Enhancing the Role of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) to Tackle Workplace and Job Discrimination

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Enhancing the Role of the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) to Tackle Workplace and Job Discrimination

6.46 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Deputy Speaker, Sir, whatever changes there may be in the socio-economic environment, one thing we cannot escape from is the psychological motivation for a person to seek a job and be gainfully employed. So, the availability of jobs, good paying jobs, matters for Singaporeans. But it is not uncommon to hear accounts about how Singaporeans have been discriminated by errant employers, company owners and HR managers who exploit our system unfairly.

The matter on fair employment practices has always been close to my heart. I have raised this issue in my maiden speech here four years ago and I am grateful for the opportunity to file this Adjournment Motion. This is because I strongly believe in TAFEP's potential to tackle discriminatory employment and hiring practices.

Many Members of this House have spoken on TAFEP related issues over the years. They highlighted how instilling fair and progressive employment practices among employers remains a critical goal of TAFEP. But that goal is a work-in-progress. The aim of this Motion is to suggest how to strengthen TAFEP to achieve its goal.

There are many dimensions to job discrimination. For the purposes of filing this Motion, I want to focus on just two main issues. First, age discrimination; and second, efforts to localise jobs.

First, looking at the labour data, employment rate of older workers has shown steady gains over time. Workers aged 55 to 64 employment rate rose from 57.2% in 2008 to 66.8% in 2018. This is a good testament to efforts to allow our older workers to continue contributing to our economy. Our annual average resident unemployment rate by age does show that unemployment rates for 40-49 and 50 over, have fallen slightly in 2018 from 2017, but more recent quarterly seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for 50 and over has risen slightly. That sets the macro context on this issue. Things are improving but this demographic segment could be susceptible and needs to be monitored over time.

The retirement and re-employment ages have also been raised over the years. This is to keep pace with our ageing population. It encourages older Singaporeans to stay socially, physically and mentally active, make good use of their skills and experience. Unfortunately, some employers are not keeping pace with the times. This may be anecdotal, but, I have met Singaporeans in their 60s, 50s and 40s even, who have trouble seeking employment for more than a year. They have the qualifications, even went for courses and networking sessions, took career coaches' advice and brushed up their resume, interviewing skills and so on. They are prepared to take pay-cuts and explore other industries. Yet they are hitting walls everywhere. Some rarely get a shot at interviews. I know there are companies that employ or are willing to employ seniors. But we need more employers to do this.

One resident told me he was advised by a career coach, after numerous job applications that met with no responses, that he should shorten his work history so as not to emphasise his real age. Recently, I sat in at a professional image coaching session. Most had recently been retrenched, in their 40s and 50s. The coach had dedicated an entire section on sprucing up one's image to look youthful on social media. Even WhatsApp's profile pictures had to be carefully curated to make them look younger than their actual age.

Singapore's employment laws largely protect employees against wrongful dismissal on discriminatory grounds such as age, pregnancy or family responsibilities. Possible penalties range from curtailment of work pass privileges to employers paying compensation for any wrongful dismissal.

But are these enough. I have heard some feedback that current penalties as too lenient, lack of bite. They want tougher penalties for greater deterrence. However, international studies have shown that the effects of such anti-discrimination legislation on employment outcomes are not conclusive.

In the US, studies showed that age discrimination against seniors remain prevalent, even with the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and similar state laws, in place. In particular, legislation can potentially deter hiring especially when they result in higher termination costs. So, in short, anti-discrimination legislation may not be the solution to encourage greater hiring of those in their 50s and above.

There are other non-legislation efforts undertaken abroad that we could explore or take note of. Two countries have gone beyond the usual provision of upskilling courses and interview workshops to motivate the unemployed and encourage hiring of seniors. In Belgium, the campaign "There is no age for talent" was launched in 2017 and it included events organised by unemployed people aged 55 and above, to motivate their peers and employers to address ageist attitudes. The "Active Together 45+" programme was started in a city in Poland to help 120 socially excluded persons to return to the labour market. So, the message to get out to all employers is that: capabilities matter more and not age.

My first suggestion: in the UK, employers are challenged to increase their older workforce by 12% by 2020. They are also urged to age-audit their workforce and make the data publicly available. In Singapore, we set numerous targets to achieve progress, for issues ranging from carbon emissions to smoking rate. Can we introduce one for increasing the older workforce so companies should set targets for older worker proportion of the workforce. With our steadily greying population, it is only a matter of time that this becomes inevitable. Employers should embrace it, instead of avoiding it. So, the onus is on the companies to set this with unions, as the needs of the firms may significantly depend on the industry and the nature of work.

