FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, I support the Bill moved by the Minister for Manpower.

The amendments to the Factories Act, in order to expand the coverage of this legislation, in areas not previously covered, such as MRT and LRT tracks, and warehouses where mechanical power is used, are indeed timely. The work environment is changing rapidly, with development of new technology and the creation of new types of occupations, the existing legislation will therefore need to keep up with these changes. However, I would like to urge the Minister to consider eventually transforming the Factories Act into an Occupational Safety and Health Act so that all work areas, and not just factories and the limited areas currently defined in the Factories Act, can also be covered by the relevant safety provisions in the Act. For example, new section 27A of the Bill regarding the provision of safety training for employees could then be applied to cover domestic workers at their work places in high rise homes in order to reduce or eliminate mishaps involving falls from windows or balconies in the course of their work. There has been a sharp rise in the number of such mishaps. We are aware that the Ministry of Manpower has already taken measures to promote safety awareness among foreign domestic workers and their employers. However, if these measures do not achieve their desired results, then mandatory safety training, as stipulated in new section 27A of the Bill, should be considered.

Sir, I support the revision of the penalties imposed for the various offences under the Factories Act. As mentioned by the Minister, many of these penalties were enacted more than 20 years ago, and it has not been updated. A revision of these outdated penalties would make them more effective and relevant to present day situations.

Sir, new sections 71A, 71B and 71C empower the Minister to make it mandatory for occupiers of any factory to implement safety management systems and also to employ competent safety coordinators and appropriately qualified safety auditors and to carry out regular inspections and audits to ensure the safety, health and welfare of the people employed in the factory.

The safety objectives of such provisions in the Bill are quite obvious. However, the provisions should not be so onerous that it would hinder operational efficiency and add unnecessary costs. Requiring factories that engage in relatively low hazard activities to implement sophisticated safety management systems and employ safety coordinators and safety auditors, adds very little value to the safety of such factories but may add significantly to the cost of its operations. I would therefore like to urge the Minister to be judicious in gazetting factories that would be required to comply with the provisions of new sections 71A, 71B and 71C. Consideration should be given not just to the size of the factory and the number of workers it employs, but also, more importantly, to the hazard level of its activity.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, new section 47A of the Bill stipulates that safe work procedures must be employed before any activity can commence in any factory or potentially hazardous work environment specified in the Twelfth Schedule of the Bill. Among the safety measures listed are that hazards and potential harm to which persons at the work place could be exposed as a result of such work have to be identified and that appropriate measures must be taken to eliminate these hazards. Workers should also be made aware of safe work procedures, safety precautions and actions to be taken during an emergency and they must be provided with proper personal protective equipment. But most importantly, every person must observe and comply with the safe work procedures in a potentially hazardous work environment.

Sir, I strongly support the legislation of safe work procedures in such work environment. But I share the Minister's view that the problem of safety in the work place cannot be resolved solely by enactment and strict enforcement of the law. The efforts of the Government must be matched by a strong determination by employers and management to ensure the safety of their workers through self-regulation. Unions and workers must also play their part by adopting safe work procedures complying with safety regulations and by taking an active part in creating a safe work environment at their work places.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Factories (Amendment) Bill moved by the Minister for Manpower.

It is my belief that this Factories (Amendment) Bill is long overdue considering the fact that some of the items in the current Act has not been revised as far back as 1973, or about 27 long years.

One of such items is defying a stop work order which carries, among other stipulations, a maximum fine of $10,000. The amendment Bill seeks to increase the penalty for such an offence to $200,000 and also double the imprisonment term to a year.

There are several other provisions to increase penalties ranging from approximately a 40% increase from the current quantum to a three or four-fold increase.

Sir, while I support the increased penalties in view of the increased number of fatal accidents over the last several years, particularly involving errant contractors failing to take adequate measures to protect workers' safety, I would appreciate it if the Minister could explain why the proposed penalty for defying a "stop work" order has been raised by 20 times, and also why it took 27 long years for this penalty to be revised rather than raising it incrementally as the need arises.

For repeat offenders, especially those who have caused deaths due to deliberate safety negligence at work sites, a mandatory jail sentence should also be considered in addition to the proposed higher penalties.

