Mr Speaker, I rise to speak on a matter close to my heart – how we can do more to support our injured workers in returning to work with dignity.
This is not just about recovery. It is about whether every worker gets a fair chance to stand back up after a fall.
Over the years, I have spoken in this House about preventing workplace fatalities, strengthening safety culture, and improving near-miss reporting. These remain critical.
But while we have invested heavily in preventing injuries, we must now invest just as seriously in what happens after.
Because for many workers, that is when the real struggle begins.
In 2025, Singapore recorded 660 major workplace injuries.
Behind each number is a worker and a family – relief that a life was not lost, but deep anxiety about recovery, income, and whether life can return to normal.
And this challenge is not limited to workplace injuries.
We are seeing more serious health conditions affecting working-age Singaporeans. A recent report highlighted rising stroke cases among those in their 30s – people who are in the prime of their working lives.
Whether from injury or illness, the pattern is the same.
The longer a worker stays away from work, the harder it becomes to return. Savings run down. Confidence drops. Stress builds. Recovery slows.
Mr Speaker, work is more than a pay cheque. It is dignity, purpose, and a sense of belonging.
That is why Return-to-Work must be treated as a core pillar of our workforce system – not a secondary consideration.
Learning from Leading Systems
If we look at leading jurisdictions, there is a clear lesson.
The most effective systems do not wait for full recovery. They support recovery through work.
In the Netherlands, employers and injured workers have clear duties, where such workers are actively reintegrated through structured plans, medical support, and suitable work arrangements.
In Australia and New Zealand, return-to-work is embedded early, with work capacity assessments, and coordinated rehabilitation support involving employers, insurers, public agencies, and healthcare professionals to support workplace reintegration.
In Ontario, Canada, nine in ten injured workers supported by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board return to work within a year through customised support and clear employer obligations to provide suitable work and accommodations.
In Germany, employers are required to offer structured reintegration processes for workers who have been absent for more than six weeks within a 12-month period.
In Sweden, the Social Insurance Agency coordinates support for workers returning to employment after prolonged illness. Employers ensure workplace adaptation and plan for return-to-work, while workers who cannot return to their previous jobs are further supported by various agencies through skills training, vocational rehabilitation, and job matching aligned with their work capacity.
Across these systems, three principles stand out: early intervention, shared responsibility, and workplace-centred solutions.
Singapore has made good progress in this area. But we can, and we should, take the next step forward.
Recommendation 1: Earlier and More Structured Intervention
First, Mr Speaker, we must intervene earlier, and more systematically.
Studies show that having structured systems in place to deliver Return-to-Work sooner is a strong determinant of whether a worker successfully reintegrates at their workplace to contribute productively and without feeling excluded.
International evidence shows that the first few weeks after injury or illness are critical.
In return-to-work, timing is everything.
If we miss the window, we lose the worker. If support comes too late, workers risk drifting into long-term absence from the workforce.
Today, while Singapore has Return-to-Work programmes, activation may not always happen early enough or consistently across sectors. This is because participation is voluntary and largely dependent on employer willingness.
We should therefore strengthen early intervention by:
encouraging earlier referral into Return-to-Work support,
establishing clearer expectations for employer engagement, and
promoting early coordination between employers, workers, insurers, and healthcare providers.
If we act earlier, we can significantly improve outcomes for workers. I am glad that the forthcoming Alliance for Action on Safety and Health for Employment Longevity intends to explore industry-led solutions to promote Return-to-Work. NTUC stands ready to support this effort.
Recommendation 2: Strengthen Employer Capability, Especially SMEs
Second, Mr Speaker, we must strengthen employer capability, especially among SMEs.
SMEs employ around 70% of our local workforce.
If they are not equipped to support Return-to-Work, many workers will fall through the cracks.
In short, if Return-to-Work does not work for SMEs, it does not work for Singapore.
Many employers want to help – but may not know how.
In leading jurisdictions, employers are supported with clear frameworks, practical tools, and access to Return-to-Work coordinators.