My second suggestion: certification schemes are part of the push to eradicate ageism in other countries. One example is the Austrian NESTORGOLD programme that also supports companies in developing age-inclusive and diverse work environments.

In Singapore, companies that wish to signal their intention to be a fair employer sign the Employers' Pledge of Fair Employment Practices. Having the intention is admirable and improving the workplace is always an on-going process. But can we go one step further and introduce certification for companies that meet specific requirements to provide age-inclusive and diverse work environments? This certification can be a criterion for the application of various grants and support.

Nevertheless, eradicating ageism is a long-term process. Disruptive changes in the economy and economic cycles have made it even more challenging for the older unemployed to find work. One can sink into depression, especially if they have done all they could, including attending courses to upskill themselves, but are seeing little progress for their efforts.

Next, I move on to efforts to localise jobs. In Singapore's context of a small open economy, competitiveness and growth is important. Singapore needs the skills of foreign specialists to supplement our workforce in areas where we are lacking in expertise. However, we cannot continue to have inflow of foreign specialists in perpetuity without regard for the well-being of our Singapore Core. On the other hand, we also want to help our companies succeed with the right talent, but we want Singaporeans to participate in their success. So, we must have a right balance.

Indeed, during one of our Committee of Supply debates in 2016, Members spoke about building the Singaporean Core. Then-Minister Lim Swee Say acknowledged the perception among some Singaporeans who felt they were in a minority in their workplaces. This was largely because of companies that allowed pockets of foreigners to concentrate and failed to work on building the Singaporean Core. To address these concerns, the MOM would assess whether companies have a Singaporean Core compared with the rest of their industry and look at their commitment to developing this Core as well as the value of the company to the country. Companies that are weak in all three criterias will be advised to build their Singaporean Core. But if they remain resistant, they will face closer scrutiny and could see their Employment Pass privileges curtailed.

MOM has various policies in place to encourage companies to hire Singaporeans such as the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF). But I feel TAFEP need not be too shy to name companies that have not acted in good faith. Partly, it will send a stronger signal and may trigger whistleblowers who can provide leads to check up other companies so it is harder for them to get away. Sometimes, all it takes is some clever drafting of job applications to ensure that the job goes to the preferred candidate. This is why I feel we can enhance our best practices further to ensure a good balance in the economy and improve local-foreign workforce complementarity.

I have some suggestions to enhance our tools and mechanisms where possible to help address some of the issues I raised above.

As I try to come up with these suggestions, I have this at the back of my mind. I meet corporates, SMEs in Singapore and regionally as part of my work and labour force issues, talent and cost, are always a key factor. We take it for granted as workers sometimes and assume companies will always want to be in Singapore. This depends on whether Singapore remains attractive as a place for business and to continue to create jobs for Singaporeans.

On the other hand, as a Member of Parliament, I see residents coming to see me, giving feedback about the difficulties in getting a job. I just met a resident trained in IT who is around 50 years old and recently lost his job and currently unsuccessfully looking for a job for the past six to 12 months. He has a special needs child and has a family to support, so his concerns are real. So, individual matters and individual's difficulties matter too. I have the opportunity to see these two sides of the coin on this issue. A concern of course are irresponsible businesses, taking full advantage of the business argument always.

I have been thinking what else can be done to improve things where possible in Singapore's context without tipping the balance negatively for the economy and Singapore's competitiveness.

My first suggestion: we must take action against companies, if no attempt is made to localise workforce over a period of time. As this is not reflective of good corporate citizenship. There must be greater effort at localisation over a period of time, which is needed to support Singapore's competitiveness, workforce sustainability and building our Singapore Core. I would suggest that companies set localisation targets for their workforce, in consultation with tripartite partners. By localisation targets I mean, proportion of workforce that is local or setting a target for overall local proportion. It needs to be set by the companies.

This can be targeted for a range of skills and may need to be company specific or dependent. It could for example, incorporate elements of training for eventual local employment and with a specific localisation target in three to five years. This I feel, would make TAFEP, wield a bigger stick, in a targeted sustainable manner working with employers, to provision for opportunities for our workers whilst at the same time making business sense.

