Work Injury Compensation Bill

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The Work Injury Compensation (WIC) framework is a no-fault system with the aim of providing workers injured in work-related accidents with low-cost and expeditious means to claim WIC. The Bill seeks to improve the framework to better enable the meeting of its objectives.

Briefly, the amendments to the Bill are commendable in the following areas.

First, there is now a mandatory requirement by MOM to report all instances of MC or light duties due to work injuries. This is beneficial in the sense that there is less incentive for employers to influence doctors to prescribe fewer days of MC to the injured workers, to circumvent the original reporting requirement of only needing to report injuries which result in death, or at least MCs of four days.

Second, MOM will now accredit a standard WIC policy with a core set of insurance terms and conditions, which reduces disputes from policies with complex policy exclusions. This will ensure that both employers and employees' interests are better protected. For employees, there is more certainty in receiving compensation, especially if employers face financial difficulty. As for the employers, they would know with greater certainty that they would be reimbursed under the insurance policies.

Third, under the amendments, there will be an increase in the compensation amount and medical limits, in view of rising wages and healthcare costs. This is a recognition on the Government's end of the financial implications that workplace injuries have on people, such as, loss of income and hefty medical expenses.

Fourth, insurers will now be required to share policy and claims information with MOM and such data will be centralised and available to other insurers too. With this information, insurers are better placed to price the premiums, based on their risk profile and claims history. Companies with fewer work injuries will enjoy lower premiums, as compared to less safe ones. In this aspect, companies will be incentivised to ensure a safe work environment for their workers, which is likewise beneficial for them, as healthy and happy workers will be more productive and efficient at work. On the other hand, workers benefit when they return home safely.

Lastly, the effect of the amendments is the expansion of compulsory insurance coverage to more non-manual employees (NMEs) working in non-factories earning up to S$2,600, an increase from the current S$1,600, which will benefit another 25,000 workers, which comprise largely of junior professionals, managers and executives (PMEs). As this group of junior PMEs are within the lower salary range, the compulsory additional coverage will provide greater assurance both financially and emotionally of coverage in the event of work injuries.

As for companies, while at first it appears that it is an increased financial outlay in terms of insurance premiums, it must be borne in mind that, should there be work injuries, the insurers will step in, which is a cost-saving measure in the long run. Where companies observe safety measures at work, there is the potential for lower insurance premiums.

While the changes proposed under the Bill are welcomed, I would like to suggest some further enhancements to the proposed changes aimed at expediting the WIC claim process and expanding the scope of mandatory insurance coverage.

Under the Bill, all work injuries resulting in any instance of light duty or medical leave would have to be reported by the employer. To speed up the claims process, WIC claims will be processed for all work injuries reported by the employer. This will overcome the problem where the worker is not aware that he or she had to file the WIC claim and is subsequently time barred from doing so. Licensed insurers will process all claims arising from accredited WIC policies to reduce the number of disputes arising from policies with complex exclusions.

Last year, following a stepping up of enforcement efforts by MOM, 39 employers were fined for failing to report work injuries, compared to only one employer in 2017. I note that under this Bill, the penalty imposed on employers for failing to report work injuries has been increased. Auto-processing of WIC claims would only serve the injured worker if employers comply with their work injury reporting obligations. I would suggest the following measures to be taken to support the amendments proposed under the Bill.

First, MOM should audit employers to ensure that employers are complying with their obligations to report work injuries. This could be done with reference to third-party data, such as information from workers, unions and medical practitioners. Accurate reporting of workplace injuries will provide a true representation of the extent of workplace accidents in Singapore and provide important information to licensed insurers to enable them to assess the premiums payable by the company.

Apart from implementing audits on the employers to ensure compliance on their part, perhaps more could be done to educate workers and their respective union leaders of their employers' reporting obligations under the law, lest they be fearful of adverse repercussions. For instance, conducting seminars for the union leaders or workers, or stating such avenues or measures in the Employee Handbook which workers and employees can access, on the employers' obligations to report work injuries. It is hoped that with more transparency accorded in the process, there will be a decline in failures to report work injuries.

Second, injured workers should be kept in the loop in the WIC claim process so that they are able to access the documentation trail and make informed decisions concerning the claim, such as whether to elect to take the claim to court instead. Injured workers should be notified when the employer reports the work injury and be kept abreast of developments in the WIC claim process. If for some reason, the worker elects to pursue his claim in Court, it is likely that the employer may not be pleased with such a move for various reasons, such as, bad publicity, legal costs and so on. Perhaps it needs to be reiterated and emphasised that during the course of the litigation process, that the employer is not allowed to terminate the employee for reasons associated with the accident, save where permitted by law, failing which there might be legal consequences.

Third, while the WIC claim is being processed, the employer should ensure that the injured worker is able to seek the medical attention that he or she requires in an expedient manner with the employer's support. There have been reported incidences where injured workers were not able to seek medical treatment because the employer did not provide them with a Letter of Guarantee and the workers had to go without treatment as they were unable to afford medical treatment.

Fourth, there must be avenues for injured workers to raise issues encountered in the WIC claim process to MOM. There have been past incidences where vulnerable workers have been coerced by employers to conceal work injuries in order to remain in employment. Some errant employers have also terminated employment arrangements of injured foreign workers and sent the workers home to escape liability. With the introduction of lower premiums for "safer" companies, some companies may be incentivised to under report work injuries. As such, there must be avenues for workers or whistle blowers to report any malpractice for MOM's investigation.

It is first commendable that there is a general increase in the compensation for work injuries under this Bill to keep pace with wage growth and healthcare costs. However, we note that under the proposed amendments, employees will only be compensated the full average monthly earnings (AME) for the first 14 days of MC and/or light duties, and thereafter, only two-thirds AME of up to one year.

It is odd that the workers are not able to be paid the full AME for as long as they are on light duties, especially if the sole reason for being placed on light duties is because of their work injuries. Perhaps, it is time to explore the possibility of paying the workers the full AME for the full period that they are placed on light duties and not limit it to the first 14 days.

Granted that this could possibly mean increased costs on the employer' side while not being able to reap the full economic benefits from the employees and workers. However, it should be borne in mind that the decision and/or duration for light duties is ultimately the doctors' decision, and based on a true and accurate assessment of the workers' sustained injuries and the doctors' assessment on how long the worker requires to fully recuperate before being fully fit to perform his original duties. In any case, any increased costs on the employers' part should be reimbursed by the WIC insurance.

The expansion of mandatory insurance coverage to non-manual employees earning up to $2,600 a month together with the lifting of compensation levels to keep pace with wage growth and rising medical costs provide enhanced protection for vulnerable workers. In parallel with this enhancement, efforts must be stepped up to raise workers' awareness of their rights under the WIC framework and to also better monitor employers' compliance with the maintenance of mandatory coverage.

Additionally, the Government should also work with Unions to continue encouraging companies who employ professionals, managers, executives and Technicians (PMETs) earning more than S$2,600 to also buy insurance for peace of mind of employers and workers. Of course, this suggestion may face resistance from employers, however, to alleviate any such worries, it is proposed that the expansion of mandatory insurance coverage protecting workers earning beyond S$2,600 be imposed gradually in consultation with employers and in tandem with economic growth over the years. Second, it is important to bear in mind that the costs of insurance premiums would pale in comparison to the amount a company without insurance may have to pay an employee who suffers work injury, under the common law. In any case, given that the risk profile of NMEs are significantly lower than manual employees, insurance premiums for NMEs would be lower.

Employers can work with unions and Migrant Workers' Centre or MWC for short, for their foreign-worker workforce to raise workers' awareness of the rights under the WIC framework. This will reduce the worker's anxiety in the event a work injury is sustained and smoothen the work injury complain process for all parties. Unions or MWC, as the case may be, can also assist workers with their queries on the WIC claim process to enable them to make informed choices concerning the WIC claim. Workers can also seek free legal advice through legal clinics offered by NTUC and MWC, in partnership with the Law Society of Singapore's Pro Bono Services Office.

There have been instances where some errant employers have terminated insurance coverage for their foreign workers within the term of their Work Pass or had overlooked renewal of coverage. With the sharing of policy and claims data by licensed insurers with MOM and other licensed insurers, MOM can now implement a better monitoring system to ensure that employers maintain mandatory insurance coverage for foreign workers throughout the validity of their work passes. Audits should also be conducted on the insurance policies procured by the employer, to ensure that adequate coverage has been secured for their workers and the type of work undertaken by the workers.

Even with good processes in place, there must also be provision for cases which slip through the cracks. We must ensure that there are adequate safety nets in place to help injured workers to seek medical treatment and compensation in the event where the employer has failed to perform their obligations under WICA. With the increase in WIC insurance premiums, it may be timely to explore if a small percentage of the premiums could be channelled to grow the Workers' Fund to provide relief in such exigencies.

Sir, I stand in support of this Bill and hope that my recommendations will be considered, with the objective of enhancing work safety for our workers in Singapore, for a more productive and efficient economy.

Sir, the Work Injury Compensation Act or WICA is a critical piece of social legislation for all local and foreign workers in Singapore. Previously known as Workmen's Compensation, the concept of providing compensation against workplace injuries via legislative fiat dates back to the late 19th century. In Singapore today, manual workers are covered regardless of salary. With the changes proposed under this Bill, non-manual workers receiving a salary of up to $2,600 will also be covered in stages, up from $1,600, as is currently the case.

Sir, the tabling of the public feedback consultation to this Bill early this year, roughly coincided with a compensation claim under WICA that involved one of my residents, who came to seek my assistance at a Meet-the-People Session. I will refer to him as R.

R was employed as an Industrial Relations Officer by a union. He was injured when he was on his way to attend a labour workshop some years ago. At the time of the accident, he did not make a claim under WICA. His employer informed him that they would take care of the medical costs arising out of the accident. The employer did the needful and incurred medical expenses which included a surgical procedure that saw four screws inserted into R's spine.

R returned to work after his hospitalisation leave. As he approached the age of 67 a few years after the accident, he was informed by his superiors that his employment would not be extended. The matter of his injury came up just before he left the employ of the union. His injuries had left him unable to find another employer who would hire him. And separately, in need of medical follow-up, R then decided to make a belated WICA claim to MOM. It was originally rejected due to it being out of time and because, in the Commissioner of Labour's assessment, the accident he was involved in did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and hence, rejected for the purposes of a WICA claim. This position was in fact wrong in law, but this initial conclusion by the Commissioner of Labour could have turned on how R framed the circumstances of his injury. An appeal was thereafter made to the Commissioner of Labour which was successful. After the submission of a medical report which was initially challenged by the insurer, R eventually received a pay-out of 25% of permanent incapacity which amounted to $54,500.

Sir, I seek a few clarifications on the Bill and the application of the proposed amendments. Where useful, I will refer to R's case in raising them.

My first set of queries are general in nature. At the outset, a question that comes to mind in R's case is why he did not file a claim independent of his employer. I put the question to R to which he replied – the matter did not cross his mind. R could have been under the mistaken belief that since the accident occurred outside his usual place of work, it was not claimable under WICA. But even if R was labouring under that presumption, his employer should have known better, which then begs the question why the employer did not proceed in making a WICA claim for him.

According to the former Minister of Manpower in a reply to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in January 2018, out of the 33,000 plus WICA claims in the two years from 2016 to 2017, about 2,500 claims were withdrawn either because workers received private compensation from their employers, chose to pursue a common law remedy or decided not to proceed with their claims.

While I am not aware if R falls under the category of those who chose private compensation, it is a relevant question whether the support or compensation received from employers is adequate in all of these 2,500-odd cases.

To give the House a sense of the latest numbers involved, what was the percentage and absolute number of successful WICA claims by foreign and local workers over the last five years, and separately, what is the breakdown of workers who chose a common law remedy, private compensation and did not proceed with their claims respectively? To this end, does MOM follow up with employers and make the necessary enquiries with regard to private settlements and workers' decisions not to proceed with claims so that workers are not worse off than they would be under the WICA framework? If MOM does so, how do cases like R's slip through the cracks? More specifically, would MOM monitor private settlements between employers and workers under the amended Bill and would MOM consider a more activist approach in overseeing private settlements to ensure that workers get a fair deal?

Sir, employer-worker relationships are almost invariably weighted in favour of the employer. A power relationship exists, one that can be incredibly lopsided regardless whether local or foreign workers are involved. Very often, discussions over workers' rights can gloss over this lived reality. Not all workers are vocal, some may wish not to make trouble for their bosses for the fear of being ostracised or labelled or even sent home. Yet some others may fear for their jobs and simply bottle things up. Other more specific issues for specific groups of workers can also come up. In 2017, in a TODAY article, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), a well-known NGO reported that some lawyers pursue questionable practices with regard to foreign workers who are ill-informed about electing between a WICA claim on the one hand and common law remedy on the other. Separately, the Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People said foreign workers are sometimes "poorly informed about costs" involved in legal processes.

