Committee of Supply – Head S (Ministry of Manpower)

The Chairman: Head S, the Ministry of Manpower. Mr Desmond Choo.

5.23 pm

Manpower Policies

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Over the current term of Government, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has undertaken bold reforms to steer our workforce from crisis to recovery, from downturn to growth.

We introduced the Complementarity Assessment (COMPASS) framework to ensure foreign talent complements and never displaces our Singaporean core. We legislated the world's first Platform Workers Act to protect more than 70,000 workers who have been under-protected for too long. And we championed workplace fairness and flexible work arrangements (FWAs), because a progressive workforce is a competitive workforce. These are, but some of the many policies that the Ministry have introduced to do right by our workers and ensure that #EveryWorkerMatters.

As this Parliamentary term nears its close, can the Minister share: (a) have our policies strengthened retirement adequacy; (b) have they elevated the quality of our workforce; and (c) have they built more inclusive, progressive workplaces?

Next, let me turn to a central problem of this generation and beyond. Singapore's workforce is ageing. The proportion of seniors in our workforce has risen from 12.3% in 2014 to 16.9% in 2024. Our old-age support ratio has worsened from 6:1 in 2014 to 3.5:1 today; and by 2030, it will drop to 2.7:1. These numbers are not just statistics. They tell a story of impending workforce shortages, rising tax burdens on younger Singaporeans and economic stagnation if we do nothing now.

We must act decisively. First, we must tap into the untapped. Senior workforce participation in Singapore stands at 72.6%, trailing behind cities like Stockholm and Tokyo. There is room to grow. If we can raise this figure, we can mitigate the labour shortfall and sustain our economic dynamism.

To do so, first, we must reimagine jobs for seniors. Many leave the workforce not because they want to, but because they can no longer meet physical demands or find suitable alternatives. We need to accelerate job redesign, incorporating assistive technologies, like exoskeletons for labour-intensive roles. There are already healthcare institutions worldwide introducing exoskeletons for healthcare assistants. We must adopt such innovations widely. Singapore can, and should, become a hub for such innovations. We can turn our vulnerability into our strength, as we have done for water.

Second, we must provide tailored support for senior jobseekers. We have done well to develop a robust training and placement capability in Singapore. The next bound of this development would be to have one-stop dedicated training and jobs placement centres for our senior workers. We can establish these centres around the nation and there are good reasons to do so.

Senior workers have quite different priorities. While earning an income is clearly still important, many of them want to balance other life and care needs. Many of them have been in the same jobs or functions for most of their working lives. They might not know how to manoeuvre to adjacent industries. Our colleagues from the Centre for Seniors have also shared that senior jobseekers do need more handholding and dedicated support.

Third, unlike younger workers who very adept at searching for jobs online, seniors need dedicated retraining pathways and placement services. The National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) has already facilitated success stories like Mr Tay, a retrenched chief operations officer, who transitioned into the healthcare sector. We need more of such successes and we need them at scale.

Finally, we must foster age-inclusive workplaces. The newly-announced Tripartite Workgroup on Senior Employment must tackle not just skills redundancy, but also workplace cultural shifts. Senior-friendly human resource policies should be the norm, not the exception. NTUC will support such important work.

Next, we will also need to do more to improve our female workforce participation rates, if we are to solve our ageing workforce challenge. Already debated extensively in this House, improving our health caregiving support is critical to helping our women workers to stay in or return to the workforce.

Our women still carry the bulk of the caregiving load. Having a good caregiving infrastructure, including more generous childcare leave, is the foundation stone to improve our female labour force participation rates. We have introduced many forms of subsidies but subsidies cannot replace the need for our women workers to care for their children when they are sick and need help.

I believe strongly, too, that having more women in senior and middle ranks would also improve our female labour force participation rates. It would introduce new leadership styles, ample examples for younger women to follow and change our workplaces to play to the strengths of our women workers. It can introduce new ways to think and support women in their careers, especially when we need to change age-old workplace practices, probably set in place by men.

In fact, quite aptly put across by President Obama of the United States (US) in 2019 and delivered in Singapore, and I quote him, "Now women, I just want you to know, you are not perfect. But what I can say pretty indisputably is that you're better than us men. I'm absolutely confident that for two years, if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything…living standards and outcomes."

Over my career, I have had the opportunity to work for many female leaders, all of whom I hold in high regard. From the Singapore Police Force to the private sector and the NTUC, I had worked for female leaders who played an indispensable role in shaping my career. They have different leadership styles, adding to and enriching the prevailing male-dominated leadership models.

Unfortunately, I was somewhat the exception rather than the norm. Many of our counterparts do not have such opportunities to work for that many female bosses. We still have too few women at the senior management levels. The truth is also that Singapore has demonstrated measurable progress in having more women across corporate leadership structures over the past decade.

5.30 pm

The share of females in the resident labour force has increased to 47.6% over the past decade. In 2023, the adjusted gender pay gap in Singapore narrowed to 6%. The proportion of residents outside the workforce due to familial obligations dropped to 21.5% in 2024.

As of 2024, women occupy 42% of senior management roles in mid-market businesses. The proportion of women on boards for the top 100 Singapore Exchange-listed firms reached 25.1% by December 2024, surpassing the interim target of 25% set for 2025 by the Council for Board Diversity. This triples the 7.5% recorded in 2013 and exceeds the global average of 23.3%. Our Statutory Boards do even better. They have 34.2% female representation while our Institutions of a Public Character reported 31.5%.

Despite these gains, sectoral imbalances persist. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) industries lag significantly, with women holding only 14.5% of C-suite positions in medium-sized firms. Financial services show stronger performance. One good example is DBS Bank, where women constitute 40% of senior management, nearly double the 2021 industry average of 24.5%. However, in Singapore, at the CEO level, only 9% of Singaporean companies have female CEOs as of 2024, lagging behind even our Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) peers, who clock in at 21%.

Human resources (HR) remains the most gender-balanced function, with 41% of HR director roles held by women, whereas operational and technical leadership roles show slower diversification.

