Mastering the Mandate: A Comprehensive Guide to Singapore’s WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 for Developers and Designers

The Philosophical and Legal Foundations of Design for Safety (DfS)

The landscape of construction safety in Singapore has undergone a profound and deliberate transformation, marking a strategic move away from a reactive, site-centric approach to a proactive, design-led philosophy. 

At the heart of this evolution is the concept of Design for Safety (DfS), a framework that is reshaping responsibilities, redefining risk, and fundamentally altering the legal liabilities across the entire construction value chain. 

For developers and designers, understanding DfS is no longer a matter of best practice but a critical component of legal and commercial viability.

 

The Paradigm Shift: From On-Site Hazard Control to Upstream Risk Elimination

 

Traditionally, the burden of ensuring a safe construction site fell almost exclusively on the contractor. 

This model was inherently reactive; it involved managing hazards as they appeared on-site, often through procedural controls and personal protective equipment (PPE).1 

The design of a building was handed down, and the contractor was left to grapple with the practical safety implications of its construction, maintenance, and eventual demolition. 

This approach was fundamentally inefficient and often inequitable, placing the responsibility for managing risks on the party who had the least influence over their creation.2

The introduction of the WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 represents a fundamental legal and philosophical realignment of accountability. 

It is a deliberate legislative action to shift the legal onus from the consequences of risk—accidents on a construction site—to the creation of risk, which occurs during the design and planning phases in the offices of developers and designers.1 

This “upstream” approach is rooted in the core principle of Singapore’s overarching Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act: to reduce risk at its source.3 

DfS is formally defined as the process of identifying and reducing safety and health risks through good design during the conceptual and planning phases of a project.4 

It is not merely an additional compliance task but a cultural shift that mandates collaboration and shared ownership of safety outcomes from the very inception of a project.7

 

Singapore’s Legislative Journey: The Rationale Behind Mandating DfS

 

The path to mandatory DfS in Singapore was a gradual and consultative one, reflecting a data-driven approach to policymaking. 

The concept was first introduced to the industry through the voluntary “Guidelines on Design for Safety of Buildings and Structures” in 2008.3 

The intent was to encourage stakeholders to consider safety implications during the design phase. However, by the mid-2010s, it became evident that voluntary adoption was insufficient to drive the necessary industry-wide change.4

Recognizing this gap, the government, through the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council, moved decisively towards legislation. 

A taskforce comprising government agencies and key industry stakeholders was formed to develop a regulatory framework that would place clear legal duties on those who procure and design construction projects.8 

This process culminated in the gazetting of the Workplace Safety and Health (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015, which came into full legal effect on 1 August 2016 for all qualifying projects where a designer was appointed after that date.4 

This transition from guidance to a legal mandate was a clear signal that addressing safety at the design stage was no longer optional but a legal imperative.

 

The Statistical Imperative: Linking Design Decisions to Workplace Fatalities

 

The legislative move to mandate DfS was not arbitrary; it was underpinned by compelling and alarming evidence. 

Multiple studies, both local and international, have consistently demonstrated a direct correlation between decisions made during the design phase and accidents that occur on-site. 

It is estimated that design-related issues contribute to approximately one-third of all workplace fatalities and a similar proportion of serious, non-fatal injuries in the construction sector.2 

This stark statistic revealed that a significant portion of workplace incidents were, in effect, “designed into” the projects long before construction began.

The construction industry in Singapore remains a high-risk sector. In 2024, the industry accounted for 20 workplace deaths, nearly half of the national total of 43, and this number has been climbing steadily since 2020.10 

While the rate of major injuries has seen a decline, the fatality rate underscores the persistent dangers inherent in construction work.10 More recent data from the first half of 2025 shows 76 incidents of deaths and major injuries in the sector.12 

These ongoing risks reinforce the critical importance of the DfS regulations. By intervening at the design stage, the framework aims to eliminate a substantial root cause of these incidents, making sites inherently safer and reducing the reliance on fallible human-based controls during the high-pressure construction phase.

 

Deconstructing the WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015

 

To navigate the DfS framework effectively, developers and designers must first understand its legal architecture. 

The WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015, a key piece of subsidiary legislation under the main WSH Act, provides the legal teeth for this new safety paradigm.4 

It sets out clear objectives, defines the scope of its application, and establishes a specific legal vocabulary that all stakeholders must comprehend.

 

Core Objectives and Scope of the Legal Framework

 

The regulations are built upon three primary objectives that collectively aim to create a safer built environment throughout its entire lifecycle 8:

1. Place Responsibility on Risk Creators: The foremost objective is to place the legal and ethical responsibility for worker safety and health on the stakeholders who create the risks—namely, developers and designers.8
2. Manage Risks Upstream: The regulations mandate the management of WSH risks at the earliest possible stage, during the design and planning phases, where changes are most effective and least costly to implement.1
3. Improve Stakeholder Coordination: They aim to foster better coordination, collaboration, and communication among all parties involved—developers, designers, and contractors—throughout every phase of a project’s lifecycle, from conception to demolition.8

 

Applicability Checklist: Determining if Your Project is Subject to the Regulations

 

A critical first step for any developer is to determine whether their project falls under the mandatory purview of the DfS Regulations. 

The legislation applies a strategic filter, designed to target high-risk, large-scale commercial projects where the potential for complex hazards is greatest, while exempting smaller projects and private homeowners.14

The regulations are mandatory if a project meets all of the following three criteria 7:

1. Business Undertaking: The project must be undertaken by a developer in the course of their business. This clause specifically exempts homeowners who engage contractors for their personal dwelling.14
2. Contract Value: The contract sum for the construction work must be S$10 million or greater. This threshold was established based on data showing that approximately 80% of fatal accidents and dangerous occurrences in the construction industry were contributed by projects of this scale or larger.8
3. Planning Act Definition: The project must fall under the definition of “development” in section 3(1) of the Planning Act (Cap. 232).

In addition to these criteria, a crucial special condition applies to modifications. Any modification or alteration carried out on a building or structure that already has an existing DfS Register must comply with the DfS Regulations, regardless of the contract sum.7 

This is a vital mechanism designed to prevent the dilution of safety standards over a building’s lifespan. 

It ensures that a structure built under the rigorous DfS framework cannot have its safety features compromised by subsequent, unregulated renovations, thereby preserving the integrity of the initial safe design throughout its operational life.

To provide immediate clarity, developers can use the following checklist to assess their legal obligations at the project’s inception.

