WE INHERITED our safety framework and legislation from the British, and made piecemeal changes to it over the years. But as our economy grew and needs evolved, there was no fundamental review to keep the system updated.

Our safety standards stagnated and accident rates remained higher than they should. There was a continuing steady flow of workplace accidents. Most were small, but each time somebody was maimed or killed, the numbers added up. And every now and again, a high-profile accident would hit the news - scaffolding collapses at a construction site, an explosion at a shipyard doing hot repair works, and in 2004 the Nicoll Highway tunnel cave-in.

Each time something happened, it was a tragedy for the worker and his family. We felt bad if it was a Singaporean worker. But even more so if it was a foreign worker, who had come all the way here at considerable expense to earn a living and support his dependants back home, but whose efforts to improve his life had instead ended in disaster for himself and his family. And many of these accidents involved foreign workers, because our safety record in construction was particularly wanting. This was on our conscience, and we needed to move quickly to make significant improvements.

We looked at the developed countries and found that the thinking on workplace safety and health had advanced dramatically. For example the British, on whom our legislation was based, had long moved on. They had evolved new principles and legislation to cope with changing practices, allocated proper responsibilities for risks at workplaces, and promoted a pervasive safety culture amongst employers and workers. Over a period of time, they had succeeded in dramatically reducing their workplace accident and fatality rates. Others like France, Germany and the US had achieved similar successes.

We looked at employers with excellent safety records. All of them took safety very seriously, and made it a command responsibility. It was not just the job of the safety officers, but of the CEO himself. For example, many MNCs had brought in advanced safety and health management systems, which they implemented in their Singapore operations. Even though they had to deal with large numbers of foreign workers, with different languages and work customs, they were able to instil good safety habits in every individual through intensive training and drilling. Safety consciousness was not just for workers, but had to be part of every level of command.

We also looked at our own SAF, which had over many years made an enormous effort to reduce vehicle and training accidents. They had worked out elaborate precautions and systems - water parades before strenuous training to prevent heat exhaustion, lightning monitoring and warning systems to minimise the risk of lightning strike, driving simulators to train national servicemen to drive safely. It took time and effort, but over the years the SAF has succeeded in bringing accident rates down.

We learnt from all of these experts, and did a complete overhaul of our safety system. We totally revamped the legislative framework with a new Workplace Safety and Health Act in 2005, and began a major programme to plug the systemic gaps and fix the shortcomings. From time to time, accidents would still occur, and we would have to deal with them. But we had developed an effective framework, with clear principles for safety management.

This would keep accident rates to a minimum, not just by responding to accidents when they occur, but by designing safety into the work processes, and pro-actively detecting and fixing unsafe practices before accidents happen.

An integral part of this new framework is the setting up of the Workplace Safety and Health Council. Workplace safety systems around the world have shown that better safety outcomes can only be achieved if all stakeholders are fully engaged.

The Council is therefore an important initiative, and I am glad that Shell Companies in Singapore chairman Lee Tzu Yang has agreed to chair it, with broad representation from employers, professional associations and the unions.

The first significant function the Council will take on is the setting of safety standards. In carrying out this function, it must be guided not by what is expedient, but by what is necessary and practical to achieve our national safety goals. Industry leaders serving on the Council have intimate knowledge about the operational challenges in each industry, and the safety procedures and requirements needed to respond to specific hazards.

Second, the Council will play a leading role in building new capabilities for workforce safety and health. For a start, it has worked with Workforce Development Agency to put in place a skills qualifications framework for workplace safety and health, leading to formal recognition of specific skills and competencies. Today, more than 50 students will graduate with Specialist Diplomas in workplace safety and health from our polytechnics. For adult workers, we will be establishing a dedicated Continuing Education and Training institute in workplace safety and health. The institute will not just be a training provider, but also a centre for research, and a platform for collaboration between academia and industry.

The biggest challenge for the Council lies in its third area of responsibility - outreach, engagement and ultimately, changing mindsets. To bring about a quantum improvement in our safety and health outcomes, every individual must take ownership of safety issues and see this as his own responsibility.

We must convince employers that a safe and healthy workplace makes good business sense. Workplace injuries and fatalities can result in not only financial expense, but also loss of reputation. A safe workplace environment and good safety record will give workers confidence that the firm has their well-being at heart, and motivate them to perform that much better.

I am encouraged that our efforts are already starting to show results. In 2004, accidents at the workplace resulted in the loss of 83 lives or 4.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers. In 2007, we brought the fatality rate down to 2.9. We should build on this achievement, and do even better. Our original aim had been to halve the workplace fatality rate to 2.5 by 2015. This looks well within reach. I think we should set a more ambitious goal, to reduce the rate to 1.8 within a decade.

We should aim not only for as good a safety record as the developed countries, but to have one of the best workplace safety records in the world.

AIM HIGHER

In 2004, accidents at the workplace resulted in the loss of 83 lives or 4.9 fatalities per 100,000 workers. In 2007, we brought the fatality rate down to 2.9. We should build on this achievement, and do even better. Our original aim had been to halve the workplace fatality rate to 2.5 by 2015. This looks well within reach. I think we should set a more ambitious goal, to reduce the rate to 1.8 within a decade.