We have clearly made progress but we need to move even faster. Gender equality in our workplaces is no longer a moral imperative, but also an economic imperative in Singapore's case. Empowering our women and ensuring equity in compensation are all vital factors in building a productive and sustainable workforce.

At current growth rates, gender parity in senior management will not materialise before 2050s. Accelerating progress requires a multi-pronged approach from various stakeholders. Could the Ministry share its current initiatives to promote gender equality at the workplace?

I have a few suggestions for the Ministry to consider to improve our female workforce participation rates.

First, it might be worthwhile for us to consider following the Norwegian way – mandating a 40% quota for women on company boards. I have spoken to quite a few female leaders and I understand the misgivings about quotas. Our female counterparts want women to be in those positions due to their own merits. However, having a quota does not mean being appointed is not by merits. I think there are many meritorious women who did not get their chances because companies do not look hard enough. European Union (EU)-mandated 40% female board representation by 2026 has already increased women's share of board seats in France from 22% to 46%. It can work.

Second, we need to address the "broken rung". Women are 21% less likely than men to receive their first managerial promotion. This creates a “broken rung” in the leadership pipeline. To address this, we need to have companies to audit promotion metrics to identify and remedy disparities in promotion rates between the genders. Today, this is not widely practised.

Third, we need to seed and incentivise companies to introduce returnship programmes. Many women leave the workforce for caregiving needs and never return because of skills and experience gaps. We need to normalise career breaks through targeted recruitment messaging that values lived experience over linear career paths. For example, Goldman Sachs' returnship programme explicitly welcomes applicants with more than two years away from work, reframing gaps as periods of skill diversification.

The Government can provide incentives for returnships for companies that meet their diversity quota.

Fourth, we need to complement mentorship with sponsorship. While mentorship focuses on skill building and career advice, sponsorship centres on power dynamics and advocacy. Senior leaders, often C-suite executives, and especially men need to actively champion women for promotions, high visibility projects and leadership roles. This is especially important for men to lean in because they occupy the lion's share of senior positions now.

Fifth, as a labour Member of Parliament, I would also like to encourage people to support union membership. Unions can help to advocate for better wages, training and benefits. At least data from the US shows that a woman with a union behind her on average makes 22% more than a woman fending for herself.

Sustained progress demands moving beyond voluntary targets to structural reforms that address caregiving inequities, redefine leadership paradigms and institutionalise accountability mechanisms across all sectors. I am hopeful that the day shall come when we no longer ask about men and women leaders. There would only be leaders. But until that day comes, we shall have to ceaselessly strive for gender equality for our workers. And when we can improve the senior workers and female workforce participation rates, we can have a reasonable chance at starving the silver tsunami and give rise to a new dawn of continued economic growth.

Question proposed.

Human Capital Capability Development

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, the human capital function and fraternity is vital in the future of work, workforce and workplaces in Singapore. I submit that it is therefore crucial to further uplift and enhance our human resource and human capital capability and leadership in Singapore. I propose three suggestions to achieve this goal.

One is to further improve our HR standards nationally. This can be done through mandating certification such as the Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) certification as well as a mutual recognition of this certification with internationally recognised HR certifications. This will then allow us to take another step closer to benchmark with global HR standards.

Two, we can better support the HR profession by providing greater opportunities for continuing education and training (CET), professional network and development to create and catalyse progression possibilities for the profession to take on bigger roles in their organsations and industry locally and globally.

The third is to support firms and businesses, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to build their human capital function and capabilities, especially since the person managing HR may well be the administrative or finance person.

Workforce Transformation for Employers

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, workforce transformation is critical to our economic future. But for employers, navigating the current support landscape may feel overwhelming. We need a more integrated, holistic approach, one that focuses on three key areas.

First, job redesign and skills upgrading. I have raised concerns before about vulnerable workers, especially older and lower-skilled individuals, from the risk of automation. While initiatives like Jobs Transformation Maps help, we must be more proactive. How many companies have actually benefited from job redesign support under the Productivity Solutions Grant? What more can we do to help businesses create higher-value jobs and accessible training pathways?

Second, strong HR standards. With workplace fairness legislation coming, good HR practices matter more than ever. A litigious workplace helps no one. Mediation should be the first line of resolution, something I have long championed. But as I highlighted in the workplace fairness debate, some employees do not feel safe approaching HR and small businesses may not even have formal HR departments. How do we equip SMEs with the right HR support to mediate disputes and foster inclusive workplaces?

Third, empowering HR professionals. HR plays a strategic role in workforce transformation. But to maximise their impact, we must invest in their professional development. How is the Government strengthening the HR ecosystem to drive workforce transformation effectively? By simplifying the support system and focusing on these areas, we help businesses embrace change, boost productivity and build a resilient workforce.

The Underemployment Problem

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, over this term of Parliament, I have constantly urged this Government to rebalance its manpower policy, because we have heard from many Singaporeans that they are facing great difficulties in finding good jobs and holding on to those jobs.

It appears that underemployment is a real problem for Singaporeans, especially as they age and their wages go higher. But there are signs that this problem is spreading from the older workers to the younger workers too.

At last month's Parliamentary debate on the Workplace Fairness Bill, Minister Tan See Leng accused me of consistently looking for a smoking gun and asked me to consider there may be something that I am looking for does not exist. I would like to believe the Minister, but as underemployment concerns the livelihoods of Singaporeans, I cannot take it lightly. To convince Singaporeans, the Minister must provide conclusive evidence and statistics to prove his point.

The Minister has cited the low unemployment rate and increasing share of residents in professional, managerial and executive (PME) jobs to prove his point. Respectfully, these two statistics do not necessarily support his point that underemployment is not a growing problem among Singaporeans.

As I majored in economic statistics and econometrics in university, I know quite well that each economic statistic has its limitations and must be applied carefully to draw conclusions. Statistics can also be misused to paint a wrong narrative.

Firstly, on why the low unemployment rate can be misleading. This is because under the definition of our employment statistics, a worker is considered employed even if he has worked for only one hour per week. If it is not by choice, such a worker is obviously underemployed, but he does not contribute to the unemployment numbers.

