Strengthening the Singaporean Core

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Strengthening the Singaporean Core

6.38 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the last Parliament session, I had shared my views and suggestions on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the impact to our Singaporean professionals, managers and executives (PMEs).

The Labour Movement acknowledges the need for FTAs in this age of globalisation but we too recognise the need to support our local workforce's aspirations and to address their concerns and anxieties.

The economic disruption brought about by COVID-19 has amplified the fears and anxieties of Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs), particularly on the increased competition for jobs and employment. Mature PMEs are especially impacted and vulnerable in this recession. We will therefore need to take further steps to strengthen the Singaporean Core by levelling the playing field for our Singaporean PMEs and ensuring fairness whether in terms of hiring opportunities and practices in the course of employment or when the employment relationship is terminated.

Co-chairing the NTUC PME task force, we have engaged more than 9,000 the last six months. I can feel the fears and anxieties of our local PMEs, especially over job security. Besides ground sentiments on intense competition from the influx of foreign PMEs, I have a compendium of anecdotes of unfair employment practices by employers who favour hiring foreigners and discriminate against our locals.

Just last Thursday, one mature PME who used to be from the financial sector and is now with one of our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) wrote to me an email to share how he witnessed first-hand discriminatory practices at the workplace, resulting in a fellow mature local PME being displaced.

In our recent survey of 1,000 mature PMEs aged 40 and above, about one in two of them said that the tightening of the employment pass quota in sectors which have weak hiring practices of Singaporeans will help to protect their jobs.

While the Government had implemented several changes to the foreign manpower policies over the past years, many PMEs feel that the policy tweaks are insufficient to curb unfair competition as there are still companies that continue to engage in unacceptable practices.

Some PMEs view the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) job advertisement requirement as mere window dressing as employers may already have a foreign candidate in mind when they post their job advertisements. In addition, many PMEs opined that there is currently no proper framework for the transfer of knowledge for roles which employers claim in which there are skill shortages.

One of the PMEs shared with me on how he had received a job offer from an IT company with unfair terms and conditions, such as having to pay for damages, including incremental cost of finding replacement and other associated costs like advertisement and consultant fees in the event of his resignation. He believed that this is an underhand tactic by the company to eventually inform the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) that they had offered the job to Singaporeans but none accepted it so that they are able to hire an Employment Pass (EP) holder.

I am heartened that in my past 10 years of lobbying and advocating for a stronger Singaporean Core that many measures have been put in place to support and protect our Singaporean PMEs and provide them with a fair and level playing field in the job market. That said, more needs to be done to strengthen the Singaporean Core.

We must further develop our local workforce's capabilities and protect our locals from being unfairly discriminated against. Our local PMEs are unhappy when many of the roles which they can undertake and do are instead taken up by foreign PMEs. It is important to recognise the role that foreign manpower plays, which is to complement and enhance the capabilities of the local workforce and not to replace it.

I would like to put forth some proposals.

First, we can enhance fair hiring practices through: one, improving our HR standards and practices to ensure that companies are equipped with adequate knowledge of employment legislation and regulations to improve compliance with fair employment practices; and two, strengthening enforcement and imposing stiffer penalties for errant companies with discriminatory hiring practices.

Besides reviewing and publishing the "triple weak" watchlist which MOM and Tripartite Alliance Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) maintain, I submit that MOM should review the existing legal and policy framework and give TAFEP more teeth and bite through legislating expanded powers of investigation, enforcement and punishment against companies, employers and even individuals who discriminate in an employment context. This will then send a clear message against workplace discrimination and eradicate unfair hiring practices, whether it is with respect to age, gender, marital status, nationality, disability, race, religion or sexual orientation and so on.

Second, we can level the playing field for local PMEs by enhancing the EP application review process to move beyond looking at the individual applicant's educational qualification and salary.

We can incorporate a point system, factoring in: one, support from sectoral tripartite expert committee; two, whether the employer has been investing in hiring and developing local workers; and three, diversity of nationalities. The point system will then be used to evaluate and approve the EP application.