While the enhancement of penalties generally serve well as a deterrent, I personally believe that such measures may not necessarily go a long way in preventing accidents at the work place. This view is also that of several of my colleagues in the GPC for Manpower. Sir, I think paramount to instilling proper sense of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) at the workplace is continuous education of employers and workers. It is a widely known fact that we are now moving into a knowledge-based economy in which people will be the key competitive factor. Safeguarding the safety and health of our workforce will, therefore, become even more critical. To motivate our workers to perform at their best at all times, we must continually accord priority consideration to their safety, health and general well being. They must feel good and safe knowing that great care has been taken to ensure that they are in the best work place.

Manpower 21 has introduced bold and exciting initiatives geared to place Singapore in a strategic position as we emerge from the economic crisis into the new millennium. I am glad to note that one of the key aspects of Manpower 21 is Occupational Safety and Health 21 (OSH 21) and that the programme has considered various improvements to the current OSH system, in addition to identifying strategies and areas of focus to propel Singapore towards realising our vision of having the best OSH standards.

It is imperative that future OSH activities must not just be about preventing accidents but also take on a more developmental and proactive approach in tackling safety and health issues so as to maximise our overall potential. It should lead to a new national OSH culture. Responsibility for OSH hazards must be placed on the shoulders of those who create the risk, such as architects and developers of buildings, as well as designers and manufacturers of machinery and equipment, who must ensure that the safety and health of the workers will be adequately safeguarded. The Ministry of Manpower should clearly communicate this major challenge that our organisations and employers need to shoulder in dealing with OSH issues in the 21st century.

The Annual Safety Performance Awards (ASPA) scheme which was introduced in 1986 to give recognition to companies that have achieved excellent safety performance should be given expanded coverage and used as an education platform to propagate the importance of OSH. OSH Excellence and Gold award winners should share their experiences and successful implementation of their safety management systems (SMS) in the light of the proposed framework for self-regulation by industries. Since there is a requirement for the safety management systems of companies to be gradually audited, my concern is for smaller establishments which need guidance and time to prepare themselves to comply with the requirements of the revised Act. How will the Ministry of Manpower deal with this issue?

Apart from recognition at the Annual Safety Performance Award ceremonies, the Ministry of Manpower should also consider devising incentives to encourage best practices and recognise companies that have consistently put in good efforts to improve work environment and prevent injuries at the work place.

Similarly, workers who have shown exemplary safety consciousness and responsibility at the work place should also be made role models and accorded proper recognition to motivate others. It must be made a requirement for workers to make safety at their work place a part of their daily routine and priority, and continually reinforce in them the importance of adopting safe work procedures at all times.

Sir, another question that comes to mind is whether the amended Act sufficiently addresses the safety and health issues in new industries in Singapore, such as the wafer fabrication and the bio-technology industries.

The safety of foreign domestic workers engaged in window cleaning has been given much public airing lately. My GPC Chairman, Mr Charles Chong, has spoken at length on this topic earlier. I hope the Ministry of Manpower could also consider introducing legislation to provide for the safety of such employees either under the Factories Act or the impending Occupational Safety and Health Act.

As a whole, the Act should ideally aim at making all workplaces safe instead of confining it to specifically defined work places. Its ultimate aim should be such that all constituents responsible for bringing about safety at the workplace - be it the Government, employers or employees - are motivated to work together to do their best to bring about the highest level of safety at the workplace.

Sir, as I have mentioned earlier, we are rapidly transiting into a knowledge-based economy. It will be a world in which economic value is derived from the active generation and application of knowledge, a world where human capital forms the new basis for wealth. Safeguarding the safety and health of our workforce should therefore become more important than ever. It is essential not only to train our workforce in new technical skills and knowledge, but also to cultivate the humanistic respect for human lives and dignity. There is no excuse whatsoever for any worker to lose his life or become permanently disabled in an industrial accident.

As we discuss the amendments to the Factories Act today, I would like to urge the Ministry of Manpower to accelerate the implementation of its Occupational Safety and Health 21 programme, which aims at transforming the work environment and propelling as many Singapore companies as possible to achieve world class OSH standards in the new millennium. An enhanced and transformed work environment will help to instill a new national OSH culture, which not only will raise productivity and participation rates of our workforce, but will also increase the competitiveness of businesses and provide for a better quality of life for the workforce.

On that note, once again, Sir, I support the Factories (Amendment) Bill.