A professional may also be underemployed when he is over qualified for the job, based on his training and education. For example, a former senior vice president of a bank who is forced to work as a Grab driver after being retrenched is seriously underemployed. This is skill-related underemployment.

Last month, the Minister said that professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) now make up 64% of all employed residents, which matches the proportion of residents with tertiary education in the workforce. But again, this does not conclusively show that there is no serious skill-related underemployment in Singapore.

The Government has said before that even though the MOM is interested in tracking skill-related underemployment, there is no internationally accepted way of doing this. But I would like to reiterate the Progress Singapore Party's (PSP's) view that this problem needs to be tracked and solved.

For example, we can track over time how many Singaporeans have earned lower wages, no longer have the same seniority in their jobs and have been involuntarily employed as part-time or contract workers.

Secondly, on how immigration skews the resident employment, unemployment and PME ratio statistics. Most labour statistics in Singapore are reported at the resident level. The resident classification includes Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs). These statistics can therefore be distorted when the residency status of workers changes from Work Pass holder to PR.

For example, hypothetically, if the number of resident PMEs have increased by 200,000 from 2005 to 2020, it does not necessarily mean that Singapore residents have gained PME jobs. If there were more than 300,000 non-resident PMEs becoming PRs at the same time, 100,000 existing residents would have lost their PME jobs during that period.

In my last four years in Parliament, I have asked repeatedly for the Government to provide a breakdown of the Singaporean and PR employment data so that we can monitor the effect of changes in workers' residency status with the data.

Most recently, when I asked the Minister in May 2024 what percentage of the increase in resident employment by 4,900 in 2023 is due to non-residents becoming residents in Singapore, the Minister replied, "This line of questioning is not productive and undermines social cohesion in Singapore." He also added that MOM does not collect data on the net change in resident employment by workers' prior residency status in its labour market survey.

However, without tracking the resident labour force based on the workers' prior residency status, I wonder how the Minister can conclude that there is no significant underemployment in Singapore and that I am looking for a smoking gun.

5.45 pm

I urge the Government to start collecting data on changes in resident employment and the resident labour force based on the worker's prior residency status. This will help us get a better understanding of issues around resident employment. I do not believe that it xenophobic or nativist to ask for such statistics. I am also not seeking to divide Singaporeans by asking for these statistics. I am representing Singaporeans who want to know more.

I deeply respect the contributions of new citizens, PRs and foreign workers to Singapore. Many foreign workers make the choice to uproot themselves to build a new life here in Singapore. Some of them have chosen to sink their roots more deeply and take up PR or citizenship. From the bottom of my heart, I acknowledge the contribution they have made to Singapore.

I have said before in this House that PSP is for an open economy and society, and we recognise the need for foreign talent to complement our Singaporean core. This has never changed. And in speaking up for Singaporeans, we are also speaking up for the existing PRs who are really our economic citizens. Even as we welcome new foreign workers to Singapore, we must make sure that this does not affect the interests of existing citizens and PRs in Singapore. Not everyone has the resources, ability or desire to seek a better life elsewhere. For many existing citizens and PRs in Singapore, Singapore is their only home.

By being more transparent with the data, the Government can actually calm anti-foreigner sentiments and assure Singaporeans that immigration does not harm their economic interest. It will help the Government get more buy-in for its immigration policies. Without the data, Singaporeans will always wonder, at the back of their head, whether immigration is really benefiting them. So, I hope that the officeholders will stop labelling me as a xenophobe or a racist so that we can have a rational and reasoned discussion on the impact of immigration on Singaporean workers and their wages.

By some measures, the Singaporean worker is worse off today than he was 20 years ago. During his Budget speech, the Prime Minister said, in the past, tertiary graduates had fewer job options to choose from, with career paths revolving around a few traditional areas. These days, the job landscape is far more diverse. Tertiary graduates these days may have more diverse job options, but they may not be financially better off than tertiary graduates of the past.

In 1979, the median starting salary of a university graduate was $957 per month. The median starting salary of an NTC-3 graduate from the Vocational and Industrial Training Board (VITB), the predecessor of today's Institute of Technical Education (ITE), was $633 per month. How did these starting salaries compare with housing prices?

In July 1979, after a 15% price increase by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), the price of a new 4-room flat sold by the HDB in new towns was $27,100. This is equivalent to about 28 times the median starting salary of a university graduate, or 43 times the median starting salary of a VITB graduate. Today, the median starting salary of a university graduate is $4,500 per month as of 2024. In the October 2024 Built-To-Order (BTO) launch exercise, the cheapest 4-room flats launched, excluding grants, cost $290,000, or 64 times the median starting salary of a university graduate, while the cheapest 5-room flats cost $427,000, or 95 times the median graduate starting salary.

Based on housing affordability, the median university graduate today is worse off than the median ITE graduate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Those years were truly the golden age for the Singaporean worker with high starting salaries, plentiful jobs and high Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution rates of up to 50%.

Our students are spending more time and money to get educated and learn skills at university today. But even after this education arms race, our university graduates are achieving salaries that allow them to buy smaller and more expensive flats than what an ITE graduate could have bought 45 years ago. For those who do not have a university degree, the prospects are even dimmer and younger workers also face the prospects of skills-related underemployment later in their career.

Mr Chairman, let me conclude. Singaporeans are highly skilled and educated, and they can be competitive if there is a level playing field and a government that helps them to upgrade while they are on their jobs, and not after they have lost their jobs.

We want a first-world Singapore, where the Government uses its power to create incentives for businesses to keep and create good jobs for Singaporeans. We want a first-world Singapore where workers earn a fair wage for their work, where the elderly are looked after in retirement and where younger Singaporeans feel comfortable and confident enough in the future to have children. This is the first-world Singapore we should aspire to create this SG60. This is the first-world Singapore that PSP will fight for.

Building a Future-ready Workplace

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore's continued economic success depends on our ability to transform our workforce, enhancing productivity, fostering inclusivity and equipping businesses for the future of work. Achieving this requires a holistic and integrated approach where employers take the lead in job redesign, worker training and HR transformation to build a resilient and future-ready workforce.

