Lee Boon Yang
Singapore
“6 The other guidelines are that there must be a post office sited within 5 km of every private residential estate and within 1 km of any commercial or industrial estate. MAID LEVY CONCESSION (Applications by the disabled) 32.”
“Madam, can I quickly respond to the point on assistive technology? Certainly this is an area of interest. We cannot say that we have the capability at this juncture but we will certainly look into what is possible and work with our ICT sector.”
“Nevertheless, if the spouse of the homemaker is working, he will be eligible for WIS if he satisfies the criteria. Husbands of homemakers are further eligible for tax relief.”
“Sir, I do not think it is quite correct to say that we always expect our own artists to perform for free or do public service. There are, of course, occasions where we do seek Singapore artists and arts companies to contribute to the national causes. For instance, when we went international for Singapore Season in China.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what checks does the Ministry or the National Environment Agency have in place to prevent mistaken payments to hawkers who cease operations due to upgrading works at hawker centers; (b) how did the mistaken payment of $18,000 to Mdm Lee Ah Muey come about; and (c) what will the…”
“While it was also true that initially the reaction or the response of the licensing authority was that foreigners should not participate in such an event at the Speakers' Corner - because there is already an existing prohibition against any foreigners taking part in any activities at the Speakers' Corner - subsequent assessment resulted i…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,412 lines we hold for Lee Boon Yang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 49.
“Sir, we are already taking concrete measures to improve the situation by way of educating the employers of domestic workers. Mr Chiam is quite wrong there. There are more than 50,000 maids. We have more than 100,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. As to whether another accident will happen or not, my sincere and earnest hope is that it will not happen again as a result of this widespread publicity on the dangers of such window cleaning, and our educational effort to get the employers to be more careful and conscientious in the way they treat their domestic workers and the way they assign duties and chores to them. But accidents may still happen. We cannot rule out accidents completely.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the training of foreign domestic workers, whether it is before they come to Singapore or after arriving in Singapore, is a matter that is best left to the private sector. There are already, if I remember correctly, nearly 1,000 employment agents involved in recruiting such domestic workers. I think we can leave it to them to provide the appropriate level of training for these domestic workers. In fact, some of the training is done in the home country before they actually leave the country. In some other cases, community organisations, such as the Marine Parade CDC had offered such training for domestic workers. This is all to be supported. We can leave it to the employment agents and the community organisations to run such courses rather than asking my Ministry or the Work Permit Department to conduct such courses. I think it is more appropriate for a wide variety of suppliers for this service to run the courses and to train the maids according to the needs of the employers. Members have to understand that some people employ foreign domestic workers not just to look after children or clean windows. Some employ them to look after the aged. So what particular aspect of the training should we focus on? I think we should leave it to the private sector. They know what the customer wants the foreign domestic worker for. Therefore, they would provide the right level of training.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will certainly ask my Ministry to do that and to continue to reinforce this message. We have been doing so, as I have mentioned in my earlier answer, and we will update the information kit that we issue both to the domestic workers and to the employers to caution them on this particular aspect of domestic work.”
“If, in fact, police investigations reveal evidence of criminal negligence, as I have assured Members earlier on, I have no doubt that the police and the Attorney-General's Chambers will proceed according to the law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to belabour the point about the use or misuse of safety harnesses. We have been through that already. We have examined this proposition. We have concluded that it is not the best way to deal with the problem. We will proceed on the basis that continuing education of the employers of foreign domestic workers is the best way of tackling this problem at source. If we require the use of safety harnesses, then we are telling the employers that, in fact, please go ahead and put their maids into all kinds of dangerous situations. Just have them use a safety harness and they will be fully protected. It will be all right for them to do so. I think it is totally unjustified for us to expect these women coming from a village in Indonesia or the Philippines to suddenly climb out of a window or to stand on the window ledge on the 25th floor of a building to clean the window. It is out of this world. How can we imagine that they should be put in such a position just because we have given them a safety harness? I think it is wrong to take such a position. We should take the position that no employer on his own would want to ask the maid to do such a task. There are already existing equipment. One can walk into any supermarket or department store and maybe for $10 or even less, he could buy himself a cleaning device that allows him to reach every part of the window. Then why are we talking about having to have safety harnesses and so on and so forth? On his other point, I thank the Member for his contribution that if there is evidence of criminal negligence, then a prosecution can be sustained. Even though no employer had been prosecuted in the past, it does not mean that no employer will be prosecuted in the future.”
“So it is not as if we are totally powerless against unscrupulous employers who deliberately, wilfully and unfairly force their foreign domestic workers to undertake such a dangerous and hazardous task. There are already laws which cover such a situation. If the investigation reveals such evidence, we can already proceed under the existing laws. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, it is life that we are talking about, although they are foreign maids. And I am surprised that the Ministry of Manpower is not taking any concrete steps, as Mr Kenneth Chen has said. I disagree that ---”
“In fact, my fear, shared by the officers in the Ministry when we considered this problem last year was that if you require a safety harness, it would give people a false sense of security. They would just give the foreign domestic worker any old safety harness they come across, tie it to any anchor point and say, "Now, you climb out of the window and do this dangerous work." Let me say that cleaning a window from the outside of a building is not a domestic task. It requires specialised window cleaners who are trained to do such work. Any employer who does so and force the maid to climb out of the building to clean the windows is obviously out of his mind. Would the employer himself or herself do such a thing? And if you are not prepared to do it, why would you get somebody else, who is totally untrained and unfit for this task, to do so? Our job is to educate our people and say that you must not adopt such a callous attitude towards the foreign domestic workers. They deserve your care and your protection. They have come from a far off country to work in your home. You should look after them. I also like to point out that every case of a foreign domestic worker falling from a high-rise window and getting injured or dying as a result will be thoroughly investigated by the police. I just want to repeat that the police will, in fact, investigate thoroughly into the cause of death, including whether there was any criminal negligence involving the employer or any other person. If there is evidence that criminal negligence is involved - I understand that criminal negligence is an offence in the Penal Code - then I can assure Members that the police and the Attorney-General's Chambers will not hesitate to act according to the law.”
“Sir, the answer to the Member's first supplementary question is yes, we believe that public education will be effective in minimising such accidents. It will raise the awareness among employers that in fact there are safer ways to clean windows, and there is really no need for them to ask their foreign domestic workers to put themselves in such a dangerous situation. As to whether foreign domestic workers are supposed to clean windows, I think cleaning windows is, of course, part of domestic chores. But it is the way they clean the windows. As I have said in my answer earlier on, most windows in high-rise buildings and, in fact, in HDB apartments where most of our people live in, the HDB has assured us that the windows can be cleaned using the right cleaning implements without having to climb out of the window or to expose yourself to any danger of falling out of the window. He said that the safety harness is not difficult to use. It still requires a certain amount of training. It requires the installation of the appropriate anchor points for such safety harnesses. Safety harnesses have got to be inspected regularly to ensure that they are not subject to damage through wear and tear. I am just quoting to the Member what we have to do in the construction industry, and despite the elaborate and very massive efforts, we still do encounter accidents of foreign construction workers falling from heights. In fact, it is probably one of the biggest causes of accidents in the construction sites. So, let us not assume that just by requiring the foreign domestic workers to use a safety harness, we would have eradicated the problem completely.”
