Humans Aren't Cargo has a new domain name.
Please click on
http://humansarentcargo.blogspot.com/
Monday, July 19, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Safety first for army trucks
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 16 July 2010.
Safety first for army trucks
Jul 16, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong"; July 2).
I used to work in a transport unit in the army and there are many safety considerations when it comes to putting soldiers on the trucks and even smaller jeeps.
For instance, all trucks are fitted with seat belts and proper secured benches. They are also covered with a steel superstructure and canvas, which protect passengers against the elements and also minimise the danger of passengers tumbling out in the event that the truck tips over.
In the case of the jeeps, when there is no overhead cover, all passengers and the driver are required to wear helmets. Outside of training and regular operational purposes - for example, National Day Parade rehearsals - soldiers are usually ferried in commercial buses, while the trucks are used for transporting stores.
I think if similar measures were made in the transportation of foreign workers, there would definitely be fewer fatalities on the road.
If businesses can get a big enough van or covered truck with basic safety requirements, such as built-in seat belts and a canopy, there will be savings in the long term, given that the likelihood of employers having to pay compensation to injured workers because of traffic accidents would be sharply reduced.
Shaun Teo
Safety first for army trucks
Jul 16, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong"; July 2).
I used to work in a transport unit in the army and there are many safety considerations when it comes to putting soldiers on the trucks and even smaller jeeps.
For instance, all trucks are fitted with seat belts and proper secured benches. They are also covered with a steel superstructure and canvas, which protect passengers against the elements and also minimise the danger of passengers tumbling out in the event that the truck tips over.
In the case of the jeeps, when there is no overhead cover, all passengers and the driver are required to wear helmets. Outside of training and regular operational purposes - for example, National Day Parade rehearsals - soldiers are usually ferried in commercial buses, while the trucks are used for transporting stores.
I think if similar measures were made in the transportation of foreign workers, there would definitely be fewer fatalities on the road.
If businesses can get a big enough van or covered truck with basic safety requirements, such as built-in seat belts and a canopy, there will be savings in the long term, given that the likelihood of employers having to pay compensation to injured workers because of traffic accidents would be sharply reduced.
Shaun Teo
Ferrying workers: Smokescreen regulations won't work
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 16 July 2010.
Ferrying workers: Smokescreen regulations won't work
Jul 16, 2010
I WAS an audit director for the Transport Accidents Commission of the state of Victoria in Australia, and I have seen thousands of files on traffic and transport accidents.
When I first took up my role in Singapore two years ago, I was shocked that workers were crammed into open-top vehicles designed solely for the transport of materials.
This situation seems incongruous with Singapore's image as a safe place to work. Government plans ('Worker-transport safety rules may come sooner'; June 26) to alleviate risk will make no difference to worker death or injury in the case of a major accident.
The Government did not mention any improvement in the securing of workers in the vehicles, or in overhead roll protection.
Instead of designing smokescreen regulations, like the proposed rule to increase space per worker in the back of open-top vehicles, which has no real major impact on safety, the Government should simply make construction companies pay for foreign workers to be transported on buses.
Robert J. Cochrane
Ferrying workers: Smokescreen regulations won't work
Jul 16, 2010
I WAS an audit director for the Transport Accidents Commission of the state of Victoria in Australia, and I have seen thousands of files on traffic and transport accidents.
When I first took up my role in Singapore two years ago, I was shocked that workers were crammed into open-top vehicles designed solely for the transport of materials.
This situation seems incongruous with Singapore's image as a safe place to work. Government plans ('Worker-transport safety rules may come sooner'; June 26) to alleviate risk will make no difference to worker death or injury in the case of a major accident.
The Government did not mention any improvement in the securing of workers in the vehicles, or in overhead roll protection.
Instead of designing smokescreen regulations, like the proposed rule to increase space per worker in the back of open-top vehicles, which has no real major impact on safety, the Government should simply make construction companies pay for foreign workers to be transported on buses.
Robert J. Cochrane
Safe Transport: TWC2's view
The following statement was posted by TWC2, a local migrant worker welfare organization, on its website.