To that end, one of the main purposes of the Bill – that is to provide for a more expeditious process for workers to receive compensation for injuries suffered arising out of and in the course of employment is to be welcomed. In 1975, when this Bill's predecessor, the Workmen's Compensation Act came up for second reading, the intention to introduce an expeditious compensation regime was a key purpose of the law. In those days – in the words of then Manpower Minister Ong Pang Boon – some employers even ignored the notice of assessment and despite repeated reminders, would even delay the payment of compensation by disputing the extent of liability to pay compensation or the extent of the dependency of the claimants on the earnings of a deceased worker.

Sir, the WICA regime has moved significantly from the realities of those days, thanks to both the commitment of not just employers, but the Ministry too. But as this House has heard in the past, most recently when the Act was amended in 2011, the reality is that workers need enough information to assess how best to pursue their injury claims as not all are highly educated and informed or know of their rights and responsibilities.

What R's experience suggests is that in spite of the various initiatives to make workers aware of their rights, much more can be done, and the modified claims framework that underpin the changes proposed under this Bill is a good opportunity to review how WICA is communicated to all workers and employers.

Coming back this Bill, in view of the fact that most of the feedback on the public consultation to it came from insurers, I would like to ask the Minister how MOM will ensure that all employers adhere to the new WICA processing regime? In 2008, MOM committed itself to raise worker awareness of avenues for compensation through the community, union leaders and employers so as to create awareness among employers and workers. How does MOM plan to engage employers and workers to further improve compliance to the new claims reporting framework and to better protect worker's rights after the passage of the Bill?

Sir, one critical improvement to the Bill seeks to make to WICA is the requirement for employers to report all injuries resulting in any instance of light duty or medical leave to be reported to MOM. The amendments see that an injured worker will be compensated up to their usual level of earnings if they are given light duties by a doctor, principally because they would not be able to undertake overtime work to boost their wages while on light duties, hence a lower Average Monthly Earnings (AME) calculation for the purposes of their claim. This is a progressive move.

The Ministry has stressed that such reporting will not be an administrative burden for employers and has provided for a simplified procedure for reporting injuries that result in less than four days of light duties or MC for the worker. Under the Bill, the responsibility shifts to the employer to file a WICA claim as employees now do not have to separately file a claim. This is a fundamental change in the claims framework and it requires a religious compliance commitment from employers to make it work smoothly.

In 2017, the Minister of State for Manpower in a reply to a PQ confirmed that it was mandatory and not voluntary for employers to report any work-related accidents resulting in an employee's death, or hospitalisation for at least 24 hours, or medical leave for more than three days. In that regard, Minister of State stated that MOM had taken enforcement action against errant employers for persistent late reporting of minor injuries after repeated reminders or delayed reporting of a serious work injury, with seven employers taken to task.

Sir, in view of the new claims framework which makes the burden of reporting injuries on employers more acute, I seek more information on how the Ministry manages errant employers. Are they issued warning letters, stern warnings or reminders in the first instance? It would appear that the regime is escalatory and calibrated to deal with egregious employers. Can I confirm this to be the case, and if so, how many warnings has MOM issued to employers over the last five years, from reminders to warnings, amongst others, and finally, prosecutions? And the case of R, what action would MOM typically take against an employer in his scenario under the new amendments?

Sir, in R's case, when he sought to revisit his WICA claim almost two-and-a-half years after his accident, unsurprisingly, it was met by a rejection from MOM for the two reasons, one of which was that he was out of time as the claim had to be made within a year. To that end, over the last five years, I would like enquire how many WICA claims were outside the one-year claims window and how many of these were successful claims?

It is probable that R would receive a similar response from an insurer in the first instance, that of being out of time, under the new claims regime proposed under the Bill. Clause 36 of the Bill gives the Commissioner broad powers to process a claim. Under the proposed amendments, insurers will now also process death and Permanent Incapacity claims, a function that was previously undertaken by MOM.

In view of this, what new or roles, if any, will MOM or the Commissioner of Labour play to support the claims process for workers? For example, would MOM consider all appeals that fall outside the claims window to be addressed by the Commissioner of Labour at the first instance, so that the workers can deal directly with regulator for advice and assistance? This would give effect to the Commissioner of Labour's powers to override an insurer's assessment under the amended Bill.

Furthermore, such a work process would support its objective of making the claims process as worker-friendly as possible and position the Ministry as a pro-active intermediary for all WICA claims. Can the Minister share a broadly exhaustive list of the circumstances under which the Commissioner of Labour will take over the processing of a WICA claim as opposed to insurers leading the process as envisaged under the Bill.

Mr Speaker, when the Minister for Manpower Mrs Josephine Teo spoke on the Bill as a backbencher about 10 years ago, the Minister sought to persuade the Government to review the WICA compensation limits once every three years, in effect allowing injured workers to receive a higher compensation payout by virtue of a more frequent review of the compensation limits. The proposal was agreed to by the then Minister for Manpower. Since then, I understand the Ministry has decided that WICA compensation limits will be reviewed once every four years instead. Would the Minister explain why this is the case and consider reverting to the three-year review window to give workers a higher payout, particularly those struck by permanent and debilitating injuries? The Minister would agree that even though the new limits may not differ significantly from one year to another, a few thousand dollars can make an important difference for workers or their families.

Sir, the NGO, the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics or HOME, in its feedback to the Bill raised some useful feedback. Specifically, it raised clause 37 and medical examinations that a worker must surrender himself or herself to if injured in the line of work. A reality of Singapore's workforce is that much of the manual work is carried out by foreign workers. In the last few years, we have read about doctors falling far below the standards of their profession, ostensibly because they are beholden to a worker's employer. It is mind-boggling to wrap one's conscience around some of the headlines and the stories that have appeared in the local mainstream media on this matter. In one story last year, The Straits Times senior health correspondent in a story titled, "Doctors reminded to give injured workers the rest they need" noted that the Ministry had reported three doctors to the Medical Council for not ordering the requisite rest or recovery period commensurate with the worker's injury. A doctor wrote to the ST Forum page, in response to the story, to state that doctors cannot be site inspectors to verify if a company is in a position to extend the appropriate light duties to a worker, as the reality may be that the employer has no light duties it can reasonably offer the injured worker.

Nonetheless, in view of the power imbalance between employer and worker, would the Commissioner of Labour consider giving effect to requests by workers to see a doctor of their choice, possibly one on a panel managed by the Ministry, as opposed to being restricted to choose a doctor of the employer's choice? An important condition could be that the consultation fees and medical costs are within a stipulated range so as not to disadvantage the employer.

Sir, on this point, the prospect of injured workers not being able to sufficiently recover, partly because there are effectively no light duties for them to undertake, is something that needs to be watched closely, particularly since workplace safety can be compromised when a worker is not medically fit to return to work. Such on-going scrutiny and prospective improvements will ensure our manpower laws are effective, fit for purpose and protect our workforce.

I understand from the handout that the Minister of State has shared that workers can go to another doctor if they are not satisfied with the initial diagnosis. Can I just confirm, who would pay for that second consultation?

Sir, the Workers’ Party supports the amendment Bill. In the main, the majority of workers should not face any difficulties with their claims. However, laws like WICA that are a critical expression of our social attitudes and shape our social compact – in this case towards manual workers and non-manual workers who earn less than $2,600 – are often judged on where they fall short and the cases which slip through the cracks.

As the new WICA claims processing regime comes into being, I hope the Ministry not only puts the welfare of the worker first but puts itself in the shoes of our workers and their lived reality, as it operationalises the amendments to this Bill.

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. We have made great strides in prioritising workplace safety and health (WSH). Our WSH 2028 strategy articulates a Vision Zero for all stakeholders to work towards preventing all forms of injury and ill-health at work.

While we work towards the WSH 2028 vision, the work injury compensation regime provides a safeguard for employees who unfortunately have suffered a workplace injury. In this distressing period, work injury compensation helps to alleviate some of the financial burden on employees and to ensure that they have access to the necessary medical treatment.

The Bill proposes an overhaul of the existing work injury compensation regime which on the whole benefits both employees and employers by expanding WICA coverage, licensing WIC insurers, and simplifying and expediting work injury claims processes. I applaud the ambitions of the Bill.

I have the following clarifications and recommendations on how the proposed amendments will be implemented in Subsidiary Legislation and operational policy.

The problem of some doctors giving insufficient medical leave to migrant workers has been a recurring problem for several years. I would like to highlight two recent cases where doctors were suspended by the High Court for professional misconduct.

In the first case, Dr Kevin Yip gave two days of medical leave and light duties thereafter to Mr Zhang, a construction worker, despite the latter having a serious fall that resulted in multiple injuries such as a fractured collarbone and a few rib fractures. In the second case, Dr Wong Him Choon likewise gave two days of medical leave and light duties thereafter to Mr Fan, also a construction worker, despite the latter sustaining hand and forearm fractures that required surgery after a fall from height.

Errant employers may influence medical practitioners to prescribe lesser days of medical leave and provide light duties in order to downplay the severity of an injury or to avoid reporting the accident.

I previously asked the Ministry whether the requirement for reporting work-related or workplace accidents can include cases where the employee is placed on light duties. I understand that the reporting requirements for a workplace accident will be updated in Subsidiary Legislation. The criteria for reporting an injury will now be at least 24 hours of hospitalisation or any instance of medical leave or light duties.

This will help address cases of doctors under-prescribing medical leave to employees so that employers can avoid reporting an accident. I thank the Ministry for taking this step.

However, my concern is that doctors may now circumvent this requirement by not prescribing any medical leave or light duties at all. The Ministry has stated that the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has mechanisms to take disciplinary action against doctors who do so. However, this requires a process of detection, investigation and enforcement. The employee who has suffered a work injury may be denied access to medical documentation, proper and timely medical treatment and compensation in the meantime.

How will the Ministry monitor incidences of medical malpractices by doctors under the new reporting requirements?

Further, will the Ministry consider implementing a dual reporting system by both doctors and employers in the future?

Next, the Bill also extends compensation coverage to employees on light duties. This is welcome as it is now very common for injured employees to be prescribed light duties in lieu of medical leave.

However, I understand that there is a lot of confusion on the ground as to what constitutes light duties and when an injured employee can be prescribed light duties. The SMC Ethical Code and Guidelines require doctors to ensure that there are appropriate light duties available to the employee at their work places before prescribing light duties. In practice, I understand that many doctors prescribe light duties when in fact there are no light duties available at the workplace. This leads to confusion for both the employees and the employers. There are stories of employees who end up not working at all or employees who do heavy labour that is inappropriate for their physical conditions.

I appreciate that this is an issue that will have to involve the Ministry of Health, SMC and doctors and return-to-work occupational therapists. Given that light duties are now more significant under the work injury compensation regime, will the Ministry work with the relevant stakeholders to shed more light on what constitutes light duties and when it can be prescribed?

Next, the Ministry has also stated that employees will receive notice of accident reports after they have been submitted to the Ministry. The amendments will also introduce an automatic claim application system for fatal or serious injuries. The accident report and claim application state important details such as the location of the accident, the nature of the injury, and the Average Monthly Earnings (AME). These are key details that will affect the compensation assessment.

Can MOM confirm that the employee will receive notice of the accident report and claim application in all cases? Will the employee be given the opportunity to challenge the details stated in the accident report and claim application where filed by the employee or automatically processed?

Further, can the MOM share how it intends to ensure that the accident report and claim application will reach the hands of a migrant worker whose address is likely to be the office address of their employer? Can the accident report and claim application be sent to the migrant worker through existing mobile applications? Alternatively, do employees have the right to obtain copies of these documents directly from MOM free of charge?

Next, the Bill proposes for licensed insurers to process insured WICA claims. I hope this move will help to expedite the claims process and ensure timely payouts for employees. I have two points relating to processing of claims by insurers.

First, can the licensing regime for insurers also include a requirement that insured employees be issued with insurance cards to facilitate faster processing of medical appointments and procedures? I understand that injured employees are sometimes caught in limbo where their employer has not paid for medical treatment and refuses to provide a Letter of Guarantee for the necessary medical procedures. Requiring that employees hold insurance cards not only benefits, it will also take some of the burden off employers and reduce the amount of bad debt hospitals face due to unpaid medical bills by employers.

Secondly, to facilitate the insurance payouts, can the Ministry assist injured migrant workers who do not have bank accounts in opening one? I understand that MOM can issue a letter to help migrant workers open a POSB payroll account at the Kaki Bukit branch. The feedback from NGOs is that this is a good practice and some have suggested to me that we institutionalise this practice. This will also be of great assistance to insurers who can make more easily their payouts through bank transfers.

As a matter of standard practice, when commencing a work injury claim, can the Ministry issue such a letter to a migrant worker who does not already have a bank account?

