key statutory benefits to an additional 430,000 number of workers. Today, PMEs form about 36% of our local workforce and this rises to 56% if we include technicians, PMETs for short. This figure is growing quickly and PMETs will make up two-thirds of our local workforce by 2030.

As companies push forward with transformation efforts, we must ensure that the Act provides adequate coverage for a changing workforce. I have been lobbying since 2011 for the expansion of the Employment Act to cover all PMEs. I am glad we have moved the needle in 2014 and now to all PMEs including those earning more than $4,500 a month. This is important as there remain cases where aggrieved PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month did not have recourse under the Act. Having a salary cap meant that there was a deliberate delineation of workers covered under the Act and those who were not. Some rogue employers tried to game the Act by making use of the salary cap to exclude workers from the Act. Others tried to cause confusion by referencing the salary cap to deny PMEs from collective representation by unions, and for unions who tried to extend and to expand the scope of representation to cover PMEs, although this is allowed under the Industrial Relations Act.

The removal of the salary cap signals the raising of employment standards in Singapore by according all workers with protection under the core provisions of the Act and with access to the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT). This is a radical step forward given that just a decade ago PMEs were not even covered under the Act. With the removal of the salary cap, companies should have more excuse to prevent unions from representing and organising PMEs earning more than $4,500 a month. I call upon all employers to take this opportunity to work with our unions and the Labour Movement to review their employment practices and make concerted efforts to get all their staff, especially PMEs within their companies to become union members and be part of the tripartite relationship and framework.

Protection under Part IV of the Act has also been extended to more rank-and-file workers. The increase in the salary cap for non-workmen from $2,500 to $2,600 and overtime rate payable for non-workmen from a salary level of $2,250 to $2,600 under Part IV of the Act will benefit more than 100,000 non-workmen.

Having come across incidents where rogue employers have excluded workers from Part IV protection by giving workers inflated managerial and executive titles and paying them just above the salary cap of $2,500 a month, I strongly urge employers to scrutinise their employment practices to ensure the workers are not unfairly excluded from Part IV protection. I also appeal to workers to come forward to seek the union's assistance if they are of the view they have been unfairly excluded from the Part IV protection.

While there is clearly a need to accord stronger protection for a select group of vulnerable workers under Part IV, there is increasing difficulty on the ground to clearly determine if a worker is a workman or a non-workman. This is particularly challenging as many forms of work now involve a mix of both manual and non-manual work. And jobs will continue to be transformed. There is a need to keep watch on this issue to ensure that Part IV of the Act retains its relevancy in the changing nature of work. Perhaps there may come a day when we will do away with this PME, non-PME, PME bargainable dichotomy.

Second, a series of enhancements have been made to enable better protection of workers' welfare. In view of rapidly changing needs of the workforce, flexibility has been provided under the Bill for the Manpower Minister to address undesirable employment practices through the making of regulations. This will allow the Minister to respond quickly to curb undesirable employment practices and protect the well-being of workers.

The Commissioner for Labour's powers have also been strengthened to inquire into retrenchment practices. Employers will have to furnish information on retrenchment of any employee, if they are required to do so by the Commissioner. I believe this will further complement the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Excess Manpower which stipulates the norms for retrenchment benefits and fair retrenchment practices as well as a mandatory reporting requirement for retrenchments and assistance provided by the task force for responsible for retrenchment and employment facilitation.

Another enhancement is the transfer of adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims to the ECT. Today, when an employee considers that he has been dismissed without just cause or excused by his employer, he may make representations in writing to the Manpower Minister to be reinstated. With the passing of the Bill, the ECT will serve as a one-stop service for salary related and wrongful dismissal claims. I thank the tripartite partners on agreeing to work out a set of FAQs and guidelines before the Bill comes into effect to provide clarity on what amounts to wrongful dismissal which may include forced resignations without just cause.

The Bill also provides that the ECT and the Labour Court are to have regard to the tripartite guidelines on wrongful dismissals when deciding any claim involving wrongful dismissals. Such transparency will help to ensure that employees are adequately protected from wrongful dismissal while employers are not saddled by frivolous allegations.

I have some issues of concerns, however. While good progress has been made in the Bill under these two broad thrusts, I have a number of concerns to which I opine clarification or enhancements are needed in the furtherance of objectives of the Act.

First, with increased volatility and streamlining of businesses, I am particularly concerned about the need to provide greater clarity on the ambit of section 18(a) of the Act which allows employers to transfer employees in the transfer of business undertaking. There is a need for the formulation of a set of tripartite guidelines as well as FAQs on the scope of application of section 18(a). I urge the tripartite partners to work on this urgently, especially since this section now applies to all workers including PMEs earning more than $4,500.

Second, I would like to ask the Minister what support has been put in place to facilitate the transfer of jurisdiction of wrongful dismissals to the ECT to ensure their access to justice is not hampered. When the jurisdiction of salary claims was transferred from the Labour Court to the ECT, some workers experienced difficulties in filing their claims, as the ECT processes required the submission of more forms and documentation. Support must be provided to ensure workers' access to justice can be done easily and expediently by the ECT.

Third, now there is a one-stop service at the ECT for salary related and wrongful dismissal claims, it is timely to consider having simplified enforcement proceedings of these claims which are under the purview of the ECT. I have come across quite a number of cases where the worker has sought recourse at the ECT and has successfully obtained an order for the employer to pay him his unpaid wages, but the employer fails to pay up. Workers who are unfamiliar with the legal system will be surprised or dismayed to find out that they would have to take additional steps and expend more time and cost to enforce the order with no guaranteed outcomes. At this stage, the worker may not have been paid his salary for a few months or maybe even out of work. Some workers may have taken out enforcement proceedings but these efforts are later thwarted in cases when the employer is wound up.

Some possible interventions that could be explored included: (a) the provision of simplified enforcement mechanisms to the ECT which can help to see through employers' satisfaction of orders for which no appeals have been filed. In cases where employers are unable to pay due to financial difficulties, employers will have to submit evidence for their inability to pay and the ECT can assess and determine if this is truly the case; (b) a short-term relief fund targeted at the bottom 20th percentile of the workforce funded by MOM and operated by the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for workers who have successfully made ECT claims against their companies but failed to recover payment can be expanded to assist more vulnerable worker groups; (c) where the employer has become insolvent, MOM can also advance money to pay part of the worker's unpaid wages and stand in place of the workers as a preferred creditor of the same level of priority the workers would have had for paid or unpaid wages to recover the advance monies upon distribution of the insolvent companies' assets. This will reduce the waiting time for workers to be paid and eliminate the hassle and stress of having to take additional administrative steps within the insolvency framework to recover their unpaid wages.

Fourth, clause 15 of the Bill seeks to define the circumstances in which an employee is eligible for paid hospitalisation leave. I welcome the amendment to the clause which clarifies that an employee who is certified to be ill enough to require hospitalisation will qualify even if not warded in the hospital. This reflects more accurately the position under section 89(3) as it is currently worded.

In this respect, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following points.

(a) Clause 15 states that the certification must be done by a medical practitioner employed by a hospital approved by the Minister. I understand that private hospitals may also be approved for this purpose. There are situations where the employees being treated by a doctor in private practice was accredited to the hospital. Could the Minister confirm that the certification by such accredited doctors can be recognised for purposes of granting paid hospitalisation leave?

(b) With the proposed amendments to section 89, the employer will recognise outpatient sick leave which is certified by any medical practitioner. Could the Minister confirm that the law does not prohibit employers from recognising hospital leave certified by medical practitioners as well?

(c) With regard to infectious diseases, clause 15 provides that an employee who is under quarantine under any written law will be deemed to be hospitalised. There are, however, some infectious diseases, such as chicken pox and HFMD which are not covered under the Infectious Diseases Act. Will the Minister consider allowing employees who come down with such illnesses be granted hospitalisation leave under the Act?

Fifth, clause 4 of the Act has streamlined the list of specified deductions which an employer may make from the employee's salary, and introduce a catch-all provision allowing employers to make any other deductions to which the employee has given written consent.

I will like to seek clarification from the Minister on the following.

First, to ensure that measures included in clause 4 to protect the employee are effective, could the Minister confirm that the written consent must be obtained from the employee at the point of time when the deduction is to be made, and the employers will not be deemed to have met this requirement through practices such as incorporating clauses in employment contract stating that the employee agrees that the employer may make deductions as and when considered necessary.

Second, if an employee is penalised by the employer for withdrawing his/her consent, what recourse can the employee seek from the Ministry and what actions will the Ministry take against an errant employer?

For payments to credit cooperatives, it should still be specifically mentioned in the Employment Act as an authorised deduction. This is the best assurance of regular collections and ensures sustainability of credit cooperatives. Such cooperatives serve an important social purpose to encourage savings and provide affordable loans to working people while they are members. This helps to steer people away from loansharks and moneylenders in a vicious cycle of permanent indebtedness.

To conclude, while we have made good progress in advancing workers' protection under this Bill and the Bill embodies our spirit of tripartism in striking a balance among our tripartite partners' concerns, we must continue to take a proactive approach to ensure that our labour legislation stays current and relevant in a maturing economy and workforce. With that, I support the Bill. Thank you.

4.33 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I declare my interest as a lawyer who advises on employment law matters and disputes in my practice.

It is good news that under this Bill, PMETs earning more than $4,500 a month will be included in the Employment Act. Until now, our employment law has this anomaly whereby the basic law on employment matters for PMETs earning more than $4,500 are not actually provided for in our statutes. Today’s amendments to include the basic employment rights of PMETs in important areas such as pay, dismissal, leave, sick leave and hospitalisation leave, as well as employment-related claims, is a right step to take.

The Bill proposes to introduce a new definition of the word "dismiss". I have some concerns about the part of the definition beginning from "…and includes the resignation of an employee if the employee can show on a balance of probabilities, that the employee does not resign voluntarily but was forced to do so because of any conduct or omission, or course of conduct or omissions, engaged in by the employer". I do understand and accept the intention to include the situation where an employee may be forced by circumstances created by an employer to resign. However, I still do have a concern over the broad and vague wording of "any conduct or omission" or "course of conduct or omission", which I fear may create ambiguities and uncertainties and may give grounds for abuse by employees who may have left due to bad blood but who might not actually have been so forced to leave by their employers.

The Bill also proposes to provide the right for a relevant employee to lodge a claim at the Employment Claims Tribunal for wrongful dismissal. For someone who is employed in a managerial or an executive position, clause 3(b) of the Bill proposes to reduce the prior period of service from 12 to six months before a claim can be lodged. May I ask the Minister why does the Government now think that six months is sufficient and why, for example, it should not be less than three months, which is a common duration for confirmation of employment?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in light of the recent High Court decision in Hasan Shofiqul v China Civil (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 128, would the Minister consider providing a clear statutory definition of what constitutes a "manager" or an "executive" in the Employment Act itself? Any interpretation published elsewhere including MOM guidelines is not binding in law in a similar way. It is clear from this case and also, anecdotally, that companies have tried to exploit the lack of a statutory definition to give inflated titles to fit the category of managers and executives when the reality of the job scope may be otherwise.

Next, I note that the Bill is proposing to allow wrongful dismissal claim to be handled by the Employment Claims Tribunal under the Employment Claims Act. I welcome this move. In my speech at the debate during the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill in August 2016, I had proposed that “the Government should consider having one Tribunal that can hear all types of labour-related employment disputes. This may also take away some cases from the courts. We can have a Tribunal that hears claims on employment claims, unfair dismissal and discrimination.”

In my speech then, I noted that the then Employment Claims Bill only dealt with salary-related claims, not other type of claims or grievances related to work or workplace. I said that there was no specific tribunal to address issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination. I also said that MOM had in previous years acknowledged that there are such cases. In January 2013, the then Acting Minister for Manpower, said that from 2007 to 2012, MOM received annually an average of 70 cases from female employees who felt they had been unfairly dismissed, out of which 70% involved pregnant women. I had said in my speech then that we should not overlook the issues of unfair dismissal or discrimination but that we should look at the examples of other first world countries like the UK which has been having an employment tribunal handling different types of claims.

I also pointed out that employment claims disputes are often mired in the context of contending allegations of breaches of employment contract. I said the following: "unfair dismissal or discrimination could well be part of the factual matrix in some of these cases. How would the tribunal handle submissions or evidence on such issues? It may well be unfair to parties in such cases for the appointed tribunals to just ignore arguments relating to, for example, unfair dismissal or discrimination. It is naive to pretend that such scenarios will not happen and it may be an injustice to employees or employers if the tribunal were to disregard such issues or evidence completely."

As per my speech during the debate for the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I think the Employment Claims Tribunal should also hear claims on discrimination. Let me also cite an example of such discrimination where, anecdotally, some of us may have heard of not infrequently, and that is, a manager of a company preferring to recruit people of the same ethnic origin or nationality.

Next, under the Employment Claims Act, claims are limited to $20,000 or $30,000 for claimants who go through the Tripartite Mediation Framework or mediation assisted by their unions under the Industrial Relations Act. In the debate at the Second Reading of the Employment Claims Bill, I also said that "…we should set a higher minimum monetary limit for cases before the employment claims tribunal. A good indication of a minimum limit should be the median annual income so that employers are less likely to be able to delay a hearing before the tribunal, on the calculation that the employee may not have sufficient resources to pursue the case in the civil courts. Hence the claim limit should be raised beyond $20,000. Let it cover claims involving PMETs too and PMETs with higher income."

With today’s Amendment Bill, the Employment Act will now cover PMETs earning more than $4,500. I also understand that the Employment Claims Tribunal is already hearing claims from PMETs. However, it appears that the limits of $20,000 and $30,000 has not been raised yet. Would the Government consider raising the limits so that more disputes can be heard by the Tribunal?

Mr Deputy Speaker, in closing, let me touch briefly on the importance of the quality of case handling both at the Employment Claims Tribunal hearing and the mediation before any such hearing.

I have previously spoken against the provision in the Employment Claims Bill which allows the Tribunal not to be bound by rules of evidence in the conduct of any proceedings where I pointed out that the risks of a tribunal failing to consider relevant evidence or making its decision based on arguably wrongful evidence cannot be discounted and this affects the quality of justice. Naive or lesser educated workers who may not know how best to protect themselves with written evidence of any agreement with their employers may be disadvantaged by such a system.

Employees have no right to have lawyers representing them at the Employment Claims Tribunal as the law does not allow representation by lawyers, so this means that lay people may not be fully equipped to ensure that their rights are protected and appropriate arguments are made in their favour. At the same time, I believe that the law does not expressly prohibit companies from using their in-house legal counsel, who may be a fully qualified lawyer to represent them at such proceedings. This may arguably not be fair to the employees. It is a possible loophole which the Government may wish to look to address. Perhaps, it may be more appropriate to have a non-legally trained person to represent the employer at a tribunal hearing.

Even with legal provisions which may set the Employment Claims Tribunal apart from, say, the State Courts in hearing its usual cases in the Magistrates and District Courts, the Employment Claims Tribunal should always apply the law as faithfully as it can, so that both employers and employees alike will be treated fairly and in accordance with their position under the law. Similarly, each party’s legal position under the employment contract must also be fully recognised during any mediation process before that.

I remember a few years ago, a client of mine received a complaint of wrongful dismissal lodged by an ex-employee with MOM. This was pre-Employment Claims Tribunal days. The employee had a record of disciplinary issues, which the employer was able to present to MOM. Notwithstanding the disciplinary case, the employer had properly terminated the employment contract according to the notice provision of her employment contract and the employee was paid according to what she was due to be paid under the contract. The employer could well have terminated the contract on disciplinary grounds, which would have meant that she would have been paid less upon termination. However, contrary to the clear contractual provisions and despite the disciplinary breaches, the company was told by MOM to provide ex-gratia payment to the employee. I hope that such a case was indeed a one-off and, certainly, I believe that such experiences should not be allowed to happen under the new regime where claims for wrongful dismissal will be heard in the Employment Claims Tribunal, including any mediation process.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is a step in the right direction and notwithstanding the proposals and concerns I have raised, I support this Bill.

