Sam Tan Chin Siong
Singapore
“Sir, the Temporary Relief Fund was set up to provide timely financial assistance to lower- and middle-income Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who lost their jobs or faced significant income loss due to the economic impact of COVID-19.”
“The Workgroups will release their recommendations later this year. (In English): Mr Chairman, in closing, everyone has a part to play in building a caring and inclusive society. Inclusion is not just a vision. It is action.”
“We will continue to deepen our engagement with the EU leadership and also our ties with individual EU member states. We will also continue to engage the UK post-Brexit.”
“It is a very important prerequisite to prepare young children for future employment. There is another workgroup under EMP3 which focuses on the improvement to employment opportunities and prospects. This workgroup is co-chaired by Member Ms Denise Phua and myself.”
“I thank the Member for the questions. We have sufficient places in our Sheltered Workshops. Right now, we have altogether 1,700 places. If there is a need for more capacity, we will certainly increase it.”
“Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for the clarification. The difference between CKS and PDD is that PDD helps persons who have lost the mental capacity to make major decisions like liquidating the assets, bank accounts and all that to provide institutional care or some other major financial needs.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Sam Tan Chin Siong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“I thank the hon Member for sharing his residents' experience. This is something we are also concerned with in MOM. As mentioned in my earlier report, in the promotion of fair and progressive recruitment and employment best practices, we encourage employers to select and also appoint their employees based on their ability and their skillset rather than using the existing medical history. We have been emphasising this to employers through our interactions with the Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF). At the same time, we have also set up an Institute of Human Resource Professionals (IHRP) to encourage and provide a lot of training for HR practitioners and professionals, so that they will go back to their companies and put in place progressive and fair recruitment and employment practices. In all this aspect, we hope to be able to create a fairer and also non-discriminatory environment where even prospective job applicants who have pre-existing medical conditions will not be discriminated against. However, for the small number of job applicants who feel that they had been discriminated against, we encourage them to report such discriminatory practices to MOM or TAFEP early, so that we will take immediate intervention to investigate the matters. And if, really, the discrimination is found to be justified, MOM will take strong actions to make sure that the employers will adopt proper recruitment and employment practices. Just to share a little on what has been going on. As I mentioned earlier, there have been three cases of discrimination reported on medicated conditions, and after our investigations and examination, we realised that, there is no evidence to suggest that there is actual discrimination on the ground.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices stipulate that employers should recruit and select employees on the basis of merit. They should also treat their employees fairly, with equal opportunities for training and development and pay their salaries based on ability, performance, contribution and experience. Pre-existing medical history should not be a factor if it does not affect the employee's ability to perform the job. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will take action against employers found to have engaged in discriminatory practices. MOM and tripartite partners have also launched the Tripartite Standard on Recruitment Practices in November last year. To date, more than 240 employers with over 245,000 employees have signed up. These employers have committed to use only relevant and objective selection criteria to shortlist and select job applicants. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the incidence of discrimination based on medical conditions is low. There were only three cases in the last four years, out of a total of 2,100 cases of complaints on unfair employment practices examined by MOM and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP). Nevertheless, MOM and TAFEP will monitor the situation closely. We will continue to actively engage employers on how to implement fair and progressive recruitment and employment practices. MOM will treat any report of workplace discrimination seriously and take enforcement actions where necessary. We urge workers who face any form of workplace discrimination to report the matter to MOM or TAFEP promptly, so that investigation and enforcement actions can be taken early on the errant employers.”
“If members miss their premium payment, CPF Board sends them a notification within one week, reminding them to pay their premium and, if necessary, a second notification after one month, informing the members that HPS claims are not possible if their policy lapses. If premiums are not paid within the two-month grace period, CPF Board sends a letter notifying members that their policy has lapsed and the letter also requests them to re-apply for HPS. For members who are required to take up HPS but their policy has lapsed, CPF Board will continue to send them letters every six months reminding them to re-apply for HPS. So, there is a continuous measure to keep reminding members who had lapsed on HPS to re-apply so that they can enjoy the coverage. Today, HPS already covers members with mild pre-existing illnesses, such as well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. MOM is reviewing the extension of HPS to those who suffer from serious pre-existing medical conditions. We are also exploring with MND and HDB on how we can further strengthen the continued payment of HPS insurance premium to minimise the number of HPS lapses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Home Protection Scheme (HPS) is an insurance scheme that protects surviving family members from losing their homes if the insured member meets an untimely death, terminal illness or total permanent disability. In such a situation, HPS will help to defray the outstanding mortgage of the home, hence, enabling surviving family members to continue to live in their flats. Under the CPF Act, it is mandatory for all HDB flat owners who use their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage instalments to take up HPS. HDB flat owners who do not use their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage can take up HPS on a voluntary basis. As at December 2016, about 1.5% of HDB flat owners who used CPF savings for their mortgage instalments lapsed on their HPS policy because they failed to pay the insurance premiums. This was lower than the corresponding figure of about 1.6% in 2015 and 1.8% in 2014. So, we see a decreasing trend over the years. In 2016, CPFB received 19 appeals from family members who requested to make a HPS claim even though the deceased policy holder had lapsed or cancelled his HPS policy. These appeals were considered on a case-by-case basis. CPF Board and HDB have put in place several measures to help HDB flat owners minimise the risk of lapsing on their HPS coverage. One, at the point of flat purchase, HDB explains to flat buyers the benefits and coverage of HPS. Two, subsequently, HPS premiums are automatically deducted from the flat owners' CPF Ordinary Account (OA). Flat owners can also use their co-owners' OA savings to pay for their HPS premiums if they themselves do not have sufficient OA savings.”
