Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I thank all the hon. Members for speaking up in support of this amendment to the Factories Act. Let me now respond to the various comments and queries that Members have raised. First, the Chairman of the GPC for Manpower, Mr Charles Chong, asks whether we would consider transforming the Factories Act into an Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover all work areas. The answer is yes. This is, in fact, one of the recommendations of the Manpower 21 Committee. The Committee has recommended that Government consider enacting an Occupational Safety and Health Act to cover all workers at work. Government has accepted this recommendation. My Ministry is, in fact, studying the requirements and the implications of creating such a legislation. An Occupational Safety and Health Act will obviously cover a wider group of workers and cover more work places than the existing Factories Act, even after this amendment before the House. Currently, the Factories Act covers about 700,000 employees. If we adopt an Occupational Safety and Health Act for all work places, conceivably we could be covering in the region of 2 million or more workers. We are, in fact, working on this piece of legislation, and as I said earlier on, studying the various implications and how to go about formulating such a legislation. We expect the new law to be ready by sometime next year. But for the moment, we are still proceeding with this amendment to the Factories Act because we cannot wait till the new Occupational Safety and Health Act is in position. In the interim, the amended Factories Act will provide better protection for workers at their work place. Mr Charles Chong suggested that we should consider whether to bring in the work places of the domestic workers, in other words, the home, under the coverage of the Factories Act, or in the future when we enacted an Occupational Safety and Health Act, to include homes so that domestic workers, particularly the foreign domestic workers, are not exposed to dangers of falling from windows while they are cleaning high-rise windows. I think Mr Ahmad Magad has also touched on this aspect. Sir, we share the concern of Members for the safety of domestic workers working in the homes of their employers in Singapore, particularly if they have to clean windows in high-rise dwellings. We have considered the possibility of legislation to address this issue. But we concluded that legislation is, in fact, not the best approach to deal with this problem. There was, in fact, a question raised by Mr Kenneth Chen at this sitting's Question for Oral Answer. Unfortunately, time did not permit me to answer this Question. What I would like to say in response to both Mr Charles Chong and Mr Ahmad Magad is that domestic workers are employed in residential premises to do ordinary household chores. They are not trained and we cannot expect them to undertake risky jobs, unlike construction workers and other workers working in factories. In fact, there is no necessity for a foreign domestic worker to be asked to climb out of the window in order to clean the window or to be standing up in a precarious position to clean the windows of high-rise flats. There are available on the market cleaning implements with handles that can be extended which will enable a domestic worker to clean both the exterior and the interior of the windows safely, without exposing herself to any risk of falling from the window. So employers of foreign domestic workers should teach their domestic workers and provide them with the right implements to undertake this window cleaning job, and they should not require or ask them to clean the window in a dangerous or hazardous manner. It is not quite the same as construction workers. There is no recourse but the construction workers just have to work on a worksite, in an incomplete building where there are many hazards present. It is unavoidable. Therefore, we have to bring them within the coverage of the Factories Act or, in future, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) to ensure that they are given maximum protection, for instance, requiring them to use safety belts or safety harnesses if they are working on the edge of a building and if there is a danger of falling from the building. Domestic workers are not in the situation at all. They are in the safe home environment of their employers. They should not be exposed to the risk. Therefore, it would not be quite appropriate to cover them under the Factories Act or the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I have been informed that other countries which have introduced Occupational Safety and Health Act, such as US, Canada, Sweden and Germany, have also excluded domestic work from such law. They have already considered this issue and they have felt that domestic work should not be part of an OSHA legislation. So I think we should adopt the same position. The problem with the domestic workers being exposed to risks at the place of work in their employer's home is best addressed through proper public education by raising awareness among the employers and their domestic workers of some of the hazards that can be found in their home, such as cleaning windows. We should educate the employers and domestic workers so that they know what is the safe way of cleaning windows. There is no reason to put themselves at risk. I believe that with sustained public education both employers and domestic workers can learn to work out safe procedures to carry out all their domestic tasks. There will be no need for further legislation. Sir, Mr Chong also supported the section requiring factories to implement safety management systems, appoint safety coordinators, conduct safety audits and have regular inspections. This is in clause 20 and the amendment to sections 71A, 71B and 71C. But he questioned whether by requiring such an intensive or elaborate safety framework would add costs to all