“As for the impact of training on individuals, 80% of the companies surveyed indicated that there was an enhancement in employability after an employee had gone through certifiable training. More than 60% of the organisations also said that employees who had undergone training received a wage increase ranging from 1% to 10%. MINIMUM AGE FOR CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY 3. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Community Development (a) what is the rationale for fixing the minimum age for criminal responsibility at seven years old; (b) whether in the past 10 years the Court has convicted any child between 7 and 10 years old and for what offences; and (c) if he will consider reviewing this issue, including seeking expert and community opinions on this, by organising a public and private forum.”
“They include preparatory courses such as Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) and Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) which aim to raise the workers' proficiency in language and numeracy. Other courses include Certificates of Competencies (CoC), National Technical Certificates (NTC) levels 2 and 3, as well as other certificate courses offered by the polytechnics and the ITE. These courses are relevant to various different industries in both the manufacturing and services sectors. The duration of the courses also varies. For example, the duration of a CoC course or 1 module of NTC course is usually 120 hours. The duration of an NTC 3 course is 480 hours. In 1999, MOM started a scheme to improve the employability of retrenched workers through skills upgrading. This was done under the SRP and spearheaded by the self-help groups, which acted as surrogate employers. Under the scheme, retrenched workers who were unable to secure re-employment went for skills upgrading under the SRP. 139 sponsored retrenched workers graduated under the scheme between August and November last year. Of the 114 whom we managed to contact during a recent survey, 89 (78%) have found employment and 25 (22%) are still unemployed. Training is not only relevant to retrenched workers. It is just as important in raising the skill levels and productivity of those who have a job. In a study conducted by the Skills Development Fund in 1998, about 90% of the companies surveyed indicated that training had significant impact on the level of service quality, followed by productivity growth and level of product quality of the organisations. The extent of increase in the level of service quality ranged from 11% to 20%; and 1% to 10% for productivity growth and level of product quality.”
“Singapore's unemployment rate is traditionally low averaging around 2%. However, along with her regional neighbours, Singapore was not spared from the downturn triggered by the currency crisis in mid-1997. The impact of the economic slowdown on the labour market was, however, only largely felt in the second half of 1998 with unemployment reaching a high of 4.4% in the later half of the year. By 1999, the labour market began to show some signs of recovery, with the unemployment rate declining throughout most of the year. The 1999 unemployment figure will be available on the 24th February 2000 when the Annual Economic Survey is released. Full details on the unemployment profile will be available in the quarterly Labour Market Report to be released in mid-March 2000. All workers, regardless of gender, age and race are given opportunities to retrain and upgrade their skills and knowledge. Female workers can benefit and have benefited from retraining programmes such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP). Among the 21,700 workers who have been trained or are undergoing training under the SRP, 40% are females. In fact, during the early stages of the SRP when it focused primarily on the manufacturing sector, an even greater percentage of females were trained. Most of the trainees were female production workers. Today, the SRP has expanded into many other sectors such as childcare, healthcare, banking, travel and tourism, telecommunications, etc, so female workers of many different occupations are being trained. The courses being offered by national training programmes are varied.”
“The Conditions of Employment Survey, which was conducted in June last year, covered about 3,000 private sector establishments with at least 25 employees each. The purpose of this survey was to examine the extent to which companies used various benefits to attract, retain and motivate employees. The Survey found that about 5.2% of private sector establishments offered Employees Stock Option Scheme (ESOP) to their employees. The percentage ranged from 18% among firms in financial services to only 0.5% in construction. These were mainly extended to senior management in the companies. ESOP gives employees the right to buy equities in their companies at a predetermined price in the future. It is practised by companies to attract, retain and motivate employees, particularly among the key executives to improve the performance of their companies, and consequently the price of their stocks. It has gained popularity among high-tech start-up companies which use it as a form of pay or reward at a time when they are making little or no profit. Some MNCs in Singapore also offer ESOP to their employees. In recent years, ESOP has also been adopted by public-listed companies in Singapore although it is mainly confined to senior management personnel. While the Government supports companies in the private sector to introduce ESOP to attract, retain and motivate their staff, it is for the individual companies to decide whether such scheme is suitable.”
“This is the first step in raising the skills requirement. In the longer-term, as stated in the Construction 21 Report, we hope to have 45% of the construction workforce as skilled workers by 2005 and 60% by 2010. Skilled construction workers refer to those who can meet our NTC-2 (practical) requirements. Conclusion My Ministry's two-pronged approach will minimize opportunities for fraudulent practices by local employment agents and employers. However, we would not be able to control unscrupulous agents in foreign countries. What we can and will do is to ensure that foreigners taking the Basic Skills Certificate tests in their home countries are made aware of the Work Permit regulations covering their employment in Singapore before they come here. INJURIES RESULTING FROM MILITARY TRAINING 21. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will give an update on the trend of fatal accidents and injuries resulting from military training or exercises from 1997 to 1999 and the adequacy of existing military training safety regulations.”
“The main contractors will also be held responsible for the upkeep and welfare of the foreign workers of their subcontractors should these workers be abandoned. It is thus in the interest of the main contractors to ensure that the entitlement goes to genuine sub-contractors who will do his work. This will result in less opportunity for unscrupulous sub-contractors to apply for excessive number of work permits. My Ministry has been monitoring the new Work Permit Allocation system carefully. Our findings suggest that main contractors have indeed become more circumspect in allocating their work permit entitlements to their subcontractors. So far, for projects that have been completed, about 55% of total work permit entitlements given out have been used. This system had resulted in fewer work permit applications. The longer term objective as spelt out under the Construction 21 report is to reduce the number of foreign workers in the Construction sector by 50% over a period of 10 years, that is, from the current 200,000 foreign workers to around 100,000 workers. We may be able to speed up the process by reviewing and tightening the allocation formula. b) Ensuring Better Quality and Higher Skilled Foreign Workers The second approach is to ensure that the foreign workers brought in are of better quality with higher skills level. We have found that skilled workers are less likely to be exploited or abused by the employment agents or employers. They are also less susceptible to scams by unscrupulous employment agents, both local as well as foreign, and employers. Hence with effect from 1st April 2000, all new non-traditional source foreign workers employed in the construction industry have to pass the Basic Skills Certificate (BSC) test in their home countries.”
