EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 3018

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 3018

SAFETY AT WORKPLACES: Debate resumed.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, the recent two accidents at Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah are stern wake-up calls to step up on safety at construction sites. The accidents claimed six lives. And I join my hon. colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin, in offering my deepest condolences to their families.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.26 pm

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Home Affairs Minister for awarding a posthumous Medal of Valour to the late foreman Mr Heng Yeow Peow who put the lives of his workers above his own. I am sure the Heng family will have some comfort from this award.

While we can never make up for their loss, this House can help make sure that

Column: 3019

the lives of other workers will not continue to be put at risk, and that everything that can be done will be done to ensure the safety of workers at construction sites. And we must tackle this comprehensively at all levels.

Sir, the brutal fact is that despite all the professed progress that we have made so far, there are still more workers killed in the construction industry than in any other major industrial sector. In the past 12 years, construction accidents claimed the lives of 549 workers, accounting for more than 65% of all fatal industrial accidents in that period. The key question that needs to be addressed is: why do these fatalities continue to occur at such a high rate?

I would like to highlight three areas that we should look into:

(a) Whether our regulations and tender process do enough to promote safety.

(b) The responsibilities of the construction companies and the steps that they should take to reduce the number of accidents.

(c) The area that involves the workers themselves and whether they have a safety culture.

Sir, there is a genuine concern that the cut-throat tender system has a role to play in this lack of focus on safety at construction sites. The competition in the construction industry is so acute that a string of construction companies have gone under. And for those which survive, many are tempted to offer unrealistically low bids to get a job to stay afloat.

There have been instances when certain contractors were known to dive $50 million to $70 million lower than the others in their bids for a Government

Column: 3020

contract - and they got the jobs. Surely, the question would be: how could their bids be so far off from the others and were they realistic?

The trouble does not stop there. Once such contractors with low bids get the job, the other contractors bidding for other similar projects will also dive low, as they use these past successful bids as a guide. It becomes an industry-wide frenzy to the bottom. No wonder so many companies go belly up. So acute is the competition that companies are making all manner of short-cuts to reduce costs, especially when the costs of construction-related materials have risen world-wide.

Installing safety measures and equipment is expensive and takes time. Hence, when constructing temporary protection works, such as retaining walls and struts, they will be tempted to offer a cheaper design with cheaper materials with a lower safety factor, as they will help them save costs. Smaller sub-contractors are often identified as culprits as they are prone to cutting corners because of their tight margins and poor cash flow.

Sir, we should review the industry practice of encouraging awards that go for the lowest quote, which runs the risk of attracting cowboys and increasing accidents. We should be concentrating on getting value for money which means taking quality and safety into account.

In its actions and contracts, the Government agencies must send a strong signal that they place top priority on safety by spelling out its safety requirements clearly in its contracts. For example, the contracts should tighten the procedures by making clear the design intent of the temporary protection works and spell out the need for a professional engineer to not only endorse the design, but to also supervise the construction of

Column: 3021

these temporary protection works at the site. This is to ensure that they are built according to specifications. The safety officer on site is not trained to tell whether a design is safe or not.

The client should also specify clearly a reasonable construction period. The experience of many in the construction industry is that projects have to be completed in a mad rush within very tight deadlines, and in the rush,

corners are cut and accidents can happen.

The Government should also amend the safety-related regulations for construction sites to extend them to the sub-contractors as well, and not only the principal contractor.

Sir, the levels of health and safety management are often determined by the requirements of either the client and/or consultants and contractors. For construction companies in Europe and the USA, safety for the workers is a number one priority as far as senior management is concerned. Clients are very demanding with regard to health and safety and will only deal with companies which are not only seen as caring for their workforce, but have safety planning, safety management and performance and have the records to back it up. Our efforts in this direction seem to be inadequate.

Yes, I welcome the Land Transport Authority's introduction of a new performance scheme for future civil works contracts in which contractors with good safety performance will be paid up to $1 million. While this is a step in the right direction, as Dr Teo pointed out, it needs to be asked if this can be really effective, given the climate of low bids. If you drop $50 million to $70 million in your bid to get a contract, $1 million is a drop in the ocean. We have to fix the climate of encouraging unrealistically low bids in this cut-throat environment.

Column: 3022

Safety enforcement is an important component also, but the problem with Government enforcement is that it needs to be comprehensive in order to be effective. The sheer number of construction companies and worksites in Singapore that need to be overseen makes it very difficult. Hence, it is important to encourage companies to self-regulate and invest in training. There are often two reasons cited for worksite accidents:

(1) Failing to identify an unsafe condition that existed before an activity was started or after an activity was started; and

(2) Deciding to proceed with a work activity after the worker identifies an existing unsafe condition.

These two reasons put the primary responsibility for safety on the worker because the worker is the person nearest and most likely to detect an unsafe situation.

In the event that the worker has not been properly trained, many unsafe situations may go unnoticed. In that case, the line supervisor and, ultimately, the employer also share in the burden of responsibility. However, the worker still plays the key role in deciding what to do once an unsafe condition has been identified. The question now becomes why would a worker wish to continue to work in an unsafe environment knowing that it could risk his life.

Sir, like Dr Teo, I do not wish to speculate on the causes of the Nicoll Highway accident, but I have three questions for the Transport Minister that need to be clarified:

(1) Was LTA aware that there were earlier danger signs that the worksite was unsafe, and if not, why not? Those in the

Column: 3023

industry said that workers had been giving their feedback earlier that the site was unsafe, including the newspaper reports of an LTA supervisor who later committed suicide. Was LTA aware of such feedback and, if so, did LTA act on them?

(2) I feel that LTA should set the example of putting safety first before everything else. Yet, its knee-jerk reaction after the Nicoll Highway accident was to announce that the works would continue in other sites along the Circle Line. Why did it take four days after the Nicoll Highway cave-in before the BCA ordered work to stop at 16 of the 24 worksites on the 33-km line so that they could be checked for safety?

(3) Does LTA make it a requirement for the contractors to employ advanced and sensitive equipment, which I understand is expensive, to monitor soil movement in such potentially dangerous areas?

I think these questions need to be addressed and I hope that we will hear the answers.

Sir, given the dangers of construction work, I would also like to ask the Ministry of Manpower what is being done to pressure upper management to play a key role in reducing construction accidents. To focus top management attention on safety, I would urge the Ministry to require all big companies to appoint a director with specific responsibility for safety within his firm. This would increase accountability and place top priority on the need for safety. Presently, big companies are required to have a safety officer but, more often than not, they are wearing other hats at the site, such as a foreman or line supervisor. Given the pressures, he is not full-time looking at the safety of the site. Rather, his priority is often getting the job

Column: 3024

completed on time and supervising his workers.

Sir, in Europe and the US, the head of the organisation or a board member appointed as safety director is ultimately responsible for health and safety of the operations. There is a need to promote safety awareness and accountability as a fundamental value at the top levels. In essence, the development of a safety culture where safety is a habit rather than a chore. When upper management has made a commitment to be safe, they create a momentum which motivates middle managers, construction supervisors and, finally, workers to be safe. Without the motivation from the top, there is little chance that a successful safety programme will develop and almost no chance that a safety culture will develop. For this, financial support for the safety programmes is a must. Safety should be made the first item on the agenda at management meetings. This way, upper management will display its commitment to safety to lower level management.

But even if there is strong commitment from the top management, it does not necessarily mean that it has been successfully implemented by the line managers on site. In many cases, it is personnel, who have a priority for production rather than safety, which occupy key positions on-site and decide how the project is run. Sir, line supervisors are the most critical link in the safety chain because of their proximity to potentially dangerous situations. The line supervisors need to have a good understanding of regulations concerning safety. Since line supervisors are usually regular employees, provisions need to be made to ensure that they receive training on a regular basis.

Worker training is next in importance. I would urge the Manpower Ministry to step up on its efforts to train those

Column: 3025

working on the worksite on the need for safety in a comprehensive manner. As we know, most of the construction workers are foreigners - from Bangladesh, India, China, Thailand and other countries. Hence, they are most at risk should there be an accident. I would ask the Manpower Ministry to investigate whether there is a link between language and cultural barriers and employee deaths. Is enough done to reach out and educate them on safety practices? Are there, for example, Thai-speaking or Bangladeshi-speaking trainers available with class materials and handouts in their language (in addition to English materials), to reach out to the thousands of construction workers in Singapore who have trouble understanding, reading and speaking English?