Workforce transformation extends beyond automation and restructuring. It is about creating high-value, meaningful jobs that drive long-term economic growth. Employee training should not be seen as an expense but as an investment. To maximise its impact, HR professionals must play a strategic role in workforce planning.

With this in mind, how is the Government supporting HR professionals in upskilling and workforce strategy? The recent revamp of the SkillsFuture Enterprise Credit is a welcome move, but its rollout is only scheduled for end-2026. Given the urgency of job redesign, can the MOM consider accelerating its implementation? A delayed rollout could result in businesses deferring critical transformation projects while they wait for funding.

Beyond training, HR professionals have raised concerns about flexible workplace arrangements, particularly regarding management resistance, productivity measurement challenges, and the need for clearer policies to ensure fairness and efficiency. How can MOM better support businesses by sharing best practices and data-driven insights to facilitate smoother adoption?

HR professionals have also noticed an increasing trend of corporate functions, such as accounting and HR functions being offshored due to cost pressures in Singapore. The increasing offshoring of HR functions raises concerns about its long-term impact on Singapore's tripartite framework, which relies on close collaboration between employers, employees and the Government. As HR functions become outsourced, we risk losing local expertise and influence over workforce strategies.

To sustain HR's strategic role, professionals must upskill and demonstrate value. Certification ensures competitiveness, and bodies like Institute for Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) must continually refine frameworks to stay relevant and globally aligned.

One way to reinforce HR's credibility is to make HR certification a standard requirement for practitioners. This would elevate professional standards and ensure that HR remains a core driver of organisational transformation. However, for certification to be truly impactful, it must be valued and recognised by multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in Singapore.

Singapore is believed to be the only country in Southeast Asia with an HR certification scheme. If so, we have a first-mover advantage. How can we build on this to further professionalise the HR sector, strengthen certification standards and position HR as a key enabler of workforce transformation?

Recently, I had a dialogue with senior HR professionals organised by IHRP. Notably and surprisingly, the initiative they were most excited about is the Enterprise Compute Initiative. Artificial intelligence (AI) presents vast opportunities beyond hiring, including workforce analytics, personalised training, employee engagement and mental health support. How will the Government support AI adoption in HR to drive skills-based hiring while also enhancing workforce planning, skills development and well-being?

HR professionals are also seeking clarity on the MOM's Career Health Framework and how it aligns with employers' organisational skills needs. How will enterprise learning objectives be harmonised with employees' career health, so that upskilling efforts benefit both businesses and workers? Moreover, how will existing diagnostic tools, like the Human Capital Diagnostic Tool (HCDT) and iWorkHealth, be integrated to create a cohesive strategy, one that supports both organisational workforce planning and individual career health?

Workplace mental wellness must be a priority, with strong literacy across all jobs to foster a culture of support and resilience. Employers, supervisors and managers set the tone. How will MOM ensure they are equipped with the right competencies to drive meaningful and effective mental wellness interventions?

Beyond individual companies, Singapore must cultivate a strong pipeline of corporate leaders capable of driving innovation and thriving in the global economy. MOM currently offers training programmes for overseas expansion, and Prime Minister Wong highlighted in his Budget speech that feedback on these initiatives has been positive. Can MOM share insights on the impact of these leadership programmes and plans to scale them further?

Additionally, how is the Government engaging Singaporeans working abroad to leverage their global experience in leadership pathways? Are there successful international models that we can adopt and learn from?

Workforce transformation must be inclusive. Uplifting lower-wage workers in a sustainable way is essential. While the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) is a great step forward, wage growth must be driven by productivity gains and not just Government support. How are policies ensuring that wage increases are matched by productivity improvements? What additional measures can help firms and workers enhance efficiency, so wage growth remains sustainable?

Workforce transformation is not just about policies. It requires partnerships between the Government, businesses and workers. By integrating job redesign, skills development, inclusivity and mental well-being, we can build a resilient, competitive and sustainable workforce for Singapore's next phase of growth. I look forward to MOM's insights on these issues.

Employer Incentives

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Chairman, as many employers in Singapore need access to foreign manpower, this is a carrot we can use to incentivise desired human resource policies and practices.

It is likely that new policies will be implemented to meet the desires of younger Singaporeans for better work-life balance. Policy changes will also be needed to deal with our plunging fertility rate. Such changes will likely impact the manpower situation for companies.

For example, parents with more children have called for more days of childcare leave. While this may create manpower constraints, PSP supports such a proposal, as it is only fair. Parents with more children would naturally require more days of childcare leave. There will be more days when the children fall sick. Parents will need more days for commitments, such as attending parent-teacher meetings and their child's first day at school.

As we introduce new policies to suit new times, we cannot disregard the impact on other stakeholders. For example, many employers expressed concerns over the impact on their manpower when the additional 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave was announced.

If too much of the burden of our social objectives are laid on employers, there will be pushback.

6.00 pm

As the Chinese saying goes, "上有政策下有对策"。Would this inadvertently make employers even more reluctant to employ married women? Even if we have laws against discriminations, we know that discrimination still exists.

A more reliable way is to align the interest of employers to that of society. For example, if employers know that an employee taking 30 days of parental leave would allow them to have access to an additional foreign personnel for 60 weeks, would this not make them more welcoming of their employees taking parental leave? Would this not incentivise family-friendly practices so that their employees have more time to find their life partners and raise families?

At the national level, we can continue to limit the supply of foreign manpower coming into Singapore, but re-allocate the quota towards employers with desired HR practices from other employers. The re-allocation can be based on the following factors.

One, the recruitment and employment of senior citizens, ex-offenders, persons with disabilities, pregnant women and those seeking to return to the workforce after a long break. These are groups facing difficulties when seeking employment.

Two, the utilisation of parental leave, childcare leave, caregiving leave and other family-friendly leave. Companies that offer additional family-friendly leave on top of statutory requirements should be rewarded further. And the best thing is, this incentive does not cost the Government a dime! It merely requires a review of the criteria for quotas and COMPASS points. Whereas the employment credit schemes to encourage the employment of senior citizens, ex-offenders and persons with disabilities have to be paid for with tax revenue.

