A NEW OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH FRAMEWORK

Column: 2252

A NEW OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH FRAMEWORK:

(Statement by the Minister for Manpower) Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has been concerned about workplace safety for some time. Through various measures, we have reduced the number of accidents and deaths at workplaces over the past 10 years. But, recently, safety standards have stagnated. While our present record is better than Asian countries and regions like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Malaysia, we still rank below Japan and most EU15 countries. There is much room for improvement, especially at construction sites.

Last year, three serious workplace accidents occurred at Nicoll Highway, the Fusionpolis complex and Keppel Shipyard. We lost 13 lives there. Only 2 1/2 months into this year, and we already have 12 fatalities from workplace mishaps. As

Column: 2253

Singapore becomes more densely populated with buildings and people, accidents will cause even more damage to life and property. We must take decisive actions now to avert future mishaps by raising safety standards.

To achieve better results, my Ministry undertook a thorough review of our safety systems, which included a study tour to four European countries - Sweden, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Sweden and the UK are the top two safest places to work. In these developed countries, the thinking on occupational safety and health and how to make workplaces safer has advanced dramatically over the past three decades. I spoke not only to regulators, but also to leaders in international construction firms, unionists, academics and researchers working in private institutions.

In terms of our development of occupational safety and health systems, we have not kept pace with the most advanced countries. Our Factories Act

is based on the British Factories Act, but the United Kingdom has since revised their regulatory framework. These developed countries have been able to significantly reduce accidents and deaths only after they evolved new principles and legislation to cope with changing practices. They recognise that if we just do more of what we have done in the past, improvements, if any, will only be incremental.

Overhaul framework to accelerate a safety culture

To achieve higher safety standards will require a change of mindsets of all stakeholders to be intolerant of safety lapses. Accidents can only be prevented if all individuals have embedded deep within them a safety culture.

Government cannot improve safety standards alone. We have to involve all stakeholders and adopt new principles to accelerate change. We need an overhaul

Column: 2254

of our present system to ingrain good safety habits in all individuals at the workplace - from top management to the last worker.

Having looked at other systems and exchanged ideas with experts in those countries with excellent safety records, MOM has formulated a new framework and roadmap to improve the safety culture and achieve a quantum leap in safety standards. While our ultimate goal must be to have zero fatalities, through this new framework, we aim to first reduce deaths at workplaces by a third in five years, and by half within a decade or sooner. If we can achieve this, then we would have attained current standards comparable to the top 10 developed countries in safety.

New principles to ingrain safety awareness

Three principles are fundamental to our new framework. First, we should reduce risks at the source by requiring all stakeholders to minimise or eliminate risks which they create. Accepting risks presented at the workplace leads to unnecessary loss of life. Instead, under the new framework, those who create risks must be responsible and held accountable to reduce, or better still, eliminate the risks to prevent accidents. We will therefore require assessments to identify the source of risks at workplaces, the actions to reduce these risks, and the parties responsible for doing so.

These responsibilities will involve persons along the whole process chain including top management. As examples, architects and engineers must ensure that their construction projects are safe to build and maintain. Manufacturers and suppliers must ensure that the machinery they supply or maintain is safe to use. Workers have a responsibility to adopt safe work practices. In other words, all persons at work must accept responsibility for their own safety, the safety of

Column: 2255

those under their charge, and those they affect through their work.

The second principle is that industry itself must be required to take greater ownership of safety outcomes. They must self-regulate to reduce the loss of life and injury to workers under their charge. Our current Factories Act is prescriptive. This encourages a mindset among management and workers to follow the “letter of the law�? and not address safety aspects outside prescribed legislation. Ownership for their workers' safety is lessened as some wait for new regulations before taking action. But it will be difficult for legislation and enforcement to always keep pace with the rapid technological changes in existing and new industries.

My Ministry, through legislation and enforcement, will continue to maintain standards and set goals for industry to attain our safety targets. But self-regulation must mean that practitioners who are the most knowledgeable about the hazards that occur in their particular situation must be held responsible to develop safe work procedures. Each workplace must design and be required to put into place a safety system to adequately respond to specific hazards identified. These systems must include concrete steps for implementation to put into place safe work practices, machinery and equipment and training of personnel. Qualified safety professionals will audit these systems for adequacy and compliance. However, there will still be prescriptive guidance for clearly defined high-risk hazardous sectors and practices. This will be helpful for small and medium enterprises that will need time to adjust to this new framework.

