Zaqy Mohamad
Singapore
“Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the Question Time at this day's Sitting be exempted from Standing Order No 22(1) so as to enable questions for oral answer to continue until the completion of Question Nos 7 to 29, including relevant supplementary questions, until 12.45 pm?”
“Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister Tan See Leng's speech, please?”
“I think on the hawker front, we keep our rentals as low as possible to sustain our hawkers. But for food prices, we continue to monitor. My colleague, Minister of State Gan mentioned about how we are monitoring food supply of food prices, and I think that we will continue to do so.”
“I thank the Member for his question. On seafood specifically, we do not see immediate risk. We have diversified our food imports. We have also got local production of seafood readily available. At this point, as both the Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister have shared, our main risk for agriculture lies in fertiliser.”
“Mr Speaker, as I shared, we are monitoring the situation. The Government is monitoring at this point. There is no need at this juncture, because we have not seen the price hikes hit the hawkers in the same way as yet. There will be downstream impact. I think that is quite sure.”
“For us to also look into buying local produce, that helps our farms to increase capacity at this point, helps them build resilience over time and should there be disruptions or should there be a need for us to divert supplies or look to ramp up local production, I think they would be in a better position if we do what we can today to supp…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,752 lines we hold for Zaqy Mohamad, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 36.
“One key challenge in realising this aspiration is the risk of increasing ill-health among the workforce, including chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. If these are not well-managed, these conditions can contribute to work accidents. To reduce accidents in a sustainable manner, we will need more attention on supporting health, not just improving safety. Total WSH is part of our comprehensive approach to prevent and reduce accidents over the longer term. Prevention of workplace injuries goes hand in hand with efforts to promote workforce health. This is so that fewer workers suffer from ill-health and even those with chronic diseases can continue to work safely and productively as long as they want.”
“Mr Speaker, contrary to the Member’s concern, the workplace fatal injury rate was maintained at the historic low level achieved in 2018. However, preliminary data shows that the non-fatal major injury rate crept up slightly in 2019 when compared to 2018. More details will be released in the 2019 National Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Statistics Report by end February 2020. But, Mr Speaker, if you would allow me, for perspective, it is also useful to note the steady improvements in the workplace fatal injury rate in the last two decades. Sir, if Members look at the Workplace Fatal Injury rate per 100,000 employees, we were at 4.9 in 2004, then down to 2.2 in 2010, and then 1.8 in 2014. And 2018, we had an all-time low of 1.2, if you bring it down by 75%. Likewise, the major injury rate has also improved over the last five years from 20 in 2014 to 17.4 in 2018. So, we are seeing that overall, Singapore's workplace safety compares favourably with many developed countries. And our workplace fatality rate is the lowest in Asia and is comparable to countries like Denmark and Finland. Improvements have also taken place against the backdrop of heavy reliance on foreign workers in sectors most prone to workplace fatalities, such as the construction, marine and process industries. Much attention is put on helping newly arrived foreign workers to practise good WSH habits. As outlined in our WSH 2028 roadmap, Singapore aims to achieve and sustain a workplace fatal injury rate of less than one per 100,000 workers by 2028. This is an ambitious goal reflecting our commitment to workers' safety. Amongst the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, only four have achieved this level of performance on a sustained basis.”
“These are also important aspects in which all these things play a role on how we upgrade our workers, how we invest in them, how we put in place infrastructure to ensure that our workers are trained to sufficiently perform in these jobs. It is this combination of small efforts that we have on the ground that contributes to the overall outcomes. To the Member's question on how to keep the playing field fair, Sir, we also take a firm stand against employers that discriminate against Singaporeans. Just last week, the Minister for Manpower announced plans to update the FCF, and businesses that deliberately exclude qualified Singaporean jobseekers will suffer stiffer penalties. But Members will have to wait, unfortunately, because the Minister will announce more details next week. It is important that when it comes to job growth, we remind ourselves that we are squarely focused on Singaporeans. But we must not be blind to the needs of businesses as well and how good jobs are created today. So, I hope that Members in this House, too, will agree that we all need to be honest with our people that the competition for jobs and for investments is out there; it is international. We want to secure the best outcomes for Singaporeans by not shutting out foreigners but by giving our people the best available support to develop themselves and ensure that businesses practise fair employment and give Singaporeans a fair chance.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, our manpower policies have benefited many Singaporeans over the years. We have also benefited from the international trade flows and international flows. As shared by the Minister for Trade and Industry earlier on, the calibrated flow of foreigners to supplement our workforce has also been useful, especially as it takes time to build skills that emerging industries need. I use the term "calibrated flow" because we know – and the employers also know – that it cannot be free flow. We use a combination of policy levers to manage the outcome of foreign manpower and to safeguard good employment outcomes for our people. For example, we raised the S Pass minimum qualifying criteria in 2019 and 2020 as well as the Employment Pass minimum qualifying criteria in 2017. This helps us keep pace with rising local wages and enhance the foreign workforce complementarity to the local workforce. We are also reducing the Services sector dependency ratio ceiling (DRC) and S Pass sub-DRC over 2020 and 2021 to push businesses to become more manpower-lean and improve job quality. As a result, local PMET employment, as the Minister has shared, has risen. The PMET share of local employment rose from 54% in 2015 to 57% in 2018. Citizen unemployment is 3% in 2018 and has averaged 3.1% since 2015. We have also seen growth in median income at 3.8% per annum since 2015, which is higher than the 3.3% in the preceding three years. So, it is important that as we look at these outcomes. While we talk about headline outcomes, it is also the individual work that we do on the ground, like Adapt and Grow, where we manage, support and help job-match Singaporeans to all these new jobs.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his questions. The ITMs relate to all the 23 ITMs that the Member asked for. As I mentioned earlier, the ITMs were only launched in 2016 with the majority of them coming on stream in 2018. The data is still preliminary. So, it will take time. It is more meaningful and impactful to measure them as we talked about medium-term and long-term developments. Many of these developments are transformative, we are transforming industries, we are transforming companies, doing job redesign, so, it will take time. But the initial indicators look promising. But I do agree and that is why we have not gone into detail yet because it will take some time to stabilise the data. Currently, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) provides employment statistics by local-foreigner breakdown in broad sectors: Manufacturing, Construction and Services in our annual market labour report. Those are already available; data between local and foreigner breakdown. Currently, we need to also follow industry classification of employment statistics which follows statistical standards aligned to international convention and ensures compatibility with employment statistics that we have published in previous years so that it becomes meaningful. It is not just meaningful to put out statistics, but you have to also put out comparability. So, we are making progress. But there is still a lot of work to do as we transform. It will take time for data to stabilise and it is something that we can look to and study how we can present this better in the medium and long term. So, I take the Member's point.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) were launched progressively from late 2016, with the majority launched in 2018. Changes in workforce profile depend on a variety of factors which can be structural or cyclical in nature. To assess the impact of ITMs, it will be more meaningful to look at employment outcomes over the medium and long terms. Nonetheless, we can look at employment changes across the 23 ITM sectors from 2015, before the launch of ITMs, to 2018. Between 2015 and 2018, total employment in these sectors, excluding foreign domestic workers, grew by 19,500. This was made up of: (a) an increase in employment of Singapore Citizens (SCs) by 39,300; (b) increase in employment of Permanent Residents (PRs) by 8,600; and (c) a decrease in employment of foreigners by 28,500. These numbers are encouraging because we have been making the effort to secure jobs for Singaporeans. We are making progress on this front. Singaporeans have consistently worked hard to update our skills and stay relevant. Between 2015 and 2018, the training participation rate of the resident labour force aged from 15 to 64 increased from 35% to 48%, which shows that more Singaporeans are upgrading and updating their skills. From 2016 until September 2019, Workforce Singapore and the National Trades Union Congress' Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) have also helped 93,000 locals move into new jobs through the Adapt and Grow initiative.”
