WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH BILL

Column: 2204

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.22 pm

The Minister for Manpower (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Manpower started work on reforming the

Column: 2205

Factories Act, this is the Act which regulates occupational safety and health ( OSH ) in Singapore in 2001. Three high-profile accidents in 2004 - the collapse of Nicoll Highway, the fire on the vessel "Almudaina" at Keppel Shipyard and the accident at Fusionpolis, which collectively claimed 13 lives, added new impetus and urgency to our efforts.

While the passage of time may have lessened the pain, we must not forget the lessons learnt. If there can be any good from the tragic loss of lives, then let it be this - a constant reminder to us all that we ignore safety and health risks at our peril and to move us from platitudes to action, to create structures that will shape better behaviour and outcomes at the workplace.

Our safety standards have improved over the years. Even after the three major accidents in 2004, we were within the top 20 developed countries and a leader in safety for Asian countries. But we must do better. In 2004, 83 people lost their lives in workplace accidents. More than 3,000 were injured in industrial accidents; 93 were permanently incapacitated. Most of these accidents were preventable.

The reality is that on a day-to-day basis, safety may be the last thing on the minds of management and workers on the ground. There are deadlines to meet, monotony, apathy or lethargy to overcome, a lack of professionalism and training, unclear lines or no lines of accountability, and poor management. Any one of these factors can lead to an accident. A combination of them is often catastrophic. The Committee of Inquiry into the Collapse of Nicoll Highway noted: "The collapse did not develop suddenly. Several technical and administrative factors contributed to the collapse. From the early stages €¦ there were failures to demonstrate the necessary level of care. A multiplicity of events led to the position where design, construction, instru

Column: 2206

mentation, management and organisation systems €¦ failed. Serious human errors were made. There were failures in defensive systems. The builder did not adequately deal with insidious warning signs. There were no proper and appropriate design reviews. There were inadequate contingency and remedial measures." In retrospect, we were extremely fortunate that more did not lose their lives in the accident.

Following the tragedies of 2004, I informed this House in March last year that Government would undertake a fundamental review of our legislation to improve safety outcomes. Three fundamental reforms in this Bill will improve safety at the workplace. First, this Bill will strengthen proactive measures. Instead of reacting to accidents after they have occurred, which is often too little too late, we should reduce risks to prevent accidents. To achieve this, all employers will be required to conduct comprehensive risk assessments for all work processes and provide detailed plans to minimise or eliminate risks.

Second, industry must take ownership of occupational safety and health standards and outcomes to effect a cultural change of respect for life and livelihoods at the workplace. Government cannot improve safety by fiat alone. Industry must take responsibility for raising OSH standards at a practical and reasonable pace.

Third, this Bill will better define persons who are accountable, their responsibilities and institute penalties which reflect the true economic and social cost of risks and accidents. Penalties should be sufficient to deter risk-taking behaviour and ensure that companies are proactive in preventing incidents. Appropriately, companies and persons that show poor safety management should be penalised even if no accident has occurred.

Column: 2207

This Bill will put into place a new and more effective framework to reduce accidents at the workplace - to bring about a quantum improvement in OSH standards and to achieve our intermediate goal of halving the present occupational fatality rate by 2015.

Let me now give an overview of the Bill and explain its key provisions. I should start by thanking our tripartite partners, employers and unions, and also other key stakeholders - safety professionals, developers, designers, industry associations and many others who assisted in developing key ideas and regulatory concepts during the consultation process. Many insightful observations and comments were made, which have greatly improved the final product. During this reading, I will indicate to Members in this House changes in this Bill which are substantially different from the approach taken in the current Factories Act.

Scope of the Bill

First, coverage of all workplaces. Our current legislation only covers factories. This is of course archaic, as every worker deserves to be protected against safety and health risks. Occupational safety and health (OSH) legislation in other developed countries, including the US and the United Kingdom, has long moved on to cover all workplaces.

We will extend coverage of the Act in stages in consultation with industry. Our immediate priority is to focus on the sectors with the highest accident and fatality rates: these are construction sites, shipyards and metalworking factories. Clause 2(2) of the Bill allows the Minister to extend the scope to cover other workplaces in due course, which we intend to do over the next three to five years. We will engage and consult the

Column: 2208

industries concerned regarding the timeframe, and help prepare them for compliance with the legislative requirements.

Certain occupational groups have been exempted, such as members of the Singapore Armed Forces, the Police and other members of the Home Team. These agencies need the flexibility to make urgent operational decisions without being encumbered by the legislative requirements. While the need is understandable, MOM will work with those exempted to ensure that their OSH management systems are comprehensive and up to date. Crew on international modes of transport are also exempted. This is because they are operating across international boundaries. Their safety and health will be protected by internal controls and other laws applicable to that sector.

Better defined liability regime to reduce risks at source

Next, the Bill will expand responsibility and better define persons who are accountable for safety outcomes. Under the present regime, legal liability in respect of all persons in the factory falls on the shoulders of the registered occupier. For a traditional assembly-line plant, this is comprehensive as the factory occupier is typically the employer of all the workers and has control over the risks to which they are exposed.

However, today, with outsourcing, specialisation of work and more diverse employment relationships, workplaces will often have workers employed by third parties and other specialists. For example, in the construction sites, employees from various specialist sub-contractors work together on the same project, but under the direction of their respective employers. In such a scenario, placing legal liability on the registered occupier alone may be unfair and ineffective. This is because the employees of the sub-

Column: 2209

contractors may choose to ignore the safety instructions of the occupier or carry out unsafe work practices, or introduce unsafe work practices without the knowledge of the occupier.

Part IV the Bill effects a new and more direct liability regime which assigns legal responsibility to those who create and have control over safety and health risks. Clause 11 assigns liability to occupiers for dangers arising from the physical environment under their control. Clauses 12 and 13 assign responsibility for safety to employers and self-employed persons respectively.

Clause 14 covers principals who engage contractors for specialised tasks or the services of workers from third-party labour suppliers. In such situations, there is no contract of employment between the principal and the contractor or the worker supplied. Traditionally, a principal who engages a contractor would be engaging the specialist services of the contractor, and would not be directing the contractor on how to do the work. However, today the situation is different. Principals often engage "contractors" and third-party labour not for their specialist expertise, but precisely so that they can avoid entering into a direct employment relationship, for organisational or other reasons. In such situations, the principal, in terms of supervision, takes on the role of an employer. The Bill thus places on him responsibility for the worker's safety and health as if he were the employer. If this were not the case, then the duties under the Act could be simply circumvented by a careful crafting of the legal relationship.

The Bill also expands accountability for OSH risks to include risks posed to members of the public by employers, self-employed persons and principals. This is necessary as workplace accidents may have catastrophic effects, not only on their employees, but also on the public at

Column: 2210

large. Take, for example, an alarming case in July last year, when a contractor caused a gas leak because he wrongly mixed cleaning reagents for a swimming pool. In that incident, over 50 members of the public were exposed to toxic chlorine gas. It is fortunate that no fatalities occurred.