“My Ministry is aware that some unscrupulous employment agents and employers exploit the ignorance of foreign workers to bring them here without real jobs for them. This malpractice is most often seen in the construction sector where large numbers of foreign workers are brought into Singapore under construction work permits but are then redeployed to work illegally in other sectors. As licensed employment agents are regulated by my Ministry and are liable to lose their licences and security deposit should they breach the regulations or conditions of their licences, it is likely that many of the unscrupulous agents bringing in illegal workers on false promises of work in Singapore are unlicensed agents operating illegally. The penalties for operating an unlicensed employment agency are $5,000 for the first offence, and $10,000 for second or subsequent offences with a possible jail term of up to 6 months. My Ministry will not hesitate to prosecute such illegal employment agents. A more effective and substantive measure against such exploitation is to be more selective in allowing the entry of foreign workers, both in terms of numbers and skills levels. This would reduce opportunities for unscrupulous agents from bringing in foreign workers illegally in the first place. To this end, my Ministry has adopted a two-pronged approach: a) Review of the Work Permit Allocation System First, we have tightened the Work Permit Allocation system in the construction sector by introducing a system of Man-year Entitlements, which are allocated to the main contractors based on the project size and actual manpower requirement. The main contractors will be responsible for distributing these entitlements to their subcontractors.”
“We hope that they are putting aside their own savings or making voluntary CPF contributions to prepare for retirement. In view of the ageing population, savings for old age needs are becoming more important. The Inter-Ministerial Committee (or IMC) for the Ageing Population had suggested that the CPF system be extended to provide coverage for as many Singaporeans as possible. The Committee suggested that contributions to the CPF Special Account should be made compulsory for the self-employed. My Ministry is studying this recommendation and will consider ways to encourage and help self-employed to save for their retirement. ILLEGAL WORKERS 20. Mr Thomas Thomas asked the Minister for Manpower what steps the Government is taking or will take to prevent unscrupulous employment agents from bringing in illegal workers on false promises of work in Singapore.”
“Currently, employees and their employers contribute a total of 30% of the employees' monthly salary into the employees' CPF account - 20% by the employee and 10% by the employer. The employer's CPF contribution will be restored by 2% point to 12% from 1st April 2000. The CPF Board's projections show that despite the lower CPF contribution rate for a few years, CPF members would still be able to accumulate sufficient savings for basic old-age needs. CPF savings should give an employee who has worked continuously for 35 to 40 years, a monthly retirement income of about 20% to 40% of his last take-home pay, after paying for a home which is commensurate with his income and setting aside savings for his medical needs in old age. In the case of the self-employed, since July 1992, those with a net trade income of more than $2,400 per year are required to contribute to the Medisave Account. They contribute between 6% to 8% of their yearly net trade income, depending on their age. Such contributions are granted tax relief. As at December 1999, about 231,500 self-employed persons were contributing to their Medisave Accounts under the law. To encourage self-employed persons to contribute beyond their Medisave Account, tax relief is also given for additional voluntary CPF contributions. The tax relief is subject to a cap of 20% of the self-employed persons' net trade income or $14,400, whichever is the lower. Of the 231,500 self-employed persons who contribute to Medisave, 76,400 (33%) made voluntary contributions on top of their Medisave contributions. Self-employed persons who only contribute to Medisave would obviously not have savings for their old age apart from savings for medical care.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier in response to another point, when the factory applies for registration, we would have known what are the chemicals that they use and where we notice from the MSDS that some of the chemicals may have an impact on reproductive health, we would highlight this to the factory occupiers' attention so that subsequently, if they know they have women workers, they would have to monitor whether they should continue to be deployed for such work. The question of preventing pregnant workers from doing such work does not just lie with the designated factory doctors. If the issue is brought to my Ministry's Department of Industrial Safety's attention, we will also require the employer to cease deploying pregnant workers for such work. But, as I said earlier on, we would have already placed such factories using such hazardous chemicals on our industrial hygiene monitoring scheme and we would be keeping a watch on all these companies that use chemicals such as lead, mercury and cadmium which have this kind of effect on the developing foetus and would advise the employers to make sure that any pregnant worker should not be exposed to this kind of chemical hazard. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, my apology for overlooking this point. Where substances are known to have reproductive health effect, the information would have already been included in the Material Safety Data Sheet. Factory occupiers and employers are required to note such information and to take the necessary measures to prevent hazardous exposure of their pregnant female workers. They must also communicate it to their workers who are exposed to these chemicals. The Ministry has provided guidelines to designated factory doctors on the management of women who are exposed to substances with established reproductive health risks such as lead and mercury. The designated factory doctor may advise the occupier to re-deploy the female employees to avoid further exposure once it is found that she is pregnant and her normal work would entail her working with such chemicals. The employer is required to comply with the advice given by the designated factory doctor. This would ensure that pregnant workers are properly protected and are not exposed to any chemicals or substances that may have an impact on the unborn child.”
“Sir, on the need for section 88(14), let me point out that under section 88(13) of the Factories Act, the existing provision covers company, co-operative society and the office bearers such as Director, Chairman, Secretary, etc. However, partnership is not included under the provision. Hence, section 88(14) is being introduced in this amendment to cover partnership and to make every partner liable under the Act. We should make this completely clear to all occupiers that even as a partner in a partnership operating a factory, every single partner is equally liable for the safety of the workers and employees. Dr Neo also enquired whether the new provision under section 89(6) covers a continuing offence. The provision to penalise an offender for a continued offence after conviction is stipulated in section 89(2) of the Act. Therefore, when an offender is convicted under the new section 89(6) with the enhanced penalty, the provisions for a continued offence would still apply. The Court may impose a fine not exceeding twice of that provided for under section 89(2) for every day during which the offence is continued. Sir, I believe that I have dealt with all the points raised by the Members. Once again, I wish to thank them for supporting the Factories (Amendment) Bill. Dr Lily Neo: I would like to thank the Minister for his elaborate and comprehensive answers. Would the Minister further enlighten me on my question about the protection of expectant mothers, with special regard to the teratogenic effect of certain hazardous materials in our factories?”
“The objective of the new section 47A is to make sure that occupiers and employers set up a safe working procedure for the workers and adequately inform them on the necessary actions, including measures and ways to carry out their work safely. It would not be reasonable to hold every person in a factory responsible for the action or unsafe behaviour of every other person. In the event of a worker who fails to follow the safe work procedure and puts his fellow workers at risk, he could be taken to task under the existing sections 80 and 81 of the Factories Act. In other words, there are already existing provisions when someone who misuses an appliance, which has been provided for the health and safety of his fellow workers, could be taken to task and could be penalised for such misuse. If a worker contravenes the Act by wilfully endangering himself and that of his co-workers, there is also a provision under section 81 to deal with such wilful endangerment of his fellow workers. We already have this provision to ensure that workers pay attention to safe work procedures. And if in our inspection of any factory we come across a situation where we notice such a violation, we would certainly take action. Dr Neo also asked what is the intended meaning of the word "inspector" in section 47A(4). The intention of this provision is to require the occupier of a factory or employer to keep a copy of the safe work procedures and to produce this for the perusal of the inspector who is inspecting the factory. The word "inspector" here would include any inspector from the Department of Industrial Safety, including the Chief Inspector himself.”