Sir, in the end, the factor that induces the motivation that initiates the training is money. We must make sure that companies are persuaded that it is profitable to be safe. Relatively small expenditures upfront, as shown by the costs of training and safety equipment, can prevent large costs incurred after an accident. Lost time, loss of reputation, increased insurance costs, loss of competitiveness, and potential ligitation are strong reasons to invest in safety.

Sir, in the end, this debate all comes down to the question: have we done everything possible to avoid any type of accident on the project?

Today, we should take this opportunity to plug all the gaps, identify solutions and strategies to drive down the number of accidents at the construction sites to zero. We cannot bring back the lives of those lost in the recent accidents. But, at least, their deaths can be said to be not in vain if, by prompting this major review, other lives can be saved.

I would urge this House to strongly support the Motion.

Column: 3026

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, generally, Singapore has done well in maintaining workplace safety standards. The number of overall industrial accidents has dropped from 4,257 in 1993 to 3,179 cases in 2003, a decrease of 25%. The number of accidents in the shipbuilding and repair industry also decreased by 45%, and the accident rate in other factories dropped by 36%. The overall accident frequency rate (AFR) has declined from 3.2 in 1993 to 2.2 in 2003, a decrease of 31%.

All these improvements were the result of our strong tripartite approach to tackling workplace safety. The tripartite partners - the Government, the employers and the labour movement - collaborated at various levels to help the Government in reviewing safety and health legislation, to make recommendations on preventive measures and to promote good practices in the accident-prone sectors.

The recent spate of industrial accidents brings on the spotlight on workplace safety, especially the construction sector. In fact, the Accident Severity Rate (ASR) of the construction industry has been successfully brought down to 510 man-days lost per million man-hours worked compared to 1,094 man-days lost per million man-hours worked in 1993.

The high death rate in the construction sector is one of our main concerns in occupational health and safety (OHS). The construction industry accounts for about half of the total fatal cases in industrial accidents in Singapore . The fatality rate in the construction industry peaked at more than 70 cases a year in the mid-1990s.

Dr Teo Ho Pin called for the creation of a centralised agency to coordinate and look into how to prevent accidents from

Column: 3027

happening in the construction industry. I would like to inform Dr Teo that the labour movement has all this while been attaching great importance to safety at the construction sites. In fact, the Building Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union (BATU) has formed a Building and Construction Safety Consultative Committee (BSCC) in October 1997. Since then, the tripartite partners - MOM, Singapore Contractors Association and the labour movement - have been working very closely to curb the rise in fatalities. In fact, various measures were put in place by the tripartite OHS Advisory Committee and the Construction 21 Steering Committee. As a direct result of such collaboration, the number of fatal cases dropped by more than half to 31 in 2003. I think this will help to enhance the safety of our workers. In the 1990s, we had about 70 cases a year, but in 2003 it dropped to 31. Of course, this result does not come about by chance. I think it is the result of our joint efforts in improving the safety measures. However, more can be done, and must be done.

We are saddened by the chain of events in the past few months. Many people may have noticed only the two incidents that happened recently. But, in fact, from January to April this year, 14 lives had been lost in the construction sector. Besides the Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah incidents, the kitchen explosion in Changi Airport also resulted in casualties. I would like to express my deepest sympathies for the families of the workers who died at their workplaces.

As we say, every case is one case too many. Any work-related death is not to be tolerated. As the old Chinese saying goes, we have to 化悲痛为力�? ( hua pei tong wei li liang ) and 亡羊补牢 ( wan yang bu lau ), that is, to turn grief into

Column: 3028

strength, and it is not too late to mend the fold even after some of the sheep have been lost.

The tripartite partners should commit and spare no efforts to further tighten and improve the safety measures in construction sites. I hope that when the inquiry on these incidents is completed, the tripartite partners would look into how to tighten our safety regulations in order to prevent such accidents from happening again, so that our workers will have a safe working environment and a hazard-free environment to work in. If errant employers continue to risk the lives of our workers by ignoring our repeated calls for more stringent safety measures, then I think we should seriously consider even more severe punishments against them. As for those repeat offenders, I think we should consider punishing them more harshly like, for example, sending them to prison as a deterrent. At the same time, I urge the Ministry of Manpower to amend the law, particularly the Factories Act, to improve protection for more workers in workplaces, including the non-industrial workplaces, such as offices, hospitals, hotels, restaurants and laboratories. We should provide legal protection for our workers there. The current Act covers only about 700,000 workers, about one-third of our total workforce. For example, the number of industrial accidents covered by the Factories Act stood at 3,200 cases last year. But the total number of reported industrial accidents was some 12,500 cases. This clearly shows that there is a certain limitation to the Factories Act.

Much has been said, but the most important thing is how we could put all these recommendations into action. We should put in a concerted effort to make our workplace safe and sound for all our workers and not wait until accidents happen before we think of how to improve it.

Column: 3029

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, even as the security of payment legislation is still being debated and the tender system being reviewed mainly in response to last year's upgrading fiasco at Marine Terrace, confidence in the construction industry has yet again been shaken, this time, more severely, by the Nicoll Highway and Fusionpolis collapse.

Not since the Hotel New World collapse some 18 years ago, have we witnessed the construction-related mishap of the same severity and scale as the Nicoll Highway collapse. One shudders to think of what the fatality might have been if the case had occurred during peak office hours.

The construction industry is indeed rife with numerous problems which have existed for many years. Problems of construction site safety and stop-work due to contractors folding up are not new, but the spotlight has been turned once again on these problems due to the recent high profile mishaps. Besides the Nicoll Highway and Fusionpolis collapse, both occurring within a span of 10 days of each other, reports of contractors going belly-up have also continued. The fall in the number of construction fatalities from 72 in 1997 to 31 last year had been frequently cited as evidence that Singapore's construction safety record had improved over the years.

However, with due respect, I feel that, for a more accurate picture, this figure ought to be compared to the quantum of the value of construction projects undertaken in each of the relevant periods. Even as the total number of fatalities fell by 57% from 72 to 31 between 1997 and 2003, the total value of projects also fell by about the same percentage, 58% in the same period, from $23.54 billion to $10 billion. The lower number of accident-related deaths may not be because our construction site safety standards have significantly

Column: 3030

improved, but merely because there are fewer construction projects and, hence, a lower probability of accidents occurring. In fact, Sir, if I may refer to Chart 1 which has been handed out. [Copies of Chart distributed to hon. Members.] Chart 1 plots the ratio of the number of fatalities per $1 billion worth of contracts awarded for the years 1996 to 2003. It shows that, after a decline from 1998 to 2001, the ratio has in fact increased again. And in 2003, at 3.1, it is actually slightly higher than even in 1997, which is at 3.05. If you turn to Chart 3, in terms of the number of industrial accidents per million manhours worked, the construction industry's figures have also been higher than the overall average since 1996. Moreover, this figure has remained the same at 2.8 for the last two years for the construction industry, whilst those for the shipbuilding industry has actually continued to improve.

Hence, even as the total number of construction-related fatalities has declined over the years, we must not take comfort in these numbers as they do not tell the whole story. When other factors, such as the shrinking size of the construction industry is taken into account, the safety record at construction sites clearly leaves much to be desired. A whole host of problems, including the recent construction-related mishaps and more contractors going belly-up, suggest that the construction industry is sorely in need of an overhaul.

Many Singaporeans wonder if the mishaps and woes faced by the industry are all symptomatic of much deeper problems within the industry. Are safety standards at construction sites adequate and enforced? Is there sufficient monitoring of site safety standards and follow-up action by the relevant Government agencies? Is worksite safety compromised as a result of aggressive tendering and negotiation practices? Has the long drought in the construction

Column: 3031

industry led to a deterioration in the standards and the quality of the workforce as people with relevant experience and expertise exit the industry or are made to take charge of many worksites or multi-tasks in a bid to cut costs? These and many other questions are being asked even as the causes of the mishaps are being investigated.

Sir, I agree with the Minister for National Development as well as with my parliamentary colleagues that we should not speculate on the causes of the two incidents, as investigations are under way. However, even as we await the outcome of the investigations, we should waste no time in initiating a thorough, coordinated review of the entire system - structures, processes and practices - of the industry to mitigate the risks of yet another accident occurring leading to unnecessary loss of lives. Thus far, whilst there have been efforts made to overcome some of the problems that have plagued the industry, such efforts seem to be ad hoc and piecemeal and are more reactive rather than proactive in nature. For instance, the security of payment legislation, that is currently being evaluated by BCA, is to counter some of the issues that have surfaced from the Marine Terrace fiasco. But it may not be able to wholly address the payment ills of the industry.