Clause 16 covers manufacturers and suppliers of high-risk machinery and equipment specified in the Fifth Schedule of the Bill, which have been identified as generating more accidents. Companies who manufacture these products must ensure that they are safe for their intended use. The Fifth Schedule also contains a list of toxic and hazardous substances, including corrosive, flammable and explosive substances, which will be regulated under the same clause. This list is based on the UN's "Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for Hazard Classification and Communication", and thus represents an internationally accepted categorisation of dangerous substances.

Most accidents involving dangerous machines and toxic chemicals are caused not by the inherent defects, but by ignorance of risks and inattention to necessary safety precautions. The duty under clause 16 therefore also requires manufacturers and suppliers to provide adequate and comprehensive information on use and the precautions to be taken. Such information should be documented and made available at the point of sale, not at the point of distribution.

Under clause 17, persons who erect, install, modify or maintain the same high-risk machinery or equipment are placed under a duty to do so responsibly. This includes third-party maintenance contractors.

To engender a strong safety culture, commitment of top management is

Column: 2211

critical. Hence, the Bill holds managers and directors of companies accountable for safety and health practices at their workplaces under clause 48, even though managers may not be able to police safety and health on the ground. This means that even though physical supervision of workers may be delegated, management must show that they have taken active steps to implement sound OSH management systems, including proper risk assessments and reporting systems, provide adequate resources, and ensure that full information is disseminated to workers and other persons exposed to risks.

While management commitment is critical, it is not sufficient if employees ignore clear instructions. Under this new liability regime, responsibility for the safety and health of others will lie not only with employers, but also with employees, whether they be supervisors or rank-and-file workers. Clause 15(1) thus requires persons at work to use the personal protective equipment provided by their employer and cooperate with the employer on OSH matters. Clause 15(3) also imposes a duty to not wilfully or recklessly endanger the safety and health of themselves or others, with appropriate penalties in place to deter such behaviour. As I have said, this would greatly expand the liability framework.

_Shifting mindsets to comprehensive risk management systems
_

The present OSH regulatory regime defines which workplaces and aspects of work are regulated, and also prescriptively fixes the methods of achieving OSH competency on the ground, in other words, the law tells you what to do and how to do it. Such an approach has led to a morass of legislative rules and regulations, which may be ill-suited to particular sets of circumstances but must

Column: 2212

be followed nonetheless. It promotes a mindset of simply following the letter of the law, without applying one's mind to how the measures should be implemented to be effective or if there is a better or more efficient solution.

Over the past three decades, leading OSH countries, including the UK and Sweden, have realised that as work processes become more sophisticated and more customised, it is increasingly difficult for the Government or any central authority to prescribe standards which can be applied uniformly to all companies, across all industries. The speed of technological development means that regulators which try to micro-manage will always be playing catch-up.

These countries have therefore changed their regulatory mindset. Rather than tell businesses how to run their factories or do their jobs, they have made businesses responsible for managing their own risks. Their legislation has moved from being prescriptive to performance-based. In other words, no longer does the law prescribe that your factory windows must be 10% of the floor size. The duty is simply to ensure that there is sufficient ventilation according to the number of people at work. You decide how to achieve this. If there is inadequate wall space for windows, or if windows are not practical in the work environment, alternatives such as forced ventilation or suction fans can be used.

The Bill adopts this performance-based approach in clauses 11 to 19. It requires stakeholders to take all reasonably practical measures to ensure the safety and health of their workers and the public. Under clause 47, the burden is on the party responsible to show that he has taken such reasonably practicable measures. To make sure companies internalise this, they will be required to conduct risk assessments, and take steps to eliminate or minimise identified risks,

Column: 2213

and disseminate this information. The requirement for risk assessments will be contained in new Regulations made under clause 65(2)(u) of the Bill, which will be passed when the Act is brought into force. To help industry undertake risk assessments, my Ministry, together with our industry partners, has organised seminars and workshops. MOM has also made available a set of Risk Assessment Guidelines illustrating the principles of conducting a proper risk assessment, and providing a basic template.

_Helping companies adjust to requirements of the new OSH framework
_

MOM will ensure that there is sufficient guidance for companies to comply with the Act. Industry practitioners will play a central role in guiding this effort through the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee (WSHAC). This 14-member Committee, from a variety of disciplines, was set up in November last year and is chaired by Mr Lee Tzu Yang, Chairman of the Shell Companies in Singapore. This Committee will help develop and revise safety and health standards across different sectors, such as construction, healthcare and metal working. It will assist in promoting OSH to top management through identifying and sharing practical and workable models of best practice. The Committee will also help develop in businesses a mindset of ownership of OSH standards and practices. This has proven elsewhere to be successful in reducing workplace injuries and diseases without sacrificing competitiveness. In fact, leading companies operating in such environments have told us that investments in safety and health enhance competitiveness by improving morale, reducing accidents and enhancing the corporate image.

MOM will also work with each industry sector to determine practical and realistic standards in the form of Codes of

Column: 2214

Practice or non-legislative guidance. Clause 39(1) of the Bill allows the Commissioner for Workplace Safety and Health to issue codes of practice, or to adopt any code of practice published by a third-party where suitable. Our intent is that within each sector, there should be published reference points to guide and shape behaviour. There are today some 90 Singapore Standards published by SPRING Singapore on safety. In sectors such as construction, there is already much legislative and other guidance. The Government will continue to work with trade associations and other stakeholders to develop reference points in other regulated sectors over time. But industry itself must take ownership of standards and drive better outcomes. Standards will not improve if industry waits for Government to tell them what must be done, or does the bare minimum to comply even though safety has not been adequately achieved.

We will also help stakeholders build up their capabilities to better manage OSH at their workplace. As a start, we will be organising a series of seminars for industry and other partners to better understand the new requirements of the law. We will make our enforcement policies and expectations clear. We will help SMEs defray the cost of improving the OSH skills and capabilities of their staff.

Beyond this, we will also be working on growing a larger body of competent OSH professionals to help businesses manage their OSH risks. These professionals, such as safety and health officers and auditors, should take on an expanded role in the longer term.

_Higher penalties for poor safety management and performance
_

Even as we work with industry to build up their capabilities to improve

Column: 2215

safety and health at their workplaces, we need to ensure that the penalties for non-compliance are sufficiently high to effect a cultural change on the ground. Penalties should be set at a level that reflects the true cost of poor safety management, including the cost of disruptions and inconvenience to members of the public which workplace accidents may cause. The collapse of Nicoll Highway not only resulted in the loss of four lives, but also caused millions of dollars in property damage and led to countless lost working hours and great inconvenience to the public. The maximum penalty of $200,000 under the present Factories Act is therefore inadequate.

This Bill contains a revised penalty framework in Part X. First, maximum penalties have been increased. This is reflected in clause 50. For individuals, the maximum fine remains at $200,000, but the maximum period of imprisonment is increased from 12 to 24 months. For corporate offenders, the maximum fine is raised to $500,000. The limit for composition fines has also been raised from $2,000 under the Factories Act, to half the maximum fine on conviction, or $5,000, whichever is lower.