“Many of the Members' suggestions and ideas are excellent and will be discussed further with the tripartite and industry partners in the formulation of our WSH 2028 strategic plan. We believe that such close collaboration will enable us to reach our common goal of making all workplaces safer and healthier. For those Members where your points are not addressed today, rest assured that MOM will consider your ideas in our formulation of the WSH 2028 plan. Once again, I thank Members of the House for their support of this Bill which will strengthen the culture of prevention in our workplaces. Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I hope that I have addressed Members' questions and suggestions. With your permission, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“We will consider if further incentives are needed to spur better WSH attainment. The total WSH (TWSH) movement initiated in 2014 has strengthened efforts to integrate safety with workplace health management, including occupational diseases and the psychosocial risk of workplace harassment. We have WSH Guidelines on Diagnosis and Management of Occupational Diseases. The tripartite partners will continue to work closely together to share learning and increase the awareness of occupational diseases in workplaces. MOM has also issued a Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment in 2015 which serves as a practical guide for employers on how to prevent workplace harassment, and for employees on where to seek help. Under the WSH Act, it is already the duty of every employer to take, as far as is reasonably practicable, measures necessary not just to ensure the safety, but also the health of workers. For reporting, doctors can already submit an incident report directly to MOM online or in person. However, I would like to emphasise that the primary responsibility to report accidents should rightfully rest with the employer. We should not lessen this responsibility on the part of the employer. Technology, indeed, can be an enabler to improve WSH. We have, for example, mandated the installation of data loggers in mobile cranes, and this is supported by up to $5,000 funding per crane from MOM, which has improved mobile crane safety. We have recently launched the inaugural WSH Technology Challenge with up to $2 million in Government support to invite solutions from companies to improve work-related vehicular safety. We will use more of such platforms to drive technology adoption to improve industry WSH practices.”
“And even after the first inspection, we will follow up with surprise inspections to check that WSH practices are sustained by the company management and workers. Our WSH inspectors do check on plans to manage workers' fatigue as well as on working hour violations. Employers are responsible for providing safety equipment and training and for ensuring workers understand machinery operating instructions. It is illegal under the WSH Act for employers to deduct safety equipment and training costs from their workers' salaries. It is illegal under our Act. During MOM's inspections, we also ask workers to surface any salary deductions, including for the provision of safety equipment. It is part of our inspection procedures and regime to check if workers understand operating instructions. Protection for whistleblowing is something both Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Louis Ng touched on. It is an offence under the WSH Act to dismiss or threaten to dismiss whistleblowers. Workers who face threats of unfair dismissal should approach MOM as soon as possible. We agree with Mr Louis Ng in partnering responsible civil society organisations to protect workers' welfare. Civil society organisations can help to protect our workers by immediately reporting any cases of concern they have come across to MOM directly so that we can investigate and take companies to task if warranted. Members have also raised other important issues, such as incentives for good WSH performance, greater focus on occupational diseases, workplace health and psychosocial issues, reporting by doctors, and introducing the use of more technology for WSH. WSHC already holds annual WSH awards to recognise companies and individuals with good WSH performance.”
“Retention rate has also been improving, with about 85% of all foreign construction workers having at least two years' experience as of June 2017, compared to 75% as of June 2015. Mr Alex Yam further asked if MOM conducts aptitude tests for construction workers. MOM complements the overseas testing by BCA with mandatory safety orientation training for all construction workers in Singapore. The two-day mandatory Construction Safety Orientation Course (CSOC) equips workers with the relevant safety competencies and safety mindset to perform their duties and roles. Mr Melvin Yong expressed caution about the additional costs of all these amendments for businesses. For companies already complying with the existing WSH requirements, there should not be any additional costs incurred. However, and also rightfully so, these changes should spur errant companies to be more serious in their WSH efforts. Every workplace accident exacts costs not only on the employer but also, importantly, on the workers and their families, a point that had been reiterated by quite a number of Members. Measures to create safe and healthy workplaces go beyond monetary costs. It is about ensuring that everyone is able to return home from work safe and healthy every day. I think this is the basic right of every worker. Mr Louis Ng raised various issues outside the scope of the Bill amendment. Nonetheless, I will address them as these touch on other provisions in the WSH Act. The vast majority of MOM's safety inspections are surprise inspections. More than 90% are surprise inspections. For cases where we give early notice, it is to encourage self-rectification. In such cases, we do not provide the exact date and time.”
“Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong asked how the quality of WSH curriculum and training content will be maintained under SSG, with MOM being the subject matter experts on WSH. Mr Patrick Tay also suggested that curriculum development should be done through close engagements with the industry associations and practitioners, unions and workers. I agree with their views and I am happy to report that this is, indeed, the approach taken for developing the WSH curriculum and its contents. MOM and WSHC, where the tripartite partners are represented, will continue to be closely involved in the WSH training curriculum. As the national authority on WSH, MOM is partnering SSG in developing and incorporating updated WSH skills into the Skills Frameworks of relevant industries. Mr Patrick Tay recommended that training providers leverage technology to ensure greater accessibility to training, such as virtual reality, to enable learning in a safe yet realistic environment. Under SSG, training providers are encouraged to use innovative training approaches through technology. Mr Alex Yam asked if training centres set up in source countries sufficiently introduce foreign workers to basic construction techniques and also enquired on the retention rate for trained construction workers. Since 2005, it has been mandatory for foreign construction workers to be trained at Overseas Testing Centres and to pass a basic skills evaluation test conducted by Building and Construction Authority (BCA) officers before they can start working in Singapore. The testing by BCA allows only those workers who have been trained sufficiently, through demonstrating trade knowledge and practical craft-skills, to join our construction industry.”