I would now like to highlight two key areas which warrant review. Firstly, the tender system. Sir, every time, a problem surfaces in the construction industry, such as the recent Nicoll Highway and the Marine Terrace fiasco, fingers inevitably point to the Government's tender system and its evaluation process. For instance, similar assertions that the Government's tender system which favours contractors with the lowest bids had contributed to some construction accidents were also made in letters to the press in 1999. The

Column: 3032

tender system seems to be everyone's favourite whipping boy for the ills of the construction industry. It has been identified by many as the root of all ills for the industry. A prolonged period of weak demand and intense competition, coupled with the tender system, is said to have forced contractors who are desperate for jobs to engage in severe undercutting, submitting unrealistically low bids. Many believe that this has led contractors to cut corners, such as compromising on safety measures.

This negative perception about the tender system persists, despite the fact that the Government would come out each time to vigorously defend the merits of the tender system and assert that there is no direct link between the system and the issue at hand, such as the worksite accidents.

The Minister for National Development's reassurance that the Government does not necessarily award contracts to the lowest tenderer, but to the contractor who gives the best value for money, in terms of performance and quality, is heartening. Additionally, as the Minister noted, all things being equal and to ensure a transparent and equitable system, it will only be prudent to award to the lowest bidder who meets all the criteria. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that, given a scarcity of contracts and hence an extremely competitive environment, contractors may enter into cut-throat competition, just to stay in business hoping that the market would eventually recover if they hang in there long enough.

The Minister for National Development's recent announcement that 28% of all public sector projects for the period April to December 2003 were not awarded to the lowest bidder, implying that 72% were, bears out this fact that contractors still stand a high chance of winning a tender on the basis of lowest price. Hence, whilst the fundamental

Column: 3033

rationale of the Government's tender system cannot be faulted, refinements can and should be made to the tender criteria and evaluation system to address some of the concerns regarding the system. For instance, the Tender Evaluation Committee must be given ample time to evaluate the tenders, based on criteria which are made known to the tenderers. Bids which are substantially below the next lowest bid should be carefully scrutinised and the contractors interviewed to determine their technical competence and financial spending.

For large scale complex projects, such as the MRT lines and stations, the two-envelope method could be considered. Under this method, tenderers submit their bids in two separate envelopes, with the first containing the technical proposal and the second the bid price. Tenderers are shortlisted first and selected on the basis of technical competence. To ensure that safety requirements are not compromised, the Government could also require all tenderers to incorporate an item on safety provisions, as a provisional sum, not in the preliminary, and fix this at a certain percentage of the contract sum or minimum sum, whichever is higher. Currently, I understand that this item, although provided for, may be kept to a very nominal amount which is realistically inadequate for safety provisions, because the contractor wants to ensure that his bid is competitive.

The second factor that I would like to highlight that warrants a thorough review is site safety audits and monitoring. The Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee for the construction industry set up by MOM in response to the high numbers of fatalities in the industry has over the years reviewed its OSH policies and introduced tough measures, such as barring contractors with poor safety records to recruit foreign workers from non-traditional sources, to improve their safety standards. However, these

Column: 3034

policies, the system of monitoring, etc, may have to be further reviewed and tightened to achieve tangible improvements in safety standards. Currently, contractors are required by MOM to engage independent safety auditors to undertake safety audits every six months, reports are then submitted to the contractors and MOM. I would like to ask the Minister for Manpower what MOM does with these reports. How does MOM ensure that contractors have taken steps to rectify the deficiency in safety provisions identified by the audits? Are more frequent checks required of the contractor if the audits fall below a certain threshold level, as this will then ensure that the contractors comply with the safety provisions as soon as possible?

The qualifications of and criteria for safety auditors and safety auditing organisations should also be reviewed to ensure that these personnel and organisations have the relevant skills and experience to competently carry out safety audits. More stringent criteria could also be set up for those auditing more complex and large scale projects. The current demerit scheme for contractors who do not meet safety requirements could be tightened such that contractors get warning letters, stop-work orders and debarment from hiring foreign workers at lower threshold demerit points than presently. Like LTA, instead of punitive measures to elicit compliance by contractors, a carrot and stick approach with an incentive scheme to reward contractors who achieve good safety performance could be implemented to help inculcate a culture of safety first and respect for the sanctity of human lives.

Further, as the Minister for National Development has recently noted, the job of making worksites safe should not fall squarely on the contractors, but should be shared by all parties, from developers and architects to engineers and workers. Hence, schemes could also be devised to

Column: 3035

ensure that developers could take responsibility to make the worksite safe.

The Government's move to make the payment to main contractors public and to have more frequent audits of the financial health of contractors, in response to the Marine Terrace upgrading incident, are positive steps to address some of the shortcomings of the industry. The SOP system that is presently being studied as well as the review of the tender system will also help to overcome some of the problems. LTA's recent announcement of $1 million incentive for contractors who maintain a good safety record and an equilibrium penalty for errant contractors would also help to inculcate safety first culture in the industry, benefiting both the public and those in the industry. However, as I have noted, these have largely been ad hoc and piecemeal. Our rescue workers, in particular the SCDF, the DART officers, the late Mr Heng

Yeow Pheow and others, have made us proud with their display of courage and selfless sacrifice in the face of disaster. We are indeed thankful for these valiant men. The coordinated and swift Government-wide response in the aftermath of the Nicoll Highway tragedy which helped minimise damage and disruption to business is also highly commendable and reassuring to most Singaporeans.

But going forward, it is important to avoid needless loss of lives and exposing our construction workers and our officers from the SCDF, DART and other Government agencies to unnecessary danger by working towards zero accidents at worksites. This should be done by reviewing the operations of the entire construction industry which has been crying out for change for some time now. The relevant Government agencies, ie, BCA, MOM, HDB, LTA and JTC, should spearhead and coordinate the review, from the tendering and contract admini

Column: 3036

stration system to payment modes, the BCA's contractors' registry, safety regulations and the adequacy of workmen's compensation, with inputs from all stakeholders. I urge the relevant authorities not to drag their feet and wait till more lives are lost before taking comprehensive action.

Sir, with this, I support the motion.

Mr S Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, I rise in support of the motion. The Nicoll Highway and Fusionpolis incidents were two qualitatively different incidents. But they have both served to draw into sharp focus the need for greater safety at construction sites.

May I first join my colleagues who have spoken before me in offering condolences to the families that had been affected and, at the same time, commending the rescue workers, especially the SCDF and the Home Team, for their marvellous efforts.

Sir, Dr Teo Ho Pin has outlined very comprehensively a whole range of issues that need to be considered. I would confine myself to two or three key points by reiterating the fact that what this calls for is a system-level response, and not just specific investigations on the incidents that have occurred.

Sir, the first point I wish to address is whether current legislative regulatory frameworks are adequate for ensuring safety at our worksites. The worksite is a very busy venue with multiple parties, eg, main contractors and sub-contractors, all attending to a variety of tasks. The process of construction itself is going to be a highly complex coordination task. If we add to this the role of safety responsibility as well, the question then is: can that task be adequately achieved by the main contractor? Is there in fact a conflict when we ask the main contractor to take overall responsibility for safety at

Column: 3037

the worksite when he has to take care of a very complex array of activities, and also the instinct might well be to cut corners or to take the path of least resistance when under pressure for time or resources?

So, the question which others have raised, and I wish to reiterate, is: should we in fact institute a process where independent audits and checks for safety purposes are mandatory? These can be undertaken by agents of the BCA and implemented on a regular basis, very transparent, with reports being circulated to all bodies, including the contractors. This is not going to be a foolproof solution to construction site accidents, but it will go a long way towards separating the responsibility for safety on the site from the need for constant monitoring and independent checking, and it will instill greater confidence in our construction industry, if such a measure is put in place. I believe such a measure is justifiable, especially as construction projects in Singapore are increasing in complexity and, if the concern is that such a cost might impair the competitiveness of our contractors, this cost can be a very discrete fixed cost added on to any tender project called for by the Government.