The Factories Act contains a stepped penalty regime based on the harm done. The inadequacy of this regime is that it does not allow for meaningful penalties in cases where there are severe lapses, but fortuitously no accidents have occurred. Under the Bill, a single maximum penalty is prescribed. However, the penalty, in any given case, will be applied taking into account all the relevant circumstances, including the culpability of the offender, the potential harm that could have been caused, and the harm actually done.

Moving enforcement from reaction to prevention is the way forward to reduce

Column: 2216

deaths and accidents. But I want to assure the House that my Ministry will be reasonable in its enforcement measures. In cases where safety lapses have been identified but where no accidents have occurred, we will first adopt an approach of positive intervention, rather than impose criminal liability. This is possible under clause 21 of the Bill where the Commissioner for Workplace Safety and Health is empowered to make a "Remedial Order" compelling a person to remove any workplace risk or comply with a safe work practice, whether or not any imminent danger is posed. We will also use Remedial Orders to require employers to improve the quality of their Risk Assessments if they are found to be lacking, rather than impose penalties upfront.

_Changes to technical and administrative provisions
_

I have explained the main policy changes that will be brought about by this Bill. We are also making some structural changes. Members will note that technical provisions in the Factories Act, such as those relating to cleanliness, ventilation, prime movers and so on, are absent from this Bill. These provisions have been updated and will be enacted by Regulations when the Bill comes into force.

The Bill also effects some administrative changes. The Factories Act is administered by the Commissioner for Labour, with the assistance of the Chief Inspector of Factories. As I have alluded to above, the Bill establishes a new office of the "Commissioner of Workplace Safety and Health", who will administer the Act when it is passed and exercise the powers of the Chief Inspector.

The existing scheme for the registration of factories will continue to operate under separate regulations, but

Column: 2217

will be simplified to reduce the administrative burden on companies. The current safety officer, safety committee and safety auditor schemes will be preserved, although we have changed the nomenclature to "Workplace Safety and Health Officer", "Workplace Safety and Health Committee", and "Workplace Safety and Health Auditor" in line with the title of the Act. This is reflected in clauses 28, 29 and 30.

_Conclusion
_

Mr Speaker, Sir, the passing of this Bill will be a tangible expression that we have learnt from past mistakes. The Bill itself is not the solution, but it will put into place an improved legal framework to get all stakeholders to embed occupational safety and health into their daily operations. Although there is a lot more work to be done, it is a significant first milestone in our journey towards comprehensive protection for our workers and their loved ones. Together, we can make Singapore a safer place to work. I ask all Members of this House to support this Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.30 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, this legislation to regulate workplace safety comes none too soon. Even with so much scrutiny on worksite accidents after the Nicoll Highway mishap, and the Government vowing to crack down on work-related accidents as well as setting higher standards of safety, fatal worksite accidents continued to occur in 2004 and 2005. Just last Friday, another two workers were injured when a scaffolding collapsed at Keppel Shipyard. In fact, whilst the number of industrial accidents declined from 3,947 cases in 1995 to 3,179 in 2003, the numbers rose again to 3,283 in 2004.

Column: 2218

The situation is especially worrying in the construction sector. The number of construction worksite accidents increased from 887 in 1995 to 1,216 in 2004 despite the fact that the value of construction work had more than halved during that period.

Sir, I commend MOM for the new occupational safety and health regime that it is introducing thorough this Bill. The regime demands a radical change in mindset towards safety from a compliance mode to a commitment to safety-based approach. I note that the Bill is very comprehensive and far-reaching.

It has taken into account many of the suggestions and concerns raised by MPs in Parliament last March supporting a motion raised by my parliamentary colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin. There are, however, four areas which I would like to urge the Minister to pay further attention to.

Firstly, reinforcing with rewards. Sir, whilst I support the move for more stringent requirements and penalties to maintain workplace safety and health, it would be even better if we adopt a positive reinforcement approach where stakeholders are incentivised to maintain high safety standards and not merely penalised for failing to meet them. This would then truly shift the focus of maintaining workplace safety from a compliance-based mindset to a commitment to safety based

approach where all stakeholders internalise a safety-first culture.

In this respect, the new Price-Quality Method (PQM), introduced by the MND last year, to raise the quality attribute in public tenders to between 20 and 40%, would help to entrench safety as a key factor in tenders for construction projects,

Column: 2219

and motivate contractors to maintain good safety records. However, MOM should urge all Government organisations to adopt this approach in all their tenders where safety is a concern, and not just for construction projects.

Moreover, where applicable, these Government organisations should also adopt LTA's reward system for safety performance, where companies can earn safety bonuses based on a percentage of their contract value and, at the same time, face penalties in the form of negative bonuses for poor safety record based on periodic audits of the workplace. This would be a more tangible way to motivate companies to maintain good safety records and instill safety-first practices within the company.

Private companies should also be urged to adopt such bonus payout schemes for good safety performance, as well as separately evaluate price and quality for their tenders so that safety would be viewed as a strong plus factor in securing contracts.

The Minister had noted in Parliament last year that the Workplace Safety and Health Council would publish the workplace safety performance of all companies under the ambit of this Bill at regular intervals for the consumption of potential principals, potential employees and insurance companies. I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry would be proceeding with this soon.

Second, re-emphasising the essentials. Hazardous industries like construction, shipbuilding and manufacturing employ the most number of foreign workers. This is particularly so for the construction sector. The task of educating these foreigners on safe habits and practices is made more arduous due to language and cultural barriers. I understand that all

Column: 2220

construction workers are already required to attend safety orientation courses to equip them with knowledge on common hazards at worksites. These are conducted in their vernacular languages.

But, to imbue in these foreign workers a safety culture, the training courses should not just be mere orientation courses, but should be more in depth and in their vernacular, to ensure that the safety message is properly understood. They should also be regularly updated on safety best practices, and work hazards they should avoid.

To further reinforce these safety messages and habits, there could be reminders and warnings in pictorial form and/or in languages they can understand, placed at strategic locations at the workplace. For example, signs at construction sites to alert these workers before they climb up the scaffolding or go on to the gondola.

ExxonMobil is a company that has an excellent safety record despite it being in a highly hazardous industry. All bosses and workers and their subcontractors are required to strictly abide by the safety first ethic. There are reminders usually in the form of posters about safety precautions that are placed all over the workplace. For instance, safety messages are even plastered on the risers of steps to remind people of safe habits even as they walk up and down the flight of steps.

Third, replenishing the resources. Safety inspectors are now given very wide powers and hence need to have the requisite skills and experience to effectively and fairly carry our enforcement. This is because any stop-work order issued would be costly to the affected company. Conversely, if this were not issued when it should, then it could lead to accidents and loss of lives.

Column: 2221

Besides sending them for longer attachments to countries with better safety records, as suggested by the Minister previously, safety inspectors should also have some local experience in the relevant industry they are to oversee, say, by attachment to a firm so that they have a better understanding of the industry and the inherent risks involved.