Table 1: DfS Regulations Applicability Checklist

Criterion	Question	Response
1. Nature of Project	Is the project undertaken in the course of your business?	Yes / No
2. Project Value	Is the total contract sum for construction work S$10 million or greater?	Yes / No
3. Type of Work	Does the project involve “development” as defined in the Planning Act?	Yes / No
Special Condition	Is this a modification to a structure that already has a DfS Register?	Yes / No
Conclusion	If (1 AND 2 AND 3) are YES, or if the Special Condition is YES, the WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 are mandatory.

 

A Practical Glossary: Key Legal Definitions

 

The regulations introduce specific legal terms that have precise meanings. A clear understanding of this terminology is essential for compliance.

• “Reasonably Practicable”: This is a cornerstone concept in WSH law. It does not mean all risks must be eliminated at any cost. Instead, it involves a careful balance where the degree of risk is weighed against the time, trouble, cost, and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid that risk.9 The greater the risk and severity of potential harm, the more reasonable it is to expect considerable expense and effort to be applied to reduce it. This principle governs the extent of the duties of all stakeholders.
• “Affected Person”: This term is defined broadly to establish the comprehensive, lifecycle scope of DfS. An “affected person” is any individual who carries out or is liable to be affected by the construction, maintenance, cleaning, or demolition of the structure, or for whom the structure is a workplace.6 This definition legally obligates designers and developers to consider the safety of not just the construction workers on site today, but also the facilities management team who will clean the windows in five years and the demolition crew who will take the building down in fifty years.
• “Design Risk”: This is defined as anything present or absent in the design of a structure that increases the likelihood that an affected person will suffer bodily injury.15 The inclusion of “absent” is critical; it means a risk can be created not just by what a designer includes (e.g., a fragile roofing material) but also by what they omit (e.g., the absence of a permanent anchor point for fall protection).
• “Structure”: The regulations apply to any permanent or temporary structure. This includes any part of the structure and any product, or mechanical or electrical system intended for it.9 This broad definition ensures that DfS principles are applied not only to the main building frame but also to temporary works like scaffolding and complex M&E systems like rooftop chiller plants, which are often sources of significant risk.

 

The Ecosystem of Accountability: Duties and Liabilities of Key Stakeholders

 

The WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 create a mandatory, collaborative “safety ecosystem” where legal duties are distributed among key stakeholders but are also deeply interconnected. 

A failure by one party to fulfill its obligations has direct legal and practical implications for the others. 

This structure makes isolated compliance impossible and necessitates a coordinated approach to risk management from project inception to completion and beyond.

 

The Developer: The Apex of Responsibility and the Duty of Oversight (Regulation 4-8)

 

The regulations place the primary, overarching responsibility for DfS compliance squarely on the developer. 

As the party who initiates, finances, and ultimately controls the project, the developer is positioned at the apex of the construction value chain and holds the greatest influence.14 

Their legal duties are extensive and form the foundation of the entire DfS process.

The developer’s fundamental duty, under Regulation 4, is to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the structure is designed to be safe and without risks to the health of every affected person throughout its lifecycle.17 

To fulfill this, the regulations prescribe a series of specific, non-delegable duties 15:

• Appoint Competent Persons (Regulation 5): The developer must take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that any designer or contractor they appoint is competent to perform their respective duties under the regulations.4 This requires due diligence beyond simply checking for basic qualifications.
• Provide Adequate Time and Resources (Regulation 5): A critical and often overlooked duty is the developer’s responsibility to ensure that designers and contractors are allocated sufficient time and resources to perform their DfS duties.6 This legally obligates developers to avoid imposing unrealistic deadlines or budgets that could compromise the DfS process. A lack of developer support and resource allocation has been identified as a key challenge to effective DfS implementation.18
• Provide Relevant Information: The developer must provide the design and construction teams with all relevant information about the site and project that could affect safety, such as soil investigation reports or information about existing structures.16
• Convene DfS Review Meetings (Regulation 6): The developer is responsible for convening DfS review meetings at appropriate stages of the project to facilitate the identification and mitigation of design risks.4
• Establish and Maintain the DfS Register (Regulation 7): The developer must establish and maintain the DfS Register, the central legal document that records the entire DfS process and its outcomes.4

While the developer holds these primary duties, Regulation 8 provides a mechanism to delegate two specific administrative functions to a competent person, known as the Design for Safety Professional (DFSP). 

However, it is crucial to understand that this delegation does not absolve the developer of their broader responsibilities. They remain legally accountable for ensuring the overall DfS process is effective.1

 

The Designer: The Legal Duty to Engineer Safety into the Blueprint (Regulation 9)

 

The DfS Regulations impose a direct and powerful legal duty on designers, fundamentally changing their role from purely aesthetic and functional creators to proactive safety engineers. 

Under Regulation 9, every designer involved in the project has a legal obligation to prepare a design plan that, as far as is reasonably practicable, eliminates all foreseeable design risks.6

Where a risk cannot be eliminated, the designer must propose modifications to reduce the risk to as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). 

The regulations are prescriptive about how this reduction must be achieved, mandating a specific hierarchy of controls within the design itself 17:

1. The risk must be reduced at its source.
2. Collective protective measures must be used instead of individual protective measures.

This means a designer must, by law, prioritize a solution like designing a permanent guardrail (a collective measure that protects everyone) over a design that would require workers to rely on personal fall arrest harnesses (an individual measure).17 

Furthermore, designers are legally required to provide all relevant information about the design needed for safe construction and maintenance to the person who appointed them, and they must attend DfS review meetings when requested by the developer.17

 

The Contractor: The Critical On-the-Ground Feedback Loop (Regulation 10)

 

While the DfS framework focuses on upstream activities, it recognizes the vital role of the contractor as the party that translates the design into physical reality. 

The contractor’s primary duty under Regulation 10 is to act as a critical feedback mechanism.4 

If, during the course of their work, a contractor or subcontractor identifies a foreseeable design risk that was not previously addressed, they have a legal duty to inform the developer or the main contractor of that risk as soon as is reasonably practicable.4

This duty ensures that the DfS process does not end when construction begins. It creates a continuous loop of risk identification, allowing for the capture and resolution of hazards that may only become apparent when construction methods are being planned or executed on site.

 

The Design for Safety Professional (DFSP): A Strategic Partner, Not Just a Safety Officer

 

The role of the Design for Safety Professional (DFSP) is a specialized and high-level function created by the DfS framework. It is essential to distinguish the DFSP from a traditional on-site Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Officer. 

