WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

3.23 pm

The Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Purpose of workmen's compensation

Sir, under the common law, an injured worker has to initiate legal actions to claim damages from his employer. To succeed, the claimant has to prove that the employer had been negligent and therefore held liable. He will need to gather sufficient evidence to prove his case.

The Workmen's Compensation Act or WCA provides a simpler and quicker way to settle compensation claims by avoiding protracted legal proceedings. An employee claiming under the Act is not required to prove that his employer is at fault. He only needs to show that his injury was sustained in the course of work. There is also a fixed formula in the Act on the amount of compensation to be awarded, and capped so that the financial liability on the employer is limited. The no-fault claims and prescribed amounts of compensation serve to facilitate and expedite claims under the WCA. However, employees can still choose not to claim under the WCA, but instead to pursue damages through the civil courts under the common law.

The workmen's compensation system has been effective and efficient. Many employees have benefited under the system. In 2007, about 17,000 claims were filed with MOM and more than $71 million in compensation payouts were awarded to the claimants.

Column:260

However, the employment landscape has changed since the WCA was enacted some 30 years ago. We need to review and refresh the system to ensure that it continues to be relevant and effective.

Hence, over the past year, MOM has conducted extensive consultation with the public, the unions and the businesses on the need to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act. More than 200 comments have been received. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who have contributed, in particular, the Singapore National Employers Federation, the National Trades Union Congress, the General Insurance Association of Singapore and many other industry associations.

This Bill proposes changes to the WCA in three key areas. First, the coverage of the Act has been expanded. Second, compensation norms are updated to keep pace with wage increases and changing circumstances. Third, changes are made to streamline the process. In proposing the changes, MOM has been mindful of the need to maintain a balanced approach so that the amended Act would remain acceptable to both employees and employers.

Sir, let me elaborate.

Coverage

First, the coverage under the Act will be extended. Currently, all manual workers, and non-manual workers earning $1,600 or less per month, are eligible for compensation under the Act. We will now include non-manual workers earning more than $1,600 a month so that they too can be compensated under the Act rather than have to go through the legal process under common law. We are not the only country to have done this. In other jurisdictions such as Australia,

Column:261

Canada, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, the compensation framework does not make a distinction between manual and non-manual work. We will therefore amend sections 1 and 2 of the Act to include all employees, except those specified in the Fourth Schedule. This will increase the coverage of the Act by more than 850,000 employees, or 70%, to 2.1 million employees. Consequently, we will remove the term "workmen" and amend the short title to the Work Injury Compensation Act.

The Fourth Schedule lists two groups of employees who will be excluded from the Act.

Police officers are currently excluded. Under the amended Act, members of the Singapore Police Force as well as members of the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Central Narcotics Bureau, the Singapore Prisons Service and Singapore Armed Forces will be excluded due to the unique nature of their work environment. These personnel can face inherent risks in the normal course of their duties at work. They would already have specific work injury compensation provisions in the relevant legislation, comparable to what this Act provides.

The second group are domestic workers who were and remain excluded as they are employed by households and typically work and live in the same premises. As a result, it will be difficult to determine whether any injury sustained in the premises was due to work-related activities or otherwise. While excluded, foreign domestic workers are still protected under the personal accident insurance which their employers must purchase. The personal accident insurance in effect has a wider scope than the WCA and provides compensation to foreign domestic workers in the event of permanent disablement or death,

Column:262

regardless of whether or not the accident was work-related. In tandem with the updating of the compensation limits under the Act, MOM will increase the insurance coverage requirement, from $10,000 to $40,000. This will apply to all new applications for foreign domestic workers submitted from 1st July 2008 onwards. For existing foreign domestic workers, the new requirement will apply to work permits that expire on or after 1st July 2008.

The current Act requires employers to purchase insurance for all workers covered by the Act, unless otherwise exempted. However, for the non-manual employees earning above $1,600 a month who are previously not covered under the Act, we will not require compulsory insurance coverage. Our data shows that generally, non-manual employees face lower workplace risks and incur fewer injuries. Hence, we can leave it to the employers to decide whether to buy insurance for them. This will help businesses manage their costs. Nevertheless, the employer is still liable to pay compensation to the employee in the event of a work injury. MOM would also review our data periodically and may require specific sectors to purchase insurance if the risks warrant added protection.

Compensation norms

Second, this Bill updates compensation norms. This is laid out in the Third Schedule of the Act. As before, the compensation takes into account the employee's loss of future earnings due to his injury which are determined by the worker's monthly wage and his age. As the younger worker would have had more potential years to earn, the compensation is a higher multiple of his wages.

And as before, the computed amount of compensation is subject to maximum and minimum limits specified in the Third

Column:263

Schedule. This is to ensure that eligible workers will receive a minimum amount of compensation while the maximum limit caps the liability of employers. At present, the minimum limits are $37,000 and $49,000 respectively for death and total permanent incapacity, while the maximum limits are $111,000 and $147,000 respectively.

These limits will be adjusted to take into account the increase in wages since the limits were set in 1995. With this change, the minimum compensation for death and total permanent incapacity will be increased to $47,000 and $60,000 respectively. The maximum compensation will also be raised to $140,000 and $180,000 respectively.

Let me just illustrate. With the amendments to compensation norms, the family of a deceased 25-year old who earned $1,500 a month would receive $140,000, an increase of $29,000 or 26% more than current. If the worker were 55 years old, his family would be compensated $129,000, which is an increase of $18,000 or 16% more than under the current system.

Next, existing compensation rules allow for an additional 25% compensation to employees who suffer total and permanent incapacity, in order to reflect the higher cost of care. However, it requires the employee to prove that he would need the constant care of another person for the essential actions of life. About half the employees who were totally and permanently incapacitated in the last few years did not qualify for the additional award as the injured employee may find it difficult to prove that he fulfils the condition. Under the new Act, this additional condition will be removed, while the additional 25% compensation is retained for all employees who suffer total and permanent incapacity.

Column:264

We have also amended section 18 to allow the employers to seek indemnity in the civil courts against a third party who was responsible for causing the injury, even if the employer was partially at fault. Currently, the employers can only do so if they were completely not at fault for the injury. The distinction between no and partial fault may be too fine to determine and the removal of this pre-condition will not affect the payment of compensation to the injured employees who choose to claim under the WCA.

Next, medical expenses. Under the current Act, only medical expenses that are incurred in Singapore are compensable. As more employees are required to travel outside Singapore for work, the amended section 14 allows medical expenses incurred outside Singapore to be compensated if the accident happened when the employee was working overseas and immediate medical treatment was needed.

