Safer to ferry workers in buses

The following letter was published in ST Forum online on 28 August 2009.

SAFER TO FERRY WORKERS IN BUSES

I welcome the Government's initiative to give more protection to workers ferried on lorries.

It is a step forward. However, it may still not be enough. Lorries are for transporting goods, not people.

As a general surgeon in a public hospital, I have seen many cases of lorry passengers suffering serious injuries in traffic accidents.

We emphasise the use of safety devices such as seat belts and airbags in cars, and it is obvious that none of these features is available at the back of a lorry.

To ensure the safety of their workers, contractors can instead hire buses from private operators to ferry their workers to and from worksites.

In my travels around the world, I have not witnessed transportation of workers in the back of lorries in developed countries.

The speed limit of 60kmh for lorries is a good safety measure. However, many lorry drivers do not comply with the rule.

Enforcement and public education are essential. We need to educate the public, especially the drivers, on the consequences of speeding - that it not only causes the loss of a life, but also threatens the livelihood of a victim's family who depends on him.

Dr So Bok-Yan

URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_422156.html

Matching up to First World safety standards

The following letter was published in TODAY on 25 August 2009.

Matching up to First World safety standards

by From F Bushfield

I WAS in a foreign country last month. I noticed that their construction workers were transported by vans and other passenger vehicles.

I said to a local colleague: "Why not follow Singapore's model of transporting these workers in the back of a lorry ... it is cheaper and the company does not need to have separate vehicles for goods and workers." He said it is illegal to do so. The country I was in is China. Is it okay for Singaporeans to have a lower standard than China? Where is the benchmarking we Singaporeans are so proud of?

URL:

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC090825-0000041/Matching-up-to-First-World-safety-standards

Let's walk the talk

The following letter was published in TODAY on 25 August 2009.

Let's walk the talk

Let foreign workers take public transport

by From Woon Kok Keoong

SINGAPOREANS are a tough bunch of people to please. I have no qualms about foreign paying workers being transported in buses and paying higher prices for my renovations, but would the majority of the population agree to it? The next option would be to let these workers take public buses or the MRT, and I'm sure this is going to create a huge uproar like the Serangoon Gardens dorm issue. People want humanity, yet refuse to pay a price for it or even share public space with these workers.

URL: http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC090825-0000039/Lets-walk-the-talk

Why the double standards when it comes to foreign workers?

The following letter was published in ST Forum online on 24 August 2009.

Why the double standards when it comes to foreign workers?

I REFER to last Thursday's letter by Ms Isabel Vadivu Govind, 'Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all'.

I have always been baffled by the fact that passengers in enclosed private cars are required by law to put on seat belts, but workers are allowed to travel in open lorries and pick-up trucks. Many accidents and deaths involving foreign workers transported this way have occurred over the years.

Higher cost has been cited by both employers and the Government as the main reason a safer arrangement cannot be provided. I cannot understand the logic of comparing human life with economic costs.

When a life is lost, it is lost forever and no amount of money can bring it back. Would we have accepted the argument if those dead were Singaporeans? Would we not have asked (or demanded) safer protection for workers on the road?

Every one of those lives lost is someone's father or son or brother or husband. If we can make seat belts compulsory for all car passengers, we should expect equivalent safety measures for foreign workers who have come all the way here at considerable expense to earn a living and help us build our nation.

Tan Thiam Soon

URL:http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_420402.html

Lorries are designed to carry goods, not people

The following letter was published in ST Forum online on 24 August 2009.

Lorries are designed to carry goods, not people

I WRITE in support of last Thursday's letter by Ms Isabel Vadivu Govind, 'Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all'.

In 2006, I moved from the Netherlands to Singapore to experience a marvellous time living in your beautiful country. However, the first time I saw a lorry packed with people in the back, I was astonished and was convinced this must be an illegal way to transport people.

This is certainly not the norm in my home country. We do not even transport animals this way. Soon I learnt this is common practice to take foreign workers in Singapore to their workplace, but every time I saw it, I could not believe it was legal and accepted.

