WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (Compensations and Insurance Premiums)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Chau Sik Ting asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour what was the total amount of premium collected under the Workmen's Compensation Act for each of the years 1976 to 1980, and what was the total amount of compensation paid out in each of those years.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee) (for the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Insurance Commissioner's Department of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the gross premiums collected by insurance companies for workmen's compensation over the period from 1976 to 1980 were as follows: Workmen's Compensation Premium ($ million) 1976 51.3 1977 48.9 1978 53.0 1979 59.1 1980 68.7 (estimated)

The amounts of compensation paid out for these years are as follows: Workmen's Compensation Paid Out ($ million) 1976 12.9 1977 18.5 1978 15.8 1979 16.5 1980 17.6

Dr Chau Sik Ting (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the substantial profits accrued to the insurance industry from the implementation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, could not a certain proportion of this enormous profit be ploughed back to help promote occupational safety and health to prevent further injuries and disability?

It is important to place a certain amount of social responsibility publicly on the insurance industry to contribute towards the preservation of worker's lives and limbs rather than just raking in profits. All preventive measures will help reduce industrial accidents and diseases which, in turn, will help reduce the amount of compensation paid out, thus benefiting the insurance industry.

Could the Hon. Minister not take concrete steps to ensure that the insurance industry make such a contribution? For example, the Hon. Minister can take measures to influence the insurance industry to form their own environmental and health inspectorate to ensure that the insured companies maintain at least statutory standards of industrial safety and health in their premises.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Member has noticed that workmen's compensation is indeed a very lucrative branch of the insurance business. However, the Member would not have the privilege or rather opportunity to raise this question prior to 1975. The Insurance Commissioner's report then did not classify workmen's compensation under a separate column. It was lumped under "Miscellaneous". I suspected then that a large amount of the money in the Miscellaneous accounts must have come from the workmen's compensation insurance. As a result of the intervention of the Ministry of Labour, the Commissioner of Insurance had, since 1976, reclassified workmen's compensation as a branch by itself and from that year we were able to compare the figures.

On 1st October, 1975, we implemented the new rates for workmen's compensation, resulting in an increase in the quantum of compensation and a concomitant increase in premium. The insurance industry raised the premium by about 100%. The Ministry of Labour again intervened and we managed to cut down the increase in premium to 50%. Even then I thought that the rates were high. But the Workmen's Compensation Act is a piece of social legislation in that not only does it protect the workers, it in fact legislates for the insurance companies. Not only do we legislate for the business but we also enforce it, we make sure that they get the business by penalizing those employers who fail to take up insurance for their workers. We have enforcement measures under the Factories Act to cut down the number of accidents so that with less claims we again ensure that there is a profit margin.

The Member for Thomson is absolutely right in his call for the insurance companies to be more active in the area of workers' protection rather than be the most passive party by writing out insurance policies. The Government does the legislation and enforcement. The insurance companies just write out policies. But there has been a change of heart since. The hon. Member for Jalan Kayu is not here today but, since he took an active part in the General Insurance Association, there has been a very close contact between the Association and the Ministry of Labour. In fact, the Association has offered to donate at least a quarter of a million dollars and they are also considering a yearly donation thereafter to help out in areas of accident prevention.

I assure the hon. Member that the Ministry of Labour will not stop just here. It will continue to liaise with the insurance companies to make sure that some of the profits will be ploughed back to the workers.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, I would like to seek some clarification on the number of times the Workmen's Compensation Act has been reviewed. Are there any provisions made for the rehabilitation of workers who are unable to continue with their normal work due to accident or other mishaps?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, there is a periodic, but not regular, review of the amounts of compensation to be paid to the injured workman or his next-of-kin if he dies in an accident. In the revision, we take into consideration the rise in the cost of living, the inflation factor, so that the deceased worker's family or he himself, if he is only maimed, will not suffer any anxiety or hardship in his livelihood, at least for a short period of time. There is a constant review and, at the appropriate time, the quantum will be increased.

