MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1977 TO 31ST MARCH, 1978
Sir, may I first deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Potong Pasir. Briefly, the Member is concerned with two matters, that is, industrial dermatitis and noise-induced deafness. For the benefit of Members of the House, industrial dermatitis simply means a skin disease. So I prefer to use this term from now on instead of using the technical term. Industrial dermatitis and noise-induced deafness were added to the list of compensable occupational diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1975. It came into operation on the 1st October of that year. 2.45 p.m. On skin diseases, the Ministry has not conducted any survey recently but the figures of notification for the past two years for these two diseases are available, and for the information of Members they are as follows. There were 9 cases of skin diseases in 1975 and 187 in 1976. For noise-induced deafness, no case was registered in 1975 and 912 cases were detected in 1976. Hon. Members should not be alarmed by this figure as I will explain further on this. 870 of these were early cases and only 42 cases were what we regard as proper cases. So do not be alarmed with the high figure. The reason for the increase in the number of skin diseases confirmed in 1976 was due to the compulsory reporting of these cases by medical practitioners under the law. Prior to that, there was no requirement. So there might be cases that did not come to the attention of the Ministry of Labour. Most of these skin diseases were due to the handling of engineering oil or some raw materials, about 56.7% of them resulted from the handling of engineering oil; 10.7% from handling of resins; 8.6% due to solvents; another 8.6% due to handling of fibreglass; 2.1% on cement; 2.1% on paint; and the others about 11.2% A programme of prevention has been developed and the main task of this programme was the education of workers to minimise skin contact with the irritating and allergic substances through the use of proper protective covering, such as protective clothings, aprons, gloves, face shields and other barrier cream which the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned earlier. To launch this programme the Ministry printed and distributed 3,500 copies of a pamphlet on industrial skin diseases in two languages, namely, Chinese and English, and 1,800 copies of this pamphlet have been distributed to the various industries with known risks of industrial skin diseases, such as the electronic factories, woodworking where they deal with a certain kind of adhesive gum, cement, paint and other factories. Members are probably aware that industrial skin diseases are by and large a transient kind of disease. They are temporary in the sense that the condition may last for only a few days to a few weeks and very rarely result in residual disability. Once the worker is detected and is removed from the contact of the offending substance or is isolated from the environment, his condition invariably improves. The question of the great increase of 912 cases of noise-induced deafness reported was largely due to the introduction of the mobile audiometric screening programme for the noisy industries. It was started in May 1977. The screening programme covered a total of 1,731 employees from 33 shipyards and 942 employees from 20 other noisy industries, such as the bottling, cement and concrete pipe-manufacturing factories, etc. By the end of 1976, a total of 912 noise-induced deafness cases were detected. The majority of these cases were in the early stages and only a small number of 42 cases were severe enough to attract workmen's compensation. The Ministry has developed a hearing conservation programme as a preventive measure to control noise-induced deafness. The main emphasis of this hearing conservation programme, which has been widely publicised, is to educate and persuade workers to put on hearing protectors while at work. Noise control is carried out only when it is considered technically and economically feasible by the factories. Pamphlets on noise-induced deafness in three languages. Chinese. English and Malay, and also a booklet on the hearing conservation programme have been published and distributed free of charge to those industries with the risk of hearing loss. About 3,000 of the pamphlets have been distributed to noisy factories, such as shipyards, textiles, metal and other manufacturing establishments. Over 600 copies of the hearing conservation programme booklets have been distributed to shipyards, metal can manufacturing. woodworking, textile and other factories. At this stage. I might wish to draw a line that the hearing conservation programme is distinct from noise pollution control. In the United States, there were arguments as to whether 90 decibels should be the accepted norm instead of 85 decibels. So there was a research trying to reduce 90 decibels down to 85 decibels and they discovered that for every point reduced from 90 to 85 decibels it would cost the industry somewhere around US$2 billion. I do not think Singapore has reached that stage to mount that noise pollution control which is quite distinct from the hearing conservation programme. So we are launching on a more practical approach to this problem rather than throw the problem out of its proportion. I just want to give the hon. Member some statistics on the number of cases of industrial dermatitis and also the amount of compensation paid. They are as follows:- Temporary Permanent Amount of Year incapacity incapacity Compensation No. of No. of cases cases 1975 6 Nil $ 210.59 1976 109 1 $5,400.97 1977 Up to 12th March 22 - $ 360.13 -------------------------------------------- Total 137 1 $5,971.69 -------------------------------------------- May I now deal with the hon. Member for Kim Seng. The Workmen's Compensation Act provides sufficient basis and guidelines for the award of loss of earning capacity in respect of permanent incapacity suffered by our workmen as a result of injuries while at work. The First Schedule to the Act specifies the percentage to be awarded for the loss of use of the various members of the body. The listing in the Schedule is very comprehensive and covers even the loss of parts of a member, that is, for example, the loss of phalanx. There is therefore no difficulty for the doctor to make an award for such injuries. However, I agree with the Member that there are certain types of injuries, such as those involving fractures or internal injury which cannot be quite easily determined as to the loss of capacity. It may be possible to have differing medical assessments on the loss of use of the part concerned. Where such differences of opinion occur, although very rarely, it is the practice of the Ministry to refer the injured workman for a final assessment by a specialist. The Ministry is aware of the need for uniformity in medical assessment for these types of injuries. It is, in fact, taking steps to seek the assistance of the Ministry of Health to draw up guidelines for doctors to follow on the same basis as those listed on the First Schedule of the Act. As to whether or not we should constitute a board or panel. I think the objective is the same. Rather than set up another administrative barrier, which may cause delay to compensation being awarded, I think the main objective is to ensure uniformity. I will bear in mind the Member's suggestion, which is a good one. We will look into that. In the case of an injured workman who refuses treatment, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for suspension of his right to compensation until he offers himself for a medical examination. The hon. Member has mentioned that there are a few cases where the injured worker, having submitted himself for treatment, subsequently stopped medication and sought the treatment of physicians of traditional methods who are registered medical. practitioners. I must say that this is a dangerous practice and the injury may be aggravated, and if confirmed by the doctor treating him, might result in legal complication and the objection by the insurance company on the quantum of the final compensation. I would appreciate that if such cases do occur the doctor treating the worker should refer the case to us. So far, there are very, very few such cases, fortunately. With regard to the other irregularity mentioned by the Member about the differences in the sensitivity to pain experienced by different workers, with different cultural backgrounds, some workers cannot bear to see the sight of an injection needle, it must be pointed out that workmen's compensation, unlike the common law, does not take into consideration such factors. The compensation awarded under the Act is based solely on the objective yardstick of the loss of earning capacity. Subjective factors such as pain and suffering should not be included in the assessment of compensation to be paid under the Act. I hope I have answered the questions raised by the hon. Members.