I did not want to think what would happen to the men if the lorry had to make an emergency stop or, even worse, was involved in an accident.

This should not be the way to transport people, especially when the men are so vital to Singapore's construction work. I had a hard time explaining this back home.

I read in the newspaper that in three years' time, lorries will have to meet new guidelines. These may appear to protect workers but they are far from sufficient and will not safeguard workers in the event of hazard.

In the long run, these small improvements may actually delay implementation of what is really needed: passenger vehicles, with seats and belts.

This is a requirement for all others in Singapore, so why these different standards?

Lorries remain designed to transport goods, and people should not be transported in this way.

Nel Broers (Ms)

URL:http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_420404.html

The way we move workers doesn't do us proud

The following letter was published in ST Forum Online on 24 August 2009.

The way we move workers doesn't do us proud

NEEDLESS to say, I was very happy to read Wednesday's report, 'Workers on lorries get more protection'.

It was a tragic accident on the Pan-Island Expressway on Aug 23, 2007 ('13 workers flung out of crash lorry; one dead'), that led to my first letter to Forum ('Better mode of worker transport needed', Aug 28, 2007). The letter drew some positive feedback, even to the point where some people came to identify me as the 'advocate' of the cause of workers' transport safety.

Unfortunately, not much progress has been made since then.

On Feb 22 last year, The Straits Times published a well-documented and richly illustrated report on the subject, stating that 'safety takes a back seat for lorries' live cargo'.

The statistics in the most recent report further underline the sorry state of affairs: In 2007, there were 210 injuries and casualties, a 300 per cent increase over 69 of 2005.

The new safety measures come none too early. I am glad that MP Halimah Yacob questioned the appropriateness of a three-year period to fully implement these new rules.

Granted, slow and partial as it is, increased safety is still an improvement. It is also heartening to note that one aspect of the plight of hundreds of thousands of non-citizens in our midst got front-page coverage.

But I regret that, even after these new measures, we remain stuck with a mode of transport - visible to all, citizens and visitors alike - that is not flattering in a First World country like Singapore. Such treatment is not good for our public image. It is not dignified for our fellow men, nor is it good for ourselves as human beings.

Paul Staes

URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_420405.html

Do We Only Pay Lip-Service to Ethics?

The following letter was published in ST Forum on 24 August 2009.

Do We Only Pay Lip Service to Ethics?
I read with a great sense of let-down of the Government's decision to implement safety in phases when it comes to using lorries to transport workers.

The decision to apparently resolve the safety issue by installing canopies and railings and, then, spread its implementation over an unjustifiably long period of three years conveys the glaring message that saving lives is less crucial than profit margins.

* First, it is questionable whether canopies and railings do keep passengers safer in the event of a road accident. Has the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conducted tests or studies to verify this? Would LTA transport its own workers in such improvised lorries? The issue is not the history of accidents, but the high risks of this mode of transport.

* Second, if this is the only solution LTA finds feasible, why does it require such a long period to roll out? Some companies will feel the pinch if they have to implement immediately, but that does not explain why lives come second to profits. If cost (estimated at less than $3,000 per lorry) is the main deterrent, we should consider incentives for companies which take transport safety seriously?

The fact that more stringent rules on transport safety for cars and buses have been implemented makes these measures all the more questionable.

One cannot help but suspect that a different scale is used to determine the worth of putting safety first, especially where most passengers are migrant workers. If we aspire to be a society in which ethics demands more than lip service, and one which does not apply values selectively, it seems we still have some way to go.

Tan Chui Hua (Ms)

URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_420513.html

Dangerous Driving

The following letter was published in ST Forum on 24 August 2009.

'It is also the speed at which lorries are driven, which causes unnecessary harm to the workers who are thrown around each time the driver brakes suddenly.'

