Abdul Aziz Karim
Singapore
“How much opportunity and time are given to the large number of workers to improve their skills when they are limited to doing routine work? Let us create a climate where the people, like the Germans, for example, are incessantly seeking knowledge and wanting to improve their skills.”
“Sir, the Bill before the House is more modern and progressive than the existing law. However, I have some reservations in respect of certain clauses of the Bill professing to serve the interests of workers. But since it has been indicated that the Bill will go to Select Committee, I reserve my comments on the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are examples of harmful styles for our young generation to imitate. This is the society we create. How much can we blame the present generation. First, we must demotivate ourselves.”
“Sir, the Minister has been discussing the best performance of SBS. I have harassed the Minister for Communications regarding this. I am not sorry. It was my duty, and it was his duty to reply to the questions.”
“Any damage is repaired as and when necessary by the Roads Branch of the PWD or the HDB. Oil drippings from buses are inevitable unless a very high standard of maintenance of the buses is exercised by the bus owners. The PWD and HDB do take action against any misuse of the bus termini.”
“Sir, I was saying that repair and maintenance bills are given tax allowance. My question is this. Is it possible for excessive repair and maintenance bills to cause leakages in the SBS finances, when it comes to taxation?”
The complete record
Every one of 241 lines we hold for Abdul Aziz Karim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Sir, can traffic be stopped at this crossing for more than 25 seconds at a time to enable the aged and children to cross the road?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when a business partnership is formed, will such a partnership enjoy the rebates? Can the Minister please clarify?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister indicate in what way can the People's Association contribute towards this objective?”
“I, therefore, welcome the decision of the Minister to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. I would not go beyond that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, in principle. The recent disaster at Jurong, resulting in the death of five workers and injuring a number of other workers, clearly underlines the need for the Factories Bill which is now before the House. It is pointed out in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill that changes made to the existing legislation, which are now incorporated in the present Bill, are for the purpose of (a) improving the health and safety measures and the welfare facilities in the interest of persons employed in factories; and (h) ensuring a more stringent observance of the safety provisions so as to reduce the rate of industrial accidents. At this point, I should like to inform the House that the NTUC had been given the opportunity to make representations to the Ministry of Labour regarding the proposed amendments to the existing Factories Act, which are incorporated in the Bill before the House, even though most of its representations had been rejected by the Ministry. It should be readily apparent to Members of this House that certain provisions of the Bill are highly technical and beyond the competence of any layman to comment upon without the benefit of any professional advice or guidance. As I have said, the Bill deals with topics on which it may not be possible for any layman to make any intelligible comment on them without the necessary or specialised knowledge and experience or without the help of a person with such knowledge and experience. Even though the NTUC have been handicapped to a certain extent by not understanding the full implications of the proposed Act, they have made a determined attempt to suggest certain measures which, although not incorporated in this Bill, may nevertheless confer additional protection on the workers.”
“They do not write a one-and-a-half page memorandum to the Cabinet. I tend to think that the Minister himself might be confused, and we all will suffer in the end.”
“In 1965, the Singapore Employers' Federation, the Singapore Manufacturers' Association and the National Trades Union Congress at the behest of the Government jointly endorsed the Charter for Industrial Productivity Code of Practice. Unfortunately, this Charter, which was solemnly contracted, was not religiously practised in spirit and in real terms. This Charter is nothing but a dead letter. I hope the National Productivity Board will pick up the fallen threads, but not tread the same path. Sir, I also observe that among its objectives, the National Productivity Board shall assist industrial establishments and trade unions in formulating and rationalising wage policies and wage systems; shall assist the Government from time to time in shaping a national wage policy; and shall undertake manpower and wage studies. On the other hand, the Minister for Labour has on 8th February, 1972, constituted the National Wages Council with somewhat similar terms of reference, as follows: (i) To assist in the formulation of general guide-lines on wage policy; (ii) To recommend necessary adjustment in wage structure, with a view to developing a coherent wage system consistent with long-term economic and social development; (iii) To advise on desirable incentive systems for the promotion of operational efficiency and productivity in various enterprises. Can the Minister for Labour clarify if the Wages Council is to operate as a body separate from the National Productivity Board or as an adjunct to the Board? Or will the Wages Council be subsidiary to the National Productivity Board? Or will it be unscrambled? Sir, I hope the Minister For Labour will consider the last point because if he has too many dons around him, sometimes they become boisterous.”
“There must be the machinery for working out productivity plans, examining the results and for negotiating the payment of incentive awards to make any productivity drive achieve its objectives. The question of increasing productivity is an urgent matter and should be of serious concern to employers, Government, workers and their organisations in the interest of economic progress. In this respect, if workers are asked to give their wholehearted support to higher productivity programmes and campaigns, they must be allowed to participate actively and constructively in formulating and implementing them. When there is success there must be concrete and reasonable returns or rewards.' It was my thinking then as it is now that it is illogical and beyond comprehension that payment of bonus to workers, a vital incentive to higher productivity, is negotiable only within a certain restricted limit. I see there is provision to foster and promote good industrial relations through the formation of joint consultative councils as one of the objectives of the National Productivity Board. I do hope that it will be within the province of such joint consultative councils not only to discuss and to implement agreed work procedures, but also to look into the question of the payment of productivity bonuses, provided, however, they represent the will of the workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point I would like to say that the idea of forming joint productivity councils in enterprises, which would serve as consultative bodies guiding and promoting productivity, is not new.”
