The Answer in 60 Seconds

The Top Executive Workplace Safety and Health Programme (TEWP) mandate took effect 1 March 2024, requiring every company in higher-risk sectors (construction, manufacturing, marine, and transport and storage) to have at least one top executive (the CEO, an executive director or a similar officer) who has completed a three-hour WSH programme. The mandate is enforceable under the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006, the same statute that imposes director-level liability for WSH failures. Singapore's workplace fatality record - 43 workplace deaths in 2024 per MOM, declining to 36 deaths in 2025 - is the policy backdrop. Under section 50 of the WSH Act, a body corporate convicted of an offence under the Act for which no penalty is expressly provided faces a maximum fine of S$500,000, rising to S$1 million under section 51 for a repeat offence that causes another death; separately, the maximum fines for serious-risk breaches of the WSH subsidiary regulations were raised to S$50,000 from 1 June 2024. Individual director and officer liability flows through section 48 ("Offences by bodies corporate, etc."), under which an officer is guilty of the company's WSH offence and liable to be punished accordingly unless the officer proves that it was committed without his or her consent or connivance and that he or she exercised all due diligence to prevent it. The TEWP mandate operationalises the director-knowledge expectation. The D&O question is how the policy responds to defence costs when a director is investigated or prosecuted for a WSH offence.

The Regulatory Architecture

Singapore's workplace safety framework rests on the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 and the regulations and codes of practice made under it. The Act imposes duties on employers, principals, occupiers, manufacturers, and - critically - directors and "officers" of corporate entities. The statutory architecture is what makes WSH a board-level concern rather than an operational one.

Section 12 of the WSH Act - Employer Duties

Every employer has a duty under section 12 to take, so far as is reasonably practicable, such measures as are necessary to ensure the safety and health of employees at work. The "reasonably practicable" standard sets the operational bar. Compliance with the WSH-prescribed codes of practice - including the Approved Code of Practice on Chief Executives' and Board of Directors' WSH Duties (issued 2022) - is treated as evidence of reasonably practicable conduct.

Section 50 - Penalties for Body Corporate

Under section 50, a body corporate convicted of an offence under the Act for which no penalty is expressly provided faces a maximum fine of S$500,000. Under section 51, the maximum is S$1 million where the body corporate has a previous conviction for an offence under the Act that caused a death and is convicted of the same offence causing another death. Separately, the maximum fines for breaches of the WSH subsidiary regulations that could result in death, serious bodily injury or a dangerous occurrence were raised to S$50,000 (from S$20,000) with effect from 1 June 2024.

Section 48 - Liability of Directors and Officers

The provision that imposes personal liability on directors. Section 48(1) provides that where an offence under the Act has been committed by a body corporate, an officer of the body corporate (including a director, chief executive, manager, secretary or other similar officer) shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be punished accordingly, unless the officer proves that the offence was committed without his or her consent or connivance and that he or she exercised all such diligence to prevent it as he or she ought to have exercised. Punishment includes both fines and imprisonment.

The "officer" definition is broad and reaches beyond named directors to include managers and similar functional roles. The practical test is due diligence: an officer who cannot prove that he or she exercised all due diligence to prevent the company's offence is guilty of it. The WSH Council's FAQs on the Code of Practice say the courts may take into account the measures it lists, such as acquiring WSH knowledge, in deciding whether chief executives and board directors exercised due diligence.

The Approved Code of Practice on Chief Executives' and Board of Directors' WSH Duties

The ACOP, published by the Workplace Safety and Health Council, articulates the operational expectations for chief executives and boards. It covers the establishment of WSH policy, the allocation of resources to WSH, the integration of WSH into business decisions, the review of WSH performance, and the establishment of accountability frameworks. Compliance with the ACOP is treated as evidence that the chief executive and board are discharging their duties.

The Code of Practice was issued in 2022. The WSH Council's FAQs on it say it gives guidance on behaviours that the courts may take into account in deciding whether chief executives and board directors exercised all due diligence to prevent an offence under section 48(1).

The TEWP Mandate: Operational Detail

The Top Executive Workplace Safety and Health Programme (TEWP) was introduced by MOM and the WSH Council as a structured training requirement for top executives in higher-risk sectors. The mandate took effect 1 March 2024.

Scope of the TEWP Requirement

The mandate applies to companies in the following higher-risk sectors, each of which must have at least one top executive who has completed the TEWP:

  • Construction (including building, civil engineering, and demolition).
  • Manufacturing.
  • Marine (shipyard, port operations).
  • Transport and storage (SSIC codes 49 to 53, except the two codes MOM lists under marine).

For a company, the officer who completes the TEWP must be the chief executive officer, an executive director or a similar officer; for a sole proprietorship or partnership, the owner or a partner. The WSH Council's FAQs say a COO or CFO qualifies only if appointed a board director in charge of WSH. A subsidiary needs its own CEO or board director who directly manages it, even one stationed overseas; the parent company's CEO or director does not count unless directly managing the subsidiary.

