Louis asked the Minister for Manpower whether there will be any additional assistance, besides the $500 SkillsFuture grant, available for retrenched PMETs to re-train and upgrade themselves for re-employment.

Mr Lim Swee Say (MOM): The Ministry of Manpower is committed to actively support retrenched workers, including Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs), to secure new employment. Besides helping them to improve skills through the SkillsFuture Credit, the Government also offers the SkillsFuture Mid-career Enhanced Subsidy for Singaporeans aged 40 and above to receive up to 90% subsidy of course fees for WDA-supported courses and at least 90% of programme cost for MOE-subsidised full-time and part-time courses.

PMETs, including those retrenched, who wish to undergo skills conversion and change their professions, can tap on Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs). Salary support of up to 70% of the monthly salary (subject to a cap of $2,000) is given to employers who hire them, with enhanced funding support for mature and long-term unemployed PMETs.

To help match job-seeking PMETs with suitable positions in SMEs, the P-Max programme supports SMEs in the recruitment, training and management of PMETs with job-matching services, workshops, and an Assistance Grant of $5,000.

In addition, the Career Support Programme (CSP) launched in October last year, helps Singaporean PMETs aged 40 and above to have better access to mid- and higher-level jobs while learning on-the-job. Under this programme, employers are given wage support for employing mature PMETs who have been actively searching for jobs for at least six months with a monthly gross salary of at least $4,000.

Above all, WDA and e2i also help connect retrenched and at-risk PMETs to potential employers through platforms such as the Jobs Bank portal, job fairs, recruitment and networking events. The Ministry is also monitoring the current economic and labour market situation closely, and stands ready to strengthen employment support for all workers.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Finance whether the Ministry will consider (i) extending the Wage Credit Scheme beyond 2017 in light of the global economic slowdown and (ii) increase the quantum of 20% co-funding by the Government.

Mr Heng Swee Keat (MOF): The Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) was introduced in Budget 2013, as part of a Transition Support Package, to help businesses cope with rising wage costs in a tight labour market, so that they can free up resources to invest in productivity and share the productivity gains with employees. Under this scheme, the Government co-funds 40% of wage increases for Singaporean employees earning gross monthly wages of $4,000 and below, over the period 2013 to 2015.

To provide more time for firms to restructure, the WCS was extended in 2015 for another two years from 2016 to 2017. This was in recognition that some businesses may require more time to adjust to rising business and wage costs. The support level was reduced to 20% to avoid Government support becoming a crutch even as we extended help to ease the transition within a tight labour market.

In the past few years, we have also stepped up targeted support for restructuring, through enhancements to schemes such as the Capability Development Grant and the Partnership for Capability Transformation. We will continue to monitor business conditions closely and calibrate our support for businesses, taking into account both short-term cost concerns and the need to sustain the impetus for restructuring.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) in light of the need to cultivate a safe and harassment-free environment in tertiary institutions, whether the Ministry will consider (i) providing anti-harassment training to staff in tertiary institutions similar to the recommendation of the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment and (ii) adapting the Advisory to formulate guidelines for tertiary institutions on student-student interactions.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment issued in December 2015 encourages all employers to adopt measures that ensure a safe and conducive workplace. Specifically, the Advisory proposes that employers develop a harassment prevention policy, provide information and training on workplace harassment, and implement reporting and response procedures.

Our tertiary institutions agree with the principles and core values articulated in the Advisory.

All our tertiary institutions have harassment prevention policies and guidelines within their own institution-specific Codes of Conduct for staff and students. In addition, institutions have in place guidelines to govern staff-student relationships. These policies and guidelines are explained to staff and students during staff inductions, student dialogue sessions and other internal events.

When harassment incidents occur, there are various reporting channels available to persons who are affected. For instance, students can report incidents to their teacher-mentors. Some institutions such as the Institute of Technical Education also have a hotline for victims to report the incidents.

Our institutions will continue to adopt best practices from the Advisory to improve their HR policies, training and communications so that they can maintain a safe and harassment-free work and learning environment for staff and students.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Managing Workplace Harassment at Committee of Supply 2018.