“If the same thing happens anywhere else, including in the PAP Town Councils, community organisations or corporate sector, those responsible will surely recuse themselves from their duties until the process is complete. It shows their level of integrity and sense of responsibility. I hope that AHTC will practise a high standard of governance in its service to the residents. Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap, as the Chairman of AHTC, should be concerned over this issue. So, what are the steps that he will take to safeguard the integrity of AHTC’s management for the sake of their residents’ interests? Does Mr Faisal Manap, as the Chairman of AHTC, agree with the facts contained in the High Court's judgment? I used the word "facts" and not "judgment" because I understand that the Workers' Party will make an appeal on the High Court's judgment. So, the Judge has found that, based on facts, the actions of Members of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang, who awarded a contract without calling a tender, gave a misleading picture about the appointment of FMSS. So, does Mr Faisal Manap, as the Chairman of AHTC, agree or disagree with the facts presented in the Court's judgment on 11 October 2019, which found that both of them have acted in breach of their fiduciary duties towards AHTC?”
“Protecting this integrity will enable us to perform our duties responsibly to our residents whom we represent. Otherwise, it will weaken our institutions to the point that we will lose the people's trust. Our integrity is one of the key reasons that help us get elected and is one of the main factors that differentiates our public office from other countries’ systems. Although we want the justice system to proceed smoothly, unfortunately, many facts revealed in the Court's judgment raised a lot of concerns. The people's interest supersedes other interests, including political interests. Although the management of Town Councils has a political element, this does not mean that political interests should be prioritised over administrative and financial responsibilities and obligations, as well as the people's interest. We debate this Motion today with no intention to point out mistakes. What is important is the restoration of integrity and trust towards an organisation, and how AHTC can recover from this incident. At this point of time, and after the High Court gave its ruling, we are still unclear whether AHTC has taken the appropriate actions by asking both Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang to recuse themselves until the outcome of the case is clear. However, for the sake of the residents, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang should do the right thing by recusing themselves. Not for them to resign, but to recuse themselves. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim, as people in a position of power and influence, are not the first ones to step out of line and conducted themselves badly. Others have done so. What is important is how they will be dealt with and how they will take responsibility for conduct that broke the rules.”
“The key point that we need to know is what kind of appropriate action that should be taken if there is a lack of integrity, because without integrity, our institutions will weaken. Every individual, whether they are leaders, representatives of the people, or organisation and corporate heads, must display integrity, because it is an important characteristic. Integrity is an important pillar of good governance. The management of the Town Council in providing services to its residents, must surely place importance on integrity and transparency. AHTC must not neglect this obligation, what more by acting dishonestly towards the residents of Aljunied and Hougang. Those responsible must be taken to task and take responsibility when there is any wrongdoing. The Town Councils were formed in 1989 with the function and responsibility of managing and maintaining public housing estates. However, it is unavoidable for Town Councils to have a political element because there is a political competition for the right to administer a Town Council. In this context, the residents of Aljunied and Hougang should rightly feel disappointed when High Court Judge Kannan Ramesh said that it was unsatisfactory that the narrative conveyed by those involved in the case was misleading the public, especially the residents. It is clear that their action of not calling a tender appears to be due to other intents and considerations, including political considerations, said the Judge. Therefore, it is the Government’s responsibility to correct this situation in order to protect the interest of the people. Today, we are faced with this important Motion that aims to safeguard our high standards of integrity and commitment as Members of this Chamber.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to speak in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the Motion moved by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat in Parliament just now is an important one because it involves the conduct and actions by Members of Parliament who are also Workers' Party leaders. This Motion draws our attention to the key issue, that is, the question of integrity and honesty. By doing nothing and letting the AHTC case be left at that, we, as Members of this Chamber, will be seen as neglecting our duty. Is it appropriate for us to stay silent? In the AHTC case, High Court Judge Kannan Ramesh gave a judgment on 11 October, which found that two Workers' Party Members of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang were in breach of their fiduciary duties and, due to that, they are responsible for the losses incurred by AHTC. The Judge said that their actions of awarding a contract without calling a tender and painting a misleading picture about the appointment of FMSS, showed that they did not act in the interest of AHTC. In fact, the High Court found that they misled their colleagues and found that they had acted dishonestly. Their conduct also lacked integrity. The Court also said that, as experienced town councillors, Mr Low Thia Khiang should have known that a tender is required for that appointment. The AHTC case has gone on for so long until it has reached the Courts, and those involved were given the room and opportunity to defend their actions. The Court has given its ruling. Therefore, what is the right thing that they should do, and what should be the right action taken by the Workers' Party leadership? And what should all of us in this Chamber do as our responsibility to the people and our residents?”