4.43 pm

Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings Ltd, President of Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice-Chairman of Singapore Business Federation and Vice-President of Singapore National Employers Federation.

I rise in support of the Bill. Since its enactment in 1968, the Employment Act has been the backbone of workers’ rights as well as a marker of employers’ obligations. The revisions proposed in the current Bill will extend the protection offered and, at the same time, bring the Act in line with economic changes since its last amendment in 2013.

I rise to speak on two points. The first, changes to the Act from the viewpoint of employers and, the second, the role that the tripartite partners play in today's changing employment landscape.

This Bill has been lauded by many employees who see the extension of benefits proffered under the Act now extended beyond any arbitrary salary cap. Some of these well-known benefits include guaranteed seven days' paid annual leave, 11 paid public holidays, paid sick and hospitalisation leave, as well as the timely payment of salary. Extension of these benefits to roughly an additional 400 over thousand workers is indeed a step in the right direction for labour welfare in Singapore, a country strongly dependent on our human capital.

Yet, there are valid concerns by employers. The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) of which I am privileged to be one of the Vice Presidents was deeply involved in the review of the Employment Act. Spreading over 12 months, the SNEF engaged over 3,000 employers and HR practitioners before reaching consensus with our tripartite partners on the proposed amendments.

Please allow me to share with this House the main feedback that employers gave during the review, alongside with some of my humble observations and suggestions.

First, rising costs in today’s global business economy, coupled with the uncertainty of trade wars in the world, place our business leaders in a highly stressful environment where thinning profit margins have to be carefully managed against rising costs.

Except for Part IV of the Employment Act, all managers and executives will now be covered by the Act after the amendments are passed. Accordingly, managers and executives will all receive the same protection as rank-and-file workers. It is happy to note that most employers already provide this minimum coverage of benefits, if not better, for all their employees. However, it is in the different ways in which companies manage these benefits that operational issues may arise, leading to some employers having to repackage their compensation and benefits for managers and executives. Such repackaging may take into account their roles and responsibilities, the demands of their jobs and the workplace flexibilities accorded to them. For example, with globalisation and 24/7 operations, it is common for managers and executives to travel or work during a public holiday and in essential services, the exigencies of service to work outside office hours. Such repackaging will inevitably incur actual or opportunity costs for employers.

In addition, with the removal of salary cap of $2,250 for overtime rate and raising of salary threshold to $2,600 in Part IV of the Employment Act, employers would also be impacted by higher overtime costs. For example, in the Food and Beverage and accommodation services sector in which I operate, labour cost accounts for 42.8% of the operating cost, one of the highest amongst the different industries. While the sector is transforming to raise productivity, the increase in overtime coverage would have an immediate cost impact.

What can then be done to assist employers mitigate the effect of these changes? I believe that providing ample time for employers to adjust would be crucial. Yet, employers cannot dally and will need to be proactive and start to take steps to manage their manpower better now. This can be done through job redesign, better manpower planning and scheduling, multi-skilling employees for flexible deployment and other innovative ways.

Employees, on their part, should adopt a more open mindset and remove any inertia they may feel about learning new things, and undertake new responsibilities. This may include cross-industry training to better their understanding of supply chain processes and employees must be ready to eradicate any traces of silo-mentality thinking in relation to their job scope.

Hence, I hope the Ministry will lend enhanced support to employers to undertake lean and agile manpower planning. While the Lean Enterprise Development Scheme (LEDS) has moved towards ready-to-go solutions rather than bespoke solutions to benefit more SMEs, many of the SMEs may still not know how and where to start. A pre-LEDS assistance scheme to evaluate work processes and job roles will help SMEs develop their own lean manpower plan and understand which technologies could help them in their transformation.

In this regard, Trade Associations and Chambers can also take the opportunity to offer their inputs and suggestions to the Ministry and work more closely with their respective members to provide a cogent and relevant framework.

In addition, if greater acknowledgment and incentives can be given to employers who adhere to the Employment Act provisions, I am sure it will prove to be a win-win situation for both the workers and the employers. If I may humbly suggest, such incentives can come in the form of one-time tax rebates or publicised awards for exemplary employment practices over the course of five years or such time as the Ministry may consider appropriate. I acknowledge that some will argue that there is a need to incentivise someone for following the law. Yet, the effect of having such a scheme cannot be underestimated. Even for the simple act of driving, a clean demerit free record can result in so much savings for insurance premiums for drivers. I therefore put forward this for the Ministry’s consideration.

Second, in today’s fast-changing business environment, businesses must be lean and nimble to be able to move and adapt quickly or be left behind. Consequently, they must not be impeded unnecessarily by rigid laws and high compliance and restructuring costs.

Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) which now make up 56.1% of the local workforce would rise to about two-thirds, or 65%, by 2030. The nature of their jobs is however changing. Many will need to be reskilled. Some may need to be redeployed or face the prospect of being retrenched. Regional roles may mean travelling over weekends or working odd hours. At the same time, companies are meeting the work-life demands of such employees by providing flexible work arrangements. It is therefore imperative that management flexibility to develop their human capital to their full potential must not be impeded by rigid employment regulations.

Third, of all the proposed amendments, employers have most concerns with the section 14 amendment of the Employment Act on dismissal – whereby all employees will be able to make a claim for wrongful dismissals following the proposed amendments. Moreover, the eligibility service period of managers and executives to claim for wrongful dismissal has been reduced from 12 to six months. Employers are concerned with frivolous and vexatious claims by disgruntled employees as it is unproductive and a drain on resources and time.

While there are indeed criminal sanctions provided for the giving of false information in the Act, there is little else by way of compensation to employers who are wrongly accused of breaches by unhappy employees. While criminal sanctions may deter such wrongful accusations, it cannot make up for the anxiety and loss of time which employers who have been dragged through a lengthy investigative process undergo. It would therefore be important for the Ministry’s officers to continue to be cognitive of this and continue to handle each investigation with promptness, efficiency and even-handedness.

However, quite apart from criminal sanctions, there is also a need for a framework to operationalise section 14 when it is extended to all employees and shifted to the Employment Claims Tribunal. I understand that the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) is working on this and employers will be briefed on this in due course. While we await the same, businesses will need to step up and put in place a strong HR system with more rigorous performance appraisals and engage the employees regularly in discussions regarding their performance. This will prevent unreasonable and unfounded claims from arising.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Mr Deputy Speaker, while many of the proposed amendments are not new obligations, as they merely extend benefits to a wider pool of workers, it is in and from the context of an employer’s viewpoint that I hope that the Ministry will consider my suggestions. I also verily believe that a focused educational campaign, together with a light touch enforcement approach in the first year of the amendments, can be undertaken by the Ministry, together with its stakeholders, for the benefit of employers.

I now move on to my next point – the role of the tripartite partners.

In recent times, many other countries are reforming their labour laws to make their labour markets more flexible and, therefore, more competitive. For example, Greece and Spain, which had high unemployment rates, undertook labour market reforms to grant employers more flexibility in hiring, firing and determining working hours to create jobs. Even more recently, French President Emmanuel Macron attempted to liberalise France’s rigid labour laws to allow companies to negotiate specific deals on working hours and pay to reduce unemployment.

Going forward, our businesses will operate in a more volatile, uncertain and complex environment. To borrow the words of the Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo at the Ministry’s workplan seminar in May this year, we will need an agile workforce, agile businesses and an agile Government.

An agile workforce will enable workers to adapt to company restructuring and transformation. This means workers will have to pick up new skills and take on new jobs. An agile Government will be responsive to changing economic disruptions and emerging employment demographics and structures. But more important, enterprises must develop agility so that they can navigate the challenging seas to sustain and grow their business, create jobs and boost the economy.

A key strategy for the future of Singapore’s commercial viability will be our brand of tripartite partnership. It is clear that where employers, workers and the Government come together, there are often competing interests among parties, notwithstanding the overarching purpose of advancing Singapore’s interests in the world. The fundamental precept that there must first be a strong and stable country, before a business can prosper and the individual live well is clear. Yet, this seemingly simple precept hides away the inherent principle that where there are competing interests, sacrifices and compromises have to be made.

(In English): It is, therefore, by no means a simple feat for the Tripartite partners overseeing labour relations and employment matters to have kept the peace since 1968 – when the first version of the Employment Act was passed, whilst at the same time canvassing the interests of their respective stakeholders.

In a Motion tabled in this House in 1998, the late Cyrille Tan elucidated the important basis of tripartite partnership in Singapore, and I quote, “The tripartite framework has served us well. Our objective as trade unions is to safeguard the interests of workers. We can do so effectively only if companies become more productive and competitive. Government must continue to provide good infrastructure, transparent regulations and stable conditions to attract investors. Then workers can continue to have good jobs and look forward to fair wage increases. This is the basis of our tripartite relation.

Singapore has succeeded so far because Government, employers and workers have worked together. Where there is industrial harmony, there is social and economic development; where there is constant strife, it is difficult for businessmen, local or foreign, to make long-term plans. A strong tripartite relationship is not just critical in maintaining this industrial harmony. It is also a key competitive advantage to help us become a developed economy early in the 21st century,” unquote.

That these words made more than 20 years ago are still strongly relevant in today’s economic climate, is a standing testament to the wisdom of the late Cyrille Tan. Today, the Tripartite Partnership has worked tirelessly and largely smoothed the sometimes-difficult amendments made to the Employment Act over the years and continue to do so.

It is important therefore for these partners to be ever aware of the important roles they play in Singapore’s future and so accordingly, continue to educate their members on the same, zealously safeguarding the values to be imparted to their members and pick wisely those elected to their respective councils.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to end my speech by taking this opportunity to borrow from the Motion tabled by the late Cyrille Tan, passed by this House in 1998, to call upon, quote, “the Government, employers and unions to further strengthen tripartite relationship, partnership, in Singapore so as to enhance Singapore's competitiveness as we face new and greater economic and social challenges,” unquote, in the current and future economic climate. On this note, I affirm my support for the Bill.

4.59 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a labour Member, I support the latest amendments to the Employment Act, especially in extending the coverage to all employees by removing the salary threshold for managers and executives. In fact, before 2009, managers and executives were not covered under the Employment Act. This move recognises that all employees should be covered for core provisions, such as the timely payment of salary, annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave and public holidays. Indeed, there are many other welcomed changes to our Employment Act and much of these have been shared by speakers before me, especially by my fellow Labour Member, brother Patrick Tay.

While these amendments are a step in the right direction, I have a few concerns, especially in terms of reducing workers' vulnerability.

I support the increase in the salary threshold for non-workmen that will provide them with additional protection. The increase from $2,500 to $2,600 represents a 4% increase since the last salary threshold in 2012. While this new salary threshold ensures 100,000 more non-workmen in Singapore will receive additional protection, I would like to ask why this salary threshold could not have been higher.

MOM statistics show the median gross monthly income of employed residents, excluding employers' CPF, increased by 32% from $2,500 in 2010 to $3,300 in 2017. The median gross monthly income in 2010 of $2,500 was the same as the EA Amendment in 2012. Based on these statistics, the new salary threshold at $2,600 seems to be on the low side if the median salary was used to determine the salary threshold. It seems that the $3,300 would have been the more appropriate salary threshold.

Second, currently, under the existing Employment Act, employers are required to reimburse only the consultation fees when employees visit government- or company-approved doctors if the medical certificate obtained results in paid sick leave.

This, unfortunately, results in disparity in the medical coverage between local and foreign workers. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers are responsible for the well-being of foreign workers, which includes being fully liable for their inpatient and outpatient medical expenses. However, I also understand that while it would not be fair for this burden to fall on taxpayers, it creates a disparity as employers are only required to pay consultation fees for local workers.

Hence, I have made several calls in the past to mandate in the EA for employers’ reimbursement to cover medication, either capped at a certain amount or only those obtained from Government polyclinics. This would benefit many low-wage workers in SMEs and outsourced industries as they usually are accorded only the basic statutory benefits, as compared to other workers.

Nevertheless, I agree as with the committee's position that it may result in an unintended consequence of making employers less likely to hire a candidate in poorer health or those with chronic illnesses. Perhaps then, I would like to suggest to MOM to consider working with MOH to extend the CHAS scheme to enable all Workfare Income Supplement recipients to receive free outpatient treatment at Government polyclinics.

Third, I would like to highlight is the calculation of pay for work on a rest day. I am glad that there is tripartite consensus that employers should continue to pay a higher overtime rate if they request their employees to work on a rest day. However, should the worker be the one requesting to work on his rest day, the worker will only be paid one day's salary. Without a doubt, MOM will act against errant employers if they ask their employees to work on a rest day but paid as if the work was at the request of the employee.

Unfortunately, in our engagement with low-wage workers, many are not aware of the differences in the calculation for pay for work on a rest day. Moreover, given their age and lack of skills, these workers may also be reluctant to report their employers for fearing of losing their job. As such, to protect the vulnerable workers, it should be a single rate of double pay whenever a worker works on a rest day. Logically, no employer will allow workers to work should he not require the manpower to begin with. If there is any work, then most likely it is at the request of the employer.

The last concern I have, is that the Employment Act has not responded to the emergence of the gig economy. Many of us have seen workers working for Uber, Grab, Deliveroo, Honest Bee and many others but we may not realise that these workers are not considered as employees of the company. Rather, they are working for the company under contract for service, and not contract of service.

The current ambiguity for workers in the gig economy when it comes to a contract of service versus a contract for service is problematic. MOM defines a contract of service as an agreement between an employer and an employee, and the employee will be covered by the Employment Act and Workmen Injury Compensation Act (WICA).

However, under a contract for service, defined as, when an independent contractor, such as a self-employed person or vendor, is engaged for a fee to carry out an assignment or project, he will not be entitled to statutory benefits or be able to make any WICA claims should he be injured during his course of work. This makes the workers exceptionally vulnerable. Our employment laws must address this. Hence, I would like to know the reason why the revision to this EA does not take into consideration this emerging category of workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The key to having an effective Employment Act is to ensure that the needs of the tripartite partners are considered. The Employment Act, and its revisions thereof, are outcomes of continuous reviews and consultations between the tripartite partners to strike a balance among differing tripartite interests.

I support the amendments being proposed currently. Nonetheless, I have some suggestions. First, I would like to suggest that the workers who work during their rest days are paid the same rate of salaries regardless whether the work is being done at the request of the worker or his employer.

Second, I would like to suggest that workers are given better medical coverage. The current Employment Act only requires employers to pay for the consultation fees when their workers seek treatment. It is very different from foreign workers, whereby the employers are responsible for settling the medical costs of foreign workers. We can consider providing outpatient treatment for free to all workers who are eligible for Workfare Income Supplement.

Third, I am concerned that many workers in the gig economy, like Grab drivers and delivery staff like Deliveroo workers, are not considered as workers under those employers. Hence, they do not qualify for compensation from WICA for accidents or injuries that occur in the course of their duties. What are the available plans to protect such workers from the gig economy?

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, notwithstanding my concerns, I believe that the changes to the Employment Act are timely and I support the additional protection these changes offer to the workers.

5.08 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. This Bill will improve protections for all employees while balancing business costs and employability. The most significant improvement is the extension of core provisions of the Employment Act to managers and executives.

We must be realistic. In an employment relationship, the employer often has more bargaining power. This is why unions exist – to balance the greater power of the employer. Managers and executives were formerly excluded from the Act because we presumed that power was more equal at that level. That may have been true in the past, when the vast majority of our workers were rank and file. But today, most of our managers and executives are in a similar position to the rank and file. They cannot afford to use contract law to settle employment disputes, and they do not have the power to bargain over employment contract terms. They should be protected by the Employment Act, just as the rank and file already are.

Sir, a good labour law must also ensure that workers are employable, and businesses can thrive. There are concerns that this Bill may increase labour market rigidity for managers and executives, and hence reduce economic efficiency. But the core provisions of the Employment Act, such as timely payment of salary, wrongful dismissal protection, and mandatory annual leave, are really basic labour rights.