Louis: Sir, employers should ensure a safe and inclusive workplace for all workers, including by preventing and responsibly handling workplace sexual harassment.

However, the Ministry does not track how many employers have implemented the Tripartite Advisory on managing workplace harassment.

AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre saw 108 cases of workplace-related incidents in 2017, a rise from 91 cases in 2016 and 66 cases in 2015. This suggests workplace harassment is a common problem that employees are increasingly voicing out against.

Can the Ministry intensify promotion of the Advisory standards to employers, including setting up and maintaining a public database for employers to voluntarily declare that they have written policies to manage workplace harassment?

Mrs Josephine Teo (The Second Minister for Manpower): With more women in the workforce, has workplace harassment become a bigger problem? I would like to assure Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Dennis Tan that the Government takes this matter seriously and that the situation is closely, carefully monitored.

Together with the tripartite partners, we have taken a multi-pronged approach towards protecting people against workplace harassment. In 2014, the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) was introduced. Employees who experience workplace harassment should seek help promptly, including for attacks on employees in cyberspace, as raised by Ms Thanaletchimi. They can report such incidents to MOM, as well as to Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin suggested. They can also seek civil remedies directly through the courts, or report serious cases to the Police.

Between 2013 and 2017, an average of about 20 police reports were filed annually involving sexual harassment or insults of modesty occurring at the workplace. They were thoroughly investigated and the offenders taken to task.

Some employees prefer to resolve the matter privately without involving the authorities, but would rather report the matter to their employers. Legislating mandatory reporting by employers, as suggested by Ms Thanaletchimi, will close off this avenue for such employees and discourage them from raising the matter with anyone. This is not helpful to them.

Instead, the tripartite partners introduced the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment in 2015 to remind our employers on their obligations to prevent and manage workplace harassment. They should also inform the employees of the avenues where they can seek help.

Last year, we also launched the Tripartite Standard on Grievance Handling which covers workplace harassment. Three hundred and twenty employers adopted the standard, covering about 260,000 employees. A mediation body called for by Ms Thanaletchimi already exists as TADM can also mediate harassment cases.

Louis: Second, I might have missed the reply but can the MOM set up and maintain the public database for employers to voluntarily declare that they have written policies to manage workplace harassments or that they have implemented the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment?

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Manpower what are the 25th and 50th percentiles of annual leave entitlement received by (i) rank and file employees (ii) management and executives and (iii) all employees respectively.

Mrs Josephine Teo (MOM): The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not have records of the data requested.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the rationale for setting seven days as the minimum legal entitlement for annual leave; and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the number so that Singapore can rank higher among developed nations for annual leave entitlement.

Mrs Josephine Teo (MOM): The Employment Act (EA) stipulates employees' minimum terms and working conditions, including for paid annual leave. It seeks to protect the basic interests of employees while balancing business needs and ensuring employees' employability. 

Specific to annual leave, the statutory minimum entitlement of seven days applies to employees who have worked with their employer for at least three months, but not more than one year. With each year of service, an employee's statutory entitlement increases, up to 14 days.  

Statutory annual leave entitlements vary across developed economies. Some like the United Kingdom and Australia have relatively more generous provisions, while the United States does not have a federal law regulating paid annual leave. The minimum statutory annual leave entitlement in Singapore is comparable to that in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Taiwan. 

Singapore's statutory annual leave entitlements should also be viewed alongside the paid sick leave, childcare leave, and other forms of leave provided for in our laws. Employees can use these other forms of leave over and above their annual leave entitlements. In other jurisdictions, such leave may not be available, or fully paid. 

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), together with the tripartite partners, completed a review of the EA in 2018. While there are currently no plans to increase the minimum statutory annual leave entitlement, MOM will continue to monitor employment trends both locally and internationally, and regularly review our laws and policies.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Increasing Minimum Annual Leave at Committee of Supply 2020.

Louis: Sir, I appreciate that the Government is looking into work-life balance and is introducing several new initiatives. When it comes to work-life balance, Singapore ranks poorly. We rank 32nd out of 40 cities for work-life balance and are second only to Tokyo in a ranking for the most overworked cities.  