Next, as insurers will now take over the processing of claims, the task of determining AME now falls to them. I understand that determining the AME can be a contentious issue and there are incidences of erroneous, missing, and forged time cards and salary slips. This is a difficult enough problem for MOM with their statutory powers of investigation. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to address the possible difficulties that insurers may face in determining the AME?

Where a dispute over the AME goes to the Commissioner, the Bill empowers the Commissioner to compute compensation based on a multiple of the employee’s basic monthly salary if there are no other evidence available. Can the Minister share if it will issue guidelines for determining what this multiple should be or if the issue is left entirely up to the discretion of the Commissioner?

Next, employers are currently required to provide adequate food and acceptable housing for migrant workers during the entire injury compensation process. However, it is not clear what adequate food and acceptable housing means. NGOs have shared with me horror stories where migrant workers are required to travel long distances to their work sites in order to get food when they should be resting, or where they are housed in accommodation with appalling conditions.

Can MOM look into providing guidelines on what constitutes adequate food and acceptable housing? While this will differ from employer to employer, we are not asking every employer to meet the standards in the same exact way. These guidelines will provide a minimum standard to ensure that employers cannot abuse the ambiguity of adequate food and acceptable housing.

Next, the Bill also proposes for the compensation to be assessed based on current incapacity (CI) to expedite compensation for the employee. I understand that in practice when the injury is assessed is important because employers consider their responsibilities to be fully discharged upon assessment of incapacity. Can MOM clarify, where the assessment is based on the CI, will the employer be responsible for the medical treatment after the assessment? For instance, is the employer responsible for the cost of a follow-up treatment and for therapy after the assessment?

Can the Minister also clarify whether the Ministry’s intention is for migrant workers to be repatriated after assessment based on CI is done? My concern is that this will have the effect of denying migrant workers continuing care and rehabilitation that may be necessary until their condition fully stabilises.

It also is proposed that employees be allowed to switch assessing doctors to address cases of inadequate care of overly conservative incapacity assessments. The Ministry has stated that the Commissioner may allow employees to switch the assessing doctor in certain cases. Can the Minister clarify under what circumstances the employee will be allowed to switch assessing doctors and whether the employee will be able to determine which doctor to consult?

Lastly, the First Schedule of the Bill limits the compensation payable by an employer to the cost of medical treatment within one year of the date of the accident. However, it is plausible that bad employers may prevent or obstruct their employees from getting appropriate medical treatment in the first year after the accident. In such cases, can the Ministry clarify whether the employee’s only recourse will be to seek compensation via the common law route? Can the Ministry introduce exceptions to the one-year time bar where the employer has actively sought to prevent the employee from getting medical treatment?

Sir, I hope the Ministry will provide the clarifications sought and consider my recommendations in subsidiary legislation and implementation of the Bill. I stand in support of what is an overall positive step in strengthening our work injury compensation regime.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill and commend the Ministry for giving broader coverage and higher compensation with the amendments, amongst other improvements to the work injury compensation process, especially given that workplace injuries increased to 12,810 cases in 2018, a jump of 312 cases from the year before, with construction remaining the industry with the highest number of fatalities.

If we truly wish to provide workers with one of the safest and healthiest workplaces in the world as recommended by the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) 2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee in April 2019, we must take into account their working realities, especially our 970,000 migrant workers who form the bulk of our manual labour force and therefore most at-risk from work injuries.

I would like to raise three key concerns that are not, I feel, adequately addressed by the Bill and propose additional measures accordingly.

My first concern, Mr Speaker, is that the Bill proposes to let insurance companies handle the processing of claims rather than it being under the purview of the Ministry for reasons of efficiency, as the Minister of State has alluded to. I appreciate the intent but we will also agree that private insurers have no incentive to ensure workers are fully apprised of their rights and it is unclear which party is responsible for ascertaining validity and how a party can appeal the decision.

If it is to be private insurers making the decision, then there should be a rigorous Code of Practice or Conduct for them to follow to ensure integrity and reasonable speed in the process. Such a Code should include procedures and principles that align with the fundamental rules of natural justice, which include the principles of impartiality and fair hearing. Arbiters must allow parties adequate opportunity to contest statements made by another party. This is especially important for workers, as employers may possess more documents and be able to withhold certain evidence more easily.

Migrant worker NGO, Transient Workers Count Too or TWC2, has seen cases where the employer may under-declare overtime hours and hence salaries of migrant workers. Take Bangladeshi worker Naseer. He had filed WICA and salary claims at the same time. While the WICA case was on-going, TADM had found that he was incorrectly paid before the injury and computed the total underpaid amount as $13,000 over 12 months. However, he was told to wait for his WICA claim to be completed before proceeding with his salary claim. When the WICA compensation amount was offered nine months after the accident, it was based on the employer’s version of the Average Monthly Earnings (AME). However, he accepted the compensation because he did not want to wait much longer and still had an outstanding salary claim.

Hence, arbiters must be trained to scrutinise the evidence presented. Under the Employment Act, employers are legally obliged to document working time records and payslips, and furnish these documents to the workers. Adverse inference should be drawn against the employer who failed to keep or furnish proper records. Recent amendments to the Employment Claims Act already mandate such inferences in salary claims. It would also be useful to have the WICA and salary disputes to be conducted in parallel, where there is a salary dispute, so that the AME can reflect the result of the salary claim process accurately.

Mr Speaker, as illustrated before, the processing of claims is seldom a straightforward application of formulae or medical reports. It is therefore imperative that the Ministry implements safeguards to ensure that the insurers will process each claim in accordance with the worker’s full rights and entitlements, including conducting spot checks on claims processed by insurers and monitoring the processing by insurers. This is crucial since the insurer is paid for by the employers, therefore stringent external regulation is needed to ensure that the insurer acts impartially.

The changes in these procedures must be coupled with efforts to inform low-wage local and migrant workers of their insurance coverage and claims processes. Migrant workers, who rely on WICA for compensation, may be unable to push for their own interests if they lack a detailed understanding of the law.

According to BMJ Global Health Journal, a 2016 survey conducted by medical practitioners with 433 migrant workers in Singapore found that only 61.4% of these workers were certain that they had medical insurance coverage. Some workers mistakenly believe they have to bear their full medical expenses and avoid treatment, as they are not aware that it is mandated by law for employers to purchase WICA insurance.

Moreover, it is unclear how workers will receive information that a claim has been initiated by the employer. Workers do not automatically receive accident reports from the Ministry when their accidents have been filed by their employer and hence may not see the details filed that may be prejudicial to the worker. While NGOs can email the Ministry on behalf of workers to request for a copy, the Ministry charges a fee for this. In addition, the Ministry sends letters addressed to workers to the office address of the employer, but there have been cases where the employer has failed to pass these letters to the workers.

I urge the Ministry to consider informing the workers immediately by SMS and letting workers opt to obtain a free copy of the accident report and letters from a counter from the Ministry instead.

My second concern, Mr Speaker, is the delay in medical treatment or services received by migrant workers because of their employer’s refusal to pay, that essentially defeats the purpose of WICA which is to ensure that workers are able to receive proper, and certainly timely, medical treatment.

As we speak, a Bangladeshi worker, whom I will call Ahmad, is at risk of more damage from delayed treatment. Ahmad sustained a severe back injury at work when he fell while carrying heavy construction material five months ago. He required MRI scans for on-going treatment but had to miss two scan appointments because his employer did not pay outstanding bills nor issue undertakings to pay for on-going treatment. Without the scans, the specialists are reluctant to determine further course of treatment. Other health professionals like physiotherapists also cannot help in the absence of diagnostic imaging. Ahmad is currently supported by another NGO called HOME, to get his employer to provide the undertaking and we are hoping he will be third time lucky to make the MRI appointment.

A Chinese worker, whom I will call Liu, had an accident when he was hit in the eye by a large metal hook which caused a cornea rupture into his eye two months ago. The doctor had indicated that he is mostly likely permanently blind in that eye. Yet, due to the lackadaisical approach to settling an outstanding bill of $200 by the employer, the Singapore National Eye Centre almost stopped Liu from seeing the specialist for follow-up which may have caused further damage. Thankfully, HOME was able to support him through a kind donation.

Mr Speaker, in case we think that these are just a couple of odd cases recently, it is far more common than we think because more than a considerable number of migrant workers are affected. I do urge the Ministry to study the prevalence of this problem.

In the meantime, to circumvent the challenge of employers promptly providing the Letter of Guarantee, I propose that workers be issued with insurance cards by the insurer that acts as a Letter of Guarantee, to facilitate easier and faster processing of medical appointments, medical procedures and scans. In the proposed Code of Practice I mentioned earlier, insurers must also fulfil target timelines and settle the claims expeditiously, so that the medical treatment of workers are not delayed. A 30-day timeline as a target is recommended to determine whether the injury is work-related and, hence, treatment should be covered under insurance.

The Bill also provides that, upon the employer’s insolvency, the insurer assumes "the same liabilities in relation to the employee as if the insurer were the employer." This suggests the insurer should pay for the medical treatment directly and not merely reimburse the worker. However, clause 18 of the Bill provides that all compensation payable should be paid by the insurer to the injured worker or their representative if they are under incapacity. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the insurers will pay for the medical treatment directly, or reimburse the worker.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight the urgent need to safeguard the mental health of our migrant workers. A 2015 survey of 605 Bangladeshi and Indian workers conducted by the Singapore Management University (SMU) found that more than 60% of respondents who had outstanding injury or salary claims were predicted to have serious mental illness.

A Bangladeshi worker, whom I will call Jamal, suffered work injuries in his hip and spine. His employer refused to pay for the total hip replacement he needed. He sought help with HealthServe, another NGO for migrant workers, who provided him shelter and supported him with his case to get the surgery he needed. In that six months with HealthServe, Jamal suffered great pain which caused insomnia and depressive moods that later escalated when he also met with a slew of major stressors, including his father having a stroke, his wife having left him and the loss of his home in Bangladesh due to flooding, and his escalating debts; he thought of killing himself. HealthServe provided counselling to Jamal who reportedly cried several times during these sessions. He was repatriated in May 2019, broken in flesh and spirit.

Again, Jamal is not alone, Mr Speaker. I urge the Ministry to consider the following suggestions from the community.

First, we must educate our migrant workers on mental health and provide peer support and/or mental health first aid training.

We must provide easy access to counselling services for migrant workers in distress. To my knowledge, there is only FASTCare by the Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training by MOM for foreign domestic workers but none yet for non-domestic and male migrant workers. I am very happy to hear that HealthServe has plans to start a mental health programme but the needs are way more than what one NGO can handle.

Lastly, we could implement a structured intervention programme such as a case management rehabilitation programme, which can improve several aspects of the workers’ psychological well-being and quality of life. This will provide the motivation to not only prepare injured workers to return to work but, more importantly, to help them adjust better and ensure sustainability in their post-rehabilitation work life. There are already successful implementation of such programmes in Malaysia and Germany.

Last but not least, I urge the Minister to consider allowing workers who have had their permits cancelled prematurely by employers after they have suffered an injury, but are free from medical leave or light duties, to look for new jobs instead of being sent back home unfairly when they have already recuperated.

Mr Speaker, in that same report I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Tripartite Strategies Committee also recommended that Singapore must aim to be amongst the best in the world in our workplace health and safety performance. This is a worthy goal indeed. Yet, as I recall how heartening it was to see the different migrant communities come together to support one another at the Migrant Cultural Show I was at last Sunday, I cannot help but think that we must surely include in that goal above one that obliges us as a government and society to enable and support our one million migrant brothers and sisters to be the best that they can be – in total health and safety. For if they help us build our homes and take care of much of our needs for us to thrive, how can we send them back to theirs, broken and less?

Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings Ltd, President of the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation and Vice President of the Singapore National Employers Federation.

I rise in support of the Bill. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was first enacted in 1975, an Act related to the payment of compensation to workmen for injury suffered in the course of their employment. In 2008, the Act was reviewed and renamed as the Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), which aims to provide low cost and expeditious resolution of work-related injury claims. The coverage of the Act was in general extended to all workers, compensation limits were increased and processes were streamlined.

WICA was last reviewed in 2016 where the maximum and minimum compensation limits for death and total permanent incapacity were increased. The cap for compensation on medical expenses was also raised.

In this Bill before the House, MOM has taken a more comprehensive approach. The proposed key changes cover four areas, namely, (a) enhanced protection of injured employees, (b) enhanced protection of employer's interests, (c) faster and simpler claims processes, and (d) increased deterrence against WICA contraventions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have always advocated for the strong tripartite partnership between the Government, employers and the employees. It is my belief that especially in areas with potentially wide-ranging implications, such as those which this Bill touch on, it is the collective strength of our tripartite partnership that will engender the buy in of all stakeholders. I would, therefore, urge the Ministry to continue its efforts to engage the employers, and through the different labour unions, the employees, in constant dialogue.