In Singapore, NTUC, together with MOM and SNEF, is developing the Tripartite Advisory on Providing Reasonable Accommodations to Persons with Disabilities.
This is a positive step. I urge the Ministry to consider expanding this advisory – or introducing a complementary one – to explicitly cover workers recovering from injuries and serious health conditions.
This should include practical guidance on:
• job redesign and phased return,
• workplace adjustments and assistive solutions, and
• managing productivity during recovery.
We should also explore a shared Return-to-Work support model and increase awareness and access for SMEs to trained coordinators or centralised expertise.
This will ensure that smaller firms are not disadvantaged in supporting their workers.
Recommendation 3: Better Support Workers Who Cannot Return to Their Previous Jobs
Third, Mr Speaker, we must support workers who are unable to return to their previous roles.
For some workers, especially after serious injury or illness, returning to the same job may no longer be possible.
Without structured support, these workers risk long-term unemployment and loss of livelihood.
A worker who cannot return to the same job should not be left without a future.
In Canada and parts of Europe, workers are supported through vocational rehabilitation, retraining, and job matching based on their work capacities post injury. This ensures they remain active contributors to the workforce.
In Singapore, we have strong foundations. For example, SG Enable offers Job Placement and Job Support services, which provide coaching, job matching and workplace support to help persons with disabilities enter and remain in employment.
But we can go further.
By drawing inspiration from these programmes, I propose that we develop a dedicated Back-to-Work pathway that supports workers who are unable to return to their previous jobs due to illness or injury. Facilitate transition into suitable new roles will provide our stricken family breadwinners with much needed assurance and hope of reskilling, that is aligned with their health condition.
This pathway should include:
• targeted skills training aligned with medical capacity,
• career coaching and confidence rebuilding,
• job matching with supportive employers, and
• transitional employment opportunities.
This will ensure that a health setback does not become a permanent setback.
Recommendation 4: Broaden Support Beyond Workplace Injuries
Finally, Mr Speaker, we must take a forward-looking step – to broaden support beyond workplace injuries.
Today, support pathways are strongest for work-related injuries. But for workers recovering from serious non-work-related conditions, support remains uneven.
From the worker’s perspective, there is no difference between a workplace injury and a serious illness – only the question of whether they can return to work.
The impact is the same: loss of income, reduced work capacity, and uncertainty about the future.
In countries like New Zealand, support is structured around recovery and work capacity – not just the cause of injury.
This is a direction Singapore should aspire to move towards.
I therefore suggest that the Government consider introducing a time-bound wage support scheme to help employers reintegrate workers recovering from serious health conditions.
Unlike support for persons-with-disability, there is currently no dedicated funding mechanism to incentivise employers to provide workplace accommodations for workers returning to work after serious non-work-related illnesses or medical conditions.
Therefore, such a time-bound scheme could help to offset productivity adjustments and accommodation costs as workers gradually regain work capacity.
At the same time, we should reduce financial barriers for workers.
Allowing Medisave to be used for Return-to-Work-related expenses, such as assessments and evaluations of a worker’s condition and fitness for work. These would ease out-of-pocket costs and support recovery.
Fairness must not depend on how a worker fell ill or got injured. It must depend on our commitment to help them recover.
Conclusion: A Stronger Compact for Workers
Mr Speaker, for a worker recovering from injury or illness, the journey is fought on three fronts: physical recovery, mental resilience, and financial survival.
A strong Return-to-Work system can make the difference between recovery and long-term exclusion.
As our workforce ages and working lives lengthen, such challenges will become more common. We must therefore act with urgency – and with purpose.
Sir, I call on the Government to take the next step in strengthening Singapore’s Return-to-Work ecosystem: to strengthen early intervention, equip employers, build clear pathways back to work, and ensure no worker is left behind.
A fair society is not judged only by how it protects workers from harm – but by how it helps them recover when harm occurs.
Let us build a system where recovery does not end at discharge, but leads back to work, dignity, and a second chance.
Because at NTUC, we strongly believe that Every Worker Matters.