The second point I wish to focus on is the tender process. I think the Government tender process is a much maligned process, and some at least have argued that the practice of awarding the tender to the lowest tenderer, unless there are other compelling reasons, leads to a vicious downward spiral in destructive competition and safety standards. My own view is that we should not be in a hurry to throw the baby out with the bath water, simply because I am not convinced that there is a better system to what we already have in the Government tender process. But I agree with my parliamentary colleagues that we need to make sure that we get value for money and not the cheapest price necessarily. And we need

Column: 3038

to adapt the criteria and the methodology of our tender system to take into account some of these issues that we think are significant enough but they are not necessarily price factors. One example is the point that Dr Teo raised earlier: how do we explicitly deal with the issue of the outlier, ie, the unduly or signficantly low tenderer who may be 10-20% lower in his bid compared to the rest? How do we ensure that that price is not unrealistic and likely to lead to greater problems during the construction process?

The second question is: how can we incorporate the safety records of the contractor and his safety plan, if you will, for the construction project as a criterion in the award of the contract? Sir, I welcome the announcement that there will be incentive payments for a good safety record during a construction period. But it seems to me that that is after the fact. What we really need to do also is to ensure that, prior to the award of a tender, we do the best we can to ensure that the party who wins the tender is one who is well equipped, both by virtue of experience and his plan for the project, to ensure the highest standards of safety on the site.

Sir, the third and final point I wish to raise is on the issue of the safety of buildings and other infrastructure in the vicinity of construction sites and, in particular, we are talking about deep tunnelling works, say, for example, in the context of the MRT projects and so on. These days it is not uncommon for residents or owners of buildings to see cracks in their walls when construction activity occurs in their vicinity. They are usually reassured by being told, after an inspection, that: "These are not structural problems, so do not worry about it. These cracks will not cause any serious damage to your building." However, in the light of incidents like the Nicoll Highway accident, it has clearly raised greater doubts in the minds of residents.

Column: 3039

They are more concerned: can they really feel safe? So, I think there is a need to undertake not just a PR campaign but something that should become part of the protocol of any major construction activity that BCA and other agencies undertake regular inspections of all buildings in the vicinity, submit a report and inform the owners of these buildings and their residents of their regular findings. I think this is an important way to just build confidence, and we see that it has economic consequences as well, for example, for those in the Golden Mile Complex and so on. What we need to ensure is that the public at large, and in particular those who live or work within the vicinity of certain construction sites, are reassured that it is safe and that their safety and the safety of their buildings are being regularly monitored.

Sir, with that, I support the motion.

6.07 pm

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many Members of this House have spoken on the motion. Dr Teo Ho Pin, Ms Irene Ng, Dr Amy Khor and others have all raised very important issues related to current safety standards and practices in the construction workplace. They are concerned about workers' safety and the stability of buildings in the vicinity of projects with deep excavation works like the Circle Line MRT project.

Let me say that I share their concerns. I was very much saddened by the tragic and unnecessary loss of six lives in the recent construction site accidents at Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah. We need to know why these accidents happened and we need to know what we can do to prevent them from happening again.

Sir, our regulatory framework for construction safety encompasses a whole

Column: 3040

series of checks and balances covering the whole construction process. There are two key pieces of legislation governing the framework. One is the Building Control Act and the other is the Factories Act. BCA, under the purview of the Ministry of National Development, administers the Building Control Act, while the Ministry of Manpower administers the Factories Act. The Circle Line, which includes the Nicoll Highway site, is developed by LTA, which is under the Ministry of Transport, and the LTA's Building Control Unit has been authorised to carry out building control functions on these projects on behalf of BCA. So, I will explain this arrangement in more detail later on.

This regulatory framework, which involves several parties, requires each agency to exercise its responsibilities with due diligence, drawing upon its own area of expertise and at different stages of the construction process.

At the plan submission stage, BCA plays a role. BCA is the regulatory authority on building and construction. It has the responsibility to ensure that our physical infrastructure and buildings are designed and constructed safely. In line with this, BCA administers and enforces the regulatory framework for construction safety, as well as our laws on building control.

At the design stage, a qualified person, or what we call the QP, who is either the registered engineering or architectural professional, designs and certifies the project plans. These plans are then checked and endorsed by an accredited checker (AC), before submission to BCA for approval. The AC is independent of the project team and he is usually a senior member of the engineering profession and he is accredited by BCA to fulfill this role.

Column: 3041

Next comes the construction stage. The contractor can only commence construction works after the structural design plans have been approved and a permit to commence work has been issued by BCA. For deep excavation works - and these are works which involve excavations of at least four metres in depth - BCA imposes additional safety conditions in the permit to commence work.

First, BCA requires that the temporary works must be designed and certified by a professional engineer.

Second, before excavation commences, the contractor has to carry out a pre-construction survey of the adjacent buildings to determine their condition.

Third, the qualified professional or QP for the project is required to state the allowable limits of ground movements to prevent damage to the surrounding buildings, and thereafter to submit the monitoring plan for such movements.

Dr Teo, in his Question for Oral Answer, asked how many such works there are. I wish to inform him that currently there are 17 public sector projects that entail deep underground works exceeding 15 metres in depth. These comprise LTA's 11 Circle Line projects as well as four Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway projects, JTC's Fusionpolis project, and PUB's Deep Tunnel Sewerage System project.

During construction, BCA conducts regular random checks on construction sites, and it can revoke the permits, if construction works pose a danger to people or cause damage to the adjacent buildings. Last year, BCA revoked 20 such permits. And work will not be allowed to resume until the deficiencies are rectified and adequate safety measures are put in place.

Column: 3042

Since 1995, BCA has authorised the Building Control Units (BCUs) of three statutory boards, ie, LTA, JTC and HDB, to carry out building control functions for projects under their respective purview. This includes issuing of the permit to commence work

which I explained earlier. This delegation of function is to enable the respective statutory boards to have better control over the implementation of the extensive development and building programmes. The BCUs, over the years, have built up a pool of competent professionals and they have established internal quality control mechanisms to effectively regulate the projects under their purview. However, BCA continues to exercise supervisory control on how these BCUs discharge their authorised functions. So while BCA delegates the authority, it does not delegate the final responsibility.

What about MOM's role? As part of the overall regulatory framework, the Ministry of Manpower also has parallel provisions under the Factories Act to ensure workers' safety at construction sites. These safety provisions cover the construction of various temporary works, such as scaffoldings, formwork shoring, tunnelling and excavation works. My colleague, the Acting Minister for Manpower, will elaborate on these measures later on.

Sir, several MPs - Dr Teo, Ms Irene Ng, Dr Amy Khor - have asked if the Government is going to review the safety standards at construction worksites. The answer is yes. My Ministry and the Ministry of Manpower will set up a joint committee to review the current regulatory framework on construction safety. This committee will be tasked to identify any contributory factors that may hinder safe practices in the industry and the possible weaknesses and gaps in our systems and processes, no matter how well they may have served us. The review

Column: 3043

will cover the regulatory responsibilities of BCA and MOM and the safety provisions under the current legislative framework, including those pertaining to temporary works. The committee will also consider Dr Teo's proposal of having BCA as a one-stop service to coordinate deep excavation and tunnelling works.

The roles of all the contracting parties in the industry, including the professionals, as well as the procurement and administrative systems, will also be examined, with a view to enhancing construction safety. Finally, the committee will look at the delegation of building control functions by BCA to the BCUs and see how this relationship can be improved. In carrying out the review, the joint committee will take into account the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on the Nicoll Highway incident. Let me assure this House that we will do whatever is necessary to enhance construction and safety to prevent mishaps and loss of lives. We will strengthen the existing regulatory framework wherever it is found wanting.

But let me emphasise that a strong regulatory framework alone is not enough. I agree with Dr Teo that construction safety is the responsibility of all the stakeholders involved - the Government, developers, professionals, contractors, sub-contractors, supervisors and workers. For instance, after the Hotel New World collapse, we implemented an Accredited Checker (AC) system. But despite the AC system, in 1999, a roof under construction at Compassvale Primary School collapsed. The cause was subsequently found to be negligence on the part of both the AC and the QP. Both were convicted under the Building Control Act and they have paid a price for their negligence.

Column: 3044

So there must be a sense of professionalism and an appreciation and awareness of safety, what Dr Teo called a safety culture. This safety culture must be in each and every individual at every step of the construction process. The public has placed significant trust and confidence on building professionals to ensure safe construction practices. Good ethical practices and high moral standards should prevail over commercial interest. Architects, engineers and contractors must perform their professional and contractual duties with due care and diligence and prime regard to safety. If they do not, they must face the full force of the law.

Let me now touch on other related issues of concern to Members, starting with BCA's role in the Nicoll Highway incident. Following the Nicoll Highway incident, LTA stopped work at all the Circle Line worksites on the advice of BCA. BCA is currently conducting an audit of the design and construction relating to excavation at these sites. In this audit, BCA will direct the professional engineers involved to review their design of temporary works at all the sites. LTA's BCU has also been asked to go through all submissions by project parties to ensure that they are in order.