As the Government has said, raising our total fertility rate needs a whole-of-society approach and employers are a key component. Let the arrival of babies be a cause for celebration for employers too.

Reinforcing Workforce Transformation

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): To reinforce workforce transformation alongside business transformation, would MOM work with economic agencies to guide companies seeking Government grants to also commit to workforce outcomes such as job redesign to raise job worth, training for lower-skilled workforce and programmes to develop Singaporean talent?

For sectors with high churn such as food and beverages (F&B), how is MOM working with economic agencies to ensure that new and incumbent F&B operators are able and motivated to comply with the PWM and to adopt fair practices such as the tripartite guidelines on managing excess manpower and responsible retrenchment and other relevant tripartite guidelines and standards?

I observe that the experience is uneven on ground. As workforce demographics and needs evolve, would the MOM consider stepping up to lead a whole-of-Government integrated approach to business and workforce transformation? Doing so would optimise business outcomes while maximising workers' potential.

The Chairman: Mr Sharael Taha, you can take your two cuts together.

Supporting Employers in Transformation

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Chairman. The call for workforce transformation is not new to Singapore. We have been actively pursuing it with various schemes, encouraging employers to transform their workforce. Every year we call on employers to transform their workforce.

However, how successful have we been in this endeavour? Have we moved the needle in workforce transformation to drive new business models, improve our global competitiveness, drive higher productivity and most importantly, drive better wages for our workers?

How effective has the Workforce Transformation Map been in guiding companies and how do we measure the success of these support schemes?

Despite the numerous schemes supporting workforce transformation and job redesign, the landscape of support measures can be complex. What more can be done to offer a more integrated and holistic approach, while simultaneously streamlining our process? Additionally, many SMEs may lack the personnel and capabilities necessary to lead the transformation of their organisations. How can we provide targeted support to guide these companies through their transformation journey?

Singaporean Corporate Leaders

Many MNEs have established operations, regional headquarters and even global headquarters in Singapore. To effectively support their regional and global functions, corporate leaders must be adept at managing diverse teams and navigating cultural nuances. How is the Government supporting the development of a strong pipeline of local leaders who can take on key leadership roles in these MNEs from Singapore?

The Chairman: Prof Razwana Begum, please take your two cuts together.

AI and Job Redesign

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. As AI continues to transform the workplace, it is important to understand its impact on job redesign.

In this context, how is the Ministry addressing the impact of AI on job redesign and what support is the Ministry providing to employees affected by AI and job redesign? How is the Ministry supporting SMEs to overcome the unique challenges they face in implementing job redesign and upskilling initiatives, especially in the context of integrating AI technologies? How can tertiary educational institutions collaborate with employers to support the development of employees who are future-ready, particularly in the context of job redesign and upskilling programmes?

Lifelong Learning and Skills Development

In today's ever-changing world, lifelong learning is not just a choice, it is a necessity. To thrive, we must embrace skills-based career development as a cornerstone of our workforce strategy.

In this context, what strategies are in place to promote skills-based career development, and to encourage employers to recognise and reward skills and competency? How are these strategies being effectively communicated and implemented? How is the Ministry collaborating with employers to support the development of future-ready employees through structured work-study programmes, industrial attachment and experiential learning?

What incentives or supports are being offered to employers to encourage them to provide time and resources for their employees to engage in lifelong learning? What strategies are being developed to ensure that lifelong learning and upskilling efforts lead to tangible career advancement opportunities for employees?

Better Help for Jobseekers

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Workforce Singapore (WSG) oversees job support and works with partners such as e2i, private career matching providers, SG Enable and Yellow Ribbon Singapore to help jobseekers. These service providers offer a range of assistance, including career coaching, job matching services and self-help tools like resume building platforms and MyCareersFuture job alerts.

Career coaching is meant to bridge gaps. Are career coaches actively connecting jobseekers with employers or do they mainly review resumes and point job seekers to existing digital resources? While digital tools are useful, many jobseekers, especially those who are not tech savvy or fluent in English may struggle to use them effectively. How does WSG tailor its help to these jobseekers?

Career coaches need industry knowledge and hiring experience to effectively guide jobseekers toward the right opportunities. Does WSG require career coaches to meet these criteria?

Singaporeans are willing to upskill and adapt but they need clear pathways to jobs. What key performance indicators (KPIs) are in place to ensure that career coaching and job matching services lead to actual hires, and what are the results?

Budget 2025 Statement announced that localised job matching will now be done by Community Development Councils (CDCs). Will it result in more personalised assistance, or will jobseekers still rely on the same digital platforms and career coaching models?

I hope jobseekers who have faced challenges with the existing services will experience meaningful improvements, not just an administrative change in responsibilities or structure. This transition must lead to better outcomes. How is MOM going to work with WSG, its partners and the CDCs to ensure jobseekers receive effective support that helps them secure employment?

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, take your two cuts together.

PMEs and Singaporean Core

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, I cannot emphasise more the importance of strengthening the Singaporean Core and to better watch the backs of our local PMEs, especially the mature PMEs.

There have been a series of measures the past decade such as the Fair Consideration Framework, a National Jobs Bank called the MyCareersFuture portal as well as the formation of Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) and Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) to look into better supporting PMEs in Singapore. These as well as Employment Pass (EP) salary threshold and COMPASS all aim to better the level of playing field for our local PMEs. I hope MOM can provide an update on all these schemes that have been rolled out and whether we have achieved the desired outcomes of these policies, programmes and penal and punitive actions on egregious employers.

I support and applaud the passing of the Workplace Fairness Act which will go some way when implemented to eradicate discriminatory practices in the workplaces. I also welcome the introduction of the Jobseeker Support Scheme, something I have lobbied in and outside of this House for more than a decade. I hope to hear fuller details on the scheme, including the active labour market policy terms, the process, mechanism and mechanics of the scheme since it will be introduced next month.

I urge MOM to continue to monitor and review all these schemes to ensure its efficacy and to further augment and refine the various tripartite standards, advisories and guidelines so that we can continue our treadmill journey to level the playing field for our local PMEs and strengthen the Singaporean Core.