employers, particularly those companies that are not involved in hazardous work or deal with hazardous substances. I share his view. I agree with him. We should be rational. We should not be over-zealous in implementing our safety regulations. Our safety regulations should be applied in a focused and targeted manner. We will identify factories which have the highest risks, which are using hazardous chemicals and ensure that these factories impose the most stringent safety management system, regular inspection and safety audit in order to ensure the safety of all their workers. Whereas in the case of factories with very few hazards or no hazard at all, we do not have to impose such a heavy requirement on them. They need not be gazetted under the category of factories requiring safety management system. But they can employ or appoint one of their employees to act as a safety coordinator to deal with various safety and health issues in the factory. This safety coordinator could be one of the existing managers or supervisors, and it would of course be part of his other duties. And it would certainly not add to the cost for the employer. That is the approach that we would take and it is a sensible and rational way of requiring industries to adopt the new safety management system. It is not an across-the-board blunderbuss kind of approach. For instance, even for construction worksites which are, in some cases, quite dangerous for the workers, we have certain criteria. For example, they must have a contract value of $10 million or more before we require them to implement the safety management system because the value of the project indicates the complexity and is very often the height of the building. If you build a low-rise building, a single storey building, it is unlikely to cost a lot of money. But if you build a multi-storey building, then it is going to cost tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In which case, you must have a more elaborate safety management system. In the case of shipyards, if they employ 200 or more workers, we will require them to employ external auditors to regularly audit their safety management system. Likewise, external auditors or safety auditors will only be required for construction projects which are in excess of $30 million or more. Sir, let me now turn to Mr Ahmad Magad. Mr Magad also supports the Bill. He feels that some of the amendments are long overdue. Yes, we could have amended them earlier on, but perhaps at that point in time, it was felt that the penalties were adequate and the situation did not warrant a revision, particularly the various penalties. Now is the time to address some of these issues which is why we are prompted to review the whole Factories Act dealing with various provisions. In fact, some of the provisions were actually introduced earlier on by way of regulation. But in order to give them a stronger force of law and to ensure that non-compliance will constitute an offence, we have decided to bring in some of these provisions, particularly self-regulation into the main Act itself. So it is not as if we have not done anything to amend the Act. In 1995, we had in fact amended the Act to beef up various provisions. We have already introduced, as I said earlier on, various regulations to improve the safety situations, particularly, in the shipyard and the construction sites. Mr Magad also mentioned the large increase in penalty for occupiers who defy a "stop work" order. Under the existing Act, occupiers who violate a "stop work" order, in other words, a safety violation had been detected on the premises and we had issued a "stop work" order to protect the workers but the employer persisted in continuing with the work and therefore endangering his workers, the existing penalty is only $10,000. The amendment before this House seeks to increase the penalty to a maximum of $200,000. Let me point out that a "stop work" order is only issued when a workplace is found to be unsafe and workers are being exposed to severe risks or accidents by continuing to work on such an unsafe worksite. Therefore, when an employer deliberately violates or flouts a "stop work" order, he is actually putting the worker's life and limb at risk. We feel that, under these circumstances, a maximum fine of $10,000 is not adequate for such a blatant disregard for the workers' safety and health. One of the reasons is that in the case of, let us say, the construction industry, the construction projects are planned on a very tight schedule and the developer or owner of the building under construction often imposes liquidated damages on the contractors. And some of these liquidated damages could range from $1,000 to more than $50,000 a day for any delay. Our experience with enforcement of the Factories Act in the construction industry, for example, shows that it takes, on average, about seven to 10 days for contractors to rectify the safety defects on their worksite and then we can lift the "stop work" order and they can resume work. In other words, in certain construction projects, the liquidated damages can easily accumulate to more than $200,000 in excess of the existing fine of only $10,000. This could result in tempting some contractors, for instance, in the industry who receive a "stop work" order to disregard the order and carry on the work. In fact, the penalty is much less than what they will have to pay to the developer by way of liquidated damages. In recent years, my Ministry has found three contractors who had blatantly violated "stop work" orders issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories. The Bill therefore proposes to raise the penalty for violation of the "stop work" order by increasing the fine to $200,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both. I think this is necessary in order to ensure that contractors or factory occupiers who are served with "stop work" orders do not take this lightly and do not continue to endanger the safety and