FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.22 pm

The Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Bill before the House seeks to amend the Factories Act to improve safety and health standards at factories and other workplaces. The Bill also seeks to expand the scope of the Act to cover more workplaces. I shall now highlight the major changes introduced through this Bill.

Clause 2 of the Bill amends the Factories Act to expand the interpretation of "factory" to include, among other things, warehouses and industrial testing laboratories. Such premises are presently not covered. It is quite clear that activities carried out in warehouses and industrial testing laboratories may expose workers to safety and health hazards similar to those present in manufacturing factories. For instance, workers in warehouses are exposed to hazards from falling materials and material handling equipment, while those working in the testing laboratories are exposed to toxic, corrosive or inflammable substances. With the amendment, the safety and health provisions of the Act will apply to warehouses and industrial testing laboratories, thus enhancing workers' safety in these premises.

Clause 2 also amends the Act to delete existing section 6(5), which excludes from the Act factories in which less than 10 persons are employed and no mechanical power or dangerous substances are used. With the amendment, the safety and health provisions of the Act will be extended to workers working in these small factories. These factories, however, will not be required to meet all the existing registration requirements which are meant for factories with more workers and equipment. For instance, it will not be necessary for an occupier of a factory with less than 10 workers to comply with the requirement of submitting a layout plan to the Chief Inspector of Factories when he applies to register the factory. Hence, the Chief Inspector will be given the power to simplify the registration requirements in respect of these factories. This is provided for under clause 4 of the Bill.

Clause 6 amends the Act to stipulate technical standards on natural and mechanical ventilation provided at workplaces. Here, we have adopted criteria laid down in Singapore's Building Control Regulations and internationally recognised standards.

Clause 10 amends the Act to allow any person, instead of only a male, who meets the necessary requirements to carry out examination, lubrication or other operation on unfenced machinery.

Clauses 14 to 17 amend sections 36 to 39 of the Act to apply the same requirements of test and examination on different types of pressure vessels such as steam boilers, steam receivers and air receivers. Also, a new provision is introduced to require the authorised inspector to inform the Chief Inspector immediately if the examination shows that the pressure vessel is unsafe for use. This will enable corrective action to be initiated immediately.

Sir, as more toxic chemicals are now being used in factories, an increasing number of workers may be exposed to chemical hazards. The Ministry, therefore, proposes to introduce additional measures to better protect the health of these workers. Clause 22 of the Bill seeks to amend the Act to introduce new measures to protect workers against toxic dust, fumes and other contaminants. These measures include requiring processes that generate such contaminants to be carried out in isolated areas or in closed vessels or systems. Clause 22 also enacts a new section 60A in the Act, to require factory occupiers to obtain from their suppliers of hazardous substances material safety data sheets (MSDS) and take appropriate precautionary measures based on information contained in the MSDS. In addition, clause 24 empowers the Minister to prohibit the use of certain chemicals or processes that may pose serious health risks to workers.

Clause 31 creates a new section 76A to extend certain provisions of the Act as specified in section 76A(2) to works carried out in an airport for repairing, servicing, cleaning, loading and unloading or refuelling of aircraft. However, where a provision specified in section 76A(2) refers to machinery or plant, section 76(A)(3) will exempt the application of such a provision as long as the machinery or plant is part of the aircraft and is the property of the owner of the aircraft. For instance, section 21(1) mentioned in section 76A(2) refers to the guarding of transmission machinery, and section 22, sub-sections (1) and (2) refer to the guarding of other machinery. "Guarding" in this connection refers to protective devices over any moving parts. These sections will not apply to such machinery if it is part of the aircraft. This is because it is impracticable to require the fencing of or modification to these mechanical parts of an aircraft which are already regulated by the civil aviation authorities.

Sir, at this juncture, I would like to thank Mr Charles Chong and officials of the SIA Engineering Company Engineers and Executives Union for drawing my attention to section 76A(3). They were concerned that the exemption is too wide and could give rise to situations where workers will be exposed to unnecessary hazards. I have therefore re-examined the section closely and concluded that it is necessary, as I have explained earlier, to provide for such an exemption. I would also like to point out that such an exemption is not new. Similar exemption already exists under the current Act in section 74(4). Essentially, section 74(4) exempts "machinery or plant which is on board a ship and is the property of the owner". The reason for such exemption is not to cause unnecessary modifications to ships and aircraft calling at our port and airport.