“And if we do not have sufficient time to go through it thoroughly, then we would be under pressure to allow the factory operator, who has made millions of dollars of investment, to commence operation before we can clearly say that his factory is a safe place for our workers. We would prefer to stick to the present minimum period of one month to ensure that we have adequate time and opportunity to make a thorough assessment of the application to ensure that by the time all factories start operation, the question of safety would have been thoroughly studied and dealt with. I would urge Dr Neo to support this amendment to keep it at one month which would, in fact, lead to a safer working environment for all our workers. Dr Neo has asked whether occupiers would be informed if they have to comply with the provision to send certain categories of their employees for training under the new section 27(A). Sir, the answer is yes. If the Chief Inspector wishes to specify the class or description of a person who has to attend the prescribed training course, he has to make an order to be published in the Gazette under section 27A (2). Sufficient details would be provided to enable the industry to meet these provisions. I would like to assure the Member that my Ministry will also take the necessary action to inform relevant employers of this requirement. We would make the effort to inform all the relevant employers who need to send their workers who are exposed to certain hazards for training courses. Dr Neo suggested amending section 47A to ensure that every person in a factory would observe and comply with safe work procedures.”
“We should amend section 6(2)(m), as pointed out by Dr Neo, to make it consistent with the other provisions which have used the spelling of "liquefied". As this is only a question of spelling which will not affect the substance of section 6(2)(m), I suggest that we leave it to the Law Revision Commissioner under the Revised Edition of Laws Act to correct this spelling error. The Factories Act would probably be revised by the Law Revision Commissioner sometime towards the end of this year. Dr Neo asked for a flexible period for occupiers to submit their applications for factory registration. Sir, under the Act, it is an offence for a person to occupy or use any premises as an unregistered factory. The existing section 9(2) of the Act stipulates that the application for registration of factories shall be submitted not less than two months before the operation of the factory. This was set sometime ago to allow the Department of Industrial Safety to process the application and to issue a certificate of registration to the factory occupier before they actually commence operation. This amendment seeks to reduce the period of two months to one month which is already an improvement because the two months means that they have to get ready so much more in advance of the actual operation. Now, we are giving them one month's advance notice. Dr Neo asked whether we could give them a shorter period instead of a minimum of one month. The question is whether the Department of Industrial Safety would have the time to assess their application and to consider all the potential hazards that might arise from the operation of this particular factory, or the safety precautions that need to be taken.”
“And to help employers and workers better understand the hazards of the various chemicals or other risks that they are being exposed to at the workplace, my Ministry conducts training courses for safety officers, safety committee members and the workers themselves. The effect of hazardous materials which they may be exposed to are covered in these safety courses. The Department of Industrial Health also conducts workshops and talks in factories on topics such as handling of hazardous chemicals and dealing with various hazards at workplaces. In addition, during routine factory inspections, our inspectors would highlight various safety aspects of materials that are seen to be used or being handled by workers in the factory. They would highlight the danger, risk and also the safety procedures involved in handling such materials. We also publish extensive educational pamphlets and best practice guidelines on various occupational health topics which are then distributed to workers, management and to occupational health personnel during factory inspections and at our safety seminars and talks. Dr Neo also pointed out the question of spelling. I must compliment her on her eagle's eye to have noticed this little discrepancy in the way the word "liquefied" was spelt in section 6(2)(m). It was spelt with an "i" instead of an "e". We have, in fact, introduced an amendment but we have overlooked section 6(2)(m). I thank her for pointing it out to us. But I understand the word "liquefied", spelt with either an "i" and "e", is both acceptable although the spelling with an "i" is considered obsolete and the present modern form is to spell it with an "e". But that is besides the point.”
“We have appointed about 600-odd designated factory doctors throughout the whole island who serve employers in various factories and other places which use toxic or hazardous chemicals. Where the workplace is identified to have a low exposure to the hazards that are listed in the Regulations, the frequency of medical examination may be reduced or the factory itself may be exempted from having to send workers for such medical examination. And to date, we have exempted 178 factories from medical examination required under this Regulation. If an employer has any doubt, please consult the Department of Industrial Safety. We would provide the advice and if it is found that in that particular factory, the medical examination is really not necessary, we would exempt the factory so that the employer does not incur unnecessary cost. We also update all the designated factory doctors by sending out circulars and conducting regular briefing sessions for them so that they are kept informed of the new requirements and various industry practices, particularly when new chemicals or new processes are introduced into Singapore, we would update the factory doctors so that they are well informed and knowledgeable about the changes that are taking place. Dr Neo also wanted to know how the Ministry helps to educate both the management and the workers on side effects of hazardous materials. We recognise the importance of education of the workers, occupiers or employers. As I said right at the onset in my Second Reading speech, legislation alone is not adequate. For us to succeed in creating a safe and healthy working environment, we need the full commitment of both employers and workers.”
“Let me point out that this fine was introduced only recently in the 1995 amendment of the Factories Act and, in our current review, we felt that since it was only introduced in 1995, it is still effective as a deterrent. There is no real need to increase the penalty unlike the case of some other offences where we have revised the penalties because they were set almost 20 years ago. Dr Neo wanted to know how the Ministry ensures that only the workers who are at risk or exposed to various hazardous chemicals go for regular medical check-ups and how to ensure that such medical examinations are in fact cost-effective and are not just conducted on every worker, even though the person may not be exposed to the chemicals. Sir, workers are required to undergo specific medical examination if they are employed in any hazardous occupation listed under Regulation 2 of the Factories (Medical Examinations) Regulations to ensure that they remain fit for work within that particular factory or working environment. An example of a hazardous occupation is one which involves the use or handling of or exposure to fumes, dust or vapour of arsenic, cadmium or lead. All the various hazardous chemicals are identified and the Regulations would spell out which are the companies or occupiers who have to take special notice. If the employers are not sure which workers they should send for the medical examination, they can always consult the Department of Industrial Health. We will advise them on who are the workers who need to be sent for this medical examination on a regular basis. The employer may also consult the designated factory doctors.”
