WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (Amending legislation for enhanced compensation)

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim asked the Minster for Labour if he will introduce legislation to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act (Chapter 130) (i) to ensure that a workman who suffers permanently disabling injury is compensated for loss of earnings, medical costs, rehabilitation, pain, suffering, shock, loss of standing in the community, humiliation, mortification and all other forms of tangible and intangible ill-effects; and (ii) to entitle a permanently disabled workman to monetary compensation exceeding several-fold the rates and sums laid down under the existing law.

The Minister of State for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui) (for the Minister for Labour): (i) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that the workman who suffers as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment shall be entitled to compensation. The compensation is related to the loss of earning capacity and is intended to be a substitute income contributed by the employer. In addition, the employer is required to bear medical costs arising out of a workman's hospitalisation and treatment, including artificial and surgical appliances.

According to the Act, the injured worker is entitled to compensation, regardless of whether or not he is responsible for the accident. Members will no doubt agree that this is a practical and realistic approach to the question of compensation. However, the worker has the option of proceeding to claim damages in the Civil Courts if he feels that the liability for the accident can be attributed to the employer or a third party.

The Member for Kallang will no doubt agree that whatever the quantum of compensation, it can never fully compensate the worker who sustains an injury resulting in permanent disablement. Moreover, compensation on the lines suggested by the Member will present numerous difficulties in practice, such as quantifying the compensation payable for such intangible ill-effects like pain, shock, mortification, humiliation and loss of standing in the community. However, may I assure the Member that practical suggestions from him would always be given due consideration by the Ministry.

(ii) Members will recall that the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1971, passed by Parliament on the 19th October, 1971, had increased considerably, in fact, threefold in most cases the quantum of workmen's compensation payable to workmen and their dependants. Under the amended provisions, a workman above the age of 18 years would be entitled to a sum of $28,800, or a lump sum equivalent to 60 months' earnings, whichever is the less, for injuries resulting in total permanent incapacity. The Act also specifies separate rates of compensation payable to workmen below the age of 18 years and those below the age of 16 years. In addition to the compensation for total permanent incapacity, the Act provides that the workman would also receive an additional one-quarter of the computed sum where he is unable to perform the essential actions of life without the constant attention of another person.

In view of the very recent amendments providing for increased quantum of compensation, the time is not opportune for further amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Instead of hankering over the quantum of compensation, may I suggest that it would be more fruitful for all concerned to concentrate their time and energy in getting the trade unions and the workers to play a more active and constructive role in the prevention of accidents. This could be done through education of the workers and by exerting greater pressures upon the employers to provide for a safer and healthier working environment. As many accidents were due to the irresponsibility of the employers as well as the negligence on the part of the workers and their stubbornness and resistance to using protective apparels and other safety devices, I would like to count on the support of the Member for Kallang when Government prosecutes such recalcitrant employers and workers for infringements of the provisions of the Factories Act and the regulations made thereunder.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim (Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have much to educate the employers too. What I want to know is: will the Government be prepared to undertake a claim for damages for and on behalf of an injured workman if, on the face of it, there is evidence to show that his employer had partly or wholly contributed to the cause of the industrial accident which resulted in his sustaining an injury?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, as I said in my answer earlier, workmen's compensation does not take into consideration who is at fault. However, if the injured worker feels that he is not responsible, but that there is a third party involved, or that the employer is responsible, then he can take the case up to the Civil Court.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim: Mr Speaker, will the Government spare an injured workman all the ordeal and legal expenses incurred in securing a claim for damages?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, as provided for, claims can be made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But if the injured workman wants to take other courses which are open to him, then I am afraid he will have to follow the procedure as laid down in the Courts of Law.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim: Sir, if I may ask a last supplementary question. The principles that I have laid down are found to be practicable in certain countries. Will the Government accept my proposition in the final analysis?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, as I have said earlier, I assure the Member that any practical suggestions that he has to make are welcome and will be given due consideration, and will he please put them up in writing.