Beyond flexible working arrangements, I hope we can also look into increasing the minimum amount of annual leave one is entitled to. This is not a zero sum game. We can have flexible working arrangements and still give our people more leave.

The current minimum of only seven days of annual leave is extremely low. Many other countries in this region provide a higher minimum number of annual leave including Malaysia, Bangladesh, Japan, Myanmar, East Timor, Sri Lanka, Laos, Mongolia, South Korea, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Kuwait and Indonesia. Many of these countries provide not only a higher number of minimum days of annual leave, but also a higher number of paid public holidays.  

Our people will always work hard, but we also need to make sure they have time to rest.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. Two clarifications. A lot of the response to my suggestions so far has been that we will focus on FWA instead. But I think we need to acknowledge that FWA is not going to accessible to everyone, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has acknowledged just now, especially to our frontline officers who we have been paying tribute to over the last few weeks. It will be very hard for nurses, doctors, teachers, pre-school teachers, cleaners, security – the list goes on – to have access to FWA. And that is why I say it is not a zero sum game. Can MOM consider focusing on FWA but at the same time, also legislating the parent care leave, childcare sick leave, so that we get the best of both worlds? We are doing this for the civil service already. Why not for the others? 

Secondly, I actually had a cut on annual leave. I do not think it was responded to. But I have a stronger focus on that because I think the workers who get the seven days of annual leave, which is the minimum number, are likely to be our lowest income workers. And they are also the workers who probably need the most rest. They are also the workers who probably do not have access to FWA, parent care leave, childcare sick leave. So, can we at least legislate and give a higher minimum number of annual leave so that these lower income workers will be able to benefit?

Mrs Josephine Teo (MOM): Mr Chairman. I appreciate Mr Louis Ng's passion in advocating for more leave provisions. In an ideal world, I would like to be able to say yes to all of them. But we do not live in an ideal world. And I am very much reminded by our former Minister for Labour Mr S Rajaratnam when he moved the Employment Act in 1968. He reminded us of why we are here and why we are seeking to improve work conditions through the Employment Act. He was responding to many Members' calls for employer obligations in many different areas – more protection in this area, more protection in another area. And he said something really profound and I think it remains valid today.

He reminded Members of the House that in order for us to be able to protect employees, we must first have employment. In other words, the jobs must be available. If there is no employment, there is no employment protection to speak of.

So, for every of the moves that MOM tries to make, it is always in consultation, not only with the Labour Movement whom we can completely count on to speak up on behalf of workers and to try and advocate for their interests, but at the same time, we must also involve the employers in this conversation and hear them out and understand the pressures that they face, and then, make a judgement call. At different times, what kinds of pressures we are prepared to exert in order to get the best outcomes for Singaporeans. It is always a balancing act. And MOM is always in the middle. So, we are the true sandwiched class, in some sense.

But let us keep all these things in mind. I see no reason why we cannot continue to review our policies. And I believe that at the right time, when conditions allow, we would certainly want to improve the employment conditions for all of our workers.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for sharing what the Government is doing in terms of the salaries for senior workers, but could I ask whether MOM has detected any pay gap between what a senior worker is getting for the same job as compared to a younger worker?

Mrs Josephine Teo (MOM): Mr Speaker, if at all, many employers are worried about the higher cost of keeping the seniors in their workforce simply because, over the years, as they have gained in experience and if the company has been doing reasonably well, usually, there are wage increases. It has tended to be more of that sort of nature of difficulties.

There are, of course, also certain reasons why some seniors may not be able to move on to jobs that pay higher. That could be a question of their skills deficits. And one of the things that we have noticed, for example, is that when we were carrying out the work for the Tripartite Workgroup on Older Workers, more so than other segments of the workforce, seniors are very dependent on what their employers indicate to them are training needs. And apart from what the employers indicate as training needs, seniors are less likely to initiate training on their own. That may be one reason why it has been harder for them to access a wider range of jobs. But for the same work, actually, the bigger risk has been that the seniors, not necessarily having a lot more skills and competencies, earn more.