“Mr Saktiandi Supaat also spoke about capability transfer and called for businesses to step up in localising their workforce to support Singapore's competitiveness and workforce sustainability. MOM supports his call. In fact, MOM introduced the CTP to support companies to transfer global expertise and capabilities to Singaporean workers. The results are encouraging. And since the start of the CTP in 2017, more than 120 companies and 800 local workers are expected to benefit from CTP-supported projects. We will study Mr Saktiandi Supaat's suggestion to expand the CTP and including how it can support companies to set localisation targets. To conclude, workplace discrimination of any kind is unacceptable. In Singapore, the tripartite partners are fully committed to stamping out workplace discrimination altogether. I thank the Member as well as Desmond Choo from the National Trades Union Congress for their support for this Motion. We welcome and look forward to more initiatives in the Labour Movement to tackle workplace discrimination of all forms. We need all hands on that. And as Member Desmond Choo mentioned earlier, every worker matters. Let us also ensure that Singapore remains competitive and redouble our efforts to help more locals access the jobs that are created.”
“To clarify, the minimum salary requirement of $3,600 applies to young graduates with good qualifications. And experienced EP holders in their mid-40s would need to earn much more to qualify, compared to a similarly experienced local PMET. So, our last EP salary requirement was adjusted in 2017. As part of our regular process, we will review if it needs to be updated to preserve a level playing field for local PMETs. Our multi-pronged approach has worked visibly well. Despite the employer tactics that Mr Desmond Choo described, older worker employment has gone up steadily. More older Singaporeans are employed today than ever before, or 500,000 today, compared to about half, 270,000 just 10 years ago. The unemployment rate for workers aged 50 and above has also been consistently lower than the overall unemployment rate. The FCF watchlist has also raised awareness and shifted employer behaviour. In fact, locals continue to hold the majority of jobs that companies can hire EPs for. But I should also add that our strong stance against favouring foreigners has not gone unnoticed. For example, in a recent global competitiveness ranking by the World Economic Forum, Singapore was ranked 93rd in terms of ease of hiring foreign labour. From the view of business leaders, they see far more favourable regimes outside of Singapore. It is an international business hub. Such perceptions carry some costs. If leading global companies think twice about investing in Singapore or rethink their future plans for Singapore, the result could be fewer good jobs for Singaporeans. So, it is a delicate balancing act. But ultimately, we must also continue to create good jobs and help more Singaporeans access them.”
“While MOM clamps down on the EP applications, TAFEP also engages the employers on a one-on-one basis to help them improve their HR practices and support local hiring. Of the 600 firms, TAFEP has helped 260 firms to improve and exit the watchlist so far. We also deal firmly with those who try to play games with us. For example, we have employers on the watchlist who used related entities to apply for EPs to by-pass our controls. For such cases, we curtail the work pass privilege of all their related entities. Mr Sakitiandi Supaat called for the EP policy to be tightened. MOM regularly reviews the EP salary criterion, taking reference from local PMET salaries and a similar experience in seniority. This is to ensure that local PMETs are not disadvantaged based on cost as their salaries go up over time.”
“Under FCF, employers must advertise on a national Jobsbank before submitting Employment Pass (EP) applications. This is to ensure that these job openings are made public and not only to a close circle of friends. Employers that treat these advertisements as paper exercise or what some say, "wayang" have been uncovered and have been taken to task. In fact, MOM and TAFEP have been improving the methods to detect and scrutinise suspicious employers. For example, TAFEP investigated a metal fabrication firm that applied for an EP for an engineer role. The employer required candidates to have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering but this was not stated in the Jobsbank posting. The employer also disregarded a local candidate who had a Masters Degree in Mechanical and Materials Engineering and provided false information to TAFEP by claiming to have interviewed three other candidates. In fact, they had pre-selected the foreigner and did not interview anyone else. MOM rejected the EP application and debarred the employer from hiring new foreign workers for six months. MOM also proactively identifies firms with workforce profiles that suggest possible discrimination against Singaporeans, such as having an exceptional share of foreign professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), compared to the industry peers or an extremely high concentration of a single foreign nationality. We place such employers on the FCF watchlist and scrutinise their EP applications closely. Since 2016, we have placed about 600 firms across all sectors on the watchlist. A total of 2,300 EP applications have been rejected by MOM or withdrawn by employers. In addition, employers on the FCF watchlist have hired more than 3,800 Singaporean PMETs to date.”
“TAFEP is a tripartite body that (a) educates employers and workers on the merits of inclusive and progressive practices; (b) issues tripartite guidelines on fair employment practices; and (c) investigate reports of workplace discrimination. The guidelines are unambiguous on workplace discrimination. They state that employers should recruit and select employees on the basis of merit. To be clear, hiring a younger worker, in itself, may not reflect discrimination. The key is to consider employees based on merit without discriminating on any measure, including age, race, gender, religion, marital status, family responsibilities or disability. A younger worker should also be given a chance to prove his merit even if he has less experience. But, more importantly, employers must also give fair consideration to Singaporeans. When TAFEP finds employers that fail to abide by the guidelines, it works with MOM to take enforcement action, including curtailing work pass privileges. Over the last three years, MOM has taken enforcement action against about 900 errant employers for such infringements. One example concerns a marine engineering company. Our investigations found that it had rejected 20% of job applications for no reason other than age. Mr Desmond Choo will be pleased to know that this company had their work pass privileges curtailed. They certainly did not think that TAFEP or MOM were lenient. For six months, they had to deal with unhappy customers and potential liquidated damages for project delays. MOM and TAFEP also take stern action through FCF, which requires employers to fairly consider all jobseekers, in particular, Singaporeans should not be discriminated against.”
“Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Desmond Choo for speaking about this important issue. Our overarching goal is to develop fair and progressive employment practices within the backdrop of harmonious labour relations. In labour-constrained Singapore, where we continue to create a surplus of jobs, businesses have a natural incentive to improve their employment practices. However, as the Members noted, some employers may still lag behind with outdated practices. But let me beclear: workplace discrimination, even in small pockets, is simply not acceptable. We must do everything we can to stamp it out. To this end, MOM and our tripartite partners adopt a multi-pronged approach that actively promotes fair and progressive workplaces, stay vigilant to detect and investigate all forms of workplace discrimination, and acts firmly against errant employers while helping them improve. The tripartite approach is important. It recognises that workplace practices are shaped not by Government only and certainly not through legislation alone, as Mr Sakitiandi Supaat acknowledged. Employers and unions all play a critical part. Our measures include the tripartite standards, the Human Capital Partnerships Programme and the Tripartite Alliance Awards. These publicly recognise companies with fair, responsible and progressive employment practices. Mr Saktiandi Supaat suggested certifying age inclusive companies. The Tripartite Standards on Age-friendly Workplace Practices already does so. This includes not using age as a selection criterion for recruitment, and designing jobs and workplaces to be age-friendly.”