While a WSH Officer’s role is primarily reactive—managing and controlling hazards on an active construction site—the DFSP is a proactive risk eliminator who operates upstream during the design phase.1 

The DFSP’s objective is to “design out” hazards so that the WSH Officer has fewer to manage on site.1

Under Regulation 8, a developer can formally delegate two specific duties in writing to a competent DFSP 1:

1. Convening DfS review meetings.
2. Maintaining the DfS Register.

When these duties are properly delegated, the legal liability for their performance shifts from the developer to the DFSP.1 

This makes the DFSP a crucial strategic partner for the developer, acting as the expert facilitator and custodian of the project’s legal safety record. The role demands significant expertise, and the regulations mandate stringent competency requirements. 

A DFSP must either be a registered Professional Engineer (PE) or Architect with a practicing certificate, or have at least 10 years of relevant design and construction supervision experience, in addition to completing a mandatory DfS Professional training course.21

 

Post-Construction: Enduring Obligations for Owners and Management Corporations (Regulation 11)

 

The DfS lifecycle and its chain of accountability extend far beyond the practical completion of the project. 

Regulation 11 places enduring legal obligations on the final owners of the structure to ensure that the vital safety information captured during the design and construction process is preserved and utilized for the building’s entire operational life.

Upon project completion, the developer must hand over the DfS Register to the Registered Proprietor of the building. 

For subdivided buildings, this duty falls to the Subsidiary Management Corporation (MCST).6 The owner or MCST then has a legal duty to:

• Keep the DfS Register for the entire lifespan of the structure.
• Make the register available for inspection by authorities upon request.
• Provide the DfS Register to any person who subsequently acquires the interest in the structure, ensuring the new owner is aware of its nature and purpose.14

This final step ensures that the DfS Register remains a living document, providing critical information on residual risks to those who will carry out future maintenance, renovations, or demolition works.

Table 2: Summary of Stakeholder Duties & Key Regulations

Stakeholder	Primary Legal Duties	Governing Regulation(s)
Developer	Appoint competent parties, provide adequate time and resources, convene DfS review meetings, establish and maintain the DfS Register, and ensure overall safety of the design.	Regulations 4-8
Designer	Prepare a design plan that eliminates or reduces foreseeable risks, prioritize collective protective measures, provide all relevant information, and attend DfS review meetings.	Regulation 9
Contractor	Identify any foreseeable design risks that become apparent during construction and inform the developer or main contractor.	Regulation 10
DfS Professional	(If delegated in writing) Convene DfS review meetings and maintain the DfS Register.	Regulation 8
Owner / MCST	Keep the DfS Register for the structure’s lifespan, make it available for inspection, and hand it over to any subsequent owner.	Regulation 11

 

The Compliance Roadmap: A Lifecycle Approach with the GUIDE Process

 

While the regulations establish the legal duties, the WSH Council’s “WSH Guidelines on Design for Safety” provide the practical roadmap for implementation. 

Central to this is the GUIDE Process, a phased approach to DfS reviews that is intentionally structured to integrate seamlessly with the standard stages of a construction project.3 

This alignment ensures that DfS is not an external, bureaucratic hurdle but an integral part of the project’s design development and quality assurance workflow, addressing the industry’s concern about regulations creating “just another red tape”.2 

The GUIDE process forces a disciplined “pause and review” at critical project milestones where safety interventions can have the most impact.

 

GUIDE-1: Concept Design Review

 

The GUIDE-1 review is the first and arguably most critical stage of the DfS process. It takes place during the concept or schematic design phase of a project, where fundamental decisions about the building’s form, function, and construction methodology are made.

• Objective: The primary goal of GUIDE-1 is to identify and eliminate major, high-level hazards at the earliest possible opportunity.1 At this stage, design changes are relatively easy and inexpensive to implement, offering the greatest potential for significant risk reduction.
• Activities: The review focuses on macro-level issues. This includes analyzing the site’s inherent risks (e.g., topography, soil conditions, proximity to public areas), evaluating different structural systems for their inherent safety during construction, and considering the basic layout for safe access and egress during both construction and future maintenance.3 A key outcome of this stage could be the decision to adopt a specific construction technology, such as using prefabricated building components to minimize high-risk work-at-height activities on-site.14
• Participants: The core participants in a GUIDE-1 review are the key decision-makers who can influence the project’s fundamental direction: the Developer, the Lead Designer (typically the Architect and/or key Engineers), and the appointed Design for Safety Professional (DFSP).3

 

GUIDE-2: Detailed Design & Maintenance Review

 

As the project progresses into the detailed design development phase, the GUIDE-2 review is conducted. This stage involves a more granular and technical examination of the design plans.

• Objective: The goal of GUIDE-2 is to scrutinize the specific details of the design to identify and mitigate risks related to buildability, material selection, and, crucially, the long-term safety of maintenance, cleaning, and repair operations.1 This is the phase where the lifecycle aspect of DfS is most prominent.
• Activities: The design team, facilitated by the DFSP, will examine specific elements in detail. Examples include: designing safe and permanent access to rooftop M&E equipment like chiller plants or water tanks 9; specifying safe systems for façade installation and subsequent cleaning; selecting non-slip flooring materials for maintenance areas; and ensuring adequate lighting and space for future repair works. The discussions focus on ensuring the building will be a safe workplace for all “affected persons” long after the construction is complete.14
• Participants: The GUIDE-2 review requires a broader group of technical experts. This includes the Developer, the full design team (Architects, Civil & Structural Engineers, Mechanical & Electrical Engineers, and any specialist designers), and the DFSP.3

 

GUIDE-3: Pre-Construction Review

 

The final formal stage of the DfS review process is GUIDE-3, which takes place after the main contractor has been appointed but before construction work commences.