In addition, an employer's liability for hospital expenses is subject to numerous sub-limits for different expense items, such as ward charges, operation fees, and physiotherapy fees, etc.

We will simplify how medical expenses are compensated. The Bill removes the existing sub-limits for hospital charges and instead introduces an overall cap on an employer's total liability for medical expenses. The proposed cap of $25,000 per accident per employee will fully cover the medical expenses incurred in more than 95% of claims where hospitalisation was required. This cap will be revised regularly, to keep pace with changes in healthcare costs.

We recognise that there may be that remaining 5% where hospitalisation expenses are very high. As the WCA is predicated on no-fault, limited liability as an acceptable alternative to both employers and employees, we will have to

Column:265

set a limit to compensation for medical expenses. Affected employees who wish to recover the full medical expenses can exercise their option to do so under common law.

Finally, section 8(2) of the Act, which deals with situations where the injured employee holds more than one job, will be amended. At present, an employee with multiple jobs can claim compensation for his multiple earnings only for jobs in the same occupation. In comparison, if a claim was brought in the civil courts, his total loss of earnings would be claimable. The number of workers with such a scenario is small. In the last five years, there were only a handful of such cases in which the injured employee was employed by multiple employers. Nevertheless, it would be more equitable to amend the Act such that an employee will be compensated for his total earnings with different employers, except for earnings that are from contracts of service that the employer does not know about. This exclusion is necessary and fair so that employers are made aware of their potential financial liability under the Act and can insure themselves accordingly.

Overall, these changes ensure that the workmen's compensation system continues to be relevant and serves as a sensible alternative to the common law process.

Efficiency and effectiveness

Thirdly, we will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the compensation process.

Preferred route of compensation

Under the present Act, workers can only claim for injuries from the common law or the workmen's compensation system. They cannot do so from both. This makes sense because the WCA was

Column:266

indeed created to serve as an alternate and more expeditious route to avoid protracted legal proceedings. However, some claimants abuse the system by filing claims for both but withdrawing the WCA claims at the last minute to switch to a civil suit. This imposes significant commitment of resources, as time and effort would have been invested to investigate and prepare the case. Involved parties such as witnesses would also have committed their time to the adjudication process. Employers will have to repeat part of the process in the courts. Processing time for each case becomes unnecessarily prolonged and as a result, compensation is delayed. We will streamline the process, so that claimants through the WCA can have speedy compensation. Nevertheless, even after our amendments, we still allow adequate time for claimants to decide on either route whether to claim damages or compensation for their injuries through WCA or through the civil courts.

At present, an injured employee has up to one year from the date of the accident to decide whether he wishes to file a claim under the Act. The one-year period to claim under the WCA remains unchanged, and if he decides to seek compensation under the Act, his claim will be processed, and the Commissioner will notify him of the assessment of his compensation amount.

Upon receiving the notification, the amended section 33 allows him up to 28 days to decide if he wishes to pursue his claim under the Act, or withdraw his claim. If he decides to pursue his claim under the Act, he will generally no longer be able to withdraw his claim and institute fresh proceedings in the civil courts.

Flexibility in paying and distributing compensation

Next, the existing Act also contains restrictive rules that require compensation

Column:267

in death and total permanent incapacity to be paid to the Commissioner, rather than directly to the employee, or his dependants. This can delay the payment of compensation to the employee.

Hence, section 9(1A) of the Act will be amended, to allow for all work injury compensation to be paid in three different ways: to any employee who is 18 years or older, to the employee's estate or his dependants, or to a committee and estate of the employee appointed under the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act.

These amendments will enable us to keep the workmen's compensation process efficient.

Enhancing penalties and offences

We are also enhancing the penalties and offences under the Act so that the system will continue to work effectively. The penalties in the Act were last revised in 1990. A new section 35 will be introduced to increase the penalties for selected offences. For example, an employer who illegally deducts his employee's salary to defray the cost of work injury compensation insurance may be fined up to $5,000 instead of $2,000, while the maximum jail term has been kept at six months. The new section 35 also makes it an offence if any person fails to comply with an order to pay compensation. A new section 40 allows the Commissioner to apply to the court to order the convicted person to pay up the amount owed to the employee, over and above the penalty for the offence. This amendment will provide the employee an additional option for recourse. Currently, if an employer does not pay compensation after being ordered to do so by the Commissioner, the employee's only recourse is to enforce the order on his own in the civil courts. This may not be practical as the injured worker may not have the means to do so. With this amendment, MOM would be able to

Column:268

enforce the payment of compensation on the worker's behalf.

As we tighten the rules against errant employers, we also need to ensure that workers do not abuse the workmen's compensation system. There have been instances of abuse and fraudulent claims. The existing Act contains limited remedies against such behaviour, as it is currently not an offence under the Act to make a fraudulent claim for compensation. MOM can only proceed against them on a lesser offence of providing false answers. In 2007, nine workers were convicted for fraud on this basis.

With the increase in compensation quantum as proposed in this amendment Bill, we must also ensure that the Act can effectively deter fraudulent claims by a small number of workers.

Hence, the new section 35 makes it an offence for any person to knowingly make a fraudulent claim under the Act for compensation. The maximum penalty is a fine of $15,000 and a jail term of 12 months.

Streamlining accident reporting requirements

Finally, we have streamlined the accident reporting requirements under the Act with those under the Workplace Safety and Health Act. This will simplify the reporting requirement for employers, thus reducing overall compliance costs. Instead of having to report all accidents, including minor ones, section 12 and related regulations will be amended such that an employer is required to report an accident only if it results in a death, or it results in the injured employee being unfit for work for more than three consecutive days or being hospitalised for at least 24 hours, or if the employee contracts an occupational disease. For minor injuries, the current statutory reporting requirement will be removed, but the obligation to compensate the employee

Column:269

remains. This will benefit the employees, as the employers can directly compensate their employees. However, in cases where employees face difficulty in obtaining compensation, they can still report to MOM, which will enforce the employer's obligation.

Reaching out to employees

MOM will continue to reach out to employees on their rights under the Act through its publications and mandatory safety training courses. Nevertheless, to further increase worker awareness of the available avenues for compensation, all stakeholders - the community, union leaders, employers - have a proactive role to play. MOM will work with them to create greater awareness among our employers and workers.