My second suggestion: But it cannot be all sticks, there could be some carrots. One carrot approach is via the Capability Transfer Programme (CTP), as we all know, which currently supports firms to bring in foreign specialists to transfer capabilities to the local workforce. It also provides for firms to send locals abroad for training to improve local-foreign workforce complementarity.

The funding support for CTP can include salary and training support for foreign and local specialists, as well as Singaporean trainees on overseas attachments to acquire new capabilities. But the current CTP as it stands, applies to incoming foreign specialists.

My suggestion is, can we consider expanding the CTP to support transfer of capabilities from foreign employees currently "already employed" in Singapore to local workers, with the eventual aim of localising jobs, working in tandem with the localisation targets I had mentioned earlier.

My third suggestion: Mr Deputy Speaker, I also feel the Employment Pass eligibility criteria ought to be regularly updated and tightened when needed, appropriately. For example, the current minimum salary of $3,600 for young graduates could be too low. At this wage level, many Singaporeans should be given the jobs.

I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, MOM and TAFEP would support these suggestions to enhance TAFEP's carrots and stick.

In conclusion, to any rational business owner, there are always trade-offs when there are conflicting interests. And sometimes, it's natural for employers to place the perceived interests of their company over the perceived interests of another individual or the worker, even if they acknowledge that this individual is from a more vulnerable group. So, left on its own, discrimination in the labour landscape is not something that will diminish over time by itself. Yet, its costs are too great to not address and to not address now. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo, you have six minutes.

7.00 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this Adjournment Motion. I agree with Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat that age discrimination or ageism is an issue we have to watch closely. It should have no place in an aging workforce like ours but unfortunately, it exists and makes our society less inclusive than it should be. However, like he also rightly pointed out, there are no silver bullet solutions.

Based on my ground experience in the Labour Movement, age discrimination can take two forms. First, the intentional variant, employers hire younger workers at the expense of older workers even though they could be equal or even surpass younger worker in capabilities. These employers can be quite artful in rejecting candidates at the pre-hiring stage. When already in employment, they might let go of workers through undeserved performance mark-downs; or making work assignments unduly difficult; or to offer workers a "rock or a hard place" job option at re-employment as a subtle way of signalling "perhaps, you should go". These are the egregious cases where the errant employers must be taken to task.

The second variant is unintentional. For example, preferring younger workers presumably because they have fewer medical problems or a longer career runway. Or allowing unkind age-related remarks to go unaddressed at workplaces. Or some advertisements that are discriminatory without intending to so so. For example, there are some advertisements seeking to hire digital natives. That would clearly exclude me, in my 40s, because I was born in the age of mainframes and typewriters in the 1970s. While I am not a digital native, I can pick up the digital skills to be a digital migrant.

Both of these variants clearly requires quite different approaches. Before we discuss the possible approaches, we must note two issues. The employment rates for our older workers have been trending upwards better than many developed countries. This is good progress and we must persist in this effort. Second, interventions should not result in undue dead-weight compliance costs without over-riding benefits to the older workers. For example, many pieces of legislation introduced overseas have not resulted in tangible benefits. The question is how do we protect workers from age discrimination without unintentionally making them less attractive to hire? How does Singapore continue to be pro-business and pro-worker at the same time?

I will like to offer a couple of suggestions. For the egregious cases where TAFEP and MOM have clear evidence of errant practices, would the Ministry consider publicly naming these companies? I understand the intent of the Fair Consideration Framework is to improve HR practices. But there could be alternatives to finetune the process. For example, the Singapore Police Force publishes the three-year grading for the security agencies annually. The security agencies would therefore work very hard to improve their processes.

Perhaps MOM can publish the egregious ones and publicly track them for a certain period of time. Companies must also know that while we offer second chances, we will also not hesitate to take tougher measures if you are recalcitrant. To paraphrase Lord Hewart CJ, "justice must be done and seen to be done." Our workers must know that we have been standing up for them and justice will be brought to bear on bad employers. And if you have improved, it would also be reflected transparently.

Second, age discrimination is rarely blatant. In fact, evidence are largely based on circumstantial observations. For example, if a company let go of an older worker and subsequently hire a younger one subsequently, three to six months down the road, it is difficult to prove a case of ageism. But that is with a longitudinal analysis of a company's practices that can surface discriminatory hiring or employment practices. Would the Ministry consider doing such studies? I think these studies will also show up companies that had consistently favoured foreign workers over local talent. The Labour Movement will certainly be keen to support such a study.