“Section 60A(2) of the Factories Act requires factory occupiers and employers to obtain the relevant Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of hazardous substances, including new chemicals which they may use in the course of their operation later on. This MSDS contains information on toxicity, health effect and all the safety measures that have to be taken in connection with workers who are exposed to such chemicals. This information should be made available to all employees on the premises who are exposed to these chemicals and are, therefore exposed to the hazards. The Department of Industrial Health checks the list of chemicals to identify the high-risk factories and to place them under an industrial hygiene monitoring programme and the Department of Industrial Safety will then send inspectors out to conduct regular inspections to check on the effectiveness of the control measures introduced or applied by the employers or occupiers of the premises. The Ministry also checks for compliance with the MSDS requirements at the time of factory registration as well as during subsequent inspections. For instance, if the prospective occupier tells us that they are using a particular chemical that requires a special set of safety precautions, we would check that in the design and layout of the factory and the installation of the machinery, the appropriate safety measures and precautions can be incorporated. Checks are also made on the accuracy of the information in the MSDS provided by the supplier. Dr Neo also asked why is it that with all the penalties being revised, there is a particular penalty in section 60A(3) of a fine of $5,000 for non-compliance by the supplier for not providing adequate and accurate information in the MSDS which, in this amendment, we have not amended it.”
“In fact, this is very important and it is best done within the companies. Each company should highlight their own employees who have contributed to the safety performance of the company and give recognition to their own employees, for instance, the Safest Worker for the Month or the Safest Worker for the Week, so that their efforts to ensure work safety for all their fellow workers are recognised and noted. He also asked whether the amendment would deal with the new hazards introduced by new industries, such as wafer fabrication, bio-technology and other new industries that might be coming in the pipeline. The answer is yes. The Factories Act itself is non-specific in that sense. It applies to all the industries but we can use the provisions to deal with any new hazards that might arise in the course of economic development. May I now turn to the points raised by Dr Lily Neo. She supported the amendment but asked how the Ministry would monitor factories which are using hazardous chemicals. For instance, how would we know that a factory is using hazardous chemicals and therefore they should implement certain safety procedures? In fact, all factories are required, under the Factories Act, to be registered with the Chief Inspector of Factories. Before they start work in establishing their business and building up their factory, they are already required to inform the Chief Inspector. When applying for registration, the factory occupier must submit the necessary information, including a list of all the chemicals used within the premises, and they must include the Material Safety Data Sheet of all the chemicals that are likely to be used on the premises.”
“Nevertheless, where the circumstances warrant, my Ministry will certainly press for deterrent sentences, including sentencing repeat offenders to jail. Mr Magad also emphasised the importance of moving towards an occupational safety and health approach to enhance the working environment which is ideal, a concept which we fully support. And as I said earlier on, the Ministry is studying this issue and we will look into how to enact an OSHA legislation some time next year. Mr Magad suggested giving extended or better coverage for the various safety awards that are being made to highlight the good or best practices by various employers. I agree with him. In fact, this is something that my Ministry has been doing. We will be giving recognition to companies that have good safety records, and the best practices through our annual safety performance award. And more than just giving the awards to factories that have good records, we have been actively organising seminars and talks by inviting the award winners back to participate in these seminars and talks and inviting other employers or managements from the same industry to attend these talks so that the experience of the company that has got good practice and good safety records can be shared with the other employers. In that way, we can extend the benefits of best practices to all the other employers in the same industry. This is something that my Ministry takes on very earnestly and we would continue to do so to propagate the benefits from best practices that are already tested in the industry. We will also consider his suggestion about highlighting the importance of workers who have been able to maintain a safe working environment, holding them up as role models for other workers.”
“I think this is necessary in order to ensure that contractors or factory occupiers who are served with "stop work" orders do not take this lightly and do not continue to endanger the safety and health of their employees. Mr Magad also asked whether we would consider introducing mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders. Sir, presently, the Factories Act does not have any provisions with mandatory jail sentences. But it does contain provisions to enable offenders to be penalised by a fine, or a jail sentence, or both a fine and a jail sentence. Sir, generally, contravention of the Factories Act arises as a result of failure of the employer or occupiers of the factory to take measures, such as the provisions of personal protective equipment, proper work platforms, suitable barricades or similar means to ensure the safety of workers. Failure to take measures or provide necessary safety provision is generally an act of omission rather than intentional malice. In such circumstances, I believe that the present penalty under the Act would serve as an adequate deterrent. The court will evaluate the evidence presented in each case and mete out the appropriate penalty. Whether it should include a prison term or not should be left to the court to decide. Generally, if an accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury was caused by a rash or negligent act of any person, my Ministry could also work with the Police to charge the person under the Penal Code which carries more severe penalties. Sir, the factors and circumstances leading to an accident are varied. Therefore, the option of mandatory jail sentences as a deterrent has to be considered with great caution.”
“Therefore, when an employer deliberately violates or flouts a "stop work" order, he is actually putting the worker's life and limb at risk. We feel that, under these circumstances, a maximum fine of $10,000 is not adequate for such a blatant disregard for the workers' safety and health. One of the reasons is that in the case of, let us say, the construction industry, the construction projects are planned on a very tight schedule and the developer or owner of the building under construction often imposes liquidated damages on the contractors. And some of these liquidated damages could range from $1,000 to more than $50,000 a day for any delay. Our experience with enforcement of the Factories Act in the construction industry, for example, shows that it takes, on average, about seven to 10 days for contractors to rectify the safety defects on their worksite and then we can lift the "stop work" order and they can resume work. In other words, in certain construction projects, the liquidated damages can easily accumulate to more than $200,000 in excess of the existing fine of only $10,000. This could result in tempting some contractors, for instance, in the industry who receive a "stop work" order to disregard the order and carry on the work. In fact, the penalty is much less than what they will have to pay to the developer by way of liquidated damages. In recent years, my Ministry has found three contractors who had blatantly violated "stop work" orders issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories. The Bill therefore proposes to raise the penalty for violation of the "stop work" order by increasing the fine to $200,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both.”
“Yes, we could have amended them earlier on, but perhaps at that point in time, it was felt that the penalties were adequate and the situation did not warrant a revision, particularly the various penalties. Now is the time to address some of these issues which is why we are prompted to review the whole Factories Act dealing with various provisions. In fact, some of the provisions were actually introduced earlier on by way of regulation. But in order to give them a stronger force of law and to ensure that non-compliance will constitute an offence, we have decided to bring in some of these provisions, particularly self-regulation into the main Act itself. So it is not as if we have not done anything to amend the Act. In 1995, we had in fact amended the Act to beef up various provisions. We have already introduced, as I said earlier on, various regulations to improve the safety situations, particularly, in the shipyard and the construction sites. Mr Magad also mentioned the large increase in penalty for occupiers who defy a "stop work" order. Under the existing Act, occupiers who violate a "stop work" order, in other words, a safety violation had been detected on the premises and we had issued a "stop work" order to protect the workers but the employer persisted in continuing with the work and therefore endangering his workers, the existing penalty is only $10,000. The amendment before this House seeks to increase the penalty to a maximum of $200,000. Let me point out that a "stop work" order is only issued when a workplace is found to be unsafe and workers are being exposed to severe risks or accidents by continuing to work on such an unsafe worksite.”