“The Member can come to our website to find the number to call.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for her questions. In April this year, we caught two Malaysians who were working for the food delivery business. Both are being investigated, not prosecuted yet. So, I cannot give too much details of the cases. At the same time, regarding the Member's concerns, we need more people to report. If the Member's residents come to know of such cases, please ask them to report to MOM. We will take action. As I mentioned earlier, those who are caught under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will face a $20,000 fine, or an imprisonment of two years. If the person is also abetting – as a Singaporean, allowing them to use your accounts – you can also be prosecuted and be fined a maximum of $20,000 as well as be subject to imprisonment of up to two years or both. Both offences carry the same terms.”
“Deputy Speaker, it is illegal for foreigners to work as self-employed delivery riders for food delivery applications, such as Deliveroo, Food Panda and Grab Food. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has taken action against social visit pass holders working illegally as self-employed food delivery riders. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, they can be fined a maximum of $20,000, or subjected to imprisonment of up to two years, or both. Anyone with information on such illegal workers should report this to MOM.”
“As I have mentioned earlier, one example is PTSD. So, we have done three and all three were PTSD-related. They suffered PTSD after an accident that they faced. Apart from this physical injury, they also had mental injury as a result. [(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 Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I said work accident and injury resulting from an accident. So, it has to be a mental health condition, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), resulting from an accident.”
“I would answer the second question first, on mental illness. I have to stress again that it has to be linked to an accident. Without that link, it is not possible to cover it under this Act. So, this Act is really about accidents. In an accident case where you have PTSD, for example, that will be something we could cover but you have to show that cause, diagnosed by a doctor, to show that link to an accident. Then, you can claim for it. As for insurers, the one thing that is different with the new WICA and the old WICA is that we are licensing the insurers. In a certain sense, you cannot sell WICA insurance. If you want to get into this business, you have to abide by the regulations. So, that is the ultimate assurance that we can give employers, in terms of the terms that the WICA insurers set. There cannot be certain exclusions. There are certain terms we need them to cover and these will be covered. At the same time, the database for the insurers as well, there is assurance that employers do not under-insure. So, the whole scheme of things works by providing more transparency for both the employer, the insurer as well as the worker. There is a certain sense that the assurance is being provided to create a different ecosystem that is based on greater transparency.”
“The relationship, as I mentioned, between self-employed persons and employers are very different. Employers set the conditions in which you work and, therefore, you deal with WICA in this case. There is a lot more certainty in the environments that you are dealing with. For self-employed persons, as I mentioned, the self-employed person serves multiple buyers, not just the Government but someone else. So, it is difficult to manage in that sense. But having said that, we will continue to encourage them to undertake both PAI as well as PML. I think that is the logical thing to do and, perhaps, that will be priced in, hopefully, as how they charge for their service. We have seen, as I mentioned, the major players coming on board and we will encourage others to do so and continue the effort.”
“Well, we have not reached the part where we define the terms for this insurance. But, certainly, we will study it and take it on board and take the Member's suggestions on board.”
“I do not have the letter with me. I am sure you have it. Okay. But, like I said, there were two triggers. You already breached the one-year timebar and, therefore, the case is not admissible by current laws. But moving forward, under the new laws, we will be able to accept these claims a lot more readily and, therefore, make the appeals clearer. So, hopefully, in future, we will have better visibility on such appeals and the process to facilitate it.”
“Like I said, there were two trigger points. First was, I suppose, beyond one year, the case was not able to be admitted, to begin with. So, therefore, at that point in time, it was not possible to determine the facts of the case and to determine whether truly or not the accounts were valid and the views were valid. It was only after the fact, when MOM had spoken to both employer and employee, were they able to establish that both of them did not think it was a work injury case. It would not have been practical to have just assumed, at face value, until you go deeper into investigations and of which after investigations and after we admitted the appeal, we understood the case better and, therefore, we admitted the case and awarded it accordingly. I think in this case the employee had also made the application two years after the incident and after leaving the firm so, therefore, at face value, it had breached the one-year liability by the employer. So, to that extent, it was rejected upfront. After appeals – and this is what we do – on appeal, we reviewed the case, we investigated deeper. And, therefore, upon investigation, we found that both of them did not think it was but, after clarifications, we took the case in.”
“Under the old WICA, we did not track private settlements but, moving forward, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, insurers have to report back on the outcomes of the cases that they handled. So, therefore, it will be more meaningful for us to use the database, moving forward with the new WICA.”
“On the first point on the Parliamentary Questions (PQs), yes, we checked by PQs filed, so I mentioned that there were no PQs filed. To me, what is more important is that we are all here, like I said, it is never too late to start. The second point, on R's case, there were two triggers. One was it was after more than one year. The second one, if the Member notice, after we admitted the case, we agreed that it was indeed one that WICA can cover or WICA should cover. So, in my earlier speech, I did mention that both employer and employee did not think it was a WICA case or it was a work-related case. So, therefore, as a result, I do not think anyone thought – whether the employer or the worker – none of them felt it was work-related injury. So, that was why it was not picked up, to begin with. And why MOM rejected in the first place was that it was beyond the first year. Upon appeal, we reviewed it, as I said, and we took it into consideration. After the case was admitted, we were then able to look deeper into the case and interviewed both employer and employee to understand why it was that way. So, at the end of the day, the employee still got the case done and it was treated as WICA. On the statistics that were asked for, I do not think this is the right platform to provide that. It is better that the Member files a PQ to get the statistics. We have it but we have to prepare it for the Member in the way he has asked for it. And the last question was about?”