Concurrently, BCA engineers are checking through the documentation and monitoring records of all the Circle Line projects for compliance. BCA is also appraising the various safety aspects of the excavation works. This involves presentations by LTA's project teams on the design of temporary works, on the construction methods, as well as on the safety measures. BCA engineers are conducting site visits to verify that temporary support and monitoring measures are in place. BCA will only allow work to resume when it is satisfied that this is so.

Column: 3045

So far, BCA has audited and approved four Circle Line worksites to resume. Another 12 sites are still being reviewed and will be progressively allowed to resume work as and when BCA is satisfied with the safety aspects of the sites. After the resumption of work, LTA and the project parties are required to continue monitoring and supervising the works to ensure safety.

I come now to the issue of safety checks on buildings. Mr Steve Chia, in his Question for Oral Answer, wanted to know why safety checks on the buildings along the Circle Line were not done earlier, but had to wait until the Nicoll Highway collapsed. I wish to inform the Member that he is wrong to assume that this was the case.

Before construction works commenced, LTA had required the contractor to carry out a pre-construction survey of surrounding buildings. As I informed the House, this is part and parcel of the process required before permit to commence work is issued. After the start of the project, LTA's BCU, in response to feedback received from the occupants, had checked and rectified affected buildings near the Circle Line construction sites. In the immediate aftermath of the Nicoll Highway incident, BCA and LTA undertook another round of safety checks of buildings within a 100-metre radius of the Circle Line construction. Why 100 metres? BCA took into account factors such as the type of construction works, the type of buildings in the vicinity, whether or not they were built on piles and also on the ground condition.

Engineers from BCA, LTA and the contractors carried out the inspection. Cracks and defects, if any, were assessed on whether they were structural in nature and could affect the stability of the buildings. Further remedial measures, if needed, were then carried out. For buildings that are found to be stable, LTA

Column: 3046

will issue a letter and the PE certification to the owner. So regarding Mr Iswaran's concern that owners would need to be reassured, this step would help in reassuring the owners. For buildings that require structural repairs, BCA will issue an order to close them and the occupants will have to vacate their premises. So far, 588 buildings in the vicinity of the Circle Line sites had been inspected and found to be structurally stable. Two vacant buildings at the Paya Lebar/Upper Paya Lebar areas were assessed to require structural repairs. They were declared unsafe and closed by BCA.

Sir, I come now to the question of the tender system. There has been a lot of speculation about the causes of the Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah accidents. One common comment, which was highlighted by Ms Irene Ng and Dr Amy Khor, is that the public sector projects, because they are always awarded to the lowest bidder, carry this risk that contractors are forced to compromise on safety measures in order to save costs and to remain viable.

Sir, as I have said several times, it is not correct and premature for us to comment or to link any causes at this stage to the two incidents because a Committee of Inquiry has been set up. But it is important for me to set the record straight on the public sector procurement system which, as Dr Amy Khor mentioned, is a popular "whipping boy". In fact, it is a popular "whipping boy" for many ills in the industry, ranging from accidents to contractors going belly up to everything else that we can name. But I want to say once again in this House that the Government does not require agencies to award tenders to the lowest bidders. The tender process requires the agencies to review all the tenders submitted to make sure that the contract is awarded to the contractor who meets all the criteria, which gives the best value for money in terms of quality and performance and who is able to complete the works.

Column: 3047

Over the last 12 months, during the last financial year from April 2003 to March 2004, 37% of all public sector construction contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder, in other words, more than one-third. Yes, this means that two-thirds were awarded to the lowest bidder. But what does that prove? Would it require all awards to be not given to the lowest bidder before we say that the procurement system is fair? Surely it cannot be. One-third of the contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder. Why? One reason could be that there are doubts on the ability of these lowest bids to successfully complete the project based on their financial strength, or based on the fact that the bids that they have put in are unrealistically low. Another reason is that their proposals do not meet the tender specifications, whether in their method of construction or in their design. Their design could be inappropriate or unsafe or their method of construction could be deemed unsafe. So for all these reasons, the public sector agenices have deemed it not possible to award one-third of the contracts to the lowest bidder. This reflects an awareness among the public sector procurement agencies that they just cannot simply go for price alone and that there are many other factors involved. Having said that, as I have explained earlier, we will still require the joint committee to include this in their terms of reference and go through the tender process again and reiterate, if necessary, the importance of making sure that safety is not compromised.

Indeed, many Members have voiced concern, both in this House and at other times, that contractors may be selected without due regard to their safety record. Let me inform the House there is a system of pre-qualification in order to make sure that contractors that do not meet safety records are not allowed to even bid for

Column: 3048

public sector projects. Under the Contractors Registry System (CRS) that BCA operates, contractors have to be registered and they have to be pre-qualified. The CRS has stringent criteria on safety performance and technical competence

as well as management and financial capability. Contractors without good safety records are barred from tendering for public sector projects. They do not even get past the first stage.

BCA will be introducing additional safety criteria that would require some of the higher qualified - A1 and A2 - contractors to be certified through the Occupational Health and Safety Audit System (OHSAS) 18001, and this will be with effect from July this year. What this means is that our top tier construction companies will have in place a more systematic framework to implement workers' safety and to enhance safety and health measures at construction sites.

Finally, of course, in addition to the CRS criteria, each individual agency specifies additional pre-qualifying criteria for their own projects, especially for complex projects like airports, MRTs, hospitals, defence projects and so on. All these different checks and safety criteria help to ensure that only technically and financially competent contractors can undertake them.

There are concerns also that it may not be the main contractor that may be the culprit. What about all the sub-contractors? Ms Irene Ng made this point about the dangers of sub-standard work being undertaken by sub-contractors. I would like to inform her that under the public sector conditions of contract, the supervisor in question has to approve the main contractor's choice of sub-contractors. Again, this is another level of check to make sure that only capable and reliable sub-contractors can undertake the jobs.

Column: 3049

Having said all that, I come back to the point that I made earlier - that we can have these systems in place, we can have the checks, but at the end of the day, there are many other parties in the chain that also need to play their part. And this comes back to Dr Teo's point about how we must imbibe and inculcate this safety culture in the whole construction industry, all the way from the top to the bottom.

Sir, in conclusion, let me say that these two recent accidents are wake-up calls for all of us in the industry. We cannot take safety for granted. This is a joint responsibility of all the parties involved - the regulators, developers, contractors and the workers. Let us heed this call and work together to further strengthen safety in construction worksites, because lives are at stake.

The Acting Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Members have spoken on the need to protect the safety of workers. I would like to assure the House and Members that MOM shares the same concern. My colleague, the Minister for National Development, has touched on a number of aspects. Sir, allow me to address certain issues as important questions have arisen from these two construction-related accidents at Nicoll Highway and Fusionpolis.

The first question is: are our safety standards slipping? Members have the figures distributed by MOM. Let me clarify these figures and give Members the objective assessment. I think it is important for us to objectively assess where our safety standards are, so that we will know how to improve, how we have been doing and also not make sudden corrective measures for a system that may have served us well.

The internationally accepted norm that different countries use in comparing

Column: 3050

safety standards is the number of accidents or fatalities over those at risk, and those at risk are the number of workers working. Dr Amy Khor says, let us relate it to the construction projects. But in a place with a very productive construction industry, they may just use less workers. So those at risk are the number of workers and that is expressed in man million hours.

The short answer, in terms of whether our safety standards are slipping, is no for both overall numbers as well as those arising within the construction industry. The Clerk of Parliament has circulated these figures. The overall number has been coming down from 1997 when there were 4,422 cases to about 3,200 cases last year.

For the construction industry, Members will note that the number of accidents has been more or less constant, but the number of fatal accidents has fallen by more than half when comparing 1993 to 2003. There were 72 deaths in 1997 and 31 in 2003, or 0.3 fatal accidents per 1,000 employees in 1997 compared to 0.2 in 2003.

We know the data. How do we compare internationally? Dr Teo mentioned certain countries that we should emulate - Japan, UK. Based on our data published and compared with those published by the International Labour Organisation, Singapore's safety record as measured by the number of fatal accidents is comparable to that of the USA, France and Canada, but we lag behind the United Kingdom and Sweden.