So, we have, over the years, worked very hard to try and encourage companies to move towards a competency-based wage structure rather than a seniority-based wage structure. A seniority-based wage structure certainly gives an individual the sense of comfort that, as he advances with the company, he is being recognised. But it can also work against him later on when the companies then look at the entire workforce and find that, perhaps, compared to their younger colleagues, the senior workers are much more highly paid and, if they do not make a concerted effort to work with the unions to restructure the salary accordingly, then, later on, when it comes to continued employment, that actually could be a difficulty.

It is also why, instead of just raising the statutory minimum Retirement Age, we have chosen to complement it with the Re-employment Age because, in re-employment, you can get a person to stay in work but not necessarily in the same job and not necessarily at the same pay. This way, it allows for the employer and the senior workers to reset the terms upon which they can continue this employment.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Disallow Questions on Salary History at Committee of Supply 2021.

Louis: Many employees feel they are paid lower than they deserve because their employer mandated them to disclose their salary history. Last year, I shared in this House that a ban on salary history disclosures has helped close the gender wage gap in California. Minister Josephine said that MOM would look at this study.

I am happy to share that new research further supports that earlier study. In June 2020, researchers at Boston University found that salary history bans in the US led to employers increasing wages for all workers, but especially for women and some racial minorities. I quote, “Salary histories appear to account for much of the persistence of residual wage gaps.”

Has the Ministry reviewed these studies and whether the declaration of last drawn salary contributes to the gender wage gap here in Singapore? Will MOM consider banning questions on salary histories?

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Ms Gan Siow Huang (The Minister of State for Manpower): Mr Louis Ng asked if the practice of declaring the last drawn salary contributed to the gender pay gap. He referred to a Boston University study on the impact of salary history on gender pay gap. The United States introduced a salary history ban in 2016.

In Singapore, the adjusted gender pay gap is about 6%, which is lower than that in the United States. According to a 2018 study by Assoc Prof Jessica Pan from NUS, occupational segregation was a key contributor to the gender wage gap here. 

In Singapore, jobseekers do not have to comply with requests for their last drawn salary and employers cannot insist on it either. If a jobseeker chooses to provide salary information, employers should use it carefully.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Could I ask if we are going to review the penalties under the tripartite guidelines? It sort of makes sense if you discriminate based on nationality, we curtail your work pass privileges. But if you discriminate based on gender, on family responsibility, then the penalties to curtail the work pass privileges sort of do not make sense. I know the Minister of State shared some of the other penalties earlier, but I am just wondering overall, we can review the penalty framework so that it is aligned with what the discrimination is about.

Ms Gan Siow Huang (for the Minister for Manpower): We just reviewed the penalty framework in 2020 and we will continue to review it further if necessary. Thus far, we have not seen any repeat of discriminatory practices from the companies that were penalised.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will scale up existing tripartite guidelines addressing workplace sexual harassment by providing a clear definition of workplace sexual harassment including examples of such acts, to alert companies to what constitutes sexual harassment.

Mrs Josephine Teo (MOM): The Government does not tolerate any form of workplace harassment, including sexual harassment. Our agencies work closely with partners to tackle such cases and support affected employees. When the Protection from Harassment Act was passed in 2014, the tripartite partners worked closely with community partners such as AWARE to develop the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment. The Advisory, which also addresses workplace sexual harassment, sets out what behaviours constitute harassment at the workplace, legal protections and sources of help for affected individuals, as well as how employers can ensure a safe and conducive work environment.

In addition, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices requires companies to have processes to manage grievances and protect complainants' confidentiality. The process also applies to the management of workplace sexual harassment complaints.

It is understandable that victims of workplace harassment may not report them. Apart from creating a safe space for employees to speak up, employers must also be resolute in tackling workplace harassment, including sexual harassment when it comes to their attention.

TAFEP's Workplace Harassment Resource and Recourse Centre can render advice and assistance to employers on how to do so. Colleagues and the wider community can also play a part in fostering a culture that advocates respect for one another and condemns harassment.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on Increase Annual Leave Entitlement at Committee of Supply 2022 as follow:

Louis: Some say Singapore is the most fatigued country in the world. Working hard is important, but one cannot work hard without enough rest. Our minimum annual leave entitlement of seven days is not sufficient for many.