“The nominal value of compensation is reviewed every three years to keep pace with wage growth and inflation. Two, wider coverage of compulsory insurance. Companies that have not already purchased WIC insurance for such workers will have to do so. But the vast majority of companies insure all their employees already. We estimate that only about 25,000 to 30,000 employees will need to be additionally covered. Therefore, companies would not face significantly higher premium costs as a result of this change. Thirdly, the WIC insurance market is competitive, so it will be difficult for any insurer to unilaterally raise premiums sustainably. In fact, average premiums paid per employee insured declined 12% from 2015 to 2018, despite compensation limits being raised by 20% in January 2016. So, my advice for employers who are concerned about higher premiums is for them to strengthen their WSH management processes and prevent accidents. This will help them achieve savings in premiums. Once again, I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Your speeches reflect the views and concerns of employees' and employers', and underscored the importance of maintaining a fine balance between additional protection and higher business costs. Your suggestions will also help refine our implementation of the new WICA. I also thank the many groups that we have consulted, namely, the unions, employers, insurers and NGOs who have helped to shape the new WICA. To conclude, the age old adage "prevention is better than cure" is particularly apt for today's amendments. I hope all stakeholders will continue to give us your full support as we strive towards being amongst the best in the world in WSH performance by 2028. With your permission, Sir, I beg to move. 5.18 pm”
“Self-employed persons can also consider seeking damages from third-parties under the Common Law. But many self-employed person occupations also do not face significant injury risks, such as real estate and property agents. Different self-employed persons also devote different amounts of their time to self-employment. Thus, we recognise that it may be too onerous to mandate insurance for all self-employed persons. Nonetheless, I agree with Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that the marker platforms have a role to play, too, given that they employ a large number of self-employed persons outside the traditional self-employed persons. To date, at least 28,000 Grab and Gojek drivers are already covered by PML insurance, and ComfortDelGro taxis also have plans to cover their drivers. For food delivery, the WSH Council has engaged the main delivery companies to voluntarily provide PAIs for the self-employed riders they contract with. Deliveroo and Grab are now providing PAI coverage for their self-employed riders. These are some developments and I hope that we can encourage more. Mr Patrick Tay suggested to channel a portion of WIC premiums to the Workers' Fund to ensure its sustainability. The Workers' Fund provides a safety net for employees who did not receive their full entitlement of WICA benefits. Reasons include employers who were uninsured and were in financial difficulties. At the moment, the Workers' Fund has sufficient resources to compensate cases that meet its criteria. Finally, I note Mr Douglas Foo's and Ms Jessica Tan's concerns about the increase in business costs due to the slew of changes in WICA. There are three changes that will impact business costs. One, higher compensation limits for medical expenses, death and permanent or current total incapacity.”
“To clarify, the limitation periods for compensation for ODs are set at between one and three years after the end of employment. There are, indeed, some ODs, such as asbestosis, with very long latency that can be more than 10, 20 years, and employees may not be eligible for WICA compensation if they have already left their companies. However, it is not practical to impose unlimited liability on employers. They may not even be in business after so long. Secondly, WICA is a no-fault regime. Therefore, the Ministry has opted for a pragmatic approach, by providing payouts from the Workers' Fund to employees with long latency ODs who are time-barred from WICA. They can also seek recourse under the Common Law. Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Mr Chen Show Mao and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the recourse available to self-employed persons in the event of a work injury. As Members may be aware, WICA does not cover self-employed persons as they are not considered as "employees". The service buyers of self-employed persons often do not have control over the self-employed persons' work conditions and hours, relative to employers' arrangements with their employees. Unlike employees where there is a clear one-to-one relationship with the employer, many self-employed persons also contract with multiple service buyers. It would not be fair for multiple service buyers to compensate or purchase insurance for each self-employed person they contract with. It is difficult to tell at which point in time they are working for which employer. To protect themselves, the Ministry has encouraged self-employed persons to buy prolonged medical leave (PML) insurance and personal accident insurance (PAI) to mitigate their income loss and cost of medical treatment in the event of a work injury.”
“So, indeed, you are going to be put in one of our approved dorms at the minimum. Ms Anthea Ong suggested for WICA and salary claims to be conducted in parallel. This is already the case as both claims will be processed concurrently. In the event that the AME is disputed, the salary claim will need to be settled first, in order to establish the correct AME. Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about the coverage of mental illness under WICA. WICA stipulates compensation for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of work. Employees can thus be compensated for mental disorders and any resulting incapacity, even if there is no physical injury, if the following three criteria are met: first, the injury is a clinically diagnosed mental disorder; second, the mental disorder is caused by an accident; and third, the accident arose out of and in the course of work. In the past five years, three cases of psychological injury arising from work-related accidents were compensated under WICA. They involved conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosed and assessed by psychiatrists. Mr Arasu Duraisamy asked whether WICA will cover work injuries sustained while telecommuting. The answer is yes. In cases where it is clear that the injury was clearly due to work, such as an employer requiring the worker to respond urgently to work calls while at home, and the worker fell while rushing to answer the call at home, the injured worker will be entitled to WICA compensation. Mr Zainal Sapari asked about compensation for occupational diseases (ODs) with latency periods that exceed the prescribed limitations for WICA compensation.”
“In addition, the new WICA will allow the Ministry to order insurers to pay medical expenses directly to the healthcare institution if necessary. On the suggestion of insurance cards to employees to facilitate prompt treatment, I thank Members for the suggestion, but would point out that work injury compensation insurance is just one of several medical insurance products for both local and foreign workers. Local workers also have their own MediShield Life policies, as well as company provided insurance. For foreign workers, it is a condition of the work pass that the employer has to purchase insurance to cover medical treatment generally. Issuing cards to workers will not solve the problem of whether the medical treatment is being claimed under the correct policy and may even lead to greater confusion, given the many insurances that are out there or that they are being covered under. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zainal Sapari enquired about the food and housing arrangements for injured foreign workers. Employers are still responsible to look after their workers while they are in Singapore even after they have cancelled their Work Permits. They have to provide acceptable housing and adequate food, that is, three meals a day for workers whose work injury claims are still pending. Before 1 August 2019, if the worker does not want to stay at the accommodation provided by the employer and requests to stay at other accommodations, we permitted it. However, this has caused other problems, such as no control over the housing conditions where the workers stayed. From 1 August 2019, we have established higher standards for injured workers' housing. Employers have to continue housing the workers at their dorms, or pay for housing and upkeep in other MOM-approved dorms.”
“In the review, we consider wage growth and inflation since the last revision of the compensation limit, and discuss with the tripartite partners on what the new limit should be, taking into account the interests of workers as well as businesses. On Member Prof Fatimah Lateef's question on age multiplying factor, the age multiplying factors are derived by taking into consideration the net present value of the worker's projected loss of earnings due to work injury until retirement age. Therefore, younger workers have higher age multiplying factors than older workers. A few Members – Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Anthea Ong, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Prof Fatimah Lateef – have raised concerns about workers' treatment being delayed or workers not following-up on treatment because employers did not provide the hospitals with the letter of guarantee (LOG). Hospitals today ask for LOGs to be assured that employers will pay for medical expenses since some treatments may not be for work injuries or may be discretionary. Otherwise, the burden of bad debts could be passed on as higher cost to all other patients. Nonetheless, no worker would be deprived of treatment for work injury, regardless of the ability to pay, or whether an LOG was provided. Employers are already required under WICA to pay for their employees' medical treatment for any work injuries. This includes for diagnostic work like MRI scans to assess the extent of injury. Workers should report to MOM if their employers are not willing to furnish an LOG for work injuries. We will take action against employers who fail to meet their obligation to pay for medical expenses under the Act.”
