WWLegal.com :: Workplace Safety and Health Bill Passed

Workplace Safety and Health Bill Passed
Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 10:00 AM

The Workplace Safety and Health Bill was read for the second time in Parliament and passed on 17 January 2006.

The speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Manpower, for The 2nd Reading of The Workplace Safety and Health Bill is below.

Background

1. Mr Speaker Sir, MOM started work on reforming the Factories 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.

2. 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.

3. Our safety standards have improved over the years. Even after the 3 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 accidents¹. More than 3,000 were injured in industrial accidents² ; 93 were permanently incapacitated. Most of these accidents were preventable.

4. 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, instrumentation, 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 was 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.

5. Following the tragedies of 2004, I informed this House in March 2005, 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.

6. Second, industry must take ownership of OSH 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.

7. 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 pro-active in preventing incidents. Appropriately, companies and persons that show poor safety management should be penalised even if no accident has occurred.

8. 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.

9. 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 changes in this Bill which are substantially different from the approach taken in the current Factories Act.

Scope of the Bill

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

11. 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: 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 3 to 5 years. We will engage and consult the industries concerned regarding the time frame, and help prepare them for compliance with the legislative requirements.

12. 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. However, 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

13. 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 3rd parties and other specialists. In construction sites, for example, 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, as the employees of sub-contractors may choose to ignore the safety instructions of the occupier or carry out unsafe work practices or introduce unsafe work processes without the knowledge of the occupier.

14. 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.

15. Clause 14 covers principals who engage contractors for specialised tasks or the services of workers from 3rd-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 3rd-party labour not for their specialist expertise, but precisely so that they can avoid entering into direct employment relationships, 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 his 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.

16. 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 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.

17. 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.

18. Most accidents involving dangerous machines and toxic chemicals are caused not by 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.

19. 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 3rd-party maintenance contractors.

20. To engender a strong safety culture, commitment of top management is critical. Hence the Bill holds managers and directors of companies accountable for safety and health practices at their workplace 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.

21. While management commitment is critical, it is not sufficient if employees ignore clear instructions. Under the 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 co-operate 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.

Shifting Mindsets to Comprehensive Risk Management Systems

22. 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. 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 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.

23. Over the past 3 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.

24. 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. No longer does the law prescribe that your factory windows must be 10% of the floor size³. 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.

25. The Bill adopts this performance-based approach in Clauses 11 to 19, by requiring 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, 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

26. 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 Shell Companies in Singapore. This Committee will help develop and revise safety and health standards across different sectors, such as construction, healthcare and metalworking. 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 successful elsewhere in reducing workplace injuries and diseases without sacrificing competitiveness. In fact, leading companies operating in such environments have told us that investments in OSH enhance competitiveness by improving morale, reducing accidents and enhancing the corporate image.

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

28. 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.

29. Beyond this, we will also be working on growing a larger body of competent OSH professionals to help businesses manage their OSH risks. These OSH 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

30. Even as we work with industry to build up their capabilities to improve OSH at their workplaces, we need to ensure that the penalties for non-compliance are sufficiently high to effect a cultural change towards OSH 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 4 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Moving enforcement from reaction to prevention is the way forward to reduce deaths and accidents. But I want to assure the House that MOM 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

34. 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 the Bill. These provisions have been updated and will be enacted by Regulations when the Bill comes into force.

35. 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.

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

37. Mr Speaker, the passing of this Bill will be a tangible expression that we have learnt from past mistakes. This Bill of 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.

--------------------------------

1 "Workplace accidents" comprises accidents in factories and all other workplaces.
2 "Industrial accidents" comprises accidents in factories only. and does not capture accidents in other workplaces. We do not have data for non-fatal accidents in workplaces.
3 This is currently prescribed in section 14(1) of the Factories Act and will be removed as a prescriptive requirement.

News