Three Chinese workers died when a lorry in which they were being carried skidded and crashed onto its side on the morning of June 22nd. Some among the 14 survivors needed hospital treatment. The lorry crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
TWC2 has argued strongly against transporting workers on the backs of lorries and trucks and in favour of transport in enclosed vehicles. Road safety measures are not only meant to prevent accidents, but to minimise the harm done when they do occur. If the 17 workers had been travelling in a coach or a minibus (preferably with seatbelts), would the outcome have been this serious? We think that is not likely.
In an article on 'Safety on the Roads' that was published in the September-October 2007 issue of the TWC2 members' newsletter, our position was set out clearly:
'(T)he problem is that the rules as they stand do not adequately ensure the safety of men being carried and attempts to make a flawed system work are bound to fall short of their intended goals: transporting people in the open backs of lorries and trucks, without proper seating or seat belts and exposed to the elements, is inherently a risk to their health and safety – whether they be foreign workers or National Servicemen.
The Executive Committee believes that Singapore should ban the transport of people in the back of lorries or trucks. Instead, workers should be conveyed to and from work by buses or minivans hired or bought for the purpose and equipped with safety belts. We realize that this will impose additional costs upon contractors, but consider that the toll in lost lives and injuries under existing arrangements could be significantly reduced by this means and that this consideration should come uppermost. It should be recognised that the long term savings by companies on costs caused by accidents, including those due to the death or injury of workers, will defray these expenses somewhat. It will also close an issue that has disturbed many people, particularly when an accident has occurred.
We propose that the way to proceed on this issue would be for the government, through the Land Transport Authority, to declare that this measure is to be introduced and to set a target date for full compliance with it that will give contractors adequate time to make the arrangements necessary.'
This remains TWC2's view.
Three Chinese workers died when a lorry in which they were being carried skidded and crashed onto its side on the morning of June 22nd. Some among the 14 survivors needed hospital treatment. The lorry crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
TWC2 has argued strongly against transporting workers on the backs of lorries and trucks and in favour of transport in enclosed vehicles. Road safety measures are not only meant to prevent accidents, but to minimise the harm done when they do occur. If the 17 workers had been travelling in a coach or a minibus (preferably with seatbelts), would the outcome have been this serious? We think that is not likely.
In an article on 'Safety on the Roads' that was published in the September-October 2007 issue of the TWC2 members' newsletter, our position was set out clearly:
'(T)he problem is that the rules as they stand do not adequately ensure the safety of men being carried and attempts to make a flawed system work are bound to fall short of their intended goals: transporting people in the open backs of lorries and trucks, without proper seating or seat belts and exposed to the elements, is inherently a risk to their health and safety – whether they be foreign workers or National Servicemen.
The Executive Committee believes that Singapore should ban the transport of people in the back of lorries or trucks. Instead, workers should be conveyed to and from work by buses or minivans hired or bought for the purpose and equipped with safety belts. We realize that this will impose additional costs upon contractors, but consider that the toll in lost lives and injuries under existing arrangements could be significantly reduced by this means and that this consideration should come uppermost. It should be recognised that the long term savings by companies on costs caused by accidents, including those due to the death or injury of workers, will defray these expenses somewhat. It will also close an issue that has disturbed many people, particularly when an accident has occurred.
We propose that the way to proceed on this issue would be for the government, through the Land Transport Authority, to declare that this measure is to be introduced and to set a target date for full compliance with it that will give contractors adequate time to make the arrangements necessary.'
This remains TWC2's view.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
No exceptions when it comes to transport safety
The following letter was published in the Straits Times on 8 July 2010.
No exceptions when it comes to transport safety
Jul 8, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter last Friday ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong").
Essentially, if we measure a policy only by economic impact, then it would make economic sense to use lorries for public transport as well. After all, lorries can take more passengers than school buses and taxis.
The question is why safety overrides economic impact when we are talking about transporting office workers, children, executives and factory workers - while foreign labourers are exempt.
The question of practicality is important, but what the Government can do is to look at subsidies and incentives for implementing safe transport. It is up to industries and the authorities to marshal the effort and resources to come up with a solution. If we are really that concerned with safety, it should be safety for everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Tan Chui Hua (Ms)
No exceptions when it comes to transport safety
Jul 8, 2010
I REFER to Mr Tan Lek Lek's letter last Friday ("Banning lorries for transport is wrong").