“It also shows that there are employers who are willing to go well above what the law mandates, because they care for their workers. Mr Pritam Singh also extrapolates from R's case to claim that private settlements are not fair to workers and that MOM should oversee such settlements. R's case, in fact, shows the opposite. The employer has actually ended up paying more than he needed to. While Mr Pritam called for MOM to put ourselves in the shoes of the worker, as our response for the case of R shows, MOM puts itself in the shoes of both the worker and the employer. Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Douglas Foo and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke on educating employees and employers on WICA. We agree that this is important for workers to know their rights, and for employers to understand what counts as an injury. Over the years, the Ministry has expanded its outreach to educate employees, such as through the foreign workers' Settling-in Programme. Mr Patrick Tay has also shared the assistance and support that unions and MWC can provide to those with WIC claims. For employers, MOM will continue to conduct briefings to clarify any doubts. MOM will continue to raise public awareness of WICA, and seek new channels and partners to work with us. On the frequency of reviewing the compensation limit, I would like to clarify with Mr Pritam Singh that we have initiated reviews every three years. At the conclusion of the review, we announce the revised limit to take effect the following year. The next review is then initiated three years later.”
“He later explained to MOM that it was only after he left employment and he told a friend, that his friend asked him why he did not file a WIC claim. I would like to point out that this is not a case of "power imbalance" that the employer exploited but, in fact, the employer's actions in covering the cost of medical treatment shows that the employer was doing right by the worker. MOM did not admit the claim initially, as it was not made within one year from date of accident. Upon appeal, MOM investigated further the circumstances leading to non-reporting in 2015. It was clear from the worker's and employer's account, that both parties believed that it was not a work accident. MOM, therefore, exercised discretion under the law, to admit the claim. I should highlight that the concept of a timebar for claims exists in both WICA and under common law. When a time-barred report is filed, without further information of the background, the right thing to do is to reject it. However, there is an avenue for the claimant to appeal, and provide facts to support his appeal, as he did in this case. In the end, as MOM admitted the claim, R was ultimately assessed to have suffered 25% permanent incapacity and awarded another $54,500 in compensation. I should also note that the employer could have taken the position that since the worker wanted to pursue a WICA claim, benefits and cover that were provided for him in 2015, which exceeded WICA limits for medical costs, could have been recouped. However, the employer did not do so. Far from illustrating deficiencies in the WICA system, R's case shows how the WICA regime is robust in compensating deserving cases. Time-barred cases are reviewed if the appellant is able to provide facts to show why a claim could not be filed earlier.”
“This approach allows employers and doctors to focus on what they do best, rather than making a doctor also responsible for what an employer should be doing. On the suggestion to allow employees to report to MOM, I would like to clarify that employees can already report accidents to MOM. They can do so when accidents occur, or when they did not receive notice of their employers' accident reports. Mr Pritam Singh raised various issues. Let me, first, say I welcome his newfound interest in work injury compensation, as the Workers' Party has so far not raised any questions concerning the compensation of employees for work injury during this term of Parliament. It would have also been nice to have heard from the Workers' Party when we had the public consultation for WICA, but it is never too late to start. Mr Pritam Singh shared the case of R and asked if there were gaps that led to the late reporting of this case. We have managed to trace the case that he had referred to, and fuller facts will be useful for Members of the House to understand the context. In R's case, he was injured in 2015 while he was on his way to training at a third-party venue. Both he and his employer did not report the injury then, as they thought it occurred when he was not at work. His employer nevertheless paid more than $54,000 for his medical expenses, which exceeded even the upcoming WICA limit on medical expenses, even though they thought it was not a work injury. R only filed a report two years after the accident. This was after he had left his employer, having served till age 67. Well, actually his employer was also progressive in re-employing him up to 67, even though the re-employment obligations under the Retirement and Re-Employment Act were up to 65 in his case.”
“Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong also asked how the Ministry intends to ensure that foreign employees receive notification of the accident reports and whether employees can obtain a copy of the accident reports for free. We will explore how we can provide such notifications. In the meantime, employees who did not receive such a letter within three weeks of informing their employers of their work injuries can approach the Ministry for assistance. I would like to clarify that the content of accident reports will not affect employees' amount of compensation under WICA. So, workers would not need the actual reports. Reports could be useful if the employee makes a common law claim, as it may suggest whether any party was at fault in the accident. In such a situation, it is reasonable for employees to pay the nominal fee of $5 for the report. Various suggestions were raised by Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng and Dr Chia Shi-Lu to address the under-reporting of work injuries by employers. On auditing employers reporting of accidents by referencing third-party data, this will be possible under the new WICA as insurers will share with MOM the claims made by employers. On subjecting both employers and doctors to a duty to report work accidents, the primary responsibility rests with employers, as they are required to ensure the safety and health of their employees. Instead of burdening doctors with additional legal liability, WICA simplifies the reporting regime for employers. As long as an MC of any sort is issued, the employer has to file a report. It also makes cases of medical malpractice more clearcut, as it would be very unusual that any significant injury would not warrant at least an MC or light duties.”
“Mr Douglas Foo raised concerns about the administrative work and compliance cost of reporting accidents resulting in any instance of medical leave or light duties. To ease the administrative burden on employers, the report form for those with medical leave or light duties that are three days or less will be simplified and shortened. Nevertheless, employers will still need to provide the additional details should their employee get subsequent medical leave or light duty that exceeds the three-day threshold. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Anthea Ong sought clarifications on whether employees will be kept informed of the claims process, such as being notified when their employers report the accidents and if they will be given the opportunity to challenge the details stated in the accident reports. Once an employer submits an accident report to the Ministry, the employee would receive a letter informing that an accident report has been made, his/her rights and the steps to be taken to receive compensation. The Ministry or insurer will verify important information, such as injury sites and salary information, with them and conduct fact-finding if there are any disputes. To Mr Patrick Tay's point that claimants should be kept in the loop of the WIC process, this is already the case today. Claimants or anyone assisting them can obtain information about the claims status through our website or text messages. For the latter, they come in four languages and claimants can subscribe to our text messaging service to receive notifications when the claims status changes.”