• Objective: The primary purpose of GUIDE-3 is to ensure a safe and comprehensive handover of critical safety information from the design team to the construction team.1 It bridges the gap between the theoretical risks identified on paper and the practical realities of the construction site.
• Activities: This meeting is a structured communication session. The design team, led by the DFSP, walks the contractor’s project team (including the Project Manager, Construction Manager, and Site WSH Officer) through the DfS Register.1 They explain the key design risks that have been identified, the design measures implemented to mitigate them, and, most importantly, any
  residual risks that could not be fully eliminated through design. This information transfer is vital, as it allows the contractor to incorporate these known risks into their own site-specific risk assessments and safe work procedures, ensuring that the knowledge gained during the design phase is not lost.3
• Participants: The GUIDE-3 meeting is a collaborative session involving the Developer’s representative, the full Design Team, the Main Contractor’s key project personnel, and the DFSP.3

Table 3: The GUIDE Process at a Glance

Phase	Key Objective	Primary Participants	Typical Outcomes/Deliverables
GUIDE-1: Concept Design Review	Eliminate major, high-level hazards at the earliest project stage.	Developer, Lead Designer(s), DFSP.	High-level risk register identifying major constraints and opportunities. Key design decisions (e.g., use of prefabrication) recorded.
GUIDE-2: Detailed Design & Maintenance Review	Ensure the detailed design is safe to construct, maintain, clean, and repair.	Developer, Full Design Team (Architect, C&S, M&E), DFSP.	Detailed risk analysis of specific building components and systems. DfS Register updated with specific mitigation measures.
GUIDE-3: Pre-Construction Review	Facilitate a safe and comprehensive handover of design risk information to the appointed contractor.	Design Team, Main Contractor’s Project Team, DFSP.	Contractor’s formal acknowledgment of residual risks. Integration of DfS information into the contractor’s site-specific safety plans.

 

The Twin Pillars of DfS Compliance: Review Meetings and the DfS Register

 

The entire DfS framework rests on two interconnected pillars of compliance mandated by the regulations: the DfS review meetings (Regulation 6) and the DfS Register (Regulation 7). 

These are not merely procedural formalities; they are the primary mechanisms through which risks are identified, solutions are developed, and compliance is documented. 

The effectiveness of one is directly dependent on the quality of the other.

 

Best Practices for Conducting Effective DfS Review Meetings (Regulation 6)

 

The regulations legally require the developer to convene DfS review meetings. However, simply holding a meeting is not enough to ensure compliance or achieve meaningful safety outcomes. 

A common challenge observed in the industry is a lack of active participation from all stakeholders, with some designers feeling that construction safety is outside their purview.18 

To overcome this and transform the meeting from a passive reporting session into a dynamic problem-solving workshop, several best practices should be adopted:

• Set a Clear and Focused Agenda: The DFSP, as the facilitator, should circulate a clear agenda before each meeting. For a GUIDE-2 review, for example, the agenda might focus on specific high-risk areas like the façade system, rooftop M&E access, and basement ventilation.
• Ensure the Right People are in the Room: It is critical that attendees have the authority to make decisions. The presence of senior designers, project managers, and the developer’s representative is essential for the timely resolution of identified issues.
• Utilize Visualisation Tools: Abstract discussions about risk can be ineffective. Using 3D Building Information Modelling (BIM) models, drawings, and even physical mock-ups can help all participants, especially those without extensive site experience, to visualize the construction or maintenance process and better understand the associated hazards.1
• Foster a Collaborative, No-Blame Culture: The DFSP must create an environment of psychological safety where team members feel comfortable raising potential issues without fear of blame or criticism.25 The goal is to collectively identify and solve problems, not to assign fault.
• Document Everything: All significant risks discussed, decisions made, and actions assigned must be meticulously minuted. These minutes form a crucial part of the DfS Register and the project’s legal record.

 

The DfS Register: Your Project’s Most Critical Legal Safety Document (Regulation 7)

 

The DfS Register is far more than a project file or an administrative log. It is the central, legally mandated document of the entire DfS process.4 

Its legal significance cannot be overstated, as it transforms the abstract duty to “design for safety” into a tangible, auditable record. 

In the event of a workplace incident, MOM investigators will scrutinize the DfS Register as the definitive evidence of whether the developer and designers have fulfilled their statutory duties.4 

A well-maintained register serves as a developer’s primary legal defence, demonstrating due diligence and a systematic approach to risk management. 

Conversely, a poorly maintained, incomplete, or generic register is a direct and prosecutable indicator of non-compliance and can become a prosecutor’s key piece of evidence.4

The register serves two critical purposes 9:

1. A Record of Process: It provides evidence that the DfS review process has been properly and systematically undertaken at all required stages of the project.
2. A Communication Tool for Risk: It contains vital information about residual risks that must be communicated to downstream stakeholders, such as contractors and future maintenance teams, so they can implement appropriate control measures.

 

Structuring and Populating the Register

 

To be legally compliant and effective, the DfS Register must be a comprehensive collection of documents that tells the complete story of the project’s safety journey. 

It must contain 8:

• Meeting Records: Minutes and attendance lists from all GUIDE-1, GUIDE-2, and GUIDE-3 review meetings.
• Hazard Identification Log: A systematic log of all foreseeable design risks identified throughout the process. This should detail the hazard, the affected persons, and the associated activity (e.g., construction, maintenance).
• Risk Evaluation: An assessment of the risk level associated with each hazard, typically using a risk matrix to evaluate likelihood and severity.2
• Mitigation Measures: A clear record of the design changes or control measures implemented to eliminate or reduce each identified risk. This section is crucial for demonstrating that the designer has fulfilled their duty under Regulation 9.
• Residual Risk Register: Perhaps the most important component, this is a clear and unambiguous list of all foreseeable design risks that were not reasonably practicable to eliminate. For each residual risk, the register must provide information on how it should be managed during subsequent phases of the building’s life.

 

Protocols for Maintenance, Updates, and Final Handover

 

The DfS Register is explicitly intended to be a “live document” that evolves with the project.8 It is not a one-time report. 

The DFSP, on behalf of the developer, is responsible for updating the register after each DfS review meeting and whenever new design-related risks are identified. 

Upon the project’s completion and the issuance of the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) or Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC), a formal process must be in place to hand over the final, complete DfS Register to the building owner or MCST, fulfilling the final obligation under the regulations.26

 

From Blueprint to Reality: Applied DfS for Singapore’s Construction Hazards

 

The true test of the DfS framework lies in its practical application—its ability to generate tangible design solutions that mitigate real-world hazards on construction sites in Singapore. 

This requires designers to move beyond their traditional focus on form and function and to actively choreograph the safety of the construction, maintenance, and demolition processes through their design choices. 

This shift in mindset is guided by a foundational principle of risk management: the Hierarchy of Controls.

 

Applying the Hierarchy of Controls as a Design Philosophy

 

The Hierarchy of Controls is a systematic approach to managing risks, prioritizing methods that are more effective and reliable over those that are less so. 

The hierarchy, in descending order of effectiveness, is: Elimination, Substitution, Engineering Controls, Administrative Controls, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).1

The revolutionary aspect of DfS is that it mandates the application of this hierarchy at the design stage, where the most effective controls (Elimination, Substitution, Engineering) can be implemented. 