“In addition to the offences cited earlier, they would include failure to provide personal protective equipment for hazardous work, failure to implement a WSH management system or plans for safe work environment and procedures, failure to inspect critical equipment, such as cranes, scaffolds and formwork, as well as not ensuring workers have the necessary training for their role. Offences that may result in occupational diseases, such as failure to effectively enclose asbestos work areas, or failure to take measures to protect workers from toxic dust, fumes or other contaminants will also be included. Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Alex Yam asked for an update on the migration of WSH training providers' accreditation to SSG. So far, 23 of the 56 WSH courses have been successfully migrated to the WSQ Framework. Of the Approved Training Providers (ATPs) initially providing the 23 courses, 62%, or 41 of them, were successfully appointed under the WSQ Framework for WSH courses. Unsuccessful ATPs can still participate in future accreditation exercises, where appropriate, for the remaining 33 WSH courses. So, those unsuccessful ATPs can still try to meet the criteria set by SSG on these remaining 33 courses. We encourage them to review their operations and delivery capabilities for the courses to meet SSG's accreditation framework. There was no disruption to training capacity due to the migration. SSG considers the ability of WSQ-accredited training providers to meet industry demand in the accreditation process. SSG will work with training providers to ramp up training capacity if needed. There was also no increase in WSH course fees to businesses.”
“So, for companies, the best way to avoid reputational damage is to be serious in taking the necessary WSH measures to prevent accidents. Ms Thanaletchimi and Mr Alex Yam asked if the increased penalty of fines of $50,000 sufficiently deters the loss of lives, while Mr Desmond Choo asked about the treatment of errant companies for public tenders. I would like to clarify that when companies commit offences that result in death, we will usually prosecute under the WSH Act, where the maximum fine is $500,000, or $1 million for a repeat offence. The increased penalty of $50,000 is for offences committed under SL, typically when no harm has occurred yet. Other than penalties under the WSH Act, errant companies can be placed into the Business Under Surveillance (BUS) programme, and are subjected to the Demerit Points System which restricts their access to foreign manpower. Public agencies already take into account bidders' safety record, such as demerit points and BUS programme, in their procurement assessment. From January 2018, the non-price weightage in the Price-Quality Tender Evaluation Method, which includes safety performance, will be raised from around 30% currently, to between 40% and 60%, for building construction projects valued at $3 million or more. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong asked what offences under SL would be prescribed the increased $50,000 maximum fine. Mr Louis Ng asked if this will include offences leading to occupational diseases. The $50,000 maximum fine will apply to breaches that could reasonably cause or result in death, serious bodily injury or dangerous occurrence.”
“Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked on the admissibility of the learning report in inquiries under the WSH Act and the Inquiries Act or the Coroners Act. I think these are important questions. For inquiries under the WSH Act and the Inquiries Act, separate learning reports will not be needed in those circumstances as the full and official inquiries would have been conducted by the Inquiry Committees. For inquiries under the Coroners Act, they are only to determine the cause of death or the identity of the deceased. Under the Coroners Act, the inquiry shall not determine any question of criminal, civil or disciplinary liability. In any case, any learning report admitted into evidence in a Coroner's Inquiry will not be admissible in any subsequent criminal proceedings. Mr Patrick Tay asked how learning reports will be disseminated, and Mr Melvin Yong suggested to share only with relevant industry players, as such releases may negatively affect businesses. We will assess the extent of sharing for each learning report on a case-by-case basis. Where the report is relevant only for a particular group of companies, such as if the risks are due to specialised processes found only in these companies, we will share the report with the specific companies concerned. Where the report can improve safety and health in many companies, we will share the report on the WSHC website for the wider public interest. We believe the sharing of learning reports will help prevent further accidents. Any major accident will have implications on companies' reputation. Weighing reputational cost against the cost of human lives, I think all of us will agree that the top priority must be to save lives. Sharing learning reports should, therefore, outweigh other considerations.”
“Even though we completed our investigation in October 2014, 11 months after the accident, we had to wait a further 16 months before we could share the findings when criminal Court proceedings concluded in February 2016. During those 16 months, two incidents occurred in other companies that had similar processes. If companies had been more aware of the risks of incompatible chemical mixing, they would have taken preventive measures, by reviewing their testing procedures and installing detection equipment. Fortunately, both were smaller scale incidents that did not result in serious harm, but they could have escalated into major incidents with dire consequences. Therefore, it is essential in the public interest to share the detailed facts and lessons from such incidents as soon as possible, so that others can be more informed and their lives are protected. Second, as I have stated earlier, the learning report is inadmissible in any civil, criminal, disciplinary, arbitral or work injury compensation proceedings. Learning reports will, therefore, not prejudice such proceedings. This includes disciplinary proceedings in companies, as cited by Mr Patrick Tay. Any company can conduct their own investigation and take disciplinary actions according to their own findings. However, any worker who considers that he has been unfairly dismissed can appeal to MOM. Sir, there is no conflict between MOM preparing a learning report and conducting a criminal investigation, as they have different goals and objectives. Learning reports explain what factors caused the accident, such as incompatible chemical mixing. They do not pinpoint who was at fault or assign liability to the parties involved.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, let me first thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I will now address the specific issues that have been raised. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Melvin Yong asked for examples of accidents which will merit a learning report. Mr Patrick Tay was particularly concerned that a learning report may prejudice legal proceedings and Government investigations. Both Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Thanaletchimi felt that a learning report may result in preconceived positions or biases in witnesses and the public. Mr Alex Yam asked if there is any conflict of interest between MOM's criminal investigation and the learning report. I would like to thank all these Members for raising the pertinent points. And now, let me address them specifically. First, learning reports will not be issued for all workplace accidents, only those where the learning value from early sharing can prevent potential serious accidents in other companies. This means accidents that are complex, where the risks are not well-understood and have the potential for serious harm. Let me give an example of an actual accident where we would have released a learning report early, if our laws had allowed us to do so. In November 2013, a flash fire occurred in an incineration plant. Three workers suffered burn injuries and the whole plant was razed almost to the ground. Even nearby companies were affected by the fire. It was extremely fortunate that no one had died. The flash fire was caused by the mixing of incompatible chemicals, a process also practised in other companies, but where the risks were not well-understood.”