In manifestation of this tripartite partnership, the Singapore National Employers Federation, representing employers, has briefed and consulted 900 of our members on the proposed changes to the WICA. Several areas of concerns were raised from an employer's perspective. These concerns pertain largely to the proposed increase in the compensation limits and the likely corresponding increase in insurance premiums, the extension of compensation to employees on light duties, and the requirement to report any instance of work injury to MOM.

While we as employers will continue to engage the Government through MOM, and our employees through our communications in the office and through the unions, please allow me now to share with this House the main inputs from employers alongside some of my own humble observations and suggestions.

Mr Speaker, while the objects of the Bill should be lauded, we cannot shy away that some of the provisions will probably lead to increased cost for businesses, firstly, by way of increasing insurance coverage for more workers and, secondly, by way of increased premiums for higher compensation limits. I will now address each of these in turn.

First, all employees doing manual work, regardless of salary level, and all employees doing non-manual work, earning $1,600 or less a month, are currently required to be insured under WIC insurance bought by the employer. MOM has proposed raising this salary threshold to $2,600.

It is heartening to note that MOM has proposed implementing this change in steps to give employers more time to adjust and re-evaluate their current WIC insurance plans.

However, employers, at first sight, feel that the increase in coverage is too drastic as it will inevitably mean that companies will have to spend more in insurance premiums covering more employees.

Secondly, I note that the proposed increase in the maximum and minimum compensation limits for death and total permanent incapacity is around 10% and 25% for that of medical expenses respectively. Employees who are on light duties, are also proposed to be compensated.

An employer who bought WIC insurance may not be able to claim compensation due to policy exclusions, for example, injury sustained from an accident which happened at a certain height. Thus, the proposed change to have the insurers offering a standard WIC insurance policy, helps to prevent disputes and provides more certainty to the employers. This is indeed welcomed.

Yet, according to MOM statistics, there were 14,585 work injury cases in 2018, amounting to $21.89 million in compensation for medical leave wages and $89.84 million for permanent incapacity and death compensation. With the change, the licensed insurers will take over MOM's claim processing role. The standard insurance coverage and the taking over of the claims process by the insurance companies, together with the higher compensation limits, point to a potential increase in insurance premiums.

This is a major concern for employers. May I ask the Minister if there is an estimate of the number of additional workers that will have to be covered under the increased salary threshold and, if there is, is the Ministry able to provide an estimate of the total increased insurance cost for Singapore businesses as a whole? Is the Ministry also able to provide clarity on what is the expected increase in premium for a business?

Employers will need to factor this increase into their total business cost. This is especially important, in the context of today's challenging business climate and these information will go some way towards assisting us to assuage the fears of employers.

Another avenue which is likely to lead to increased costs for businesses is the requirement for employers to report to MOM for all instances of work-related injuries including light duty incidents. This will increase administrative work and compliance costs. Employers hope that MOM will look into how to operationalise this efficiently, and perhaps offer financial incentives for employers with a clean record.

The next aspect I would like to touch on in my speech is a call for better outreach and education to businesses for compensation for employees on light duty due to work-related injury. Employees who are injured due to work-related accidents are compensated based on Average Monthly Earnings (AME) for the first 14 days of outpatient sick leave or 60 days of hospitalisation leave, and two-thirds AME thereafter, up to one year. With the proposed extension of WIC to employees on light duties, the concept of AME will also apply to this group of injured employees. I hope MOM will engage businesses better to educate employers who have trouble in understanding or operationalising this new requirement. One commonly asked question would be how this requirement would apply to an employee who is on light duty, but fails to report for work with valid reasons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to move now to address the proposed regulatory regime for WIC insurers and to make a couple of suggestions in this area. One of the proposed changes under this Bill relates to the licensing regime for insurers. WIC insurance premiums currently range from around 0.3% to 1.5% of wages. Insurers would now be required to share policy and claims information with MOM.

The objective of this proposed change is to allow centralisation and sharing of data amongst insurers – to allow them to offer insurance plans of differentiated premiums to employers of different risk profile and claims history. This, in my opinion, is a step forward for the WIC insurance market, taking after the current practice in the motor insurance market.

This differentiation, would necessarily influence employers who are "not so safe" now, to reduce their exposure to workplace injury risks. "Safe" employers will be motivated to continue to maintain their high level of Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) standard. This is also one of the strategies laid out under "Strengthening WSH Ownership" in the WSH 2028 report, released in April this year.

That being said, with this requirement, MOM will now be yet another repository of information. It is important therefore that access to such information must be safeguarded and employers should be informed what information could be shared with insurers.

In relation to this, I would like to suggest to the insurers to introduce a preferential rate or incentive scheme, similar to the no-claim bonus concept in the motor insurance market. This would now be viable, with the sharing of past claim data with the insurers. This would provide employers an incentive to place greater emphasis on WSH. This would be a win-win-win situation for the employees, employers and insurers.

Second, and on a separate note, according to a recent report, the annual medical inflation rate for Singapore is expected to be 10% for this year. Of course, this includes non-work-related medical expenses. I would like to take this opportunity to advocate before this House a "portable" medical insurance scheme whereby the employer contributes to employees' MediSave account, for them to use to pay for their MediShield Life or buy an Integrated Shield Plan. The tripartite partners have been advocating this as it reduces duplication of coverage between the employer's medical benefits and MediShield Life and will also arrest the increase in overall medical expenses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, my fellow business leader, Mr John Ng, who is also a Vice President of the SNEF, chairs the WSH 2028 Tripartite Strategies Committee and I concur with him that good WSH is good for business. This Bill plays an important part towards our journey to make Singapore amongst the world's best in WSH.

Every employee is important to the employer. That includes their health and safety at the workplace. Employers should provide a safe work environment and employees should do their part and follow safety practices

I affirm my support for the Bill, but at the same time, reiterate the legitimate concerns that the employers have. I hope that MOM will address these concerns and lend enhanced support to employers. As a firm advocate for the tripartite arrangement, I strongly believe that with the Government's support, both employees and employers can help Singapore achieve sooner the WSH 2028 vision of – A Healthy Workforce in Safe Workplaces; A Country Renowned for Best Practices in Workplace Safety and Health.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act, or WICA in short, is timely and progressive. While we push for safety first at zero accidents, workplace injuries do happen. Higher injury compensations and broader insurance coverage to more workers give greater insurance to our working people and it is timely with the rising cost of living and medical expenses

The amendments to better regulate insurance coverage with limited exclusions provide clarity as insurers cannot include non-approved exclusions. Also, the proposed appeals channel by the MOM for workers who dispute claims as assessed by insurers is much welcomed as it provides recourse for the injured workers. Moreover, the measures to encourage better safety track records of the companies based on differentiated insurance premium, employer's risk profile and claim history will give greater impetus for employers to partner unions in ensuring a safe, healthy workplace for all workers of which I will address later in my speech.

While these proposed amendments are most welcome, I would like to see clarity on three issues and put forth some suggestions.

The first is the Work Injury Compensation due to the nature of work arrangements and insurance coverage. As flexible work arrangements become increasingly adopted by employers, such as working from home or telecommuting, will WICA cover any work injuries sustained during work outside of the workplace, specifically when work accidents occur when the worker is on flexi-work from home.

While the move to expand insurance compulsory insurance coverage to non-manual employees is welcome, the salary threshold with proposed amendments from $1,600 to $2,600 is still low. As automation and technology increasingly change the way we work, we are seeing more working people multi-tasking, taking up additional job roles and responsibilities. While they might be considered as non-manual workers, part of their job responsibilities will increasingly expand. Their day-to-day job might be office-based but the job roles and functions might require them to be around in an environment where the risk of injury is high. These employees might be drawing a salary beyond the stated amount of $2,600. So, may I suggest that more be done to encourage employers to buy insurance coverage for all employees.

Secondly, how are workers under contract for service covered under WICA? Correct me if I am wrong but the answer is none. With the advent of the platform economy, we have a growing number of self-employed persons, estimated to be more than 200,000 in Singapore. With the increasing prevalence of contract for service and the gig economy, they will not fall under the ambit of WICA as service buyers who engage them will not have to take up a WICA-related insurance coverage for these self-employed persons. What recourse do these employees then have in the event of injuries sustained in the course of their employment?

IMDA, through the Tripartite Standards on Procurement of Service from media freelancers, provided details on insurance coverage for media freelancers to be covered by their companies if they are required to offer their service onsite or on locations specified by the companies. The work-related personal accident insurance covers against claims for death, total permanent disability and medical expenses. As such, the responsibility is on the freelancers to ensure that they are insured with personal accident insurance that will be paid by the buyer while the service buyers should be prepared to factor such insurance cost into their service fee.

Will other Government Procurement Entities (GPEs) consider taking the lead to provide work injury insurance, especially for a significant GPE like MOE's schools, as this will help set the tone and shape responsible procurement practices where work injury insurance is the norm for responsible outsourcing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point I would also like to get an update on progress made by the Ministry and other Government agencies, besides IMDA, to provide insurance coverage and self-employed persons for work-related accidents for the many outsourced contracts they have.

My third point of clarification is on mental illness brought about by work stress which is increasingly common in the workplace but it is not covered by the WICA amendments. As a unionist, I have come across members who have been diagnosed with depression. One such member initially wanted to resign from the company when diagnosed with depression but the company persuaded him not to do so and to continue his employment while undergoing treatment. He was granted sick leave for a year with medical review done every month. During this period, the company paid his basic salary and medical treatment. After more than a year of therapy and medication, there was no improvement to the member's condition. The company had to reluctantly terminate his employment. This member was fortunate as the company continued to pay his salary and medical treatment for a year, but what happens if an employer opts to terminate an employee with mental illness at the early on set of the condition. Can WICA can extend to cover the medical expenses and wages for such illnesses? After all, mental wellness is an area not very much talked about but it is an increasing trend in the workforce.

On the amendment to provide for a differentiated WICA insurance premium based on employer's risk profile and claims history, it now gives more significant incentives to companies to ensure a safe and healthy workplace for its employees. Here the companies can partner the union to develop a safe and healthy culture in the company. One such example is PSA, the port operator.

The Port's unions have a close partnership in working with PSA to raise safety standards at the workplace. Unions and management have worked closely together to improve workers' training and implement work procedures to create a safe work environment. As part of this close partnership, there are many channels for union leaders to provide feedback to management, in particular, the Health, Safety, Security Environment (HSSE) Council which comprises management and union representatives; and chaired by the top management executive – is a platform with regular meetings to jointly review safety and health performance, set safety and health directions, and provide feedback to management about workers' concern in safety related as well as health, security and environment related issues.

To assimilate, HSSE in the work culture, PSA has also developed an in-house workshop programme called "Starfish". Union leaders are part of the first batch trained alongside PSA leaders and we have provided feedback to strengthen the course structure and material for the subsequent rollout to all our workers. Union leaders also play a vital role in rallying workers' support for safety related initiatives. For example, PSA taps on technologies such as video analytics and telematics to improve on-the-job behaviour and prevent accidents to the pre-emptive intervention programmes aimed at mentoring, coaching and training workers to improve their safety behaviour. This collective efforts have resulted in significant improvements in safety standards in PSA over the years and have helped in the reduction of costs.

An injury is one too many and we are partnering management to cultivate a generative, safety culture. The Labour Movement aims to create a safe and conducive environment for every worker in Singapore.

To conclude, Sir, the Labour Movement welcomes this additional amendments that brings benefits to the workers. We do hope that the Ministry can look at ways to cover every worker including workers with mental illness under the Act. We also call on our companies to work with the unions to promote safety and health at the workplace. As union leaders, we can and will be the ambassadors and catalysts at the workplace to promote health and safety at the workplace. After all, the well-being of our members is always our core business. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a doctor who looks into work injury cases. I stand in support of this Bill which will first, provide for affected employees to receive compensation for work injuries more expeditiously; second, ensure that the insurance policies meet minimum standards; and third, employers maintain full insurance coverage for their liabilities.

First, I welcome the amendment to commence claims processing upon the Ministry's or the insurer's notification of fatal or serious injuries, thus removing the requirement for employees or their dependents to file compensation claim applications. This is an improvement from our current system, reducing time spent on paperwork by all parties, particularly the victims and their families during a very stressful and difficult time.

I would just like to seek clarification on instances when claims assessment on injuries are delayed because employers are slow in paying for or guaranteeing the necessary medical examinations. Presently, they or insurance companies pay for clinic visits or hospital stays but not necessarily for outpatient tests, such as scans. Would the Minister elaborate on any changes or improvements, if any, for such cases that is provided for in this Bill?

Next, I have a question regarding the proposal to compensate employees placed on light duties due to work injuries. Where such light duties pay less, going forward, employees/employers will need to compensate them up to their average monthly earnings (AME). The intention of the Ministry is that these workers should not be worse off than those who are given medical leave. Currently, injured employees on medical leave are compensated with their AME. Under this Bill, compensation will be equal for both but I would like to ask if there are definitions of what injuries can be addressed with light duties versus medical leave.