A traditional safety approach often defaults to the bottom of the hierarchy on-site (Administrative controls like safe work procedures and PPE like harnesses). DfS forces designers to start at the top 17:

• Elimination: Can the hazard be completely removed through a design change? For example, designing a building with prefabricated façade panels that are simply craned into place eliminates the complex and high-risk process of stick-build curtain wall installation at height.14
• Substitution: Can a hazardous material or process be replaced with a safer one? For example, specifying non-toxic, low-VOC paints and adhesives reduces the risk of chemical exposure for both construction workers and future occupants.
• Engineering Controls: If a hazard cannot be eliminated, can the design incorporate physical features to isolate people from it? Designing a permanent parapet wall on a roof is a far superior engineering control than relying on a temporary edge protection system installed by the contractor.

 

Practical Design Solutions for High-Risk Activities

 

Applying this design philosophy leads to concrete solutions for some of the most common and severe hazards faced in the Singaporean construction context.5

• Working at Height: This remains one of the biggest killers in construction. DfS solutions include:

• Designing permanent, certified anchor points and lifelines into the roof structure for safe maintenance access.14
• Specifying inward-opening windows or designing dedicated window cleaning bays to allow façade cleaning to be done from inside the building.3
• Designing layouts that allow for the use of Mobile Elevating Work Platforms (MEWPs) instead of ladders for M&E installation and maintenance.

• Confined Spaces: Maintenance work in areas like water tanks, pump rooms, and utility tunnels poses a severe risk of asphyxiation or exposure to toxic gases. DfS solutions include:

• Designing larger manholes (e.g., greater than 600mm diameter) and multiple entry/exit points to facilitate easier access and rescue.4
• Incorporating design features that promote natural ventilation or specifying permanent mechanical ventilation systems in known confined spaces.
• Designing for external monitoring, such as placing gauges and sensors outside the confined space to reduce the need for entry.

• Lifting Operations: Accidents involving cranes and other lifting equipment are a major cause of fatalities. DfS solutions include:

• During the site layout and planning stage, designing adequate hardstand areas and clear zones for safe crane setup and operation.
• Specifying lighter construction materials (e.g., lightweight concrete blocks, composite panels) to reduce the load on cranes.
• Designing for modular construction where larger, more complex lifts can be minimized.

• Maintenance Access: Many accidents occur during the operational phase of a building due to poor maintenance access. DfS solutions include:

• Designing permanent and safe access routes, such as fixed ladders with cages, catwalks, and walkways to rooftop equipment like chiller plants, lift motors, and water tanks.9
• Specifying retractable light fixtures or locating serviceable equipment at accessible levels to eliminate the need for working at height during routine maintenance.14

Table 4: Common Hazards & DfS Mitigation Strategies

Common Hazard	Traditional (Reactive) On-Site Control	DfS (Proactive) Design Solution
Façade Cleaning at Height	Workers use personal fall arrest systems (harnesses) and rope access.	Design inward-opening windows for internal cleaning, or incorporate a permanent Building Maintenance Unit (gondola) with certified anchor points.
Maintenance in Deep Water Tank	Contractor implements a strict Confined Space Entry Permit-to-Work system with gas monitoring.	Design multiple, larger manholes for improved access and ventilation; specify externally mounted sensors and gauges to reduce entry frequency.
Trench Collapse During Excavation	Contractor installs temporary shoring and support systems as work progresses.	Design a “top-down” construction method for the basement, which minimizes open excavation; specify less hazardous ground improvement techniques.
Replacing High-Ceiling Lights	Maintenance staff use mobile scaffolds or A-frame ladders, introducing fall risks.	Specify retractable lighting systems that can be lowered to a safe working level for maintenance, or design permanent catwalks for access.

 

Illustrative Case Study: Lessons from the Collapse of 24 Table Formworks

 

A powerful real-world example underscores the critical importance of DfS principles. On 3 August 2016, just two days after the DfS Regulations came into force, 24 tall table formworks collapsed on the top level of a building under construction. 

The formworks, each 10.2 meters high, had been stored free-standing overnight and were toppled by strong winds.32 

Fortunately, the collapse occurred when no workers were in the vicinity, and the formworks fell inwards rather than off the building edge, narrowly avoiding a major catastrophe.

This incident serves as a perfect illustration of a failure that a robust DfS process could have prevented.32 

The stability of temporary structures, like formworks, is explicitly within the scope of DfS. 

A GUIDE-3 pre-construction review, involving the designer, contractor, and formwork supplier, would have been the ideal forum to address this risk. 

The discussion would have focused on:

• Elimination: Could the design be modified to use a different structural system that avoids the need for such tall formworks?
• Engineering Controls: If tall formworks were unavoidable, what were the design and procedural requirements for ensuring their stability when stored? This would include considering lateral loads from wind, the need for anchorage or counterweights, and the possibility of bracing the formworks together to form a more rigid structure.32

The case study highlights that DfS is not just about the permanent building; it is about considering the entire construction process, including the temporary works that are essential to build it. 

It demonstrates that a failure to consider foreseeable risks like wind loading on temporary structures at the design and planning stage can have potentially disastrous consequences.

 

The Strategic Value of DfS: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

 

For many developers and designers, new regulations are often perceived primarily as a compliance burden and an additional cost. 

However, a strategic analysis of the DfS framework reveals that it is not a cost center but a significant value driver. 

Implementing DfS is an investment in risk mitigation, efficiency, and reputation that yields tangible financial and qualitative returns, building a powerful business case that goes far beyond mere legal compliance.

 

The Quantifiable ROI: Reductions in Incidents, Rework Costs, and Insurance Premiums

 

Addressing safety risks at the design stage is demonstrably more cost-effective than dealing with their consequences downstream.7 

The costs of accidents—including medical expenses, project stoppages, regulatory fines, and legal fees—can be catastrophic. By proactively designing out hazards, DfS directly reduces the likelihood of these costly events.

Data from projects in Singapore provides compelling evidence of the financial benefits of an integrated DfS approach. 

A comparative analysis shows a stark difference in key project metrics between projects with and without a dedicated DfS professional (DFSP) leading the process 27:

• Safety Incidents: Projects with a DFSP saw a 75% reduction in safety incidents, dropping from 3.2 to 0.8 incidents per 100 workers.
• Rework Costs: By identifying constructability issues early, rework costs were more than halved, falling from 4.2% to 1.7% of the total project value.
• Insurance Premiums: Insurers recognize the lower risk profile of DfS-compliant projects, leading to a reduction in insurance premiums from an average of 1.8% to 1.2% of the contract sum.
• Regulatory Delays: A smoother, safer project leads to fewer interventions from authorities. Regulatory delays were cut by nearly 75%, from an average of 23 days to just 6 days.