“This is similar to the personal liability protection provision under other legislation, such as the Fire Safety Act and the Environmental Protection and Management Act. Nonetheless, I would like to reassure the House that protection will only be extended to inspectors and authorised officers who have exercised reasonable care and consideration in the execution of their duties under the WSH Act. The Government and its officers remain liable for negligent acts or for acts beyond their legal powers. In conclusion, the adage that "Prevention is better than cure" remains relevant in the area of WSH. These changes will further strengthen the foundation for a stronger prevention mindset and are important steps as we move towards our next target of reducing the workplace fatality rate to less than one per 100,000 workers before 2028. Countries, including Germany and the UK, which have put together greater emphasis to entrench a culture of prevention, have already achieved this lower fatality rate. There is much that we can learn from these countries. Enacting progressive WSH legislation is necessary but insufficient. Over the next few months, we will engage our tripartite partners and industry stakeholders to co-develop the WSH 2028 national strategy for the next decade. Collectively, we will identify WSH challenges ahead, chart directions and develop key strategies to make Singapore one of the safest and healthiest workplaces in the world. This will be a very big challenge but, together with our tripartite partners and industry stakeholders, I believe we will be able to achieve it. On this note, I humbly ask all Members of this House for their support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“So far, 23 courses have been developed under the WSQ system and offered by SSG-accredited training providers. We expect the migration of the remaining 33 courses to be completed by 2019. Under the SSG accreditation system, training providers are not only required to ensure that their training content is relevant to the industry, but also that their teaching methods are up to date. For example, training providers are expected to leverage technologies, such as Virtual Reality, and use innovative learning approaches to enhance the quality and the effectiveness of learning. This helps to make learning more engaging and will also lead to better WSH learning outcomes. With SSG being the single authority to accredit all WSH training providers by 2019, clauses 4 and 5 are consequential amendments to remove the requirement for the Commissioner to accredit WSH training providers. Sir, we are also taking this opportunity to update the personal liability protection provision in the WSH Act by bringing it in line with the protection provided to inspectors or enforcement officers in other legislation. Currently, the personal liability protection for inspectors under the WSH Act is limited to equipment damages due to a prescribed examination or test, and the Commissioner's and Deputy Commissioner's duties in relation to a remedial order or stop-work order. Clause 6 will extend the scope of personal liability protection to the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, inspectors and authorised officers for acts done in good faith and with reasonable care in carrying out their duties under the WSH Act properly and professionally.”
“For example, investigation reports by the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau under the Ministry of Transport (MOT) are published for the sole purpose of accident prevention, and their reports are also inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceedings. The United States (US) Chemical Safety Board (CSB) and the United Kingdom (UK) Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) also release accident investigation reports focused solely on improving safety and not to apportion blame or liability. Accident investigation reports by CSB and RAIB may also be issued, whether or not civil or criminal proceedings are in progress. These reports and lessons learnt have enhanced the industry's understanding of specific areas of risk. Many of these safety recommendations by CSB and RAIB have been implemented by the industry, resulting in safer chemical facilities, safer transport and safer communities. To sustain improvement in our WSH performance, a workforce competent and skilled in managing WSH is critical. Over the years, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has worked with the industry to define standards and guide the design of WSH-related courses. Annually, over 150,000 workers are trained in basic safety orientation courses offered by about 80 training providers accredited under the Approved Training Provider (ATP) scheme by MOM. As the industries undergo transformations to create new and better jobs, we need to ensure that WSH courses remain up to date with the latest content and training methods. As part of this effort, we have been working very closely with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) and the WSH training industry to align the current WSH courses to the national Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) system and transfer the accreditation of WSH training providers to SSG.”
“This is done so as not to prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings. However, the learning value to industry is delayed, and the risk of such an accident recurring persists for a longer period of time. We believe timely and early sharing of case facts and recommendations with the industry is important to prevent recurrence. Clause 3 of the Bill will, therefore, allow the Commissioner for WSH to release a learning report before legal proceedings have concluded. Learning reports will not be released for all accidents, but only where the Commissioner for WSH considers it to be necessary in the interest of the public, particularly for those where the risks were not so well-understood and have the potential for serious harm and could be present in other companies. The learning report is not intended to apportion blame or liability, but simply to allow other companies to learn from the accident and take immediate steps to avoid similar circumstances. To safeguard the interests of the parties involved, learning reports will be inadmissible in any civil, criminal, disciplinary, arbitral or work injury compensation proceedings. The learning report will only contain information necessary for learning value. We do not intend to name companies or individuals, and there will be no statements of liability in the report. To further allay industry concerns over unwarranted reputational damage or unintended disclosure of intellectual property, we will establish a process to consult relevant parties on the draft report before publishing. Allowing the release of information for the sole purpose of learning without attributing blame or liability is not new and has been adopted in other situations and countries.”
“5 times increase in the maximum penalty under the WSH Act, from $200,000 to $500,000 which was enacted in 2006. We will apply the $50,000 maximum fine to SL offences that may cause or result in death, serious injury or dangerous occurrence. They account for about 80% of all SL offences now, mostly with a maximum fine of $20,000. Some of these offences include failure to have protective structures, such as barriers at open sides or around excavations, to prevent falls, and failure to appoint authorised persons to supervise hazardous works, thereby exposing workers to danger that may result in death or serious injury. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the House that my Ministry will remain judicious in our enforcement approach. Even as we raise the maximum fine under SL for the majority of the offences, the penalties we seek will be calibrated based on factors, such as the culpability of the offender, the severity of harm that could have resulted, and the likelihood of harm. We will only prosecute the more egregious cases where the offenders have ignored the safety and health of workers and serious harm is likely to occur. Second, to prevent recurrence of complex accidents, where the risks are not well-understood and have the potential for serious harm and could be present in other companies, we need to ensure timely sharing of learnings from the investigation into such accidents. The learnings are needed not just to raise awareness of safety and health risks, but to provide recommendations on how to eliminate or mitigate the risks. Currently, case facts of complex accidents are released only after the conclusion of criminal proceedings, which could take around three years from the time of accident.”