Sir, in conclusion, the extension of coverage of the Act will make available basic work injury compensation to over two million employees and bring our compensation framework in line with international practices. Updating the compensation norms and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the system will encourage employees to use the system. This also benefits employers as their liabilities will be capped. With these changes, MOM, together with the industry-led Workplace Safety and Health Council, and the cooperation of employers and workers, will be well-placed to achieve the goals spelt out in its safety and health vision for 2015.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at

3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.

Column:270

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]:

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, many changes have taken place in the local and regional employment scene over the last decade. In recent years, the economy in Singapore has taken an upswing, wages are on the rise and inflation is causing the cost of living to increase. Many industries in Singapore such as construction are growing. Singapore is attracting more skilled and manual workers from the region and abroad. It is, therefore, timely for revisions to be made to the Workmen's Compensation Act, especially when the last amendments were conducted in 1995, more than a decade ago.

I, therefore, rise in support of this Bill.

At this point, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as an employer. From the perspective of an employer, I am happy to note that many of the revisions are more worker-friendly. One example is the extension of the Act to cover all workers, regardless of salary. This would potentially benefit almost an additional one million workers, including white collar ones. While this change will hopefully incentivise employers to enhance safety at the workplace, I am concerned about the non-compulsory insurance for workers newly covered under this Act, ie, non-manual employees with monthly earnings above $1,600. I wonder what the implication of this change will be because employers remain liable for payment of compensation regardless of whether or not they purchase insurance for this group of people.

Column:271

Sir, while not having compulsory insurance for these non-manual workers may seem to present savings for employers, I worry if a workplace related accident were to happen, companies have to bear high compensation costs in the absence of an insurance policy for workers. I would like to ask the Minister of State to reconsider the rationale behind in not making insurance coverage mandatory across the board.

In line with this change, I am glad that the Ministry is amending the term "workmen" and in its place will use the term "employees" which is more gender neutral and more inclusive.

Sir, I note that the coverage of the Act is not extended to people working for uniform groups and domestic workers. Domestic workers may not work in hazardous surroundings such as worksites, but they may still be prone to accidents and injuries at their workplace, such as fall from high-rise buildings. Currently, employers are required to obtain insurance for their domestic workers. Errant employers who intentionally put their domestic workers' lives in danger can also be punished but the coverage does not accord the workers the ability to claim full compensation benefits as provided under the Act.

I would like to urge the Minister of State to consider including domestic workers in the Act. No one can put a price on an individual's life or on the ability of the person to function well both physically and mentally. Hence, I feel that entering into a debate on what is the correct amount of compensation to be given to workers in the event of death or permanent disability due to accidents at the workplace can be a futile one.

However, I do note that inflation has contributed to increased costs and I

Column:272

therefore welcome the enhancement of compensation for such workers and their families. Previously, Sir, some workers and their families chose to sue errant and negligent employers in court as costs awarded can be higher than what are claimable under the Act. An example is the family of the late Mr Heng Yeow Peow, a foreman who perished in the Nicoll Highway tragedy a few years ago. They reached settlement with three companies involved which agreed to pay $380,000 plus an additional $30,000 in legal costs. If the family had sought to make a claim under the Act, they would have been compensated with just a maximum amount of $111,000. Although not every case would have the same result, it clearly shows that there could be great differences between sums. Choosing to receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or WCA could be less complicated than suing parties in court, but it is clear that the increase in minimum and maximum compensation payouts in the WCA may be of no match for some parties who choose to sue.

I would like to ask the Minister of State on the duration WCA cases are settled and if there are any other ways that can lead to speedier claims which can be a factor for families involved to consider rather than choosing to go to court. Whatever it is, at the end of the day, employers have to be wary that employees will always have the recourse to revert to common law should they feel that the provision of this Act is insufficient in meeting their needs.

I would also like to ask the Minister of State to clarify whether employees who are covered under insurance, such as Group Term Life and Personal Accident, need to be covered additionally for the Workmen's Compensation as well. Would double recovery be allowed in such cases?

Column:273

Likewise, Sir, the amendment and compensation for employees with multiple jobs seem more favourable to the employee. This could mean higher compensation costs for the affected employer as he would then have to compensate the employee for his total earnings, including earnings from another employer. I am also concerned that some of the employers may, as a result, terminate employees who hold multiple jobs. Would they have the right to do so?

One change which favours the employers is regarding the clause which discharges employer's liability if an injury is attributable to the influence of alcohol or a drug not prescribed by a doctor. I believe it is only fair that the employer assumes responsibility for injuries caused in such situations and I therefore support this change.

Sir, these changes mean quite a significant increase in costs for employers as it involves enhanced compensation for almost all staffing levels, including also executive directors. I feel that it is important for the Ministry to engage employers and keep them apprised of these legislative changes so that they will not be caught off guard when these changes come into effect.

I also like to urge the Ministry to continue taking a tough stance on bogus claims by employees and ignorant and irresponsible employers who do not play their part in ensuring a safe workplace for their employees. In terms of statistics, the slight dip in the number of workplace fatalities in 2007 is encouraging. However, only three weeks into the new year, we have seen one fatality in the Integrated Resort site in Marina on 16th January.

I believe that the best and most reasonable approach towards these issues

Column:274

would be to continue to enhance the level of safety at the workplaces so that accidents can be substantially minimised or, better still, prevented. A safe workplace is beneficial to both parties. The employees are happy and motivated when they feel that their bosses place workplace safety as a priority and care for their well-being and employers benefit from higher productivity and a more motivated workforce.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill.

This Bill has made comprehensive and significant changes which will further strengthen protection for workers who die or are injured due to accidents at work, or because of occupational diseases contracted at work. One of the benchmarks of a progressive society is certainly the extent to which we are able to provide a safe working environment and adequate compensation for those who are injured or die at work. Workers deserve to be adequately compensated if they are injured or die at work so that they are able to provide for themselves during the period of their injury or, in the event of their death, their families will not face great hardship. If an adequate compensation system is not in place, there will be very few workers who will be prepared to work in risky places. As no matter how much precaution we take and despite the stricter regime under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, there will always be accidents and, therefore, adequate compensation is critical. It is important that this Act keeps pace with the latest developments and changes in the workplace. Workers welcome these changes and we feel that, perhaps, some of them are long overdue.