MOM must also ensure that there is adequate manpower to carry out regular surveillance. The Minister noted in March 2005 that MOM has 100 inspectors regulating about 16,000 workplaces. At the extreme, the ratio of one inspector to 160 sites, or roughly one site inspected every two days in a year, is onerous, to say the least. I would like to urge MOM to study best practices in other countries with better safety records to determine what would be an appropriate manpower requirement.

Whilst whistle blowing could help prevent some accidents, many workers may still be wary of reporting unsafe work practices, even with the new legislation that protects whistle blowers for fear of negative repercussions, like being found out by the employers and being dismissed. This is especially so for foreign workers who have to pay off debts. Hence, regular inspections would have to be done to act as a deterrent against unsafe practices. This is especially important in the initial years of the implementation of the new Act.

The qualifications and criteria for independent safety auditors and safety auditing organisations should be reviewed in consultation with the relevant industry to ensure that these personnel have the relevant skills and experience to competently carry out safety audits.

Furthermore, there should also be a thorough review of the system of site audits and monitoring to ensure that contractors and other employers take

Column: 2222

steps to immediately rectify the deficiencies identified by the audits. MOM should also conduct more frequent checks of the contractors if the audits of these contractors fall below a certain threshold.

The construction industry is now required to prepare health and safety plans which are to be checked by qualified safety professionals to ensure comprehensiveness and compliance, even before a project gets started. This is a positive move as it ensures that safety is taken into account right from the inception of the project. However, MOM should ensure that appropriately qualified officials undertake the checking so that the project is not unduly delayed due to the lack of experience or incompetence of the checker appointed. Each day of delay could cost the developer and other stakeholders millions of dollars in holding and other costs. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how he would ensure that there are enough qualified professionals to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation.

Fourth, resolving manpower needs. Sir, even as we enact tougher legislation to deal with safety violators, we need to review the whole issue of man-year entitlement in the construction industry, and resolve the problem of the illegal sale of MYEs. Talk is rife in the industry that instead of parcelling out their MYEs to the various sub-contractors for a project, some main contractors are selling their MYEs to labour agents to make up for their below-cost suicidal bids. Sub-contractors desperate for work may resort to hiring such workers, while others resort to hiring illegals.

Whilst this is not a key factor resulting in the poor safety performance of our construction sites, it can exacerbate the problem, since it is unlikely that sub-contractors who secure their foreign workers through such illegal means would ensure that the latter are properly

Column: 2223

educated on worksite safety practices. As a result not only their lives but the lives of their fellow co-workers could also be endangered.

MOM has said in June 2005 that about 10% of MYEs allocated to construction companies remain unutilised and, in fact, less than 20% of construction companies have fully utilised their dependency ceiling of 80%. Yet, many industry observers continue to claim that the illegal sale of MYEs through labour agents is common.

Besides beefing up its enforcement team to clamp down on the hiring of illegal workers, the Ministry should also review the whole mode of allocation of MYEs, taking into account feedback from all players in the industry, which would include both the contractors and the sub-contractors.

Sir, on another issue related to foreign workers, I would like to urge the Ministry to also focus its attention on the provision of adequate, humane and safe quarters for foreign workers. These foreign workers deserve to be treated with as much dignity as all other workers, and should not be exploited by irresponsible employers and agents. Moreover, living in crammed, unhygienic conditions would affect the health of these workers and thus place their lives and those of others at risk at the worksites.

Sir, changing the safety regime from one based on compliance to one based on commitment to safety is a necessary step towards an accident free work environment. We need to change the philosophy of many from one of "Safety is somebody else's business" to "Safety is everybody's business".

An important aspect of this new Bill is to get everyone to take ownership of

Column: 2224

safety, from the bosses down to the lowliest worker. And as Erik Peyrer, Vice President and General Manager, Asia-Pacific and Middle East, Cooper Cameron, which won MOM's Safety Gold Award for the second time in 2005 notes, "These things only work if the top man is passionate about it. These things never happen from bottom up." Hence, the Government should take the lead, both as a regulator and as a major employer, and work with all other employers to develop a zero tolerance towards unsafe practices and habits and accidents at worksites.

Sir, I support the Bill, but urge MOM to do even more to raise our workplace safety record.

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

4.59 pm

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Workplace Safety and Health Bill. Workers welcome this Bill. Memories of the major industrial accidents that occurred last year claiming a number of lives are still fresh in our memories and we hope never to see a repeat of that again. This Bill provides a fundamental change from the current prescriptive framework under the Factories Act

where managing safety and health is through penalties when an accident occurs, to a more proactive and robust safety and health framework where those who create risk are held responsible for their actions. This Bill is also timely as our progress in health and safety has stagnated and is behind that of many developed countries. Our fatality rate of 4.9 deaths per 100,000 workers is far higher than the 2.5 average for 15 European Union countries.

Sir, what is important under this Bill also is that an employer can be penalised not only after an accident has taken place

Column: 2225

but even before that, if he fails to comply with the OSH management system that is in place. Also, the penalties for offences have been enhanced. In the wake of the NKF saga and the raging debate on whether or not the Government should introduce legislation to protect whistle blowers, clause 18(2) of the Bill is indeed a progressive move and I must applaud MOM for their farsightedness, although, as I will explain later, I think that even this provision provides limited protection.

Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister whether MOM could set a more robust target. Halving our current occupational fatality rate by 2015 is, in my view, too long a period, considering that many developed countries are already way ahead of us. So the Ministry should set more robust targets to bring our accident rate down as otherwise, by the time we catch up with the rest of the world, they would have leapfrogged even further.

The other major area which this Bill has not addressed is the tendering system in Singapore which encourages companies to tender as low as possible in order to secure contracts and which could then lead to shortcuts, thus compromising safety. This method of tendering can be seen in all sectors and is certainly most prevalent in the construction sector, where accident rates are one of the highest in Singapore. And because the tender price is low and due to pressures to meet deadlines to avoid hefty penalties, other forms of exploitation may occur, such as making workers work excessively long hours, thus making them prone to accidents which is detrimental to them as well as their co-workers. Sir, a University of Massachusetts study on 11,000 workers over a 13-year period shows that long working hours increase a person's chances of illness and injury. It shows that routinely working at least 12 hours a day posed 37% extra risk over those working fewer hours, while a 60-hour

Column: 2226

week was associated with an increased risk of 23%. If we do not address this problem, which is the way our tender system works, then I am afraid that we will continue to have employers and contractors who will try to cut corners to save costs and this would have an impact on safety measures, regardless of the new law. I hope that the MOM's newly established Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee could also address this issue as part of its overall measures to raise safety standards in the four sectors.

Sir, we also welcome the move to cover more workplaces under this Bill. It is indeed artificial to draw a line at some workplaces and exclude the workers from the protection that the law accords in other workplaces.

Let me now come to some specific aspects of the Bill, Sir.