“To strengthen the culture of prevention, we need to send a stronger signal that unsafe work practices and exposure to health risks are unacceptable, even when there are no accidents. Through our inspections, we uncover a wide spectrum of WSH offences every year. For minor offences that are unlikely to cause harm, we issue warnings and require rectification of the WSH lapses. However, there have been instances where no harm has occurred, but the companies have shown disregard for basic safety and health requirements. If we had not discovered them during our inspections, it would be a matter of time before they result in serious harm. For example, during one of our routine inspections last year, we found a worksite with multiple open sides in different locations close to where the workers were deployed, therefore, exposing workers to risk of falling from height. There were also other lapses, such as electrical hazards and tripping risks. These were serious accidents waiting to happen and were averted only by sheer luck. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not allow our workers' lives to be determined by luck. Currently, we issue composition fines and Stop Work Orders for such serious cases of offenders where no harm has occurred. However, we have seen a doubling of such cases, from 13 in 2013 to 26 in 2016. We need to take a tougher deterrent stance and prosecute them under the WSH Act subsidiary legislation (SL), including first-time egregious offenders. For the SL prosecution to have effective deterrent value, the SL penalties should also be increased. Clause 7(c) of the Bill will, therefore, raise the maximum penalty under the SL by 2.5 times, from $20,000 to $50,000. This is consistent with the 2.”
“There are three areas where we can strengthen the culture of prevention. First, we need to prevent the occurrence of unsafe work practices and health risks at work. Second, should an accident happen, we need to prevent its recurrence, especially for accidents that are complex, involving risks that are not well-understood and have the potential for serious harm. Third, we need to prevent workplace safety and health training courses from becoming outdated. First, on preventing occurrence of unsafe work practices and health risks at work. When the WSH Act was enacted to replace the then-Factories Act in 2006, the penalty framework to deal with offenders was significantly enhanced. The maximum fine was raised by 2.5 times from $200,000 to $500,000 under the WSH Act. In cases where it is a repeated offence resulting in death, the maximum fine for corporate offenders can go up to $1 million. Last year, the High Court laid out a framework to guide sentencing for WSH Act offences that took into account the level of culpability, severity and potential harm. The State Courts have since imposed higher penalties in prosecutions under the WSH Act. For example, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) was fined $400,000 for systemic failures resulting in the deaths of two employees this year. The higher penalties under the WSH Act have played a part in underscoring the seriousness of WSH offences. However, these penalties have mostly been applied to WSH offences when serious harm has already occurred. While we can penalise the companies, it is already too late for the injured or deceased workers and their families. Prevention is still the better option to protect against unnecessary loss of lives and livelihoods.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, Singapore has made steady progress in our workplace safety and health (WSH) journey. A new WSH Framework was launched in 2005 following the occurrence of several major workplace accidents, including the Nicoll Highway collapse in 2004. Under this framework, the regulatory regime was strengthened through the enactment of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSH Act) in 2006. We stepped up efforts to work with industry and the tripartite partners to develop WSH capabilities and raise WSH awareness on the importance of safety and health. Together with our tripartite partners, we set a target to reduce our workplace fatality rate from 3.1 per 100,000 workers in 2006 to less than 1.8 per 100,000 workers by 2018. Through the collective efforts of the industry and tripartite partners, the workplace fatality rate fell to 1.9 in 2016. Our WSH 2018 target is now within reach, but we cannot be complacent. We should strive to do even better. I have said it many times but I think it bears repeating, that is, every life lost is just one too many. We must, therefore, redouble our efforts to entrench the right WSH mindset, eradicate unsafe and unhealthy work practices and enhance WSH capabilities to create safe and healthy workplaces for all. Our WSH journey over the last decade has taught us that all workplace injuries and ill-health are preventable with the full commitment of every stakeholder, that is, employers, workers, unions and the Government. We need a stronger emphasis on preventing harm from ever occurring. Prevention is, therefore, key to achieving safe and healthy workplaces for everyone.”
“So far as we know, we have not come across any cases of such disguised incidents. But if the Member should have any actual reports or information, I would appreciate it if he can let us know so that the Ministry will look into it.”
“I thank the Member for the further questions. Yes, the Workgroup will look into various aspects. We have just formed the Workgroup. So, we have to allow the Workgroup to consult all the tripartite partners and also the stakeholders. So, it would take a while. When it is ready, we will make the announcement.”
“However, if the company has taken all the necessary precautions, and it is solely the fault of the SEP, then the company is not liable for the SEP's actions. Then the third party would have to take up the legal action against the SEP himself or herself. This is currently how the framework works.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for two important questions. First, with regard to insurance for SEPs, this is really not a very straightforward issue because individual SEPs may have contracts with many companies, multiple service buyers and some of which, their contracts may be just one-off and some may just last a few times. So, it is not really prudent to require all companies to purchase the insurance for every SEP because if we were to require companies to do so, then obviously, the cost for the companies will be quite high and, eventually, the cost will be passed down to the consumers. So, in our view, this is not the most prudent way of requiring companies to buy insurance for SEPs. However, there are other ways that the Workgroup is looking into now, for example, whether it would be useful for the SEPs themselves to buy the insurance since they are already in the service to provide services, programmes and activities to companies. As to third-party insurance claims, if a member of the public is injured by the employees of a company, then the third party can obviously take legal actions against the company for the injury that the third party sustains. But if the third party is injured by an SEP contracted by a company, then the situation is a little bit complicated. The Court will have to decide whether the service buyers have taken the necessary practicable measures to ensure that the SEP under their contract has the relevant expertise, has attained the training, has worn a protective gear and also taken all the necessary precautions in carrying out the duties. If the companies, the service buyers have not done this, then there is a reason for the Court to rule that the WSH Act was breached.”