In addition, I would like to seek clarification on surveillance on reporting by employers. There may still be employers who do not report smaller injuries.  What measures are in place to minimise this problem? Employees are required under the WICA to inform their employers of any incidents as soon as possible. Is there a way whereby the employee reporting process informs both their employers and MOM simultaneously, possibly through a one-step reporting system at the health professionals' office for greater efficiency? Such a system will also ensure that employers do not have the opportunity to under-report.

Finally, I would like to make a brief comparison with a few other developed nations for a sense of how we are aligned. I noticed that a key difference is that a number of these countries offer the option of pensions for workers who suffer permanent disabilities. Here in Singapore, workers can only claim a lump sum. Fixed amounts offer certainty for employers and insurers but may impose greater hardship on employers as we live longer. The disbursement of such a large sum of money all at once has the risks that it may all be spent too quickly or unwisely.

For example, in the Federal Republic of Germany, under the statutory occupational accident insurance, such workers receive a pension until the age of 65, unless he or she begins receiving old-age pension earlier than that age. They can also opt for the pension to be paid out as a lump sum. Furthermore, in the event of death, any children they have who are under 18 years of age will receive an orphan's pension.

Similarly, in Western Australia, in addition to a lump sum payment capped at AUD$232,000, there is a provision for a periodic child's allowance for dependent children.

In the United Kingdom, on top of compensation from the compulsory Employers' Liability insurance bought by companies, affected employees can receive between £35.80 and £179 weekly under Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme, depending on the level of disablement.

In the United States of America , there is no federal oversight nor minimum standard. Every state has its own workers compensation system and they vary widely. Some cap benefits for permanently disabled workers at 450 weeks while others allow benefits for life or until the worker reaches the age for Social Security benefits.

And finally, in Japan, a worker may receive his Disability Pension Benefit either as a lump sum or as a pension.

Hence, I would like to suggest that for workers who suffer permanent disabilities, the Ministry consider some form of pension arrangement as an option, as well as regular financial support, perhaps for their children up to the age of 18. Thank you and I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I support the proposed amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Bill. Overall, the proposed amendments will essentially make the bill more worker-centric. I would like to focus my speech to share my perspective of this bill in relation to vulnerable low-wage and foreign workers.

Extending compensation under WICA to include those on light duties due to work injury is a positive change towards covering the potential loss in workers' income because they may not be able to work overtime given the highly manual and strenuous nature of their work and hence, losing out on overtime pay or other incentive. For many low-wage workers, a sizeable portion of their pay package comprises of overtime payments, allowances and incentive payments while doing their regular work.

More importantly, it also prevent the occurrence of possible abuse of the system where the injured vulnerable worker may be given medical leave for less than the stipulated four days as a way to get around the duty to report for WICA and the remaining recovery period is covered by light duties. Such circumventing measures may arise as company-approved medical practitioners may face the dilemma of balancing their financial interest against their ethical obligation when it comes to prescribing appropriate duration of medical leave for the workers.

The Employment Act has been amended to make it mandatory for employers to issue pay slips. However, in WICA cases assisted by Migrant Workers' Centre involving many work permit holders, especially on the lower end of the skills profile, they continue to be paid in cash without the issuance of any records.

Thus, NTUC welcomes the proposed amendment that allows MOM to order compensation based on a multiple of the worker's basic monthly salary or the Average Monthly Earnings (AME) based on at least 75% of cases of the industry norms. This will benefit the low wage and migrant worker sectors where the absence of pay slips tend to be more prevalent.

NTUC also supports the move for initial compensation based on current incapacity or CI assessment at six months after the work accident to allow for a faster claim resolution for workers. In fact, this makes the WICA to be more worker-centric and responsive to the specific needs and situations for the migrant workers as it levels the playing ground for migrant worker claimants and evens up the odds in favour of workers.

MWC had encountered cases involving injured foreign workers who were required to stay in Singapore for extended claims, but not allowed to work and inevitably, run into difficulty with upkeeping and maintaining themselves. There are good reasons to suspect that some employers or insurers may deliberately drag the cases because they are aware the migrant worker will run into hardship and put the employers or insurers at an advantage to negotiate a lower quantum which the worker has little choice but to accept; or even hold out on payment, against which the worker has no means, whether in terms of time or money, to enforce.

Currently, all employers are required to have Compulsory Medical Insurance for their migrant workers but, most employers will only ensure minimum medical insurance coverage for their migrant workers to meet MOM's requirement. As our laws require the employers to be liable for the medical treatment for the foreign workers, some employers will incur huge medical expenses for their injured migrant workers if the WICA cases drag for too long, since, all foreigners are charged unsubsidised rates for treatment and hospital stay.

As such, having a safety net provision for CI assessment at six months will benefit workers and employers as well because WICA is also meant to cover medical treatment cost for claimants, or at least help to defray the cost of treatment which for migrant workers are liable to borne by employers.

Hence, the increased WICA coverage for treatment, together with expedited claims payouts will certainly help in cases where urgent medical treatment is needed by the worker but, the employer is unable to pay due to lack of medical insurance coverage or other cost issues.

Another issue arising from claims processing times is the situation where employers do not provide accommodation or maintenance for their claimant workers anymore or the worker himself wishes to leave his employer's hold given the breakdown in their relationship for whatever reasons. The migrant workers who decide to stay on pending the outcome of their injury claims are generally prohibited from working which may cause them a lot of financial hardship.

A situation where the injured migrant workers opt to stay on their own and unable to work legally, to support their own maintenance and upkeep, is undesirable given the potential for them to moonlight illegally which will deny them of all the employment protections. Some may succumb to anti-social or even criminal behaviour in a bid to survive, which is detrimental to our society's well-being and safety.

Thus, expediting the claim processing time will minimise the cost of their maintenance and upkeep and perhaps, lessen the likelihood of the migrant workers facing financial hardship and having to resort to undesirable actions that would be detrimental to themselves and our society.

Given the changes made to WICA, there is a need to raise workers' awareness through outreach efforts especially among the vulnerable low-wage and migrant workers. Many vulnerable workers are still unaware of the basic provisions under WICA like how you can still claim under common law even after filing for WICA, but cannot do so in the reverse.

Some injured vulnerable workers may file injury claim under common law at the advice of overzealous lawyers without realising that they are signing away their rights to a WICA claim. They might also be unaware how WICA differs from legal suits under common law in its compensation quantum and other aspects like standards of proof and others.

There must also be concerted efforts to change the mindset of employers to see WICA as an extension of the company's Work-Safety-Health worksite culture where employers are themselves briefed extensively in WSH and WICA laws and these aspects are refreshed regularly in worksite safety briefings and meetings. Such efforts will result in a general levelling up of the understanding of WSH and WICA for both employers and their workers and thus, minimising potential cause for misunderstanding and disputes.

While the migrant workers will face a shorter waiting time for their claims processing and can return to their home country earlier, I would like to enquire on the channels that would be made available for workers to seek reassessment in event their injury condition deteriorates after the six-month mark. Ideally, such established channels must be guided by MOM and not by employers or insurance companies who might make it too onerous for workers seeking reassessment.

Some occupation diseases or ODs can be undiagnosed for a prolonged period. For example, symptoms of asbestosis may only occur 20 years after exposure but, given WICA’s current one-year time bar, it would exclude such ODs with long latency periods. How can workers be compensated for such work-related injuries or diseases?

As our Government is also encouraging older workers to work, would the standard WICA insurance clauses be inclusive to ensure employers can buy insurance coverage for all their workers? Since older workers are sometimes prone to injuries due to slips and falls, some insurance companies may have exclusion clauses, in fine print, to exclude coverage for older workers.

Under the proposed amendments, MOM-licensed insurers will assess and process all WIC claims as per stipulated MOM guidelines and time standards. This will lead to more expeditious claims processing but, with check and balances by MOM to ensure fairness to all parties.

In the past, MOM processed the claims and was perceived to be guardian of fairness of the WICA claim. However, outsourcing this function to MOM-licensed insurers may lead to the judgement being questioned in terms of fairness as the insurance companies have a vested interest to keep compensation on the low side.

In addition, insurance companies may also try to keep premiums low for their policies to be competitive but, at the expense of being unable to have sufficient financial standing to give our workers adequate and fair compensation. To mitigate this, NTUC welcomes the system of controls and penalties to accompany this legal innovation to ensure insurers remain on-side, fair and objective in their assessment.

How effective this new licensing and enforcement regime will be, can only be re-assessed after the new system has been in place for some time. In the meantime, the unions and MWC will continue to get a better ground-sensing when we help our workers in the claims under WICA.

Nevertheless, we urge the policy makers to review the application of the new insurer-processed system at appropriate junctures, so that further review and strengthening may continue to be made to it along the way to more effectively safeguard the rights and welfare of the key intended beneficiaries of the Act. Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] NTUC supports the amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act because it will provide better protection to workers who suffer injuries while working.

The amendments propose a higher compensation limit and will include even more workers. In addition, the amendments also ensure a more stable insurance coverage with limited exclusions, which ensures that employers and workers can submit appeals to receive compensation for most types of injuries that commonly happen to workers.

Although the responsibility for processing appeals for compensation under this Act is given to insurers appointed by MOM, these amendments will still allow workers to challenge the compensation amount that is given, if necessary.

For employers, these amendments also help to reduce the cost of buying WICA insurance which will become more affordable provided they have a good safety record, whereby not many of their workers suffer injuries while working.

WICA is a very useful Act for workers, but it is important that the Ministry take steps enhance workers' awareness towards this Act, especially for low wage workers. This will prevent irresponsible employers from taking advantage by cheating injured workers so that the workers do not submit appeals to obtain compensation through WICA, which affects the company's accident record.

(In English): I believe that we are indeed making a big step in the right direction for our workers here in Singapore. The proposed amendments show that we understand the urgency of workplace compensations and the need to be fair and transparent to all parties involved.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. At this juncture, I also want to declare my interest as I work for an organisation that handles work injury assessments.

Employers have a duty of care to provide a safe environment for those who work for them. The Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA)'s "no-fault system" ensures that employees receive fair compensation for work related injuries or illnesses without having to go through the lengthy and costly process of taking legal action against their employer.

In 2018, while there was a drop in the number of workplace fatal injury cases from the year before, workplace injury cases increased from 12,498 cases in 2017 to 12,810 cases in 2018. Both workplace major and minor injuries saw an increase in the number of cases.

The proposed enhancements to compensation to keep pace with healthcare cost and wage growth and the amendments to make it compulsory for employers to take work injury compensation insurance coverage for employees will provide assurance to employees of fair compensation and ensures timely payout of compensation.

Since 2017, there were four cases, referred to the Singapore Medical Council for investigation, where doctors were suspected of issuing inappropriate medical certification to workers that had work injuries. The proposed amendments to make all medical certificates and light duties reportable and expansion of compensation to cover workers on light duties due to work injury will be key to preventing employers from influencing doctors on the prescription of MCs. This ensures that workers are given appropriate number of days of MCs for their recovery and care.

With employers having to take compulsory insurance coverage for work injury compensation, we must, however, be cognisant that this will have increased cost impact on businesses. Clause 24 states that the insurance policies must be approved policies with one or more designated insurers and that a minimum coverage may be stipulated. Clause 26 requires that an approved policy must contain all the prescribed compulsory terms and disallows derogatory of the compulsory terms. Clause 25 outlines the penalties for employers who breach the terms set out in clause 24 which include fines, imprisonment or both. With such obligations placed on employers, what measures will there be to ensure insurance premiums for work insurance compensation remain affordable and sustainable for businesses, especially given the current market challenges that businesses are facing?

I was glad that Minister of State stated that there will be a phased approach taken in the implementation of the amendments. The Minister of State did say that 90% of companies are already insured. But despite this, because of increased scope of compensation that will come with the amendments as well as the fact that more employees will be required to be covered under this Act, it will definitely increase the cost of premiums so I do hope that there will be measures to also look at the premium affordability and the trends of how that posed.

The proposed new regulatory regime for the Workplace Insurance Compensation does, however, offer better protection for employers as well as only insurers licensed by MOM are allowed to sell the approved WIC policies. MOM's endorsement of a standard WIC policy with a core set of insurance terms and conditions will also help ensure claims are paid and employers will not be faced with exclusions and have to make out-of-pocket payment of compensation to employees despite having insurance coverage.

The regime will also required licensed insurers to process all WIC claims in accordance to stipulated terms and condition, guidelines as well as processing timelines. So, in the event of disputes, this will be reviewed and handled by MOM so this does provide additional protection for employers directly. Under the current Act as well, employers have no recourse against fraudulent claims if they have made payment for medical, permanent incapacity or death compensation. The proposed amendments of the Act will enable restitution to be paid to employers for false claims.

