Rationale for Requiring Both Employers and Doctors to Submit Incident Report after Diagnosis of Occupational Disease
Ministry of ManpowerSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns MP Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang’s inquiry on why both employers and doctors must report occupational diseases while only employers report workplace injuries. Senior Minister of State for Manpower Mr Zaqy Mohamad explained that doctor reporting for occupational diseases is vital because diagnoses may occur long after a worker has left a job, unlike injuries where the workplace link is direct. This requirement ensures cases are not missed and helps expedite claims, whereas the single reporting channel for injuries avoids placing an unnecessary administrative burden on healthcare workers. To address under-reporting, Senior Minister of State for Manpower Mr Zaqy Mohamad noted that the Work Injury Compensation Act now mandates reporting from the first day of medical leave and imposes penalties for non-compliance. He emphasized that these processes safeguard employee interests and maintain a lean reporting system by closing historical loopholes and involving stakeholders in identifying issues.
Transcript
6 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower what is the rationale for requiring both employers and doctors to submit an incident report after an occupational disease has been diagnosed but requiring only the employer to report a death or injury arising from a work-related or workplace accident.
The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, doctors are required to report to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) patients with occupational diseases (ODs) caused by their work environment or activities related to their work, but not patients with workplace injuries. This is because unlike workplace injuries, a person diagnosed with an OD may have already moved on from the job that caused the OD or be working for a different employer, or may not be working at all, at the time of diagnosis. Requiring doctors to submit such incident reports ensures that these cases are not missed out, helps to expedite the work injury claims process and safeguards employees' interests, as insurers and MOM are informed in a timely manner.
On the other hand, there is no need for doctors to report workplace injuries as the link between the injury, the workplace accident and the employment relationship is generally more direct. Hence the responsibility is placed on employers and occupiers to report these injuries, so there are two reporting channels.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng, a short supplementary question, please, because we have to end at about 11.00 am.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. Can I just ask how is MOM making sure that there is no under-reporting of workplace injuries?
Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Well, I thank the Member. Firstly, I think on the regulation than 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Workplace Safety and Health (Incident Reporting) Regulations, employers and doctors who fail to report diagnosis, for OD, for example, can be fined $500 for the first offence. They could also be jailed up to six months or receive a fine of up to $10,000, if they do not report. So, the laws are there, mandating reporting of injuries as well as ODs.
And at the same time, I think the Member is also aware that when we amended Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA), for example, we have now closed some of these loopholes, where now you have to report from day one of your medical certificate (MC) as opposed to in the past you could – there were some doctors who gamed – some employees who gamed when they did not have to report short duration MCs for example. We have closed the loopholes as and when we find them and we would like to work with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), members of the public or even employees themselves, who could also report to us some of these cases so that we can better understand if there are any loopholes. But at this moment, it does not look as such because we have closed as many loopholes as possible and reporting is mandated from day one.
I assure the Member that the process is in place, but what is more important is that we want to keep the process lean so that it reduce the amount of duplication. The Member himself, also said in this House during the Committee of Supply that some of our healthcare workers already quite stretched. So, the last thing we want is to add administrative burden to them when we do not really need it.
11.00 am
Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]