“Mr Speaker, employees and self-employed persons (SEPs), enjoy similar protection under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA). Companies are required to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of both their employees and SEPs they have a contract with. So, whether as employees or as SEPs, delivery riders on bicycles or personal mobility devices should have the proper equipment, protective gear and also sufficient training to ensure that they can do the job properly and safely. Companies can also be prosecuted under WSHA for failing their duty of care to SEPs, as well as to their own employees. And the maximum penalty upon conviction is up to a S$500,000 fine for companies, or up to a S$200,000 fine and a two-year jail term for individuals. Companies are not required to buy Work Injury Compensation insurance for SEPs. This is because their relationship is one of client-contractor and not the employer-employee relationship. However, to help SEPs get adequate insurance coverage, a Tripartite Workgroup has been formed to look into this matter as well as to address other main concerns of SEPs. This was announced by the Ministry in the Committee of Supply debate this year.”
“The last area of review is to increase the maximum penalty under the WSH Act's subsidiary legislation for offences that could result in serious injuries or even death. This is still being evaluated and we will release more details when the review is finished by the end of this year.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. The larger strategic direction taken by MOM is four-fold. Firstly, we would like to create widespread awareness on WSH across the industry down to the workers, from management to the workers. So, creating awareness is one plank. The second plank is to step up the training to build worker, management and line supervisors' capability on WSH. The third is to continue with sustained enforcement actions and inspections at the different worksites. Whenever there are areas identified to be of higher risk because of new situations, we will calibrate our enforcement regime to make sure that we will pay closer attention on those higher risk sectors. Lastly, the penalty. From time to time, we will assess the situation and needs. When it is meritorious, we will consider stiffening the penalties, which we have done in the last one year or so. With regard to the second supplementary question by the Member on what the proposed changes in the current review are, the proposed changes aim to strengthen industry ownership and also to enhance deterrence. This includes strengthening tripartite ownership for WSH. We think that it is important for the Government, the union and also the employers to come together to collectively tackle the WSH situation in Singapore. So, collective ownership, tripartite ownership, is one area where we are looking into. And the second area of review is facilitating the public release of incident learning reports on the root causes and recommendations of incidents with higher learning value. This is done so as to prevent recurrence of similar accidents.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. The records follow the individuals rather than the company. So, if a company director has infringed certain WSH regulations and all that, there is a record against him. That record will go with him, even if he sets up a new company. So, there is little chance that individuals can evade our system by setting up different companies to undertake Government or private sector projects.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions, which are very important ones. When we investigate and inspect a company, we look at many aspects, from the company's WSH systems to the daily inspections and also the toolbox meetings conducted by the supervisors and the foremen, and also to investigate the WSH risk assessment procedures for every job. So, it is a very comprehensive regime and inspection to make sure that the companies, from the management to the workers, follow this set of WSH standards and guidelines. If a company has encountered a certain worksite accident and the cause of the accident is not because there were no proper WSH regimes or regulations put in place but because of certain human errors or oversight, that is considered as an isolated case and not a systemic failure. We will use this as a basis to evaluate the company's standards of the WSH and then decide whether this company has a systemic widespread WSH failure or the accident was caused by an isolated, incidental or, sometimes, human error. With regard to the Member's second question on which are the companies that are put under BUS and are later on given the approval to exit, there are altogether 25 companies put under BUS surveillance so far. I do not have the list of the companies at this moment. So, I will give it to the Member offline. They are actually on the MOM website.”
“But having said that, we are cognisant that, at the construction worksites, things can happen quite quickly and we are not taking this current situation lightly. In fact, we have stepped up our enforcement actions on many worksites to make sure that all these worksites follow the WSH regimes and measures carefully. As a matter of fact, MOM conducts 16,000 inspections a year on all the worksites in Singapore. The bulk of our inspections is concentrated on the higher-risk industries, like marine, oil and gas, as well as construction. So, while we cannot say for sure that the current regime will be able to 100% get the companies to adhere fully to the WSH regulations, standards and performance, we will closely monitor them. If there is a need to further tighten, we will continue to do so, as the reviewing of our safety regulatory framework is an ongoing effort.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the two supplementary questions. First, about why OKP was allowed to participate in Government projects despite it being involved in some accident. As explained by the Senior Minister of State for Transport just now, when LTA awarded the PIE viaduct project to OKP in November 2015, the investigation on the earlier September 2015 accident was still ongoing at the time. And following the September 2015 accident, MOM inspected all of OKP's worksites to check if the accident reflected a wider systemic failure of the company's safety management. However, no evidence of systemic safety lapses was found from the inspections. So, OKP was not placed under BUS following that accident. This was the situation in 2015. As part of the continual efforts to improve WSH performance, we have further strengthened our BUS programme in May 2016 to put companies on BUS immediately after a fatal accident. So, for any company with a workplace fatality now, Government agencies would have known that they are put on BUS and will have their bizSAFE status revoked. So, agencies can take this into account when assessing their upcoming tenders. This timeline explains why OKP was not put under the BUS programme for the earlier 2015 accident but was placed on the BUS programme following the PIE viaduct accident on 14 July this year. As to the Member's second question on whether the current regime is tough enough to deter companies from taking short cuts and to infringe WSH practices, while we would like to think that the current regime is tough enough to deter companies, as Members can see, the fatality rates in the first seven months of 2017 had fallen remarkably to four fatality cases as compared to 24 for the whole of 2016, and 27 fatality cases in 2015.”
“On average, this process takes at least one year for companies to get out of the BUS programme. So, it is a pretty stringent programme. Since the enhancement, we have placed 25 companies on the BUS programme. We are coordinating with other Government agencies, including BCA, to review procurement practices for construction projects. Agencies handling key public projects, such as JTC and LTA, already take into consideration bidders' safety record, such as demerit points, bizSAFE or BUS status, in their procurement assessment. We also make available the list of companies under the BUS programme and the demerit points on our website for reference by those who are interested. With the enhanced enforcement regime, it has helped to reduce construction workplace fatalities from 27 in 2015 to 24 in 2016, and to four fatalities so far this year. While we take companies with poor safety records to task, they should also be given an opportunity to improve their safety record and performance. In fact, many companies which went through the BUS programme have exited and attained good safety standards. Some have even won safety and health awards locally and internationally. MOM will continue to monitor developments and the situation, and refine our regulatory framework where needed to strengthen WSH performance in Singapore.”