As outlined in clause 33 of the Bill, insurers will be also required to provide MOM with policy and claims history information. This information will be centralised and, I believe, shared with insurers to allow insurers to differentiate premiums based on claims history and the risk profile of employers. This concept is a novel idea and may encourage employers to ensure safe and healthy workplaces. However, the devil always in the details and the exact implementation. So, can MOM share more information on how this will work? Will there will be greater transparency on the differentiation of premiums and will employers also be provided with information of the insurance premium trends to allow them to also make better decisions on the insurers that they select?

I would also ask that MOM consider the approach of sharing of information of good work safety practices of employers and having this included as part of premium differentiation because this will help also prevent a practice of under-reporting because if reporting was the only – if the claims history was the way of premium differentiation, it could lead to a dangerous situation of under-reporting.

With the proposal for new and enhanced penalties to deter employers from non-compliance, I do also ask how MOM will keep track of compliance to ensure that employers do in fact take up WIC insurance coverage for their employees and reporting of all work injuries and illnesses? At the same time, will there also be tracking of the adequacy as well as the timeliness of payouts by insurers to ensure that employees do get paid appropriately as well as in a timely manner.

Ultimately, the best protection for workers and for employers is to have safety protocols and training to ensure a safe working environment. While employers have the duty of care to provide a safe working environment for their employees, employees also do need to adhere to safe work practices as they carry out their work and this will help minimise the number of injuries as well as diseases in the workplace. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me make a declaration in my capacity as an Emergency and Trauma Specialist, I manage some of these work-related injuries and deaths at work and I also write their assessment and compensation claims.

Pertaining to the technical aspects of the Bill, I have the following queries.

Firstly, there are currently some 15,000 to 16,000 claims per year. What is the trend that we are seeing over the last few years? This is a reflection of our workplace safety. Also, how does it compare with other cities with relatively similar industrial and size make-up as Singapore?

Secondly, the salary cap for coverage will be increased to 2,100 from April 2020 and then 2,600 from April 2021. Can we not just do this in one step? The sooner the better I feel. For such an important issue whereby lives and limbs can be at stake, the faster the better. Anyway, the WIC premiums' incremental cost is at 0.015 the annual total labour cost. Can the Minister explain this in a bit more detail and how the decision was reached to do this in two steps rather than just one step?

Thirdly, there may be cases where the salary records are missing or unavailable. I note one of the prerequisites is the itemised payslip. How can we reconcile and improve this as it seems a fundamental and a basic requirement for employers? Is there a significant number of such cases that MOM faces annually? How can we, perhaps, implement some kind of enforcement with this because this is really a basic fundamental for our workers?

Fourth, for some cases where their medial status needs stabilisation before the final compensation can be decided upon, they will need multiple follow-ups and appointments with the medical specialists. Also, who will pay for these consultation fees? For foreign workers, especially, they have to actually pay foreign rates and non-subsidised rates. Are these claimable from the employers or MOM? Also, these follow-ups are done before the claims are given out. Therefore, the workers will usually have to fork out their own money for this. These fees may amount to quite a significant value and, at times, the employees have no choice but to follow up. In some cases, we have also seen them defaulting on their follow-up, thus, leading to problems medically for them.

Can the Minister also share with us on the claims for dental procedures and dental cases that are related to injuries? Are employees only able to attend Government or public dental services or can private dental specialist care also be recognised as well, as dental injuries are probably less common than just medically-related ones?

One other area which is still rather nebulous is the area of mental incapacitation resulting from a work-related issue. I think one of our colleagues Mr Arasu brought this up earlier and I support his call for some considerations in this area. Proving this may be more challenging. Therefore, has there been any examples of such cases, if the Minister can share with us? And also moving forward, how can we perhaps give these cases some kind of consideration?

Next, claims from workers can be reported by the workers, employers or the medical practitioners. The Singapore Medical Association takes serious disciplinary action against doctors for non-reporting or even for insufficient medical leave and assessment which is not done appropriately in relation to injuries. In this light, perhaps, can MOM work with MOH on a framework or guideline to assist and advise medical practitioners on some kind of algorithmic process, so that there is actually some kind of a loose framework they can refer to?

Also, how frequently does MOM review the claims compensation amount and how is the AMF derived? That would be good for us to understand as well.

Finally, on claims processing time, I hope that this can be hastened as well, as on and off, I still see workers requesting for help on follow-up and this is already amounting to, probably, sometimes two years or more after the initial injury. Therefore, perhaps, some expedition in this area will be useful. In all, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. According to statistics from MOM, the number of workplace injury cases is rising. Last year, 2018, saw 12,810 workplace injury cases, up from 12,498 cases in 2017. The statistics showed also that although fatal injury cases had decreased, the number of major and minor workplace injury cases saw an increase.

The proposed amendments to WICA are, therefore, timely as it seeks to provide a faster and better way to compensate employees in the event of an unfortunate accident occurring at the workplace. However, I have a couple of questions.

Let me start by recognising the pro-worker amendments to the Bill, which MOM had jointly formulated with the Labour Movement.

Over the past year, I have been advocating for differentiated WIC insurance premiums, based on companies’ risk profiles and claims records. I am, therefore, glad to see that this suggestion has been adopted. Differentiated insurance premiums will incentivise companies with strong workplace safety practices to continue their focus on creating a safe working environment and encourage companies with poor track records to improve their workplace safety practices. Nudging companies to focus on their workplace safety culture is important as this will directly result in a better safety outcome for our workers.

The Labour Movement has also worked closely with MOM on other key measures in the Bill that will result in enhanced protection to employees. These include expanding the coverage of compulsory WIC insurance to more employees and extending WIC to include employees on light duty who may be paid significantly less than usual due to their work injury but are not eligible for medical leave.

Such measures will, undoubtedly, enhance the protection of employees in the area of workplace safety. However, we also need to look at WSH holistically by placing equal emphasis on workplace health, which is the latter – and often overlooked – half of the WSH equation. I have some suggestions on how we can do exactly that.

Our workplaces are becoming increasingly desk-bound, particularly for many of our PMEs. Studies have shown that sedentary jobs give rise to new forms of occupational diseases, many of which are not covered under WICA. For example, long working hours, coupled with a stressful workplace environment, can result in mental health issues, such as workplace burnout, which is now a recognised occupational phenomenon by the World Health Organization.

"Feeling burnout" is a common phrase we hear from our workers, among our workers, but little has been done to learn more about its longer term health issues. Such occupation-related mental health issues can lead and have led to negative physical health outcomes. Can the Ministry consider expanding the list of occupational diseases covered under WICA to include mental health issues arising from the workplace? If we are not ready to do so, we should at least initiate more studies on the effects of such workplace work-related mental health issues.

Mr Speaker, mental health issues arising from work are a real and ever present danger at the workplace. We can quip about how to label such mental health issues, whether it is an occupational phenomenon or a work-related disease. What is clear, however, is that we need to protect our workers who may be suffering in silence.

For WSH to be pervasive in every industry, companies must also embrace Total WSH and encourage their employees to lead a healthy lifestyle. For instance, those companies with staff canteens can provide healthier food options for their workers. The canteens operated by the National Transport Workers Union (NTWU) have done exactly this through our Brown Rice campaign, which has been a big success across our 46 canteens islandwide. We have also tried to promote sugar-free drinks, such as Kopi-O kosong and Teh-O kosong. Unfortunately, this has not been as successful as the brown rice initiative, but we will try again.

Through constant experimentation, I believe that we will be able to find the right initiatives to encourage healthy eating among our workers. What we eat is key to what we turn out to be. The Labour Movement stands ready to partner with companies to introduce more initiatives to promote healthy eating and achieve Total WSH.

Mr Speaker, this Bill proposes to license insurers that sell and process WIC claims, to create a faster and simpler compensation process. This is a good idea and we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place.

Insurers may have vested interest in reducing the number of work injury claims, to reduce the compensation that is paid out. Therefore, it is vital that MOM set up channels for workers to seek redress if they disagree with the insurer’s assessment on the validity of their claims. Beyond MOM's proposed role as adjudicator of any WIC disputes, MOM should also have levers to penalise insurers who indiscriminately dismiss claims as non-work injuries.

Under the proposed licensing regime, MOM will accredit WIC policies based on a core set of standard terms and conditions to ensure adequate WIC insurance coverage. However, insurers would still be permitted to offer exclusion clauses. The question is: what are the safeguards that MOM will put in place to ensure that insurers do not diminish the adequacy of such insurance coverage through these exclusion clauses?

Mr Speaker, while the Bill focuses on work injury compensation, we cannot achieve Total WSH without a strong focus on the prevention of workplace accidents. As I have mentioned earlier, 2018 saw a total of 12,810 workplace accidents reported across all industries. Every accident that happens – even the minor ones – is a danger to our workers. Inherent in every injury is the risk that it may worsen and result in a tragedy. Seemingly minor injuries at the first instance can worsen into a major injury and a major injury can lead to death. Unfortunately, in 41 of the accidents that happened last year, the victims succumbed to their injuries.

Here, I would like to reiterate the calls that I have made on how we can step up on prevention, as well as provide MOM with a suggestion on how to use the data from the WIC claims to help in conducting targeted inspections and enforcement.

The prevention of workplace accidents requires a strong company culture geared towards safe workplace practices. Therefore, we should make it mandatory for every company to have at least one trained WSH representative. Today, only certain sectors are required to have a WSH officer. Having a mandatory WSH representative in every company will certainly go a long way in making Total WSH more pervasive and help prevent accidents from happening.

Earlier this year, I had proposed to set up a National WSH Training Academy that doubles up as a WSH Centre of Excellence. I hope that the Ministry can reconsider this suggestion. The Centre can establish a central registry of WSH practitioners, share industry best practices and showcase the use of new technologies to strengthen safety and health standards. Our SMEs would be the greatest beneficiaries of such a Centre of Excellence, as they have limited resources and would benefit from such knowledge sharing.

Finally, in addition to ensuring safeguards to prevent fraudulent rejection of WIC claims, MOM should also use the data from WIC claims to aid in inspections and enforcement. By analysing the data from a large enough sample size of claims, MOM would be able to derive the sectors and sub-sectors that are lagging in their WSH practices and conduct more targeted inspections.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Work Injury Compensation Act will benefit both workers and employers. As we put the pieces of the new legislative framework in place, we need to be mindful that Workplace Safety and Health needs to be tackled holistically. Only by focusing equally on preventing workplace accidents and on Workplace Health initiatives can we truly achieve Total Workplace Safety and Health. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Manpower, let me thank all 13 Members who have spoken in support of the Bill.

Prof Fatimah Lateef had asked about the trend in the number of WICA claims and how our safety performance stands among our peers. In line with Singapore's improving WSH performance, the number of awarded claims has fallen by 7% in the past three years, from around 15,700 in 2015 to around 14,600 in 2018.

As the WICA is but one option for employees to seek compensation for work injuries, a better reflection of our workplace safety is the workplace fatality rate. As mentioned in my earlier speech, our three-year average fatality rate has improved significantly from 18th place among OECD countries in 2010 to seventh place in 2018. We are working hard towards the goal of having a rate of less than 1.0 per 100,000 workers by 2028, which will make our workplaces one of the safest in the world.

Mr Douglas Foo and Ms Jessica Tan asked how MOM will share policy and claims information with insurers. Only authorised representatives of designated WIC insurers will be allowed to check on employers' information. As mentioned in my earlier speech, the Ministry will not be revealing the actual workforce size and annual payroll data to insurers. Rather, our system will just tell insurers that their clients' declaration is either consistent or not consistent with MOM records.

Ms Jessica Tan also asked about transparency in premiums quoted by insurers. The WIC insurance market today is highly competitive, with 31 insurers operating. As in other insurance products, such as motor insurance, employers can approach different insurers to obtain a quote, based on their company activities, accident record and workforce size.

MOM will also explore and take on board Ms Jessica Tan's suggestion on how best to publish general information on the range of premiums quoted, to help employers see where they stand and to encourage them to strive for a clean safety record to obtain the lowest premiums.

I would like to thank Prof Fatimah Lateef for highlighting the need for an expeditious claims process. This is core to WICA. The average time for claims for permanent incapacity or death to be resolved is 4.5 months after the claim has been filed. Amendments, such as streamlining of the claims process and compensating based on current incapacity, will further shorten the claims process.

With regard to insurer processing claims, Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Anthea Ong, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about measures that are put in place to safeguard employees' interests. As I have detailed out in my earlier speech, the interests of the employees will continue to be protected as insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Just to allay your fears again, insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Compensation for incapacity is based on the assessment of a heath professional and computed using a fixed formula based on age and earnings. The Ministry will put in place a system of checks and balances in the licensing scheme to ensure that claims are processed fairly and in a timely manner.