Content of the TEWP

The TEWP curriculum covers:

  • Singapore WSH legal framework, including an overview of the WSH Act 2006.
  • Director and officer liability under section 48 of the WSH Act.
  • Ways to prevent accidents.
  • The Approved Code of Practice on Chief Executives' and Board of Directors' WSH Duties.
  • Practical case studies from Singapore workplace incidents and the lessons drawn.
  • Risk assessment and risk management frameworks.
  • How to avoid common workplace incidents, and where to get help to build WSH capabilities.
  • WSH governance - how the top executive integrates WSH into board reporting, management decisions, and resource allocation.

The programme is a three-hour course, in person or online, run by training providers acceptable to the Commissioner for Workplace Safety and Health; MOM lists NTUC LearningHub, SCAL Academy and Absolute Kinetics Consultancy. The WSH Council enhanced the programme in 2026.

Completion Timeline and Enforcement

Every company in scope must ensure that, at all times, at least one specified officer has completed the TEWP. Companies in scope on 1 March 2024 had to comply from that date. A business that starts in a high-risk industry on or after 1 March 2024 has 3 months from its start to comply, and a company whose last TEWP-trained officer leaves has 3 months from that date. The WSH Council's FAQs say the certificate need not be submitted to MOM or the Council unless they ask for it.

Failure to comply is a criminal offence under regulation 38B(4) of the Workplace Safety and Health (General Provisions) Regulations, made under the WSH Act: the company is liable on conviction to a fine of up to S$20,000, and to a further fine of up to S$1,000 for every day the offence continues after conviction.

The Workplace Fatality Backdrop

The TEWP mandate sits in the context of Singapore's workplace fatality record. The numbers shape the policy environment, the underwriting environment, and the operational pressure on top executives.

2024 Fatalities

Per the MOM workplace fatality reporting for 2024, there were 43 workplace deaths during the year. The construction sector accounted for 20 of the 43 deaths, nearly half and the most of any industry.

2025 Fatalities

Per the MOM workplace fatality reporting for 2025, there were 36 workplace deaths during the year, a decline from 2024. Construction remained the leading sector by absolute count, with 13 deaths; transport and storage recorded 7 and manufacturing 4.

The Policy Implication

Singapore's WSH 2028 goal is to keep the workplace fatality rate below 1.0 per 100,000 workers. The MOM enforcement intensity, the TEWP mandate, the WSH mandatory video surveillance for construction sites with a contract sum of S$5 million and above effective 1 June 2024, and the increase in maximum fines under the WSH regulations from the same date all express the same policy stance. MOM described the increase in maximum fines as a step towards "strengthening ownership and accountability of WSH, particularly among senior company leadership".

D&O Underwriting Implications

The TEWP mandate, the June 2024 increase in maximum fines, and the workplace-fatality enforcement intensity are the backdrop to D&O cover for directors of in-scope SMEs.

How D&O Wordings Treat WSH Matters

What a D&O policy pays on a WSH matter is set by its wording. Chubb's Elite D&O wording, for example, has an extension covering Defence Costs and Legal Representation Expenses for a Claim or Investigation alleging a breach of the Workplace Safety and Health Act.

Points to Check at Renewal

Three points to check at a 2024-2026 D&O renewal:

TEWP completion and the wording. Whether the proposal form asks about TEWP completion, and whether any term of the policy depends on it.

Regulatory-defence sub-limit. Whether the sub-limit for investigation and regulatory defence costs is enough to defend a complex WSH investigation through to charge.

Pre-existing circumstances. What the proposal form asks about near-miss incidents, prior MOM notices and pending WSH investigations, and how the policy treats circumstances known before it began.

What Is Insured and What Is Not

A D&O policy can cover defence costs for WSH investigations and prosecutions while not covering criminal fines imposed on the director personally; civil fines and civil penalties can be covered, subject to the wording and to insurability. The exclusion is in the wording: Chubb's Elite D&O wording, for example, says Loss does not include "criminal fines or penalties"; DUAL's excludes fines and penalties, civil or criminal, that are uninsurable at law.

The civil/criminal distinction matters at section 48 - an officer found guilty under it is liable to both fines and imprisonment. The D&O defence-costs cover responds throughout the proceeding. Whether the policy pays the financial outcome depends on the wording and on whether the outcome is criminal or civil.

The Operational Checklist for In-Scope SMEs

The TEWP mandate's operational consequences for an in-scope SME run beyond the named top executive's training completion. The full checklist:

  • TEWP completion by at least one specified officer (the CEO, an executive director or a similar officer) at all times, with completion records retained.
  • Board-level WSH governance. Documented WSH policy, board-level WSH reporting, allocation of resources to WSH, integration of WSH into operational decision-making.
  • WSH risk assessment and mitigation framework, updated annually and after material operational changes.
  • Incident response protocol, including the MOM WSH Incident Reporting eService workflow and the internal escalation chain.
  • Bizsafe certification. The WSH Council's bizSAFE programme provides a tiered framework (bizSAFE Level 1 through STAR). The WSH Council says a bizSAFE certificate is often a key requirement for contracts and tenders.
  • Sub-contractor and principal-contractor coordination. Where the SME engages sub-contractors, principal-contractor duties under the WSH Act extend to oversight of sub-contractor WSH performance.
  • Mandatory video surveillance compliance for construction sites with a contract sum of S$5 million and above, at locations where high-risk work is carried out, with effect from 1 June 2024.
  • D&O renewal preparation - pre-renewal review of limit adequacy, retroactive position, regulatory-defence sub-limit, and any policy term that depends on TEWP completion.