Firstly, Sir, public sector unionists are concerned that the Bill has exempted some Government agencies, like the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, from its scope, when currently they are covered under the existing legislation. They fear that supervisors from these agencies have no clear benchmarks and are not bound by legislation when enforcing safety and health standards which could be detrimental to workers. Our unionists, Sir, are also worried that they have no legal basis to fall back on should they want to discuss about safety and health issues with their management. Under clause 29(2) of the Bill, for instance, there is a mandatory requirement for a Workplace Safety and Health Committee comprising representatives of employees of the workplace as well as employers to review circumstances that will affect the health and safety of persons at the workplace and to do inspections. If these agencies are excluded, Sir, how will workers' voice be represented? I would like to seek a

Column: 2227

clarification from the Ministry on the reasons for excluding those public agencies and an assurance that the exempted agencies will still comply with safety standards set by the Bill.

A second concern raised by workers, Sir, is the hefty fines imposed on workers for a subsequent offence. For the first offence, the maximum punishment is $500 but for a subsequent offence the maximum fine is $2,000. Considering that our median wage is only $1,800, this amount is high for the average worker who would, in most cases, already be penalised with a dismissal if he is found to have caused an accident.

Thirdly

,: Sir, workers are grateful for clause 18, which prohibits employers from dismissing or threatening to dismiss a whistle-blower but they feel that this provision does not go far enough. They pointed out that short of a dismissal or threats to dismiss, an employer can inflict a whole host of other acts of intimidation and harassment against a whistle-blower such as withholding promotions, paying lower bonuses or generally making life so difficult that the person may be forced to resign. I think, Sir, we need a much more comprehensive framework than this to protect whistle-blowers. And I would like to suggest that the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee consider devising such a framework as part of the compulsory standards on occupational safety and health that all companies in the four sectors covered by the Committee will have to adopt. Inter alia , Sir, the framework could cover things like how complaints are to be made, to whom, how would staff confidentiality be protected, what follow up action will be taken and what staff can do in the event that they feel that they are being victimised for whistle-blowing, short of dismissal. The objective, Sir, should be to educate employers that whistle-blowing is indeed

Column: 2228

an integral part of an effective safety and health management system and whistle-blowers should not be treated as enemies of the company.

The fourth major area of concern, Sir, is on the training of workers. Clause12(3)(e) provides that it is the employers' responsibility "to ensure that the person at work has adequate instruction, information, training and supervision as is necessary for that person to perform his work". There are two aspects to this issue. Firstly, there must be adequate measures to make sure that all workers, including foreign workers, are sent for training on the requirements of the new Act. It is difficult for workers to comply with the legal requirements, if they do not know what is required of them under the Act but which will cost them as they will now be exposed to specific penalties. Training should be done on a continuous regular basis and in a language that the workers understand, something particularly important in sectors where there are a lot of foreign workers.

Secondly, Sir, MOM should review the safety training framework, to ensure that workers have full knowledge of the various hazards at work. All workers should be equipped with skills to identify work processes or anything in the environment which are hazardous to their safety and health. This is important as technology and the type of chemicals used at work have expanded so much that it would not be possible for workers to rely on past knowledge and experience alone. Once a hazard is identified, workers should be empowered to stop work or request for relevant expertise to remove or eliminate the hazards, before starting or resuming work. Under clause 21(2), for instance, only the Commissioner can issue a stop-work order but no power is given to the individual worker who is aware of a danger to his safety or that of his co-workers from stopping work. Sir, now

Column: 2229

that individual workers are made responsible for their actions that will compromise safety, they must first know what are the hazards and be sufficiently empowered to do something once they are aware of the presence of such dangers.

The fifth area, Sir, is resources. For the new framework to be effective, clearly more resources are required. In March last year, the Minister mentioned that there were only 100 inspectors to do inspection work and that more would be employed. Can the Minister enlighten this House how many more inspectors have since been recruited to implement this Act? Also, do the inspectors have the expertise and are fully equipped to perform the new roles that are required of them under the Act? This role is no longer just punishing employers when an accident takes place but, more importantly, to ensure that there is an effective safety management system at work and that employers comply with that system even before any accident takes place. This requires special and in-depth knowledge of the industry, the work processes involved and the risk posed.

The sixth area, Sir, which was also mentioned by the Minister last March, was that MOM would make safety records of employers available to the public and insurance companies. Can the Minister also update this House on this initiative? What has been done so far?

In conclusion, Sir, I wish to stress that this Bill provides a useful and progressive framework to improve safety and health at work, and I certainly applaud the MOM for coming up with this Bill. Now that we have the framework in place, the key challenge for all stakeholders, Government, employers and workers alike, is to ensure that it is implementable. For this, we need to have a significant change in mindsets and considerably enhanced capabilities of all stakeholders. Without

Column: 2230

the total commitment of all parties, we will not be able to achieve a zero accident workplace.

Sir, I urge all employers to take safety and health at the workplace seriously. This should not be viewed only as a cost factor but, more importantly, it deals with the lives and limbs of our workers which should never be compromised under any circumstances. At the end of the day, although the Bill includes other stakeholders and expands their role, making sure that a workplace is safe is fundamentally the responsibility of employers and this Bill does not dilute that. Sir, for accidents do not just happen - they are caused - workers have a right to a safe working environment.

On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.11 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, I moved a motion in this House in May 2004, together with my parliamentary colleague Ms Irene Ng, to urge the Government to re-emphasise safety at workplace in Singapore, and to review the current safety standards and practices so as to further enhance the safety of our workers. I am pleased to note that the Government has heeded our call, and has come up with a comprehensive set of legislation to raise the safety standards of our workplaces in the proposed Bill on "Workplace safety and health".

Sir, accidents occur at workplaces due to many reasons. Very often, it is attributed to a lack of professionalism and commitment on the various stakeholders at workplaces. Despite stringent safety legislation, there is still a high rate of accidents in certain industries, especially the construction industry. Sir, the root cause of this problem is the lack of safety culture in our workplaces.

Column: 2231

Although the proposed Bill will provide impetus to improve safety standards in our workplaces, we need to ensure that its implementation is effective in building a safety culture among various stakeholders. Otherwise, it will be like having a set of traffic rules without any traffic police to enforce the rules. Sir, the reason why our roads are safe today is not due to our strict traffic rules alone. It is because we have traffic police patrolling our roads daily to ensure road safety.

Despite that, we still have many road users flouting the traffic rules, resulting in accidents at times. Sir, while it is possible to develop a safety culture, we need a strong enforcement regime to "nurture" the various stakeholders of our workplaces. However, due to the large number of workplaces in Singapore, the Ministry may face problems in enforcing the Act. That is why safety rules were sometimes enforced after accidents had occurred. Thus, the Act may not be effective in preventing accidents at workplaces.

Sir, I would propose to the Ministry to appoint an enforcement agency, such as SPRING, to enforce safety at workplaces regularly. We must conduct more random checks to ensure that our workplaces are safe at all times. With regular enforcement like the traffic police, we will be able to effectively promote safe workplace practices among all stakeholders.