Furthermore, specific design choices driven by DfS principles can lead to direct savings. 

The use of prefabricated solutions can reduce fall-from-height risks by as much as 60% and save significant design and drafting hours.27

 

Beyond the Numbers: Enhancing Reputation and Gaining a Competitive Edge

 

The benefits of a robust DfS program extend beyond quantifiable metrics. In an increasingly sophisticated market, a company’s commitment to safety is a powerful indicator of its professionalism, quality, and ethical standing.

• Enhanced Corporate Reputation: Companies that prioritize and excel in DfS build a strong reputation among clients, regulators, and the public as responsible and reliable partners. This fosters trust and can be a significant differentiator in a competitive market.7
• Winning High-Value Tenders: Major clients, particularly government agencies and multinational corporations, often have their own stringent safety and governance requirements. A proven track record in DfS, evidenced by well-documented DfS Registers from past projects, can be a significant strategic advantage in securing high-value contracts.27
• Attracting and Retaining Talent: A strong safety culture, with DfS at its core, helps to attract and retain top talent. Professionals are increasingly drawn to organizations that demonstrate a genuine commitment to the well-being of their employees and partners.

 

Addressing Industry Misconceptions and Overcoming Implementation Hurdles

 

Despite its clear benefits, the implementation of DfS faces several common misconceptions and challenges that need to be addressed directly.

• Misconception 1: “It’s just more paperwork and red tape.”
  This view fails to recognize the proactive nature of DfS. Far from being a mere formality, it is a structured risk management process that prevents costly accidents and delays.19 The “paperwork”—the DfS Register—is not the objective; it is the legally required record of that process and serves as a critical legal shield for the developer and designer in the event of an investigation.4
• Misconception 2: “It’s the DFSP’s job, not ours.”
  This is a dangerous and legally incorrect assumption. The regulations place direct, non-delegable duties on developers and designers.19 The DFSP is a facilitator and a custodian of two specific delegated duties, but the ultimate responsibility for designing a safe building and ensuring the process is adequately resourced remains with the designers and the developer, respectively.1
• Misconception 3: “It costs too much and slows down the project.”
  This perspective is short-sighted. The upfront investment in time and resources for DfS reviews is minimal compared to the staggering costs of an accident, a major rework, or a lengthy project stoppage ordered by MOM.7 A key implementation hurdle, however, is the real-world challenge of developers not allocating sufficient project resources for the DfS process, which can lead to design changes being rejected purely on the basis of cost, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the entire framework.18 Overcoming this requires a clear understanding of the long-term value and ROI that DfS delivers.

 

Enforcement and Consequences: The High Cost of Non-Compliance

 

The WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations are not merely a set of guidelines; they are legally enforceable law. 

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is the primary regulatory body responsible for enforcing the WSH Act and its subsidiary legislation. This includes conducting workplace inspections, investigating incidents, and taking punitive action against stakeholders who fail to fulfill their statutory duties.5 

The penalties for non-compliance are severe and have been recently increased, signaling a clear governmental policy shift towards stronger deterrence and greater accountability for senior management.

 

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM): The Regulatory Watchdog

 

MOM’s Occupational Safety and Health Division (OSHD) is tasked with ensuring compliance across all industries. 

Their enforcement actions can range from issuing composition fines for minor lapses to ordering a complete Stop-Work Order for activities deemed to pose an imminent danger.5 

In the event of a serious accident, MOM will conduct a thorough investigation, and the DfS Register will be a primary piece of evidence used to determine if the upstream stakeholders—the developer and the designers—met their legal obligations.4

 

A Detailed Breakdown of Offences and Penalties under the Regulations

 

The penalties for contravening the DfS Regulations are significant and are applied on a per-offence basis. This means a single project could face multiple charges for different breaches.

Under the regulations, the general penalty for failing to perform a statutory duty without reasonable excuse can result in a fine of up to S20,000,or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,or both.[9]

A specific penalty for failing to make the DfS Register available for inspection by a registered workplace inspector can result in a fine of up to S10,000.9

Crucially, the Singapore government has demonstrated its commitment to strengthening WSH enforcement by significantly increasing the penalties for breaches that could lead to serious harm. 

As of 1 June 2024, the maximum fine for breaches under WSH Act Subsidiary Legislation (which includes the DfS Regulations) that are a major cause of death, serious injury, or a dangerous occurrence has been increased from $20,000 to $50,000.35 

This substantial increase is a strategic move to make non-compliance more financially painful than compliance, thereby capturing the attention of senior company leadership and forcing them to treat WSH as a major corporate liability.36

The latest amendments to the regulations specify these increased penalties for key contraventions.37 

For example, a developer or designer who fails to comply with their core duties under regulations like 4(1), 5(1), or 9(1) can be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both. 

Repeat offenders face even stricter consequences. This legislative action underscores a clear message from the authorities: the previous penalty levels were deemed insufficient, and financial deterrence is now a key tool being used to drive a greater sense of urgency and accountability for workplace safety.

Table 5: Schedule of Penalties for Key DfS Contraventions

 

Offence	Description	Maximum Penalty
Failure to Perform Core Duties	A developer or designer failing to fulfill their primary duties (e.g., ensuring a safe design, appointing competent persons, eliminating/reducing risks).	Fine up to $50,000, or imprisonment up to 2 years, or both. 35
Failure to Provide DfS Register	Failure to make the DfS Register available for inspection by a registered workplace inspector upon request.	Fine up to $10,000. 9
General Penalties (WSH Act)	For serious breaches under the main WSH Act, such as not complying with a Stop-Work Order.	Fine up to $500,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment, with additional daily fines for continued offence. 34

 

The Future of DfS: Technology and a Culture of Prevention

 

The WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations have laid a robust legal foundation for a safer built environment in Singapore. 

However, compliance is not a static endpoint but an evolving practice. The future of DfS lies in the integration of advanced technology and the cultivation of a deep-seated culture of prevention that permeates every level of the industry. 

These advancements are set to transform DfS from a process of compliance into a dynamic, data-driven, and intuitive part of the design and construction lifecycle.

 

The Role of BIM, VR, and Drones in Proactive Risk Mitigation

 

Technology is the key enabler that will elevate the practice of DfS, particularly by closing the “imagination gap” for designers. 