A business that cannot afford to grant these basic rights is expecting workers, and society, to pay for their poor business performance. More importantly, the way that we will resolve employment disputes for managers and executives will in fact lower business costs. We rely on mediation, and if that fails, the employment claims tribunal. With due respect to some hon Members, lawyers are not involved, and that greatly reduces costs for both sides. Mediation is effective.

Sir, the Minister for Manpower said yesterday, in a written reply to Dr Intan that the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management and the Employment Claims Tribunal have successfully helped 90% of employees recover salary claims in full. An effective dispute resolution framework will greatly deter errant practices which will avoid disputes in the first place.

That said, I wish to outline two emerging labour policy issues that are not completely addressed by this Bill. The first is how the self-employed are treated. The self-employed are exempt from the EA because they are not subject to the direction of an employer. We have all engaged property agents, private tutors and taxi drivers. We cannot oversee and direct them in their work. We have no obligations to each other as an employer and an employee.

But today, many self-employed workers are subject to control by a counterparty who directs their conditions of work. Consider the debate during yesterday's sitting on hawkers. Hawkers are self-employed, but they can only work if they sign contracts with landlords to rent their stalls. Some self-employed hawkers signed rental terms that directed long minimum operating hours and other conditions of work. These are not labour contracts. They are business-to-business contracts. The hawker can hire someone else to keep their stall open. But that distinction does not matter to a hawker who cannot afford to hire an assistant. For them, it is like a labour contract. I was glad to hear that the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will ensure that these contracts will be revised where necessary to safeguard the interests of hawkers.

In fact, technology and new business models have widened the scope of self-employment, while also subjecting the self-employed to greater control. Let me give an example of how self-employment has expanded in scope. Today, if you want cleaning services, you can appoint a cleaning company or you can use a platform which offers self-employed cleaners on a task-by-task basis. A cleaner who is working for a company still enjoys benefits under the EA. A self-employed cleaner contracted through a platform does not.

Technology platforms have made it easier to contract directly with the self-employed. In the United States, the J P Morgan Chase Institute found that in June 2016, half a percent of all adults sold labour through the online platform economy, up from practically 0% in 2012. This is just an estimate for one month. As of 2016, about 1.5% of all US adults, have sold labour through an online platform at least once.

Singapore is not far off. The Ministry's handout (Annex 4), just passed out before this debate, shows that about one in 20 of the self-employed here are private-hire drivers. All of these sell their labour through online platforms. Since about 10% of the workforce in Singapore are self-employed, we see that possibly at least half a percent or more of our workforce is now selling labour through an online platform in Singapore.

Technology also subjects the self-employed to greater control. For example, although private-hire and taxi drivers are both self-employed, taxi drivers are not subject to much control. Taxi rental companies do not care what taxi drivers do, as long as the rentals are paid. On the other hand, private-hire drivers are closely monitored by private-hire platforms. The platforms control many aspects of work. Drivers must accept bookings or face penalties. Some platforms even promise drivers minimum earnings, provided they meet performance standards.

Sir, there appears to be an increasing tendency for the self-employed to be subjected to direction and control. The self-employed are made to comply with incentives and penalties. There is no protection against the use of penalties, unlike the EA which prescribes allowable payroll deductions and penalties. In short, many contracting parties want to have all the benefits of control over the self-employed, but none of the statutory responsibilities under the EA.

Of course, I would agree these workers have signed these self-employment contracts willingly. But the point of the EA is to give statutory rights to the workers because their bargaining power is weak. Otherwise, there would be too much pressure on workers to willingly sign away their rights. In the landmark case of Autoclenz vs Belcher, Lord Clarke of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom wrote, and I quote, “the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem,” end quote.

So, the point is, a contracting party with power, may subject a self-employed worker to the direction of an employer, but without giving them employment benefits. The worker will agree because they have no choice. We must have a policy to address this emerging problem of self-employment that also provides for legitimate business needs.

Fortunately, I believe the Government is acting on this. In a reply given yesterday to a Parliamentary Question I filed, the Minister for Manpower noted that the Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons was formed in March 2018 to better regulate this emerging area. I will ask the Minister if more clear directions can be set forth so that employers are not tempted to misclassify workers as self-employed as a means of evading the EA.

The second issue is how unfair employment practices are regulated. Workers must be confident that merit is what matters in the labour market, and not their age, race, gender, or other personal characteristics. The Government addresses unfair employment through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, or TAFEP, rather than through the EA. This allows flexibility to recognise the diversity of legitimate business practices in Singapore. But it may also give some the impression that we have no commitment to eliminating unfair practices. The EA amendment will help by allowing the Minister to make regulations on some undesirable employment practices.

But, Sir, I think it will be useful if the Minister will consider making public the records of cases dealt with by TAFEP, so that the public can see that unfair practices are being addressed. I would ask if the Minister can direct that the ECT, in adjudicating cases, can take into account the employer’s past behaviour, including TAFEP cases. This is so that an employer who has repeatedly violated any of our labour standards would have a higher burden of proof in ECT cases.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe my concerns on self-employed persons and on unfair employment practices, may be addressed by future amendments, or by regulatory power. I strongly support the current EA amendment, which will extend protections to all workers while being cost-effective for businesses.

5.19 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The Employment Act is intended to provide terms of employment, employee entitlement and working conditions. This ensures employee well-being while providing businesses clarity on the terms and conditions they must provide for the people they employ. The proposed amendments to the Employment Act seek to provide core provisions to all employees, additional protection for more vulnerable workers, for balancing the requirements for businesses to operate effectively. This is indeed not an easy balance to achieve.

With the structural changes in Singapore's employment landscape and workforce profile, it is crucial that the Employment Act continues to retain its relevancy and responsiveness to changing labour market conditions and trends.

With global and technological disruption impacting all industry sectors, and Singapore's push towards becoming a digital economy, we will see a greater proportion of Professionals Managers, Executives and Technicians, or PMETs, in our workforce. According to MOM’s Labour Force in Singapore 2017 report released on 26 January, this year, PMETs make up more than half of our workforce, at 56%, up from 49% in 2007. With the increase in the number of PMEs, employees who earn more than S$4,500 per month will increase, and a key proposed amendment to the Employment Act is the removal of the salary cap of S$4,500 for coverage of core employment provisions such as minimum paid leave, public holiday, and sick leave entitlement, allowable deductions, as well as the redress for unfair dismissal, contract termination and salary payment rights. This inclusion will ensure the provision of the basic and fair working conditions for all employees regardless of their salary levels. This amendment is significant as it will mean the expansion of eligibility for PMEs and it translates to an additional 430,000 managers and executives who will be covered for the core provisions.

With the proposed amendment to raise the salary threshold for non-workmen to S$2,600, Part IV of the Employment Act (which covers rest days, hours of work, overtime pay and other conditions of service) will extend additional protection to more than half of the workforce and benefit 100,000 more non-workmen. This is only right as these are basic working conditions.

The statutory clarity on wrongful or unfair dismissal will also help address ambiguity and inconsistent practices and protect employees.

Currently, wrongful dismissal claims are heard by the Ministry of Manpower. Expanding the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) to handle wrongful dismissals claims, will provide employees with a ‘one-stop service’ for wrongful dismissal claims and salary-related issues, which tend to go together. Similarly, streamlining dispute resolution services is also good for businesses as having such services will enable employers a platform to clarify their positions in disputes.

I would like to just touch on retrenchment.

With the disruptions and restructuring that businesses are going through, jobs are impacted and employees will face greater uncertainty. I would like the Minister to help clarify if the Ministry and tripartite partners considered how retrenchment benefits are handled to extend protection to workers while managing the cost impact on businesses?

Clause 4 amends section 27 to restate when an employer can make deductions from the salary of the employee. The amendment clarifies when written consent is needed and withdrawn. This amendment while ensuring protection of employee interest, also provides improvement for businesses in making authorized deductions.

I would like to also seek clarification on the new section 88A(6)(b) whereby the employee ceases to be entitled to the leave if the employee fails to take that leave by the end of the 12-month period. In the case when the employee’s leave is not approved or possible as a result of work commitment and deadlines imposed by employers, is the employer required to pay the employee the employee’s gross rate of pay for everyday of annual leave not taken? Could the Minister help clarify that?

So, while the proposed changes to the Employment Act are significant, some may argue that more can be done for employee protection. We must be cognizant that for many businesses, manpower forms a large part of business cost. So, with the current business climate and companies facing greater uncertainty and feeling the impact of rising cost of doing business, we must ensure that manpower remain affordable and employable for businesses operating in Singapore. The proposed amendments to the Employment Act are trying to achieve a very delicate balance of extending protection and employability while enabling businesses to stay competitive and create jobs for our people.

A final point I would like to make is on the communication of these amendments. From the various appeal cases I have handled at my Meet-the-People sessions on employment disputes, it does seem that employees do not fully understand the terms of the Employment Act and where they can go for assistance on dispute handling. Given the significant number of employees that the proposed amendments of the Employment Act will now cover, can the Minister share how these changes will be communicated to both employees and employers? With the proposed amendments, the Employment Act offers more relevance, clarity and flexibility for both employees and employers. But to be effective, employees and employers affected by the amendments must understand the changes.

Notwithstanding my questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.26 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like seek your indulgence to let me use 30 seconds of my time to invite the Members of this House to take a mental pause with me to take three deep breaths. Only we humans can do intentional or volitional breathing, but we do not do enough of it. Thank you for coming together for our mental well-being.

I am heartened by what might, for now, appear to be a minor but is, to my mind, a significant amendment to section 139 of the Employment Act proposed by clause 22(a) of the Employment (Amendment) Bill.

The existing section 139 provides that the Minister of Manpower may, in addition to the powers expressly conferred by any other provisions of the Act, make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Employment Act. The amendment of this bill proposes that such regulations may now, and I quote directly from the Bill, “regulate the conduct of an employer towards an employee, for the purposes of protecting the employee from any employment practice that may adversely affect the well-being of the employee”.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this is the first time the wording of "employee well-being" has made its way into our legislation in this particular manner. It is clear that "well-being" in this case goes beyond physical safety and welfare to include the psychological and social needs of an employee. This, in my view, marks a momentous shift in policy making from one that views employees primarily as "resources" to one that truly puts the "human" back in "human resources" by recognising the holistic and complex needs of employees. It is, in fact, a policy imperative given the changing nature of work in an increasingly disruptive and volatile world.

At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare my interest as Founder of Hush TeaBar which, aside from Deaf persons, also employs persons with and in-recovery from mental health conditions.

I further declare my interest as founding member of the WorkWell Leaders Workgroup, a private sector-driven effort by business and non-business leaders to champion workplace and employee well-being as a leadership priority.

Please let me share a real life example of why this policy objective is morally and economically important. Lewis from the Hush TeaBar team who now lives with depression and mild schizophrenia could have had a very different life trajectory if he was protected by such a provision many years ago, against an employer early on in his career who verbally abused him repeatedly with every sales call he made in front of her. His mental health suffered adversely through this protracted period of abuse which subsequently affected his employability and quality of life. This is certainly not an employment outcome we desire for a contributing member of our society.

On that, it therefore baffled me to learn that clause 22(c) of the Employment (Amendment) Bill prescribes any violation of the regulations to be implemented under the proposed clause 22(a) as a civil contravention, instead of an offence.

We are all aware that there are certain drawbacks to the mechanism of civil contraventions, not least of which is the lack of a public record of the nature and severity of a violation, especially so for vulnerable workers. Clarification from the Ministry on the reasons behind its choice of prescribing such violations as civil contraventions is welcome.

Mr Deputy Speaker, research estimates that 1 in 8 Singaporeans experience a mental health issue in their lifetime. This means that part of our workforce will have to grapple with mental health conditions while under employment. Further, 90% of psychological conditions with adults in Singapore have their root cause in workplace stress. Yet studies have shown that an overwhelming 86.5% of those employed do not seek help for their mental health difficulties.

At this juncture, Sir, I would like to remind the House that when we refer to employees and their wellbeing in the amendment, we are also including workers who are differently-abled and non-domestic migrant workers. Of particular concern to me is the mental well-being of our 1.1 million non-domestic migrant workers.

Over 60% of our non-domestic migrant workers who had outstanding injury and salary claims were predicted to be suffering from serious mental illnesses. Another study found over 20% of these workers suffer from non-specific psychological distress. Just two weeks ago, it was reported that injuries at the workplace have increased. Many studies have found links between occupational injury and psychological hazards. We cannot make light the gravity of these workers’ mental well-being, particularly given the nature of their employment conditions which more often than not include risk of physical injury.

Yet, even as 72% of employers in Singapore consider stress and mental health an issue affecting productivity, only 51% have emotional and psychosocial programmes in place. More specifically, I wonder how many employers of non-domestic migrant workers have psychosocial programmes in place. There is clearly a need to persuade and push for employers to have these support structures in place for employee well-being.

It is commendable that the Ministry, in proposing clause 22(a), is signalling a change in how we approach workplace wellbeing. However, I can’t help but wonder if Lewis – or any other employee whose psychosocial wellbeing has been adversely affected by an employer would be in any practical position to exercise their rights under this provision? I would like to ask the Minister whether the intent to recognise and promote employee wellbeing can be better served by enacting clear and deliberate provisions that are upstream and preventive in nature.

Some examples of such legislative efforts to influence employers have been made in countries like Germany, Australia and Japan, just to name a few. They appear in different forms to fit the workplace and workforce context.

For example, in Germany, risk assessment and implementation of countermeasures are a legal obligation. These obligations state that work should be organised in such a way that prevents a risk to physical and mental health as far as possible. In Australia, psychological injuries or mental disorders arising from stress in the workplace are compensable and are commonly referred to as work-stress claims. In Japan, the government established the “Promotion and Maintenance of Mental Health of Workers” guidelines, which though not legally binding, have become a standard practice for employers in light of the social phenomenon of “karo-jisatu”, commonly known as suicide from overwork.

Mr Deputy Speaker, even as ground-up efforts promoting employee well-being and inclusive employment practices are making sensible strides to ensure we do not have karo-jisatu, I think it is time our employment laws reinforce these efforts to explicitly state that workplace health and safety includes psychosocial health and safety beyond physical health and safety.

On a related note, public understanding of mental health issues and the public’s attitude towards persons in recovery from mental health conditions play an important role in creating a healthy workplace.

In a study conducted by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), close to one in two Singaporeans were not willing to work with persons with mental health issues while 70% of employers agreed that negative attitudes of co-workers are major barriers to employing persons in recovery.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in light of the social stigma indicated above and the spirit of the proposed amendment that regulates employment practices that would adversely affect the well-being of employees, I would like to highlight one such existing practice that, in my view, falls within the purview of this provision.

Many employers, mostly local and the Civil Service, still demand for declarations early on in the recruitment process on the history of illnesses, including mental health conditions. They have maintained that declaration of any existing medical condition, including mental illnesses, does not disqualify a candidate from being considered. Now, this naturally raises the question of the need for and use of such information. It would seem that such personal information does not indeed contribute to the evaluation process of the application in any material form and instead only serves to prejudice the employee adversely because he or she may feel compelled to lie and not declare any such medical history because of shame and fear of not being selected; and/or live in anxiety of being judged later by his or her colleagues should they have a relapse, especially if there are no psychosocial support programmes available within the organisation.

An informal check with several persons-in-recovery, including Lewis, revealed that most choose not to declare.

Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be a fair statement to say that the Government can and should, in line with the new direction and tone we are taking towards recognising employee well-being and encouraging inclusive employment practices, consider prohibiting to a reasonable extent, employers from requiring job applicants to declare their history of health conditions, be it physical or mental.