health of their employees. Mr Magad also asked whether we would consider introducing mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders. Sir, presently, the Factories Act does not have any provisions with mandatory jail sentences. But it does contain provisions to enable offenders to be penalised by a fine, or a jail sentence, or both a fine and a jail sentence. Sir, generally, contravention of the Factories Act arises as a result of failure of the employer or occupiers of the factory to take measures, such as the provisions of personal protective equipment, proper work platforms, suitable barricades or similar means to ensure the safety of workers. Failure to take measures or provide necessary safety provision is generally an act of omission rather than intentional malice. In such circumstances, I believe that the present penalty under the Act would serve as an adequate deterrent. The court will evaluate the evidence presented in each case and mete out the appropriate penalty. Whether it should include a prison term or not should be left to the court to decide. Generally, if an accident resulting in death or serious bodily injury was caused by a rash or negligent act of any person, my Ministry could also work with the Police to charge the person under the Penal Code which carries more severe penalties. Sir, the factors and circumstances leading to an accident are varied. Therefore, the option of mandatory jail sentences as a deterrent has to be considered with great caution. Nevertheless, where the circumstances warrant, my Ministry will certainly press for deterrent sentences, including sentencing repeat offenders to jail. Mr Magad also emphasised the importance of moving towards an occupational safety and health approach to enhance the working environment which is ideal, a concept which we fully support. And as I said earlier on, the Ministry is studying this issue and we will look into how to enact an OSHA legislation some time next year. Mr Magad suggested giving extended or better coverage for the various safety awards that are being made to highlight the good or best practices by various employers. I agree with him. In fact, this is something that my Ministry has been doing. We will be giving recognition to companies that have good safety records, and the best practices through our annual safety performance award. And more than just giving the awards to factories that have good records, we have been actively organising seminars and talks by inviting the award winners back to participate in these seminars and talks and inviting other employers or managements from the same industry to attend these talks so that the experience of the company that has got good practice and good safety records can be shared with the other employers. In that way, we can extend the benefits of best practices to all the other employers in the same industry. This is something that my Ministry takes on very earnestly and we would continue to do so to propagate the benefits from best practices that are already tested in the industry. We will also consider his suggestion about highlighting the importance of workers who have been able to maintain a safe working environment, holding them up as role models for other workers. In fact, this is very important and it is best done within the companies. Each company should highlight their own employees who have contributed to the safety performance of the company and give recognition to their own employees, for instance, the Safest Worker for the Month or the Safest Worker for the Week, so that their efforts to ensure work safety for all their fellow workers are recognised and noted. He also asked whether the amendment would deal with the new hazards introduced by new industries, such as wafer fabrication, bio-technology and other new industries that might be coming in the pipeline. The answer is yes. The Factories Act itself is non-specific in that sense. It applies to all the industries but we can use the provisions to deal with any new hazards that might arise in the course of economic development. May I now turn to the points raised by Dr Lily Neo. She supported the amendment but asked how the Ministry would monitor factories which are using hazardous chemicals. For instance, how would we know that a factory is using hazardous chemicals and therefore they should implement certain safety procedures? In fact, all factories are required, under the Factories Act, to be registered with the Chief Inspector of Factories. Before they start work in establishing their business and building up their factory, they are already required to inform the Chief Inspector. When applying for registration, the factory occupier must submit the necessary information, including a list of all the chemicals used within the premises, and they must include the Material Safety Data Sheet of all the chemicals that are likely to be used on the premises. Section 60A(2) of the Factories Act requires factory occupiers and employers to obtain the relevant Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of hazardous substances, including new chemicals which they may use in the course of their operation later on. This MSDS contains information on toxicity, health effect and all the safety measures that have to be taken in connection with workers who are exposed to such chemicals. This information should be made available to all employees on the premises who are exposed to these chemicals and are, therefore exposed to the hazards. The Department of Industrial Health checks the list of chemicals to identify the high-risk factories and to place them under an industrial hygiene monitoring programme and the Department of Industrial Safety will then send inspectors out to conduct regular inspections to check on the effectiveness of the control measures introduced or applied by the employers or occupiers of the premises. The Ministry also checks for compliance with the MSDS requirements at the time of factory registration