“They need not be gazetted under the category of factories requiring safety management system. But they can employ or appoint one of their employees to act as a safety coordinator to deal with various safety and health issues in the factory. This safety coordinator could be one of the existing managers or supervisors, and it would of course be part of his other duties. And it would certainly not add to the cost for the employer. That is the approach that we would take and it is a sensible and rational way of requiring industries to adopt the new safety management system. It is not an across-the-board blunderbuss kind of approach. For instance, even for construction worksites which are, in some cases, quite dangerous for the workers, we have certain criteria. For example, they must have a contract value of $10 million or more before we require them to implement the safety management system because the value of the project indicates the complexity and is very often the height of the building. If you build a low-rise building, a single storey building, it is unlikely to cost a lot of money. But if you build a multi-storey building, then it is going to cost tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In which case, you must have a more elaborate safety management system. In the case of shipyards, if they employ 200 or more workers, we will require them to employ external auditors to regularly audit their safety management system. Likewise, external auditors or safety auditors will only be required for construction projects which are in excess of $30 million or more. Sir, let me now turn to Mr Ahmad Magad. Mr Magad also supports the Bill. He feels that some of the amendments are long overdue.”
“The problem with the domestic workers being exposed to risks at the place of work in their employer's home is best addressed through proper public education by raising awareness among the employers and their domestic workers of some of the hazards that can be found in their home, such as cleaning windows. We should educate the employers and domestic workers so that they know what is the safe way of cleaning windows. There is no reason to put themselves at risk. I believe that with sustained public education both employers and domestic workers can learn to work out safe procedures to carry out all their domestic tasks. There will be no need for further legislation. Sir, Mr Chong also supported the section requiring factories to implement safety management systems, appoint safety coordinators, conduct safety audits and have regular inspections. This is in clause 20 and the amendment to sections 71A, 71B and 71C. But he questioned whether by requiring such an intensive or elaborate safety framework would add costs to all employers, particularly those companies that are not involved in hazardous work or deal with hazardous substances. I share his view. I agree with him. We should be rational. We should not be over-zealous in implementing our safety regulations. Our safety regulations should be applied in a focused and targeted manner. We will identify factories which have the highest risks, which are using hazardous chemicals and ensure that these factories impose the most stringent safety management system, regular inspection and safety audit in order to ensure the safety of all their workers. Whereas in the case of factories with very few hazards or no hazard at all, we do not have to impose such a heavy requirement on them.”
“There are available on the market cleaning implements with handles that can be extended which will enable a domestic worker to clean both the exterior and the interior of the windows safely, without exposing herself to any risk of falling from the window. So employers of foreign domestic workers should teach their domestic workers and provide them with the right implements to undertake this window cleaning job, and they should not require or ask them to clean the window in a dangerous or hazardous manner. It is not quite the same as construction workers. There is no recourse but the construction workers just have to work on a worksite, in an incomplete building where there are many hazards present. It is unavoidable. Therefore, we have to bring them within the coverage of the Factories Act or, in future, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to ensure that they are given maximum protection, for instance, requiring them to use safety belts or safety harnesses if they are working on the edge of a building and if there is a danger of falling from the building. Domestic workers are not in the situation at all. They are in the safe home environment of their employers. They should not be exposed to the risk. Therefore, it would not be quite appropriate to cover them under the Factories Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I have been informed that other countries which have introduced Occupational Safety and Health Act, such as US, Canada, Sweden and Germany, have also excluded domestic work from such law. They have already considered this issue and they have felt that domestic work should not be part of an OSHA legislation. So I think we should adopt the same position.”
“Mr Charles Chong suggested that we should consider whether to bring in the work places of the domestic workers, in other words, the home, under the coverage of the Factories Act, or in the future when we enacted an Occupational Safety and Health Act, to include homes so that domestic workers, particularly the foreign domestic workers, are not exposed to dangers of falling from windows while they are cleaning high-rise windows. I think Mr Ahmad Magad has also touched on this aspect. Sir, we share the concern of Members for the safety of domestic workers working in the homes of their employers in Singapore, particularly if they have to clean windows in high-rise dwellings. We have considered the possibility of legislation to address this issue. But we concluded that legislation is, in fact, not the best approach to deal with this problem. There was, in fact, a question raised by Mr Kenneth Chen at this sitting's Question for Oral Answer. Unfortunately, time did not permit me to answer this Question. What I would like to say in response to both Mr Charles Chong and Mr Ahmad Magad is that domestic workers are employed in residential premises to do ordinary household chores. They are not trained and we cannot expect them to undertake risky jobs, unlike construction workers and other workers working in factories. In fact, there is no necessity for a foreign domestic worker to be asked to climb out of the window in order to clean the window or to be standing up in a precarious position to clean the windows of high-rise flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I thank all the hon. Members for speaking up in support of this amendment to the Factories Act. Let me now respond to the various comments and queries that Members have raised. First, the Chairman of the GPC for Manpower, Mr Charles Chong, asks whether we would consider transforming the Factories Act into an Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover all work areas. The answer is yes. This is, in fact, one of the recommendations of the Manpower 21 Committee. The Committee has recommended that Government consider enacting an Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover all workers at work. Government has accepted this recommendation. My Ministry is, in fact, studying the requirements and the implications of creating such a legislation. An Occupational Safety and Health Act will obviously cover a wider group of workers and cover more work places than the existing Factories Act, even after this amendment before the House. Currently, the Factories Act covers about 700,000 employees. If we adopt an Occupational Safety and Health Act for all work places, conceivably we could be covering in the region of 2 million or more workers. We are, in fact, working on this piece of legislation, and as I said earlier on, studying the various implications and how to go about formulating such a legislation. We expect the new law to be ready by sometime next year. But for the moment, we are still proceeding with this amendment to the Factories Act because we cannot wait till the new Occupational Safety and Health Act is in position. In the interim, the amended Factories Act will provide better protection for workers at their work place.”