Finally, we need to ensure that locals have fair access to PME roles and progression opportunities to improve localisation of jobs in high growth sectors. We must ensure concerted, structured, institutionalised and mandatory skills and knowledge transfer from these foreign PMEs to our local PMEs within a stipulated and agreed time frame in the spirit of complementarity. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Faced with the triple challenges posed by industry transformation, digitalisation and COVID-19, our PMEs are worried about employment and job competition. I urge that we strengthen relevant measures, policies and legislations to build a workforce with a Singaporean Core.

First, we should have stronger enforcement and tougher penalties for errant employers and give TAFEP more teeth in investigation, enforcement and meting out penalties against these employers.

Second, we can strengthen fair employment through improving HR standards.

Third, we should also enhance the EP application process, looking beyond the education qualification and salary of the applicants.

Finally, we need to ensure that local PMEs are given fair opportunities and treatment in job search and career development.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Labour Movement has consistently advocated for a stronger Singaporean Core and will continue to champion for our workers' interests to ensure that there must be fairness and zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind.

It is ever more critical for us to ensure that Singaporeans are considered and treated fairly, especially in the current economic and employment climate. In the same vein, we will continue to collaborate with our tripartite partners to nurture and develop our workers through training and skills transfer so that they will benefit from better careers and development opportunities in a progressive work environment.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

6.43 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to declare that I am a member of the Board of TAFEP. In my speech, I will talk about three types of discrimination that are commonly complained about in the workplace: racial discrimination, ageism and preferential bias for foreign employees over local employees. Similar to my 2019 Adjournment Motion, I want to again propose enhancing anti-discrimination laws, localising the workforce through targets and according more resources and powers to the TAFEP. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] These days, Singaporeans feel more encouraged to speak up on social media about racial discrimination. Among these allegations, many are of malpractices in our workplaces, where the race of an employee is used as a conduit to gain unjust preference against others. An IPS-OnePeople.sg study in 2019 revealed that almost 60% of Malays and 56% of Indians perceived discriminatory treatment at work. This was a slight increase from the 58.7% of Malays and 52.6% of Indians who said this five years ago.

These incidences suggest that racism and stereotyping persist in our workplace. Victims are unaware or perhaps doubt the effectiveness of official channels to seek help, so they post it on social media instead. Resultantly, it appears or is perceived on the ground as the authorities' approach to discrimination being more reactive than proactive, which is not a true reflection of the efforts of TAFEP and MOM.

(In English): While our younger Singaporeans can turn to social media to vent about their unpleasant experiences with racism and prejudice, it is different for our older employees who have faced similar discrimination at their age. Some are simply not active social media users or are not comfortable with the potential attention from netizens and they are suffering in silence. About one in five Singaporeans experience age discrimination in their workplace, according to global payroll and human resources leader ADB’s new Global Workforce Review 2020 report. The rate of age discrimination in the Singaporean workforce is higher than the average of 12% in the Asia Pacific region.

We also have locals feeling that they are being discriminated against when applying to a company with many foreign management staff. They believe that foreigners in a hiring position are more inclined to hire and promote people of their own nationality. According to TAFEP’s annual report for fiscal year 2018/2019, the top issue handled from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 was fair consideration for Singaporeans, whereby one in four felt that they were victims of preferential treatment to their foreign counterparts. Some may argue that these are mere general statistics. But I have seen residents coming to me for help for alleged discriminatory practices by employers in these areas above.

We must be more assertive against discrimination of any kind. The UK, for example, has very comprehensive and explicit laws to tackle hiring discrimination and it covers from gender, race, age, marriage, maternity, to disability. The Equality Act 2010 legally protects people from discrimination in the workplace and in wider society. It replaced previous anti-discrimination laws with a single Act, making the law easier to understand and strengthening protection in some situations. It sets out different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone. The Act also specifically puts the onus on employers to produce justification for setting age criteria for their employment process.

Currently, our equality laws are ambiguous and some employers take advantage of loopholes or feign ignorance.

In addition, on addressing the prejudice experienced by Singaporeans in companies with a large population of foreign employees, I would suggest legislation to include that all foreign management staff in hiring positions should be made to undergo compulsory training on employment and hiring practices in Singapore. This is so that there are no excuses for anyone to claim ignorance of our commitment to non-discriminatory work practices.

