Killing slowly, the Socso way
Fauwaz Abdul AzizPublished: Oct 19, 2004 4:55 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
The Social Security Organisation (Socso) is 'slowly killing' permanently disabled workers and their families by depriving them of their rightful money, said the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) today.
The Social Security Organisation (Socso) is 'slowly killing' permanently disabled workers and their families by depriving them of their rightful money, said the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) today.
MTUC financial secretary A Sivananthan said Socso was also defying a ministerial directive, issued in January, that it to make payments to those who have become unable to continue working.
"You might as well strangle and kill them immediately instead of slowly killing them this way," he said during a press conference at Wisma MTUC in Subang Jaya.
After a medical board has determined the eligibility, or otherwise, of a worker to social security benefits, Section 33 of the Employees' Social Security Act (1969) provides for a 90-day period during which either the worker or Socso can appeal against the board's decision to the Socso Appellate Board.
(The medical boards are from various hospitals appointed by Socso.)
Sivanathan claimed that Socso has abused its right to appeal by misusing the provisio "if not satisfied" and denying evidence to support its request for a review of the medical board's decision.
"Section 33 (of the Act) does give the right to appeal, but does it give you the right to abuse that right to appeal?
"You should use the right judiciously. It was not the intent of (the 1969) Parliament to give suffering to the people," he said.
Fraudulent claims
He stressed that incidents of fraudulent claims should be regarded as the exception and not a general rule to cover everybody who applies to Socso for permanent disability claims.
"If Socso were to find evidence of cheating and illegal remedies, and if people were cheating, they must prove it. Expose it, but don't say everyone is cheating," he added.
Sivananthan said he knew of more than 30 applications for Socso benefits that had been unfairly rejected or repealed without the claimants being told the grounds for the decision.
He said these cases include Socso claimants who, upon certification by a medical board as being unfit for employment, were notified by Socso that "payment would be made once (the claimant) presents a letter of resignation from the employer."
Upon resigning from their companies, however, these former employees found their applications for benefits later rejected by Socso which, in the 90-day period, had successfully appealed to the Socso Appellate Board to review the previous decision, he added.
"Once you have asked the worker to give his resignation letter, is it right to appeal?" asked Sivananthan, adding that such cases had been presented last January to Human Resources Minister Dr Fong Chan Onn.
He said the minister himself had agreed that these people should be given their "rightful money" and therefore Socso should pay them.
Sivananthan said MTUC wants Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to intervene.
MTUC financial secretary A Sivananthan said Socso was also defying a ministerial directive, issued in January, that it to make payments to those who have become unable to continue working. "You might as well strangle and kill them immediately instead of slowly killing them this way," he said during a press conference at Wisma MTUC in Subang Jaya.
After a medical board has determined the eligibility, or otherwise, of a worker to social security benefits, Section 33 of the Employees' Social Security Act (1969) provides for a 90-day period during which either the worker or Socso can appeal against the board's decision to the Socso Appellate Board.
(The medical boards are from various hospitals appointed by Socso.)
Sivanathan claimed that Socso has abused its right to appeal by misusing the provisio "if not satisfied" and denying evidence to support its request for a review of the medical board's decision.
"Section 33 (of the Act) does give the right to appeal, but does it give you the right to abuse that right to appeal?
"You should use the right judiciously. It was not the intent of (the 1969) Parliament to give suffering to the people," he said.
Fraudulent claims
He stressed that incidents of fraudulent claims should be regarded as the exception and not a general rule to cover everybody who applies to Socso for permanent disability claims.
"If Socso were to find evidence of cheating and illegal remedies, and if people were cheating, they must prove it. Expose it, but don't say everyone is cheating," he added. Sivananthan said he knew of more than 30 applications for Socso benefits that had been unfairly rejected or repealed without the claimants being told the grounds for the decision.
He said these cases include Socso claimants who, upon certification by a medical board as being unfit for employment, were notified by Socso that "payment would be made once (the claimant) presents a letter of resignation from the employer."
Upon resigning from their companies, however, these former employees found their applications for benefits later rejected by Socso which, in the 90-day period, had successfully appealed to the Socso Appellate Board to review the previous decision, he added.
"Once you have asked the worker to give his resignation letter, is it right to appeal?" asked Sivananthan, adding that such cases had been presented last January to Human Resources Minister Dr Fong Chan Onn.
He said the minister himself had agreed that these people should be given their "rightful money" and therefore Socso should pay them.
Sivananthan said MTUC wants Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to intervene.
View Comments0