“The new subsection (2) provides that the Fourteenth Schedule cannot be amended to include new offences or classes of offences, or to change the classification of offences. However, the new subsection (3) makes it clear that the Fourteenth Schedule may be amended for the purposes of correcting cross-references, re-numbering or other consequential changes. In other words, the list of offences which will attach a heavier penalty for a repeat offence is fixed, as it is now in the Bill and it cannot be just added on without coming back to Parliament. Clause 34 amends the Fourth Schedule by adding three other classes of dangerous occurrences: in other words, incidents that must be reported to the Chief Inspector. These are: (a) Failure or collapse of form-work or its supports; (b) Collapse in part or in whole of a scaffold exceeding 15 metres in height or of a suspended scaffold or hanging scaffold from which a person may fall a distance of more than 3 metres; (c) Accidental seepage or entry of seawater into dry or floating docks resulting in flooding of the dry dock or floating dock. Sir, the Bill also contains other amendments that are made for the purpose of bringing the Act up-to-date. They are mostly of a technical nature. Explanations for these amendments can be found in the Explanatory Statement of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“We hope that the enhanced penalty for those situations listed in the new Fourteenth Schedule will deter employers/occupiers from allowing unsafe situation at the workplace to continue, and to take immediate action to rectify and to prevent the recurrence of such unsafe situation. Clause 28 amends section 90 to increase the maximum fine from $300 to $1,000 per day for non-compliance of an order of the Court to remedy a contravention under the Act. Clause 29 amends section 91 to increase the maximum penalty for any forgery of certificate, false entries and false declarations from $2,000 to $5,000. Sir, presently, the Chief Inspector may compound any offence under the Act for an amount not exceeding $1,000. Composition has proven to be an effective and efficient means of persuading occupiers to take prompt action to rectify unsafe conditions. To further enhance the effectiveness of this enforcement option, the Ministry proposes to increase the maximum compound fine to $2,000. This amendment is in clause 31. Clause 32 amends section 102 to include radiant heat amongst the list of factors for which the Minister may make regulations for its control in factories, and to make minor drafting amendments. Radiant heat is generated by furnaces or similar processes. Similar to lighting or humidity, it is one of the factors that may affect workers' health. Clause 33 amends section 104 to limit the circumstances in which the Minister may amend the Fourteenth Schedule. This is the Schedule listing out all the offences or infringements under which a repeat offence can result in a double penalty. This Schedule, as I said, sets out the classes of offences for which a second or subsequent conviction carries an enhanced fine under the new section 89(6).”
“Clause 27 amends section 89 - (a) to increase the maximum penalty for offences under subsection (1) from $1,000 to $2,000 and from $2,000 to $5,000; (b) for contravention which is likely to cause death or bodily injury to any person, to increase the maximum fine from $10,000 to $20,000; (c) for contravention which results in a dangerous occurrence or serious bodily injury to any person, to increase the maximum fine from $25,000 to $35,000; and (d) to provide for an enhanced penalty of up to twice that provided under the Act if the offender is convicted of committing an offence in the same designated categories listed in the Fourteenth Schedule for a second or subsequent time. These include offences arising from persons falling from height as a result of failure to provide barricades, a safe work platform or workplace; falling objects injuring workers; electrocution, just to name a few. Investigations carried out by my Ministry indicated that the majority of the fatal accidents could be attributed to these examples which I have just mentioned. We have recorded instances where such accidents recurred because the occupier of a factory or a worksite did not seem to learn the lesson from past accidents. They continued to allow unsafe conditions to remain and suffer a second accident as a result. My Ministry therefore proposes that the fines for such offenders be doubled as an added deterrent. There is no reason why an occupier should allow an unsafe situation which had already resulted in an accident to be continued and for another accident to be repeated.”
“Clause 24 creates a new section 78A to empower the Minister to require occupiers of factories to comply with prescribed Singapore Standards and Codes of Practice published by the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board. Clause 25 amends section 85 to increase the maximum penalty for obstructing an inspector in the execution of his duties under the Act from a fine not exceeding $2,000 to not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months to a term not exceeding 6 months. Clause 26 amends section 88 - (a) to provide under subsection (2) that any person who contravenes any provision of the Act or subsidiary legislation made under the Act is guilty of an offence; (b) to empower the Chief Inspector, under subsection (3), instead of the Commissioner, to authorise an inspector to arrest without warrant, any employed person who wilfully interferes or misuses any means or appliances for securing the health and safety of workers; (c) to extend the provision relating to corporate offences under subsection (13) to cover offences under both the parent Act as well as offences under the subsidiary legislation made under the Act, instead of covering only offences under the Act; and (d) introduce a new subsection (14) to make every partner in a partnership liable for any offences committed by the partnership. Most of the other provisions on penalties were introduced more than 20 years ago, that is, the penalties stipulated in the existing Act were nearly two decades old. Besides the penalties which I have mentioned earlier, we have also reviewed other provisions to ensure that penalties remain effective deterrents and help to better ensure the safety of workers at the workplace.”
“To put this in perspective, the maximum fine under the Act for a contravention that results in two or more fatalities is $200,000. Therefore, the proposed fine is in keeping with the severity of the offence and will deter any factory occupier from deliberately violating such a "stop work" order and knowingly putting workers at risk because in many instances, the liquidated damages for any delay in a project, or the losses due to suspended production are far more costly than the existing fine of just $10,000; (c) to empower the Chief Inspector of Factories to take appropriate measures to prevent unauthorised entry to any area, or unauthorised access to any machinery affected by the order; (d) to empower a police officer or an inspector authorised in writing by the Chief Inspector to arrest without warrant any person who contravenes the section by entering areas, or gaining access to machinery affected by the order, without the authorisation of the Chief Inspector. Clause 20 creates three new sections, 70A, 71B and 71C. These will empower the Minister to require occupiers of certain factories - (a) to appoint a safety co-ordinator, with suitable qualifications and training, to promote the safe conduct of work generally within a factory, under the new section 71A; (b) to implement a safety management system to ensure the safety, and to protect the health and welfare of persons employed, under the new section 71B; and (c) to appoint a competent person (who must be approved by the Chief Inspector of Factories) to conduct periodic safety inspections, carry out the recommendations resulting from the inspections and to submit the report of the competent person to the Chief Inspector when required, under the new section 71C.”
“Such training for employees or workers is fundamental to workplace safety and health. Clause 11 creates a new section 47A that prohibits the commencement of any hazardous work specified in a new Twelfth Schedule, unless certain specified precautions had been taken. These include identifying the hazards to which persons at the workplace could be exposed, setting out safe work procedures, and implementing safety measures in the course of work and during an emergency. For example, if work is to be done in a confined space where there is risk of suffocation or fire or explosion, then procedures such as carrying out the necessary tests on the air quality, briefing workers on the nearest emergency exit, and measures such as providing adequate ventilation and continuous monitoring should be undertaken before commencement of the work itself. Clause 13 re-enacts section 49 to provide additional powers and penalties - (a) to reinstate the power of the Chief Inspector under the repealed section 48 to stop the use of machinery or plant in a factory; (b) to raise the maximum penalty for failure to comply with an order under the section, that is, a "stop work" order, which requires the occupier to remedy the danger to persons or to stop any process or work in the factory. The maximum penalty will be an increase in the current fine of $10,000 to $200,000; or to imprisonment of a term not exceeding one year instead of the current term of 6 months or to both. In the case of a continued offence, that is, a "stop work" order has been issued but the occupier disregards the "stop work" order and carries on with the work, the penalty would then be increased from a fine not exceeding $1,000 per day to a fine not exceeding $20,000 per day.”