Career Coaching and Mentoring

Sir, I am particularly concerned about structural unemployment in Singapore. This is often fueled by mismatch in jobs, skills and expectations of jobseekers, both young and not so young. There may be occasions where underemployment may occur as a result of this mismatch. It is, therefore, imperative that we monitor this closely and provide proper career counselling, coaching and mentoring at all stages of a person's career from his or her first job, during his or her job, as well as when looking for the next job, or beyond retirement and re-employment. NTUC has started this career mentoring journey with our youths and PMEs and we hope to see greater support for this by our tripartite partners, with a call out to more Singaporean workers to utilise this.

I have suggested previously and am lobbying again for SkillsFuture credits be used for career coaching, guidance, mentoring and counselling services beyond those currently provided free of charge by the institutes of higher learning, WSG and e2i.

Building Career Health

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Chairman, career health is just as critical as physical well-being in today's fast-changing job market. PME job placements doubled from 8,800 in 2023 to 17,000 in 2024 – a strong sign of momentum. But are we doing enough to future-proof our workforce?

How often do we check in on our own career health? The SkillsFuture Level-Up Programme's $4,000 top-up supports mid-career upskilling, but financial aid alone is not enough. Are we fostering a true learning mindset? WSG offers job-matching and career counselling, while SkillsFuture remains key to staying relevant.

During the SkillsFuture Singapore Agency Bill debate, I called for stronger course quality assurance and feedback channels. I am encouraged by growing university participation, which has boosted course credibility. Can the Government share updated utilisation rates, demographics and popular course types since 2022?

Employers play a critical role in career development. Beyond IHRP certification for HR practitioners, are they building a real culture of learning? Are training efforts aligned with future industry needs?

At the same time, businesses navigate evolving work norms – FWAs, new leave policies and upskilling demands. How can we better support them in investing in employees while managing these pressures?

I seek updates on two key areas. Jobseeker support: what active job search criteria must involuntarily unemployed individuals meet to qualify for SkillsFuture aid? How will this scheme drive re-employment? Career coaching expansion: NTUC has proposed using SkillsFuture Credit for career coaching. What is the Government's stance? Could this enhance personalised support and employability?

A future-ready workforce needs proactive individuals, committed employers and bold policies. Let us build that together.

CPF Withdrawals and Nominations

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, for CPF members born in 1958 or after, who have not set aside their minimum sums, they can only withdraw $5,000 from their Ordinary Accounts (OA) when they reach 55. This is unlike the earlier cohorts who could withdraw a percentage of their OA savings at 55. This limit of $5,000 has been applicable since 2013, that is, for the past 12 years, and there is no indication of any change in the horizon. I believe a review should be considered.

As we are aware, persons aged between 55 and 65 may face employment disruption or ill health, whether themselves or in their spouses or parents. Having some extra cash may be critical during this period. How much can $5,000 do at today's cost of living? It is worth pointing out that, in contrast, the Minimum Sums to be locked into the Retirement Account rise with each cohort of Singaporeans based on their birth year. Should we not also have increases in the sum withdrawal at age 55 with each cohort to recognise the impact of inflation over time?

My second point concerns CPF nominations. As explained in my Budget speech on 27 February, the concern is mainly about homemakers being left without inheriting any of their late spouses' CPF balances. This happens when the deceased's spouse has made nominations naming other persons as beneficiaries.

6.15 pm

As mentioned then, CPF savings built-up during marriage are classified as matrimonial assets that are subject to division during a divorce. A non-working spouse is regularly awarded a share of the spouse's CPF savings in a divorce. All the more then, a non-working spouse that sticks it out in a marriage till death should not be deprived of her spouse's CPF savings.

I suggest that nominations made by married persons that exclude the spouse should be witnessed by the spouses to be valid so that spousal consent is in effect obtained.

Enhancing CPF Returns

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Chairman, on the topic of enhancing CPF returns, I would like to, once again, take the chance to raise concerns that I have previously voiced out in Parliament in each of the past four years and also earlier this year during the Budget debate. While I have been going on like a broken record, I hope we can urgently implement the Lifetime Retirement Investment Scheme, which was first accepted by the Government back in 2016.

With Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighting this issue in a recent interview by Lianhe Zaobao earlier this year, I hope that the Minister will not respond to this cut once again by saying that he will provide updates when ready, but that he is now ready to provide updates. I am sure Singaporeans and the civil servants working at on the scheme alike will appreciate a deadline from the Minister.

Moreover, if the Government is not confident that our own investment entities, be it Temasek Holdings or GIC, can produce better risk-adjusted returns that are better than CPF returns over the long term, then we are in serious trouble. I appreciate that Prime Minister Wong mentioned in his round-up speech last week that we will certainly continue to review, finetune and improve the CPF system. But I hope the Government can do so expeditiously and set a deadline for this, as the longer the delay, the higher the opportunity cost and the real cost to Singaporeans' retirement savings.

Levelling the CPF Playing Field

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): One common concern Singaporeans have is the sense that foreign talents do not compete on a level playing field with our local graduates.

Some are frustrated with how foreign companies seem to favour hiring their own nationals, perhaps even simply going through the regulatory motions with a designated candidate already in mind. Others point to how international companies place a greater weight on qualifications acquired from their home countries. Yet others flag how foreign hires are favoured because they are willing to work for lower salaries than the prevailing market rate.

The Ministry has tried to address some of these issues. The Fair Consideration Framework is designed to arrest discriminatory job advertising. MOM has also instituted foreign worker quotas and levies for S Passes and the points-based COMPASS for assessing EP hires. Ostensibly, the raised salary cap was an effort to keep foreign talent earnings in line with PMET wages locally.

It is unclear whether these strategies have been successful. Between 2014 and 2021, the TAFEP received an average of 379 complaints a year, but only a third warranted additional investigations and a mere 41 were found in breach of guidelines.

If there is no underreporting, this seems to suggest that alleged cases have no merit. Yet, the sentiment about unfair foreign competition in the workplace stubbornly remains. Part of the reason is that the various restrictions on hiring foreigners do not appear to have contained their increase. The skilled foreign workforce has steadily grown over the 2010s and it took the shock of COVID-19 before we saw a scaling back.