“Practically all that we have is abundance of human resources, and there is no option but to improve productivity through better use of labour through time and space. In doing so, I hope the National Productivity Board will ensure the adoption of the following working principles: 1. Productivity exercises should not cause job insecurity. 2. Productivity exercises should proceed through bargaining at grass-roots level. 3. Productivity exercises should not endanger the health and safety of workers. 4. The employer must pay for the cost of retraining the employee when there is redundancy. If these conditions cannot be fulfilled, then all productivity drives and plans will be looked with suspicion, cause resentment, frustration, discord and conflict. One other pertinent point I wish to make is that the National Productivity Board should not take upon itself the ultimate of knowing the absolute truth and solutions to all problems and to proceed by setting guide lines and recommendations without due consultation with both individual employers and workers and their organisations. No amount of firm orders or benign decrees, even lawfully given after this Bill is passed, will create good industrial relations and human happiness in the long run. Democracy must be practised at grass-roots level in the best principles of industrial democracy. If you will recall, Sir, I said in Parliament on 11th July, 1968, when the House debated the Employment Bill in 1968 [Hansard, Volume 27, No. 10 cols. 535-61]: `The question of increasing productivity in any firm or undertaking and the payment of productivity rewards can also be worked out between the particular employer, employees' representatives and the National Productivity Council.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my views on the National Productivity Board Bill which are purely those of a common man. Sir, I therefore beg the indulgence of the economists and other intellectuals to bear with the viewpoints of the common man, which I now express. The common man believes that if he works, and works hard enough, he is entitled to a fair wage and a bonus out of the fruits of his labour. The average man's basic philosophy towards work and the purpose of production as an extrapolation of work is to satisfy his own welfare and those whom he considers are part of society. I hope the National Productivity Board, when it proceeds in furthering its objective, will endeavour to simplify the meaning of productivity in terms of job security and satisfaction and a better standard of life. The average worker could hardly feel secure and happy if it were otherwise. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the time being I would like to express my views on the subject in simple, rounded terms. I hope over the years I could have the opportunity of elaborating my viewpoints. I could not but agree that this is a vitally opportune time to introduce the concept of productivity in the process of production and in the process of distribution of wealth in a just and logical mode and manner. Therefore, I support the establishment of the National Productivity Board whose main purpose is to promote productivity in all enterprises industrial or otherwise for the general well-being and economic progress of Singapore. It is already accepted as a fact of life that Singapore does depend on foreign investments, foreign raw materials for its industries and foreign markets for our manufactured goods.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is this an introduction to a socialist way of life for one small sector?”
“Will the Minister of State inform the House if it is the opinion of the Housing and Development Board that each stall-holder should have his own water meter?”
“Sir, can the Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office say whether the Public Utilities Board will be prepared to provide public service if its profit goes above one cent from each stall-holder? Tuan Haji Ya'acob(In Malay): As I have said earlier on, it is uneconomical to put this project into operation.”
“Sir, if the Minister of State for Finance had been reading the advertisement columns in the newspapers, he would have come across that term.”
“Yes. Some social escorts in Singapore call themselves girl guides.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State for Finance aware that some social escorts are also called "girl guides", and that the service they provide is called "girl guide service"? Furthermore, will this law prohibit the use of the term "girl guides"?”
“Sir, if I may ask a last supplementary question. The principles that I have laid down are found to be practicable in certain countries. Will the Government accept my proposition in the final analysis?”
“Mr Speaker, will the Government spare an injured workman all the ordeal and legal expenses incurred in securing a claim for damages?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have much to educate the employers too. What I want to know is: will the Government be prepared to undertake a claim for damages for and on behalf of an injured workman if, on the face of it, there is evidence to show that his employer had partly or wholly contributed to the cause of the industrial accident which resulted in his sustaining an injury?”
“Sir, I thought it was approved in 1969 that a pedestrian overhead bridge would be constructed at the junction of Boon Keng Road and Serangoon Road. Can the Minister explain why there cannot be an overhead bridge at the junction of these two roads?”
“I think it is of the utmost importance that this question be answered.”
“The Factories Act does not say what industry or what occupation except-”
“Can the Minister point out to me which part of the Factories Act makes it compulsory for employers to issue safety equipment, other than the Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations of 1970? If the employers will not issue it, how can the workers use it?”