A fundamental challenge in DfS is that designers, who are experts in their own domain, may struggle to fully foresee the complex, sequential risks that emerge on a construction site.18 

Digital tools bridge this knowledge gap by allowing stakeholders to virtually experience the construction and maintenance processes they are designing, leading to more effective and intuitive risk identification.

• Building Information Modelling (BIM): BIM is evolving far beyond a 3D visualization tool. 4D BIM, which adds the dimension of time, allows project teams to simulate the entire construction sequence, identifying potential hazards such as crane path collisions, temporary access issues, or the creation of unsafe confined spaces before a single worker steps on site.1 This allows for proactive design adjustments to create a safer construction flow.
• Virtual Reality (VR): VR technology takes this visualization a step further. It allows designers, developers, and even future maintenance personnel to conduct immersive “walk-throughs” of a virtual model of the project.1 A designer can virtually “stand” on a narrow ledge they have designed or “attempt” to service a piece of equipment in a cramped space, providing a visceral understanding of the risks involved that is impossible to glean from 2D drawings.
• Drones and IoT: Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) can be used for detailed inspections of existing site conditions or complex facades, providing designers with accurate data to plan for safer construction and maintenance access.41 Internet of Things (IoT) sensors embedded in temporary structures can provide real-time data on loads and stresses, feeding back into safer designs for future projects.

 

Moving Forward: Embedding DfS into the DNA of Singapore’s Built Environment

 

The ultimate goal of the DfS framework is to move beyond mere compliance towards a state where safety is an intrinsic value embedded in the DNA of every project and every stakeholder. 

This requires a continuous commitment to capability building and cultural development.

Continuous professional development and training for developers, designers, contractors, and DFSPs are essential to keep pace with new technologies and evolving best practices.22 

As the industry matures, the DfS process will become less about fulfilling a regulatory checklist and more about a genuine, collaborative effort to innovate for safety.

Ultimately, a mature DfS culture, enabled by powerful digital tools and underpinned by a shared commitment to the well-being of every affected person, is essential for Singapore to achieve its national vision of becoming a global leader in Workplace Safety and Health.43 

It is a journey that transforms the act of building not just into the creation of structures, but into the creation of safe, sustainable, and human-centric environments for generations to come.

 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

 

This section provides concise answers to some of the most common questions developers and designers have about the WSH (Design for Safety) Regulations in Singapore.

Q1: My project’s contract value is S$9.5 million. Do I need to comply with the DfS Regulations?

A: From a strict legal standpoint, compliance is not mandatory, as your project falls below the S$10 million threshold. 

However, the WSH Council strongly encourages the application of DfS principles to all construction projects, regardless of size or value, as a matter of best practice. 

 

Adopting a DfS approach proactively mitigates risks, prevents accidents, and is considered a hallmark of a responsible developer.4

 

Q2: Can I delegate all my DfS responsibilities to the DFSP?

A: No. This is a critical legal distinction. A developer can only delegate two specific duties in writing to a competent DFSP: convening the DfS review meetings (Regulation 6) and maintaining the DfS Register (Regulation 7). 

The developer remains legally accountable for all other statutory duties, including the overarching responsibility to ensure the structure is designed safely, appointing competent persons, and providing adequate time and resources for the DfS process to be carried out effectively.1

 

Q3: What is the difference between a DfS review and a contractor’s Risk Assessment (RA)?

A: This is a common point of confusion in the industry.38 The two processes are distinct but complementary. A

DfS review is a high-level, strategic process conducted before construction begins. Its goal is to identify and eliminate or mitigate risks at the design stage by changing the design itself. 

A contractor’s Risk Assessment (RA) is an operational, task-specific process conducted during construction. Its goal is to manage the hazards associated with the specific work methods being used on-site. 

In essence, an effective DfS review reduces the number and severity of hazards that the contractor needs to manage in their subsequent RAs.

Q4: Our design team is based overseas. Do they still have duties under the regulations?

A: Yes. The duties under the DfS Regulations apply to any “designer” who prepares a design plan for a structure that is subject to the regulations in Singapore, regardless of where that designer is geographically located. 

As the developer, you have a legal duty under Regulation 5 to ensure that any designer you appoint—whether local or foreign—is competent and has allocated adequate resources to perform their DfS duties as required by Singaporean law.6

 

Q5: What happens to the DfS Register after the building is completed and sold?

A: The DfS process has a lifecycle obligation. Upon project completion, the developer has a legal duty under Regulation 11 to hand over the final DfS Register to the new building owner (the Registered Proprietor) or, for a strata-titled property, the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST). 

The new owner or MCST then assumes the legal duty to keep the register for the entire lifespan of the structure, make it available for inspection, and pass it on to any subsequent owners. 

This ensures that the critical safety information contained within it remains available for all future maintenance, alteration, or demolition works.6