“WICA adopts the sensible approach of compensating the full AME for the first 14 days of medical leave and 60 days of hospitalisation leave. For injuries that require more than the combined 74 days of medical and hospitalisation leave, AME is not fully compensated because such injuries would be serious enough to warrant an award for PI. Mr Louis Ng, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for greater clarity on medical leave and light duties. With the move to expand compensation to work-related light duties and to report any instance of light duties or MCs, light duties will be treated like MC under the new WICA. So, the distinction between medical leave and light duties will be less important under the new WICA. Nonetheless, I agree with the Members that we can do more to reduce confusion on the ground. We will work with the medical community and seek their professional opinion on the grounds for doctors to prescribe either medical leave or light duties. On Mr Louis Ng and Mr Pritam Singh's questions on doctor switching, as mentioned in my earlier speech, we want to ensure that there is proper and fair assessment of the employee's injury. Therefore, in most cases, the first treating doctors will be in the best position to assess incapacity as they have the most complete picture of the accident. However, if there is prima facie evidence of inadequate care, such as significantly shorter MC duration than from other doctors, the employee will be allowed to switch to another doctor of his choice without having to seek the employer's consent. He just has to inform MOM. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, the employer pays for both assessments.”
“However, employers were concerned about the cost pressures they were already facing and an uncertain economic outlook. The eventual outcome of a two-step increase was a tripartite consensus. I would like to place on record my appreciation for our union leaders and I am sure employers also feel likewise. MOM will continue to consult the tripartite partners on the timeframe for compulsory insurance to be adjusted further. I note Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jessica Tan were concerned employers may under-insure for WIC. As part of the licensing conditions, designated insurers will have to report to the Ministry their data on the number of workers insured by each of their clients. This will be checked against our own records of companies' workforce size to identify which companies are not insured or which companies are under-insured. Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about dental claims. I am happy to confirm that under the new WICA, employees can claim for medical fees incurred for dental procedures from any registered dentist in Singapore, if the need for dental procedure arose out of a workplace accident. Mr Douglas Foo sought clarifications about compensation for light duties. Employees who are on light duty but are absent without reasonable excuse or leave will be ineligible for such compensation. Mr Patrick Tay suggested to compensate injured employees with light duties with the full AME for the full period of light duties. With the new WICA, we have made the treatment of light duties to be on par as medical leave. So, just as full AME is payable for the 14 days of medical leave under the existing WICA, full AME is also payable for the first 14 days of light duty or medical leave.”
“As mentioned in my earlier speech, CI assessment would take place at least six months after the date of accident, where the WIC Medical Board assesses that the extent of incapacity is a close approximation of the steady-state incapacity for most cases. As such, the bulk of the medical treatment and, hence, expenses, would have taken place before the CI assessment. The introduction of CI assessment, therefore, allows foreign workers to recuperate and be with their loved ones earlier in their home countries. I note that this view is echoed by Mr Zainal Sapari who is familiar with workers' situations through the unions and the MWC. I would also like to thank Mr Louis Ng and Prof Fatimah Lateef for highlighting the importance of employers to provide itemised pay slips and the difficulties that we face when such reliable documentary evidence is unavailable. It is mandatory under the Employment Act for employers to issue itemised pay slips to their employees. It is an offence not to do so. To address the handful of cases that we see each year that lack reliable documentary evidence to determine AME, the Commissioner can either set the "derived AME" based on the co-worker’s earnings or a multiple of the employee's basic rate of pay. For the latter, the multiple will be set at a level such that the "derived AME" is higher than industry norms, further incentivising employers to provide proper documentary evidence, that is, the employer is likely to be worse off if he does not provide documentary evidence or itemised payslips. Sir, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Prof Fatimah Lateef proposed higher coverage for compulsory insurance and a faster pace of implementation. The Ministry had originally proposed during the public consultation to raise the salary cap in one step.”
“Employees who face other problems or suspect errant behaviour by insurers or employers should report this to the Ministry. Nevertheless, given that this is a new regime, I fully agree with Mr Zainal Sapari that we should conduct reviews at appropriate junctures to finetune if necessary. Mr Zainal Sapari sought clarifications on whether employees who are compensated based on their CI assessment are able to seek reassessment if their injuries deteriorate thereafter. Firstly, I want to say that a doctor should not make a CI assessment unless he is of the view that there is unlikely to be a significant change in the employee's condition. Secondly, in coming up with the CI framework, we consulted with the WIC Medical Board, which comprises medical professionals that help MOM to review appeals against the treating doctor's assessment of incapacity. The Medical Board confirmed that the state of incapacity six months after the accidents would be very close to the eventual extent of permanent incapacity in the vast majority of cases. Thirdly, in the unlikely event that an employee's condition deteriorates significantly after the CI assessment, the new WICA provides for the initial assessment to be revised if the doctor can provide the reasons for the revision within 90 days after the deadline to raise objections. Mr Louis Ng sought clarifications on whether the introduction of current incapacity will affect the employees' WICA entitlement to medical treatment for their work injuries. Under the new WICA, employers are responsible for their employees' medical expenses up to $45,000, or one year from the accident, whichever is reached first. This entitlement is independent of the medical assessment of either the PI or CI. So, it is independent and employees will still get it.”
“As in other insurance products, such as motor insurance, employers can approach different insurers to obtain a quote, based on their company activities, accident record and workforce size. MOM will also explore and take on board Ms Jessica Tan's suggestion on how best to publish general information on the range of premiums quoted, to help employers see where they stand and to encourage them to strive for a clean safety record to obtain the lowest premiums. I would like to thank Prof Fatimah Lateef for highlighting the need for an expeditious claims process. This is core to WICA. The average time for claims for permanent incapacity or death to be resolved is 4.5 months after the claim has been filed. Amendments, such as streamlining of the claims process and compensating based on current incapacity, will further shorten the claims process. With regard to insurer processing claims, Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about measures that are put in place to safeguard employees' interests. As I have detailed out in my earlier speech, the interests of the employees will continue to be protected as insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Just to allay Members' fears again, insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Compensation for incapacity is based on the assessment of a heath professional and computed using a fixed formula based on age and earnings. The Ministry will put in place a system of checks and balances in the licensing scheme to ensure that claims are processed fairly and in a timely manner. Employees who feel that their compensation was not processed fairly can raise objections to us, which will continue to be adjudicated by the Ministry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, let me thank all 13 Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Prof Fatimah Lateef had asked about the trend in the number of WICA claims and how our safety performance stands among our peers. In line with Singapore's improving WSH performance, the number of awarded claims has fallen by 7% in the past three years, from around 15,700 in 2015 to around 14,600 in 2018. As WICA is but one option for employees to seek compensation for work injuries, a better reflection of our workplace safety is the workplace fatality rate. As mentioned in my earlier speech, our three-year average fatality rate has improved significantly from 18th place among the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in 2010 to seventh place in 2018. We are working hard towards the goal of having a rate of less than one per 100,000 workers by 2028, which will make our workplaces one of the safest in the world. Mr Douglas Foo and Ms Jessica Tan asked how MOM will share policy and claims information with insurers. Only authorised representatives of designated WIC insurers will be allowed to check on employers' information. As mentioned in my earlier speech, the Ministry will not be revealing the actual workforce size and annual payroll data to insurers. Rather, our system will just tell insurers that their clients' declaration is either consistent or not consistent with MOM records. Ms Jessica Tan also asked about transparency in premiums quoted by insurers. The WIC insurance market today is highly competitive, with 31 insurers operating.”
