Singapore 2025

1. PENSION OF RETIRING MINISTERS

2. PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE

3. REPATRIATION OF FOREIGN WORKERS (Cases of Alleged Forceful Repatriation)

4. PALESTINE’S MEMBERSHIP IN UNESCO

___________________________________

1. PENSION OF RETIRING MINISTERS

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister (a) what is the amount (in monetary terms and detailed component breakdown) of the pension received by each retiring Minister after the 2011 General Election; and (b) whether the aforesaid pension will be reduced retrospectively in light of the upcoming Ministerial pay review.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong:

Pensions paid to Ministers are computed in accordance with the Parliamentary Pensions Act. The Government has explained how pensions are calculated on several occasions in Parliament and through media releases.

Ministers have to serve at least 8 years as a political office holder to qualify for a pension. The pension is based not on the total monthly salary, but only on the pensionable component of this salary. The pensionable component has been frozen since 1994, and all salary increases have been added to the non-pensionable component to contain pension costs. Thus, the pensionable component has been decreasing as a proportion of total monthly salary. The annual components of salary (such as the 13^th month payment, Annual Variable Component and Performance Bonus) are also not pensionable. 

A Minister qualifies for the maximum pension only after having served as an office holder for 18 years. The maximum annual pension is about 10% of his annual salary prior to retirement. The pension will be less if he has served for a shorter period.  The value of the pension that a Minister may receive upon retirement is fully taken into account when ministerial salaries are set against the benchmark.

A Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee has been formed to review the salaries of political appointment holders which are to take effect from 21 May 2011. This includes a review of the pensions for Ministers. The Committee has said that it expects to complete its work by the end of this year. The Government will take into consideration the Committee’s recommendations when deciding on the pensions for Ministers.

2. PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister in light of a recent survey done by the Institute of Policy Studies which found that Singaporeans remain confused on the role of the President, whether the Government will consider making it mandatory for Singapore students from secondary school level upwards to learn about the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong:

Schools teach our students about the roles and responsibilities of the President, the Government and citizens of Singapore primarily through subjects like Social Studies and History, pitched at a level that is consistent with the maturity of the students.

The formal curriculum does not cover the specific legal articles of the Constitution or all the roles and responsibilities of the President. However, students learn about the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution, including the President’s role as the Head of State and in safeguarding the interests of minority groups with advice from the Presidential Council of Minority Rights. In addition, students also learn about the structure and powers of government, the election process and the rights of citizens to elect the government.

These issues are all part of helping students understand what it means to be a Singaporean. MOE is current reviewing the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum with the aim of improving citizen education in schools.

3. REPATRIATION OF FOREIGN WORKERS (Cases of Alleged Forceful Repatriation)

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower in light of reports on the wrongful restraint of foreign workers and their alleged forceful repatriation by foreign worker repatriation companies (a) whether these allegations have been investigated and, if so, what is the outcome of the investigations; and (b) whether the Government has any plans to regulate the activities of such repatriation companies.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam:

Responsibility of employers towards foreign workers

Employers are responsible for the repatriation of their work permit holders upon the completion or termination of the employment contract. Some employers use third parties such as repatriation companies to ensure the smooth and proper exit of their workers. Sometimes, employers also use repatriation companies to house workers in the interim while any claims are being resolved before they are repatriated back to their home countries.

Whether the employer or a third party repatriates the worker, the repatriation of foreign workers must be carried out in accordance with all our laws. That must be clear. Any act to wrongfully restrain or confine foreign workers is criminalised in the Penal Code. The Employment of Foreign Manpower regulations states that the employer shall ensure all outstanding salaries or moneys due to the foreign employee have to be paid before the foreign employee’s repatriation. This includes any work injury compensation that employers are required to pay under the Work Injury Compensation Act.

Safeguards to prevent wrongful repatriation

The government takes seriously all cases where members of the public, workers or NGOs claim that repatriation agents may have breached the law. If the worker is confined, MOM and the Police will ensure that the worker is not confined against his will and that his issues are addressed in a timely fashion. Possible labour or Penal Code offences are thoroughly investigated by MOM and Police respectively, against both the repatriation companies and the employers. As an additional safeguard, MOM has an arrangement with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) to surface complaints and refer departing foreign employees who express employment grievances at the immigration checkpoints. These employees will then be referred to MOM for investigations.

Complaints against repatriation companies

There are no plans at present to regulate repatriation companies. Potential abuse related to repatriation is already covered under existing legislation and applies to employers as well as third parties. In 2010, an employee from a repatriation company was prosecuted and sent to jail for voluntarily causing hurt to a foreign worker. The employers of the foreign worker were given a stern warning for abetment to wrongful restraint.

The number of complaints made against the handful of repatriation companies has also remained small over the years. Since 2010, MOM and MHA received seven complaints against three such companies, a fraction of the approximately 16,000 non-domestic work permit holders repatriated to their home countries in that time.

Proactive Enforcement Against Repatriation-Related Offences

Notwithstanding the above, officers from the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore Police Force and Singapore Civil Defence Force have taken proactive enforcement action, jointly inspecting the premises of repatriation companies for breaches to ensure that repatriation companies comply with the law when carrying out their business.

The inspections are an initiative of the Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking-in-Persons, co-chaired by MOM and MHA, to ensure that foreign workers are not victims of labour trafficking being forcefully repatriated to prevent them from making valid claims or complaints against their employers.

While no infringements have yet been uncovered, and foreign workers were found to be allowed free movement in and out of the premises under escort, advisories have been issued to the companies reminding them to abide by the law and refer foreign workers to MOM if there are any outstanding salaries or injury claims owed to the worker.

The Ministry of Manpower recognises that no worker should be forcefully repatriated without his claims being settled. We will work with the Police to look into all such complaints and continue to maintain proactive checks against employers and repatriation companies to ensure they comply with our regulations.

4. PALESTINE’S MEMBERSHIP IN UNESCO

Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the reasons behind Singapore’s decision to abstain from voting to grant Palestine full membership in the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Mr K Shanmugam:

Singapore has long supported the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, which will see Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security.  But in our judgement, the recent move to grant Palestine full membership in UNESCO would not contribute to such a solution.

Singapore was one of the 52 countries that had abstained on the vote to admit Palestine into UNESCO.  We understand and sympathise with the desire of the Palestinians to become a member of UNESCO.  But the application could not be considered apart from its broader political context.  More importantly, it is also questionable whether it would help or hinder UNESCO’s primary mission of promoting education, science and culture.

From the reactions to the application and the outcome of the vote, it is evident that UNESCO had been seriously divided and possibly weakened by this issue.  The politically fraught atmosphere hinders UNESCO’s primary Mission – Members would have read in the media that the US Congress has cut funding to UNESCO which was entirely predictable.  That dimension has been ignored by those who sought Palestinian membership.  It also adds a further complication to the already complicated negotiations over the Palestinian issue and has set back those negotiations.

Furthermore, the application was submitted just after Palestine had applied to the UN Security Council for full membership in the UN.  That application is still under the Council’s consideration in New York.  Therefore, we could not ignore the fact that UNESCO’s decision would have a political impact.  It is not part of UNESCO’s mandate to play such a political role.  As such, we decided to abstain from voting on the UNESCO application.

Ends.