as well as during subsequent inspections. For instance, if the prospective occupier tells us that they are using a particular chemical that requires a special set of safety precautions, we would check that in the design and layout of the factory and the installation of the machinery, the appropriate safety measures and precautions can be incorporated. Checks are also made on the accuracy of the information in the MSDS provided by the supplier. Dr Neo also asked why is it that with all the penalties being revised, there is a particular penalty in section 60A(3) of a fine of $5,000 for non-compliance by the supplier for not providing adequate and accurate information in the MSDS which, in this amendment, we have not amended it. Let me point out that this fine was introduced only recently in the 1995 amendment of the Factories Act and, in our current review, we felt that since it was only introduced in 1995, it is still effective as a deterrent. There is no real need to increase the penalty unlike the case of some other offences where we have revised the penalties because they were set almost 20 years ago. Dr Neo wanted to know how the Ministry ensures that only the workers who are at risk or exposed to various hazardous chemicals go for regular medical check-ups and how to ensure that such medical examinations are in fact cost-effective and are not just conducted on every worker, even though the person may not be exposed to the chemicals. Sir, workers are required to undergo specific medical examination if they are employed in any hazardous occupation listed under Regulation 2 of the Factories (Medical Examinations) Regulations to ensure that they remain fit for work within that particular factory or working environment. An example of a hazardous occupation is one which involves the use or handling of or exposure to fumes, dust or vapour of arsenic, cadmium or lead. All the various hazardous chemicals are identified and the Regulations would spell out which are the companies or occupiers who have to take special notice. If the employers are not sure which workers they should send for the medical examination, they can always consult the Department of Industrial Health. We will advise them on who are the workers who need to be sent for this medical examination on a regular basis. The employer may also consult the designated factory doctors. We have appointed about 600-odd designated factory doctors throughout the whole island who serve employers in various factories and other places which use toxic or hazardous chemicals. Where the workplace is identified to have a low exposure to the hazards that are listed in the Regulations, the frequency of medical examination may be reduced or the factory itself may be exempted from having to send workers for such medical examination. And to date, we have exempted 178 factories from medical examination required under this Regulation. If an employer has any doubt, please consult the Department of Industrial Safety. We would provide the advice and if it is found that in that particular factory, the medical examination is really not necessary, we would exempt the factory so that the employer does not incur unnecessary cost. We also update all the designated factory doctors by sending out circulars and conducting regular briefing sessions for them so that they are kept informed of the new requirements and various industry practices, particularly when new chemicals or new processes are introduced into Singapore, we would update the factory doctors so that they are well informed and knowledgeable about the changes that are taking place. Dr Neo also wanted to know how the Ministry helps to educate both the management and the workers on side effects of hazardous materials. We recognise the importance of education of the workers, occupiers or employers. As I said right at the onset in my Second Reading speech, legislation alone is not adequate. For us to succeed in creating a safe and healthy working environment, we need the full commitment of both employers and workers. And to help employers and workers better understand the hazards of the various chemicals or other risks that they are being exposed to at the workplace, my Ministry conducts training courses for safety officers, safety committee members and the workers themselves. The effect of hazardous materials which they may be exposed to are covered in these safety courses. The Department of Industrial Health also conducts workshops and talks in factories on topics such as handling of hazardous chemicals and dealing with various hazards at workplaces. In addition, during routine factory inspections, our inspectors would highlight various safety aspects of materials that are seen to be used or being handled by workers in the factory. They would highlight the danger, risk and also the safety procedures involved in handling such materials. We also publish extensive educational pamphlets and best practice guidelines on various occupational health topics which are then distributed to workers, management and to occupational health personnel during factory inspections and at our safety seminars and talks. Dr Neo also pointed out the question of spelling. I must compliment her on her eagle's eye to have noticed this little discrepancy in the way the word "liquefied" was spelt in section 6(2)(m). It was spelt with an "i" instead of an "e". We have, in fact, introduced an amendment but we have overlooked section 6(2)(m). I thank her for pointing it out to us. But I understand the word "liquefied", spelt with either an "i" and "e", is both acceptable although the spelling with an "i" is considered obsolete and the present modern form is to spell it with an "e". But that is besides the point. We should amend section 6(2)(m), as pointed out by Dr Neo, to make it consistent with the other provisions which have used the spelling of "liquefied". As this is only a question of spelling which will not affect the substance of section 6(2)(m), I suggest