“Will the Minister see to it that only approved types of safety equipment are issued and at the expense of the employers? This should be made compulsory.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will also see to it that the Workmen's Compensation Section in the Ministry of Labour is headed by someone who is more qualified. Now the section deals only with claims, its functions will be broadened and definitely we need a man of higher calibre to look after this section. I assure the Minister that I will raise this subject again at the right time during the budget debate if it is not done between now and then. Another point is that the Workmen's Compensation Section works in the dark. 1 know of cases where workers do not know why they were or why they were not given compensation. Therefore, there should be a Workmen's Compensation Board on which the workers can be represented at hearings, inquiries and so on. I hope the Minister will not forget about this. Everything is in the dark!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I could hardly agree more with the Minister that medical examinations would not prevent industrial accidents, but what I did suggest was that if there were periodical medical examinations - whether yearly, biyearly or bi-yearly there could be early detection of industrial diseases. That was my suggestion. The second point I wish to raise is that the Minister has not yet answered whether he would agree to widen the scope of workmen's compensation to include mental illnesses which are caused by a person's employment. The Minister is silent about it. I am not sure whether he is avoiding the issue now. The last point I wish to raise is that at the present moment the Workmen's Compensation Section in the Ministry of Labour deals only with claims. When insurance is introduced, it will have to see to it that employers do really insure their workers. In this case, the Workmen's Compensation Section must be strengthened. The Factory Inspectorate has been strengthened. So I hope the Minister for Labour will not forget to look into this matter.”
“I am of the view that, taking into consideration the provision for compulsory insurance under the Act and the nature of the occupational diseases or injuries as set out in the Second Schedule thereto, it may be desirable that a provision be included for the yearly or periodical medical examination of workers at the expense of their employers for the purpose of preventing unnecessary injury and facilitating the determination of the nature of the degree of the injury in the event of an accident occurring. It may also be desirable, in conjunction with any scheme for compulsory and regular medical examination of workers at the expense of their employers, to require any employer to provide workers who are found unfit for regular employment as a result of such medical examination with lighter or alternative duties within the means and capability of the employer. Otherwise such a scheme for compulsory and regular medical examination of workers would turn out to be more of a curse than a blessing, as some employers may prefer to take the easy way out by callously dismissing workers who are found to be medically unfit for their usual employment. 4.36 p.m.”
“What has prevented such disabled persons from obtaining gainful employment in the past, and even today, is not the fear of the potential employer that the disabled persons are not able to justify whatever salaries or wages are paid to them but the irrational prejudice of employers to equate any physical disability with the total loss of earning capacity. If it is accepted that disabled persons who have no previous experience of gainful employment deserve reasonable opportunities of gainful employment, then it should be beyond any question of doubt that an incapacitated worker who has not only previous experience of gainful employment but also varying degrees of skill or experience in a specific field of employment, should be accorded a reasonable opportunity of continuing any gainful employment. I would therefore suggest that the compensation for the loss of earning or working capacity through industrial accidents should be made on the basis of the rehabilitation of the injured workers as well as `the payment of monetary benefit to such workers and their dependants. Similarly, provisions should be included in the Act, as far as it is consistent with the scope of the Act, to prevent or minimise the loss of working capacity through industrial accidents. Under the Act as it stands at present, medical examination is prescribed only after the workers have suffered injuries.”
“I am inclined to the view that the purpose of any such Act is not merely to provide for the payment of monetary compensation to workers who have suffered injury or accident arising out of or in the course of their employment, but also to compensate in any manner for the loss of or reduction in the working capacity of such injured person. The emphasis of the Act is actually directed at the loss of working capacity, whether totally or partially, and whether permanently or temporarily. And such loss of working capacity is related to the range of employment open to the injured worker at the time of the accident. The payment of monetary compensation is only one of the means, granted a convenient and practical method of helping the injured worker to adjust to the loss of or reduction in his working capacity. While such payment undoubtedly serves to compensate the injured worker and his depend-ants for the loss of wages, it does not in any way prevent or minimise the loss to society of skilled manpower through industrial accidents or even the demoralising effect of enforced idleness upon the injured workers themselves. The recent publicity given to the need for providing sufficient employment opportunities for persons suffering from various physical disabilities serves to underline the fact that disabled persons can perform useful and constructive functions in the `society in which they live, provided they are given the opportunities compatible with their physical condition.”
“While it is true that the inclusion of injuries of a mental character for the purpose of determining incapacity under the Act may introduce a whole wide range of complexities with their accompanying confusion, I am of the view that this House should take note of the need to bring mental illness within the ambit of the Act some time in the not too distant future. It is already `the prevalent view of a section of the medical profession in Singapore that the gathering momentum of economic development has brought about with it an increasing tempo of life and a heightening of social tension. I am hardly qualified or in any position to comment any further on the various medical aspects of the problem of relating mental illness to the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act. But I sincerely think that it is a matter that the Government should look into, not merely for the sake of the workers but also on account of the possible repercussion of `the problem of mental illness on the further development of Singapore. Perhaps the proposed Board for occupational illnesses and diseases may be directed to look into this problem. I have so far dealt with the specific provisions of the Bill amending the Workmen's Compensation Act. While the Bill is most commendable in its intention and attempt to revise the Act and bring it up to date, it is to be regretted that no attempt has been made to revise the basis or scope of the Act. The term "compensation" seems to have given rise to the impression that whatever compensation or benefit that is to be conferred under the Act must necessarily be monetary.”