As to the question of rehabilitative training, that is another aspect of the Ministry's work. There is really no institutionalized training as such, if that is what the Member has in mind. In fact, the NTUC was thinking of establishing rehabilitative training under the Labour Foundation. They are having second thoughts about this. We in the Ministry of Labour have had a very queer experience, i.e. very few of the injured workers are prepared to undergo rehabilitative training. They would rather approach Members of Parliament for a hawker stall, which is an easier and more profitable occupation. So we have been quite unsuccessful in getting enough numbers of these people to undergo rehabilitative training.

Under the Employment Service, there is a small section which does rehabilitative training. Unfortunately, again, only a small number of workers who sustained injuries as a result of accidents are undergoing rehabilitative training. Most of these people being trained are really those who were born handicapped either in their limbs or in their vision. No institutionalized training is necessary for the time being because the number is so small.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan): Sir, it is heartening to note that the General Insurance Association has agreed to give a contribution, which was a point raised by the Member for Thomson. First, does the Minister or the Senior Parliamentary Secretary consider that a contribution of a quarter million dollars is a token or an initial amount, and whether in his opinion it is a reasonable amount? Secondly, would it fall under the purview of the Ministry to ensure that claims for compensation are cleared or settled with expedition, because I have received complaints from my constituents that their claims for compensation have been prolonged. There have been instances, however, when the delays have been due to the lack of consensus between the parties involved. I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to assure me that in cases where there have been undue delays, will the Ministry take the responsibility to ensure that such cases can be expedited.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, the relationship between the Ministry of Labour and the General Insurance Association has, in fact, developed into something more than a mere dialogue. We intend to involve the General Insurance Association in our future work, like accident prevention for the workers. There is an indication that the Association is now more responsive to our call, and I have no reason at this moment to suspect their sincerity.

As to the question of delay in the assessment, it is true that a number of cases have been delayed. However, not all cases are due to disagreement in the assessment but rather to the medical reports. The Member for Kampong Kembangan will appreciate that we, in the Ministry of Labour, are all laymen and we have to depend on the medical report. Sometimes, say, in the case of a complicated injury, the doctor is not able to fix a quantum on the degree of disability. It may take some months to assess the degree of permanent disability and no doctor will pen a medical report declaring a certain percentage of disability without a thorough examination of the patient to see how he responds to physiotherapy treatment. It is only after such treatment that the doctor can be certain of the degree of disability. The delay is mainly due to this aspect of the work.

However, there is provision for an award of interim payment. We will see to it that the worker does get something in the meantime. But it is important for an injured worker to comply with the doctor's appointment, because if he were to ignore continued medical examination or surveillance he might aggravate his injury and complicate matters. So it is a matter of medical assessment. The Ministry has no alternative but to depend on the doctor's final medical report before we can finalize the case.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Sir, in view of the obscenely large profits made by the insurance companies either as a group or individually, will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary make another attempt to persuade the General Insurance Association to contribute at least half a million dollars annually?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, Parliament is in no position to compel people to part with their money. I am sorry if I have missed out the point raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan. He has asked whether a quarter of a million dollars is a token sum. As I have said, we will continue to work together with the Association. We expect more help from them.

I do not know how one can describe "profit" as obscene. It is just like describing people who are filthy rich, out of jealousy more than anything else. Previously, when the statistics were not included in the Commissioner's report, the insurance companies turned round and said, "Mr Fong, we are in the dark and we do not know how much we have paid out." We told them that if they were in the dark, then they should not be in this branch of the business. They did not keep statistics because they knew that they were making good profits. When they do keep statistics, it is to prove to the Government that they are not doing well, and they say, "Please help us to increase."

As a result of our intervention, as I have said, we managed to get the statistics and they try to use this surplus to cover the other branches of the insurance business, overheads, and so on. It is not for us to demand a fixed sum from them, but there is nothing wrong for them to search their conscience to give us a bit more.