Sir, the construction and chemical manufacturing and gas bottling industries have been identified by MOM as hot spots where a high number of accidents occurred due to unsafe practices. Sir, let me use the construction industry as an example to illustrate the undesirable state of the industry, and propose how the Workplace Safety and Health Act can be implemented to develop a safety culture in

Column: 2232

the industry. I believe the solution lies in the commitment of our stakeholders of the industry and the

enforcement agency, that is, the Ministry of Manpower.

Sir, at present, the various stakeholders in the construction industry are either not committed or constrained by industry practices to develop a safety culture. This problem is further aggravated by the intense competition through open tendering, and the inclusion of safety provisions in competitive tendering. The undesirable outcome is that contractors who won tenders at the lowest bids or highly competitive bids are unable to provide adequate safety measures to prevent accidents happening on site. Sir, I have proposed before that we should set a specific sum for safety based on the size of the contract, and it should not be subject to tendering.

Furthermore, the lack of understanding among designers on the construction risks of various designs has also further increased safety risks at workplaces. For example, certain architectural designs, such as protruding structures, have made it difficult for contractors to erect scaffolding or temporary structures to construct, thus increasing construction risks unnecessarily.

Sir, I support the three key approaches as taken by the proposed Bill as follows:

(1) Reduce risks at source;

(2) Promote industry ownership; and

(3) Punish poor safety management practices.

First, reducing risks at source. Sir, research has shown that more than 60% of construction accidents are attributed to poor planning and design. Therefore, we need to focus on the practices of developers and consultants of building projects. How can developers and

Column: 2233

consultants play a role to enhance safety in the construction industry?

Sir, I support the new Workplace Safety and Health (Risk Management) Regulations as proposed in the Bill. Although there is a requirement to conduct risk assessment before work commences, it may be difficult for contractors to reduce risks at source if the risks are already incorporated in the design of a project. To be effective, it is crucial that risk assessment be conducted at the design stage. In this way, risks can be removed or managed with safe designs or appropriate safety measures during construction.

Another key contributing factor of construction accidents is the planning of construction site and its activities. The poor planning of site layout and processes will lead to an unsafe work environment. As such, more needs to be done to train contractors on site planning and work processes so as to make our workplaces safer.

Two, promoting industry ownership. Sir, I support the approach to promote greater ownership among the stakeholders of our workplaces. Although the spelling out of the duties of all stakeholders, such as occupiers, employers, self-employed persons, principals and persons at work, will provide better accountability, there is a need to ensure that all stakeholders are properly trained and capable of fulfilling their duties.

Thus, I fully support the appointments of Workplace Safety and Health Officers and co-ordinators, Workplace Safety and Health Committee, and Workplace Safety and Health Auditors as proposed in clauses 28, 29 and 30 of the Bill. All these appointments will set the framework to ensure adequate checks and balances on the respective stakeholders in fulfilling their duties.

Column: 2234

However, I would caution against the use of performance-based approach in encouraging greater ownership on safety. Experiences in other countries have shown mixed results in the use of performance-based approach. This is due to the lack of knowledge and commitment among various stakeholders. While it is true that the prescriptive nature of the current Factories Act has created a "minimum compliance" mindset among stakeholders, the industry, especially the construction industry, is not ready and fully equipped to adopt a performance-based approach on safety.

Under the present competitive environment, a performance-based approach for safety may result in more accidents on site as stakeholders will most likely adopt a "no need to comply" mindset. Our tendering evaluation system which focuses on the lowest bids will further enhance this "no need to comply" mindset as many stakeholders, especially designers and contractors, may not know or see the potential safety hazards of a project.

Sir, I propose that we should adopt a hybrid method of using both prescriptive and performance-based approaches to safety. Certain high-risk areas will require more stringent prescriptive rules for compliance. For example, safety measures to prevent falls from height, measures for deep excavation works, or handling of inflammable materials on site.

The performance-based approach can instead be adopted for low-risk areas, such as house-keeping matters. The key objective is to reduce both fatalities and minor accidents on site. Sir, many minor accidents have occurred at workplace without much attention being paid to them. Many workers have suffered various disabilities, thus affecting their earning abilities. I hope the proposed Bill

Column: 2235

will comprehensively address these minor accidents too.

Besides promoting industry ownership, the Ministry of Manpower must also take ownership and adopt a more hands-on approach to effectively implement the Act.

Three, punish poor safety management practices. Sir, I support the imposition of greater financial disincentives and penalties on workplaces with unsafe systems before accidents occur on site. This will serve as an effective deterrence to unsafe practices, and foster a safer work culture. Clause 47 of the Bill which places the onus of proving what is reasonably practicable on the accused will impose more responsibility on various stakeholders to think through their workplace safety practices.

They no longer can rely solely on the "minimum compliance" of rules as having done due diligence in providing a safe work environment. I hope the stakeholders will understand the seriousness of this clause, and change their attitude towards safety at our workplaces.

Sir, one of the key hurdles in developing a safety culture at workplaces in Singapore is cost. Who should pay for the safety of our workplace and workers? I have mentioned in my motion on workplace safety that we should not subject the provisions of safety to competitive tendering. This will definitely result in corner-cutting and safety lapses. Instead, we should have an independent safety checker system to vet through designs, and develop a safety management system for each workplace or construction project. This is especially so for high risk and complex projects or workplaces.

Column: 2236

Sir, to develop a safety culture would require the investment of a safe workplace infrastructure and system, and the total commitment of all stakeholders of the industry. I do not believe that safety at workplaces can be self-regulated or achieved through a performance-based approach. Safety must be inculcated through a top-down approach whereby authorities and top management of firms commit to champion it. Thus, I would propose the following follow-up actions for the Ministry to consider:

(1) The Ministry of Manpower must allocate more resources to conduct regular enforcement on workplace safety. This will incur more Government expenditure and show commitment on the part of the Government to protect our workers. Besides enforcement, the Ministry should launch an extensive outreach campaign to promote workplace safety and health. The Ministry should also accredit training institutions providing safety courses to ensure consistency and high training standards.

(2) Occupiers of workplaces should be committed to invest on the safety infrastructure to provide a safe work environment for all our workers.

(3) Employers must ensure that all workers are properly trained to adopt safe work practices. In addition, they must set up proper safety management system to facilitate the nurturing of a safety culture.

(4) Self-employed persons must take on more individual responsibilities to adopt safe work practices.

(5) Principals of specialist works must be more hands-on to ensure that workers undertaking their works are properly trained to install their systems on site safely.

(6) Every worker at our workplaces must place "Safety First" and protect themselves accordingly. Workers must be

Column: 2237

more vigilant at workplaces, and look after one another to reduce accidents.

Sir, I hope the Ministry will take the lead to champion and enhance the safety of all workers in Singapore. We should change the slogan of "Safety First" to "Safety Saves Lives" so that all stakeholders will understand the importance of providing and working in a safe environment.

Sir, I support the Bill.

5.25 pm

Mr Alexander Chan Meng Wah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Safety and Health Bill aimed at achieving quantum improvements in workplace safety and health and in making workplaces in Singapore one of the safest in the world.