One major area of change is in the scope of coverage. The most significant improvement is the removal of the distinction between manual and non-

Column:275

manual workers that existed in the existing Act under section 2 which defines the meaning of "workman". Under the old definition, there is no limit in the protection given to manual workers but non-manual workers have limited coverage, as only those earning $1,600 and below are protected under the Act. This distinction sometimes gives rise to problems as to what kind of jobs can be described as manual or non-manual, particularly in today's context when the component of knowledge and skills in a job has increased. Also, since the purpose of this Act is to provide for a simple and fast process for injured employees or their dependants to claim, it does not make sense to continue to exclude a significant proportion of our workforce from the protection of this Act, and to leave them to make claims only through common law which is expensive, takes longer and where negligence or fault of the employer has to be proven before a worker will get any compensation.

Such a route is also not in the employers' interest, as experience in other countries shows that expensive and protracted legal suits exact a toll not only on workers but also on employers whose business will also suffer. For non-manual workers earning more than $1,600, it is particularly painful because most of them do not earn enough to be able to maintain expensive legal suits for negligence against their employers, when there is no certainty even that they will succeed. Moreover, throughout the period of the suit, they may not have any income to support themselves and provide for their own medical care. So extending this scope is indeed a necessary change that will provide tangible protection to a wider group of people injured at the workplace, and this would certainly help to improve workplace harmony, productivity and efficiency.

Sir, I understand that some employers are concerned that the new

Column:276

comprehensive coverage would result in an increase in cost. However, I think that the concern is probably overstated. Although the Act now covers everyone, in practical terms, most of the claims will come from the manual workers who are currently already covered, regardless of the amount of salary that they earn. Also, under the proposed Bill, employers are given the flexibility not to take up compulsory insurance for employees who are newly covered under the Act.

In my view, this is not the ideal arrangement as it would create two classes of employees, one covered under compulsory insurance and the other by self-insurance which is less impactful as the entire regime of this legislation is premised on compulsory insurance. Nevertheless, half a loaf or three quarters of a loaf, in this case, is still better than none as far as this issue is concerned. And if this will make it more palatable for employers from the cost perspective, then we are prepared to live with it. So, I hope that employers and the insurers will understand this trade-off and compromise that have been agreed upon and fully embrace the change. In fact, even without compulsory insurance, it will be in the employers' interest to insure their liability under this Act, as some are already doing, to minimise the cost to them in the event of an accident, as their liability under this Act remains even though they are not required to take up compulsory insurance.

Sir, this Bill also provides better safeguards for low-income workers. First, our workers are no longer excluded from the ambit of the Act which is more realistic as people now work outside an employer's premises due to outsourcings. Secondly, workers who do multiple jobs can claim for the total earnings from different employers, regardless of the kind of jobs they perform, whereas the existing law limits claims for multiple earnings only if a worker is employed in the same

Column:277

occupation. This will indeed be a booster particularly for our low-income workers who perform multiple jobs and are clearly a move in the right direction. The new definition of "workplace" is also comprehensive and would cover situations where workers are deployed to work in other premises outside the employer's factory or office and avoid the kind of ambiguities that existed in the existing law.

Sir, our Seafarers' unions are also happy that section 2(4A) explicitly covers seamen, who will be covered for accidents occurring on board any Singapore ship, whether the ship is within or outside Singapore at the time of the accident, as the existing provision which covers accidents involving residents who work abroad lacks clarity as far as seamen are concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second major area of change is in the quantum of compensation. I applaud the increase in the compensation quantum for death and permanent incapacity, another significant change in the new Bill. Workers will now be paid a minimum quantum of $47,000 for death, compared to $37,000 before and a maximum of $140,000, compared to $111,000 before. For permanent incapacity, workers will be paid a minimum of $60,000, compared to $47,000 before and a maximum of $180,000, compared to $147,000 before. Perhaps, I think, for greater clarity, it would be useful if the Minister of State could also explain what are the criteria and basis for setting the minimum and maximum benchmarks. For instance, why should the minimum amount be $47,000 for the death of a worker and not much more than that, or why should the maximum amount be $140,000? I believe there is a basis and criterion for that. I think it is important that this is also explained so that the public and the workers understand.

Column:278

The other area which I think is important, when it comes to this issue about quantum, is also to ensure that there is regularity in reviewing this quantum. The quantum was last reviewed in 1995, 13 years ago, which is a very long time. Workers should not be expected to wait for another 13 years before another review is done. Ministries should put in place a mechanism to automatically review the minimum/maximum quantums of compensation for death and permanent disability regularly, whether on an annual basis or at other reasonable, regular intervals. This is necessary to ensure that the quantums prescribed a realistic, relevant and fair to the needs of injured workers and their families.

Sir, another problem which is frequently a cause of concern for workers is the computation of earnings. The amount of compensation that a worker receives depends on his salary. This poses a problem when employers under declare salaries in order to pay lower CPF contributions. In such a case, the compensation that the worker will get will be very low because his declared salary is low and it is difficult for the worker to prove otherwise. This is one area in the implementation of the Act that I believe has to be addressed so as not to undermine the protection accorded to our workers by this law, and I do hope that the MOM will pay attention to this.

Another practical implementation problem is the contract workers because of the sub-contracting system. They do not know who their actual employers are. Often, workers of the principal employer are sub-contracted to many contractors who further sub-contract them. In many cases, the worker's primary contact point may be with the middleman who handles payment and assigns work. I observe that there are some changes in this Act to address this situation, and I hope that such changes would minimise the

Column:279

difficulty faced by some contract workers in holding someone accountable for the purpose of claiming compensation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the new law provides for employers' liability for medical expenses to be limited up to a one-year time cap or a prescribed dollar per accident per employee of $25,000, whichever is reached earlier. This is an improvement over the existing provision, which is very restrictive, as it provides limits to claims under specific items, but, again, I would like to urge the Minister to review this quantum periodically as some occupational injuries may take a longer time to treat and follow-up treatments may continue for a long time. Also, with rising healthcare costs, there is a need for the MOM to regularly review this $25,000 cap so that it is fair and continues to be relevant to the needs of workers.

Sir, I welcome the changes under section 14A as the present provision can cause hardship to workers, as it provides for payment only after a worker has filed his claim or only after his claim for compensation has been assessed. The new provision allows him to be paid according to the usual salary periods under his contract of employment. I also support the various measures instituted to ensure greater efficiency in making applications and processing of claims and to enhance the various penalties to act as a deterrent to errant employers and to ensure greater compliance.