I think this assessment is important because it helps us conclude that our safety standards have improved over the years and are comparable with those of other developed countries. Nevertheless, I agree with Members that each life lost which could have been prevented if appropriate measures had been followed

Column: 3051

is one too many. This was the sentiment expressed by all Members.

As we have seen from these two recent accidents, each life lost deprives one family of a husband, a breadwinner, a son, a brother, a friend. The social and economic costs are indeed high. And as Members say, they are wake-up calls. Mr Iswaran said that we should sharpen our focus and we should put safety first. But we all recognise that to save lives requires more than wishes and committees.

Dr Teo Ho Pin says that a safety culture must be pervasive and permeate every level from the developer down to the least skilled worker in the workplace. That is what we must achieve in order to improve our safety standards. Yes, we have been working with our tripartite partners, as Mr Yeo Guat Kwang has mentioned, and we can do more.

How then can we institute such a culture and improve safety performance for workers where everyone feels that it is his responsibility and it is something that he can do? Dr Amy Khor said that we should be proactive rather than be reactive. I agree. Our present approach to ensuring workplace safety rests on three strategic prongs - first, tough laws and harsh penalties; second, effective enforcement; and, third, facilitated self-regulation by management. These three platforms are still sound and have served us well and we will continue to use them.

But I agree with Members that while strict penalties through legislation and tough enforcement measures send the right signal, they are often measures which are applied after the accident has occurred, like now. When accidents occur, we say let us enforce them. To prevent accidents and deaths, we must facilitate and even coerce industries to self-regulate and implement effective

Column: 3052

safety and health programmes to ensure a safe place for work.

Hence, the Factories Act prescribes a framework of self-regulation by industries. For example, factories employing 50 or more workers are required to form safety committees. Larger factories in the more hazardous industries are required to employ safety officers. And these safety officers need to have tertiary education in a technical discipline and successfully completed the Safety Officers' Training Course. They also have to be registered with the Chief Inspector of Factories.

Since 1994, construction projects with contract sum of $10 million or more are required to implement an audit on their safety management systems. Safety officers are required, as are site safety supervisors for the main contractors.

Ms Irene Ng asked whether these measures are applicable to sub-contractors. The answer is yes. For example, sub-contractors employing more than 20 persons are required to appoint a safety supervisor to promote the safe conduct of work within the worksites.

Where the contract sum of the work is $30 million or more, they are required to appoint an independent external auditor to audit its safety management system once every six months. This was the point that was brought up correctly by Dr Amy Khor.

Since 1997, safety provisions have also been included in the contractual agreement between developers and contractors. This is to ensure that contractors understand their responsibility for ensuring worksite safety. And contractors are required to produce such documents when they apply for factory registration of their worksites.

What about training and awareness - a point that was highlighted by Ms Irene

Column: 3053

Ng? Since 2001, it has been mandatory for project managers of worksites, formwork supervisors and lifting supervisors to attend occupational safety and health (OSH) courses. All construction workers are required to attend safety orientation courses to equip them with knowledge on common hazards at the worksites and the preventive measures. Yes, we do speak to them in their vernacular. These courses are conducted in six languages which include Bangladesh and Thai languages.

The Ministry, in collaboration with the Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL) and professional bodies, also organises regular safety seminars and other OSH promotional activities.

I take Members' point that the framework is in place, including the framework of self-regulation. But unless we have in place stiff penalties and strict enforcement to promote compliance, it will come to naught. A number of Members have asked, including Mr Iswaran, Dr Teo, Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, whether our penalties are adequate. At present, the Factories Act provides for a maximum penalty of $200,000 and/or one year imprisonment for any contravention that resulted in the death of two or more persons. And this includes the occupier and the employers. So those higher up in the chain are liable.

I asked the same question after these accidents whether we should enhance it. We did a comparative study of the penalties for OSH contraventions, and that study indicates that our prescribed maximum penalties are already amongst the highest in the region. Nonetheless, I agree with Members and we will review what else needs to be done, whether it is necessary to stiffen penalties or to enforce more strictly to bring us closer to the safety standards of the United Kingdom and Sweden, and this will be in the terms of reference for the joint

Column: 3054

committee that my colleague, the Minister for Natrional Development has announced.

Dr Amy Khor asked what can we do and how else can we facilitate. The Chief Inspector of Factories can issue stop work orders and fine errant factory occupiers and contractors who carry out work without due consideration for workers' safety. Have we enforced it? Yes. Last year, 13 construction worksites and three factories were ordered to stop work. Repeat offenders are subject to twice the quantum of fines provided for under the law.

For the construction industry in particular, there is a debarment scheme. This is the point alluded to by Dr Teo when he talked about performance based aspects. This debarment scheme has been in force since April 2000. Under this scheme, contractors who flout safety requirements are given demerit points, on top of the usual fine and stop work order. In other words, it is meant to be economically punitive. A contractor who accumulates more than 30 demerit points within a 12-month period would be issued with a warning. Further accumulation of more than 24 demerit points within a 12-month period following the warning will result in the contractor being debarred from employing foreign workers for 12 months. A total of 24 contractors have been warned to date, of which three have been debarred since the scheme was implemented. In other words, it effectively removes his workers from him.

My Ministry has recently revised the scheme to lower the demerit points, as suggested by Dr Amy Khor, from 30 to 24 points when a warning will be issued. This will take effect from 1st July 2004.

MOM carries out strict enforcement to check on compliance of the provisions of the Factories Act by occupiers of factories and main contractors of worksites. Last year, MOM's factory inspectors carried

Column: 3055

out a total of 17,000

inspections and about 6,000 inspections were on construction worksites. That works out to about 20 worksites a day. But since there are 4,000 worksites in Singapore, Members will appreciate, and this is the point which Ms Irene Ng brought up, why self-regulation is the key to better safety standards.

MOM's basic three-pronged approach to ensuring occupational safety is sound. But to improve our safety performance, our legislation may need to be enhanced. I agree with Members. Industry needs to be willing to spend money, resources and effort to put in place safety checks. Industry must upgrade their management capabilities and skill of workers. Poor worksite management and unskilled workers are potent combinations begging for accidents to happen.

Dr Teo, as well as other Members, including Dr Amy Khor, has asked for an integrated approach to this review. The Minister for National Development has agreed, together with MOM, to conduct such a review that will cover the entire value chain of construction. He has already mentioned the areas. I would also like to add that we will review whether, as some have said, to increase the accountability of people along the chain as well as whether we need to enhance the penalties or increase the enforcement of the penalties already provided. We will incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry related to the Nicoll Highway, when completed. MOM will also, as co-chair of this review committee, review the legislation and study the best practices of developed countries, including those of the UK and Japan, as Dr Teo Ho Pin has mentioned.

MOM had intended to expand the coverage of the occupational safety

Column: 3056

requirements to more workplaces - a point brought up by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang who has been pushing this for a number of years - through a new legislation. This will be called the Workplace Safety and Health Act. We will use this opportunity to incorporate recommendations from the review of the construction industry.

Let me reiterate what my colleague, the Minister for National Development, said. Construction safety is the responsibility of all of us - Government, developers, professionals, contractors, management, and workers. We will work together with all parties to enhance worker safety and reduce the loss of lives. I have asked staff in MOM in this review to aim to reduce the number of fatal accidents by one-third over the next five years. This will place us among the leading countries in safety standards. It is an achievable goal and worth the extra effort.

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, Dr Teo Ho Pin, Ms Irene Ng and Dr Amy Khor have raised several issues related to LTA's safety procedures in the construction of rail and road projects. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to address the issues raised.

Sir, both Minister Mah and Acting Minister Ng, as well as Dr Teo, have pointed out that safety is the responsibility of all stakeholders - Government, developers, contractors, architects, engineers, workers, and so on. I would like to assure the House that LTA, as the developer and regulator, takes this responsibility very seriously, from the conceptualisation stage of a new project all the way to its completion. In order to understand how safety is assured in LTA's projects, we would need to first understand LTA's project development process. And this process consists of four stages - planning, tender stage, design and construction.

Column: 3057

First, the planning and pre-tender stage. Sir, at this stage, the route of the MRT line is decided in consultation with the relevant agencies, such as URA and HDB. Thereafter, LTA undertakes an engineering evaluation to identify the best alignment from the engineering perspective. Various investigations are carried out to gather accurate information on the ground conditions and the buildings along the route where construction will take place. These investigations include soil investigation, building foundation assessment, trial trenching to identify locations of public utilities and services, survey of surrounding buildings, and preliminary design and risk assessment. The objective of this entire process is to gather information that will provide a better understanding of the site conditions. LTA can then identify the measures needed to reduce the risk factors to an acceptable level and to incorporate them into the tender document. This, in turn, enables the tenderers to provide a realistic bid for the project, based on an appropriate construction method that takes into account local site conditions and the potential problems that they are likely to face.