“This consists of a device to lock-out the power source such as an electricity supply, and a related set of procedures using special tags or additional locks to indicate that workers are still engaged in the work. Such a system is designed to ensure that any plant, machinery or equipment that is under inspection, cleaning, repair or other maintenance work would not be inadvertently switched on, or activated in any way that might endanger the workers involved in the repair or the maintenance work. In a recent case, we had two mechanics trying to clear a choke in a machine. They had actually deactivated the machine by turning off the isolation switch to the machine. One of them had to leave the job to attend to a related matter. When he returned, he assumed the choke had been cleared and switched on the power supply to the machine. This resulted in the amputation of a finger of the other mechanic who was still working on the machine. With the "Lock-out" system envisaged in this amendment, a lock or some other suitable device would have been used to indicate that someone is still working on the machine and therefore power to the machine should not be turned on. We would then have prevented the accident. Hence, we are moving towards this direction of requiring "Lock-out" mechanisms to be used. Clause 6 creates a new section 27A to require occupiers of factories to ensure that certain categories of persons employed in a factory are given safety training. The Chief Inspector is empowered to specify the training courses and the categories of persons, such as managers of construction projects or wafer fabrication plants, supervisors of processes that pose specific risks, and workers who have to work in tunnels and other confined spaces.”
“In other words, the warehouse must be a commercial warehouse taking in the goods for storage for and on behalf of customers. However, whether the warehouses where such activities are being carried out are in the warehousing business or just a company's own warehouse to store its own products or materials, workers are actually exposed to the same kind of hazards. The Ministry, therefore, proposes to expand the scope of the Act to include warehouses or open yards where such activities are carried out and where mechanical power is used. Warehouses where no mechanical power is used are obviously less hazardous to the workers. Hence, the amendment excludes premises which are essentially stores where articles are kept incidental to business activities and no mechanical power is used at all. The extension of the Act will ensure that workers who are exposed to occupational hazards in all warehouses and open storage areas where mechanical devices are in use would be adequately protected. Workers engaged in the maintenance work on the MRT and LRT tracks, ie, for repair or maintenance of the railway tracks, including viaducts and tunnels, are exposed to various hazards such as falling from the place of work, or hazards posed by electrical equipment and also moving vehicles on the tracks. Such workers should also be accorded protection under the Act. Clause 2 of the Bill will amend the Act to cover maintenance work on the MRT and LRT. Clause 5 creates a new section 24A to require occupiers of factories to establish and implement a "Lock-out" system to prevent accidental activation of machinery or equipment.”
“One area of particular concern is that we still see many fatal accidents in the construction industry. The number of fatalities in the construction industry had increased to 73 in 1998 from 36 in 1990. Sir, I would like to emphasize, right from the onset, that legislation alone will not resolve the problems of safety and health at the workplace. The efforts of the Government must be complemented by the employers' strong commitment to the safety and health of their employees. Employers and management must, therefore, take ownership and set their agenda to improve safety and health conditions at the workplace. Supervisors and workers must also be alert to workplace hazards and learn to work safely. The basic framework to get the industries to self-regulate has been put in place for some time. Since then, my Ministry has been actively promoting self-regulation in industry and implementing programmes to help factory occupiers and employers towards this objective. The proposed amendments to the Act will further enhance this framework by introducing provisions to require factory occupiers to take a more pro-active role to protect the safety and health of workers. I shall now highlight the key amendments in the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Factories Act to expand the interpretation of "factories" to include any premises in which mechanical power is used in sorting, packing, handling, or storing of articles which is carried out by way of trade or incidental to other businesses. Currently, the Act contains a provision to cover workers involved in this kind of work, that is, the sorting, packing or handling of articles in a warehouse only where such work is carried out as a business or by way of trade.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill before the House seeks to amend the Factories Act to introduce provisions to enhance the framework for self-regulation and to improve safety and health standards at factories and other workplaces. The Bill also seeks to extend the scope of the Act to cover more workplaces. Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past 10 years, the industrial accident situation has improved. In 1990, the accident frequency rate was 4.0 accidents for every million man-hours worked. It fell to 2.5 accidents per million man-hours worked in 1998, which is a reduction of about 40%. I cannot use the more recent figure for 1999 because the statistics have not been finalised yet. So I am comparing it to the 1998 figure. Sir, the improvement was seen across the board even in industries, such as shipbuilding, ship repairing and construction. The marine industry, for example, suffered 12.2 accidents per million man-hours worked in 1990. In 1998, there were only 6.1 accidents per million man-hours worked, which is an improvement of 50%. In the case of the construction industry, the accident frequency rate also fell from 3.7 in 1990 to 2.7 in 1998, an improvement of about 30%. These improvements could be attributed to the implementation of safety regulations and improved self-regulation by the industries. Despite these improvements, we must continue with our efforts to make workplaces safer for all workers. We must bear in mind that current safety performance is still below that of the developed countries. For example, the accident frequency rate for Japan in 1997 was only 2.08 accidents per million man-hours worked compared to Singapore's 2.6 accidents per million man-hours worked for the same year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I announced the recommendations of the Tripartite Committee - I believe this was in 1996 - I did say that we would like to implement an Alternative Medical Benefits Scheme on a voluntary basis initially. Whether there is a need to legislate or provide an Alternative Medical Benefits Scheme in the Employment Act is something that the Committee will also look into when they convene to study this issue. 1.30 pm”
“The Committee will look into ways to promote the Alternative Medical Benefits Scheme, including tax incentives for additional Medisave contributions and cost of employer-provided medical benefits, including outpatient benefits.”
“This could happen even if the medical benefits were provided in the form of a group medical insurance, because group medical insurance policies are tied to the employer and not transferable to a new employer. Sir, with increasing technological changes and business competition, companies often have to make quick changes to their structures, operations, marketing strategies, manpower requirements and skills in order to survive and prosper. This means that business re-organisation, restructuring and retrenchment will be common occurrences in the future. The concept of life-long employment will no longer be relevant. Even in Japan, where life-long employment has long been a sacred cow, companies are having to retrench workers in order to survive. In Singapore, our workers must also expect to change jobs several times in their lifetime. Hence, it is in their interest to have up-to-date skills and benefits which are portable, that means, they can transfer those benefits or accumulate the benefits and transfer them to their new job if they have to switch jobs. We should therefore move away from the employer-provided medical benefit system and replace it with a portable system, which allows employees to save for their future medical needs. The Alternative Medical Benefits Scheme proposed by the Tripartite Committee seeks to make medical benefits portable and encourage employees to take individual responsibility towards their own health. It is in the interest of both employers and workers for such a scheme to be adopted widely. Sir, my Ministry will establish a follow-up committee, including the Singapore National Employers' Federation, NTUC and MOH to review the concept of a portable medical benefits scheme to speed up its application.”