MADAM TANG SOOI KENG: 'It is not just about providing space on lorries or having canopies. It is also the speed at which lorries are driven, which causes unnecessary harm to the workers who are thrown around each time the driver brakes suddenly. My husband and I have reported numerous cases of lorries packed with workers exceeding the speed limit to the Traffic Police. Despite this, we have not seen any decrease in such dangerous driving among this group of vehicles.'

URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_420506.html

“安全”与“成本”无法真正两全

The following letter was published in Zaobao on 20 August 2009.

“安全”与“成本”无法真正两全

做为一个从美国搬到新加坡居住的台湾人，常有远方的朋友问我：比起美国与台湾，新加坡有什么特别？我总回答：新加坡的绿化工作做得非常彻底，远胜于美、台两地各大都市。然而我也注意到，新加坡美丽的城市景观中有一个特殊的景象却一点也不美丽，那就是此地普遍以罗厘车斗运载外籍劳动者上下工的景观。我与我的朋友们都怀疑：把设计上用来运送货物与动物的车辆拿来做为运载乘客的交通工具，这样的做法真的安全吗？

　　果然，近几个月以来小型罗厘利用车斗运载工人发生意外的事件频传。报载昨日政府已针对加强运载工人的罗厘行驶安全做出决议，将从下月起至2012年逐步推行一系列的安全加强措施。政府对于工人安全的关怀值得喝采，然而决策者仅只决议加强罗厘的安全措施、而非全面禁止以罗厘运载工人，这样的决定引人深思。

　　在运输上，“安全”与“成本”是无法真正两全的。关于这一点，我们只需思考一个非常简单的问题：如果仅只透过颁布的补强措施就能够使得罗厘成为安全的运输工具，并且又维持其“成本低廉”的好处，那么交通部为什么不乾脆把所有的公车都改装成罗厘，或者鼓励一般民众使用罗厘来接送他们的孩子上下学呢？

　　显而易见的，无论安全设备如何升级，罗厘的安全性就是低于一般载客型的运输工具。而既然没有人会主张工人的人身安全比起一般乘客的安全要来得不重要，那么政府就不应允许业主基于成本理由牺牲工人的安全。换句话说，如果工人的人身安全是不可以打折扣的，那么为了工人安全所付出的成本也就该被视为一个企业的基本营运成本，不可打折。要让新加坡真正里外兼美---既有外在环境的美，也有关怀其每一个住民基本人身安全的人性之美---请全面禁止以罗厘运载工人。

　　作者：蔡晏霖

URL: http://www.zaobao.com/forum/pages1/forum_sglx090820c.shtml

They're Not Cargo

The following letter was published in TODAY on 21 August 2009.

THEY'RE NOT CARGO
Letter from Stephanie Chok
05:55 AM Aug 21, 2009

I REFER to "Greater safety in phases" (Aug 19).

It is important that worker safety is emphasised. However, the new measures do not recognise that humans are being transported on the cargo decks of lorries - spaces meant for cargo, not people.

Modifying spaces not meant for transporting humans is not innovation to be welcomed - it is an attempt to be "cost-effective".

Most of us travel to and from work by buses, taxis, MRT, private buses or cars. These are modes of transport designed for people. How then can we, with a clear conscience, designate hundreds of others to sit on cargo decks as if they were goods, often squashed between mounds of equipment?

Fitting in railings and canopies do not transform a goods vehicle into a passenger vehicle. People sitting on cargo decks could still sustain injuries if they are flung against one another or to the back of the lorry.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Teo Ser Luck has said in Parliament that safety is paramount. If safety is the chief concern, why is the option of carrying workers in passenger vehicles not considered?

A colleague from Germany commented that seeing workers being transported like cargo on goods vehicles is shocking and does not fit in with Singapore's international reputation.

High safety standards may cost more but it is the socially-responsible thing to do. In other developed countries, it would be unthinkable to see workers transported like this.

It is one thing for a person to choose to work in a dangerous job, quite another for them to be exposed to daily risks and physical discomforts, with no choice in the matter.

Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all

The following letter was published in the Straits Times Forum on 20 August 2009.

Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all

I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Workers on lorries get more protection'. I am deeply disappointed with this decision to keep transporting workers on the cargo decks of goods vehicles and urge its reversal.

Are these goods vehicles meant for passenger transport? No. So they are inherently unsafe and as Dr Joseph Thambiah, head of National University Hospital's orthopaedic trauma division, has said, those sitting on cargo decks could still sustain injuries if they are flung against one another or to the back of the lorry.

The death rate in accidents arising from this mode of transport is reported to be six times lower than in other accidents. But this category of casualties should not even exist. Singaporeans who take other modes of transport choose to do so, but workers have no choice but to risk death or injury while transported in this manner.

I believe most developed nations do not transport workers in this manner.

According to the Land Transport Authority website, the work group which reviewed this practice did not include the voice of the most important stakeholders - affected workers. Migrant workers' non-governmental organisations were not included. Given a choice, it is clear that workers would choose passenger vehicles over cargo decks of goods vehicles.

I support Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's far-sighted call for workplace safety in April last year during the launch of the National Workplace Safety and Health Campaign.

He said Singapore felt bad if it was a Singaporean worker, 'but even more so if it was a foreign worker, who had come all the way here at considerable expense to earn a living and support his dependants back home, but whose efforts to improve his life had instead ended in disaster for himself and his family'.

PM Lee also rightly linked safety in the workplace to sound business sense and pointed out that injuries and deaths result in not only costs but also 'loss of reputation'. He urged employers to see 'good safety and health practices as an investment for the future, not an additional cost burden'.

I believe these comments are equally applicable to the safe transport of workers.

I also agree with the point made by Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Community Development, Youth and Sports and Transport) Teo Ser Luck that safety is paramount. If it is, then it should be the final determining factor, not cost.

Isabel Vadivu Govind (Ms)

Safety Measures for Worker Transport in Phases

The following article was published in TODAY on 19 August 2009.

Reproduced photo caption: Foreign workers crowded on the back of a pick-up truck. (Photo from TODAY)

Greater safety in phases

By Lin Yanqin

TODAY

19 August 2009

AFTER nearly 18 months of consultation and study, the measures to enhance the safety of workers being transported in the open back carriages of lorries have at last been finalised.

However, it will be another three years before the full slate of measures — which include installing canopies and higher side railings on the back of lorries — are rolled out, as they will be implemented in phases, beginning next month.

This led some Members of Parliament to wonder aloud yesterday if three years were too long a lead time, given that “life and limb” are at stake.

“(Installing railings) is a very simple job, so why do you need three years to do that?,” asked Aljunied MP Cynthia Phua.

The three-year time period, said Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Teo Ser Luck, is necessary to give lorry owners time to comply.

“We have to consider the businesses and the small and medium enterprises as well, cost factors are also a consideration for them, and we also have to know in the medium term what they can do (or can’t do),” he said.

In the meantime, some new measures will take effect next month, and lorry owners also face stiffer penalties if they do not comply. For instance, the penalty for carrying more workers than allowed has been raised to $500 for the first offence, up from $200, with harsher penalties for more serious cases.

In announcing the new measures, Mr Teo pointed out that the current measures have been “generally effective”, with annual average fatality and injury rates at about six times lower than the corresponding rates for all vehicles over the past few years.

“The evidence from the accident figures does not suggest that a drastic change to the policy is warranted,” he said.

But how could this be, given that a case in which 16 foreign workers were injured occurred just two weeks ago, questioned Jurong MP Halimah Yacob.

Mr Teo did not respond directly to her query but stressed that safety is “paramount”.

With the cost of installing side railings estimated to be $400 to $800, and the cost of installing canopies about $1,500 to $3,000, industries will no doubt feel some pain.

But the Singapore Logistics Association’s land transportation committee chairman Poh Key Boon said it is better than imposing a total ban on the transportation workers on the back of lorries, as it is not always cost-effective to charter vans and buses to transport a few workers.