Sir, however, I would like to clarify that where a provision specified in section 76A(2) does not refer to machinery or plant, it will not be given any exemption as a result of this amendment. For example, section 33, sub-sections (2), (5) and (7) refer to openings in floors, ladders and work conducted at an elevated platform, or work at heights. As these sections do not refer to machinery or plant, which is part of the aircraft belonging to the owner of the aircraft, they would apply even in relation to work carried out on such machinery or plant. To put it in another way, a worker working on a machinery or plant belonging to the owner of the aircraft will still be protected by the Act because, in the process of working on such a machinery or plant, should the worker have to use a ladder or erect a scaffolding in order to reach a particular machinery or plant, then all the safety precautions pertaining to the erection of the scaffolding or ladder or work platform will still apply because the exemption is only for machinery or plant which is part of the aircraft belonging to the owner of the aircraft, whereas all the other fixtures that are necessary for the worker to gain access to this particular machinery or plant should be governed by the Factories Act and all safety regulations will still apply.

Sir, clause 32 amends section 77 to extend the power of the Minister to make regulations on work involving the use of pesticides, maintenance and repair of roads, lift maintenance and any other process or operation which poses safety and health hazards to workers.

Clause 33 enhances the powers of the factory inspector to enable him to:

(a) take samples of any substance found in a factory;

(b) monitor the workplace for various health hazards, such as excessive noise and heat, and harmful substances; and

(c) require any hospital to provide information of any person who is injured in an accident and is receiving treatment at the hospital.

At present, the maximum fine for any contravention of the Factories Act which results in the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any person, is $25,000. This fine was first introduced in October 1979, more than 15 years ago. Furthermore, no distinction is made between a contravention which results in death and that which results in serious bodily injury. To differentiate the seriousness of any contravention that results in death, especially multiple deaths, it is proposed that the maximum fine for such a contravention be raised to $50,000 where there is one fatality, and $200,000 where there are two or more fatalities. Clause 35 of the Bill seeks to amend the Act to make these changes. The maximum term of imprisonment will, however, remain at one year for both types of contravention.

Sir, many provisions of the Factories Act which require factory occupiers to provide safe machinery and equipment are written in general terms. What constitutes safe machinery and equipment is not spelt out in detail. Clause 36 of this Bill introduces a new provision in the Act to require that the relevant Singapore Standards or Codes of Practice published by the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research be taken into consideration in determining whether a machine, apparatus, appliance or equipment is safe.

At present, the Chief Inspector is empowered to compound any offence under the Act for a sum not exceeding $200. Composition has proven to be an effective way to deal with less serious violations as the punishment is meted out almost immediately. It has led to many offenders taking prompt action to rectify the unsafe conditions found at their workplaces. To enhance the effectiveness of this enforcement option, the Ministry proposes that the maximum composition fine be raised to $1,000. This amendment is in clause 38 of the Bill.

Sir, the Bill also contains other amendments which are made for the purpose of bringing the Act up-to-date. They are mostly of a technical nature or consequential amendments. Explanations for these amendments are in the Explanatory Statement of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill which will make further provisions for securing the health, safety and welfare of our workers.

Sir, the new amendments will expand the scope of the Factories Act. It is of utmost importance that our workers work in safe and healthy work environments so that they can concentrate their efforts to improve productivity and quality. We have to therefore constantly monitor the safety standards and procedures in the various factories, shipyards and other working areas to ensure that workers' health and safety will always be given priority.

Sir, in 1993 and 1994, many accidents had occurred, especially in shipyards, resulting in loss of lives and injuries to our workers. Various Committees of Inquiry were established to investigate into the accidents, why they had happened and who were responsible. They had made various recommendations to improve safety in the working environment in these workplaces. However, accidents continued to occur in shipyards in 1993 and 1994. While legislation will indeed help to ensure that our factories and workplaces will be safe and healthy, I think there are also other measures that need to be implemented. Of course, stiffer penalties will act as a deterrent and will also wake up management to improve their safety practices and procedures.

It is very important that our top management and workers have a strong commitment to safety. Management must periodically review the safety standards and procedures in their companies. For example, there must be annual audits of the company's safety plans and procedures. Training of their employees is important and they must ensure that their employees are adequately trained on safe work practices. This is particularly important in companies where there are many foreign workers and sub-contractor workers. Here it is important that these workers be given special training in work safety in a language which can enable them to benefit from training. And as part of the safety measure, no one should be allowed to take a job in a workplace which is considered hazardous without undergoing a safety course conducted by the Ministry of Labour. On the part of the workers, I think we have, at the unions, encouraged that they have a healthy attitude towards safety. They cannot afford to have a casual attitude towards safety.