“In fact, the basic assumption runs throughout the Act that any injury resulting in permanent Or temporary incapacity must be of a physical nature. Yet increasing cognisance has been taken in certain parts of the world of the possibility of a worker sustaining mental illness or injury in the course of his employment resulting in permanent or temporary incapacity. The main difficulty of or objection to including mental illness within the scope of any workmen's compensation legislation lies in the fact `that, with our present level of knowledge, the etiology of any mental illness may give rise to a controversy which cannot be satisfactorily resolved. One way of cutting the Gordian knot of mental illness is to adopt the ratio decidendi of the United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia which has ruled that the onus is for an employer to disprove, rather than for an employee to prove, a causal connection between employment and disability in the case of mental illness related to the job. If such a basis for bringing mental illness within the ambit of workmen's compensation legislation is accepted in Singapore, it would mean that a worker need only prove that his mental illness is caused by work to collect whatever benefits are payable under the Act. Some Members in this House may be of the view that such sophisticated development of the concept and practice of workmen's compensation is a luxury which Singapore cannot afford in the present stage of its industrial development.”
“I am of the view that in all cases of permanent incapacity involving the loss of an arm or a hand, a distinction should be made whether it is an arm or a hand that i's habitually used or otherwise. Under the proposed Schedule the quantum of incapacity in relation to the loss of a hand or an arm appears to be determined by the degree of reduction in earning capacity in every employment which the injured worker was able to undertake at the time of the accident and which requires the indiscriminate use of both arms and hands. Where the range of employment open to the injured worker at `the time of accident is such as to enable him to use one hand or arm more than the other or in preference to the other, the reduction in earning capacity ought to depend on whether the hand or arm lost is habitually used or not. Moreover, the older the injured worker the harder it would be for him to adjust to the loss of an arm or hand habitually used whether for the purpose of working or performing the essential actions of life. On the basis of my comment, I suggest that items No. 8 to 20 in the proposed Schedule relating to the computation of loss of earning capacity in respect of an arm or a hand should be amended to take into consideration whether such arm or hand lost is one which is habitually used by the worker affected. A further comment I wish to make iii regard to the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act is that the injuries which are deemed to result in permanent incapacity as listed therein seem to be of a purely physical character without any exception. The Bill itself does not envisage any change in the nature of the contents of such First Schedule, apart from the revision of the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to the listed injuries.”
“It should be noted that most manual workers in the construction industry, which often hits the headlines with fatal accidents, are employed or paid on a daily-rated basis. It would be perfectly legitimate for an employer to pay a wage of $10 a day before the introduction of compulsory insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act and to offer a wage of $9 a day to a worker under a new contract the day after `the introduction of such provision for compulsory insurance. Even if it is possible `for the Government to succeed in its prosecution of such an employer under `the proposed section 26 as presently worded, it would be scant consolation to a worker who has been previously dismissed for objecting to an attempt by his employer to so avoid his liabilities under the Act, that such employer is convicted for so contravening the Act. I suggest the phrase "or any reduction off" should be included after the phrase "any reduction from". As it is, the proposed provision contains a sufficiently large enough loophole for a bulldozer to plough through. Clause 17 of the Bill gives effect to a long overdue amendment of the First Schedule to the Act. The proposed First Schedule is generally more comprehensive than the existing Schedule. I feel, however, that in making such an amendment the Government has not gone as far as it should have in revising the scope of the First Schedule. Not sufficient consideration seems to have been given to the circumstance that a person ordinarily makes greater use of one hand than the other. In the proposed Schedule as well as in the existing Schedule, the computation of loss of earning capacity is based on the assumption that every person is ambidextrous, that is, has equal facility or agility in the use of either hand or arm.”
“1 would therefore suggest that subsection (3) of section 8 of the Act should be amended to provide for the payment of compensation to a workman who is incapacitated but who has no dependants a sum of $28,800 or equal to 108 months' earnings, whichever is the less, and the payment of compensation to a workman who is incapacitated and who has dependants `a sum of $36,000 or equal to 135 `months' earnings, whichever is the less. The provision of clause 15 of the Bill amending section 26 of the Act to provide for compulsory insurance by an employer of his liability under the Act is in the general interest of the worker for whose protection such a provision is intended. While I appreciate the move by the `Government in this direction, I am of the view that it is not sufficiently effective. For instance, the proposed subsection (2) and `subsection (3) of section 26 contain provisions prohibiting any avoidance or evasion by an employer of his liability under the Act. The Act is not sufficiently comprehensive. The whole provision of subsection (2) of section 26 as stated in the Bill revolves around the word "deduction" in relation to the earnings of a worker. But to my mind if an unscrupulous employer desires to evade `this particular provision, he would not have been so foolish as to deduct from `the wages of his workers the premium payable under an insurance cover in respect of his liability under the Act. With his absolute prerogative to hire and fire under the Industrial Relations Act, it would have been a relatively simple matter for an employer to dismiss his workers and offer them re-employment with slightly lower salaries.”