“Mdm Speaker, MOM has the Demerit Point System and Business Under Surveillance (BUS) programme to deter construction companies from unsafe work practices and also to compel poor performers to improve. These two frameworks are reviewed regularly to maintain their effectiveness. We issue demerit points to companies that are fined, issued with a Stop Work Order or prosecuted in Courts for safety offences. The Demerit Point System was amended in 2015 following consultation with the industry and tripartite partners. There were two significant changes under this 2015 amendment. First, the demerit points will last for 18 months, up from 12 months previously. Second, companies that accumulate 25 demerit points are "blacklisted" by being barred from hiring foreign workers. In the past, they could continue to hire foreign workers but at a higher levy. Since the review in 2015, MOM has issued about 2,400 demerit points to 223 companies. Twenty-five of these companies were debarred from hiring foreign workers. Companies with poor safety management will be put under the BUS programme. Once under the BUS programme, companies will have their bizSAFE certification revoked and be closely supervised by MOM to rectify all identified safety lapses. BUS was enhanced in 2016 to have broader entry criteria. Previously, a company needed to have systemic safety infringements to be put under BUS, even if they had a fatal accident. Since May 2016, any company with a Stop Work Order or any fatality is placed under the BUS programme immediately. To exit from BUS, companies need to demonstrate to MOM that they have taken sufficient remedial steps to improve their Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) performance. This includes conducting refresher training for all workers on any unsafe practices found.”
“In a similar vein, the prospective employer can also interview the FDW directly to hear her side of the story before making a hiring decision.”
“Madam, I am afraid I have to answer that question. It is me again. The role of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore is already defined in our laws. The Employment of Foreign Manpower Regulations stipulates that FDWs can only perform household and domestic duties. However, it is not practical to detail every task for every household as doing so would be overly prescriptive and impractical as the needs vary vastly across households. A growing number of employers employ FDWs to assist in caring for children, sick or elderly family members. It is in the interest of employers to ensure their FDWs have the skills or are trained to perform caregiving tasks that require special training, for instance, tube feeding, in light of the dangers involved if the caregiver is not trained. Employers should ensure that the FDWs are properly trained and are comfortable with performing the task before entrusting them with the task. The Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Agency for Integrated Care have worked with providers to put in place training courses for caregivers. In addition, MOH provides a Caregivers' Training Grant for caregivers of seniors and persons with disabilities, including FDWs, to attend approved training courses to better equip themselves. The reference channel does not allow anyone, whether employer or FDW, to post comments. The reference channel only provides an option for employers to leave their contact details and make themselves available to provide personal references for their FDWs. A prospective employer who wishes to find out more about the FDW has to contact the former employer directly to perform the reference check.”
“I thank the Member for the question, which is a very important one. In the past inspections, the MOM's team actually focused on many areas, including the safety protocols at the workplaces like depots, offices and also include tracks, and things like working at heights, storage of chemicals and some electrical issues. All those inspections had uncovered some lapses. However, for track operations, they have been found to be quite safe and they did not have any track-related accidents in the last 10 years. Therefore, the focus of the inspections on MRT had been on some other areas which have a higher risk of dangers to workers. That was the reply given to the Member's colleague, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh. However, after the March 2016 incident where it was found that the safety operating procedure was not followed strictly, we have stepped up more inspections to focus on this area. In 2016 alone, we had conducted six very in-depth inspections. We believe that, together with the MRT management, we have uncovered some unauthorised deviations from the safety procedures. From all these additional inspections, we believe that it will help to increase the safety standards in MRT operations.”
“Depending on the severity, we may issue Notices of Non-Compliances, Composition Fines or even Stop Work Orders. Findings and learning points from the inspections are shared with the industry stakeholders while preserving the confidentiality of the inspected companies. Sharing of the learning points is to create greater awareness and also to enable more companies to adopt safer workplace practices to improve workplace safety and health conditions.”
“Madam, to foster safe workplaces, employers and workplace occupiers must take full ownership of occupational safety and health standards. They should also take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers. This is enforced under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. To ensure compliance and uncover unsafe practices for better deterrence, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducts about 16,000 inspections every year. However, due to the large number of workplaces in Singapore to inspect, MOM has to take a targeted and risk-based approach in our inspection regime. We focus our inspections on workplaces with higher risk activities, greater safety concerns and the types of workplaces that have a higher number of injuries. In short, more inspections are conducted for higher-risk activities and fewer inspections for lower-risk activities. Madam, the vast majority of MOM's inspections are surprise inspections. We do not go around and tell people we are going to inspect you when and how. So, it will be a surprise inspection. However, for some inspections, such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) track operations and depots, inspections have to be pre-arranged. This is to avoid disruption to train operations during commuting hours as well as the need to obtain security clearance to enter the train depots and track areas safely. A typical MOM inspection consists of a three-step procedure: (a) a site walk-through to assess the safety and health conditions of the workplace; (b) discussion with supervisors and workers on the operating procedures; and (c) review of the companies' key safety procedures and protocols. An inspection report of any identified safety lapses will be shared with the companies for remedial actions to be taken.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for the innovative questions. Together with the Land Transport Authority and Traffic Police, we have been considering the use of suitable technologies if they can help to improve the safety of drivers and other road users. We also examine whether all these technological tools are reliable or affordable. I was told that Traffic Police will be conducting a trial on heavy vehicles this year using this technology called tachograph. A tachograph tracks and records a vehicle's speed and other driving information of the driver. Companies that are involved in the trial will also be able to track their drivers' tachograph records and improve the drivers' driving behaviour. Whether or not we will mandate this will depend on the outcome and the findings of the trial. We will only decide after the trial is completed.”