Companies should do more to incentivise safe driving, such as giving cash bonuses, Mr Poh said.

NEW MEASURES

From next month:

• No part of a seated worker may be more than 1.1m from the carriage deck

• Passenger seats of lorry cabins must be filled before workers occupy the rear carriage

• Enforcement operations and outreach efforts to be stepped up

• Penalties for non-compliance enhanced

• LTA hotline (1800-CALL LTA) for public to report instances of non-compliance

From next January:

• New lorries to carry workers on carriage deck must be fitted with higher protective side railings

• Canopies must be installed

• Lorries have until Aug 31, 2012, to comply with new rulings

From Sept 2012:

• Minimum deck space required per seated worker will be doubled to 8 sq ft so that fewer workers can be transported on one vehicle

(c) 2009. MediaCorp Press Ltd.

New Safety Regulations for Transporting Workers

The following story was published by the Straits Times on 19 August 2009.

Reproduced photo caption: Rails along the backs of lorries will have to go higher so that there is less chance of a worker being flung out in case of an accident. The decks will also have to be fitted with canopies as a safety measure and to shield them from rain. -- ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI

Workers on lorries get more protection

By Teh Joo Lin

19 August 2009

Straits Times

Safety rules tightened and will be phased in over a three-year period

ACTION is finally being taken to ensure that foreign workers are ferried more safely to and from their workplaces.

Rails along the backs of lorries will have to go higher so that there is less chance of a worker being flung out in an accident. The decks will also have to be fitted with canopies as a safety measure and to shield them from rain.

The Government wants all lorries which double as worker transport to have these features installed in three years. They should also provide more seating space, which effectively halves the number of workers each vehicle can carry.

In the meantime, stop-gap measures will kick in from next month: No part of the worker can be more than 1.1m higher than the cargo deck when he is seated. Among other things, the penalties for breaches will also be increased and enforcement intensified.

The changes, announced in Parliament yesterday by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Teo Ser Luck, come more than 16 months after a workgroup was set up to look at the safe ferrying of workers.

A total of 210 passengers on the cargo decks of lorries were injured or killed last year, up from 69 in 2005. There have been public calls for a ban on using lorries to ferry foreign workers or to have seat belts installed on their decks.

Mr Teo told Parliament that the injury and fatality rates of those ferried on the backs of lorries were low - about six times lower than that of all vehicles. The workgroup found that the existing measures - such as a speed limit of 60kmh - were generally effective.

'Specifically, the evidence from the accident figures does not suggest that a drastic change to the policy is warranted,' he told the House, adding that the recommendations were put up to 'further enhance' the safety of workers.

The changes were a relief to those in industries such as construction and logistics, who had feared an outright ban or the introduction of new safety measures that would add to their cost.

Mr Simon Lee of the Singapore Contractors' Association yesterday praised the practicality of the measures.

'We think it is reasonable and we are supportive. To go for a total ban, I don't think our public transport system is ready to have about 200,000 workers - or part of that number - use public transport.'

Mr Steven Soo, a vehicle retrofitter, estimated that it will cost about $1,800 for a 10-foot-long lorry to be installed with the higher railings and a metal hood.

Unlike the retrofitting of mini buses that ferry school children which are partly subsidised by the state, lorry owners will have to pay their own way.

Mr John Gee, president of Transient Workers Count Too and a vocal critic of the current practice of ferrying workers, said the new measures were 'a step forward'. But transporting workers in buses should still be the ultimate goal, he said.

'If a lorry overturns, even with higher sides, the results are likely to be pretty well as serious as they are now. There's added protection but there's still quite some way to go,' he said.

Dr Joseph Thambiah, head of National University Hospital's orthopaedic trauma division, said the absence of restraints or seat belts means that those sitting on the cargo deck could still injure themselves if they were flung against each other or thrown to the back of the lorry.