Sir, this Bill will help to enhance the safety and well-being of workers. However, Government, employers and workers must always be vigilant and alert to take action against unsafe and unhealthy work practices. In this way, health and safety of our workers will always be accorded top priority.

On this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Factories (Amendment) Bill, I must say, is a necessary piece of legislation as it ties up loose ends and simplifies administrative and enforcement procedures. For example, the ship-repair and related activities, which have been responsible for some bad accidents in recent years, are brought more squarely within the ambit of the principal Act.

I am pleased to note that the Bill strengthens the provisions of the principal Act in protecting the life and limb of factory workers. For example, the Bill includes excessive noise as a hazard to be safeguarded against and relates the penalty for contravention of the Act to the severity of the consequences.

However, I have three comments to make on the Bill. The first concerns clause 6 of the Bill which repeals and re-enacts section 14 of the principal Act dealing with ventilation. The underlying presumption of the proposed section 14 seems to be that the atmospheric air will be the source of fresh air. What will happen if this source is polluted by the haze we experienced during the months of July to October last year? I hope the Minister's reply is not that the proposed section 14(4) will come into play.

The second concerns clause 21 which repeals and re-enacts section 58 on "First-aid" and clause 22 which repeals and re-enacts, among others, section 60 on "Toxic substances". These provisions are satisfactory in themselves except they are silent on the need to familiarise workers with the safety aspect of these provisions. First-aid facilities and handling directions for toxic substances by themselves may not enable workers to deal with an emergency arising from a spillage of toxic substances. It may be necessary to provide for the periodic conduct of emergency drills, on the line of fire drills for high rise buildings, boat drills on passenger ships and life-jacket drills on commercial flights. A slight disruption to the production schedule of a factory will be justified by the workers gaining hands-on experience of dealing with an emergency situation, which may occur despite the provisions of this Bill and the principal Act.

My third comment is that tightening the provisions of the principal Act will not by itself ensure a safe system of work. Factory owners and operators must apply these provisions not only to the letter but also in the spirit they have been made, that is, ensuring the safety of factory workers. Two events speak for themselves. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the fire and explosion at Sembawang Bethlehem Pte Ltd on 9th August 1994 showed that safety rules had not been observed. The Jurong Shipyard was recently fined the maximum of $25,000 for flouting the principal Act in a flash fire on board the British Adventure with a loss of ten lives on 8th February 1994.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, the Minister is to be commended for moving this comprehensive and important amendment to the Bill and I support the Bill. But I have some comments and queries for the Minister.

On clause 10, which amends section 23, it is highly commendable that the requirement of the person who carries out the examination and lubrication of unfenced machinery is now not limited only to a male. Thank you for being gender sensitive. However, I am puzzled at setting the minimum age at 20. What is the rationale for this? It is not even the age of majority. Secondly, who gives the training to this person who carries out the examination, and do we have a uniform and accepted system of training? And also, is there continuing education as machines change with technology advancing?

Clause 35 amends section 89 to raise the maximum fine to $200,000 for a contravention of the Act which results in the death of two or more persons. Why do two deaths have to occur to incur this maximum fine? In the original Act, the reference is only to the "death of any person". Why have we increased this to two deaths in the amendment? Is not one death already a death too many? So I think we should change this amendment to "death of any person" instead of "death of two or more persons".

On clause 40, why are we replacing "maximum permissible working pressure" with the words "safe working pressure"? Should not the maximum permissible working pressure be a safe working pressure? Which of the two is more safe?

Finally, in view of the recent spate of shipyard accidents resulting in many deaths, can the Minister assure the House that the new amendment will minimise the causes that led to these very accidents? Singapore cannot afford a reputation of unsafe labour practices resulting in the unnecessary loss of human life.

Mr John De Payva: Mr Speaker, Sir, I also rise in support of the Bill.

Any effort to enhance safety is always welcomed as a safer working environment will eventually minimise the number of unnecessary fatalities amongst workers. These fatalities are preventable if only more detailed attention is given to safety regulations and procedures. Experience has shown that without deterrent sentences being imposed, some management tend to give safety very low priority. Hence the provision in the Bill for a fine of up to $200,000 or a jail term or both, if two or more workers died on the job, is not excessive.