Sir, to give us greater clarity on what would be the impact of this Bill, I would also like to request the Minister of State for the following information. Firstly, the number of employers who were prosecuted for failure to insure their workers under the Act in 2007 and the number of workers who were affected. Secondly, in such situations, where employers failed to insure and had no money to pay their injured workers or the

Column:280

dependants of the injured workers, how were the workers or their families being assisted? Thirdly, how many of the workers or their dependants who claimed for compensation due to injuries or death were Singaporeans and how many were foreigners? And, fourthly, Sir, how were injured foreign workers helped to proceed with their claims once they had returned to their own countries upon the expiry of their Work Permits?

Sir, in conclusion, I strongly support these changes because the new framework will provide better protection and greater adequacy in compensation for our workers. However, there is a need to do more education and outreach programmes to make sure that our workers understand their rights, particularly, older and less educated workers. Having a good law is a progressive step but, for the implementation to be effective, workers need to be aware of their rights and where to get help. I urge the MOM to step up their education and awareness efforts and to reach out to more workers.

On this note, Sir, I applaud the MOM for undertaking this comprehensive review. Workers now have better protection. Loopholes that plagued the old law resulting in abuses by employers and workers are addressed and cost increase remains manageable for employers.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.26 pm

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the proposed amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act.

For years, the labour movement has been pushing for changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act to better safeguard the interests of the employees

Column:281

injured at work. It is heartening to note that the coverage will be extended to all employees in general, regardless of salary level and job nature. As the proposed change to the name suggests, it is no longer necessary to differentiate between manual and non-manual workers under the Act. This points to the effect that, with technology advancement and changing job scopes, the risks faced by manual or some non-manual workers in the workplace are actually similar. Since the last revision to the WCA in 1995, the median wage of the resident employees has increased significantly. It is indeed timely to raise the compensation levels to keep pace with the increase in wages. Besides enhancing the maximum and minimum compensation limits for all age groups, it is noted that the compensation for employees aged 40 and below and those holding multiple jobs will be adjusted. This enhancement will better reflect the true earning potential and thus providing workers injured with fairer compensation.

Sir, from time to time, the union leaders have given feedback that there were instances where injured workers in hardship had approached them for assistance. These workers have not received their wages while on medical leave and were unable to pay for their medical expenses, owing to the ambiguities in the current Act. There were different practices on the ground among the employers with regard to the payment of medical leave, wages and medical expenses. Many employers will wait for the reimbursement from the insurer before paying their workers. By then, the injured workers will actually be facing financial difficulties.

Based on the feedback that I have received from the union leaders, they are particularly glad that the amendments have been made, especially the timeframe

Column:282

in which the payment of medical leave, wages and medical expenses is due. This would ensure a fair and prompt compensation to the workers that will alleviate difficulties faced by workers. The union leaders are also particularly pleased with clause 35 of the Amendment Bill. It creates a new offence for non-payment of compensation by employers and also allows MOM to enforce payment of compensation. This new amendment is necessary as injured workers may not have the means to take the errant employers to court. With the number of employees benefiting from the extended coverage doubling to more than $2 million, there is no doubt that the employers will say that the business cost will go up with the added costs of accident insurance for the extended coverage. However, all employers should look at this amendment positively. The amendment should be seen as an added incentive for employers to work more closely with the Government agencies and unions to make their workplaces even safer beyond legislative requirements, to provide a safer workplace for all so that there will be fewer or no accidents at the workplace and thus lesser and, best still, no need for any compensation.

Sir, I will say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] This amendment is just in time. The coverage of the safety net has been widened, and more than two million people will benefit from the amendment. More importantly, the changes will see the compensation levels and timeframe made fairer to workers. And I will quote one verse of the Tang poetry to summarise my views on the Amendment Bill: "After numerous calls, at long last, the beauty appeared, but she is still holding the musical instrument covering half her face."

The union leaders have long waited for this Amendment Bill. For a long time, they

Column:283

have been trying to make the situation at the lower levels known to the higher levels, and at long last, MOM has approved the proposed amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The workers are particularly pleased and are looking forward to the implementation of the proposed amendments. But why do I say "The beauty is still holding the musical instrument covering half her face?" This is because the contents of this legislation are not easily understood. It is like the beauty's face being half hidden by the musical instrument, pipa . So it is necessary for MOM to explain and organise a series of briefings for all employees to fully understand the changes made to the Act. I would like to ensure that members of the public can understand the naked truth from the top to the bottom so that everyone can appreciate the true nature and beauty of this legislation.

For the employers, I would like to say in specific terms that not only the employers must understand clearly but they must also look at it thoroughly so that they see the inner beauty of the amendment. The inner beauty refers to the inner meaning of the legislation. For example, the employers cannot say that, because of extended coverage, the compensation is higher, cost of insurance increases and so business costs will go up, but rather I want to remind the employers that they must recognise that if there is no accident, there is no need for compensation. It is a basic truth.

Therefore, the employers should enlarge and strengthen the safety measures in the work environment so that every employee, regardless of whether he is a blue collar, white collar or no collar, no matter what his income, will be able to work in a safe and secure environment every day so that not a strand of hair of these workers will be lost. This is what the employers and the Government must provide to our workers.

Column:284

The arrangement of compensation - no matter how well we change the laws or how large is the compensation - is not useful because, whatever the amount is, it cannot replace the person who has passed away. So I would like to urge the employers and the workers that, in amending this legislation, we must continue to increase the safety of our work environment so as to minimise the risk of industrial accidents.

Sir, I fully support this amendment.

*Cols. 307-308.

4.33 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Bill.

People are an important asset to Singapore's progress and our economy. I rise in support of the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act as the intended principles are to safeguard the interests of both injured employees and the employers, and to ease the administrative process without compromising the integrity of the system and the Act. Let me just touch on the point about enhancing the compensation levels and amounts.

The enhancement is timely to keep up with the changes in wages as the last revision was done in 1995. I applaud the fact that, apart from the revision to the minimum and maximum compensation amount limits for both death and permanent incapacity, there is an increase of the age multiplier factors in the calculation of the compensation amount. This is effective in giving increased recognition to the earning capacity, especially of those 40 and below. Apart from enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the process, I am glad to see that the amendments also look to

Column:285

safeguarding the interests of the employers. For example, with the amendments, employers will be discharged of liability for injury directly attributable to the influence of alcohol or a drug not prescribed by a doctor. Currently, employers are held liable if such an injury results in death or permanent incapacity of 50% or more.

There are a few areas that I would like to highlight for attention and I hope the Ministry of Manpower will be able to address them.