“On the basis of a workman earning the minimum wage of $120 a month, the dependants of an injured workman who is unable to perform the essential actions of life without the constant attention of another person, however, the total compensation payable on the basis of 60 months' earnings will amount to 75 x 120 or $9,000, which is barely $500 more than the sum awarded to the dependants of a deceased workman. Insufficient consideration seems to have been given to the fact that a permanently and totally incapacitated worker, though able to perform the essential actions of life without the constant attention of another person, poses a continuing and additional burden upon his dependants, which would not have been the case if he had died instead of being permanently and totally incapacitated. Such calculation may be branded as being callous and unduly cynical, but the fact is that we are a pragmatic people living in a pragmatic society. To my mind, the persons responsible for drafting the proposed amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act seem to have contented themselves with merely trebling the various amounts of compensation payable under the Act and leaving the infrastructure of the Act untouched. For instance, under the proposed subsection (3), a necessary distinction seems to have been made as to whether a worker is over or under the age of 16 or 18 years. The fact that such distinction is contained in the present Act is not sufficient justification for its reproduction in the Bill. I would have thought that a proper distinction should have been made as to whether the incapacitated worker has any dependants or not.”
“In subsection (3), the amount of compensation payable to a workman who suffers permanent total incapacity is a maximum of $28,800 or, if he is incapable as well of performing the essential actions of life by himself, a maximum of $36,000. I am concerned, however, that the basis of computing compensation under the proposed section 8 may give rise to anomalies which may in turn result in the dependants of the deceased workman being better off than those of a permanently and totally incapacitated workman. Comparing, for instance, the compensation payable under the proposed subsection (2) (a) (i) with that payable under the proposed subsection (3) (a), on the basis of the stipulated minimum wage of $120 per month for a worker who is 18 years of age and above, it would appear that the compensation payable under the proposed subsection (2) (a) (i) would amount to 72 x 120 or $8,640, and that the compensation payable under subsection (3) (a) would equal to 60 x 120 or $7,200. It has been the practice for any court of law to award higher damages to a workman incapacitated by injury resulting from an accident than to the dependants of a deceased person. The basis for such practice is that the person who is injured but survives would logically have greater suffering and would be likely to incur more expenses by way of his own maintenance than the person who died as the result of the accident. Such practice seems to have been adopted by the Government because the maximum benefit payable on the death of a worker is $21,600 as stated in subsection (2), and the maximum compensation payable to an injured worker is $28,800 as stated in subsection (3).”
“One consideration is that unless a collective agreement expressly provides for such period of incapacity to be treated as sick leave, an employer may raise difficulty when a worker wishes to claim such period as sick leave. Even if such a defect in a collective agreement can be remedied in respect of all organised workers, the fact remains that the vast majority of workers are not organised and, therefore, cannot claim to have the benefit of any collective agreement. The net result is that it is more likely that workers may have to bear the full cost of the first few days of incapacity rather than the employers by reason of such a provision as proposed under the Bill. I, therefore, suggest that if the Government considers it necessary to have such an amendment to subsection (5) of section 4 of the Act, then it is only fair and reasonable that the initial first few days of any incapacity should be treated as sick leave under the provisions of the Employment Act. Clause 6 of the Bill, by amending section 8 of the Act and thereby trebling the maximum amount of compensation payable thereunder, has attracted the most comments from the public. The comments of workers on the proposed amendment are favourable and so are `the comments of most employers, apart from the few die-hard exceptions. I do not believe that any sane person, whether inside or outside this House, would grudge the increase in the amount of compensation to be paid to a workman or his dependant's in the event of his death or incapacity within the ambit of the Act. Under the proposed subsection (2) of section 8, the amount of maximum benefit payable to the dependants of a workman who died is $21,600 as compared to the existing maximum of $7,200.”
“Under the prevailing provision of the Act, the period of four days for which no compensation is payable is clarified by the condition whether the total period of incapacity exceeds 14 days or not. But under the proposed amendment the period of three days is an absolute period for which no compensation is payable. In other words, a worker would not be entitled to any compensation for the first three days of his incapacity, irrespective of whether he may be ultimately incapacitated for a period of 14 days or more. I have always been under the impression that the intention of including the provision of an initial period for which no compensation is payable, together with a saving clause, is apparently to prevent any possible abuse of the provision. The proposed amendment, by excluding the qualifying condition, takes on a punitive character in relation to workers. The Government may have strong reasons for putting forward such an amendment. It may well be that by reason of the provision for compulsory insurance it may not be administratively convenient or practical to include the first few days of any period of incapacity for the purpose of paying compensation under the Act. In proposing the amendment, it may be also possible that the Government is influenced by the consideration that it may be more practical for workers as well as their respective employers to treat the initial first few days of any incapacity as sick leave under the Employment Act. This leads me to the other point which I wish to bring to the attention of Members of this House. There are two main considerations to note in respect of the understanding that workers can utilise their sick leave benefit in relation to the first few days of any period of incapacity.”