Numerous seminars and forums have been organised by the Ministry of Labour, NTUC and other authorities, but yet some worksites fail to put in place a proper safety management system. In this connection, I would like to reiterate the labour movement's call to get all companies, regardless of their size, especially those in the heavy industry, to submit annual safety plans. We are of the view that such a measure would compel those managements with indifferent attitude to take the appropriate action to beef up safety requirements at their workplace. Would the Ministry of Labour look into this suggestion and consider implementing it?

Of late, a major concern is the fact that most fatal workplace accidents involve contract workers, the majority of whom are low-educated and lower skilled. This group of workers cannot be ignored if we want to create a safer working environment. Legislation after legislation is not enough to maintain or improve safety standards until and unless people in the workplace are trained and committed to observe safety procedures. In this respect, I would like to suggest that contractors and sub-contractors be compelled to show that they have a good safety system in their place before they are allowed to tender for contracts in heavy industries such as shipyards and construction sites, aprons, or even parking bays of airports.

Sir, the labour movement has also hailed the recent directives of the Ministry of Labour requiring shipyards not only to have a safety management system but also to have it audited. I am confident this will go a long way towards reducing industrial accident rates. However, this requirement is only confined to the shipyard and construction industries. In my view, such a requirement should be extended to cover other industries in keeping with the overall objective of keeping our worksites safer and healthier. What I would like to know is whether the Ministry of Labour intends to move towards this direction. In other words, make it mandatory, in particular the heavy industry, to have a safety management system and auditing system.

Sir, talking about safety, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves that safety is everybody's business. Commitment to safety must start from the CEO and top management of a company who must demonstrate it very clearly in words and deeds so that they could set examples for their workers to follow. In other words, a company should and must have a comprehensive written safety policy that incorporates the CEO's statement of commitment.

On this note, Sir, I once again support the Bill.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank all the Members who have spoken up in support of the amendment to the Factories Act, and I will respond to the queries and questions raised by them.

First, let me respond to Mr Othman Haron Eusofe's point about safety in the shipyard. Like everybody else, we in the Ministry of Labour are equally concerned with the spate of accidents in the shipyard and we have taken particular measures to try to reduce such accidents. The Committee of Inquiry mentioned by Mr Othman Haron Eusofe is just one of the measures when we look into the details of a particular accident and arising from it, try to learn the lessons so as to avoid a recurrence of similar accidents in the future. We have also made all the recommendations of the Committees of Inquiry part of the shipyards' safety regulations. We have made it mandatory for shipyards to comply with the recommendations of the various Committees of Inquiry.

While it is quite unfortunate that we have had a series of serious accidents in shipyards that killed quite a number of workers, if we look at the overall picture, the number of accidents in the industry has actually been declining. For instance, between 1993 and 1994, the number of accidents has dropped from 4,257 to 4,003 in 1994. This is the overall accident rate. If you look at the severity of accidents, the number of fatal accidents has dropped from 77 in 1993 to 53 in 1994.

But let me say, Mr Speaker, this statistical trend which shows that the number of accidents is declining, and the number of fatalities and severity of accidents are going down is really no cause for complacency. The most important thing is that despite all the measures that have been taken so far, from time to time we are still encountering totally unnecessary preventable accidents. And the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that such accidents should be kept to the barest minimum, if not, totally eradicated.

Sir, Mr Othman Haron Eusofe also spoke on the training of workers, particularly foreign workers and sub-contractor workers, ie, workers who are less well educated and lower skilled, which Mr John Payva has also mentioned. I agree that this is an important area and we have in fact made it mandatory for such workers to undergo proper safety orientation before they can commence working. For instance, there is a Construction Safety Orientation Course. There is also a Shipyard Safety Instruction Course. Workers in these sectors must complete these courses before they can commence working in the worksites in the construction industry or in the shipyards. When we conduct such training courses, we take note of the fact that a large number of these workers are in fact foreign workers and may not understand English all that well, or they may only speak their own native languages. So, in fact, our safety courses are conducted in English, in our four national languages, even in dialects, if necessary, in Thai, and in Bengali for many of the workers who come from Bangladesh. So we do tailor-make our safety orientation courses to the language that the worker is most familiar with.

As for sub-contractor workers, I think it is a responsibility of their supervisor and employer, ie, the sub-contractor himself, to ensure that they comply with the safety rules, the procedures or the safety management system installed by the company in which the sub-contractor is working, whether it is for a particular shipyard or whether he is a sub-contractor or a main contractor in a construction site.