With the proposed changes in the new section 8, the intent is to provide compensation for the employee's total earning caused by an accident arising out of or during the course of his employment. What it means is that, where an employee is employed under contract of service with two or more employers, his monthly earnings can be computed as if his earnings under all such contracts were earnings in the employment of the employer for whom he was working at the time of the accident, but excluding earnings from contract of service that the last mentioned employer does not know. The proposed amendment relaxes the compensation criteria for employees with multiple jobs in either the same or different industries.

This is a good change as we see the increased trending of contract workers who are holding multiple jobs for either financial reasons or the need for flexibility of time due to family or personal circumstances. MOS did share that the number of employees holding dual jobs is small currently. I would ask the Ministry if there is knowledge of what proportion of this group is from the lower income and who hold dual jobs to supplement their income. Currently, how many actually do declare to the employers that they hold dual jobs? This change may or

Column:286

may not benefit them if they continue not to disclose their other employment contracts to their employers for fear that their employers may not approve. If this is the case, then the amendment will not serve the purpose it was intended to. This would also mean that conscientious employers who do make it a point to know the employment contracts of their employees would actually have greater liability with this change. How would the Ministry ensure that employees are not adversely impacted from this amendment in the scenarios that I have just mentioned? And will there be measures for the Ministry to recognise and reward diligent employers who do the right things for their employees?

With the amendments, I am sure employers will also welcome the changes that support the efficiency and effectiveness of the process and, hence, reduce the administrative burden on them, eg, the streamlining of accident reporting requirements requiring the employee to decide earlier in the claim's process the preferred route of recourse he or she wishes to take. However, given the expanded coverage of the Act to allow all employees, except those excluded classes of employees as specified in the Fourth Schedule, and the relaxation of the compensation criteria, employers may be concerned with the potential increase in the fraudulent claims by employees. While there may not be a high number of fraudulent cases today, the extended coverage could mean a larger number of fraudulent cases for employers, given that the coverage now is all employees. This is about an increase of 70% from the current coverage. This could also imply an increase in the cost of burden on the employers and administrators to manage the cases. As one of the principles of the amendments to the Bill is to deter fraudulent cases, can the Ministry share the measures and the process that are in place to minimise the potential fraudulent claims by employees, apart from the

Column:287

proposed creation of a new offence for making a fraudulent case and the proposed penalty?

I understand and am glad to see that the Ministry has allowed for flexibility for employers to decide on the risk with the cost of insurance and has not required compulsory insurance for employees who are newly covered under the Act, ie, those with the monthly earnings of above $1,600, as these non-manual employees are subjected to lower workplace risks. While continuing to provide for the flexibility, I would however encourage that the Ministry initiate and support efforts for affordable insurance products for small companies to take the necessary coverage for their employees.

Employers are still liable for payment of compensation to the employees regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. With affordable insurance products, this would encourage employers to insure their employees and this will not only help them plan and manage their business cost and liability but also ensure that employees actually receive timely payouts. Should there be an insurance scheme for smaller companies? I guess that is the question I am begging to ask here. And if this can be taken as a group, it will help to drive economies of scale and, hence, more affordable insurance products can be offered to smaller companies. I think many of us know that, for the larger companies today, many already have put their employees under insurance schemes. Therefore, the benefits, as you will know, are actually wider than what is covered under the Workmen's Compensation. So the cost increase will not be on them, but the actual cost increase will really be on the smaller companies. More importantly, it will also affect the effectiveness of whether employees actually get compensated.

Sir, I support the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Column:288

4.40 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, like my esteemed colleagues before me, I support the amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I shall not repeat the reasons for supporting this amendment Bill but suffice to say that they are pro-worker and that the labour movement thanks the Ministry for this Bill. I have two suggestions for the Ministry which I hope the Minister of State would consider for the future.

The first has to do with compensation limits. In deciding how much to adjust the maximum and minimum compensation limits, I notice that the Ministry has used the median income of Singaporean employees as $2,040. According to the Labour Force Survey of Singapore, $2,040 is the median income of all employees in 2006, and the definition of "all employees" include those working on part-time basis as well. If we look only at full-time employees and exclude those who work on a part-time basis, the median income of Singaporean employees in 2006 is about 6% higher, at $2,170. In fact, in 1996, the median income of all employees was the same as those of full-time employees, at $1,630. But the difference has opened up over the last 10 years. What this means is that the minimum and maximum levels would have been slightly higher if MOM had used the $2,170 as the median income.

Let me give an example. The maximum limit for permanent incapacity is now set at $147,000 after the amendment. This is 90 times the 1996 median employment income, or seven-and-a-half years' worth. If we maintain the 90 times compensation maximum but use instead the median income of $2,170 for full-time employees instead of the $2,040 median income of all employees,

Column:289

including part-time workers, the maximum limit would be $195,000 instead of the $180,000 that is now in the amendment.

This $15,000 difference is quite a substantial amount for a family in need. And this is the reason for me raising this point so that, in future, as we introduce re-employment legislation and as we encourage more women to re-enter the workforce, I believe it is reasonable to expect that there will be many more employees in part-time work arrangements. Since the compensation is already based on a person's monthly income, the minimum and maximum limits need not be set in such a way as to disadvantage full-time employees. So this is something that I would like the Minister of State to perhaps take a look at. Arguably, the contributions of full-time employees are even more important to their families and, hence, any loss of income, more severe.

I note that, in the amended Act, the Minister is empowered to update all Schedules in the Act by Gazette. This is good news. As Madam Halimah has mentioned earlier, the Act was last amended more than 10 years ago in 1995. So I would like to suggest that the Ministry review the Schedule much more regularly in light of the new empowerment that the Minister is vested with, and I would like to suggest specifically that the Schedule be reviewed at no more than three-year intervals, and it is in the workers' interest that the Schedule is updated on a regular basis. I would specifically also like to suggest that, by the next review, the Ministry could consider using the median income of full-time employees instead of all employees.

My second point has to do with timely processing. The Act has been amended to be clearer on how and by what deadline a worker can withdraw his claim under the Act to commence civil action

Column:290

against his employer. It also spells out the circumstances under which a worker who failed in a claim under the Act can commence action in court. These amendments that help to ensure more timely processing are most welcome. I understand that in Denmark, a 1993 legislation known as the Act on Insurance Against Consequences of Industrial Injuries also laid down time limits for case processing by the National Board of Industrial Injuries which is probably the equivalent of Singapore's Workmen's Compensation Medical Board.