The third principle is that we should prevent accidents through higher penalties for poor safety management. Safety lapses resulting in mishaps are severely

Column: 2256

punished, but the penalties for offences in the absence of mishaps are comparatively lower. For example, composition fines are limited to $2,000 per offence. This encourages the industry to tolerate sub-optimal safety practices until accidents occur. MOM will impose greater financial disincentives and penalties on workplaces with unsafe systems, before any accident has occurred.

Key measures to facilitate change

To effect the new framework, I will, by the end of this year, introduce a new Workplace Safety and Health Act; set up a new Workplace Safety and Health Council; and establish an International Advisory Panel for Occupational Safety and Health.

This new Workplace Safety and Health Act will replace the current Factories Act. It will articulate the three principles I have outlined earlier into law. It will specify liabilities for a wider range of stakeholders, strengthen personal accountability of stakeholders and key personnel, and focus more on occupational safety and health goals and systems. Safety plans will be mandated and safety officers given more responsibilities and powers. We will table the Act later this year after consulting all stakeholders.

My Ministry will also set up a new Workplace Safety and Health Council to promote self-regulation and instil ownership in safety outcomes. The Council will involve senior management to oversee sector-specific committees to set standards and drive reforms. The Council and its committees will comprise experts and representatives from leading companies in safety and health, professional bodies, insurance companies, employer associations, unions, academics, and relevant Government agencies.

As we catch up with the leading countries, they will also advance in their

Column: 2257

occupational safety and health practices. We need to keep abreast of international developments to achieve our target of being among the top 10 safest places to work. I will therefore establish a standing International Advisory Panel to tap expertise and experience beyond our shores. The Panel will inject fresh and objective views, review and critique our regulatory regime, practices, and standards, and provide international benchmarks. This will identify our strengths and shortcomings, and enable us to continuously improve our systems and laws.

A call to action

The accidents in the Nicoll Highway Collapse, Fusionpolis, and the oil tanker blast at Keppel Shipyard last year serve as stark warnings that we tolerate safety lapses at our own peril. If the Nicoll Highway Collapse had occurred at the peak of rush hour with many more cars on the road, or led to the collapse of surrounding buildings, the devastation would have been too horrendous to imagine.

These high profile accidents are timely wake-up calls to firm and decisive action. To achieve better safety standards will require the unstinting support of all stakeholders, including regulators, employers, safety personnel, professional associations, unions, and every individual. We will consult all stakeholders as to how we can implement this new framework effectively to quickly achieve our goals. If we are determined in our collective efforts, we can make Singapore, our home, a safer place to work.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, workers who have to work to earn a living here have a right to safe workplaces. As a labour MP, I would like to stress the point that the employer is the one who is responsible to make sure that the working environment is safe for all workers. Employers must be aware of

Column: 2258

where the hazards are and take all necessary actions and measures in the work process to achieve a working environment that is safe for our workers. It is not about putting in place a system or just some kind of procedures or to appoint a safety officer. Shortcuts should not be taken at the expense of safety.

I would like to ask the Minister, besides the big stick, ie, penalty, how would MOM ensure that employers will do the necessary. And I would also like to ask the Minister, in introducing a new occupational safety and health framework, whether MOM will also review the safety training framework. Look at the last few accidents that happened. Although these areas already have mandatory safety training, accidents still happened.

It is important to understand that having knowledgeable employees is an integral part of making ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Yeo, no speeches, please. Ask your questions.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Yes. Besides empowering the workers, a mindset change of the enforcement agencies is also necessary. What will MOM do in this area?

Last, but not least, I would also want to ask the Minister whether he would assure us that the review would not merely be a procedural one or a procedure acting exercise which will end up in unnecessary cost for all.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me thank the hon. Member for his questions. I know that Mr Yeo has been at the helm of pushing for a safety review, and for good reason. Yes, I agree that employers need to hoist this in, and that is why this framework squarely puts in place the responsibility to evolve safety plans to show that they have concrete steps to put these plans into action

Column: 2259

and that they have provided for materials to be bought, for equipment to be provided, to have trained their personnel. That is the gist of this new framework.