President of the National Safety Council Tan Jin Thong welcomed the tightened rules, but thinks a 'safety mindset' among workers, drivers and employers is key to reducing the casualty count.

'Once we have that, the accident rate will automatically be reduced,' he said.

When contacted, Jurong GRC MP Halimah Yacob, who had asked for an update of the workgroup's report in Parliament, said she was glad there was 'some progress' on the issue, but wondered if the three-year time frame - designed so businesses could phase in the changes - was too long. 'The other challenge would be enforcement. It'll be a big challenge - there are thousands of lorries all over Singapore, thousands of work sites. How do you ensure compliance?'

(c) 2009 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

LTA Press Release - New Measures on Safety of Workers on Lorries

More Stringent Measures To Enhance Safety Of Workers Transported On Lorries

1. The Workgroup 1 , co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), in consultation with various stakeholders - industry groups, safety experts and transport operators, has completed its review on measures to enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries. Among the set of stringent measures recommended to enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries are stiffer penalties for errant lorry owners and drivers who flout safety regulations, ramping up of enforcement activities and tightening of rules for carrying workers on the carriage deck of lorries. 2. These measures have been accepted by the Government and will be rolled out progressively in the next three years. Workgroup Recommendations 3. Findings from the Workgroup show that the current safety and enforcement measures have generally been effective in keeping the fatality and injury rates of workers transported at the back of lorries low (please see Annex A for details of current measures). Fatality / injury rates involving workers transported on the carriage deck of lorries were much lower compared to all road accidents 2 . However, the Workgroup recognises that as a significant number of workers (estimated to be more than 200,000 workers) are transported on lorries daily across industries, there is a need to enhance existing measures to further improve the safety of workers. Recommended Measures 4. The Workgroup has recommended various measures that would be phased in over 3 years. Measures that would be implemented are: From 1 September 2009 i. Lower maximum allowable height of a seated worker To further lower the risk of a worker falling off from the back of a lorry, no part of the worker when he is in a sitting position shall be more than 1.1 metres from the carriage deck. This is lower than the current requirement which specifies that no part of the worker, when he is in a sitting position, shall be more than 3.2 metres above the road surface. ii. Passenger seat(s) in the lorry's cabin must be filled up before workers can be carried at the rear carriage of lorries All the passenger seat(s) in the lorries' cabin must be filled up before workers can be transported on the carriage deck. Aside from the benefit of having more passengers seated in a safer environment, the front seat passenger(s) can also assist the driver by ensuring that workers carried on the carriage deck area, if any, are properly seated, and remind the driver to abide by the speed limit. iii. Enforcement operations further stepped up Enforcement activities have been intensified against lorry drivers who do not observe safety regulations since 2008. This will be further stepped up. iv. Penalties for non-compliance enhanced Penalties will be enhanced for drivers and owners who fail to comply with safety regulations, including carrying excess workers above the vehicle's Maximum Passenger Capacity (MPC). v. Hotline to report non-compliance with safety regulations The public can help by calling the LTA Hotline (1800-CALL LTA) to report any instances of non-compliance spotted on the road, such as lorries carrying excess workers or in a dangerous / precarious manner. vi. Expand outreach programmes Ensuring safety is the joint responsibility of the Government, employers, drivers, workers and other road users. Government agencies such as LTA, MOM, Traffic Police and the various associations will continue in outreach programmes to educate employers and workers on their responsibilities and showcase welfare and safety best practices. From 1 January 2010 vii. Lorries registered from 1 January 2010 and used for carrying workers on the carriage deck must be fitted with higher protective side railings - up to a height of at least 700 mm (up from 550 mm) from the carriage deck, and at least 300 mm (up from 150 mm) from the top of the side-boards. To effectively shelter workers from inclement weather, lorries will also need to be fitted with canopies if they are to carry passengers on the carriage deck. From 1 September 2012 viii. Minimum deck space required per seated worker will be doubled to 8 square feet from the current 4 square feet from 1 September 2012. This will reduce the number of workers that can be transported on lorries as compared to what is stipulated today, and will lower the risk exposure in the event of an accident. The lead time of three years will also allow businesses to phase in operational changes and make decisions on their existing assets. Measures for existing lorries 5. For existing lorries, owners will be given a lead time of three years (i.e. up to 31 August 2012) to install the higher protective side railings and canopies, if they are to continue to be used to transport workers. 