At this juncture, I would also like to acknowledge that a fine balance, obviously, has to be struck between (a) such a legal prohibition against requiring health declarations and (b) ensuring that our laws do not unduly restrict social and economic conduct. To my mind, such a balance could entail, for instance, prohibiting employers from making enquiries about an applicant’s medical history too early on in the recruitment process, much like what the United Kingdom has done in the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our biggest asset is our people. It is not just because we do not have any natural resources, because even that would be finite. Singapore’s biggest asset is our people because the human potential is infinite. The world changes rapidly, our fundamental needs as humans – not so much. Beyond the basic needs of food, water and shelter, we thrive and flourish when we feel supported in improving our abilities, pursuing our aspirations and living with purpose. We can come back stronger with setbacks if we know we are not alone.

Lewis, from the Hush TeaBar team, has, with workplace adjustments, made remarkable strides in his recovery and is now leading a team of Deaf facilitators in operations and finance. Workplace well-being has a direct impact on productivity and innovation, and in the quality of life of employees. Every employee is a member of our society, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is clear that a caring, inclusive and resilient Singapore can only come from caring, inclusive and resilient workplaces.

We must always remember "human" comes first when we talk about human resources or human capital. There is great need to change attitudes and perceptions of mental health through education and legislation, from school through work. Employee well-being must be an intentional outcome of our employment policies. This may be a journey of a thousand miles. The amendments proposed by this Bill signal an exciting single step towards the direction of inclusion and diversity. I look forward to more progressive steps ahead, including those I have outlined above. Mr Deputy Speaker, I therefore stand in support of this Bill.

5.40 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill has not failed expectations and should be acknowledged for extending protection to all workers, except public servants and domestic workers, by removing the salary cap of $4,500 a month. With this change, all professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), who form the bulk of the local workforce, will benefit from the Employment Act provisions. Other amendments such as making annual leave a core protection provision and enhancing the regulation of dismissals are also important features of the Bill.

With progress comes new limits and unaddressed issues become more prominent. I support the Bill but would like to highlight two sets of issues related to additional protection for more vulnerable workers and wrongful dismissals.

The first set of issues I would like to highlight concerns Part IV of the Employment Act, which provides additional protection for more vulnerable workers. The key provisions in Part IV have to do with rest days, hours of work, overtime pay, retirement benefit and so on. With this amendment Bill, annual leave would be moved out of Part IV and become a core provision of the Employment Act applicable to all workers. This is a good and logical move, but it is less progressive than it seems. Providing for annual leave is already a common practice and an irreversible norm, so the law is only catching up with reality.

The tweaks being made to the salary caps for non-workmen and for overtime compensation requirements are more important changes. The salary threshold for non-workmen to be covered by the additional protections of Part IV would be increased from $2,500 to $2,600. Non-workmen refer to white-collar workers who are not PMEs. At first glance, this struck me as a miniscule enhancement. Upon reflection and research, I still cannot put my head around the significance of a $100 increase in the threshold.

I understand the Ministry said this increase would result in half of the workforce being covered, but is this an increase from 40% to 50% or from 48% to 50% of the workforce? If it is the latter, it does not appear to be a meaningful increase. Just to illustrate, annual real wage growth in recent years is around 1.9%. This means that within two to three years, this $100 increase in salary threshold would be rendered irrelevant.

My question is why not take the progressive step of removing the distinction between workmen and non-workmen altogether? I understand from former Minister for Manpower Mr Lim Swee Say’s reply to a Parliamentary Question by Ms Thanaletchmi in May 2016, this distinction is a legacy issue and the Government’s longer term plan is to remove this distinction given the changing nature of our workforce. In the 2014 amendment, the salary threshold for non-workmen was increased from $2,000 to $2,500. This was a significant increase, and the $100 increase this time round pales in significance compared to the $500 increase in 2014. At this rate, how would the non-workmen threshold be able to catch up with the $4,500 threshold for workmen so that the distinction may be removed?

I understand this approach of gradually increasing the threshold is to balance employers’ concern with the rise in business costs. But the $100 increase appears to be quite imbalanced against the favour of white-collared workers. I believe the increase should be more substantial to better protect white-collared workers, precisely because this segment of the workforce has become a lot more vulnerable in recent years because of technological disruptions and the rise of artificial intelligence. Better still, the Government should commit to a time frame to remove the distinction between workmen and non-workmen altogether so that companies would get the heads-up to adjust their business costs.

The second set of issues I would like to highlight has to do with the enhancements to the regulation of wrongful dismissal claims. The definition of dismissal has been expanded to cover forced resignations, which plugs a loophole that employers could use to get around wrongful dismissal allegations. However, this Bill misses the opportunity to define what constitutes dismissal “without just cause or excuse”. The Ministry has said that the tripartite partners would be providing further guidance and clarity on what constitutes wrongful dismissal and the factors for determining the compensation amount. I have a few questions on this.

First, how would the tripartite guidelines on wrongful dismissal and factors for determining compensation amount, when they are issued, interact with the adjudication work of the Employment Claims Tribunal? What would be the legal status of the tripartite guidelines? Would the Tribunal be obliged to stay within the limits of the tripartite guidelines and if so, would not this be undermining the purpose of having the Tribunal adjudicate wrongful dismissal claims? If not, how should the Tribunal take guidance from the tripartite guidelines? Can the Tribunal override the tripartite guidelines in specific cases due to peculiar circumstances?

Secondly, with regards to the content of the tripartite guidelines, would the guidelines cover unjust causes or excuses such as discrimination on ethnic, nationality, age, gender, religion, marital status, disability and mental health grounds? I would like to stress that dismissal of workers because they are suffering from mental health problems should be considered wrongful, if these mental health problems could be treated and managed and would not substantially affect work performance. Mental health issues are prevalent in advanced economies such as ours and are often under-reported and go untreated because of the stigmatisation and lack of understanding of mental health issues. The same stigmatisation and lack of understanding is the basis of wrongful dismissals of workers with mental health issues. Another unjust cause or excuse that the tripartite guidelines should cover is related to sexual harassment, as the threat and actuality of dismissal are often used by those in power to sexually exploit their subordinates.

I am also of the view that in such cases where the Tribunal concludes that dismissal was wrongful due to discrimination, or due to sexual harassment, the compensation and reinstatement of the workers are not good enough remedies. Such wrongful dismissals are not merely unjust, they are also egregious violations of workers’ rights and social norms. I believe that the Tribunal should be empowered to impose punitive sanctions in terms of fines and jail time for those guilty of these violations.

Thirdly, I would like to ask if wrongful dismissals would also cover cases of disguised retrenchment or false retrenchment. Disguised retrenchment refers to the serving of termination notice to employees due to job redundancy without treating it as retrenchment so that retrenchment benefits do not have to be paid. If the employment contract contains retrenchment benefit provisions, then it would be clear that such cases should be heard at the Tribunal. If the employment contract contains retrenchment benefit provisions, then it would be clear that such cases should be heard at the Tribunal. If the employment contract does not contain retrenchment benefit provisions, then I would like to ask do workers in such cases have the basis to claim fair retrenchment benefits based on prevailing industry norms? False retrenchment refers to the retrenchment of workers not due to genuine redundancy but on unjust grounds such as discrimination. I believe in such cases, it is clear too that claims should be heard by the Tribunal.

Lastly, with the passing of the Bill, the Employment Act will cover high-salaried PMEs who would then be enabled to bring wrongful dismissal claims to the Employment Claims Tribunal. However, the Tribunal is limited to awarding claims up to only $20,000. Highly paid PMEs would likely be seeking claims for back wages and compensation that are much more than $20,000. It would seem to be unreasonable and unfair to open up this avenue for redress for these PMEs while maintaining the jurisdictional limit for the claims. Would the cap be adjusted upwards after the passing of this Amendment? If so, what would be the new cap and why?

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, this amendment Bill is a progressive piece of legislation that would extend the protection of our workers in the midst of economic disruptions and uncertainty. Progress brings new challenges and highlights old ones that remain in the system. I have highlighted two sets of issues.

The first set has to do with the legacy distinction between workmen and non-workmen in providing for additional protections under Part IV of the Employment Act. It is my wish that the meaningless distinction be removed as soon as practicable, and in my view, the $100 increase in salary threshold for non-workmen eligible for the additional protections is too insignificant.

The second has to do with wrongful dismissals. While it is good that the Employment Claims Tribunal will now hear cases of alleged wrongful dismissals, it would be extremely useful if: one, it is clarified how the tripartite guidelines on wrongful dismissal would intersect with Tribunal hearings; two, the tripartite guidelines contain explicit guidance on dismissals linked to discrimination and sexual harassment; three, wrongful dismissals also cover disguised retrenchments and false retrenchments; and four, the jurisdictional limit for claims be raised to make the process more meaningful for high-wage PMEs. Thank you, I support the Bill.

5.50 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I start in Malay, let me declare my interest as the Honorary adviser to the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce. In Malay, Mr Deputy Speaker.

(In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Changing times and the evolving labour market mean that it is prudent to constantly review policies to ensure that our workers can continue to remain competitive as the world continues to change. The new amendments to the Employment Bill will bring about improved protection and welfare for the working population.

The removal of the salary threshold to cover all PMETs under the Employment Act is a good enhancement. I applaud this move as every worker deserves protection regardless of the nature of work and their income. And, certainly, it is great news that the Ministry is proposing to raise the salary threshold on protection of working hours and overtime pay. As the median wage for employees continue to increase, rightly, so should the threshold.

However, I note that the proposed raise in salary cap for rank and file white-collar workers is only up to $2,600. While there is an increase in the number of Singaporeans who are eligible for protection, I do hope that the Ministry will consider raising the cap for rank and file office workers. For instance, I know of residents, mostly young adults - junior executives - fresh out of university, just got a new job, afraid to offend colleagues and superiors. They draw a monthly salary of about $3,000. Their employers or supervisors take advantage of their situation. I cite one particular account of a young research executive who gets paid $3,000 a month. She has to do overtime almost every day on weekdays, and on weekends, and if she does not go to office, she has to bring the work home. She eventually resigned, and the employer will simply get someone to replace her, and this vicious cycle continues.

Cases like this make me gravely concerned about employers who pay their junior staff a little higher than the salary threshold, even giving them an empty executive or managerial titles, where they do not actually have executive or supervisory functions, so that they can legally overwork their employee without paying them overtime.

Then there are professions such as auditing and accounting, where pulling overnighters for days or even weeks to help clients to meet deadlines at certain periods of the year is inevitable. I think that regardless how much they are being paid, if they are required to work for more than 10 hours for the day, perhaps the Employment Act should make it mandatory for them to be compensated with time-off, so they can rest. In addition, with the presence of more gig workers in the local labour market, I would like the ask the Minister how will they be protected under the enhanced Employment Act?

On the other hand, the policy’s fixation with the number of working hours could also complicate matters for companies that practise flexible working hours and allows employees to work remotely. Incidentally, this working style is favoured by the millennials and also gig workers, so we may expect more companies and individuals to be affected by the new policies.

I had the opportunity to speak to several business owners recently at a focus group discussion at the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce & Industry (SMCCI). One co-founder of a software and design company shared that some of his employees choose to work from home, and he is concerned that their movements will have to be documented carefully, which could lead to additional administrative burdens. Moreover, if there is no adequate solution in place to scrutinise these employees’ working hours, some employees may take advantage of the situation and report longer working hours, so that they can be entitled to overtime pay, and their firms have to pay them. I believe clearer policies are necessary when we are encouraging more employers to favour flexi-work arrangements.

Another business owner I spoke to hopes for greater flexibility on mandatory leave. He personally exercises flexibility and fairness, and would even allow employees to take more leave than their contract entitles them to when the situation calls for it, and when it is possible to do so. On the other hand, he has some employees who do not have to take leave, but he has to ask them to clear their leave regardless, when he could have benefitted from the additional productivity, as he is afraid that he will be penalised otherwise. I hope the Ministry will consider the concerns of such employers.

(In English): As I mentioned earlier, increase in administrative duties is one problem for companies that offer flexible working hours and remote working. Another employer I spoke to was concerned about the new policy which allows any medical practitioner to certify an employee for sick or hospitalisation leave, rather than the current approach of restricting certification to a practitioner appointed by the employer. He was concerned that other clinics, particularly private clinics, are more liberal with MCs, compared to the polyclinics and Government hospitals, whose MCs are the only certifications his company accepts. For SMEs like his, even a loss of one day’s worth of productivity poses a significant problem. Moreover, his company subsidises employees’ medical fees, so if the employer chooses to see a more expensive private medical practitioner, this also potentially leads to increased costs.

An increasingly challenging economic landscape already makes it difficult for businesses to stay profitable, especially the SMEs. We do not want to create a situation where businesses think it is more worthwhile to employ foreigners who may be satisfied with lower wages, over Singaporeans. We need more to help them be more productive and profitable, so they do not have to resort to squeezing their employees. There are many types of grants in place. Questions I have in mind: are businesses coming forward to use them? If not, why not? Can we take more proactive measures to motivate and help them to do so?

Moving on to disputes and dismissals, I think it is a wise move to designate the Employment Claims Tribunal as a "one-stop service" for all employment-related disputes. Hopefully, this will shorten the amount of time for the aggrieved employee to seek help. Ideally, the cases should be heard and resolved within six months to eight months, otherwise it drags too long and the employee who is victimised is left hanging. Involuntary resignation of an employee should certainly be heard under unfair dismissals. There are many undesirable circumstances which lead to involuntary resignations, such as bullying and sexual harassment.

However, I hope that the Tribunal will be fair and objective to both sides and investigate each case thoroughly. Though less common, sometimes, it is the employee who tries to take advantage of the employer. I note that the employers are now required to obtain the written consent of their employees should they want to make any deductions from their salary for certain services, such as accommodation or amenities. Written consent may also be withdrawn, without penalty in some scenarios, by the employee in written notice before the deduction is made. But what about situations whereby the employee has clearly abused the company’s travel policies, for example, to splurge on services for personal enjoyment? Who can they seek redress from as an employer?

With all the increased functions, the Tribunal now plays a pivotal role in ensuring workplace fairness and protecting the rights of employees. What efforts will be made to ensure that the Tribunal is staffed with adequate manpower and resources to address all the disputes in a timely manner? What kind of training will the mediators and investigating officers receive? Moreover, errant employers should receive heavier penalties, especially if it is not their first time facing a dispute.

Another concern I have is the language that is used for the communication. Some complainants, especially those who are older, may find that they are more comfortable explaining their predicament in their Mother Tongue. Perhaps they may not even be literate in English. I note that documents submitted to file a claim must be in the English language. Otherwise, a certified translation of the document must be provided. One question I would like to ask the Minister would be: Will assistance be available for those who are less proficient in English?

While we are on the subject of employee rights, I want to take this opportunity to ask for more to be done against workplace and employment discrimination. TAFEP has done a good job thus far in guiding companies to create an inclusive workplace. But I hope it can be given more powers to penalise discriminatory employers through more severe penalties. There is no room for discrimination in Singapore and our employment policies must reflect that. Otherwise, our minority and vulnerable Singaporeans will have to compromise by settling for fewer choices of employers, and this sort of situation can lead to undesirable and even dangerous outcomes in the future. I hope there will eventually come a time when we can do away with the listing of TAFEP-accredited companies, as all or most companies would have adopted an inclusive work culture.

The general consensus from the ground, I feel, is that employees are generally happy with the proposed changes, but they are concerned about how effective these new measures will be. Employers on the other hand hope for more flexibility, and there is also confusion regarding the full range of changes in the Bill. For example, although there is an Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, some employers I met are wondering whether the changes would only cover local employees, or if they would be extended to foreign employees holding similar designations and salaries. They are worried about how the changes will affect their business costs and productivity. Some of the business owners did not not know about the amendment Bill coming up, and as a large number of them are in the F&B and retail segments, with high labour inputs, they feel that they could be significantly affected. To assure employers and keep them well-informed of the necessary facts, I urge MOM and the Minister to reach out and engage them proactively.