Third, we need to correct the unintended ageism at the workplace. Many employers hire younger workers simply because they are cheaper, or have higher learning abilities or a longer runway. In fact, this is not true. Learning ability is as much a capability as a skill that is honed over time. And there is no runway to speak of if your younger worker who tends to change job every two to three years. We need to debunk these myths. We cannot legislate away the myths but we can educate. And that is where the tripartism way of improving capabilities of our HR professionals is paramount.

Our goal in building the Singapore workforce is clear – one that is inclusive and built upon a strong Singaporean Core. Confronting ageism and building a strong Singaporean Core must be the aim of all companies and agencies. It need not always be the stick, like Member Mr Saktiandi has said. We must also reward companies for being aligned to the national mission. The Special Employment Credit is an important economic and policy signal that there is value to hiring older workers beyond what is perceived at face value by companies. I encourage the Government to continue to maintain this signal.

I also agree with Member Saktiandi that inclusive and exemplary companies should be rewarded in access to grants and support. Perhaps, the Ministry can also consider granting exemplary companies with administrative green lanes and longer leases perhaps to show Government's commitment to building an inclusive workforce.

The difficulties in building an inclusive workforce with a strong Singaporean Core have multiplied because of rapid economic changes and our ageing workforce. An inclusive workforce can, in fact, be a competitive workforce. No one will doubt that professional team sports are one of the most ruthlessly competitive industries in the world. Yet, many athletes are playing well into their late 30s and 40s now. Some of them are hired specifically for their experience and locker room influence for the younger players. The Chinese have a saying, "上有政策，下有对策“。It roughly translates to, "For every policy, there is a counter move." Therefore, the way ahead is not one necessarily of more legislation. It is one whereby we affirm that every worker matters through trust and true belief amongst workers, employers and the Government. I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.

7.06 pm

The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Saktiandi and Mr Desmond Choo for speaking about this important issue.

Our over-arching goal is to develop fair and progressive employment practices within the backdrop of a harmonious labour relation.

In labour-constraint Singapore, where we continue to create a surplus of jobs, businesses have a natural incentive to improve the employment practices. However, as the Members noted, some employers may still lag behind with outdated practices.

But let me clear, workplace discrimination, even in small pockets, is simply not acceptable. We must do everything we can to stamp it out.

To this end, MOM and our tripartite partners adopt a multi-pronged approach that actively promotes fair and progressive workplaces, stay vigilant to detect and investigate all forms of workplace discrimination, acts firmly against errant employers while helping them improve.

The tripartite approach is important. It recognises that workplace practices are shaped not by Government only and certainly not through legislation alone, as Mr Sakitiandi acknowledged. Employers and unions all play a critical part.

Our measures include the tripartite standards, the Human Capital Partnerships Programme and the Tripartite Alliance Awards. These publicly recognise companies with fair, responsible and progressive employment practices.

Mr Saktiandi suggested certifying age inclusive companies. The Tripartite Standards on Age-friendly Workplace Practices already does so. This includes not using age as a selection criterion for recruitment and designing jobs and workplaces to be age-friendly.

TAFEP is a tripartite body that: (a) educates employers and workers on the merits of inclusive and progressive practices; (b) issues tripartite guidelines on fair employment practices; and (c) investigate reports of workplace discrimination. The guidelines are unambiguous on workplace discrimination. They state that employers should recruit and select employees on the basis of merit.

To be clear, hiring a younger worker, in itself, may not reflect discrimination. The key to consider employees based on merit without discriminating on any measure, including age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family responsibilities or disability. A younger worker should also be given a chance to prove his merit even if he has less experience. But, more importantly, employers must also give fair consideration to Singaporeans.

When TAFEP finds employers that fail to abide by the guidelines, it works with MOM to take enforcement action, including curtailing work pass privileges.

Over the last three years, MOM has taken enforcement action against about 900 errant employers for such infringements. One example concerns a marine engineering company. Our investigations found that it had rejected 20% of job applications for no reason other than age.

Mr Desmond Choo will be pleased to know that this company had their work pass privileges curtailed. They certainly did not think that TAFEP or MOM were lenient. For six months, they had to deal with unhappy customers and potential liquidated damages for project delays.

MOM and TAFEP also take the stern action through the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF). The FCF requires employers to fairly consider all jobseekers, in particular, Singaporeans should not be discriminated against.