Next, the tender stage. Prior to calling tenders for the major projects, LTA has a process to pre-qualify contractors based on their track record. The four major factors considered are: financial capability, technical expertise, project management capability, as well as quality and safety management capability. This is to ensure that whoever wins the contract has the resources, the technical expertise and experience to deliver the project on time without compromising on safety. During the tender stage, technical and commercial evaluations are carried out by two separate committees. So, in a way, it is similar to what Dr Amy Khor has pointed out, the two-envelope process. Here, they do it through two committees. The technical sub-committee

Column: 3058

evaluates the contractors' technical competence, the design proposal (since this is a design-and-build project), the construction methodology, the safety measures, the construction programme and other electrical and mechanical coordination considerations. The commercial sub-committee separately will look at pricing, qualifications on the contract terms and the financial capability of the tenderers. Evaluation by the two sub-committees typically takes about four months, and I can assure Dr Amy Khor that, therefore, it is not a rush job.

Dr Teo Ho Pin asked why was the Nicoll Highway project awarded to Nishimatsu-Lum Chang, despite a price difference of $70 million; what is the compelling reason.

Sir, the tender for contract C824 was awarded in June 2001, and this contract involves the design, construction and completion of the Nicoll Highway and the Boulevard Stations, which include the cut-and-cover and bored tunnels. As pointed out by Dr Teo, six contractors submitted bids. The two separate committees carried out a detailed evaluation on the three lowest complying bids after a preliminary evaluation of all the six tenders. The evaluation showed that the proposal submitted by Nishimatsu-Lum Chang was technically either equal to or better in various aspects when compared with the second and third lowest bids. The company also met LTA's financial criteria of having a net worth of at least 20% of the expected contract value.

Dr Teo asked how did the winning bid compare with the estimate made by LTA. As Dr Teo knows, for all these big projects, LTA has the responsibility to carry out an estimate of the project cost so that we can get the budget for it. I think LTA has a proven track record on its estimates because, quite often, we are able to complete the project either at budget or even below budget. In this

Column: 3059

case, the tender price submitted by the winning consortium was slightly higher than LTA's pre-tender estimate. And, therefore, I think it was only logical for the award to be given to Nishimatsu-Lum Chang.

Sir, as indicated by the Minister for National Development earlier, not all of LTA's projects were awarded to the lowest tenderers. In fact, 27% of its major road and rail projects were not awarded to the lowest tenderers. Examples of these include the construction of the Hougang, Kovan, Little India, Farrer Park and the Harbour Front stations, along the recently completed Northeast Line. Hence, the tender evaluation process clearly is not driven solely by cost considerations but is based on the best value for money, and that safety is not compromised.

Sir, let me now move on to the design stage. The focus on safety is also evident at the design stage. For design-and-build contracts, following the award of a contract, the contractors are then required to develop their designs, based on the concepts and approaches proposed in the tender. In addition, the contractors are required to carry out a detailed assessment of the risk factors to ensure that all potential risks in the project are properly addressed before construction commences on the site. This risk assessment takes into account measures to protect nearby buildings, protection of public utilities, instrumentation requirements and the method of construction. To advise and assist LTA on underground construction works, LTA has also engaged a high-level review board comprising internationally renowned experts and professionals in the field of deep underground construction work. The board reviews the adequacy of the contractors' technical proposals and, where necessary, makes recommen

Column: 3060

dations to improve the design, safety and construction method. I think this emphasis on safety, right from the conceptualisation and design stage, is fully in line with what Dr Teo has stressed in his remarks.

Let me now move on to the construction stage. Apart from the safety considerations at the tender and design stages, LTA also ensures that the emphasis on safety is maintained during the construction stage. At this stage, LTA works closely with the contractor on site to ensure that the construction works are implemented safely, in line with the proposals and programme, and more than comply with the requirements under the Factories Act. LTA has a system of checks and inspections to ensure that the engineering designs and plans are accurately transmitted down to the construction team. I think this is again what Dr Amy Khor has alluded to, that while the senior people (engineers and others) may have everything in hand, the line managers and others need to be also properly informed. So, this ensures that the information is transmitted down and that the project is constructed according to the specifications and designs. The contractors are also required to brief their workers on a daily basis on the workplan for the day and the key safety factors to be complied with.

Sir, at this stage, let me address Dr Amy Khor's question. She asked who is responsible for safety at the MRT construction sites as well as the design and safety of the temporary works at these sites. Dr Teo has also asked if the design of the temporary works is independently checked by LTA. As this is a design-and-build project, the main contractor of the project is responsible for the design of temporary works at the MRT construction sites. But, notwithstanding this, LTA does review the design for acceptance. He also asked about the safety factors for the temporary

Column: 3061

works. Sir, I do not have the information with me, but I would expect that the contractors,

engineers and LTA to have adopted internationally accepted safety standards. In any case, this would be looked at by the Committee of Inquiry as well. Sir, I think we will leave it to them to investigate.

Where safety is concerned, under the Factories Act, the main contractor of the project is responsible for safety at the construction site. So I shall not go into the details, since the requirements under the Factories Act have been addressed by the Acting Minister for Manpower.

However, as I mentioned just now, LTA has various safety measures over and above what are required of the contractors under the Factories Act. Let me describe three of them. First, LTA's practice is to incorporate more stringent requirements in its contract documents because of the complex nature of its projects. LTA firmly subscribes to the safety first philosophy and works to achieve this with its contractors. For example, LTA requires the contractors to conduct in-house safety induction course for all workers before they are allowed on site to familiarise them with the hazards specific to their assigned scope of work. All contractors are required to submit to LTA method statements, outlining the work and safety procedures together with the assessment of the construction risks before they can proceed with critical work on site. This ensures that the contractors have given due consideration to the safety of the work scheduled to be done. There is another example. LTA requires the contractor to inspect the cranes every six months, instead of yearly, under the Factories Act.

Sir, secondly, LTA has put in place an Occupational Safety and Health Management manual (OSHM manual) and the project Quality Management System (QMS). The OSHM manual and the QMS

Column: 3062

stipulate key safety programmes and work processes for compliance by its staff. The OSHM manual also stipulates that the risk management process must be performed at various stages of the project, ie, at the concept design, detailed design and construction stages. The objective is to record all identified potential hazards and to track the mitigating measures to eliminate or to reduce these hazards to an acceptable level.

Thirdly, LTA conducts regular safety exercises on sites, on various issues or themes, such as working at heights, preventing objects from dropping, and so on.

Sir, on Dr Amy Khor's question on the availability of contingency and evacuation plans, I would like to inform Members that all contractors are required to have emergency response and evacuation plans at all worksites, as part of their safety management system. The plans set out the procedures, communications and response sequences in emergencies. The contractors are required to instruct their workers on the procedures and to regularly conduct evacuation drills to familiarise them with the evacuation procedures. And periodically, LTA, Police, SCDF and other agencies are also invited to participate in simulated exercises to test the robustness of the emergency plans. LTA does check to make sure that the contractors have the emergency plans properly drawn up.

Ms Irene Ng raised concerns over why LTA did not act on the feedback from the workers on the safety on the site. Sir, I would like to assure her that LTA has in place a system for monitoring the progress of its projects and for escalating issues, such as those relating to safety, to the appropriate level of management for resolution. In the case of the Circle Line Stage 1 project, which is where the incident site is, the Project Director and

Column: 3063

the Senior Project Manager are assisted by Project Managers assigned to each contract under the Circle Line Phase I. And there are two projects there, one of which was given to Nishimatsu-Lum Chang. The Project Manager is, in turn, supported by three teams of engineers covering design, site supervision and contractual issues. These engineers conduct regular inspections on site safety and the work progress and ensure that the works complied with contractual and statutory requirements. Any shortcomings of non-compliance are highlighted to the contractors for rectification. The contractors and their supervisory staff can also contact the LTA Project Managers and engineers on any issue or problem that they encounter.

Sir, here, I would like to state that the Committee of Inquiry (COI) will be investigating into the events leading to the collapse of the Nicoll Highway tunnel, and I am sure that it will also inquire into whether there were adequate and timely communications between the contractors and LTA staff on the site prior to the collapse. As such, I think it is best for us to wait for the COI to complete its investigations.