In conclusion, nurturing a fair and inclusive work culture is challenging, and certainly, it will take time and patience. There is no one size fits all solution. Ignorance and lack of resources could give rise to unintentional discrimination and unreasonable employment practices. These can fortunately be corrected gradually through education, assistance and mediation by organisations like the TAFEP. However, when employees are deliberately depriving employees and potential employees of their basic rights, it is time to take a more heavy-handed approach.

On the other hand, we also have to be careful not to penalise the good employers who have genuine difficulties in meeting all the requirements. A good work culture is a two-way street after all, and expecting SMEs and micro-SMEs to accommodate a poorly performing employee would take a significant toll on their existing resources. Ultimately, all our local SMEs are important resources. We have to do more to engage them, understand their concerns and help them out, so they can do well and continue to provide good jobs and good working environment to Singaporeans. Sir, I support the motion.

6.01 pm

Mr Arasu Duraisamy (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me state my interest as an NTUC Central Committee member and a unionist.

Sir, the enhancements to the Employment Act (EA) Bill will be significant for our workers. These enhancements are a product of close collaboration among tripartite partners, with the aim of ensuring reasonable labour standards for our workers while balancing employers' need to stay competitive so that they can continue to create good jobs for our workers. The most significant change in the proposed amended Act would be, extending the coverage of the EA to PMEs earning above $4,500 per month. This will benefit 430,000 more workers.

Those of us who are not involved in the lengthy and relentless tripartite discussions, may not be fully aware that the Employment Act has evolved, and has come a long way in a short time. As our nation's manpower and employment profiles evolve following industry development and changes, it is thus timely to extend core provisions under the Employment Act to PMEs by removing the $4,500 salary cap.

The proposed change recognised that the PMEs should be accorded protection for core provisions. For far too long, they have been deprived of the act's coverage and it is indeed a welcome move. These enhancements, will further allow the unions to represent PMEs effectively and to increase the scope of coverage even higher.

Today, rank and file workers are better protected than the PMEs, as core provisions are extended to all workmen and non-workmen. Part IV of the Employment Act, the time-based provisions, are already extended to workmen earning up to $4,500 a month and non-workmen earning up to $2,500 a month.

By extending the salary threshold for non-workmen to $2,600 a month and raising the overtime rate cap to $2,600 per month, it covers half of our workforce with additional protection. The extension of the coverage of Part IV to cover more non-workmen will benefit another 100,000 more workers.

While the unions welcome the move, we hope the tripartite partners will relook at the threshold for non-workmen to be increased further, as the roles and responsibilities of workers keep changing along with the constant evolving business environment. While not part of the proposed Amendments, an issue of concern was that tripartite partners deliberated extensively on whether to mandate retrenchment benefits and minimum retrenchment benefits packages.

After lengthy discussions, it was agreed that retrenchment benefits are better left to negotiations between the employer and the union, and rightly so. A flexible approach would be more beneficial to workers and businesses. We want to avoid instances where a mandated minimum package becomes a norm, even when employers could pay more. Workers will not benefit this way. On the other hand, companies may not be able to afford it if the mandated minimum package is too high, considering the business circumstances they could be facing. Over-burdening of companies at such times could end up affecting workers even more.

The subject of retrenchment is an emotional one and has financial impact to the workers. However, it might not be avoidable when companies experience difficulties while restructuring or face financial crunch. Hence, we should adopt the tripartite approach to instead: (i) issue an advisory stipulating the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefits quantum; and (ii) support affected workers via programmes such the Adapt and Grow and TechSkills Accelerator.

Mr Deputy Speaker, at the same time, I would like to urge all tripartite partners to acknowledge that workers have real fears and concerns, as the need to move into automation, digitalisation and embrace new technologies become critical for business competitiveness. Workers are worried that such changes might lead to job redundancies.

I am very concerned that there will be employers who jump in without thoughts given to how its employees might be affected. These are the unenlightened employers who see workers as digits of cost and not as assets. I urge the Ministry of Manpower to work with tripartite partners to educate employers and management, and urge them to work with the unions from the onset of planned automation, to take care of their workers holistically, and ensure that they would not be affected as long they are able to upgrade their skills to handle new automation processes and necessary technologies. Ultimately, workers should not be worse off.

At the recent 44th International Transport Workers Federation Congress held in Singapore, the subject of automation and its impact to workers were discussed. We heard from our foreign counterparts that automation has led to outsourcing of existing jobs, impacted their wages and caused displacement of the workers. We on the other hand, are glad that the tripartite partners here agree on a pro-employability position.

As we all understand and embrace the need to automate and digitalise, we need to ensure that companies engage its employees from the beginning and to find an effective role for them. We do not want to see jobs going to other countries due to automation as stated by a dockers union at the recent ITF Congress.

At the same time, as businesses transform and move into higher automation and new technologies, there are employers who may conveniently hire foreigners who have "higher skills" and citing that our Singaporean workers do not have these skills. But what have these employers done to train our Singaporean workers to take on these jobs?

Sir, I urge the Ministry of Manpower to work with tripartite partners and ensure proper dialogues take place between the employers and the unions when going into automation, and that tripartite guidelines be set in place to guide employers and companies when they move into automation. We should look at incentivising companies that train their workers to attain higher skills, and at the same time pay closer attention to how we can enhance our Fair Consideration Framework.

One of the core supporting pillars of Singapore's economy, is our strong Tripartism. The parties involved must have a shared vision of wanting the nation to succeed. Only then, can we all have a share in the success. Tripartism has contributed to us being ranked the top 10 most competitive economies in the world and ranked number two for being a business-friendly environment by the World Bank. A stable, transparent and conducive business environment has ensured that companies are willing to invest and set up business operations over here and thus ensuring better job prospects for Singaporeans.

Tripartism can only succeed with strong bipartism between employers and unions with the support of the Government. Thus, I strongly urge employers to work with the unions. Let us not take labour relations for granted. Let us not forget the lessons learned from the volatile industrial climate of the 1950s and 1960s.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Fourth Industrial revolution is upon us. Businesses here must transform and evolve in order to sustain and grow. It is critical that these latest enhancements continue as part of our ongoing journey in ensuring our employment laws stays relevant and updated so that workers are protected while business needs are addressed. With this, I move in support of the Bill.

6.09 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of this Bill. The Employment Act is the cornerstone of our employment regime. It provides an additional layer of protection for employees beyond contract law. It recognises that there are certain fundamental protections that employees and employers should not be allowed to contract out of. It also recognises that there are underlying power imbalances that may weaken the nature of the consent in an employment relationship. It is thus important to regularly review the Employment Act to ensure that its provisions take into account the reality of the employee-employer relationship.

With this in mind, I have a number of clarifications to make on the interpretation and application on the proposed amendments.

Section 14(1) is intended to protect employees against unfair dismissal by allowing an employee to lodge a claim with the Employment Claims Tribunal where he has been dismissed without just cause or excuse. However, there is no definition of what constitutes dismissal without just cause or excuse. Without clear definition, the protection against unfair dismissal may be ineffective because instances of unfair dismissals are often not clear cut and can be easily disguised.

Civil Society group has documented examples of such stories. In one case, a mother was told to leave when she returned from her maternity leave as the company had carried out a retrenchment exercise while she was away. However, she also reported being "nitpicked" and "mentally abused" by her superior while she was pregnant, and strongly suspected that the superior took the retrenchment exercise as a chance to "get rid" of her.

In another case, a pregnant lady was dismissed shortly after returning from hospitalisation leave for severe morning sickness. While poor work performance was cited for the reason of the dismissal, the company did not seem to have a problem with her work performance prior to her pregnancy, even praising her for being an exemplary role model. The odd actions of her employers such as locking her out of her work email account which she could only access using a temporary password and hiring a new person whose job scope and job title were similar to hers, only occurred after she returned from hospitalisation.

The hospitalisation and one incident of lateness to work, which were both caused by her pregnancy, seemed to have escalated into her dismissal. In a disability discrimination case, a stroke survivor with mobility issues was dismissed after a colleague had reported witnessing the individual slipping and falling on the way to the toilet.

Can the Minister provide examples of unfair dismissals? Would the Minister further consider providing clear definitions of what constitute dismissal without just cause or excuse under subsidiary legislation or as guidelines? Can such regulations or guidelines also include specific forms of discrimination on the basis of gender or disability? This would clarify for employees their rights on discriminatory dismissals and assist the Employment Claims Tribunal in adjudicating unfair dismissal claims.

Next, section 27(1) currently specifies a list of permissible deductions. No deductions beyond this limited list may be made from an employee's salary. However, this defined list seems to have been expanded by the new section 27(1)(i) which authorises any deduction made with the written consent of the employee. It appears all deductions are permissible with the employee's written consent unless it is specifically prohibited.

Can the Minister clarify if the intended effect of section 27(1)(i) is to permit any kind of deduction as long as there is written consent? For instance, section 27(1)(c) which permits deductions for meals supplied by the employer at the request of the employee will be removed. Would it be permissible for an employer to now deduct the costs of meals with the employee's written consent? If that is the case, what is the rationale behind removing section 27(1)(c) if such a deduction would still be allowed under section 27(1)(i) as long as the employee consent is obtained?

It is worrying if section 27(1)(i) is intended to be interpreted so broadly that all deductions unless specifically prohibited are permitted with the employee's consent. As I mentioned at the start, our labour laws provide additional protection on top of contractual consent. Permitting deductions as long as there is written consent by the employee seems to be a regression in the protection of our labour laws. It is undisputed that in reality many employees can be pressurised or coerced into giving false consent.

Can the Minister confirm that the new section 27(1)(i) remains limited by prohibited deductions under other statutes such as Sections 22A and 25(6) of the EFMA? Can the Minister also clarify whether section 27(1)(i) is subject to any other limitations?

Next, under the new section 27(1)(f), an employer can make deductions from an employee's salary to recover any advance or loan. This is a potential loophole for improper deductions to be made.

Can the Minister clarify whether employers will have to maintain and produce documentation of such loan or advance to prove the legitimacy of deductions under this section? Can the Minister also shed some light on how the written consent requirement will be implemented in practice? How will the Ministry keep track of whether written consent has been obtained and how will the Ministry ensure that such written consent is not obtained coercively?

I welcome the new section 27(1A) and (1B) which clarifies that an employee cannot be penalised for withdrawing written consent to deductions. Section 27(1A) requires that the employee withdraw their consent any time before the deduction is made.

Can the Minister confirm that an employee is only required to withdraw consent before a specific deduction transaction is made? In other words, it remains open to an employee to withdraw consent for a certain category of deduction throughout the course of employment? Further, what are the penalties and consequences for an employer who penalises an employee for withdrawing written consent?

Next, the new section 21(1A) of the Employment Claims Act 2016, allows the Employment Claims Tribunal to draw adverse inferences where a party fails to produce evidence in breach of their obligation under other written laws. Can I confirm that this would mean that adverse inferences may be drawn against employers if they fail to produce Key Employment Terms and salary slips, which they are required to maintain under the Employment Act?

Would the Minister consider taking this a step further in future reviews of the Employment Act and Employment Claims Act in reversing the burden of proof where the employer is required by statute to retain certain records?

Lastly, I welcome the amendments to section 89, which recognises employees’ freedom to consult medical doctors or institutions of their choice without prejudicing their entitlement to medical leave. I would further urge the Minister to extend this principle to the work injury compensation regime in future reviews of WICA.

I understand that the assessment and diagnosis of the first treating doctor who is often also the doctor chosen by the employer is often preferred over doctors the employee may subsequently consult in the assessment of permanent incapacity under WICA. It would be appropriate to harmonise the positions under the EA and WICA by recognising that the injured employee is both entitled to consult and to have their permanent incapacity assessed by a medical practitioner of their choice. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

6.16 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Last reviewed in 2012, the amendments to the Employment Act are much needed given that there are now many more professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). In addition, the establishment of the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT), which oversees salary-related disputes and claims, as well as wrongful dismissal, means that there needs to be greater clarity in defining employee benefits and what constitutes wrongful dismissal.

First and foremost, the move to do away with the $4,500 salary cap for protection under the Employment Act, is very much welcome. This move will result in more than 430,000 PMEs who will benefit through greater protection under the Employment Act. This is not a small number, and is likely to increase, given that more Singaporeans are taking on professional, managerial and executive positions in multinational corporations, small and medium enterprises and even start-up companies that are able to pay relatively well. In addition, as more of our young Singaporeans become trained for the industry, their salaries will set to grow and remain competitive, hence being able to provide employment protection for them under the Employment Act is very much welcome and needed.

Second, I strongly support the move to provide all employees annual leave of seven to 14 days. Annual leave is an established industry norm and it is quite disconcerting that even as of now, there are still a substantial number among us who work without any annual leave provision. While I welcome this annual leave provision, I question the change to provide only the seven to 14 days of annual leave to all employees, and not the one-year carry-forward of unused annual leave to all employees as well.

There are those among us who work industriously throughout the year when we are still able and healthy, but who may decide to accumulate their annual leave for a much anticipated and much saved-up family holiday or a religious pilgrimage in the following year. While I understand that such changes for employers to provide both annual leave and carry-forward of unused annual leave to the following year can cause significant impact to employers’ manpower and budget planning, I urge the Ministry to consider extending the one-year carry-forward of unused annual leave to all employees as well. Even if this extension cannot be made in this round of amendments to the Employment Act, I urge the Ministry to consider making this change in the near future.

Third, I strongly support the move to better clarify what constitutes wrongful dismissal that may require dispute resolution. While I do not have the statistics on hand, anecdotally, I have met residents who have lamented about their discontent with and perception of their former employers for having dismissed them because of some form of discrimination whether perceived or otherwise; because of pregnancy or maternity leave to be taken; disputes arising out of work-related performance bonus; or even claims of forced resignation.

I recall an incident where a resident was aggrieved that her employer managed to persuade her to tender her resignation through veiled threats and manipulation. It was only after she tendered her resignation and talked to friends that she realised she was manipulated and forced to resign, when she could have reported the matter to MOM instead. With the establishment of the ECT and this round of amendments to provide greater clarity on wrongful dismissal, aggrieved employees can at least seek redress and an avenue for investigation into their claims of wrongful dismissal.

Fourth, I welcome the move to accept medical certificates from all medical practitioners registered under the Medical Registration Act, when employees apply for medical leave. From what I understand, this provision has not been amended since 1968 and 50 years is too long to have waited to make changes to this provision. While there may have been instances of forged or fictitious medical certificates, I believe these are few and far in between now. I trust that our medical practitioners have integrity and will issue medical certificates only where necessary.

This amendment to recognise and accept all medical certificates will provide greater flexibility for employees who are unwell to see a medical practitioner nearest to their homes for medication and be given medical leave to recover. However, can this provision also include traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners who are registered with the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board? There are increasingly more who prefer to get help from TCM practitioners for their ailments such as frozen shoulder, plantar fasciitis, or lower back pains, which can significantly affect work performance. These ailments may not have immediate cure but with consistent TCM treatments, much relief can be achieved.

Fifth, I am heartened that within this round of amendments, there is a provision for the Minister to make regulations that protect employees’ entitlements and well-being, and protect them from undesirable employment practices that manipulate, in particular, low-wage and menial work employees. I support the need to protect employees from unknowingly signing pre-dated salary vouchers, or the need to protect them from being subjected to salary claw backs from their employers, for instance. I seek the Ministry to clarify if and how salary claw backs, for example, can be regulated so as to better protect employees.

Interestingly, a Business Insider article dated 28 August this year declared that following employee misconduct or declining profits, salary claw back clauses in employment contracts are “on the rise among Fortune 100 companies, increasing by 79% from 2005 to 2010”. Have there been cases or complaints of employment contracts that have included salary clawback clauses? Out of these, how many have been couched as disincentives for misconduct or poor performance or declining business profits? How many actual cases of salary claw backs have been reported to the Ministry even though the original employment contracts have not included such clauses?