Works cited

1. Guide to the Design for Safety Professional (DFSP) in Singapore: A Lifecycle Approach to Construction Safety, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/key-responsibilities-dfsp-singapore/
2. Design for safety – Singapore – Redas, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.redas.com/assets/files/good%20practice%20guide/DfS%20Good%20%20Practice%20Guide%20(Final)_%207%20Sept%2019.pdf
3. Guidelines on Design for Safety in Buildings and Structures, accessed September 24, 2025, https://designforconstructionsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/dfs-in-buildings-and-structures-guidelines-nov-08-singapore.pdf
4. Guide to Appointing a Design for Safety Professional (DFSP) in Singapore: Navigating the WSH (DfS) Regulations – MOSAIC Eco-construction Solutions Pte Ltd, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/guide-to-appointing-a-design-for-safety-professional-dfsp-in-singapore-navigating-the-wsh-dfs-regulations/
5. WSH Construction Regulations in Singapore: A Comprehensive Guide – Hubble.Build, accessed September 24, 2025, https://hubble.build/newsroom/wsh-construction-regulations-singapore-comprehensive-guide
6. About Design for Safety, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.tal.sg/wshc/topics/design-for-safety/about-design-for-safety
7. Design for Safety – R Star Consultants Pte Ltd, accessed September 24, 2025, https://rstar.com.sg/design-for-safety
8. Public Consultation on Proposed WSH Design for Safety Regulations – Reach, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.reach.gov.sg/latest-happenings/public-consultation-pages/2014/public-consultation-on-proposed-wsh-design-for-safety-regulations
9. Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines – Prevention through Design, accessed September 24, 2025, https://designforconstructionsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/wsh_guidelines_design_for_safety1.pdf
10. 43 workplace deaths in Singapore in 2024, up from previous year – CNA, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/workplace-deaths-major-injuries-mom-construction-sector-5024886
11. Major workplace injury rate hit all-time low in 2024, but fatalities rose: MOM – YouTube, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdgm5jwvVZk
12. Singapore’s construction sector saw 76 fatal and major injuries in first half of 2025, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwypyHVAwj8
13. 76 incidents of construction deaths and major injuries in first half of 2025; 5 fewer than in 2024 – Yahoo News Singapore, accessed September 24, 2025, https://sg.news.yahoo.com/76-incidents-construction-deaths-major-094000260.html
14. Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.tal.sg/wshc/-/media/tal/wshc/resources/publications/wsh-guidelines/files/dfs.ashx
15. Workplace Safety and Health (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 – Singapore Statutes Online, accessed September 24, 2025, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/WSHA2006-S428-2015
16. Legal Aspects of Design for Safety in Buildings & Structures – Lee Kwok – Weng, accessed September 24, 2025, http://lkwco.com/designforsafetyrerun5.htm
17. Workplace Safety and Health (Design for Safety) Regulations 2015 – Singapore Statutes Online, accessed September 24, 2025, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/WSHA2006-S428-2015?DocDate=20240527&ValidDate=20240601&ProvIds=pr9-
18. Challenges for DfS in Singapore – College of Design and Engineering – NUS, accessed September 24, 2025, https://cde.nus.edu.sg/dbe/2020/05/challenges-for-dfs-in-singapore/
19. Common Misconceptions about DfS in Singapore, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/common-misconceptions-about-dfs-in-singapore/
20. Design for Safety Professional – DP Consultants, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.dpc.com.sg/expertise/DesignforSafetyProfessional/
21. DfS | WSQ Perform Design for Safety Professionals Duties – SCAL Academy, accessed September 24, 2025, https://scal-academy.com.sg/courses/course_detail/Perform-Design-for-Safety-Professionals-Duties/7903
22. Introduction to Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) (Design for Safety) Regulation | SP – Singapore Polytechnic, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.sp.edu.sg/pace/courses/all-courses/course-details/introduction-to-wsh-(design-for-safety)-regulation
23. Draft – SIA Design-For-Safety (DFS) Handbook | PDF | Architect | Risk – Scribd, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/354727300/Draft-SIA-Design-For-Safety-DfS-Handbook
24. Mandatory design requirements for construction safety in the United Kingdom and Singapore – IIS Windows Server, accessed September 24, 2025, https://app7.legco.gov.hk/rpdb/en/uploads/2025/IN/IN07_2025_20250225_en.pdf
25. Top 5 Design for Safety Professional Singapore Trends You Need To Know in 2025, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/top-5-design-for-safety-professional-singapore-trends-you-need-to-know-in-2025/
26. 1 Day Design for Safety (DfS Guideline 2022) Training course 2 run – Institution of Engineers Singapore, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.ies.org.sg/Tenant/C0000005/00000001/Images/IESA/Flyer_1_Day_DfS(DfS_Guideline_2022)_2nd_run.pdf
27. The Comprehensive Guide to Design for Safety Professionals (DFSP) in Singapore Construction Projects, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/design-for-safety-professionals/
28. Construction Safety Handbook – Singapore, accessed September 24, 2025, https://li.eversafe.com.sg/HTIM/1.%20Construction_Safety_Handbook.pdf
29. The Ultimate Guide to Top 10 Workplace Hazards in Singapore …, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/top-10-common-workplace-hazards-singapore/
30. Comprehensive Guide to Workplace Safety and Health in the Construction Industry, accessed September 24, 2025, https://scal-academy.com.sg/courses/course_detail/Comprehensive-Guide-to-WSH-in-the-Construction-Industry
31. Comprehensive Guide of Design for Safety Professional (DfSP) in Singapore, accessed September 24, 2025, https://mosaicsafety.com.sg/your-one-stop-comprehensive-guide-for-design-for-safety-dfs-in-singapore-and-risk-management-facilitator-rmf/
32. Case Study: Collapse of 24 Table Formworks in Singapore …, accessed September 24, 2025, https://cde.nus.edu.sg/dbe/2016/12/case-study-collapse-of-24-table-formworks-in-singapore/
33. Workplace safety and health – Singapore – Ministry of Manpower, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-and-health
34. WSH Act: liabilities and penalties – Singapore – Ministry of Manpower, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-and-health/workplace-safety-and-health-act/liabilities-and-penalties
35. Action against errant companies​ – Ministry of Manpower, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-and-health/safe-measures/action-against-errant-companies
36. Maximum fine for workplace safety breaches to be raised from $20k to $50k from June 1, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/maximum-fines-for-workplace-safety-breaches-to-be-raised-from-20k-to-50k-from-june-1
37. Workplace Safety and Health (Amendment of Penalties) Regulations …, accessed September 24, 2025, https://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL-Supp/S434-2024/Published/20240527?DocDate=20240527
38. The IES-NUS DfS Library of Construction-Related DfS Risks and understanding WSH (DfS) Regulations and Actual Implementation Issues – Department of the Built Environment – College of Design and Engineering, accessed September 24, 2025, https://cde.nus.edu.sg/dbe/2021/12/the-ies-nus-dfs-library-of-construction-related-dfs-risks-and-understanding-wsh-dfs-regulations-and-actual-implementation-issues/
39. (PDF) Design for safety: Theoretical framework of the safety aspect of BIM system to determine the safety index – ResearchGate, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311496362_Design_for_safety_Theoretical_framework_of_the_safety_aspect_of_BIM_system_to_determine_the_safety_index
40. Case studies: Employers championing WSH in Singapore | Human Resources Online, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.humanresourcesonline.net/case-studies-employers-championing-wsh-in-singapore
41. WSH Technology – Ministry of Manpower, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-and-health/wsh-technology
42. SafeSim Design: – Answering the need for greater Design for Safety (DfS) competency in Singapore – College of Design and Engineering, accessed September 24, 2025, https://cde.nus.edu.sg/dbe/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2022/01/SafeSim-Design-Answering-the-need-for-greater-Design-for-Safety-DfS-competency-in-Singapore.pdf
43. Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines – Tripartite Alliance Limited, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.tal.sg/wshc/-/media/tal/wshc/media/pdf/wsh_guidelines_for_procurement_in_construction_industry_forpublicconsultation.ashx

Skills Framework for Workplace Safety and Health – SkillsFuture Singapore, accessed September 24, 2025, https://www.skillsfuture.gov.sg/docs/default-source/skills-framework/sfw_workplace-safety-and-health.pdf