Is this a paper exercise? This is the crux of the question that Mr Yeo asked. If anybody thinks that this is a paper exercise, I would advise them to think through this, because this will be enacted into law - harsher penalties for those who do not meet the mark, more rigorous standards and achievements. But the big stick, as Mr Yeo has pointed out, has been applied before. So I think the second element, which I have talked about, is to instil ownership, and this is where the Workplace Safety and Health Council plays an integral part.

This will take us some time to implement, but we should do this together. We will work with our stakeholders to make sure that this framework delivers the targets that I have set.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. I fully agree and support the move to make stakeholders involved at workplace, to be responsible for safety standards and also to imbue in all of them a safety culture. But I would like to ask the Minister: why does MOM put such a long timeframe of 10 years to reduce our current worksite fatality rate of 4.9 by half, to match the safety standards achieved by the top 10 developed countries? As every fatality is one fatality too many, should we not have a more aggressive target?

Secondly, how does the Ministry see this new approach that places responsibility for safety on all stakeholders in the operation - from the directors, top management, supervisors, right down to the site workers - impacting on business cost? Should the Ministry also not consider, as a supplement to the harsher penalties for offences or breach of safety

Column: 2260

guidelines, incentives such as plus points to contractors who maintain high safety standards, ie, instead of just administering the big stick, also put the carrot in?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Why 10 years to halve the rate? It is an important question. I fully agree with the Member that one fatality is one too many. But in setting targets, it is important for us to be realistic. The European countries took about 20 to 30 years to reach their current level. As I will explain later during the Committee of Supply, we have reached a stage where you require every individual to participate. I will provide some examples of previous accidents that had occurred. It will take about two years for this framework and message to reach down to the lowest level. If we can do it faster, I will be the first one to cheer and be glad. It took us about 10 years to halve our fatalities to reach this new base,

as provided in the figures. We have achieved good safety standards and, in Asia, apart from Japan, our safety standards are the next best. But looking at the experience of other countries, it would take this amount of time for us to reach to the last level before workers can internalise the safety culture.

Do I hope that we can do it faster? Of course. And if we can aim for zero fatalities, all the better. But I want to set realistic targets and milepost so that we can gauge our efforts. If we find that, within this framework, we are achieving our goals, I think it would be a good problem if we can accelerate our targets.

How do we put in incentives for our sake? Indeed, incentives already exist. For example, under BCA or HDB's planning tender contracts, or LTA's contracts, they do put in place incentive systems where someone shows a good safety record, particular incentives are given. I agree that more needs to be done there and we will look into ways that we can incentivise that.

Column: 2261

I think one key area is for the Workplace Safety and Health Council to put out information into the market about the good as well as those with not so good safety records. In terms of business costs, I take it this would impact companies who have not taken time to build up the safety systems. And indeed, that is the right thing to do. Those who invested time and effort and resources into building up their safety practices need not fear that this will increase costs disproportionately.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for announcing and putting forth this framework. As my colleagues Mr Yeo and Dr Khor said, the key is how to filter it down to operation and action. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is earnestly keen to bring down accidents and improve safety standards. But I have four questions for the Minister. Firstly, I think the Government should actually take the lead in promoting safety standards. How to do this is to actually impose in the Government contracts as the requirements in the tender contracts, whereby specifications should be made very clear as to the minimum safety standards that are needed in accordance with the norms of those industries of the tenders. In this manner, the tenderers themselves are forced by such contracts to apply the required safety standards and therefore improve their own safety measures.

Secondly, how can we recognise companies that adopt good practices and safety measures? Again, perhaps, in the tenders, both for Government as well as private sector, it should be encouraged that premiums can be given for companies that propose and practise good safety measures. For example, insurance premiums can be a factor that can help them to lower their cost.

Thirdly, the Minister mentioned about halving the defects in about 10 years. I

Column: 2262

share Dr Khor's point on why just half in 10 years. Why not have a more aggressive target? Why not have a zero defect at the workplace? Because as we said, every fatality is still a death that we do not want. We should aim for a zero target in every workplace. It should be a zero defect or zero fatality as the target for all industries and the Government sector.