In other words, in the case of Denmark, not only the worker and the employer must take action within certain stipulated times so as not to cause unnecessary delays, the government body that processes the claim must also act in a timely manner. May I ask the Minister of State if there is similar provision under the Act for the Workmen's Compensation Medical Board to complete its processing within a certain timeframe. I think this will help to fulfil the goal of fair and prompt compensation.

Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that the Bill is welcomed as the amendments to the Act better safeguard the interests of our workers. I would also like to take the opportunity to remind this House that there are, on average, 15,000 cases of workmen's compensation each year of varying severity. I think, in the more serious cases, there is often loss of life and limb, leading to potentially severe hardships for the families involved. It is indeed a sober reminder that while it is good that we have well-defined measures for compensation, prevention is indeed better than cure. So it is far better to have fewer injuries in the first place. And this can only come from better awareness and a relentless effort to improve workplace safety which I would like to urge the Ministry to continue to step up efforts on.

Sir, on this note, I would like to thank the Ministry for the amendments and I support the Bill.

Column:291

4.46 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the whole, the amendments are improvements on the existing Act. The category of employees covered has widened and the compensation limits have gone up.

However, Sir, I would like to seek clarifications on two aspects of the Bill. The first aspect concerns death cases, specifically, who is to claim the compensation when the worker has died? Under the existing Act, compensation is to be paid to the worker's dependants, defined as his immediate family and other relatives. Under clauses 9 and 11 of this Bill, the Commissioner for Labour is to be empowered to decide not to pay dependants but instead to make payments to the estate of a worker, ie, if the worker has left a will, the compensation can be paid to the beneficiaries named in the will.

Sir, I can see why this change could be useful in some situations. For example, there may be a worker who has been estranged from his family from young and has willed away his property to someone else dear to him, for example, a foster parent. In such a situation, it may be fair that the estranged family should not get a windfall from his death. However, what if the worker is supporting his family and yet has willed away his possessions to a non-family member? In such a situation of competing claims, what is the Commissioner supposed to do? The amendment says that he cannot give compensation to both dependants and the estate, but must choose between the two. Is the Commissioner supposed to make a value judgment based on who needs the payment more, or who is more deserving, from a moral standpoint? This amendment introduces a possible contentious angle to the Act and is of some concern.

Sir, the second aspect relates to the compensation for the cost of medical

Column:292

treatment which has been raised by some Members already. Under the existing subsidiary legislation, the worker can claim expenses related to hospital treatment subject to caps per item, for example, ward charges of $9,000, operations may be claimed at $4,800 per admission and x-rays at $1,500 per examination. There is no limit to the number of operations, x-rays or other treatments. Implants and artificial limbs are paid in full. Clause 37 of the Bill amends the Third Schedule to now set absolute limits for the cost of medical treatment, being the cost of one year's treatment or $25,000 per accident, whichever is lower.

As the Minister of State mentioned in his Second Reading speech, there are cases where a worker requires prolonged treatment and multiple operations exceeding $25,000. We are also not sure how possible means testing for hospitalisation in the future will affect the amounts payable. Sir, while caps on compensation may be understandable, we are talking here about reimbursement for expenses which have to be paid out. I am told by some lawyers who practise in this area that the current legislation is fair and works well. Could the Minister of State further elaborate on why there is a need to change this?

Finally, Sir, I have a comment on the drafting of a provision concerning occupational disease. This is clause 8(b) of the Bill. Clause 8(b) amends section 4(3) of the Act which provides for a situation where a worker contracts an occupational disease sometime after leaving employment. Though one can make out the intention of the paragraph, I believe the wording of the section can be reordered for better clarity.

4.50 pm

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me thank the Members for supporting the

Column:293

Bill - Dr Ahmad Magad, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, Ms Jessica Tan, Mrs Josephine Teo and Ms Sylvia Lim. They have all spoken on the Bill and I am glad that there is general support for the Amendment Bill.

The proposed amendments will ensure that the work injury compensation framework continues to offer a fair, simple and quick way to settle compensation claims which will benefit both workers and employers. I shall now address the specific points raised by Members.

First, on the broader perspective of the implications of this amendment. Dr Ahmad Magad asked about the exclusion of foreign domestic workers. I have explained in my speech that due to the unique nature of their work, it makes it difficult to determine whether the injury is sustained as part of their work or otherwise. So it is therefore better for foreign domestic workers to rely on personal accident insurance that is provided for them. Or, if they wish, they can also pursue civil claims under the common law.

Dr Ahmad Magad was also concerned that employers are not required to purchase insurance for non-manual employees earning above $1,600 a month. As I explained earlier, I think we need to adopt a balanced approach. We want to enhance the benefits and protection for workers. But, at the same time, we want to ensure employers' liabilities are not unduly onerous. The amendment has expanded the coverage of the Act quite considerably. An additional 850,000 workers will now be included - 70% more than before. This is a significant move. To require employers to also purchase insurance cover for this new group could be too onerous. And our experience has shown that, generally,

Column:294

non-manual workers face lower workplace risks and incur fewer injuries. So, it is therefore better to leave it to employers to decide and to discuss with their workers on how to cover the risks. I should also stress that employers are still liable to pay compensation even if he is not insured. I agree with Mdm Halimah that it would be prudent for employers to insure themselves anyway. MOM will review this periodically and may require a specific sector to be insured if the risks warrant it.

Dr Magad also asked whether employees who are covered under insurance, such as group term life and personal accident insurance, need to be additionally covered for work injury compensation as well. He also asked if double recovery from these various policies was possible. Sir, there is no change to the current approach. Employers are allowed to buy one or more insurance policies to cover all their liabilities under the Work Injury Compensation Act. In assessing the amount of compensation payable under the Act, the Commissioner may take into account other payments made by the employer to the employee for their injury.

On compensation norms, Mdm Halimah Yacob and Mrs Josephine Teo suggested that we should review the compensation levels and the cap on medical expenses regularly. I fully agree with Mdm Halimah and Mrs Josephine Teo that the compensation levels should be updated regularly. Since the last increase in 1995, MOM had been cautious about revising the compensation levels during the volatile periods after the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and the economic downturn in 2002.

It is important that we strike a balance between updating the compensation levels frequently and providing certainty to employers of their liability under the Act. The three-year timeframe suggested by Mrs Josephine Teo is a reasonable

Column:295

one. Going forward, MOM will review the compensation levels and caps on medical expenses every three years.

Mrs Josephine Teo also suggested using the median income of full-time employees and not all resident employees as a basis for future review. Since the revised Act will cover almost all employees, including part-time workers, pegging the compensation limits to the wages of all resident employees is, in principle, more appropriate than using the wages of only full-time resident employees.

