‘All errant claimants will be taken to task’
Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower is sounding the alarm against workers who are found rorting the work injury compensation system. The programme is designed to give employees a faster and more cost-efficient alternative to securing compensation for work-related injuries.
“Making a fraudulent [Work Injury Compensation] claim is not only an abuse of investigative resources, but also an objectionable act of deceit. As such, all errant claimants will be taken to task,” the MOM said in a recent advisory.
According to Singapore employment law, the MOM said, workers convicted of making fraudulent claims “may be fined up to $15,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months, while those convicted of furnishing false information to the Commissioner or an investigation officer may be fined up to $5,000 and/or jailed up to six months”.
The warning was published after two recent cases of fraud led to four weeks of imprisonment for the workers in question. In the first instance, a worker at a furniture company allegedly suffered multiple injuries from falling backwards down a staircase while he was carrying a wooden box. A probe into the March 2019 incident, however, showed the accident had been staged.
“Footage from the company’s CCTV showed [the worker] loitering around the accident location before the incident. He appeared to be rehearsing the accident,” the MOM said.
“Shortly after, he picked up the wooden box and slowly went up the staircase. When other workers appeared in the vicinity, he slowly leaned backwards, threw the wooden box behind him and fell down the staircase. Investigations also showed that he was not tasked to carry the wooden box to carry out his work,” the ministry said.
Read more: MOM releases report on workplace safety and health
Another incident, meanwhile, involved a worker who was said to have injured his right hand “when meeting a friend outside of his worksite”. The employer filed an incident report on his behalf. The MOM, however, rejected the compensation claim since the accident “did not arise out of and in the course of his employment”.
The worker later submitted another claim, insisting the accident happened at work. Investigations revealed the worker’s account differed from those of his supervisors.