“The principal Act, however, contains certain anomalies which, far from being dealt with, are being propagated without the slightest alteration or rectification under the proposed Bill. I shall be touching on this point in greater detail later on in my speech. As regards the question of compulsory insurance by employers against their liabilities under the Act, it makes a welcome change from the prevailing provision. Under the prevailing provisions of the Act, it is not obligatory for any employer to insure himself against his liabilities under the Act. Under the Bill, it is proposed that an employer should be compelled to insure himself unless he is exempted by the Minister. Presumably the Government will exempt itself. While I shall be touching more on this point later on, for the present I wish to comment that it would be desirable if the Bill indicates, at least generally, the basis on which the Minister may exempt an employer from the requirements of compulsory insurance under the Bill. Coming to the specific provisions of the Bill, I wish to direct the attention of Members of this House to clause 4 which seeks to amend section 4 of the Act by deleting section 5 thereof and replacing it with a new provision. On the face of it, the amendment does not seem to involve any fundamental principle and appears to be of little practical significance. But there are two points which should be considered by this House before approving the amendment now under reference. One point is that while the amendment seeks to reduce the period under which no compensation is payable under the Act from four consecutive days to three consecutive days, the amendment also abolishes the saving clause in relation to such period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while I rise to support the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, I must say that I have certain reservations about it. In so far as it confers increased benefits on workers who may have been incapacitated in one way or another as a result of accidents arising out of or in the course of their employment, the provisions of the Bill are, of course, to be welcomed. As I see it, the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act as proposed by the Bill can be divided into three main categories 1. Raising of the salary ceiling for non-manual workers to come within the ambit of the Act. 2. Tripling the maximum amount of compensation payable under the Act. 3. Compulsory insurance by employers against liabilities under the Act unless it is waived by the Minister. The first principal category of amendments is presumably to bring the Workmen's Compensation Act into line with the Employment Act (Chapter 123 of 1970 Edition) and the other associated legislation. I, however, must comment that the raising of the salary ceiling for non-manual workers is more apparent than real. It should be noted that the class of non-manual workers who earn a salary of $400 at the time when the Workmen's Compensation Act was first brought into operation in 1954 may possibly correspond to a class of non-manual workers earning a salary higher than $750 per month at present in view of the rise in the general wage level and the decrease in the real value or purchasing power of money during the intervening period. As regards the proposals relating to the triple increase in the rates of monetary compensation under the Act, I wholeheartedly agree that such increase is timely if not long overdue.”
“I am pleased to hear the statement from the Government that it is conscious of the sacrifices and contributions made by labour towards rapid economic growth, and has urged employers who have been making exceptional profits to pay better bonuses in recognition of the workers' contribution to the present economic prosperity. There is an economic boom and the employers have made profits. All too often, few employers pay anything more than what the law requires them to do so. It is still my opinion now, just as it was at the time Parliament debated the Employment Act in 1968, that the question of bonus must not be a restricted negotiable item. The denial of the negotiation rights of workers to share the fruits of their labour is a back-kick in the teeth on the democratic rights of labour to free collective bargaining. I would like to thank the President for his speech and look forward to the day when our defence build-up will reach its optimum and a greater share of our revenue will be used for education, health and social services. I support the motion of the Member for Ulu Pandan. 3.21 p.m.”
“The Workmen's Compensation Act will be amended to provide for three times the present compensation rate to meet the contingencies in the case of death and total physical incapacity. There will be provision for the payment of compensation to those who are afflicted by occupational diseases. However, compensation should not be 4 desired thing. The purpose of compensation rates should be a deterrent to employers not to be negligent. As it is. $7,200 awarded in the case of death, and $9,600 for permanent incapacity, is chicken feed. This will make the worst employers disregard safety rules and regulations as they feel that it does not matter when labour is cheap and workmen's compensation is cheaper still. Mr Speaker, Sir, on 30th July. 1971. I had occasion to cite the cases of accidents at the Mandarin Hotel Construction site and at Chartered Industries, where workers downed tools after their co-workers died in industrial accidents. These were unorganised workers. The conditions under which they labour are seldom favourable and conducive for them to take retaliatory action against unscrupulous employers. Nevertheless, they vented their anger on the employer by militantly stopping work unless their safety was ensured. I salute them again and would urge all workers to work safely and to care for the enforcement of safety regulations. I think there should be provisions to make it mandatory to the establishment of safety committees in factories and other places of work. The Government should also consider the establishment of a council of industrial safety and health to advise the Government on matters pertaining to industrial safety, and also act as a watchdog to see that the relevant safety laws are implemented by the various Government departments.”