Essentially, if we measure a policy only by economic impact, then it would make economic sense to use lorries for public transport as well. After all, lorries can take more passengers than school buses and taxis.
The question is why safety overrides economic impact when we are talking about transporting office workers, children, executives and factory workers - while foreign labourers are exempt.
The question of practicality is important, but what the Government can do is to look at subsidies and incentives for implementing safe transport. It is up to industries and the authorities to marshal the effort and resources to come up with a solution. If we are really that concerned with safety, it should be safety for everyone, not just those who can afford it.
Tan Chui Hua (Ms)
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
368 lorry drivers booked
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 7 July 2010.
368 lorry drivers booked
By Maria Almenoar
Straits Times, Jul 7, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONG
A TWO-week enforcement exercise to catch errant lorries flouting safety rules involving workers netted 386 lorries, or 10 per cent of those checked.
Traffic Police also caught 122 drivers for offences such as speeding, failing to wear seat belt and failing to keep left.
The blitz was carried out jointly by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police (TP) at Kaki Bukit, Pioneer Road, Tuas and Woodlands.
Offences include carrying more passengers than they should, not filling up front passenger seats first and not displaying a maximum passenger capacity label among others.
The safety of workers while being ferried on lorries has been in the spotlight again recently after a spate of serious accidents last month.
Mr Tan Hiok Seng, LTA's director of Enforcement and Investigations said: 'LTA takes a serious view of those who continue to flout the rules. We have and will continue to step-up our enforcement efforts. We hope that with the cooperation and commitment of all parties, we will be able to create a safer environment for workers.'
In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. It is reviewing whether the remaining safety measures announced last August for implementation by September 2012, can be brought forward.
Commander Traffic Police, assistant commissioner of police Christopher Ng said: 'We would like to remind all motorists that speeding, inconsiderate and careless driving are serious offences that have the potential to cause the loss of lives.'
'Traffic Police will spare no efforts in ensuring that such driving behaviour will be kept to a minimum through continued enforcement and outreach.'
368 lorry drivers booked
By Maria Almenoar
Straits Times, Jul 7, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONGA TWO-week enforcement exercise to catch errant lorries flouting safety rules involving workers netted 386 lorries, or 10 per cent of those checked.
Traffic Police also caught 122 drivers for offences such as speeding, failing to wear seat belt and failing to keep left.
The blitz was carried out jointly by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police (TP) at Kaki Bukit, Pioneer Road, Tuas and Woodlands.
Offences include carrying more passengers than they should, not filling up front passenger seats first and not displaying a maximum passenger capacity label among others.
The safety of workers while being ferried on lorries has been in the spotlight again recently after a spate of serious accidents last month.
Mr Tan Hiok Seng, LTA's director of Enforcement and Investigations said: 'LTA takes a serious view of those who continue to flout the rules. We have and will continue to step-up our enforcement efforts. We hope that with the cooperation and commitment of all parties, we will be able to create a safer environment for workers.'
In addition to stepped-up enforcement efforts, LTA is considering doing more to improve the safety of lorries on our roads. It is reviewing whether the remaining safety measures announced last August for implementation by September 2012, can be brought forward.
Commander Traffic Police, assistant commissioner of police Christopher Ng said: 'We would like to remind all motorists that speeding, inconsiderate and careless driving are serious offences that have the potential to cause the loss of lives.'
'Traffic Police will spare no efforts in ensuring that such driving behaviour will be kept to a minimum through continued enforcement and outreach.'
Enforcement checks show 1 in 10 lorries flout rules
The following article was published in TODAY on 7 July 2010.
Enforcement checks show 1 in 10 lorries flout rules
by Dylan Loh
TODAY
Jul 07, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: An LTA enforcement officer issuing a summons to a lorry driver who displayed an incorrect Maximum Passenger Capacity label. KOH MUI FONG
SINGAPORE - The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police have stepped up enforcement checks on lorries in view of recent fatal accidents.
In all, 368 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules over a two-week period.
MediaCorp joined one such operation in the west of Singapore early yesterday morning.
In the darkness before daybreak, enforcement officers guided lorries suspected of safety violations into a heavy vehicle park along Pioneer Road at the Tuas industrial area.