Through the work of the Ministry, safety standards have improved steadily for the past decade. Industrial accident frequency rates fell from 2.8 per million man-hours worked in 1994 to 2.2 per million man-hours worked in 2004. But as we have stated before, in the case of occupational fatality, this is still double that in the safer developed countries. And the Bill therefore aims correctly to halve this rate in the next 10 years. We also have our share of workplace accidents, several of them high profile ones involving the loss of precious lives in a variety of industries and workplaces. Each of those lives lost or workers seriously hurt as a result of poor workplace safety practices cannot be condoned.

In the years ahead, with the growing emphasis on entrepreneurship, this country will see the birth of many new local companies. I anticipate that many of these businesses will have managements

Column: 2238

which will not have had the benefit and experience of being part of a larger and more established multinational environment. As such, these managements will have to originate their company practices, including its workplace safety and health practices. I sincerely hope that we do not see a cycle of declining workplace safety and health as a result of this economic progression.

So this revamped Workplace Safety and Health Bill is timely. Providing a safe working environment is the duty of every employer, but its achievement is also a shared responsibility of every employee. Under the new goal setting framework that more emphasis be placed on stakeholders to self-regulate and manage risks at source, I welcome this emphasis to foster a safety culture and to make safety an integral aspect of the workplace. What is noteworthy is the non-prescriptive nature of the Bill. This puts the onus on employers to make proper risk assessments that are specific to their business and to develop and then to put in place health and safety measures that are preventative in nature and appropriate to the work environment. This would avoid unnecessary costs for overburdensome measures.

However, I do note that in the Third Schedule of the proposed Bill, listing occupational diseases,

only repetitive strain disorders of the upper limbs are listed. What about similar disorders for the lower back, for example, in cases where repetitive lifting work is carried out? We certainly are not intending to only provide for the office worker and not for the manual worker involved in heavy manual lifting work. So I would like to propose that these be considered for inclusion.

The Bill will have an overall effect of raising the professionalism of those involved in safety and health practices. Companies must therefore respond

Column: 2239

proactively to the Bill and invest in the skills upgrading of their staff involved in these areas. Such investment must extend beyond safety and health officers. It needs to engage management and supervisors who are involved in operations as well. Management must appreciate that this is an investment we must make. This will ensure that every company develops a safety culture that is sustainable by the staff and workers in the company. This will help Singapore companies, not just those operating in Singapore but also Singapore companies operating overseas, to be one of the safest in the world to work in.

I also want to say that the Ministry has actively sought feedback on the proposed Bill. Several dialogue sessions were held with members of both SNEF and the Singapore Business Federation, and many of the feedback from companies have been incorporated in the Bill. I therefore support the Ministry not only for proposing the Bill, but also engaging the industry in the process.

I am in full support of it.

5.30 pm

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me thank Members - Dr Amy Khor, Mdm Halimah, Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Alex Chan - for their full support on this Bill. Dr Amy Khor said that it was none too soon. Mdm Halimah said that it was timely. All of them gave full support to the principles. There is clear consensus that this framework will allow us to be more effective. This is the right direction to go. There is also clear consensus that there is a lot to be done.

As I have said, the Bill that this House passes today is not the solution. It allows us the framework to step up our efforts and, indeed, there is a lot to do. There

Column: 2240

were many issues that were brought up as we talked about why safety was what it was, management, culture, entrepreneurialism, MYEs, worker training, worker welfare, and they are all correct. At the end of the day, all these aspects - any one of these factors - can lead to a safety lapse, because an accident occurs at that point. I read accident reports that come across my desk. You find that even though certain safeguards have been put in place, ridiculous accidents happen because there is a lack of attention, whether it is due to fatigue or a variety of other reasons. Therefore, MOM is quite clear on the magnitude of this task. I want to assure Members that we are fully committed. Many of you have said that MOM and Government should take the lead. And, indeed, we will. Indeed, we will step up our measures. I welcome Members' re-enforcement that MOM should be given more resources for this and I will remind the relevant agencies that you have also backed us when we ask for more resources.

I want to clarify a point though where some Members touched on the number of safety officers that MOM has. For this framework to work, it cannot depend on 100 or so safety inspectors that I have. And, indeed, no system works as such. We will have, as many of the Members alluded to, both by Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Halimah, to professionalise the safety management system, which includes safety auditors, safety officers as well as safety and health management committees. It is akin to saying that we need a proper audit system and if you only have a couple of people at IRAS, it just does not work. You need a whole industry of safety auditors and safety accountants to make sure that your financial accounting is in order.

Under the current legislation, safety auditors are compulsory. They must conduct mandatory safety audits for selected groups of industries and this is

Column: 2241

maintained. For example, for construction companies with worksites, a contract sum higher or equal to $30 million - I think Dr Teo Ho Pin brought up the point - we should have an independent audit. This is already mandated by law. Or shipyards hiring 200 or more workers or factories engaged in the processing or manufacturing of petroleum, petroleum products, petrochemicals, petrochemical products, or factories engaged in manufacture of fabricated metal products, machinery or equipment with a hundred or more persons are employed. It is already mandated. So you will need to leverage off this system.

Some Members talked about qualifications. The qualifications of safety auditors, which are mandated, are that they must have at least a recognised degree, ie, a degree holder in the relevant field or registered safety officer, with at least five years of related industrial working experience, at least three years of auditing-related practical experience and passed the MOM's accredited course, "Workshop for Safety Auditors", or its equivalent. We currently have about 20 approved safety auditor organisations and 100 approved auditors amongst them. So there is already a framework and we have to build on this framework.

Then, there is a second layer of safety officers. These are officers registered by MOM to provide assistance and advice. Full-time safety officers are required. I am giving some examples - and this is not an exhaustive list - shipyards with 100 or more persons or factories where 500 or more persons are employed. Part-time safety officers are also required for certain categories and the qualification requirements are diploma in the relevant field and at least three years of practical experience. There are currently 2,000 registered safety officers. We will have to build this and we will have to professionalise it.

Column: 2242

I see the next few years MOM engaging industries, together with the Workplace Safety and Health Council, to steadily step up the engagement of this community of professional safety officers. They must play an integral role in this framework. Because I agree with Members that if you just have a performance-based system, and if management decides that they are going to just delegate this, there must be a system of checks-and-balances. And what Dr Teo Ho Pin said was correct. If the employer thinks that a performance-based system is a non-compliance based system, then I think they will very quickly run afoul of our law and our inspections. Because compliance is required to ensure that they minimise the risk. So in certain cases, our safety inspectors can go to a site and say, "Where is your report by a registered safety officer or registered safety inspector? This has been improved. Now, you, management, what have you done to minimise the risk?"

Under the current Factories Act, if no accidents occurred, it was very hard to penalise. Under the current Bill, we can penalise you for not having taken action. As I have said, we will be reasonable in our enforcement. We will issue a Remedial Order. But if someone does not comply, and even if there is no accident, he can be penalised. That is the radical change in which other countries have adopted and that is what we are also doing. A performance-based system does not mean that I can just (1) delegate it away; and (2) have a written report but not act on this. In fact, this would have to be seen through.