My Ministry has also provided training for the safety supervisors for shipyards and contractors. We will continue with our training and educational efforts in order to raise the awareness of workers on the proper safety procedures, the safe way to work in whichever industry. However, I believe that at the end of the day, we need more than just legislation. We need management's total commitment to safety. We also need workers' understanding and appreciation of the need to comply with the safety regulations of the company because sometimes we see reports of accidents happening where workers in fact caused or contributed to the accidents through sheer negligence and blatant disregard for safety regulations. So there is a substantial need for workers to also play their part. In this respect, my Ministry is working closely with NTUC in order to initiate some programmes whereby we will be able to work with the union branches or the union officials in the particular industry, especially in the shipyards, to alert the workers to their contribution towards safety management in the company, their role and responsibility in helping the company to maintain a safe working place.

Sir, in response to Mr Chin Harn Tong who spoke on the repealing of section 14 by clause 6 to introduce new standards for natural or mechanical ventilation, I think the point here is that the source of air must of course be the atmospheric air. There is really no other way. Short of insisting on purifying natural atmospheric air, we cannot really improve on the quality. And even if we do, we are only affecting the air quality for a small proportion of the total population, which has no option but to breathe the air that we are living in. So his reference to atmospheric pollution is taken note of. The Ministry of the Environment will be working very hard to ensure that our ambient air is of good breathable quality. There is nothing much that we can do within the Factories Act itself to specify that quality of air. What we are specifying is to ensure that within the workplace itself, there is sufficient ventilation, mechanical or otherwise, to ensure that the workers are enjoying good quality air and they are not subjected to working in a polluted atmosphere.

As to the need of getting workers to be familiar with first-aid drills and other measures to prevent the contamination of the work area by dust and other toxic material, we have already, in this amendment, required the management to obtain all the safety instructions or precautions necessary by way of obtaining the material safety data sheets (MSDS) which I referred to earlier on. There is an obligation on the management to ensure that the safety precautions which are clearly spelt out in the MSDS should always be complied with in the place of work. So in that sense, I think workers will become familiar with the dangers associated with the kind of materials or chemicals or substances that they are working with and they should therefore comply with all the safety precautions. They would also be familiar with the measures to be taken in case of an emergency.

I agree with Mr Chin that, apart from tightening up the provisions in the Factories Act, it is important that factory operators follow the spirit of the Factories Act which is really to ensure that our workers can continue to enjoy working in a safe and healthy environment.

May I now turn to the comments raised by Dr Soin on the age of 20 for workers who are authorised to make inspections on unfenced machinery and such likes, ie, examination, lubrication or other operations of unfenced machinery? The age of 20 is basically to ensure that such workers have a certain number of years of working experience. As you know, in our system, people may go into an industrial employment at the age of 16 because after their 'O' level, some of them may well leave school and go on to such a job. But we think that a young worker, with hardly a few years of experience, is not an appropriate person to do such work because in checking on some unfenced machinery where there are exposed moving parts, you need to be more experienced, more matured and more careful. So the age of 20 has nothing to do with the age of majority. It is just an estimate, a subjective assessment of how many years of experience would be necessary before a worker has sufficient maturity and a sense of responsibility to be allowed to carry out such job safely for himself and for his co-workers.

On clause 35, I take the point that one death is already one too many. That is why I said in my earlier response that even though the statistical trend is favourable, we are still very concerned and we will implement and impose any measure necessary to minimise accidents. She will notice that the amendment is, in fact, to raise the penalty even when there is a case of one death. It will be increased from $25,000 to $50,000. We are just saying that in the case of total disregard for safe practices resulting in an accident that causes multiple deaths, we think we should signal that this is more serious and that the employer or the operator should be subjected to a much heavier penalty of $200,000. It is in no way trying to minimise the impact of just having one death.

Sir, on clause 40, "safe working pressure" is in fact a much more dependable and reliable measure than the old terminology of "maximum permissible working pressure" because I think safe working pressure is precisely what it means, ie, the condition under which a particular pressure vessel, whether it is a steam boiler, compressed air receiver or underfired vulcaniser, can be operated without any risk to its worker. Maximum working pressure means you are reaching the maximum limit. The margin for error is henceforth much less. We prefer to choose a more conservative and safer approach to it.

Finally, the Member's question whether the amendments will reduce or minimise the causes of accidents. That is our intention, that is our hope. But, of course, on their own, the amendments themselves may not achieve this. We need, and we seek, the cooperation of employers and, as I mentioned earlier on, workers also. To reduce accidents, it requires total effort on the part of the legislator, the employer and the workers. Everybody must contribute. Everybody has something to lose if an accident happens, most of all the worker who is at the frontline. So we hope that workers will pay greater attention to the safety requirements of their company and, at the same time, employers will invest more in terms of providing a better, a safer and a healthier working environment for their workers.