Under the FCF, employers must advertise on a national Jobsbank before submitting employer pass or employment pass (EP) applications. This is to ensure that these job openings are made public and not only to a close circle of friends. Employers that treat these advertisements as paper exercise or what some say, "wayang" have been uncovered and have been taken to task.

In fact, MOM and TAFEP have been improving the methods to detect and scrutinise suspicious employers.

For example, TAFEP investigated a metal fabrication firm that applied for an EP for an engineer role. The employer required candidates to have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering but this was not stated in the Jobsbank posting. The employer also disregarded a local candidate who had a Masters Degree in Mechanical and Materials Engineering and provided false information to TAFEP by claiming to have interviewed three other candidates. In fact, they had pre-selected the foreigner and did not interview anyone else. MOM rejected the EP application and debarred the employer from hiring new foreign workers for six months.

MOM also proactively identifies firms with workforce profiles that suggest possible discrimination against Singaporeans, such as having an exceptional share of foreign PMETs compared to the industry peers or an extremely high concentration of a single foreign nationality.

We place such employers on the FCF watchlist and scrutinise their EP applications closely. Since 2016, we have placed about 600 firms across all sectors on the watchlist. A total of 2,300 EP applications have been rejected by MOM or withdrawn by employers. In addition, employers on the FCF watchlist have hired more than 3,800 Singaporean PMETs to date. While MOM clamps down on the EP applications, TAFEP also engages the employers on one-on-one basis to help them improve their HR practices and support local hiring. Of the 600 firms, TAFEP has helped 260 firms to improve and exit the watchlist so far.

We also deal firmly with those who try to play games with us. For example, we have employers on the watchlist who used related entities to apply for EPs to by-pass our controls. For such cases, we curtail the work pass privilege of all their related entities.

Mr Sakitiandi called for the EP policy to be tightened. MOM regularly reviews the EP salary criterion, taking reference from local PMET salaries and a similar experience in seniority. This is to ensure that local PMETs are not disadvantaged based on cost as their salaries go up over time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister of State, your have three more minutes.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: To clarity, the minimum salary requirement of $3,600 applies to young graduates with good qualifications. And experienced EP holders in their mid-40s would need to earn much more to qualify compared to a similarly experienced local PMET. So, our last EP salary requirement was adjusted in 2017. As part of our regular process, we will review if it needs to be updated to preserve a level playing field for local PMETs.

Our multi-pronged approach has worked visibly well. Despite the employer tactics that Mr Desmond Choo described, older worker employment has gone up steadily. More older Singaporeans are employed today than ever before – 500,000 today compared to about half, 270,000 just 10 years ago. The unemployment rate for workers aged 50 and above has also been consistently lower than the overall unemployment rate.

FCF watchlist has also raised awareness and shifted employer behaviour. In fact, locals continue to hold the majority of jobs that companies can hire EPs for. But I should also add that our strong stance against favouring foreigners has not gone unnoticed. For example, in a recent global competitiveness ranking by the World Economic Forum, Singapore was ranked 93rd in terms of ease hiring foreign labour. From the view of business leaders, they see far much favourable regimes outside of Singapore. It is an international business hub. Such perceptions carry some costs. If leading global companies think twice about investing in Singapore or rethink their future plans for Singapore, the result could be fewer good jobs for Singaporeans.

So, it is a delicate balancing act. But ultimately, we must also continue to create good jobs and help more Singaporeans access them.

Mr Saktiandi also spoke about capability transfer and called for businesses to step up in localising their workforce to support Singapore's competitiveness and workforce sustainability. MOM supports his call. In fact, MOM introduced the capability transfer programme (CTP) to support companies to transfer global expertise and capabilities to Singaporean workers. The results are encouraging. And since the start of the CTP in 2017, more than 120 companies and 800 local workers are expected to benefit from CTP-supported projects. We will study Mr Saktiandi's suggestion to expand the CTP and including how it can support companies to set localisation targets.

To conclude, workplace discrimination of any kind is unacceptable. In Singapore, the tripartite partners are fully committed to stamping out workplace discrimination altogether. I thank the Member as well as Desmond Choo from NTUC for their support for this Motion. We welcome and look forward to more initiatives in the Labour Movement to tackle workplace discrimination of all forms. We need all hands on that. And as Member Choo mentioned earlier, every worker matters.

Let us also ensure that Singapore remains competitive and redouble our efforts to help more locals access the jobs that are created. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allowed for the proceedings has expired.

The Question having been proposed at 6.46 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at 7.16 pm.