“In regard to safety regulations in factories, shipyards and other places of work, the competent authority is the Chief Inspector of Factories. The control of silicosis among granite quarry workers is a matter for the Chief Inspector of Factories. Mr Speaker, Sir, it can be seen that if the competent authorities in the various departments are guided by different policies, it is possible that safety regulations may be enforced with different emphasis. It is my sincere view that a consolidation of the various laws mentioned and unmentioned could be a more convenient means of administering safety regulations. A case in point is that any member of the public could walk into a building under construction, or a construction site, without permission if he is willing to take the risk. This should never be allowed to happen. Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that when the Government published the Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations in March this year, the competent authority, in this case the Chief Building Surveyor himself, was not aware that he was the authority to administer these regulations. He could deny it anyway. However, as Chairman of the N.T.U.C. Occupational Health and Safety Committee, I must say the Government has shown great interest in the health and safety of the workers. The Government's concern in this respect is demonstrated by the introduction of work safety laws and an increase in the staff of the Factories Inspectorate. The Government's concern is clearly expressed by the President in his opening speech. It is one of the most dominating features of the policy of the Ministry of Labour.”
“Under his direction we hope the Anti-Pollution Unit will eliminate, if not all, then most of the health hazards of pollutants. I am happy that the Government is wasting no precious time after early warning was given in Parliament in 1969. As the problem of pollution is of so vital importance to the general public, I think the Government should report to Parliament from time to time on the matter. The importance which the Government attaches to this problem is evident from the recent appointment of the Head of the Anti-Pollution Unit as Head of the Public Health Division at the Ministry of Health. Mr Speaker, Sir, the addendum to the President's speech indicated that air pollution in our industrial estates is increasing. If we fail to take urgent preventive and corrective measures fn Jurong Town and others, I feel we could suffer the same fate as Los Angeles or Tokyo. The first sufferers and victims would be our poor workers who stay in these estates. Industrialization and urbanization also take their toll of human lives. In the construction field the number of industrial accidents has risen to such serious proportions as to make it necessary for the Government to introduce the Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations which Parliament approved on 30th July, 1971. These regulations, if implemented firmly, could go a long way to remove all possible known hazards in the industry. In regard to these safety regulations, the competent authority is the Chief Building Surveyor. In regard to safety regulations at sand and granite quarries the safety regulations applicable are embodied in the Sand and Quarries Act which is the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Works.”
“The manager, who appeared on his company's behalf, admitted all the facts read out in Court. The Court ordered him to comply with all measures listed in the Factories Act within a month or face prosecution again. At the very least, I thought the factory should have been closed down temporarily for the owner to comply with the licensing and registration of the factory, and the compliance of some health and safety provisions laid down by the Court. The factory was not registered and licensed. The next day, 9th July, 1971, the manager's photograph appeared in the Straits Times with a terribly happy grin. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that this factory is not the only unlicensed and unregistered factory. I have just received information that there is another factory in the same neighbourhood which is unlicensed and unregistered. Why is it that so lenient a view and posture is taken by the competent authority? Is the Ministry of Labour working under a constrained policy of protecting investment at all costs? In Japan, which we are sometimes asked to emulate, a girl suffering from cadmium poisoning plunged herself under a moving train to relieve herself of bodily pains which she could stand no more. The Japanese Prime Minister tendered his sympathies and apologised tearfully in Parliament and announced the payment of compensation to the bereaved family. I hope we will not have a similar occurrence and performance in our Parliament. Compensation removes some financial hardship for the bereaved family, but it is no compensation for the loss of a dear one. However, it is gratifying that our Prime Minister has taken a personal interest to combat pollution of our air and waterways.”
“A case in point is that of the Soon Seng Battery Plates Manufacturing Company (Private) Limited which refused to comply with the requests of the Chief Inspector of Factories to prevent lead pollution and thus directly led to a young factory girl of fifteen years of age to suffer from lead poisoning. It was found that the factory had a lead atmospheric content 745 times above the safe standard. Before this girl's case came to the knowledge of the competent authority, another worker, a male of 36 years of age, was admitted to hospital in December 1969 from lead poisoning. The Head of the Industrial Health Unit visited the factory. He then carried out blood and urine tests on 29 workers, the results of which showed that seven had severe signs of lead absorption bordering on lead poisoning. The manager was then advised to carry out certain preventive measures to overcome the possibility of cases of lead poisoning. The Head of the Industrial Health Unit reported the case to the Chief Inspector of Factories and an inspector visited the factory. The latter confirmed the conditions as reported. About one year after the discovery of the first case, another visit was made and it was found that preventive measures had still not been implemented. Seventeen days after that visit, the 15 year-old girl was hospitalised. She had worked there for only one month and had been poisoned. Blood and urine tests were carried out on 22 workers and four more showed signs of severe lead absorption bordering on lead poisoning. I have taken the opportunity to cite this recent case because I wish to question the Government whether it would feel inhibited in taking the logical action of punishing employers who flagrantly flout the law. In the case cited the prosecution asked for no punishment.”