Enforcement officers in white inspected the vehicles closely. A summon of fines was issued to every driver who was found flouting regulations.
One lorry had a Maximum Passenger Capacity label of 27 displayed, but after checks, it was found that only 22 people were supposed to be carried in the vehicle.
According to regulations, lorries should also fill their front cabins with passengers first, before putting people in the back.
One lorry driver was found not to have done this, and he seemed agitated when he was issued a summons, complaining in a mishmash of dialects.
He then shouted at two workers he was ferrying to sit in front. He drove off before the men were seated safely next to him and before the door was closed.
About one in 10 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules during the two-week operation.
Enforcement checks show 1 in 10 lorries flout rules
by Dylan Loh
TODAY
Jul 07, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: An LTA enforcement officer issuing a summons to a lorry driver who displayed an incorrect Maximum Passenger Capacity label. KOH MUI FONGSINGAPORE - The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Traffic Police have stepped up enforcement checks on lorries in view of recent fatal accidents.
In all, 368 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules over a two-week period.
MediaCorp joined one such operation in the west of Singapore early yesterday morning.
In the darkness before daybreak, enforcement officers guided lorries suspected of safety violations into a heavy vehicle park along Pioneer Road at the Tuas industrial area.
Enforcement officers in white inspected the vehicles closely. A summon of fines was issued to every driver who was found flouting regulations.
One lorry had a Maximum Passenger Capacity label of 27 displayed, but after checks, it was found that only 22 people were supposed to be carried in the vehicle.
According to regulations, lorries should also fill their front cabins with passengers first, before putting people in the back.
One lorry driver was found not to have done this, and he seemed agitated when he was issued a summons, complaining in a mishmash of dialects.
He then shouted at two workers he was ferrying to sit in front. He drove off before the men were seated safely next to him and before the door was closed.
About one in 10 lorries were found to have flouted safety rules during the two-week operation.
Ferrying workers by lorry: Cost not a reason
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 6 July 2010.
Ferrying workers by lorry: Cost not a reason
Jul 6, 2010
IN HIS letter last Friday ('Banning lorries for transport is wrong'), Mr Tan Lek Lek implied that foreign workers should not be treated differently from national servicemen who are transported in lorries.
He suggested that the lorries used to transport national servicemen were similar to the ones ferrying foreign workers to and from their workplaces.
This is not true.
National servicemen are transported in trucks with canopies as well as seatbelts.
Foreign workers are transported in lorries without seat belts and often without canopies too.
Despite the new policies from the Land Transport Authority, there is a lack of enforcement on the roads to deter errant drivers from using open-top trucks to ferry workers around.
Second, Mr Tan suggests that high costs will not entice companies to hire buses.
One strategy to consider is to collectively seek lower costs from bus companies.
More construction companies coming together to hire the services of bus companies gives them collective bargaining power, which could result in cheaper costs.
Third, Mr Tan assumed that bus drivers will remain idle for a long stretch until the time comes to pick up workers from work.
There is no basis for the argument as bus drivers have other people to pick up, such as students or employees working in industrial areas.
Sha Najak (Miss)
Communications Manager
Transient Workers Count Too
Ferrying workers by lorry: Cost not a reason
Jul 6, 2010
IN HIS letter last Friday ('Banning lorries for transport is wrong'), Mr Tan Lek Lek implied that foreign workers should not be treated differently from national servicemen who are transported in lorries.
He suggested that the lorries used to transport national servicemen were similar to the ones ferrying foreign workers to and from their workplaces.
This is not true.
National servicemen are transported in trucks with canopies as well as seatbelts.
Foreign workers are transported in lorries without seat belts and often without canopies too.
Despite the new policies from the Land Transport Authority, there is a lack of enforcement on the roads to deter errant drivers from using open-top trucks to ferry workers around.
Second, Mr Tan suggests that high costs will not entice companies to hire buses.
One strategy to consider is to collectively seek lower costs from bus companies.
More construction companies coming together to hire the services of bus companies gives them collective bargaining power, which could result in cheaper costs.
Third, Mr Tan assumed that bus drivers will remain idle for a long stretch until the time comes to pick up workers from work.