I refer to Minister’s written reply to my Parliamentary Question for yesterday’s sitting regarding the over inflation of salaries compared to the actual payment of salaries. This is similar to salary claw backs. While the number of cases reported accounts for only 0.2% of the workforce, the absolute numbers are about 8,300 cases annually, which is quite a substantial number. I am most concerned about the proportionately larger numbers of rank-and-file workers, more than eight in 10 of such workers, who have been subjected to this form of salary clawback. I hope the Ministry will make further amendments to the Employment Act or tighten regulations regarding over inflation of salaries declared or salary clawbacks, and take stricter actions on employers who take advantage of their employees in this manner, particularly rank-and-file workers.

At this juncture, Mr Deputy Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Still on the topic of protecting employees’ well-being, I would like to implore the Minister to consider making it mandatory for companies, organisations or buildings that conducts outsourcing of services such as cleaning, delivery and security services, to provide proper rest spaces and areas for outsourced personnel such as cleaners, despatch riders and security officers.

More often than not, we see cleaners, dispatch riders and security officers, who do not have proper and appropriate rest areas. This is mainly because they are not on the direct payroll of the organisations, companies or buildings they work in, and even though they work for very long hours at a stretch, always on their feet and without rest. When it is time for them to eat or take a temporary respite, they often have to find some dusty corner of basement carparks or in rubbish collection areas. These places are hardly ideal or even hygienic for eating and resting. I am sure we can provide a better environment and surroundings for our cleaners, despatch riders and security officers, even though they are outsourced personnel and not direct hires in that particular company, organisation or building.

The provision of designated rest spaces and areas for our cleaners, despatch riders and security officers does not cost that much.

A sheltered, well-ventilated and well-lit area with tables and chairs is all that is needed. Therefore, I implore the Minister for designated rest spaces and areas to be provided for outsourced personnel in all buildings, organisations and companies that hire such workers, in the next amendment to the Employment Act.

(In English): In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker sir, I am heartened by and supportive of the many significant changes to the Employment Act through this amendment Bill. Nonetheless, I hope the Ministry will seriously consider the few recommendations I have made. Notwithstanding the questions I have posed and the further recommendations made, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.25 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Singapore, Assistant Director of Allied Health Office at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Co-Chair of the Singhealth Allied Health Executive Committee.

I would like to impress upon the House two things regarding the upcoming Employment Act (Amendment) Bill. Firstly, for MOM and MOH to explore allowing registered Collaborative Practice Prescribers who are running clinics in hospitals and polyclinics to issue medical certificates. I will refer to these practitioners as CPPs. Secondly, for MOM to work with the Tripartite Alliance and encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave without medical certificates per year.

I am deeply concerned about the rising healthcare costs in Singapore and the expenditure on elderly healthcare. These are issues affecting our healthcare system and have been highlighted in the 2018 Singapore Budget.

With the increasing burden of an ageing population, along with the surge in incidence of chronic diseases and complexity of chronic disease management, we need to focus on a team-based model of care where various healthcare professionals – doctors, pharmacists, nurses, allied health professionals – come together and work in synergy to provide cost-effective care outcomes in line with MOH’s Beyond 2020 master plan.

As such, we need to empower our allied health professionals, nurses and pharmacists to take on greater roles in the area of minor ailments and chronic diseases management to provide value-based care at a sustainable cost and to actively look into ways to eliminate inefficiencies in our healthcare system.

One such approach that I would like to suggest is to allow practitioners under the recently approved CPP framework to be able to issue MCs. This framework came into operation on 1 March 2018 and certifies a practitioner under the national collaborative prescribing assessment framework to be able to review and prescribe independently within the scope of their Collaborative Practice Agreement (CPA).

This certification is done in a setting that requires the issuing of MCs, for example, in ambulatory care clinics.

All CPPs have to undergo and pass a three-month National Collaborative Prescribing Programme. In each institution, a privileging and training framework is in place for CPPs to see patients in a clinic. Practitioners must have at least three years of experience, with at least a year in team-based care before enrolling into the National Collaborative Prescribing Programme.

CPPs are regularly reviewed by the Credentialing and Service review committee to ensure safety and appropriateness of care. They are also required to maintain a competency portfolio for re-credentialing, whenever necessary.

Nurses under the CPP framework are registered Advanced Practice Nurses (APN) who have completed the Master of Nursing Programme accredited by the Singapore Nursing Board (SNB) for APN training or its equivalent and have successfully completed a post-graduate one-year APN Internship programme.

Likewise, CPP pharmacists are advanced practice pharmacists or specialist pharmacists registered with the Singapore Pharmacy Council (SPC) who have completed post graduate training or its equivalent and fulfilled the compulsory continual professional education (CPE) points for maintenance of licensure by SPC.

As you can see, practitioners under the CPP framework go through rigorous training, are constantly audited to ensure that high standards of care are upheld and are well equipped with necessary industry certifications.

Currently, these practitioners can only provide excuse chits to patients. If patients require MCs, they have to be directed to medical doctors where they have to wait again for the doctors to furnish their MCs. It causes unnecessary delays to patients and can be disruptive to both the CPP and the doctor. Currently, most employers accept MCs but not excuse chits.

The reasons I have stated provide sufficient grounds for MOM and MOH to consider certifying CPPs license to provide MCs to the general public.

This brings me to my second point, which is for MOM to consider working with the Tripartite Alliance and encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave per year without medical certificates.

I am sure that everyone who work will have had to obtain an MC when they are unwell at some point in time. You might have woken up perhaps with a flu, feeling feverish and decide that you are not able to go to work that day. However, you would first have to get an MC. That would mean going to the nearest private clinic or polyclinic, queuing up with other patients and risk spreading infection.

Apart from being unproductive and potentially spreading your contagion, being out and about would exacerbate your illness when you should be getting the much needed rest at home. One may even conveniently ask for unwarranted antibiotics since they are already at the clinic, contributing to global antimicrobial resistance problems.

Allowing employees to take up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave per year without MCs will also display a strong signal of trust and partnership between employers and employees. It will also create better accountability and higher morale amongst staff because the system had shown them that their employers trust them. I understand that the current Employment Act is not prohibiting such practice and, in fact, some healthcare clusters and Civil Service organisations have already implemented this practice for many years, but there is a need for MOM to mandate it in the Act so that these benefits can be accelerated across the nation, rather than to let nature take its course.

I understand that there is always the perennial concern of employers – how to prevent the abuse of this system by employees who like to "keng"? In response to that, I would like to propose creating controls such as audits and provisions for the privilege to be withdrawn for employees who abuse the system, and a surveillance system to be put in place to ensure that we do not miss out on cluster infections.

In any organisation, there will always be a small percentage of employees who will abuse the system. The benefits of allowing for sick leave without MC will outweigh the small number of abuse cases. In fact, even with our current situation, it is not difficult to get a day off from work by faking an illness to get an MC. A survey conducted by online portal Jobs Central in 2012 reported that almost 20% of some 3,300 Singapore employees admitted to faking an illness to get away from work at some point in time.

Should MOM and MOH choose to adopt my two suggestions, the benefits to patients and our healthcare system will be manifold. It will help organisations save on unnecessary medical claims from employees just to get MCs for simple viral infections or minor ailments. The right to issue MCs by CPPs also elevates the recognition of the CPPs’ role. It is a necessary amendment to level up the CPP model to be in line with doctors.

If implemented, necessary steps will be taken to refine the CPP model in line with industry standards to ensure appropriateness of care. This will lead to improved patient access to healthcare, through right siting of patients and lead to healthcare cost containment in the long run. Doctors in the community can then be freed up to see more complex patients and be subvented appropriately based on the complexity of medical conditions seen as well as clinical indicators met.

This privilege can later be considered for physiotherapists and occupational therapists to empower them as the first triage point under the new rehab model of care. These are highly trained Allied Health specialists with postgraduate degrees and at least three years of work experience.

Overseas studies have demonstrated that patients with musculoskeletal conditions such as non-severe back or neck pain as well as hand injuries benefited from early access to physiotherapy and occupational therapy at the primary care or emergency department. Locally, even if early access is available to these patients, they are required to visit the doctor for an MC.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in short, these proposals will reduce inefficiencies in the current healthcare system, while allowing for better patient experience and contain healthcare costs through the optimisation of healthcare teams, without compromising clinical care. As we move into the ageing tsunami, there is an urgent need to proactively review our healthcare system and remove inefficiencies, making our processes leaner so that healthcare costs will not end up as a financial burden to our next generation.

Notwithstanding my requests stated above for MOM and MOH’s consideration in future Employment Act Bill amendments, I stand to support the Bill.

6.35 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Employment laws are important as they provide a legal structure to the workplace, define the responsibilities of both employers and employees, and outline regulations for resolving workplace conflicts. Having current and sound employment laws is crucial as good workers’ protection and fair rights enable businesses to devote their focus on productivity and profitability.

First, I welcome the extended coverage of the Act to include PMEs earning above $4,500 per month. Our workforce composition has been changing steadily over the years and in time, PMEs will form a significant proportion of our workforce. Therefore, it is timely that we extend coverage of the Act to protect this group of workers.

But I think more can be done to make clearer the definitions of who are considered employees covered under the Act. Currently, a worker’s coverage under the Act consists of two main criteria: type of employee and income threshold. Intuitively, the terms “workmen” and “non-workmen” should be all encompassing. Having a third and separate category just for PMEs is non-intuitive, and can be confusing to who is considered a “PME” and who is considered a “non-workman”. In practice, the distinction by type and income feels arbitrary as all employees face the same vulnerabilities by virtue of being under a company’s employment with unequal bargaining power.

Moving forward, as our workforce composition continues to evolve, MOM and the tripartite partners should consider removing the distinction between workmen, non-workmen and PMEs. I hope that one day, we can replace these current distinctions between blue-collar workers, white-collar workers and managers, perhaps, with a singular inclusive term, for example, “employees” or simply “workers”.

Next, I welcome the move to raise the income cap for non-workmen under Part IV of the Act from $2,500 to $2,600. This provides coverage for an additional 100,000 non-workmen previously not protected on hours of work and overtime.

Another piece of good news for workers is the proposed increase in the over-time salary cap for non-workmen from $2,250 to $2,600. But I would like to highlight a potential problem faced on the ground. Under the Act, if working on a rest day is requested by the employer, the rate is doubled, compared to if the work is requested by the employee. We have come across cases where employers have asked their employees to sign statements to declare that working on a rest day is self-requested. This is unfair to the employee.

Can the Ministry review this two-tier rate and remove the arbitrary distinction of rates based on who requested for the work on a rest day? This is to prevent unscrupulous employers from abusing the system, just to justify paying the lower rate. The decision whether an employee is required to work on a rest day is strictly a business call. If so required by the employer, the employee should be duly compensated at the minimum rates stipulated by law. However, if the distinction between the employer’s and employee’s request is to be preserved, then we should narrow the gap between these two rates.

Next, I would like to touch on the issue of hospitalisation leave under the proposed new section 89(3). I am glad that Ministry is proposing further changes to the Bill to further clarify the confines of hospitalisation and what would constitute hospitalisation leave. I note, in particular, that the further proposed amendments would mean that an employee who is certified to be ill enough to require hospitalisation leave will qualify even if the employee had not been warded in a hospital.

However, I would like to highlight two issues for clarification.

First, will employees with infectious diseases, such as chicken pox and Hand Foot and Mouth Disease (HFMD) be eligible for paid hospitalisation leave? A person contracted with such illnesses may not be required to be hospitalised but will require a longer period of stay at home to recover. However, clause 15 appears to cover only those patients who are quarantined by law.

Second, what about those suffering from mental issues such as depression? According to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), nearly 43,000 people sought outpatient treatment at IMH in 2017. This is a 22% increase from 2010. Today, employees do get issued with hospitalisation leave if they see a psychiatrist. With the proposed amendment, can the Minister confirm that employees with mental issues can still qualify for hospitalisation leave?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the explicit clarification that workers should be free to seek medical treatment from the doctor or clinic of their choice and that their entitlement to medical leave should not be prejudiced by this choice. Nonetheless, workers have raised two concerns with me. One, sick or injured workers not given sufficient medical leave to recover; and two, reimbursement of medical consultation fees being tied to medical certificates.

Granting of medical leave should commensurate with the medical condition of the sick or injured worker. But there had been cases where employers collude with doctors to provide minimal medical leave for their sick or injured workers. A medically unfit worker would be at a higher risk of accidents at the workplace. But often, they do not raise a complaint because they fear repercussions from their employer. This is even often more pronounced if the injured worker is a work permit worker. I therefore urge the Ministry to take harsh actions against such errant employers.

Under the proposed section 89(7)(A), reimbursement of medical consultation fees can only be granted if the doctor issues a medical certificate. Workers, with chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol, have raised concerns that they would not be able to get reimbursement of their medical consultation fees as their medical conditions do not require medical certificates to be issued. Perhaps the Ministry can consider adding treatment of chronic medical issues as part of reimbursement of medical consultation fees.

Lastly, I welcome the move to allow the Minister to make regulations against certain unfair employment practices to protect employees’ entitlements and well-being. As we are aware, there are some unsavoury practices in the industry that should be outlawed. Foremost in mind, and as the Minister herself has highlighted earlier, would be to prohibit employers from asking employees to sign salary vouchers before receiving salaries or to sign on blank salary vouchers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in the course of my work with NTUC, I visit companies and factories regularly. On occasions, I also host our foreign union counterparts. I am often asked if Singapore is pro-business or pro-worker. My reply often is it does not have to be “either or”. Workers are the lifeblood of a company. When workers are well taken care of and perform well, businesses will flourish. We expect companies to take good care of all our workers, regardless of collars, regardless of nationalities. On the same count, we expect companies and employers who flout this social norm and resort to unfair employment practices to be dealt with by the fullest extent of the law.

The review of the Employment Act is crucial as our economy continues to transform and the nature of jobs and employment will continue to change in the years ahead. The proposed amendments co-designed and co-developed by our tripartite partners are timely to provide better protection and fair rights to our workers amidst these changes taking place rapidly in our workforce. It is an exemplary example of the tripartism spirit that we have in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my queries and suggestions, I support the Bill.

6.45 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is heartening to see the additional protection and benefits for more of our employees and workers.

The Employment Act, and I quote from the MOM website, "does not make any distinction between a temporary employee, contract employee, daily-rated employee or employee on tenured employment". Hence, the stipulated minimum terms and conditions of employment applies to all. Employees working less than 35 hours a week should be made aware of the protection for them under regulations for part-time employees.

My concern stems from the rise of the gig economy, where flexi-time, temporary jobs are increasing exponentially, with more companies hiring freelancers and independent individual contractors. Based on some of the feedback I had received, there are pockets of workers who are not very sure of their employment rights and entitlements in such hiring arrangements. As a result, they are at risk of exploitative practices.

I would like to suggest that the Ministry put more effort into public education campaigns, including outreach programmes and road shows, to clarify the protection and entitlements of employees, particularly those working in sectors and positions which pay lower wages. Whether it is overtime pay, timely payment of wages, salary deductions, medical leave or dispute resolution, the Ministry must make a concerted effort to reach out to and educate temporary, contract and daily-rated employees about their rights in these areas. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Based on some of the feedback I had received, there are pockets of workers who are not very sure of their employment rights and entitlements in such hiring arrangements. As a result, they are at risk of exploitative practices.

I would like to suggest that the Ministry put more effort into public education campaigns, including outreach programmes and road shows, to clarify the protection and entitlements of employees, particularly those working in sectors and positions which pay lower wages.

Whether it is overtime pay, timely payment of wages, salary deductions, medical leave or dispute resolution, the Ministry must make a concerted effort to reach out to and educate temporary, contract and daily-rated employees about their rights in these areas.

(In English): With greater awareness and more detailed knowledge, these workers will be able to negotiate for fairer terms of employment and seek support from the Ministry in the event of non-compliance by their employers. Sir, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

Debate resumed.

6.49 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Employment (Amendment) Bill. The Bill is an improvement of the current Employment Act. However, the Bill does not appear to be updated sufficiently to take into consideration the nature of the emerging workforce in the new economy. It also does not incorporate any aspiration for a more inclusive workforce.