Many other countries provide a higher minimum entitlement including Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos, Qatar, Iran, Japan, South Korea and lots more. Many not only have a higher number of minimum days of annual leave, but also provide a higher number of paid public holidays.

It is hard to see how raising the minimum entitlement will affect employability. Forty-seven percent of employees already get more than 14 days of annual leave. For many businesses who understand the importance of rest, nothing will change.

Lower-income workers whose jobs are labour-intensive are likely the ones with the minimum entitlement. It is ironic that those who need the most rest have the least rest and also have no access to flexible work arrangements (FWAs).

We work hard to increase the salaries of lower-income workers. We should also work hard to increase time they have to rest.

Ms Gan Siow Huang (The Minister of State for Manpower): As Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Mr Louis Ng have raised, work from home is not as practical for frontline work. Employers could consider other forms of flexible work arrangements, like flexi-shift scheduling, staggered work hours and job sharing, which offer workers alternative flexibilities.

The Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) has started training HR professionals to implement hybrid work and after-hours communication policies.

Separately, the Institute for HR Professionals (IHRP) has developed a playbook on hybrid workplaces to help employers and HR professionals implement hybrid work, as well as update their HR processes, fair appraisal of employees on flexible work arrangements. I encourage companies to make use of these resources that are available. We will be sharing more details on how we will ramp up provision of flexible work arrangements in the coming White Paper on Singapore Women's Development.

It is important to build mutual understanding and trust between employers and employees. That is why instead of taking a legislative approach for various workplace practices such as flexible work arrangements, after-hours communication, mandatory breastfeeding breaks, we first focus on equipping employers to find the right balance between supporting employees needs and business needs. "Take care of your employees and they will take care of your business" – these wise words are from Mr Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin group. I believe many employers here feel the same way too and will support employees' requests, if they are reasonable.

At the same time, employees need to demonstrate that progressive workplace practices help to improve staff morale, productivity and loyalty. Those who feel aggrieved and are not able to address their grievances within their companies, may approach TAFEP for assistance and advice. Members have also asked for further review of leave provisions. Mr Louis Ng suggested raising minimum annual leave entitlements, introducing parent care leave and increasing parental leave provisions, while Mr Gerald Giam and Ms Mariam Jaafar spoke about sick leave.

We regularly review our leave provisions and acknowledge the real needs underpinning the Members' suggestions, but increasing leave provisions should not be the default solution. We have been advocating the adoption of flexible work arrangements precisely because they are flexible and able to cater to all forms of individual needs. We should also recognise that there is a cost to increasing leave provisions and we must balance this carefully against what businesses can sustain in order to avoid dampening jobs growth.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 1, 2

Louis asked the Minister for Manpower with regard to registered companies in Singapore that did not hire work pass holders for the past five years (a) what is the number of such registered companies annually; and (b) what is the percentage of such registered companies annually.

Dr Tan See Leng (MOM): Over the past five years, there were approximately 160,000 business entities1 that hired at least one worker. Among these business entities, between 45% to 48% did not hire work pass holders. This includes business entities that do not hire lower-wage workers at all. As previously explained in the Report of the Tripartite Workgroup on Lower-Wage Workers, only 18% of lower-wage workers work in firms that do not hire work pass holders, and almost all of such firms are small scale family businesses with fewer than 10 workers.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current percentage of workers who receive only seven days of annual leave; and (b) what are the mean and median salary of workers receiving only seven days of annual leave.

Dr Tan See Leng: The Employment Act stipulates that employees are entitled to a statutory minimum of seven days of annual leave in their first year of service if they have worked with their employer for at least three months. With each year of service, an employee's statutory annual leave entitlement increases by one day, up to a minimum entitlement of 14 days.

In 2021, about 17% of full-time employees had worked for their current employer for less than a year and were entitled to a statutory minimum of seven days of annual leave, although some may receive more from their employers. The mean and median incomes1 of these employees were about $4,700 and $3,500 per month respectively. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)