Finally, on compensation. I share the view that we should have higher penalty for the employers. But why not have higher compensations for the injured employees? We should also take care of the injured employees. We should put in the law that employers who have bad practices and cause injuries should actually pay higher compensation for their injured employees.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, I am cheered by Mr Leong's comments. He represents employers, and all that he has said makes good sense. He represents the group of employers who are enlightened and realised that safety must be internalised through business processes and costs. But we will certainly take his suggestions to heart, in terms of Government taking the lead, and I think that is the right stance. In principle, I agree.

Should we also build in systems where insurance companies' premiums can incentivise those with good safety practices and, as a corollary, these incentivise or penalise those with poor performances? I think, yes. France has a very complicated system where they actually compute based on the number of accidents and workmen's compensation. We want to start by putting out the information there. As I said, the Workplace Safety and Health Council can do this at regular intervals. In other words, it should publish to all and sundry, what your workplace safety performance has been. This will impact on the insurance, this will impact

Column: 2263

on the employees wanting to join the company, and this will also impact on the developers who want to give them contracts. That will make sense.

Should we aim for zero fatality? For sure. Let us do it. If we can do it, the faster the better. But, as I said, this is a realistic target. If I fall short of this target, I would ramp up the system. But this is the base. If we can move faster, let us do it.

In terms of compensation for workmen's injuries, yes, we do need to look at it. The compensation is higher, but the figure is always relative. So if there is a need for review, we will do so.

The Chairman: I will just have another two short ones because we are going to MOM COS after the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, as the Minister has agreed that the Government should take the lead, may I ask what are the soft skills required to achieve the target set? Has his Ministry the adequate soft skills to enforce the new framework on this aspect?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, we will need both hard skills and soft skills, hard tactics too. Hard tactics would be the harsh penalties that we will put into place. What Mr Seng Han Thong quite rightly means are the soft skills, in other words, to change our enforcement. Yes, we do need to build the capability. We will be sending safety officers for a longer attachment to countries which have better safety records so that they can learn these soft skills.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Sir, there are two points that I would like to seek clarification from the Minister. Firstly, I fully support the framework, focus and emphasis. However, I am a

Column: 2264

little bit concerned about the emphasis on self-regulation. I understand the purpose is to ensure that there is ownership all along the chain. But the focus on self-regulation is a concern to me. The question I would like to ask is whether it would lead to a dilution on the role and responsibility of the employer. There are many things which the workers have no control. For instance, the workers have no control on how the factory is built, how the machinery and equipment are designed, how the production layout in the factory is done. So they have no control, as they are not a contributing party to the ability to create a safer work environment for themselves, of which the employers must take ultimate responsibility. So would the Minister clarify? Would this focus on self-regulation result in a dilution of the employer's responsibility, a transfer of responsibility to other stakeholders and in particular, it should not result in the transfer of responsibility to the workers?

The second point I would like to ask is the importance of education. Educating people about the importance of safety is very critical, particularly in Singapore, where there is a higher number of foreign workers working side by side, and foreign workers are from so many nationalities. So there must be a common language when it comes to safety and that everybody can speak and communicate along the line.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me thank Mdm Halimah for allowing me to have the opportunity to clarify. She is quite right. Self-regulation should not be misconstrued as saying, " I now leave it to your employers to decide on how to do it." That is absolutely the converse of what I am saying here. My Ministry, through legislation and enforcement, will continue to set standards. Self-regulation means that you must take ownership and say how you are going to achieve these standards. And as I said, safety plans must be involved. You must show concrete steps

Column: 2265

to implement this. There will be qualified safety professionals who will audit these plans, both for adequacy and compliance. So rest assured that self-regulation increases; not decreases, management responsibility.

In terms of education of foreign workers, Mdm Halimah has quite rightly pointed out that most countries with a high proportion of foreign workers do have a harder time in achieving safety standards. That is so even for European countries. So if you compare Spain and the Netherlands, or Spain and Sweden, Sweden has a more homogeneous workforce, Spain has higher fatalities. It is more difficult, but it is not impossible. Even in Singapore, we have companies with the same population of foreign workers who have achieved higher safety standards. So I think culture is important. Yes, we have to ramp up education so that all our foreign workers and local workers can understand what it means to have safe habits. We need to really work harder at this. But it can be done.