Interaction with Other Regulatory Frameworks

The WSH framework interacts with several other regulatory regimes that produce parallel exposures for directors.

Work Injury Compensation Act 2019. The WICA framework provides the no-fault compensation scheme for workplace injuries. The WICA insurance is separate from D&O cover; both can respond to a single workplace incident - WICA pays the injured worker, D&O responds to director investigation and prosecution.

Criminal Code framework. Serious WSH failures can attract Penal Code charges (e.g., negligent acts endangering human life under section 336, or causing death by a negligent act under section 304A). Where the conduct meets the Penal Code threshold, charges can be laid alongside or instead of WSH Act charges.

Companies Act 1967. A director's duty under section 157 to act honestly and use reasonable diligence extends to WSH oversight. A director who fails to monitor WSH compliance may simultaneously breach Companies Act duties and WSH Act duties.

IRDA 2018. The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 wrongful-trading provisions can be triggered where a company continues to trade while insolvent and a workplace incident produces an uninsured liability that pushes the company further into insolvency.

Common Mistakes Singapore SMEs Make on the TEWP Mandate

Treating TEWP as a tick-the-box exercise. The training content reflects the operational expectation. A director who completes the training but does not apply the framework to operational decisions is no better positioned than one who skipped it.

Failing to maintain post-completion engagement. TEWP completion is the entry point, not the destination. Ongoing WSH governance - board reporting, risk-assessment updates, incident reviews - is the substance.

Allowing D&O retroactive drift at renewal. Disclosure of any near-miss incidents, MOM enquiries, or pending matters at renewal is critical; non-disclosure that surfaces at claim time can support an avoidance argument.

Assuming D&O covers criminal fines. Check the wording: Chubb's Elite D&O wording, for example, says Loss does not include "criminal fines or penalties", and DUAL's excludes fines that are uninsurable at law. The defence-costs cover responds throughout; the financial outcome (if criminal) is the director's personal exposure where the wording excludes it.

Forgetting sub-contractor and principal-contractor liability. Principal-contractor duties extend to sub-contractor WSH oversight. The SME's own employees are not the only exposure.

Underestimating the cost of MOM investigation defence. The regulatory-defence sub-limit should be tested against current cost profiles.

Not coordinating WICA and D&O on a single incident. A workplace fatality triggers both. The notifications, the defences, and the records should be coordinated; a single internal contact for both streams is the typical workflow.

What This Means for Your Business

If you are a top executive of a Singapore SME in construction, manufacturing, marine, or transport and storage, the TEWP mandate applies. Completion is the operational baseline, but the substance is the ongoing WSH governance the training prepares you for.

Your D&O programme is the financial backstop. The licensed adviser handling the programme should walk you through the limit adequacy analysis, the regulatory-defence sub-limit position, the retroactive-date treatment, and the TEWP-completion warranty (if any). The cost of these adjustments is small relative to the cost of facing an MOM investigation with inadequate cover.

For SMEs outside the in-scope sectors that do not employ work pass holders under the Construction, Manufacturing, Marine shipyard or Process sectors, the TEWP mandate does not apply, but the underlying WSH Act framework does. Section 48 director liability operates across all sectors. The operational discipline - documented policy, board-level governance, incident response - is the right posture regardless of strict TEWP applicability.

Questions to Ask Your Adviser

  1. Does the proposed D&O policy require TEWP completion as a condition or warranty, and what is the consequence if a named top executive's certification lapses or was incomplete at inception?
  2. What is the regulatory-defence sub-limit on my current and proposed policy, and how does it compare to recent MOM-investigation defence-cost profiles for SMEs in my sector?
  3. How does the policy respond to defence costs in a parallel WICA claim, MOM investigation, and (if applicable) Penal Code prosecution arising from a single workplace incident?
  4. What is the retroactive-date position on renewal, and what disclosure obligations apply for near-miss incidents and MOM enquiries that occurred during the prior policy year?
  5. For criminal fines imposed on me personally under section 48, does my policy respond, and if it does not, what alternative personal-protection structures does the market offer?
  6. How does the cover coordinate with the company's WICA programme on a single workplace fatality - who notifies first, and how are defence costs allocated?
  7. If I am a top executive of a Singapore subsidiary of a foreign-parented group, does the parent's global D&O programme respond to Singapore WSH liability, or do I need a local Singapore-issued layer?
  8. What is the indicative annual cost of upgrading the regulatory-defence sub-limit to a level matching the current MOM investigation cost profile, and what wording amendments are available to expand the defence-costs trigger?

Related Information

Published 14 May 2026. Source verified 14 May 2026.