Next, I would ask for concrete targets to localise our workforce. Hiring foreigners to fill skill gaps is a necessity, but allowing this to continue with no effort to localise after an extended period of time, is simply not reflective of good corporate citizenship. Our localisation efforts can be targeted for a range of skills and companies can incorporate elements of training for eventual local employment and with a specific localisation target, for example, in three to five years. The HR departments of companies would be a good place to start as they handle recruitment, training and welfare of employees.

As part of the localisation strategies, I would like to reiterate my proposal to expand the Capability Transfer Programme (CTP) to support the transfer of capabilities from foreign employees currently employed in Singapore to local employees.

Finally, TAFEP should be billed as our go-to fair consideration employment centre for Singaporeans and be given more resources and the powers to wield a bigger stick – as Member Patrick Tay has mentioned – in a targeted sustainable manner; working with employers to provision for opportunities for our workers whilst at the same time making business sense. I would go as far as to suggest TAFEP and MOM form a dedicated enforcement unit to focus efforts on helping companies to localise and to identify and penalise recalcitrant offenders that are guilty of poor corporate citizenship. A single brand for both enforcement and developmental efforts.

Some employers are so intoxicated by their discriminatory practices that they are inured to the penalties. We need to go beyond issuing them fines or temporarily suspending work passes which perhaps to them is a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things that matter to them.

TAFEP is here to act and I believe so too MOM. So, let us not hesitate to act with more punch against errant employers. TAFEP should not shy away from naming the errant employers so that this can exert a strong pressure on the company, or the culprits in the company who are practising discriminatory practices.

By giving TAFEP powers, this will hopefully send a stronger signal to trigger whistle-blowers who can provide leads to check on suspected companies. I also urge trade unions to mobilise their members to whistle-blow and report suspect cases of discrimination. Unions may consider embedding this in their Collective Agreements.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, there is a fine balance to strike between encouraging foreign companies to invest and set up office here and protecting our workers. With the current global labour competition and economic climate likely to be sustained moving forward, Singapore needs to strengthen our measures, take a leaf out of other countries’ legislation on fair employment and hiring practices and look into anti-discrimination laws to protect our Singaporean workers and future workforce.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

6.50 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, it is not fair. Today, I will speak about the unfair discrimination women and mothers face before they take even a single step in the workplace.

I am speaking up about this again because it is clear that women are treated unfairly at the workplaces. Based on MOM’s data, women earned a median salary of $342 less than men, even those doing the same type of job.

Our female labour force participation rate also shows a disparity. The most recent quarter of data shows that women’s labour participation rate was 61.2%, far below the 75.4% for men.

Working mothers in particular face unique struggles. Last year, a female resident shared worrying concerns with me. She said, "I have just been to an interview. The HR personnel called me a mother before they even called me by my name. I am in the line of recruitment and such stories are a dime a dozen. My take is that the focus should be on whether we are up for the job. It should not be on whether we are a mother and then assume that we are not able to do the role."

I have personally witnessed the conditions my resident talked about. At one job fair that I visited just this past year, I was encouraged by the efforts to help locals find new jobs. What was less encouraging to see was that almost every single booth that I visited asked in their application forms about the marital status and number of children of the applicants. These questions have nothing to do with how capable an applicant is and they disproportionately hurt the chances of women and mothers to find employment.

A study by researchers at Cornell University found that women who did not have children were two times more likely to be called for an interview, as compared with similarly qualified mothers.

Questions about marital status, number of children and plans to have children are not one-off. They are widespread in our economy and a standard part of many companies’ recruitment processes.

Last year, I launched a public survey about this. Eighty percent of female respondents said they had been asked about their marital status at the point of recruitment. Fifty percent were asked whether they have had or planned to have children. More than 60% felt that having children or planning to have children would make them more likely to be rejected or to be offered a lower salary.

One respondent said, "At a final interview with a local bank, they blatantly told me that I should not get pregnant if I were to take on the role."

Over the weekend, just this weekend, another young mother shared with me about the numerous times she faced discrimination during job interviews. She was asked about her childcare arrangements, who would pick up and drop off the child and even whether she would not do work when her child is unwell. She shared with me, “My husband has never once been subjected to questions similar to those which I have received at interviews or ever been "grilled" about our childcare arrangement; or whether he is sure he can put in the work required even when his interviewers are aware that he is married and has a child”. The young mother asked me, “Is it fair that they get penalised for it before even being given the opportunity to prove their worth?”