In this regard, I would like to urge MOM to strengthen the safety net for five groups of employees through the Employment Act and also other measures through its partners, such as the union. The employee groups I hope MOM can further support are one, employees with a portfolio of jobs and employers in the gig economy; two, employees in outsourced functions; three, Baby Boomer Seniors; four, low-skilled elderly workers; and five, employees with disabilities.

First, the nature of the emerging workforce. Several years ago, Silicon Valley-based IT solutions firm, INTUIT, predicted that 40% of the American workforce, will be independent workers – freelancers, contractors and temporary employees – by 2020. The data that is just distributed today by the Ministry also reflect an increasing trend.

In the economy of today, work which once meant years of commitment to a single vocation, to a single career path to a single worksite or even one employer, is undergoing transformation. Depending on the work arrangements and relationship between a service provider and his paymasters, one can be labelled an employee – a permanent, temporary, full-time or part-time employee – or an independent contractor who could be self-employed, freelance and on-call. The lines between a regular employee and a regular freelancer or independent contractor, and between contracts of service and contracts for service are blurring and overlapping.

Employees with a portfolio of multiple employers and jobs. More entrants to workforce in the gig or on-demand economy are becoming what management guru Charles Handy call the portfolio employees. They are a new collared employee group who could be in traditional blue or white-collared jobs, working for several employers and engaging in what is known as a portfolio of jobs. These are the new collared employees with multiple employers, serving at alternate different worksites, on or offline, and expected to deliver work based on either time spent, outcomes achieved or a blend of both time and outcomes. They could be, for example, an IT manager who works for several SMEs or an occupational therapist who spreads her workweek across several schools or clinics, or a cleaner who regularly cleans different homes on different workdays.

Sir, the Bill is silent on how the new legislation can ensure that this emerging group of employees with a portfolio of multiple employer and a portfolio of multiple work will enjoy an overall fair and employment package, and if there is provision to ensure that all the said employers will be jointly or severally liable for the entitlement provisions in matters, such as leave benefits, hospitalisation, medical or insurance.

In instances, for example, of a medical emergency or a fatal accident, would employees with multiple employers be protected and provided for, or would this duty be pushed amongst the different employers? These portfolio employees, will they be adequately covered or protected? What about the skills development of this category of staff for whom no single employer may feel responsible to ensure the relevance of their skills? What is the update from the Ministry on essential portable benefits, such as healthcare, workmen's compensation and disability insurance that are not tied to traditional full-time employment? Can these benefit employees with multiple employers and be delivered through, for example, a coordinating agency in Government or can there be other forms of mechanism to ensure that they are protected?

Next, on employees in outsourced functions. Sir, as companies continue with the trend of outsourcing functions that are not their core, such as in administration, in cleaning or security, there emerges in the labour market another group of employees whose rights may not be sufficiently protected or provided for. These are the staff of contractors who won these outsourced functions. I have heard of contracts where employment agents require that they compensate the agency in cases of resignation, on top of the notice required for resignation. Who watches over these contracts and who watches over these workers in the lower end of the food chain? As more and more work is being outsourced, mechanisms need to be devised to coach and monitor the main labour contractors to ensure that they too comply with the employment legislation and the rights of their workers are protected.

Next, on the third group, baby boomer seniors. Sir, baby boomers will dominate the greying population of the developed world. In Singapore, we will see a new breed of senior citizens, those we call the "Merdeka Generation" who are unlike the senior citizens of the past. These baby boomer seniors may not retire at the specified age required. They may not just head for their overseas holidays or karaoke sessions regularly. Instead of retirement, they are likely to hit, what we call "un-retirement", and will want to continue to be actively working either part-time or full-time in their current vocation, or for some, they might want to seek second careers. The current assumptions to reduce CPF rates and to continue with year-on-year contracts subject to employer offers, I think, need to be re-examined. Government ought to review the assumptions governing employees of this new group of senior workers and better tap on this Merdeka workforce who is generally more educated and more skilled than the predecessors.

And next, on the vulnerable. Sir, I continue to urge MOM to promote the employment of Singaporeans who are vulnerable and most at risk in being left behind in our faster, smarter society. These are one, our low-skilled elderly Singaporeans and two, the younger and older Singaporeans with mild to severe disabilities.

On the elderly, there are many Meet-the-People (MPS) cases that I have been involved with of elderly low-skilled workers who desire to work but they cannot find work, who are not ill or poor enough to qualify for means-testing or receive public welfare. These are seniors who may not be able to grasp the pace of the new economy and whose manual jobs are readily replaced by robots. The Special Employment Credit by Government is a brilliant way to incentivise employers to hire more of these elderly and disabled but there are still many out there requiring support. If legislation is also a reflection of the values of a society, is there a further space within our employment legislation to ensure larger employers, including our Government, to set aside or create jobs for the vulnerable, such as these elderly and even the disabled? I understand the role of job creation may not fall within the direct purview of MOM, but I have worked with Minister Josephine for quite a while and I know she cares for the vulnerable. And I urge MOM under her to extend its influence on partners, such as the union and other work agencies to create a more inclusive workforce.

Lastly, on the disabled or persons with special needs or differently abled. There are many terms for them but I will use the term disabled, not out of this respect, but because I will be referring to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Singapore has signed the UNCRPD on 30 November 2012. The Convention was later ratified in July 2013. I think all these are under the watch of Minister Vivian Balakrishnan. By ratification, Singapore is committed to ensuring that the rights and interests of persons with disabilities will be protected like the rest of the population in key areas such as education and employment.

In education, legislation has already been enacted to make compulsory education for children with special needs a reality come next year. It is now time to start working on legislating that employers bear some responsibility in recruiting and developing staff with disabilities. Just as MOE has enhanced its special education branch and the education of students with special education needs in mainstream schools through organisation structure and funds. Other agencies, such as MOM and the union and other related agencies ought to step up and focus on this segment of the workforce.

There can be novel ways to include the disabled in the workforce. To completely leave it to MSF to coordinate with interested Ministries and private partners for jobs for the disabled, I believe, is not committing enough. Some countries have established quotas with varying success. Others have laws to protect discrimination of staff who are vulnerable, for those with disabilities.

In Australia, the Victorian, NSW and Queensland governments have set public service disability employment targets of 6% to 7% as part of an economic participation plan for persons with disabilities. But, of course, it has been found that quota schemes when not properly implemented, can backfire and result in cheating or just lip service in the hiring of the disabled. However, when there is a will, there is a way, as some European countries found. Novel and reformed quota schemes that, for example, allow a quota to be met, not just by direct hire, but by working and encouraging an employer to contract with, for example, a sheltered workshop of the disabled for supplies or services, have seen to be successful. So, these are different ways of including or creating a more inclusive workforce, or ensuring that quota and more enlightened quota schemes can be implemented in our country.

I have served and seen enough in the disability sector to know that just relying on the compassion of employers will not result in the economic integration of disabled workers. Hence, I seek MOM's assistance to take a more active role in including legislation and other support measures to sculpt a more inclusive Singapore workforce.

Start by having Government and larger corporations lead by example and together with other agencies adopt more aggressive efforts to aggregate jobs that will allow them to enjoy the dignity of work by this special workforce.

In conclusion, Sir, the Employment (Amendment) Bill is an improvement of the existing and I fully support it. And I continue to seek the Manpower Ministry and its partners to walk the extra mile to cater to employees in the new gig economy and also to cater to employees who are at risk of being excluded in the Singapore workforce.

7.01 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Deputy Speaker, Sir, the overhaul to our employment legislation has been a long and extensive process. I am glad to see it finally coming to fruition.

The changes will benefit and enhance protection for all employees. Proposals such as the removal of the monthly salary cap of $4,500, additional protection for more vulnerable employees and improvements to dispute resolution services are greatly welcomed. One of the amendments is to increase the salary cap for paying overtime to non-workmen from $2,250 to $2,600. This is expected to benefit an additional 100,000 workers. On the other hand, the cap for workmen has been left unchanged at $4,500, since about 99% of workmen are already covered under this threshold.

However, I feel that as a matter of principle, we should gradually remove all salary caps for overtime. If companies need to pay equally for each unit of work-time input, regardless of whether work is done within official work hours or during overtime, they would be more motivated to look into productivity upgrading measures to reduce overtime work. This will be in line with our goal of better work-life balance for all employees. Enhanced productivity also means that our workforce and companies would be more competitive.

The result will be a win-win situation for both employers and employees. All these developments will boost Singapore’s attractiveness to investors so that quality jobs will continue to be created for Singaporeans. On this note, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Manpower.

7.03 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all 17 Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. It has been quite a marathon because I took the stand at about 4.00 pm; so it was about three hours ago. Every one of you have raised important issues which I will address.

But in the interest of time and also in support of Ms Anthea Ong’s very timely reminder – the importance of mental well-being – I seek Members’ kind understanding that I will focus on points relating to today’s amendments and there are about 40 pages of it.

The other points, for which I have about 20 pages, are of course very important. But I think they can also be addressed on other occasions, or if we have some time later.

As we debate the merits of the proposals, it is useful to remember the wise words of Mr S Rajaratnam when he presented the Employment Act Bill to Parliament in July 1968. It is a very uncanny coincidence, but that was also the month I was born.

He said, “The Employment Bill should therefore be seen in the context of the new problems an independent Singapore faces. There must be a climate of industrial peace and stability to attract both local and foreign capital. It is essential to increase the productivity of our workers, the efficiency of entrepreneurs, so that our products can compete in the stiff competitive export markets of the world. That is the intent and purpose behind this Bill. How far this Bill will succeed in its purpose will depend on both workers and employers placing national interests before sectional interests.”

Sir, although five decades have since passed, the fundamentals have not changed. The EA exists to regulate employment practices in a balanced way, protecting workers while retaining labour market flexibility for businesses to thrive and create good jobs.

A few more points are worth remembering.

First, the EA is our main but not the only employment-related legislation. It works in concert with other important pieces of legislation, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Work Injury Compensation Act, the Retirement and Re-employment Act, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. And all these to advance the interests of our workers.

Second, besides laws, our unique brand of Tripartism also relies on Tripartite Guidelines, Standards, and Advisories to promote fair and progressive practices, while ensuring good employment outcomes.

Third, in everything we do, Tripartite partners strive to be pro-worker and pro-business. This has been a cornerstone guiding employment practices in Singapore that has served us well.

Fourth, in recent years, employers have been asked to take on more obligations such as longer paternity leave and re-employment of older workers, first to 65 then to 67. As we debate EA changes, bear in mind also that tripartite partners are always in an on-going conversation about other areas that may see further changes in the coming years.

Fifth, the Government also plays its part for local workers. In the provision of healthcare, for example, employers’ major contribution is through the CPF which builds up our Medisave. The Government’s efforts include the development of public healthcare facilities and schemes like MediShield Life, CareShield Life and CHAS, which together keep healthcare affordable without placing excessive burdens on individuals and employers.

So, I hope, Members can keep these points in mind as I address the specific concerns. Let me start with the coverage of the EA, and whether we can up the provisions, make them more generous.

Mr Melvin Yong asked for the distinction between workmen, non-workmen and managers and executives to be removed. The tripartite partners discussed this extensively. At workplaces, the lines between workmen, non-workmen and managers and executives are indeed blurring. In the EA, the distinction remains largely in Part IV. Among other things, Part IV regulates working hours, rest days and overtime (OT) payments. Including the more than 700,000 managers and executives whose work are much more varied and tend to be more outcome-based, will make our laws much more rigid and prescriptive.

To Mr Dennis Tan’s point on defining managers and executives, given that employment practices evolve constantly, the current approach of referring to managers and executives as those “employed in a managerial or executive position” while taking reference from case law works well for the tripartite partners. In a High Court ruling earlier this year, it was also made clear that the actual work requirements and individual circumstances matter more than the job title given. So, there are already some parameters we work within and they generally work well.

Within Part IV, the coverage for workmen and non-workmen have been different since the EA was first enacted in 1968. Workmen, who are manual workers, generally need more protection where OT is concerned. This remains so today. The salary threshold of $4,500 therefore covers nearly all workmen, whereas the salary threshold for non-workmen cover about half of them.

Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked if the salary threshold for non-workmen could be higher, or even removed completely. Our longer term intent is indeed to close the gap between the salary thresholds for workmen and non-workmen. That said, in every EA amendment, tripartite partners consider carefully the impact on both workers and employers. When benefits are upped, so too are the costs borne by employers.

Indeed, former Nominated Member Assoc Prof Randolph Tan wrote an op-ed expressing some concern about the timing of this round of EA enhancements, whether businesses could absorb the impact in the current economic climate. Mr Douglas Foo also pointed this out in his op-ed published in The Straits Times yesterday and earlier, when he spoke.

Thankfully, in Singapore, our union leaders recognise the need to consider the package of improvements and not just individual items. They know it is equally important to give employers time to adjust to changes that come from many directions, not just the EA.

In this amendment, the tripartite partners agreed to the major shift to extend EA core provisions to cover all managers and executives. This already benefits 430,000 managers and executives. The expanded coverage under Part IV benefits another 100,000 or so workers. So, in total, we are talking about half a million.

Tripartite partners are mindful that changes should not inadvertently affect workers’ employability. They reached a consensus that these shifts are sufficiently well calibrated and remain committed to review the thresholds in future amendments.

Let me now turn to the gig economy – self-employed persons. Mr Zainal, Mr Saktiandi, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Ms Joan Pereira, and also Ms Denise Phua raised concerns about protections for self-employed persons, or SEPs. By their very nature, SEPs do not have the same kind of relationship with their service buyers as that between employees and employers. This is the main reason we do not attempt to regulate SEPs’ relationship with service providers under the Employment Act.

Earlier this year, a tripartite workgroup formed by the MOM had put forward a set of recommendations to address SEPs’ common challenges, some of which were outlined in earlier speeches. And in the earlier circulation of materials, I believe not only a summary of the EA changes were distributed; there was another separate circular that outlined the recommendations of the tripartite workgroup.

Now, at MOM’s COS debate in March, I announced the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations and our implementation plan. I am pleased to share that we are making good progress and will update Members at a later date.

To Assoc Prof Theseira’s point, we recognise that workers can indeed be wrongly classified as SEPs to avoid EA obligations. Anyone unsure of his employment status should approach MOM so that an appropriate determination can be made. In the last three years, we have successfully intervened in around 100 cases where employees were wrongly classified as SEPs, and helped them to recover their due statutory benefits or CPF contributions.

Mischievous employers should take note and realise that they can be prosecuted for non-provision of salaries and benefits.

Let me now deal with the specific provisions of the EA, starting with rest days. Mr Zainal and Mr Melvin Yong suggested double pay for work on a rest day, regardless of who requested for it. There are good reasons for the differentiation. The double rate discourages employers from asking employees to work excessively. On the other hand, the single rate if workers request to work on rest days, ensures that workers are not inadvertently encouraged to work excessively for the double pay, when actually they should be resting.

Mr Zainal is, of course, concerned that the employees do not always know that they are due to be paid at the double rate if their employers ask them to work on their rest day. Mr Yong worries that these workers are forced or deceived into declaring these as self-requested. They are valid concerns.

MOM is keen to partner NTUC to strengthen outreach for the WorkRight initiative to educate employers and employees about their responsibilities and rights. This would also address Ms Joan Pereira's concerns and raise awareness amongst the employees who have not been paid the right amounts to submit a mediation request to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM). Let me state categorically that if an employer is found to have misrepresented the worker's request to work on a rest day, we will take the employer to task for non-payment of salary or providing false information.

Let me now deal with leave entitlements. Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked if the carry-forward specific provision for unused annual leave can be extended to all employees. Ms Jessica Tan also asked if an employer is required to pay the employee for un-utilised annual leave. To clarify, annual leave provisions in section 88A used to be in Part IV and now apply to all employees. However, the employers’ obligation to carry forward un-utilised annual leave to the next year remains for Part IV employees only.