“The number of drivers or riders killed in work-related traffic accidents has declined from 14 cases in 2013, to five cases in 2016. Nonetheless, one death is still one too many. We will continue to encourage companies to put in place measures to improve the safety and health of their drivers.”
“Madam, we take a holistic approach to ensuring health and safety of all our workers, including drivers. Under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA), employers are required to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers at work. WSHA also requires employers to provide workers with a safe working environment and adequate instruction, training and supervision to perform their duties safely. More specifically for drivers, the Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSHC) has issued the Workplace Traffic Safety Management Guidelines to promote safe driving. These include ensuring that drivers are trained adequately to drive specific classes of vehicles and also have the right driving habits, such as wearing of seat belts and keeping within speed limits. The guidelines also provide recommendations on preventing driver's fatigue and promoting good health practices. For example, limiting shift work to no more than 12 hours, including overtime, encouraging drivers to take short and scheduled breaks, such as 15 minutes of rest for every two hours of driving, and educating drivers on the dangers and symptoms of fatigue. Failure to comply with these guidelines can be used as an aggravating factor against employers in Court in the event of accidents and injuries. WSHC also shares best practices, case studies and safety messages with industry through the WSH bulletins regularly. Together with the Traffic Police, WSHC also helps high-risk companies to better manage and improve their safety measures for their drivers. While there are still unfortunate cases of work-related traffic accidents, they are on a downward trend in recent years.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the questions. The short answer to the Member's query is that MOM will constantly review the manpower needs for all the sectors, including the healthcare and childcare sectors. And particularly for the healthcare centre, the need for elderly care, we will also work closely with MOH to estimate and also to do a projection on the number of the elderly who will need such care and the number of workers needed by these institutions so that we will be able to revise and calibrate our manpower policies from time to time.”
“The AIC provides a Caregivers Training Grant (CTG) to help offset the cost of attending approved training for caregivers of seniors and persons with disabilities, including FDWs who support families in caring for such persons. Families should consider sending their FDWs for such training so that they can provide better care for the elderly and persons with disabilities in the family.”
“Mdm Speaker, to meet the manpower needs in the healthcare and early childhood sectors, our priority is to nurture a pipeline of qualified Singaporeans to take up good jobs in these good sectors. For example, the intakes in local schools for medical, nursing and early childcare-related programmes have been expanded in recent years to attract more Singaporeans to join these sectors. We have also established Adapt and Grow Programmes to facilitate the transition of mid-career professionals who wish to take up these jobs. For example, there are Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) for occupations, such as registered nurses and pre-school teachers. However, we also recognise that time is needed to expand our local manpower pipeline for the healthcare and childcare sectors. Where there are shortfalls, companies will continue to have access to foreign workers to fill in the gaps in numbers, skills and timing. Apart from institutional care, families that need help with caring for their young children or elderly family members at home can hire foreign domestic workers (FDWs). To provide support to such families, the concessionary FDW levy rate was lowered from $120 to $60 per month since May 2015. The Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) also provides a means-tested monthly grant of $120 to support families who need to hire a FDW to care for a family member who requires permanent assistance with daily living activities. It is in the interest of employers to ensure that the FDWs they employ have the requisite skills, aptitude and supervision to perform their roles well.”
“I thank the Member for the interest in this topic. I remember at the last Sitting, the Member also asked the same question. With regard to the population's statistics in Australia, I remember the Deputy Prime Minister, in one of his Committee of Supply speeches, had addressed that. I would not want to delve into the details. But suffice to say that Australia and Singapore are quite different in terms of population size and also in terms of the domestic workers and the foreign workers. In Australia, you hardly see any foreign domestic workers. Coming back to addressing the Member's question, why we do not disclose this piece of data is because of the sensitivity involved. Because of the sensitivity, I would rather not go into the details of why the data cannot be disclosed. But I hope the Member would understand that this is done for the national interest and also for the interest of protecting the Singaporean households.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) does not provide a breakdown of the number of foreign workers, including foreign domestic workers, by nationality as it is not in Singapore's interest to do so. Disclosing such detailed data may create sensitivities among certain groups of people here and also in the countries of origin.”
“He sent the pictures to me and, immediately, I got somebody to go to the worksite. As a result, we were able to prevent worksite accidents from happening. We want to further upgrade this platform by allowing companies to download this app onto their system so that they can integrate this Snap@MOM throughout the whole company, so that every worker will be able to report near miss incidents to their management. The beauty of this upgraded Snap@MOM is that it will not be linked to MOM. All near miss incidents reported will be confined within the company, so that MOM will not go down to investigate. But it is for the company, the management, to take responsibility to investigate to make sure that they do something to right the wrong. So, I hope I have addressed the Member's queries.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for raising two very important questions. First, is on the lack of coordination at workplaces, particularly the construction sites, that has led to many worksite injuries and fatalities. Madam, it is, indeed, true that there is a lack of proper coordination, communication and also supervision in the construction sector. That is why the construction sector continued to be the major contributor with 24 fatalities last year. 3.45 pm My Ministry will be working with the WSH Council to review the WSH (Construction) Regulations to require construction worksites to hold daily meetings, particularly when they have major hazardous activities to be performed. We would require them to hold meetings at the worksite to pass down the message, communicate with one another so that there will be proper supervision and coordination to reduce worksite accidents. Madam, the Member also asked about the near-miss reporting. I am sorry that I did not address this point just now because of time constraints. So, now, I would like to take the opportunity to allay his concern. MOM and also the WSH Council have been actively advocating the reporting and also the monitoring of near misses at worksites. If we are able to encourage this as part of the WSH system in every company, every near miss incident reported can prevent the next accident from happening. This is something that we are working very closely on with the WSH Council. In this respect, MOM has developed a mobile app called Snap@MOM which made it easier for anyone who has a smart phone to report unsafe work conditions or practices to MOM. Just last week, I received some photographs on this platform by a former Member of Parliament who observed some unsafe worksite practices.”