There is no basis for the argument as bus drivers have other people to pick up, such as students or employees working in industrial areas.
Sha Najak (Miss)
Communications Manager
Transient Workers Count Too
Friday, July 2, 2010
Introduce speed limiters for goods vehicles
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 2 July 2010.
Introduce speed limiters for goods vehicles
Jul 2, 2010
I SHARE the sentiments of Mr Stewart Sanjay in his letter last Saturday ("Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger").
Mr Sanjay was spot-on when he mentioned that speeding is the main cause of most accidents involving heavy vehicles. To be fair, however, only a handful of drivers are guilty of speeding.
These days, foreign nationals, mainly from China and India, are employed by companies to transport goods and passengers. These drivers lack experience in handling heavy vehicles and worse, are unfamiliar with our roads.
They speed and take evasive action by jamming on the brake suddenly, resulting in an increasing number of vehicles overturning.
Perhaps the authorities should consider making it compulsory for goods vehicles and heavy vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters. Drivers should also attend defensive driving courses before being allowed to drive heavy vehicles.
Poh Soon Leong
Introduce speed limiters for goods vehicles
Jul 2, 2010
I SHARE the sentiments of Mr Stewart Sanjay in his letter last Saturday ("Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger").
Mr Sanjay was spot-on when he mentioned that speeding is the main cause of most accidents involving heavy vehicles. To be fair, however, only a handful of drivers are guilty of speeding.
These days, foreign nationals, mainly from China and India, are employed by companies to transport goods and passengers. These drivers lack experience in handling heavy vehicles and worse, are unfamiliar with our roads.
They speed and take evasive action by jamming on the brake suddenly, resulting in an increasing number of vehicles overturning.
Perhaps the authorities should consider making it compulsory for goods vehicles and heavy vehicles to be fitted with speed limiters. Drivers should also attend defensive driving courses before being allowed to drive heavy vehicles.
Poh Soon Leong
Banning lorries for transport is wrong
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 2 July 2010.
Banning lorries for transport is wrong
Jul 2, 2010
THE current obsession with banning lorries from transporting workers following a recent fatal accident is unreasonable.
The issue of transporting workers in such vehicles should be considered in a balanced way, and we need to take into account the needs of all the concerned parties. For instance, if army personnel can be transported by lorries, why not workers?
Many jumped to hasty conclusions following the fatal accident on June 22, in which three foreign workers died after the lorry they were in skidded and crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
Many who are pressing for a ban on using such vehicles to transport workers do not understand the practicalities of operating a small business.
The immediate consequence of restricting worker transport to buses or vans for small construction and service companies is a sharp spike in costs, as these firms are forced to buy vans or small buses and hire additional drivers.
Second, the vehicle population will swell by a few thousand buses and vans.
Assuming that there is a small job that requires five or six workers with some materials to be transported, the company will have to ferry the workers by van to the site and use another lorry to transport the tools and materials.
The van and driver will remain idle for a long stretch until it is time to pick up the workers in the evening.
Are Singaporeans willing to pay for such a sharp increase in costs?
Can Singapore businesses remain competitive?
And what does it say about productivity when transport vehicles and drivers have nothing to do for such long stretches daily?
Tan Lek Lek
Banning lorries for transport is wrong
Jul 2, 2010
THE current obsession with banning lorries from transporting workers following a recent fatal accident is unreasonable.
The issue of transporting workers in such vehicles should be considered in a balanced way, and we need to take into account the needs of all the concerned parties. For instance, if army personnel can be transported by lorries, why not workers?
Many jumped to hasty conclusions following the fatal accident on June 22, in which three foreign workers died after the lorry they were in skidded and crashed off the Pan-Island Expressway.
Many who are pressing for a ban on using such vehicles to transport workers do not understand the practicalities of operating a small business.
The immediate consequence of restricting worker transport to buses or vans for small construction and service companies is a sharp spike in costs, as these firms are forced to buy vans or small buses and hire additional drivers.
Second, the vehicle population will swell by a few thousand buses and vans.
Assuming that there is a small job that requires five or six workers with some materials to be transported, the company will have to ferry the workers by van to the site and use another lorry to transport the tools and materials.