Sir, I now turn to the comments by Mr John De Payva. I have responded to his comment on contract worker with low skill and low education. I think this is an area that we will continue to provide the right kind of safety orientation and safety training to ensure that they are adequately prepared to work in the hazardous industries.

As to whether we can compel contractors to have a good safety record before they can tender for a certain job, in so far as private sector employers are concerned, I understand that some companies, particularly those dealing with very hazardous activities, for instance, oil refinery, do have corporate policies where they would bar contractors from tendering for any service, repair or maintenance work with them, if the contractors have been shown to have a poor safety record. So companies on their own are already adopting this approach because they are conscious of the need to maintain good housekeeping and good safety management. So they would want to keep out contractors who do not comply with their requirements.

The Ministry will encourage as many factory operators as possible to adopt this approach. But I think there would be difficulty in implementing this purely by force of law. We have been discussing with CIDB whether it is possible to ensure that in the CIDB registration for building contractors, we should incorporate a criterion on the safety record of the contractor. So the Government, as the registering body for building contractors, will be examining whether, in future, before a contractor can be registered with CIDB under its various categories, it has in fact got a good safety record. And if a contractor persistently has a bad safety record and a lot of accidents has been happening in the particular contractor's work site, we could consider either not allowing him to be registered or debarring him from tendering for Government contracts. This is an idea that my Ministry has taken up with the CIDB and we will be examining the feasibility of implementing such a criterion.

We have also worked with the Association of Singapore Marine Industry (this is an association of the shipyard industry) to encourage them to draw up some pre-qualification among their members for contractors tendering for work within a shipyard and to look into the safety record as one of the factors in assessing the suitability of such contractors.

As to whether we should expand the system of safety audit to other industries, let us look at it from a broader view. As it is, apart from the shipyards and the building industry which are already required by our regulation to have safety audit, all other factories, including the heavy industries, are already subjected to regular inspection by the factory inspectors. Special attention is paid at these inspections on the hazardous equipment, such as lifting equipment and pressure vessels. This equipment, in fact, is required to be inspected periodically by competent engineers. For instance, a boiler, or lifting device, like crane, has to be inspected annually and certified to be safe and fit for use.

In addition, whenever there is a change in the layout of the factory, or whenever there is an installation of new equipment that changes the operational procedure within a factory, the operators are required to inform the Ministry of Labour about such changes. So safety precautions will be looked into at that point in time before they can commence work. These regulations will enable the Ministry to monitor closely and regularly the safety conditions in factories, thus, to a large extent, achieving the objective of the annual safety plan proposed by Mr John De Payva and Mr Othman Haron Eusofe.

As I said earlier, in the case of shipyards, those that are employing 200 workers or more are required to appoint external auditors to audit their safety management system annually. And for the construction industry, we require them to conduct an audit once every six months, if the contract sum exceeds $30 million. So with this auditing requirement for the two most hazardous industries, we believe that it would have contributed greatly to minimising the accidents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that I have dealt with all the points raised by Members. Once again, I want to thank them for supporting the Factories (Amendment) Bill.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Point of clarification, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my query about the training given to the people who do the examination of unfenced machinery.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the training of the workers in dealing with a particular piece of machinery would have to be the responsibility of the operator. Whatever machinery that is installed by the operator before it can actually commence operation in the factory, or before it can be licensed or certified by the Factory Inspectorate, they will have to inform the Factory Inspectorate of the process that is going on in the factory. We will then ensure that the working condition and the process that they are going to operate are safe and that they have complied with the requirements for the particular operation. For instance, if you need to train a worker to do a particular job, it is really the responsibility and onus of the employer to ensure that the worker is properly trained. Likewise, whether it is to inspect an unfenced machinery or to operate a lifting device, you have to provide the training. With the exception of certain statutory requirements like a steam boiler, or pressure vessel, there are clear-cut statutory requirements on what kind of training is required before you can operate. They have certificates like Boiler Certificates which will categorise the skill of the worker and allow him to operate a particular type of boiler up to a certain capacity. So there are some specifications which are listed in the regulations. There are many other areas of work, particularly in the inspection and maintenance of machinery which must be the responsibility of the operator to provide the training.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: In page 1, line 4, the citation year will be changed to 1995 as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 40 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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