Tripartite partners decided against extending the carry-forward provision to all employees which now include higher earning managers and executives – no more limit. This is out of concern for the otherwise drastic impact on business liabilities. I think Members who are familiar with HR practices know that actually you have to set aside the liability and factor it as a cost in your books so there is a real impact.

Annual leave should be planned ahead of time to meet both employee and organisational needs, to avoid situations of unconsumed leave entitlements. If the employer is unable to approve leave due to work exigencies and the employee has shown reasonable efforts to adjust his leave plans to suit organisational needs, the employer should allow for leave encashment. This is so that the employee can benefit from his statutory leave entitlement.

To Mr Saktiandi’s question, there is no need for the employer to force the employee to take leave if an employee does not want to utilise his leave entitlements. However, we do encourage workers to take their annual leave to rest and recharge from their work to maintain their mental well-being. That is what the provisions are for.

Dr Intan’s asked about TCM practitioners. A small number of doctors have dual registration under the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (TCMPA) and the Medical Registration Act (MRA). For the purposes of granting paid sick leave, employers are required to recognise the MCs issued by such practitioners in their capacity as doctors under the MRA.

Ms Irene Quay asked that we also require employers to recognise the MCs issued by Collaborative Practice Prescribers or CPPs. Today, as CPPs are not registered under the MRA, MOH does not allow them to issue MCs. We understand that MOH will need time to assess the programme as well as other new models of care before deciding whether other healthcare professionals can be certified to issue MCs. MOH will, therefore, continue to monitor these developments.

Ms Irene Quay also asked that we encourage employers to allow for up to three non-consecutive days of sick leave without MC per year and she gave many good reasons why this would be a more productive approach. While we recognise the Member’s call for this to be mandated, Ms Quay herself also rightly pointed out that employers would need to create controls, surveillance and audit systems to ensure that their employees do not abuse the system. These will, inevitably, add to business costs. As the EA does not prohibit employers from doing so already, progressive companies are free to go ahead to offer this as part of their talent attraction and retention strategies. A number have done so. We will continue to give them flexibility to decide what works best for them.

Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong asked for clarifications regarding hospitalisation leave. Today, employers are not required under the EA to recognise an MC from private doctors, other than their own panel doctors, for purposes of paid sick leave. The amendments to the EA in this Bill will require employers to recognise MCs from any doctor, whether private or public, for purposes of granting paid sick leave.

To Mr Tay’s question, employers can recognise MCs for purposes of granting hospitalisation leave from any doctor in the private hospital. In fact, there is no evidence today that employers have refused to recognise MCs from approved hospitals. We expect that employers will continue to recognise MCs from all approved hospitals.

An employee who has chickenpox or other infectious diseases, and who is hospitalised or certified by a hospital doctor to be ill enough to be hospitalised, will be granted paid hospitalisation leave, even if he is not physically warded.

For MCs issued by non-hospital doctors such as General Practitioners (GPs), employers are required by law to recognise the MC for purpose of granting paid sick leave up to 14 days. The 14-day entitlement for outpatient medical treatment is sufficient to cover the vast majority of employees today, given that the average number of days of sick leave taken is 4.8 days. Employers are free, of course, to grant additional paid sick leave beyond the annual 14-day entitlement should an employee need it. And we have come across many cases where the employers, out of goodness of their hearts, extend this when the employees do need it.

Turning to clarifications on authorised deductions, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the implementation and safeguards for authorised deductions. To clarify, section 27(1)(f) remains largely unchanged. As is the case today, employers must provide proper documentation to prove the legitimacy of deductions, if they are for the recovery of any advance and loan. To Mr Tay’s comment on the deduction for payment to a cooperative society, this still remains as an authorised deduction under section 27(1)(j).

To the question of whether section 27(1)(i) is limited by prohibited deductions in other statutes, the answer is yes. This was Mr Louis Ng's question, I think. Mr Ng and Mr Tay asked about written consent. Such consent cannot be a general clause in a contract stating that an employer can make any deduction as and when necessary. Instead, the consent must be given specifically for a particular deduction that the employee has agreed to.

Written consent given by an employee under duress will not count as valid consent. The employer must also maintain proper records to substantiate the written consent. An employer who penalises an employee for withdrawing consent may also be liable to be prosecuted under the EA.

Regulations to protect the well-being of the employee. Dr Intan raised the issue of over-inflating salaries declared or clawing back salaries from rank-and-file workers. Our law today already allows us to take action against errant employers in this regard. If the employer falsely declares the salary of a foreign worker to qualify for a higher work pass, the employer can be prosecuted for false declaration under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EMFA). Such an employer may also be prosecuted under the EA for non-payment of salary if he pays the local or foreign worker a lower salary than what is declared, for example, in the key employment terms or payslips or in the In-Principle Approval that was given to the employee. As for “salary claw back” cases being on the rise among Fortune 100 companies, we have not received such complaints from employees but we will continue to monitor the situation.

Ms Anthea Ong asked why violations under the new section 139(2)(aa) are civil contraventions and not offences. To clarify, the Minister has the power to provide that violations of regulations are either criminal offences or civil contraventions. Civil contraventions allow us to treat less severe breaches as non-criminal infringements which attract a financial penalty. Compared to non-payment of salary which is a criminal offence, requiring an employee to sign on a blank salary voucher is a less severe breach, which should attract correspondingly less severe penalties.

Wrongful dismissals and the compensation framework. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked for clarification on what constitutes dismissal without just cause or excuse. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked how the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal and factors for determining compensation amounts will interact with the adjudication work of the ECT.

The dismissal is without just or sufficient cause if it was on grounds such as discrimination, denial of statutory benefits, and with the intent to punish the employees for exercising his rights. Dismissal because of poor performance, misconduct and redundancy are not considered wrongful.

As I mentioned earlier, wrongful dismissal is not a new provision in the EA and there are many cases we can draw reference from. MOM will publish a set of Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal which the ECT must take into account. It would not be possible to define all scenarios of what constitutes wrongful dismissal and what does not. Instead, a more feasible approach is to use illustrations and set out principles and parameters that the ECT must take into account when adjudicating cases.

An example of what constitutes wrongful dismissal is if an employer dismisses an employee to punish him or her for exercising a right, such as submitting a mediation request to MOM or reporting the company to MOM for an Employment Act offence, even though he or she has performed satisfactorily at work.

In the case reported by Dr Intan where the employee felt that she had been forced to resign, a claim can still be lodged with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management. If unresolved through mediation, the case can be escalated to the ECT and the same applies to persons who believe they had been dismissed due to discrimination.

Assoc Prof Goh and Mr Dennis Tan also asked if the ECT claim limit would be increased given that we will be covering highly paid managers and executives. To clarify, for wrongful dismissal claims, there will be a separate claims limit of $20,000 and $30,000 for union-assisted cases, in addition to the claims limit for any salary or benefit owed. So, in other words, it can be up to $40,000, or $60,000, if the two are combined.

The claim limits are established as such because the ECT is meant to be an expeditious and affordable channel for resolving disputes. Cases involving higher claim amounts are likely to be more complicated and hence take more time and workers with claims exceeding these limits can continue to pursue their claims in the higher courts, where it is probably the more appropriate place to do so.

There was a question on frivolous claims. Several Members asked how the adjudication of wrongful dismissals at the ECT will work. Mr Douglas Foo asked if there are any measures to prevent frivolous claims of wrongful dismissal. Mr Dennis Tan spoke about possible abuse of this recourse by disgruntled employees. These are reasonable concerns that employers generally have, now that more managers and executives are covered. Employees who feel that they have been wrongfully dismissed may first submit a request to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) for mediation. TADM will do its part to prevent frivolous and unmeritorious cases from proceeding. And every year, there will be some.

For cases of contractual termination, where the employer has met all his obligations, TADM will first ensure that there is a case for the employer to answer before contacting the employer to attend mediation. The employee will have to substantiate why he or she thinks that dismissal was wrongful, for example, by citing specific incidents which gave rise to the claim.

For cases like the staff who took advantage of staff travel privileges which Mr Saktiandi mentioned, if the employer has established such abuse after due inquiry, the employer can dismiss the employee without notice on grounds of misconduct.

Mr Saktiandi and Mr Tay asked what support has been put in place to facilitate the transfer of the adjudication of wrongful dismissal claims from MOM to the ECT. The ECT and TADM, where compulsory pre-ECT mediation takes place, will be expanding their manpower to meet the new demands. These mediators and investigation officers involved undergo training programmes that have been designed to equip them with the relevant skills.

Mr Ng and Assoc Prof Theseira asked if adverse inferences may be drawn against employers if they fail to produce documents such as Key Employment Terms and salary slips, and also employer's past behaviour.

The answer is yes. The ECT will be able to do so. The list of employment laws that ECT can draw adverse inferences from will be specified in a new Fourth Schedule in the Employment Claims Act.

As to whether we will consider reversing the burden of proof for salary claims, we are mindful that reversing the burden of proof for such cases may result in opportunistic employees filing frivolous claims. So, we would not do so for now.

Ms Tan and Mr Saktiandi asked how the Ministry will be communicating the changes to the public. Actually, I think Ms Joan Pereira also mentioned this. MOM will be publishing an online guidebook shortly, summarising the key amendments to the Employment Act, along with how employers should review their existing HR policies to ensure compliance with the Act. We are also working with SNEF, NTUC and other industry partners to hold briefings on the EA amendments over the next few months, prior to the implementation on 1 April 2019.

Let me now address questions from Ms Denise Phua and I believe, also Mr Arasu regarding the changing nature of employment. They have asked how the EA will cater to the changing workforce, where employees may be more mobile, and have multiple employers – portfolio workers.

As mentioned, we have other tools that complement the EA. The Member mentioned the need to better protect outsourced workers who, by the way, are still employed by the outsourced service provider which has employer obligations towards the employees. Besides the protection already afforded to them under the EA, the Tripartite Standard on Employment of Term Contract Employees will help bring about better employment conditions for such workers. The Tripartite Standard on Contracting with Self-Employed Persons also helps to shape norms and ensure the sustainability of the economy of self-employed work.

MOM and our tripartite partners will continue to keep a close watch on workplace trends like the ones that were mentioned, and also others, for example automation and flexible work arrangements which Mr Saktiandi spoke extensively about. We will continually review the EA to ensure it stays relevant in regulating employment practices in a balanced way, protecting the rights of workers while retaining flexibility in the labour market for businesses to thrive. I would add further that the right approach may need adjustments beyond the EA which is indeed the reason we aim to strengthen support for SEPs through the recommendations that I circulated.

Once again, Sir, I thank Members of the House for their support of this Bill. I hope that I have addressed questions and suggestions related to today's amendments. The other points remain important and can be addressed at other platforms.

In conclusion, let me just say that the EA is a living document and a permanent work-in-progress. For this amendment, tripartite discussions started quite early in the tenure of former Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say, and he is seated right there, and was followed through, when I took over from him. Members can be certain that as soon as we start to implement today's changes, we will again be looking forward as to what more is needed for the future, and whether the person standing here to pass those next sets of amendments will be me or someone else, who can tell?

Building a tripartite consensus on what are the right changes to make, and when to make them, which employee groups to focus on in each amendment, all these deliberations take a great amount of time and effort that is often unseen. I might add – it takes a lot of mutual trust between the tripartite partners too. Yet, this is also our greatest strength that has ensured improvements are sustainable, with no drastic U-turns every now and then, which you see in other countries – what one government promises, when the next government comes and says they are not valid anymore. We have not seen that throughout the course of the Employment Act.

This strength is also mentioned by many Members of Parliament, notably, Mr Douglas Foo, Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Arasu too. As a result, we have helped our businesses to continue providing good jobs and the vast majority of our workers to enjoy good employment outcomes.

MOM is deeply grateful to the many stakeholders in the tripartite partnership that have made possible today's changes. They have worked tirelessly to make this a reality. Let us now focus on getting the changes implemented expeditiously and smoothly. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay, you want to clarify something?

7.37 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Just two points of clarification with the Minister. I thank the Minister for a very long debate. I know it is taking our time but there are two points. Firstly, on the enforcement of ECT claims. I hope the Ministry and tripartite partners can look at the enforcement of the ECT judgements so that we have expedient and also speedy resolution and ease of resolution. That is one. The second one is on section 18A. I spoke about it and I hope the tripartite partners will work together to come up with a set of FAQs and guidelines to give greater clarity before the Act is rolled out.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, on section 18A, I can confirm with the Member that his request is being looked into and I think it can be done. His question on the ECT and expeditious settlement, I agree with him. Our objectives are aligned.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Ms Jessica Tan.

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo: I thank the Minister for the extensive clarifications. But I still do want to ask one more point around retrenchment. While I understand the need to balance, both the cost as well as the impact on employees, but because of the disruption we are seeing in the workplace and the restructuring of businesses, inevitably, there will be impact on employees. So, have the tripartite partners come to some way of balancing both the cost and the protection for employees?

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Ms Jessica Tan for the question. It is a very important area and tripartite partners have had extensive deliberations on this issue. The Member, Mr Arasu, I think, articulated the thinking very well, and in fact, in a recent blog post, Mr Patrick Tay did likewise. But I think it is useful for me to state it for the record.

MOM agrees with the tripartite partners on the need to strike a balance and that it would be counter-productive to try and legislate mandatory minimum payouts in the event of retrenchment. From the employee's standpoint, any mandated minimum may become a norm even when employers are in a position to pay more and this would not benefit the workers. From the employer's perspective, if the mandated minimum is too high, then the companies may not be able to afford and they may end up becoming over-burdened at the point in time when that sum of money could affect the remaining workers. So, countries like the US and Switzerland also do not mandate retrenchment benefits.

So, given these considerations, the tripartite partners have issued instead an advisory stipulating the prevailing norms for retrenchment benefits quantum that employers should take into consideration when determining the retrenchment benefits.

In addition, since 1 January 2017, employers have been required to notify MOM of retrenchments. This enables Workforce Singapore, the unions and other relevant agencies to help the affected workers find alternative employment. Now, according to our survey last year, around 90% of the establishments which retrenched workers actually paid retrenchment benefits even though there was no stipulated mandatory payout, of which 70% paid retrenchment benefit that met or exceeded the prevailing norms articulated in the tripartite advisory. So, I think there is a situation that is not too bad. Thank you very much.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 –

The Chairman: Clause 15. Minister.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, there are 12 amendments to clause 15, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As the amendments are related, may I seek your permission to move them together?

The Chairman: Yes. Please proceed.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move amendments* 1 to 12 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

The amendments proposed to clause 15 improve the language in the law to make clear the intention for section 89(3) of the Act on Hospitalisation to cover the circumstances I had set out in my Second Reading speech, including quarantine orders, situations where the employee is not an inpatient of a hospital but is ill enough to require hospitalisation during that period, and further medical treatment for the condition that the employee was hospitalised for after discharge from hospital.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 11, line 3: to leave out "an approved", and insert "a".

(2) In page 11, line 4: after "prescribed", to insert "or is under quarantine (whether or not in a hospital) under any written law".

(3) In page 11, lines 5 and 6: to leave out ", who is discharged from an approved", and insert "is to be treated as hospitalised for any period the employee is not an in-patient of a hospital, or stops being an in‑patient of a".

(4) In page 11, line 7: to leave out "approved".

(5) In page 11, lines 8, 9 and 10: to leave out "is deemed to be hospitalised for a continuous period, beginning immediately after that discharge,".

(6) In page 11, lines 12 and 13: to leave out "that approved hospital", and insert "a hospital approved by the Minister".

(7) In page 11, lines 14 and 15: to leave out "need to remain hospitalised", and insert "require hospitalisation".

(8) In page 11, line 16: after "rest", to insert "or further medical treatment".

(9) In page 11, line 17: after "recover", to insert "after his discharge from a hospital".

(10) In page 12, line 12: after "(7A)";", to insert "and".

(11) In page 12, line 14: to leave out "; and", and insert ".".

(12) In page 12: to leave out lines 15 to 20.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 29 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.