One resident I spoke to even shared that it was only during this period that he was meaningfully considered for jobs that he had long been qualified for. Another resident shared her belief that the salary cap may have inadvertently led to accelerated pay raises for foreign hires at her workplace as her company chose to pay foreign workers slightly more rather than incur the additional cost of hiring a new local.

Existing solutions to spur local hiring appear to be targeting only symptoms. But the reason favouring the hiring of a foreign talent is that simply, without CPF, foreign talents are often just cheaper.

There are good reasons why the Government may not wish to offer CPF for foreigners. After all, the system was designed and meant for locals. Incorporating potentially transient account holders into the system could also mess with actual real assumptions and the goal of stable, long-term returns. Enfolding foreigners into CPF could easily turn into an unnecessary logistical and financial nightmare.

Yet, there is a simpler solution. We can set aside the CPF-equivalent payouts into individual specific accounts under an escrow, which will be returned to the foreign worker once they depart. We will not be shortchanging them in any way other than the modest amount of potentially foregone returns. If this is a significant concern, we could place the escrow principal into an ultra-safe, highly-liquid asset, such as Singapore Government Securities, which offer the prevailing market risk-free interest rate.

No additional management of these funds will be required beyond tracking the account holders as well as their outstanding balances, and disbursing the amounts when the worker leaves the country for good. Of course, a small administration fee may be levied for this purpose annually.

Other jurisdictions with large foreign worker populations, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, already have schemes in place that are similar. This approach will go a long way towards rebalancing the perceived wage differential between the foreign and local workforce.

Attracting Talent and Developing Workforce

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Chairman, MOM's November 2024 report highlights a decline in Singapore's residents' dependency ratio from 6.0 in 2014 to 3.5 in 2024, underscoring the growing financial strain on our workforce, especially in our senior care. Including non-resident workers raises the ratio to 5.2, easing some pressure, which I am very grateful for.

While foreign talent is vital to our economy, it must contribute meaningfully through skills transfer or job creation for locals. Global hubs with regional hubs here not only attract skilled talent, but also generate local jobs and knowledge sharing opportunities.

How can we continue attracting talent who will strengthen our workforce through upscaling and job creation? How do we ensure Singapore's workforce remains competitive in AI, green tech and advanced manufacturing? What steps can we better prepare our locals for future skills?

Cross Deployment of Foreign Workers

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Chairman, workforce flexibility is key to enhancing productivity and business scalability, and businesses appreciate the Government's efforts in studying cross-deployment models. The AfA on Business Competitiveness has recommended expanding cross-deployment of foreign workers beyond sectoral boundaries to help businesses optimise manpower amid demand fluctuations.

Given the importance of this initiative, could the Ministry provide an update on the progress of studies on expanding cross-deployment, particularly for majority-owned companies operating across different sectors? Additionally, how feasible would it be to introduce a composite Dependency Ratio Ceiling (DRC) for companies expanding into adjacent industries with transferable skillsets, allowing them to scale without being constrained by sector-specific foreign worker quotas?

As businesses remain eager to explore structured pilots, would the Ministry consider working with trade associations and chambers to identify companies keen to participate and co-develop a practical framework? By working hand-in-hand, the Government, businesses and industry partners can unlock workforce flexibility, drive productivity and strengthen Singapore's economic resilience.

Accessing Skilled Foreign Workers

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Chairman, with Singapore's tight labour market, skilled foreign workers play a crucial role in complementing the local workforce.

Following the implementation of COMPASS, employers are adjusting to a new assessment criteria and many have sought greater clarity on how the framework has impacted hiring practices. At the same time, updates to S Pass qualifications, salary thresholds and levies are reshaping talent acquisition strategies. Additionally, planned changes to Work Permit policies, such as the expansion of the Non-Traditional Sources Occupation List and Non-Traditional Source countries, along with the relaxed Work Permit requirements, aim to alleviate sector-specific labour shortages.

In this context, could MOM provide insights into the early impact of COMPASS on skilled labour recruitment? Furthermore, how does MOM intend to balance the tightening of S Pass and Work Permit policies with the need to ensure that businesses across key sectors can access the foreign talent they require?

Thaipusam as National Holiday

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: In October 2022, I filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the current slate of national public holidays was a holdover from the colonial era practice of allocating two holidays per ethnic group. The response from MOM was that it was the result of a decision made in 1968 to reduce the number of holidays to stay competitive.

He explained that each religious group was asked to give up a holiday each. As a result, Muslims gave up the Prophet Muhammad's birthday, Christians relinquished Easter Monday, while Hindus chose Deepavali over Thaipusam. His response reiterated the Government's longstanding position that the existing configuration of holidays was appropriate and that increasing them would indulge calls for a host of additional holidays, such as Lao Tzu's birthday or Women's Day. However, this response glosses over the important historical context for how these holidays came about in the first place.

During the colonial period, the Straits Settlements, of which Singapore was a part, allocated public holidays by ethnic group. This was initially limited to the Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa and Thaipusam. But following a petition by the Malay and Indian communities to the then-Legislative Council, Hari Raya Haji and Deepavali were added.

This means that if we accept how holidays were historically granted by ethnic group, then this original distribution of two per group would have been fair. But holidays were added and removed thereafter due to self-government, our merger with Malaysia and Independence, such that 16 public holidays in 1967 were no longer equally distributed.

Hari Raya Puasa was observed over two days while Hari Raya Haji and the Prophet's birthday were also holidays. Easter weekend included Friday and Monday, alongside Christmas.

Hence, when called to give up a holiday, the Indian community had to do so with a smaller number to begin with. What may be worse is that the responses by the Government appear to suggest that the holidays that have been gazetted were chosen not so much for the ethnic linkages, but for their religious significance.

