Mr Speaker Sir,
I rise in support of the Employment (Amendment) Bill.
The Bill covers three areas – the provision of extended maternity leave and paid child care leave; the raising of the minimum age for the employment of children and young persons and the flexibility accorded to companies to optimize their manpower resources. I will touch on all the three aspects.
I strongly welcome and support the amendments providing for extended paid maternity leave and two days of paid child care leave. These amendments are forward looking and will contribute positively towards developing a more conducive environment for people to start families and have more children. It will help in our efforts to promote a healthy balance between work and family. The NTUC was an active member of the National Tripartite Advisory Panel to Develop Family Friendly Workplaces, and strongly supported the change. We feel that the extended paid maternity leave will benefit all female workers and is of particular significance to the lower income, as they do not benefit as much from the tax benefits. In a recent survey which the NTUC Women’s Committee carried out among 1200 union members, more than half indicated that cost is one major factor for them not to have more children.
I am also particularly happy that the maternity benefit of female executives, managers and confidential employees will now be given statutory protection. I will touch on this later in the debate on the Children Development Co-Savings Act as this is a matter which is not covered under the Employment Act. Another serious anomaly which has now been removed is the decision to allow mothers with multiple births in the first confinement to continue to enjoy employer-paid maternity leave for the second confinement. The current law which penalizes these mothers by denying them the paid maternity leave when they give birth the second time is unfair and should be removed.
Both the extended maternity leave and paid child care leave are progressive benefits. By allowing even fathers to take the paid child care leave; the law is helping to create an environment where fathers can play a bigger role in their children’s lives. The extended maternity leave will considerably enhance women’s welfare. They have a longer period of rest after childbirth and more opportunity for bonding with their newborns. However, for these amendments to be truly effective, employers too must play their part. Women continue to be concerned that employers may discriminate against them because of these benefits. This view is fortified by some of the recent letters to the newspapers by women complaining about the attitude of employers towards pregnancy. There is a set of tripartite guidelines that have been formulated to discourage discrimination. But having guidelines alone is insufficient. So, I would like to ask the Minister, what steps will be taken to educate businesses on their role as socially responsible employers and to prevent discrimination against pregnant women and those with young children
Let me now come to the second important area of the bill, that is, the amendment to facilitate the flexible work schemes. Our unions agree with the principle that with rapidly changing market demands and volatile cycles, businesses must have greater flexibility to schedule work arrangements. They understand that this is necessary to help businesses create new jobs and retain existing ones. The ERC had suggested amendments to the Employment Act to empower the Commissioner of Labour to exempt companies wishing to introduce flexible work arrangements. However, even the ERC recognized that whilst flexibility is a virtue, there must be safeguards against abuses. It its report at page 98, paragraph 2, the ERC stressed, and I quote, “on the need to provide flexibility to companies without undermining the interest of workers, and productivity gains from optimal utilization of manpower resources should be shared with the workers”.
Broadly, the current amendments will pave the way for two types of flexibility in scheduling work. One category will be those related to the nature of the business which makes it difficult to space out work evenly during normal working hours. One example is the aerospace maintenance sector where aircrafts do not come in during the normal hours of work and there could be long periods where workers have nothing to do followed by long periods of extensive overtime. This situation is clear and will cause no difficulty, especially if there is no reduction on the rate of overtime payment.
What we need to be careful about are situations where flexibility or exemptions are granted for companies facing the normal peaks and troughs of business cycles, and where a reduced rate of overtime work is allowed. This is a much more nebulous area which must be guided by clear and transparent guidelines, defining the circumstances in which it will be allowed. I must stress that our unions are very responsible and even now, where circumstances justify it, have used their discretion to allow flexibility. They view this as a win win strategy because even though workers take home less overtime pay, they do not lose their jobs. The outcome is clear and defined. Along the same line, if this amendment will help workers to retain their jobs or ward off lay offs, we can support it, but as pointed out by the ERC, safeguards are necessary to prevent abuses.
I note that the tripartite guidelines will address some of these concerns. I would, however, like to stress a few critical factors that are important to workers. Income stability is one critical factor. Flexibility should not result in a situation where workers’ incomes fluctuate so drastically from month to month that they have difficulty fulfilling their monthly obligations which are fixed. In many sectors, workers depend a great deal on overtime to supplement their monthly income. So the aggregation of the overtime period should not be too long as to impact on their livelihood. Health and safety is another important factor and should not be compromised under any circumstances. I would also like to urge the Minister to ensure that unions and workers are consulted before such exemptions are granted, and there must be a process in place to periodically review whether the exemptions should continue to apply. Also we have to ensure that lowering the rates will not result in a disincentive for workers to work overtime. If so, workers may find it more attractive to take on a second job rather than to perform overtime which then weakens the impact of this amendment. An equally important point to gain workers’ confidence in a flexible work scheme is to ensure that gains arising from improvements in productivity are shared with workers, and they are rewarded during better times. So, I would like to ask the Minister what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that exemptions from overtime/rest day/public holiday work will not be abused by employers. Also, can the Minister give an assessment on the number of companies that are likely to apply for this scheme?
Finally, I strongly support the amendment to raise the minimum working age in accordance with ILO convention 138 on the minimum age for employment. With this amendment, the minimum permissible age for work in non-hazardous industrial undertakings will be raised from 14 to 15 years of age and the minimum permissible age for light work for children is also raised from 12 to 13 years of age. As the Minister had mentioned, child employment is negligible in Singapore and there is no reason for us to continue preserving the existing law. The NTUC has been advocating for our laws to be amended to be in line with ILO Convention 138 for a long time. I am glad that this is finally being done. I am also heartened by the Minister’s statement that in due course Singapore will ratify Convention 138. I would like to urge the Minister to consider doing so quickly, as with this amendment there are no more reasons for Singapore not to ratify this convention. In fact, C 138 is one the most highly ratified core convention of the ILO, and 135 out of 176 countries have already ratified it. We certainly do not want to be the last few countries in the world left that have not ratified it.
Sir, I support the bill.
Thank you.