Indeed, questions about marital status and number of children are harmful. They hurt the job prospects of all women, with mothers particularly suffering. They hurt employers as they may miss out finding the best candidate for their roles. They hurt our nation’s standing as a society that provides fair opportunities to women.

Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch in tackling such discrimination. We have the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practice, or the Tripartite Guidelines for short. The Tripartite Guidelines on job application forms prohibit questions on age, gender, race, religion, marital status, family responsibilities and disability.

The Guidelines are a step in the right direction by setting out fair and responsible employment and hiring practices.

However, the Tripartite Guidelines remain that – guidelines. In the meantime, questions that clearly flout the guidelines are openly asked on application forms and in job interviews. The reality is that these Guidelines are a weak deterrence and are routinely flouted. The current penalty of curtailing work pass privileges for non-compliance is neither appropriate nor sufficient.

It is inappropriate because it makes no sense. We are telling companies that treating women with fairness is important if you want to hire foreign workers. It is insufficient because it does not cover every employer. If you do not hire foreign workers, how would you be hurt by curtailment of work pass privileges?

I know I usually ask for many things. Today, I only have one thing to ask. And that is for us to legislate the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. It would address not only discrimination on the basis of gender or marital status, but also protects against workplace discrimination based on age, race, religion and disability.

It would also provide more methods for enforcement and a wider range of penalties to tackle workplace discrimination. If we are serious about tackling discrimination, we should not tie our own hands by wielding only the blunt tool of work pass privileges.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng, please round up.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Most importantly, legislating the guidelines will send a loud and clear message to employers that discrimination in the workplace will not be tolerated. It will be illegal and unfair practices will be punished by law. It is time that our laws on workplace discrimination match the seriousness and pervasiveness of the problem.

Madam, the common thread that runs through all three of our speeches today is that we all agree that we need to legislate the Tripartite Guidelines. We know that MOM is the most compassionate Ministry and I hope MOM will say yes to us.

Madam, I am speaking up about this not just for my three daughters who I want to be treated fairly, not just for all women, but for all of us and for our society as a whole and mostly because it is the right thing to do. Let us end the discrimination.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Tan See Leng.

6.56 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Tan See Leng): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Louis Ng for sharing their views on strengthening the Singaporean Core and ensuring workplace fairness. They have been championing these issues for many years, together with other People’s Action Party (PAP) and Labour Members of Parliament, both past and present. I am grateful for their advocacy.

These issues are indeed top of mind and longstanding priorities for MOM too.

We will address them in two ways today: one, enabling Singaporeans to succeed as industries and jobs transform; and two, tackling workplace discrimination. I will speak on our key efforts in these areas and plans to strengthen fair employment standards.

By accelerating technology adoption and equipping Singaporeans with skillsets for future jobs, we will enable them to seize new opportunities and succeed at the workplace. Businesses will also have a strong local talent pool to support their transformation efforts and growth to compete globally. This is a win-win for all of us.

Jobs and skills for Singaporeans are at the front and centre of MOM’s as well as sector agencies’ plans. The 23 Industry Transformation Maps guide our efforts to upskill and reskill Singaporeans at various stages of their careers. Our graduates are equipped with industry know-how at our Institutes of Higher Learning and we support lifelong learning and skills mastery through the national SkillsFuture movement. Middle-age workers making mid-career switches are supported through Career Conversion Programmes or CCPs. CCPs provide up to 90% training and salary support during the period of training to employers who hire and reskill our mid-career jobseekers. Today, there are over 100 CCPs across 30 sectors and more are being added every year.

Our close partnership with employers, with industry associations ensure that training is always relevant to employers' needs and this means our workers see direct benefits. Programmes such as the Technology in Finance Immersion and TechSkills Accelerator help Singaporeans gain exposure and experience in key tech areas in the financial services sector and allow company-led training programmes to accelerate professional development in 5G, Internet of Things and cybersecurity respectively.

MOM is also working with sector agencies to develop Jobs Transformation Maps (JTMs) with detailed job-level insights on the impact of technology on each industry. We have already launched three JTMs: one for HR, one for logistics and another one for the financial services sector. We have plans for 12 more. These JTMs will be a useful compass to prepare all of our workers for the future of work. For example, following the financial services JTM, financial institutions have committed to reskill and to redeploy more than 5,000 employees to take on new and enhanced roles.