But while Government would lead, MOM will be engaged, as Members have asked for. I want to be realistic that industries must come aboard. If we cannot get management to be intricately pushing this, there will be a limit to what we can do. Because I can appoint 16,000 safety officers at whatever

Column: 2243

workplaces, one for each worksite, they will be scurrying around. We can stop all work and the only way you can stop work accidents is to stop all work. But that will grind our economy to a halt. So we have to do it at a pace which is reasonable and we will have to live, if you like, with the inefficiencies that Members talk about - the MYEs and the training - and tackle these problems at the same time.

For training, I am agreeable to Members' suggestions that we should step it up. I agree that that is an integral part of the downstream event where workers need to know what their rights are, including welfare rights, because Members are quite right. If you make me work 16 hours a day and it is against the Employment Act, you should be able to complain to MOM and we will act. But I also want to know what the management must do to ensure that it is a safe environment.

We have already begun thinking on this, engaging industries to move at a pace that is comfortable, together with the Council, how we can step up the training, as Dr Teo Ho Pin said, to have accredited training institutions, to also require certification, not only of foreign workers, but on all workers. In other words, if you do not know what basic safety rules are, then are you safe to be allowed in a particular industry - the chemical industry or the construction industry? And we have to think about that and we need to move along those lines. As we said, we also have to professionalise the industries. We have to see how to engage them.

On the tender system, we agree that it plays a part, but I want us to be careful to always associate the lowest tenderer with the employer who cuts the most corners. On the ground, that is not always true. I have seen contractors who have been

Column: 2244

competitive, and yet, have the safest safety record. Even in Singapore, with our current restrictions of MYE and tender, I can show you many examples of good developers and contractors who have got excellent safety records and yet remain competitive. So I do not want to perpetuate this notion that you can only be competitive if you cut corners, and you are unsafe. If you choose to do that, that is fine. The law will catch up with you. We have enhanced penalties and the penalties are meant to reduce risk-taking. And risk-taking also means working your employees to such an extent that they are so tired to disregard safety, in that sense.

There were some other issues that were talked about. I just want to address them briefly. Mdm Halimah asked whether exemption of certain groups meant that they were not bound. And she quite rightly pointed out that certain groups were exempted - the SAF, the Police and the SCDF. All of us understand that given their mission, they require that operational flexibility. But let me clarify that exemption from the current Workplace Safety and Health Bill does not exempt you from all Acts, for example, the Penal Code still applies. If there is a criminal negligence, in terms of other laws that govern them, they are still governed by other laws. This is not the only law that compels reasonable behaviour. But having said that, as it pertains to this Workplace Safety and Health Bill, we are working with these various agencies. While we understand the reasons for exempting them, we are working very closely with them. These agencies, I must say, have come on-board, to want to make sure that their structures and their processes comply in spirit as well as the requirements of this.

Some Members have asked whether they have safety and health management committees. That is an issue that we want to address and I think many of them have. Mdm Halimah also asked whether

Column: 2245

these safety and health management committees work out processes by which, whether you are exempted or included in the law, they can bring up these issues. That is something worth considering. How do you put in processes so that there is some protection, not only of the individual workers standing up against the system and being terrified of having to come up with a system? I think, in the extreme, we know that MOM and the unions would protect them. But in between, we will give them much more comfort levels. So let us explore that to see how we can expand, even apart from clause 18 which protects whistle-blowers, their comfort space. The best position, as Mdm Halimah says, is where management welcomes somebody and does not even see him as a whistle-blower, but as providing active feedback. If we move towards that culture, we have succeeded to a great extent. But in the process, let us see how we can liberalise or increase that space in which workers can also contribute without fear or retribution.

Dr Teo Ho Pin talked about reducing further risk from design. He is quite right. Some jurisdictions compel or have legislation to even affect architects and designers. I think that is the position that we want to move to finally, where you can reduce risk from design. It is a goal but this framework allows us to move towards that goal and in time, we will get there, which brings me to the point of setting targets. I do not want us to give the impression that just because I set a 10-year target for 2015, I will be happy if I reach there. That is not the stance. It is a target that I deem realistic knowing all these factors. But let me assure the House that we will work very hard and if we accomplish those targets beforehand, I will celebrate it with you and you can tell me, "Let us push to the next target", as I know you will. But it is a working target. Rest assured that even though it is 2015, we will work very hard to achieve that together with Members.

Column: 2246

Many Members asked about reporting of accidents. They are quite right. We want to have a framework where there is information. Many of you asked and I am quite astonished with your memory that you remember what I said last year that we will put out information out there. Let me give you an update. Yes, we are on course to do that. But in order to do that, I need to effect a reporting system. I do not want to capture information that employers or workplaces have the ability to decide what information goes in. I want to capture the novel information as it occurs. So I need to strengthen the system, which is the mandatory reporting system. This is something that we will work at.

I want to know accidents that occur at workplaces. It may be, for example, accidents that require a worker to take three days MC in some other countries. In other words, any accident that occurs at the workplace that requires, say, X number of MCs must be reported or there is a liability. It will take time, but we will do it soon. We will put in a system that requires safety reporting so that when we gather this information, it is robust. In other words, the report card is sensible. It cannot be just because they are finding loopholes and are persuading their workers not to report it.

With that information, we will put it out to the public so that developers who use contractors or other principals downstream will know what the safety records are. I completely agree with Dr Amy Khor that it cannot just be penalties. And the reason why the Second Reading speech has been stanced this way is because this is a reading of the Bill. But if Members remember, last year, we also had taken proactive measures.

Yes, we have to enforce but the key is that we have to get the industry working with us, which is why the Workplace Safety and Health Council is pivotal to this. If we move too fast, the industry

Column: 2247

will say, "Well, I can't take it. I am going to cut corners." We will have to move them along. And as we looked in the UK and Sweden, it can be done.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill allows us a framework to put in many other pieces which will move us to a safer Singapore. But as I said in my Second Reading speech, if we are going to be effective, and as Dr Amy Khor said, we have to reach to the last man in the workplace. Because, at any given time on any given day, when there is rain and he has to work at night, safety may be the last thing on his mind. And our challenge is to make sure that it is not the last thing on his mind. That will take the combined efforts of legislation, promotion, making sure training is adequate, making sure that it is a safety ordered system, and safety inspectors making sure that management is on board.

Since a number of measures have taken place since 2004, I must tell Members that there has been an increase in engagement, and this is a good sign. I am not quite satisfied about the pace but I am quite encouraged that there is now a framework that we can ramp up our efforts. And with the commitment that should be sustained and with MOM pushing this and with Members' assistance, I am quite confident that we will achieve our targets before the set deadline.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Bill considered in Committee.

Column: 2248

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

The Chairman: The citation year "2005" will be changed to "2006" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 68 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The First Schedule to Seventh Schedule inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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