Employees who feel that their compensation was not processed fairly can raise objections to us, which will continue to be adjudicated by the Ministry. Employees who face other problems or suspect errant behaviour by insurers or employers should report this to the Ministry.

Nevertheless, given that this is a new regime, I fully agree with Mr Zainal Sapari that we should conduct reviews at appropriate junctures to fine-tune if necessary.

Mr Zainal Sapari sought clarifications on whether employees who are compensated based on their CI assessment are able to seek re-assessment if their injuries deteriorate thereafter.

Firstly, I want to say that a doctor should not make a CI assessment unless he is of the view that there is unlikely to be a significant change in the employee's condition.

Secondly, in coming up with the CI framework, we consulted with the WIC Medical Board, which comprises medical professionals that help MOM to review appeals against the treating doctor's assessment of incapacity. The Medical Board confirmed that the state of incapacity six months after the accidents would be very close to the eventual extent of permanent incapacity in the vast majority of cases.

Thirdly, in the unlikely event that an employee's condition deteriorates significantly after the CI assessment, the new WICA provides for the initial assessment to be revised if the doctor can provide the reasons for the revision within 90 days after the deadline to raise objections.

Mr Louis Ng sought clarifications on whether the introduction of current incapacity will affect the employees' WICA entitlement to medical treatment for their work injuries. Under the new WICA, employers are responsible for their employees' medical expenses up to $45,000, or one year from the accident, whichever is reached first. This entitlement is independent of the medical assessment of either the PI or the CI. So, it is independent and employees will still get it.

As mentioned in my earlier speech, CI assessment would take place at least six months after the date of accident, where the WIC Medical Board assesses that the extent of incapacity is a close approximation of the steady-state incapacity for most cases. As such, the bulk of the medical treatment and, hence, expenses would have taken place before the CI assessment. The introduction of CI assessment, therefore, allows foreign workers to recuperate and be with their loved ones earlier in their home countries. I note that this view is echoed by Mr Zainal Sapari who is familiar with workers' situations through the unions and the MWC.

I would also like to thank Mr Louis Ng and Prof Fatimah Lateef for highlighting the importance of employers to provide itemised pay slips and difficulties that we face when such reliable documentary evidence is unavailable. It is mandatory under the Employment Act for employers to issue itemised pay slips to their employees. It is an offence not to do so.

To address the handful of cases that we see each year that lack reliable documentary evidence to determine AME, the Commissioner can either set the "derived AME" based on the co-worker’s earnings or a multiple of the employee's basic rate of pay. For the latter, the multiple will be set at a level such that the "derived AME" is higher than industry norms, further incentivising employers to provide proper documentary evidence, that is, the employer is likely to be worse off if he does not provide documentary evidence or itemised payslips.

Sir, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Arasu Duraisamy and Prof Fatimah Lateef proposed higher coverage for compulsory insurance and a faster pace of implementation. The Ministry had originally proposed during the public consultation to raise the salary cap in one step. However, employers were concerned about the cost pressures they were already facing and an uncertain economic outlook. The eventual outcome of a two-step increase was a tripartite consensus. I would like to place on record my appreciation for our union leaders and I am sure employers also feel likewise. MOM will continue to consult tripartite partners on the timeframe for compulsory insurance to be adjusted further.

I note Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jessica Tan were concerned employers may under-insure for WIC. As part of the licensing conditions, designated insurers will have to report to the Ministry their data on the number of workers insured by each of their clients. This will be checked against our own records of companies' workforce size to identify which companies are not insured or which companies are under-insured.

Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about dental claims. I am happy to confirm that under the new WICA, employees can claim for medical fees incurred for dental procedures from any registered dentist in Singapore, if the need for dental procedure arose out of a workplace accident.

Mr Douglas Foo sought clarifications about compensation for light duties. Employees who are on light duty but are absent without reasonable excuse or leave will be ineligible for such compensation.

Mr Patrick Tay suggested to compensate injured employees with light duties with the full AME for the full period of light duties. With the new WICA, we have made the treatment of light duties to be on par as medical leave. So, just as full AME is payable for the 14 days of medical leave under the existing WICA, full AME is also payable for the first 14 days of light duty or medical leave.

The WICA adopts the sensible approach of compensating the full AME for the first 14 days of medical leave and 60 days of hospitalisation leave. For injuries that require more than the combined 74 days of medical and hospitalisation leave, AME is not fully compensated because such injuries would be serious enough to warrant an award for PI.

Mr Louis Ng, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Prof Fatimah Lateef asked for greater clarity on medical leave and light duties. With the move to expand compensation to work-related light duties and to report any instance of light duties or MCs, light duties will be treated like MC under the new WICA. So, the distinction between medical leave and light duties will be less important under the new WICA.

Nonetheless, I agree with the Members that we can do more to reduce confusion on the ground. We will work with the medical community and seek their professional opinion on the grounds for doctors to prescribe either medical leave or light duties.

On Mr Louis Ng and Mr Pritam Singh's questions on doctor switching, as mentioned in my earlier speech, we want to ensure that there is proper and fair assessment of the employee's injury. Therefore, in most cases, the first treating doctors will be in the best position to assess incapacity as they have the most complete picture of the accident. However, if there is prima facie evidence of inadequate care, such as significantly shorter MC duration than from other doctors, the employee will be allowed to switch to another doctor of his choice without having to seek the employer's consent. He just has to inform MOM. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, the employer pays for both assessments.

Mr Douglas Foo raised concerns about the administrative work and compliance cost of reporting accidents resulting in any instance of medical leave or light duties. To ease the administrative burden on employers, the report form for those with medical leave or light duties that are three days or less will be simplified and shortened. Nevertheless, employers will still need to provide the additional details should their employee get subsequent medical leave or light duty that exceeds the three-day threshold.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Anthea Ong sought clarifications on whether employees will be kept informed of the claims process, such as being notified when their employers report the accidents and if they will be given the opportunity to challenge the details stated in the accident reports. Once an employer submits an accident report to the Ministry, the employee would receive a letter informing that an accident report has been made, his/her rights and the steps to be taken to receive compensation. The Ministry or insurer will verify important information, such as injury sites and salary information, with them and conduct fact-finding if there are any disputes.

To Mr Tay's point that claimants should be kept in the loop of the WIC process, this is already the case today. Claimants or anyone assisting them can obtain information about the claims status through our website or text messages. For the latter, they come in four languages and claimants can subscribe to our text messaging service to receive notifications when the claims status changes.

Mr Louis Ng and Ms Anthea Ong also asked how the Ministry intends to ensure that foreign employees receive notification of the accident reports and whether employees can obtain a copy of the accident reports for free. We will explore how we can provide such notifications. In the meantime, employees who did not receive such a letter within three weeks of informing their employers of their work injuries can approach the Ministry for assistance.

I would like to clarify that the content of accident reports will not affect employees' amount of compensation under the WICA. So, workers would not need the actual reports. Reports could be useful if the employee makes a common law claim, as it may suggest whether any party was at fault in the accident. In such a situation, it is reasonable for employees to pay the nominal fee of $5 for the report.

Various suggestions were raised by Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng and Dr Chia Shi-Lu to address the under-reporting of work injuries by employers.

On auditing employers reporting of accidents by referencing third-party data, this will be possible under the new WICA as insurers will share with MOM the claims made by employers.

On subjecting both employers and doctors to a duty to report work accidents, the primary responsibility rests with employers, as they are required to ensure the safety and health of their employees. Instead of burdening doctors with additional legal liability, WICA simplifies the reporting regime for employers. As long as an MC of any sort is issued, the employer has to file a report. It also makes cases of medical malpractice more clear cut, as it would be very unusual that any significant injury would not warrant at least an MC or light duties. This approach allows employers and doctors to focus on what they do best, rather than making a doctor also responsible for what an employer should be doing.

On the suggestion to allow employees to report to MOM, I would like to clarify that employees can already report accidents to MOM. They can do so when accidents occur, or when they did not receive notice of their employers' accident reports.

Mr Pritam Singh raised various issues. Let me first say I welcome his new-found interest in work injury compensation, as the Workers' Party has so far not raised any questions concerning the compensation of employees for work injury during this term of Parliament. It would have also been nice to have heard from the Workers' Party when we had the public consultation for WICA, but it is never too late to start.

Mr Pritam shared the case of R, and asked if there were gaps that led to the late reporting of this case. We have managed to trace the case that he had referred to, and fuller facts will be useful for Members of the House to understand the context. In R's case, he was injured in 2015 while he was on his way to training at a third-party venue. Both he and his employer did not report the injury then, as they thought it occurred when he was not at work.

His employer nevertheless paid more than $54,000 for his medical expenses, which exceeded even the upcoming WICA limit on medical expenses, even though they thought it was not a work injury. R only filed a report two years after the accident. This was after he had left his employer, having served till age 67. Well, actually his employer was also progressive in re-employing him up to 67, even though the re-employment obligations under the Retirement and Re-Employment Act were up to 65 in his case. He later explained to MOM that it was only after he left employment, and he told a friend, that his friend asked him why he did not file a WIC claim.

I would like to point out that this is not a case of "power imbalance" that the employer exploited, but in fact, the employer's actions in covering the cost of medical treatment shows that the employer was doing right by the worker. MOM did not admit the claim initially, as it was not made within one year from date of accident. Upon appeal, MOM investigated further the circumstances leading to non-reporting in 2015. It was clear from the worker's and employer's account, that both parties believed that it was not a work accident. MOM therefore exercised discretion under the law, to admit the claim.

I should highlight that the concept of a time-bar for claims exists in both WICA and under common law. When a time-barred report is filed, without further information of the background, the right thing to do is to reject it. However, there is an avenue for the claimant to appeal, and provide facts to support his appeal, as he did in this case.

In the end, as MOM admitted the claim, R was ultimately assessed to have suffered 25% permanent incapacity and awarded another $54,500 in compensation.

I should also note that the employer could have taken the position that since the worker wanted to pursue a WICA claim, benefits and cover that were provided for him in 2015, which exceeded WICA limits for medical costs, could have been recouped. However, the employer did not do so.

Far from illustrating deficiencies in the WICA system, R's case shows how the WICA regime is robust in compensating deserving cases. Time-barred cases are reviewed if the appellant is able to provide facts to show why a claim could not be filed earlier. It also shows that there are employers who are willing to go well and above what the law mandates, because they care for their workers.

Mr Pritam also extrapolates from R's case, to claim that private settlements are not fair to workers and that MOM should oversee such settlements. R's case in fact shows the opposite. The employer has actually ended up paying more than he needed to. While Mr Pritam called for MOM to put ourselves in the shoes of the worker, as our response for the case of R shows, MOM puts itself in the shoes of both the worker and the employer.

Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Douglas Foo and Mr Zainal Sapari spoke on educating employees and employers on the WICA.

We agree that this is important for workers to know their rights, and for employers to understand what counts as an injury. Over the years, the Ministry has expanded its outreach to educate employees, such as through the foreign workers' Settling-in Programme. Mr Tay has also shared the assistance and support that unions and the Migrant Workers' Centre (MWC) can provide to those with work injury compensation claims.

For employers, MOM will continue to conduct briefings to clarify any doubts. MOM will continue to raise public awareness of WICA, and seek new channels and partners to work with us.

On the frequency of reviewing the compensation limit, I would like to clarify with Mr Pritam Singh that we have initiated reviews every three years. At the conclusion of the review, we announce the revised limit to take effect the following year. The next review is then initiated three years later. In the review, we consider wage growth and inflation since the last revision of the compensation limit, and discuss with tripartite partners on what the new limit should be, taking into account the interests of workers as well as businesses.

On Member Prof Fatimah Lateef's question on age multiplying factor, the age multiplying factors are derived by taking into consideration the net present value of the worker's projected loss of earnings due to work injury until retirement age. Therefore, younger workers have higher age multiplying factors than older workers.

A few Members – Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Anthea Ong, Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Prof Fatimah Lateef – have raised concerns about workers' treatment being delayed or workers not following-up on treatment because employers did not provide the hospitals with the letter of guarantee, or LOG.

Hospitals today ask for LOGs to be assured that employers will pay for medical expenses since some treatments may not be for work injuries, or may be discretionary. Otherwise, the burden of bad debts could be passed on as higher cost to all other patients.

Nonetheless, no worker would be deprived of treatment for work injury regardless of the ability to pay, or whether an LOG was provided.

Employers are already required under the WICA to pay for their employees' medical treatment for any work injuries. This includes for diagnostic work like MRI scans to assess the extent of injury. Workers should report to MOM if their employers are not willing to furnish an LOG for work injuries. We will take action against employers who fail to meet their obligation to pay for medical expenses under the Act. In addition, the new WICA will allow the Ministry to order insurers to pay medical expenses directly to the healthcare institution if necessary.