On medical expenses, some Members asked whether we could have some flexibility for injuries that need longer healing time or need longer-term treatment. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked what is the rationale for imposing an overall cap, rather than continuing with itemised limits. In this review, we have been mindful of the need to maintain a balanced approach so that the amended Act will remain acceptable to employees and employers, as the WCA is predicated on a no-fault limited liability basis. We will have to set a clear limit to the compensation for medical expenses in order to provide certainty to employers.

Nonetheless, Mdm Halimah and Ms Sylvia Lim can be assured that the $25,000 cap will fully cover the medical expenses incurred in more than 95% of cases where hospitalisation was required. By imposing a global cap instead of individual limits will also allow greater flexibility because certain limit on certain treatment, once it is breached, the employee will no longer be able to claim compensation for that specific item. Whereas, by imposing an overall cap, the employee will have the flexibility to decide on how to utilise the cap within the various treatments recommended by the doctor.

The one-year cap is also quite adequate as most injuries will typically

Column:296

stabilise within a year from the accident. Employees who wish to claim the full medical expenses beyond the $25,000 cap can choose to do so under common law. Genuinely, needy cases can also apply through the hospital's medical social workers for further assistance on a case-by-case basis.

On employees holding multiple jobs, Dr Ahmad Magad asked if this favours the employees. On the other hand, Ms Jessica Tan was not sure if this benefits the employee. So, I think, there is a fine balance. Sir, this amendment really enhances employees' access to the WCA by relaxing some of the criteria for multiple jobs that are undertaken by the employee.

Under common law today, all employees are entitled to claim compensation for all the earnings from all the jobs that he undertakes. Under this Act, employer will only be liable if he is aware of the income from the multiple jobs that his employees are undertaking. So there is a certain limit to the liability of the employers.

Next, let me talk about enhancing efficiency and effectiveness. Mrs Josephine Teo asked if MOM would set a time limit to process the claim so that employees can receive the compensation promptly. MOM has always been very mindful of the need to expedite the compensation process. Where the claims involved minor injuries, the Ministry, upon being notified of the accident, will direct the employer to pay to the injured worker his medical leave, wages and medical expenses. Where an injury was more serious, the Ministry took about four months to assess the compensation amount. This includes the time for the injury to be sufficiently stabilised as well as for a medical practitioner to determine the extent of the permanent incapacity. It is important to understand that we need

Column:297

to ensure that each case is thoroughly investigated and the compensation awarded is fair to both employees and employers.

Let me assure Members that MOM will continue to look for ways to raise the efficiency of the system and the proposed changes to the Act will enable us to do so.

Let me now clarify some of the remaining issues that were raised by Members. Dr Ahmad Magad, Mdm Halimah and several Members emphasised the need to reach out to employers and employees on the changes to the Act, and I fully agree with them. In the coming weeks and months, MOM will partner various organisations, such as the Singapore Business Federation, National Trades Union Congress, Law Society of Singapore and the General Insurance Association of Singapore to conduct public seminars on the changes to the Act. MOM will also continue to create greater awareness amongst all stakeholders of the rights and responsibilities under the Work Injury Compensation Act.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang commented just now that this Act is like the Chinese poem, " qian hu wan huan shi chu lai, you bao pi pa ban zhe lian ". I would like to respond by saying that we all hope that, one day, we will see " lu shan zhen mian mu ". But for us to see " lu shan zhen mian mu ", we have to work together collectively amongst all the tripartite partners so as to achieve the objective of reaching out to all our workers.

Ms Sylvia Lim suggested rephrasing clause 8(b) of the Bill. I would like to thank her for the suggestion. The current text together with the explanatory statement accurately reflects the intent of the clause. This clause provides flexibility in prescribing a limitation period for

Column:298

specific occupational diseases. If the incapacity or death happens beyond the limitation period after an employee ceases his employment, he would not be eligible to claim compensation under the Act. As the intent of the clause is quite clear, I do not intend to change the wordings.

Ms Sylvia Lim also asked if an incident of death happens, how does the Commissioner decide who is entitled to the claim. The Commissioner will take into account various factors involved surrounding the death of the employee, the claims that were presented to him and will make a decision on who will be receiving the claim according to the Act.

Mdm Halimah has asked for a whole series of information. I will try my best to address and to respond with some of the statistics that Mdm Halimah has asked for. She has asked for the breakdown between local and foreign workers who have claimed compensation in 2007. About 58% of the claims in 2007 were filed by foreign workers.

She also asked how many employers have been prosecuted for failure to insure their workers under the WCA. In 2007, six employers were convicted for failing to purchase valid workmen compensation insurance for their workers.

Mdm Halimah also asked what happens to workers whose companies failed to insure and cannot pay, and she asked what can we do to help these workers. Currently, if an employer does not pay compensation after being ordered to do so by the Commissioner, the employee can enforce the order in the civil courts. I have also mentioned that the new section 40 will provide an additional avenue for recovery, as the Commissioner may apply to the court to order the convicted person to pay up the amount owed to the employee. For claimants who fail to secure workmen's compensation and are in financial

Column:299

difficulties, they can apply for financial aid from either the Workers' Fund administered by MOM or the Singapore Labour Foundation Special Relief Fund administered by NTUC. Over the last three years, MOM granted four workers financial aid amounting to about $93,000 from the Workers' Fund.

Mdm Halimah also asked how are injured foreign workers helped to make their claims once they have returned home upon the expiry of their work permit. Sir, generally, injured foreign workers prefer to remain in Singapore to facilitate their recovery and processing of claims. However, if the worker wishes to return home, MOM will continue to liaise with him through the overseas contact information he has provided us or through his legal representative or the relevant Embassy.

Ms Jessica Tan asked what we can do to deter fraudulent claims by employees. I mentioned earlier that nine workers were convicted in 2007 for providing false information. This is a small number but, given that the compensation limits and the stakes have been raised, we need to do more to educate our workers so that they are aware of the penalties, and we will also be more vigilant in processing the claims to prevent fraudulent claims.

Sir, the proposed amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act are timely. The enhanced system will contribute to the overall workplace safety and health framework. With Members' support and in collaboration with employers, unions and workers, we will be well placed to achieve the goals spelt out in our safety and health vision for 2015. This will be a win-win outcome for all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Column:300

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Gan Kim Yong].

Bill considered in Committee.

Mr Gan Kim Yong:

The Chairman: The citation year "2007" will be changed to "2008" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 41 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.