“The Government's intention to strengthen the Factories Inspectorate with suitably qualified officers to supervise and enforce industrial safety is welcomed. I recall in March this year the then Minister for Labour announced that 30-odd officers would be added to the Factories Inspectorate. In this regard, it might be recalled that I had earlier in December 1969 urged the Government to reinforce the Factories Inspectorate to fully enforce the law. To my regret, my request was turned down. I think I have been proven right that the Factories Inspectorate should be strengthened and that it should be reorganised to be a more effective enforcement arm. The other proposal that I made was that the Factories Act, which was introduced in 1958 before industrialization was thought of, should undergo major overhauling. The reply was that the Factories Act was sufficiently comprehensive for safeguarding the health and lives of workers. However, it is now realised how far short are the powers of the Chief Inspector of Factories, so much so that measures have been taken to strengthen his hands soon. It is my humble opinion that he should be a very senior man, comparable, say, to the Director of Public Works, in the civil service hierarchy. He should be properly guided by a policy to eliminate those establishments which are health and safety hazards to those working in them. He should have wide discretionary powers to call for the punishment of employers who callously and criminally endanger the lives of their workers. Is this not an economic offence of the worst kind?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you may recollect that I have somewhat strenuously called on the Government to take all possible measures to keep our water resources pollution free. I am happy my appeals have not fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, the Government's intention to sewer the whole of Singapore, so that all the dirty polluted household water will go into sewers, is a good proposition. The pre-treatment of industrial water to reduce pollution is similarly good practice for industrial countries to adopt. Therefore, it is an opportune time for the Government to launch a campaign to bring about a realisation amongst the people of the strategic importance of water. Next I wish to deal with the interests of our second line of defence - our citizen workers. It must not be forgotten that it was on the backs of the workers that the Government came to power time and time again, and for that matter the People's Action Party had been the most appropriate vehicle for the workers to achieve a fair and square deal. I am happy to note that it will be the Government's future policy to take all possible measures necessary to prevent the loss of valuable skilled hands through work accidents by ensuring that basic safety and health standards are provided and maintained in factories and other places of work. In view of the fact that education and training are time-consuming and costly, it is imperative and necessary to prevent further losses of valuable skills. I think the Government's interest in this direction, although overdue by a couple of years, is not too late. To achieve this, we should have a `supremo' of some seniority governing this field.”
“Independence is futile if a nation has no resolve and capacity to fight to protect its national sovereignty and integrity. Our Republic with its population of two million should have its entire people ready to serve the country in its hour of need. I therefore wholeheartedly and fervently support the Government's policy of making use of all the precious time available until the withdrawal of the British forces to intensify the building up of a reliable defence capability which can be reckoned with both by friend and foe. In particular, our ground forces should possess the greatest striking capability to occupy strategic ground to ensure the flow of the life-blood of our island, should circumstances demand this action. To achieve this objective, sufficient support of our ground forces with armoured vehicles and air elements should be readily available. However, it must not be forgotten that our 70-mile coastline needs constant vigilance against infiltration in the form of illegal immigration and piracy. I must express my concern over the gap in our security and would urge the Government to take all measures necessary to overcome occurrences of this nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, I note the Government is paying due attention to increasing our water resources. This is an area of strategic importance that should be taken care of. Should we be made anxious by the vagaries of nature and the whims and fancies of man? Arising from this point, I think it is important for every citizen to realize that water is precious and that things should never be taken for granted. I would consider it just as important to prevent the pollution of our water resources.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we came to be independent in a strange way. Firstly, independence came by merger with the Federation of Malaysia and later, on 9th August, 1965, with our separation from the Federation, we experienced our second independence. I read the President's opening words in his speech to Parliament to mean just this. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst it is common for nations to extend their domains outwards, it is not quite understood why it should happen the other way round as far as Singapore was concerned on that fateful day, 9th August, 1965. The other new states of the Federation were warned of dire consequences if they thought fit to go the Singapore way. In the case of Singapore, it faced awesome troubles if it did not separate. Was the action against Singapore meant to squeeze the life out of it, or was it simple statesmanship? Whatever were the considerations, Singapore was jettisoned to fight for its own survival. Was economic ruin inevitable, and social discontent and political upheavals to be a commonplace affair? Was political independence expected to last six months, 0 six years for that matter? It should give us great pleasure to know that the President has forthrightly and confidently stated that our viability, our ability to progress, and our determination to remain independent is in good state. The President's words reflect the heartfelt aspirations of the people of our Republic and the motivations for our patriotic actions. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst it is important to engage ourselves in economic development, it is nevertheless imperative and vital that we also concentrate our resources and energies on building up our defence capability.”