Dr Teo Ho Pin asked if there is soil monitoring instrumentation in place. Sir, I would like to inform him that there are comprehensive steps of instrumentation, such as settlement markers, inclinometers, etc, installed at all the sites to monitor and supervise the works closely. In fact, I was told that there are over 10,000 instruments at the moment monitoring the current Circle Line works. Where necessary, issues, such as signs of distress observed on buildings or structures, can be escalated by LTA engineers on the site to senior management for attention.

Column: 3064

Ms Irene Ng also asked why LTA did not stop work at all the CCL sites immediately after the incident. Sir, I wish to clarify that LTA did issue a stop work order to Nishimatsu-Lum Chang, which is also working on the adjacent CCL contract, ie, the contract that covers the Old Airport Station to the Paya Lebar Station, the day after the Nicoll Highway Station incident. Immediately following the incident, LTA focused its attention on the areas of greatest risks which are those works which are done by the same contractor, and that is why it stopped the work there. As for the other parts of the CCL beyond Stage 1 of the project, the works were at a less advanced stage, as the contracts were awarded one to two years later after CCL Stage 1. For example, excavation works have hardly started for CCL Stage 3. As for CCL Stage 2 and the other contract in CCL Stage 1, excavation levels are much shallower than the incident site and the levels range from three metres to 17 metres compared to 27 metres and beyond at the incident site. Many of the sites also employ different construction methods, for example, top-down, instead of the bottom-up, cut and cover method at the Nicoll Highway site, and they use contiguous bored piles and other piling methods, instead of the temporary diaphragm walls.

Sir, as such, LTA felt that it was appropriate not to require the other contractors to stop work immediately. What it did was to conduct an immediate review of the works at all the other sites. Hence, LTA asked the contractors at the other sites to immediately review the designs of their temporary works to confirm that these are safe, to get the engineers to review them, and that they have been constructed according to design. The contractors were also asked to review all the instrumentation readings once more. But there continued to be significant public concerns about safety

Column: 3065

around the MRT construction sites. I think this is understandable, given the severity of the Nicoll Highway incident. Hence, as an added precaution, together with BCA, LTA decided to impose a stop work order on all deep excavations for all the CCL sites. Jointly with BCA, LTA asked for a detailed review of the temporary works by the contractors involved. The review process is still ongoing with BCA and, as mentioned by Minister Mah, works on four stations have already been given clearance to restart.

Sir, as Members can see, the decisions made by LTA at each stage were carefully considered, based on its professional judgement and the accumulated experience from its many past projects. The decisions also took into account technical evaluations, such as the nature of the incident and the conditions under which it occurred and the varying nature of conditions and construction methods at the other CCL sites.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the House that safety has been and remains a top priority for LTA in its efforts to build a comprehensive road and rail network for Singapore. The Nicoll Highway incident serves as a painful reminder to all of us of the importance of safe practices and procedures. LTA has appointed its own committee to review the circumstances and factors leading to the collapse. It will study the findings of this committee as well as that of the Committee of Inquiry, and identify the measures and procedures that need to be tightened so that safety on its worksites can be further improved. I can therefore assure Members that LTA will continue to work closely with the relevant Government agencies and contractors to improve the safety standards in our construction industry.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me thank all Members and

Column: 3066

also the three Ministers for speaking and supporting the motion.

Sir, first of all, I agree with Ms Irene Ng that we need to review our tendering system. While Minister Mah has mentioned that 27% of the contracts were awarded not to the lowest bidder, the public agencies have the discretion not to award the contracts to the lowest tenderers. But the lowest tenderers have no choice to withdraw from their bids because there is a penalty system which would debar a contractor from withdrawing his tender bid. So we need to look into this system. Because if a contractor makes a bona fide mistake and if he cannot withdraw his tender bid, he would have to go along and be awarded the contract, and that would leave him with no choice but to cut corners in order to survive in the project.

I also support Ms Irene Ng's call to look into the check and balance system for temporary works design. It is important that temporary works must be regarded almost the same as permanent works, especially for underground construction works. Because when you remove soil from the ground, you need to provide certain support system and that support system must be of equal strength to the permanent structure.

I also support Ms Irene Ng's call on developing a safety culture in the industry. It is important, as all Members have mentioned, that we need to inculcate a sense of professionalism and a sense of responsibility for safety in the construction industry.

Sir, let me respond to Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's defence of BATU. I want to clarify that actually I am aware that BATU is involved, together with the Ministry of Manpower and also the Singapore Contractors' Association, to develop a safety audit system called SC2. But my

Column: 3067

question is whether BATU can be more proactive and develop its own audit system to protect the interest of its workers, instead of relying on the tripartite system where there is a conflict of interests between the employers and the workers and the association. In fact, this morning, I received a letter from a director of a safety audit firm. He mentioned that SCAL has incorporated a subsidiary known as Singapore Construction Safety and Consultancy Pte Ltd (SC2) to look into the various aspects of worker safety and health at construction sites. But he questions

whether SC2 is able to achieve objectivity and impartiality, because it is actually a subsidiary of the contractors' association. So, I think it is important that we make sure that the safety of this system is independent. That is the reason why I called for the parties, such as the developers or the insurance companies, to look into it. I hope the Ministry will look into that.

I agree with Dr Amy Khor that there is a need to look into the safety audit on site. I think this has been mentioned quite a number of times. We really have to look at the whole CP79 and look at all the clauses and see whether they are comprehensive enough to provide a good safety system on site.

Sir, I am indeed very glad to hear from the Ministers that they have agreed to set up a joint committee of the two Ministries, ie, MOM and MND, and that it will provide this integrated approach to look into the whole process and value chain of a construction project. I have mentioned before that safety in the construction site is the responsibility of all stakeholders, and it is important that every stakeholder in the value chain understands his roles and responsibilities and exercises those roles and responsibilities effectively for safety sake.

Column: 3068

I am glad that Minister Mah has also responded that BCA will also act as a one-stop centre to coordinate construction works in Singapore. This is very important, because there are so many projects ongoing all over Singapore, and the repercussions of construction works, especially excavation works and tunnelling works have a lot of impact on the surroundings. This is a very good lesson which we have learnt from these two accidents. Having a centralised coordinating agency will help to minimise all these adverse consequences on the surrounding buildings and structures.

Sir,

Column: 3069

I agree with Dr Ng that the 3-pronged approach adopted by MOM has been useful and effective to a certain extent to bring across the messages to the industry, ie, tough laws, strict enforcement and also to promote self-regulation among the various stakeholders. In terms of safety legislation, we are definitely above or on par with many developed countries. We have very strict safety legislation. There is no doubt about it. But in terms of enforcement - I can understand that we have 4,000 sites, and there will be more sites and projects - we need to have a sustainable system where the authorities can take enforcement action and also make sure there is a tracking system where enforcement is effective to enhance safety at construction sites.

With regard to self-management, this is one area which requires a lot of efforts from all stakeholders in the industry. I still cannot feel the will-power among the various stakeholders to really develop a safety culture in the industry. The experience which I got from Japan, UK and even Australia is that their safety culture is really very, very strong, compared to the local construction industry. This is one area where we really need to focus our efforts on to see how we can develop a strong safety culture.

I agree with Dr Ng that prevention of accidents is the key. We should focus efforts upstream, to make sure that every effort is made to prevent accidents. If we get the design and all the legal framework right, we will avoid a lot of risks downstream during construction, and that will reduce safety hazards during construction and even during maintenance.

Sir, I am indeed very pleased to hear from Minister Yeo that LTA is very comprehensive and exercises due diligence in its 4-stage procedures when they implement their projects. It is important that we let the public know what is the process which LTA has gone through. LTA has exercised diligence in making sure that, even before construction, they have investigated the sites, surroundings, soil conditions, the impact of the proposed project on the surroundings and taken precautions to minimise those risks to property, people and the environment. That is important. That is very reassuring.

I also mentioned before that safety is actually the responsibility of all stakeholders. I have made certain recommendations in my speech. I hope the joint committee will look into those suggestions.

Column: 3070

Finally, I would like to assure all Singaporeans that this Government does not just talk. We will make every effort to make sure we provide a safe work culture and safe workplaces for all our workers in Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, noting the two recent construction-related accidents at Nicoll Highway and Ayer Rajah, urges the Government to (a) re-emphasise the importance of safety at workplaces in Singapore; (b) review current safety standards and practices; and (c) recommend appropriate measures, including legislative changes, to further enhance the safety of workers in the construction industry.