that we leave it to the Law Revision Commissioner under the Revised Edition of Laws Act to correct this spelling error. The Factories Act would probably be revised by the Law Revision Commissioner sometime towards the end of this year. Dr Neo asked for a flexible period for occupiers to submit their applications for factory registration. Sir, under the Act, it is an offence for a person to occupy or use any premises as an unregistered factory. The existing section 9(2) of the Act stipulates that the application for registration of factories shall be submitted not less than two months before the operation of the factory. This was set sometime ago to allow the Department of Industrial Safety to process the application and to issue a certificate of registration to the factory occupier before they actually commence operation. This amendment seeks to reduce the period of two months to one month which is already an improvement because the two months means that they have to get ready so much more in advance of the actual operation. Now, we are giving them one month's advance notice. Dr Neo asked whether we could give them a shorter period instead of a minimum of one month. The question is whether the Department of Industrial Safety would have the time to assess their application and to consider all the potential hazards that might arise from the operation of this particular factory, or the safety precautions that need to be taken. And if we do not have sufficient time to go through it thoroughly, then we would be under pressure to allow the factory operator, who has made millions of dollars of investment, to commence operation before we can clearly say that his factory is a safe place for our workers. We would prefer to stick to the present minimum period of one month to ensure that we have adequate time and opportunity to make a thorough assessment of the application to ensure that by the time all factories start operation, the question of safety would have been thoroughly studied and dealt with. I would urge Dr Neo to support this amendment to keep it at one month which would, in fact, lead to a safer working environment for all our workers. Dr Neo has asked whether occupiers would be informed if they have to comply with the provision to send certain categories of their employees for training under the new section 27(A). Sir, the answer is yes. If the Chief Inspector wishes to specify the class or description of a person who has to attend the prescribed training course, he has to make an order to be published in the Gazette under section 27A (2). Sufficient details would be provided to enable the industry to meet these provisions. I would like to assure the Member that my Ministry will also take the necessary action to inform relevant employers of this requirement. We would make the effort to inform all the relevant employers who need to send their workers who are exposed to certain hazards for training courses. Dr Neo suggested amending section 47A to ensure that every person in a factory would observe and comply with safe work procedures. The objective of the new section 47A is to make sure that occupiers and employers set up a safe working procedure for the workers and adequately inform them on the necessary actions, including measures and ways to carry out their work safely. It would not be reasonable to hold every person in a factory responsible for the action or unsafe behaviour of every other person. In the event of a worker who fails to follow the safe work procedure and puts his fellow workers at risk, he could be taken to task under the existing sections 80 and 81 of the Factories Act. In other words, there are already existing provisions when someone who misuses an appliance, which has been provided for the health and safety of his fellow workers, could be taken to task and could be penalised for such misuse. If a worker contravenes the Act by wilfully endangering himself and that of his co-workers, there is also a provision under section 81 to deal with such wilful endangerment of his fellow workers. We already have this provision to ensure that workers pay attention to safe work procedures. And if in our inspection of any factory we come across a situation where we notice such a violation, we would certainly take action. Dr Neo also asked what is the intended meaning of the word "inspector" in section 47A(4). The intention of this provision is to require the occupier of a factory or employer to keep a copy of the safe work procedures and to produce this for the perusal of the inspector who is inspecting the factory. The word "inspector" here would include any inspector from the Department of Industrial Safety, including the Chief Inspector himself. Sir, on the need for section 88(14), let me point out that under section 88(13) of the Factories Act, the existing provision covers company, co-operative society and the office bearers such as Director, Chairman, Secretary, etc. However, partnership is not included under the provision. Hence, section 88(14) is being introduced in this amendment to cover partnership and to make every partner liable under the Act. We should make this completely clear to all occupiers that even as a partner in a partnership operating a factory, every single partner is equally liable for the safety of the workers and employees. Dr Neo also enquired whether the new provision under section 89(6) covers a continuing offence. The provision to penalise an offender for a continued offence after conviction is stipulated in section 89(2) of the Act. Therefore, when an offender is convicted under the new section 89(6) with the enhanced penalty, the provisions for a continued offence would still apply. The Court may impose a fine not exceeding twice of that provided for under section 89(2) for every day during which the offence is continued. Sir, I believe that I have dealt with all the points raised by the Members. Once again, I wish to thank them for supporting the Factories (Amendment) Bill.