We have also ramped up employment facilitation efforts through the SGUnited Jobs and Skills Package, placing more than 110,000 locals into jobs and skills opportunities as of end-April this year. To encourage local hiring, we introduced the Jobs Growth Incentive (JGI) in September 2020. Within six months it supported 42,000 employers who hired more than 270,000 new local workers.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, all these programmes are for our Singaporean Core, from the young to the old, including those with disabilities as well as ex-offenders. In fact, our efforts to support our local workforce in tackling accelerated structural changes have been commended by the International Monetary Fund. The work is, of course, never finished and we will continue to press on.

Next, I will address workplace discrimination. I can understand the anxieties that Singaporeans feel in an open and competitive labour market. But I assure you that MOM deals with workplace discrimination with utmost seriousness. We will ensure that Singaporeans are considered fairly for employment opportunities.

In my Ministerial Statement on 6 July, I elaborated extensively on how our work pass framework ensures that Singaporeans have fair access to jobs in a very dynamic labour market. However, I want to also reiterate the importance of staying and remaining open. The combination of skilled locals and a diversity of foreign expertise is a key competitive advantage for us in drawing many international companies here, creating more good jobs for Singaporeans.

Beyond nationality-based discrimination, we will and we must also tackle other types of discrimination as well, including on grounds of sex, age, religion, race and disabilities and this must happen across all phases of employment. In fact, MOM has been working on this for more than two decades, progressively stepping up our efforts.

We started with the Tripartite Guidelines on Non-Discriminatory Job Advertisements in 1999 and we formed the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices in 2006. We launched the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) in 2007, which clearly outlines the principles and the practices which employers must adopt at different stages of employment. Since 2013, we have penalised employers who do not abide by the TGFEP by suspending their work pass privileges. Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse.

The Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) was also introduced to set clear expectations of employers to consider the workforce in Singapore fairly. More recently, we have also stiffened penalties for all forms of workplace discrimination. The current approach has worked well for us thus far.

Employment outcomes for groups such as women and seniors have improved. And they are, in fact, better than in some advanced economies. If we look at the employment rate of women aged 25 to 64, it has risen steadily from about 66% in 2010 to 73% in 2020, holding steady amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Our adjusted Gender Pay Gap is also lower than in some advanced economies. TAFEP's experience has also been that most employers are cooperative in working with them to close HR gaps.

In recent years, several Members have raised the possibility of legislation to give more enforcement bite to the TGFEP and the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF). We received similar feedback through the Conversations on Singapore Women's Development.

We have never been closed to such suggestions. Legislation could give us more enforcement powers against errant employers beyond suspending work pass privileges and it can confer better protection on employees who whistle-blow. It can also send a clearer signal on what we, as a society, will not tolerate as bad behaviour on the part of employers.

However, laws alone do not guarantee better employment outcomes. We must therefore carefully study our options. We must weigh the costs and benefits and we must determine what would work best in Singapore's interest and in the Singaporean context. So, on the one hand, legislation will provide a clear premise to publicise the names of companies found to have breached the law, but on the other hand, we should also be mindful of the unintended consequences.

For example, if not properly designed, the legal framework could become overly onerous and inadvertently deter employers from setting up shop here and hiring the very groups that we seek to protect.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister, I need you to round up.

Dr Tan See Leng: Nonetheless, we empathise with Singaporeans' concerns and apprehensions. So, I am therefore setting up a Tripartite Committee to examine if legislation is the best policy option to advance on the gains that we have made.

Government, union and employer representatives will deliberate thoroughly whether legislation should be pursued, taking into consideration potential ramifications. The Committee should be able to arrive at a decision on the approach that is in the best interests of workers and Singapore.

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore has made good progress in giving opportunities to our workers and treating them fairly. Like many Members in this House, we want to build on the progress we have made. We want to work towards fairer and more progressive workplaces, while preserving our competitiveness.

Legislation has its merits. It is not a panacea and it is not a silver bullet. We need a balanced suite of measures and to not be hampered by an overly rigid framework that hurts all parties involved. Only then can we continue to give Singaporeans the best chance to get ahead and to secure their livelihoods.

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

The Question having been proposed at 6.38 pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mdm Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at 7.08 pm.