If so, then the allocation of two per religion, Hari Raya Haji and Puasa, Good Friday and Christmas and the two days of Chinese New Year and Deepavali and Vesak Day may, on its face, seem fair. Except, of course, Vesak Day, despite being the birthday of Indian prince and ascetic sage, Siddhartha Gautama, is hardly celebrated by the local Indian community in Singapore at all, but more by Buddhists. In contrast, Thaipusam, despite its official non-recognition as a holiday, remains a spiritually significant and joyous affair for Hindus here.

In the debate surrounding the Holidays (Amendment) Bill in 1968, which rescinded Thaipusam as a holiday, then-Minister for Law and Economic Development EW Barker, went as far as to suggest, "If our island prospers, I am sure the Government will ask me to come back here and, on that day, it will be my pleasure to move amendments to increase the number of holidays."

Between 1968 and today, our gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has grown from a little more than $2,100 to more than $127,000 – close to a sixtyfold increase. It is impossible to claim that we have not prospered. It is time to call in that promise made close to six decades ago and reinstate Thaipusam as a national holiday.

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng. You can take your two cuts together.

Increase Annual Leave Entitlement

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, many Singaporeans are tired, stressed and burnt out and it is time to give Singaporeans more time to rest and recharge. It has been 57 years since we reviewed our minimum entitlement of only seven days of annual leave. It is time to review this to help all workers, especially the 18,800 employees who receive only seven days of annual leave. They receive such a low number of annual leave likely because the minimum entitlement is only seven days for the first year of service. It is a fact that lower-income workers are getting less annual leave. It is time for the Government to increase the minimum entitlement of annual leave and level the playing field for our lower-income workers.

Tackle Migrant Worker Kickbacks

I have seen first-hand the impact kickbacks have on migrant workers. I was there with our Nee Soon East cleaners as they told me about the kickbacks they were forced to pay.

As I shared in my Adjournment Motion three years ago, "These workers were terrified when they spoke to me. They feared the repercussions of reporting their bosses. What would happen to their job, family and debts? What would happen to them? I could see their hands trembling as they spoke."

6.30 pm

I was also there with our cleaners again, before MOM interviewed them and I saw how terrified they were. A crime had been committed against them, yet their first emotion was not anger but fear.

Many have asked why it takes so long to detect kickbacks. The answer is simply, fear. This fear, coupled with the power imbalance, defeats our current whistle-blowing mechanisms. Kickbacks are a widespread problem and the cases we have detected are just a tip of the iceberg.

MOM has done well to publicise our efforts in tackling kickbacks, but we need to do more and now walk the talk. It is not just Nee Soon East cleaners who pay kickbacks. This, again, is a widespread problem that we have not done enough to detect and tackle.

To tackle this more effectively, we need to treat kickbacks as seriously as corruption. We need our laws to have a more deterrent effect to have any chance of wiping out kickbacks.

The current penalties are just too low. We should increase the maximum sentence to five years of imprisonment and a fine of $100,000, matching the maximum penalty for bribery cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. I have been calling for this for many years now.

To our migrant friends, I know you will be afraid to step forward to report the kickbacks you are forced to pay. Again, it is this fear that makes it so difficult to detect kickbacks and ensure that justice is served. MOM has provided assurances that you will be protected and like our Nee Soon East cleaners who not only faced no repercussions for reporting the kickbacks, they also got their money back. You can report kickbacks by calling MOM at 6438-5122.

The Chairman: Ms Jean See, you can take your two cuts together.

Supporting Employers and Workers in M&As

Ms See Jinli Jean: Budget 2025 will boost support for companies going through mergers and acquisitions. Nonetheless, there must safeguards for affected workforce with acquiring and target companies.

Given today's diversified workforce, does MOM plan to update the Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower and Responsible Retrenchment so that businesses planning for mergers and acquisitions (M&As) can apply differentiated yet fair approaches to manage lay-offs or contract cessations that affect emerging workforce, such as persons with disabilities, agency workers, freelancers and migrant workers?

Could the Ministry share its plans to guide companies on good practices in workforce engagement during M&As? How does MOM plan to develop the community of support for employers as well as those affected groups of workers?

Protecting the Workforce in the AI Age

As the Government supports more companies to adopt AI, protection for workers, be they employees or platform workers, must be updated alongside adoption. On employees, Member Patrick Tay raised at last November's Sitting that AI tools that substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making could lead to biases in hiring or promotion. He asked for companies to be transparent when they use such tools.

On platform workers, I had shared with this House that platform workers are stressed by financial precarity because platform algorithms determine trip allocation, fares and incentives in ways opaque to platform workers. For instance, two platform workers who provide rides for the same route at the same timing could receive different fare amounts. Thus, platform workers try to reduce precarity by working as many hours as needed to meet their daily earnings' threshold. This is unhealthy and unsafe.

The Minister had mentioned that the Government is closely monitoring the trend in use of AI to ensure that guidelines and regulations are adequate to protect the workforce. Could MOM provide an update? Could MOM share if it would set up an inter-governmental workgroup to guide fair use of AI in the context of workforce rights and responsibilities?

Review of Employment Act

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, the last review and amendments of the Employment Act was effective April 2019 and a review is overdue. With the rise in median wages, changes in the nature of work, workforce and workplaces, I am asking MOM to embark on a review of the Employment Act with our tripartite partners. For a start, there are three areas which need review.

First, is in relation to Part IV of the Employment Act. I submit that both the salary caps as stipulated in section 35 of $2,600 and $4,500 respectively be raised. Further clarity and illustrations in the Act, on who is or is not a workman, under Part IV will also be useful and instructive.

Second, there continues to be questions in the interpretation of section 18A of the Employment Act on transfers which impact workers affected by ongoing company restructuring, M&As. Can I ask that there be further clarity on what falls within and outside of section 18A? This can be done either by an inclusionary or exclusionary approach, like in many statutes. Illustrations can also be incorporated in the Act and a formal set of tripartite guidelines can be issued in the interim before any statutory changes.

Third, is the provision on "dismissals" under section 14. At present, I am aware that employers terminate employees with notice pay but without giving reasons for the termination. It, therefore, makes it difficult for employees to bring a case of unfair dismissal against the employer. Can employers be made to give their reasons for termination or discontinuation of employment explicitly in all cases of cessation of employment initiated by the employer?