6. For more details of the new measures, please see Annex B. 7. In addition, current safety regulations as follows will continue to apply: i. Vehicle must not travel faster than the posted road speed limit or the vehicle speed limit of 60 km/h, whichever is lower ii. Maximum Passenger Capacity (MPC) label must be displayed on the lorry.Owners who wish to use their lorries to carry their workers must display a Maximum Passenger Capacity (MPC) label on the right side of the rear tailboard indicating the maximum number of workers that can be transported. iii. Goods transported must be properly secured If goods are also transported, they must be properly secured such that they will not endanger the workers carried or other road users 3 . Industry Stakeholders Support New Measures 8. Mr Jeremy Yap, co-chair of the Workgroup and Group Director, Vehicle and Transit Licensing with LTA, said, "The more stringent measures took into account various considerations. These measures prioritise safety within practical and reasonable limits. We will continue to monitor the situation and work closely with stakeholders to ensure the safe transportation of workers." 9. Mr Chan Yew Kwong, co-chair of the Workgroup and Deputy Director of MOM's Construction and Equipment Safety Branch, added, "The measures recommended by the Workgroup will help to enhance the safety of workers traveling on lorries. All stakeholders, including employers, drivers and workers, need to do their part to implement these measures, follow safety rules and keep our workers safe as they are ferried to and from the worksites." 10. Mr Poh Key Boon, Chairman, Land Transportation Committee, Singapore Logistics Association supported the new measures, stating, "We recognise that lorry owners, drivers and workers will be affected due to the more stringent measures. However, great care and consideration went into ensuring minimal impact and maximising the safety and welfare of workers being transported on the back of lorries. We encourage lorry owners, drivers and workers to start taking an active role today to ensure safety comes first during the journey." 11. Mr Tan Jin Thong, President of the National Safety Council of Singapore affirmed, "Safety is of course a primary concern. At the same time, we are glad that the workgroup's recommendations are reasonable and practical such that it does not paralyse the affected industries. Although the industries will require some form of adjustment such as displaced workers and stiffer penalties, this is supported because the lives of everyone including workers are precious and we see the importance of making their journeys as safe as possible." 12. Mr Chua Chee Wai, Head, Operations and Training, Traffic Police, and Workgroup member said, "Everyone has a shared responsibility to make journeys safer for workers. This includes lorry drivers who also need to exercise care for their passengers and observe safe driving habits. So, let's all play our part and keep our roads safe." Enclosures Annex A: Existing Safety Measures for Workers Transported on Lorries Annex B: Details of Measures to Enhance Safety of workers Annex C: Executive Summary of Workgroup's Review ______________________ 1 The Workgroup, co-chaired by LTA and MOM, was formed in 2008 to review and further enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries. Members comprise of Association of Singapore Marine Industries (ASMI), Defence, Science & Technology Agency (DSTA), Ministry of Transport (MOT), National Safety Council of Singapore (NSC), Singapore Contractors Association Limited (SCAL), Singapore Logistics Association (SLA), Singapore School & Private Hire Bus Owners' Association (SSPHBOA), Singapore School Transport Association (SSTA), Singapore Transport Association (STA), and the Traffic Police (TP). 2 Over the past several years, both the fatality and injury rates were about 6 times lower than the annual average fatality and injury rates of all road accidents over the same period. 3 Open lorries with a maximum laden weight not exceeding 3,500 kg which are only used to transport goods (i.e. not used to transport workers) will still be required to have side protective railings along the sideboards of the rear carriage deck to prevent goods from falling off the carriage deck. http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=2174