On the suggestion of insurance cards to employees to facilitate prompt treatment, I thank members for the suggestion, but would point out that work injury compensation insurance is just one of several medical insurance products for both local and foreign workers. Local workers also have their own MediShield Life policies, as well as company provided insurance. For foreign workers, it is a condition of the work pass that the employer has to purchase insurance to cover medical treatment generally. Issuing cards to workers will not solve the problem of whether the medical treatment is being claimed under the correct policy and may even lead to greater confusion, given the many insurances that are out there, or that they are being covered under.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zainal Sapari enquired about the food and housing arrangements for injured foreign workers.

Employers are still responsible to look after their workers while they are in Singapore even after they have cancelled their work permits. They have to provide acceptable housing and adequate food, that is three meals a day, for workers whose work injury claims are still pending.

Before 1 August 2019, if the worker does not want to stay at the accommodation provided by the employer and requests to stay at other accommodations, we permitted it. However, this has caused other problems, such as no control over the housing conditions where the workers stayed.

From 1 August 2019, we have established higher standards for injured workers' housing. Employers have to continue housing the workers at their dorms, or pay for housing and upkeep in other MOM-approved dorms. So, indeed, you are going to be put in one of our approved dorms at the minimum.

Ms Anthea Ong suggested for WICA and salary claims to be conducted in parallel. This is already the case as both claims will be processed concurrently. In the event that the AME is disputed, the salary claim will need to be settled first, in order to establish the correct AME.

Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong have asked about the coverage of mental illness under the WICA. The WICA stipulates compensation for injury by accident arising out of and in the course of work. Employees can thus be compensated for mental disorders and any resulting incapacity, even if there is no physical injury, if the following three criteria are met: first, the injury is a clinically diagnosed mental disorder; second, the mental disorder is caused by an accident; and third, the accident arose out of and in the course of work.

In the past five years, three cases of psychological injury arising from work-related accidents were compensated under WICA. They involved conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosed and assessed by psychiatrists.

Mr Arasu Duraisamy asked whether the WICA will cover work injuries sustained while telecommuting. The answer is yes. In cases where it is clear that the injury was clearly due to work, such as an employer requiring the worker to respond urgently to work calls while at home, and the worker fell while rushing to answer the call at home, the injured worker will be entitled to WICA compensation.

Mr Zainal Sapari asked about compensation for occupational diseases, or ODs with latency periods that exceed the prescribed limitations for WICA compensation. To clarify, the limitation periods for compensation for ODs are set at between one and three years after the end of employment. There are indeed some ODs such as asbestosis with very long latency that can be more than 10, 20 years, and employees may not be eligible for WICA compensation if they have already left their companies. However, it is not practical to impose unlimited liability on employers. They may not even be in business after so long, and secondly, WICA is a no-fault regime.

Therefore, the Ministry has opted for a pragmatic approach, by providing payouts from the Workers' Fund to employees with long latency ODs who are time-barred from WICA. They can also seek recourse under the Common Law.

Mr Arasu Duraisamy, Mr Chen Show Mao and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the recourse available to self-employed persons in the event of a work injury.

As Members may be aware, the WICA does not cover self-employed persons as they are not considered as "employees". The service buyers of self-employed persons often do not have control over the self-employed persons' work conditions and hours, relative to employers' arrangements with their employees. Unlike employees where there is a clear one-to-one relationship with the employer, many self-employed persons also contract with multiple service buyers. It would not be fair for multiple service buyers to compensate or purchase insurance for each self-employed person they contract with. It is difficult to tell at which point in time they are working for which employer.

To protect themselves, the Ministry has encouraged self-employed persons to buy prolonged medical leave insurance, or PML insurance, and personal accident insurance, or PAI, to mitigate their income loss and cost of medical treatment in the event of a work injury. Self-employed persons can also consider seeking damages from third-parties under the Common Law.

But many self-employed person occupations also do not face significant injury risks, such as real estate and property agents. Different self-employed persons also devote different amounts of their time to self-employment. Thus we recognise that it may be too onerous to mandate insurance for all self-employed persons. Nonetheless, I agree with Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that the marker platforms have a role to play too, given that they employ a large number of self-employed persons outside the traditional self-employed persons. To-date, at least 28,000 Grab and Gojek drivers are already covered by PML insurance, and ComfortDelGro taxis also has plans to cover their drivers.

For food delivery, the Workplace Safety and Health Council has engaged the main delivery companies to voluntarily provide personal accident insurance or PAIs for the self-employed riders they contract with. Deliveroo and Grab are now providing PAI coverage for their self-employed riders.

These are some developments and I hope that we can encourage more.

Mr Patrick Tay suggested to channel a portion of WIC premiums to the Workers' Fund to ensure its sustainability. The Workers' Fund provides a safety net for employees who did not receive their full entitlement of WICA benefits. Reasons include employers who were uninsured and were in financial difficulties. At the moment, the Workers' Fund has sufficient resources to compensate cases that meet its criteria.

Finally, I note Mr Douglas Foo's and Ms Jessica Tan's concerns about the increase in business costs due to the slew of changes in WICA. There are three changes that will impact business costs.

One, higher compensation limits for medical expenses, death and permanent or current total incapacity. The nominal value of compensation is reviewed every three years to keep pace with wage growth and inflation.

Two, wider coverage of compulsory insurance. Companies that have not already purchased WIC insurance for such workers will have to do so. But the vast majority of companies insure all their employees already. We estimate that only about 25,000 to 30,000 employees will need to be additionally covered. Therefore, companies would not face significantly higher premium costs as a result of this change.

Thirdly, the WIC insurance market is competitive, so it will be difficult for any insurer to unilaterally raise premiums sustainably. In fact, average premiums paid per employee insured declined 12% from 2015 to 2018, despite compensation limits being raised by 20% in January 2016.

So, my advice for employers who are concerned about higher premiums is for them to strengthen their WSH management processes and prevent accidents. This will help them achieve savings in premiums.

Once again, I thank Members for their support of this Bill. Your speeches reflect the views and concerns of employees' and employers', and underscored the importance of maintaining a fine balance between additional protection and higher business costs. Your suggestions will also help refine our implementation of the new WICA. I also thank the many groups that we have consulted, the unions, the employers, the insurers, NGOs, who have helped to shape the new WICA.

To conclude, the age old adage, "prevention is better than cure", is particularly apt for today's amendments. I hope all stakeholders will continue to give us your full support as we strive towards being amongst the best in the world in Workplace Safety and Health performance by 2028. With your permission, Sir, I beg to move.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have four clarifications for the Minister of State. The first pertains to his remarks or the allusion that this is a subject that the Workers' Party has suddenly developed some sort of interest in. I have most of the Parliamentary Questions that were filed by Members on Work Injury Compensation for this term of Government. I am not going to make the argument that the Members of Parliament who did not file any questions have no interest in WICA. Having said that, the Minister of State also said that the Workers' Party Members of Parliament – and correct me if I am wrong – did not ask any question on it. I believe in 2017, there was a question filed and – I mean, not filed, sorry – a question filed by Members and Ms Sylvia Lim had supplementary questions for the Minister. So, that is just for the record.

My first query pertains to R's case. I believe in his reply, the Minister of State said that it was rejected because it was out of time. But in the letter that was sent to R, the Commissioner of Labour stated that – and I will read out the paragraph, it is a short one – "We understand that you met the accident before you reached the training venue." That is the first reason and the second is, "You did not make a compensation claim under WICA within one year from the date of the accident." So, my question is: the first reason, it is settled law that if you are injured on your way to work from your workplace, that you can claim under WICA. So, I am not sure why that statement was made to R. I suggested in my speech that it could be because of the way R framed his claim, in the first instance, to MOM. So, can the Minister of State just confirm that?

The third issue is a question I asked in my speech which was to give the House a sense of the numbers of all successful WICA claims by foreign and local workers over the last five years. I do not believe the Minister of State answered that question and the breakdown of workers who chose a Common Law remedy, private compensation and those who did not proceed with their claims respectively. I think those numbers were not provided.

The final query I have which was also in my speech was about whether MOM follows up with private compensations, whether MOM inquires with employer, whether MOM takes a proactive view as to whether that compensation is fair vis-a-vis WICA.

On the first point on the PQs, yes, we checked by PQs filed so I mentioned that there were no PQs filed. To me, I think what is more important is that, we are all here, like I said, it is never too late to start.

The second point, on R's case, there were two triggers. One was it was after more than one year. The second one, if you notice, after we admitted the case, we agreed that it was indeed one that WICA can cover or WICA should cover. So, in my earlier speech, I did mention that both employer and employee did not think it was a WICA case or it was a work-related case. So, therefore, as a result, I do not think anyone thought – whether the employer or the worker – none of them felt it was work-related injury. So, that was why it was not picked up, to begin with. And why MOM rejected in the first place was that it was beyond the first year. Upon appeal, we reviewed it, as I said, and we took it into consideration. After the case was admitted, we were then able to look deeper into the case and interviewed both employer and employee to understand why it was that way. So, at the end of the day, I think employee still got the case done and it was treated as WICA.

On the statistics that were asked for, I do not think this is the right platform to provide that. I think it is better that the Member files a PQ to get the statistics. We have it but we have to prepare it for you in the way you have asked for it.

And the last question was about —

Under the old WICA, we did not track private settlements but, moving forward, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, insurers have to report back on the outcomes of the cases that they handled. So, therefore, it will be more meaningful for us to use the database, moving forward with the new WICA.

Like I said, there were two trigger points. First was, I suppose, beyond one year, the case was not able to be admitted, to begin with. So, therefore, at that point in time, it was not possible to determine the facts of the case and to determine whether truly or not, the accounts were valid and the views were valid. It was only after the fact, when MOM had spoken to both employer and employee, were they able to establish that both of them did not think it was a work injury case. It would not have been practical to have just assumed, at face value, until you go deeper into investigations and of which after investigations and after we admitted the appeal, we understood the case better and, therefore, we admitted the case and awarded it accordingly.

I think in this case the employee had also made the application two years after the incident and after leaving the firm so, therefore, at face value, it had breached the one-year liability by the employer. So, to that extent, it was rejected upfront. After appeals – and this is what we do – on appeal, we reviewed the case, we investigated deeper. And, therefore, upon investigation we find that both of them did not think it was but, after clarifications, we took the case in.

MOM will define a core set of insurance terms and conditions to prevent unfair exclusion. Since we are encouraging older workers to remain employable, will MOM ensure that the insurance companies will provide coverage for all workers, regardless of age, as long as they are manual or non-manual employees earning up to $2,600? I think there should be no exclusion clauses, especially in fine print, to deny any age group because it will affect their employability. Can I have that assurance that all age groups will be covered?

Well, we have not reached the part where we define the terms for this insurance but, certainly, we will study it and take it on board and take the Member's suggestions on board.

This is on the self-employed persons. I agree with the Minister of State that the problem is service buyers lack the economy of scale to provide WIC coverage. But Government is a large service buyer; so, could Government consider leading the way when buying services from self-employed persons to provide WIC-equivalent coverage, much as you are already going to be doing for contribute-as-you-earn in the future.

The relationship, as I mentioned, between self-employed persons and employers are very different. Employers set the conditions in which you work and, therefore, you deal with WICA in this case. There is a lot more certainty in the environments that you are dealing with. For self-employed persons, as I mentioned, the self-employed person serves multiple buyers, not just the Government but someone else. So, it is difficult to manage in that sense. But having said that, we will continue to encourage them to undertake both personal accident insurance as well as PML. I think that is the logical thing to do and, perhaps, that will be priced in, hopefully, as how they charge for their service. We have seen, as I mentioned, the major players coming on board and we will encourage others to do so and continue the effort.

I would answer the second question first, on mental illness. I have to stress again that it has to be linked to an accident. Without that link, it is not possible to cover it under this Act. So, this Act is really about accidents. In an accident case where you have PTSD, for example, that will be something we could cover but you have to show that cause, diagnosed by a doctor, to show that link to an accident. Then, you can claim for it.

As for insurers, the one thing that is different with the new WICA and the old WICA is that we are licensing the insurers. In certain sense, you cannot sell WICA insurance. If you want to get into this business, you have to abide by the regulations. So, that is the ultimate assurance that we can give employers, in terms of the terms that the WICA insurers set. There cannot be certain exclusions. There are certain terms we need them to cover and these will be covered. At the same time, the database for the insurers as well, there is assurance that employers do not under-insure. So, the whole scheme of things works by providing more transparency for both the employer, the insurer as well as the worker. There is a certain sense that the assurance is being provided to create a different eco-system that is based on greater transparency.

Can the Minister of State give an example of a mental illness as a result of work accident that is claimable under WICA?

As I have mentioned earlier, one example is PTSD. So, we have done three and all three were PTSD-related. They suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after an accident that they faced. Apart from this physical injury, they also had mental injury as a result.

*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. – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad].*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*