“While the employer had appealed for the Commissioner to accept the late objection, current WICA does not allow for late objections irrespective of the reasons. Therefore, we have provided in clauses 46 and 49 of the Bill to allow the Commissioner to accept late objections if the late objection is due to error or fraud by another person. On penalties, clause 61 increases the maximum fine for non- or late payment of compensation from the current $10,000 to $15,000. In addition, we will create a new offence under the same clause for failure to deposit compensation with the Commissioner when directed. Both offences are benchmarked to non- or delayed payment of salary under the Employment Act. To deter repeat offenders, clauses 25, 35, 61, 62 and 68 provide for the maximum fines for a second or subsequent offence to be doubled.”
“This is on top of it being an offence under clause 30 for insurers to sell policies purporting to be WICA-compliant when they are not. Additionally, clause 30 makes it an offence for any insurers not approved by the Commissioner as a designated insurer to sell a WICA-compliant policy. Under the current WICA, the Commissioner can order the employee to refund the employer any medical leave wages paid if the employee withdraws his claim, if the accident was subsequently determined not to be work-related, or if it was a false claim. We will extend the refund to lump-sum compensation and medical expenses. Clauses 16 and 54 of the Bill enable the Commissioner to order the claimant to refund the employer or insurer, if the employer or insurer had paid for the lump-sum compensation or medical expenses due to error or false or misleading information. This is on top of it being an offence under clause 62 for any person to obtain compensation by providing false or misleading information. Sir, other than the four key areas highlighted above, we will be making other amendments to the Act. Under the current Act, parties have up to 14 days from the receipt of the notice of assessment to raise objections to the Commissioner. If no objection is raised within the 14-day timeline, the notice of assessment takes the effect of an order of compensation, and such orders cannot be appealed to the High Court. We will amend the Act to allow late objections with valid reasons. MOM had come across a case where the employee had given the completed objection form to the employer to submit to the Commissioner. However, the employer failed to submit the employee's objection form within the prescribed 14-day timeline due to administrative lapses.”
“This is a regular update which we do once every four years. It prevents the real value of compensation from being eroded by inflation. The compensation limits for death and PI will increase by about 10% to $225,000 and $289,000 respectively. This is to account for the growth in median gross monthly income since the last review. The compensation limit for medical expenses will be raised from the current $36,000 to $45,000, an increase of about 25%. This will ensure that the limit for medical expenses continues to cover more than 95% of all WICA claims medical expenses. While we work to make the WIC framework better for employees, it is equally important to ensure that the interests of the employers are also protected. Employers who buy insurance policies that do not adequately cover their WICA liabilities may not be able to obtain reimbursement for compensation paid. We have come across cases where construction companies bought WICA policies that do not cover accidents arising from working above a certain height, and certain activities, such as digging and piling. But these are precisely the type of work where accidents are more likely to happen. To better safeguard employers' interests when buying WIC insurance policies, clause 26 of the Bill allows the Commissioner to prescribe a core set of standard terms for WICA-compliant policies to ensure that insurance policies cover employers' WICA liabilities adequately. We will also make insurers accountable for the policies they offer to employers. Clause 26 of the Bill requires any insurer who has sold to the employer a policy purporting to be a WICA-compliant policy, to compensate the injured employee according to the standard terms of a WICA-compliant policy.”
“This is to ensure that an employee who is on light duties due to a work injury is not worse off than an injured employee on medical leave, because the one on medical leave would have been given compensation of AME. In addition, the WICA subsidiary legislation will require employers to report any instance of employees on medical leave or light duties due to a work injury. This is to address the concern that some irresponsible employers may try to avoid reporting work accidents by attempting to influence doctors to give fewer days of medical leave or light duties. We will simplify the reporting requirements for accidents with less than four days of medical leave or light duties to minimise the administrative burden on companies. Today, an injured employee's PI assessment is typically done by a doctor directed by the employer. However, MOM has received feedback, one from Member Louis Ng as well, that some errant employers may attempt to influence doctors to give inadequate medical leave or some doctors may be overly conservative and underestimate the percentage of PI. To ensure there is proper and fair assessment of the extent of work injury sustained by the employee, clause 37 of the Bill which requires an employee to attend medical examination required by the employer, has an exception which enables the Commissioner to allow employees to undergo medical examination by another doctor doing the PI assessment. This would be exercised, for example, if there are concerns and prima facie evidence that the quality of care and incapacity assessment by the employer's doctor may not be adequate or fair. MOM will also update the WICA compensation limits in the First Schedule to the Bill to keep pace with wage growth and healthcare costs.”
“In Phase 2, we will further increase the monthly salary threshold to $2,600 a month. And we plan to do this in 2021. This expansion will require around 300,000 more employees to be covered by the compulsory insurance requirement. Nonetheless, we do not expect significant cost impact to businesses as MOM's Conditions of Employment survey indicates that close to 90% of employees are already covered by WICA insurance. Even though employers were not obligated to cover some of them, but employees are covered 90% today. By doing so, these companies ensure that they could meet their WICA obligations in case of an accident. The First Schedule to the Bill extends compensation to employees on light duties due to work injuries. This will put them on par with employees on medical leave due to work injuries. An employee injured at work could be given medical leave or light duties, depending on his fitness to work and availability of light duties. Employers would benefit from an employee who is fit enough to carry out light duties, as there would be shorter downtime from work and some restoration of productive capacity. However, an employee on light duties may be earning less than his usual salary. This is because he is likely to work at a lower intensity and duration and will miss out on overtime pay or allowances that he would normally have received if he was not injured. The First Schedule requires employers to compensate the difference between what the employee earns on light duties, and his AME, which is what he normally earns, including overtime, bonuses and allowances. Compensation is payable only if the employee's actual wages, while he was on light duties, are less than what he would have received as his AME compensation under WICA.”