The van and driver will remain idle for a long stretch until it is time to pick up the workers in the evening.
Are Singaporeans willing to pay for such a sharp increase in costs?
Can Singapore businesses remain competitive?
And what does it say about productivity when transport vehicles and drivers have nothing to do for such long stretches daily?
Tan Lek Lek
Worker safety a top priority
This letter was published in The New Paper on 1 July 2010.
Worker safety a top priority
From reader Arthur Lim
The New Paper, 1 July 2010
I refer to the recent lorry accidents involving foreign workers.
Singapore prides herself on being No.1 in so many areas. Yet we allow human beings to be transported on the back of lorries.
Madam Halimah Yacob, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, has stated that ideally, these workers should be ferried by buses.
Even if that rule is not enforced, perhaps the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Manpower should explain why employers have been given such a long time to use lorries that comply with the new regulations.
Does it take three years to modify the existing lorries to meet these safety requirements?
Yes, this will add to costs for the employers, but they should factor that in when they submit tenders for projects.
They should not put in a low bid then cut corners, compromising the safety of workers.
A developed country like Singapore should ensure the safety of workers and reduce the risks they face.
Not only should the rules be laid down, they should be strictly enforced too.
Employers who breach the rules should not only be fined, but made to pay compensation to the workers or their families too in the event of a mishap or a tragedy.
Worker safety a top priority
From reader Arthur Lim
The New Paper, 1 July 2010
I refer to the recent lorry accidents involving foreign workers.
Singapore prides herself on being No.1 in so many areas. Yet we allow human beings to be transported on the back of lorries.
Madam Halimah Yacob, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, has stated that ideally, these workers should be ferried by buses.
Even if that rule is not enforced, perhaps the Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Manpower should explain why employers have been given such a long time to use lorries that comply with the new regulations.
Does it take three years to modify the existing lorries to meet these safety requirements?
Yes, this will add to costs for the employers, but they should factor that in when they submit tenders for projects.
They should not put in a low bid then cut corners, compromising the safety of workers.
A developed country like Singapore should ensure the safety of workers and reduce the risks they face.
Not only should the rules be laid down, they should be strictly enforced too.
Employers who breach the rules should not only be fined, but made to pay compensation to the workers or their families too in the event of a mishap or a tragedy.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Safe Transport for Workers
This letter, sent to the Straits Times forum, was not published in the newspaper. However, it was published by Transient Workers Count Too in its newsletter .
Safe Transport for Workers
Dear Editor,
I have read about the topic of unsafe transportation of migrant workers on the back of trucks and I would like to share a little points that you could ponder upon before listening to what many might state is no issue at all. Firstly, consider that there is already a complete ban on transporting people on the back of trucks by some countries. Britain and Bahrain have issued this ban completely. 30 out of the 50 states of the US issue some restriction on how people are ferried on trucks. Secondly, consider the feasibility of the alternative, namely buses. I will quote here: “Mr Neo Tiam Beng, president of the Singapore School and Private Hire Bus Owners' Association says that the operators who run some 4,000 private buses for hire here have the capacity to provide transportation to foreign workers.” (taken from the articles in:
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/Motorworld/Story/A1Story20090522-143033.html)
Vehicles can be used more efficiently with more persons being transported. Initially, switching over from lorries to buses for transporting workers might cost more but could be decreased in the longer run. Alternative transport types could be improvised. These are two alternatives:
a) Class 4 lorries with a built-in 8 seater-cabin. This modification isn't difficult to construct. The use of larger lorries will ensure that only more skilled drivers are employed: it takes more skill to handle class 4 vehicles. The more stringent and sparing issuing of class 4 licenses could also ensure that drivers be more careful not to jeopardize their licenses. There could be some parking issues as these lorries: 2-axle ones cannot be parked in normal URA car-parks but only in those designated for Heavy Vehicle Parking.
b) Adding a compartment to the normal-sized 14-foot lorries, could probably mean fitting an additional cabin size for an additional 3 men, and this translates to a total of 4 passengers and one driver. The luggage space left would be that of the length of the normal pick-ups but with slightly longer dimensions for the width. This could prove limited. A structural change of retailers transporting the goods would translate into different retail and marketing strategies for raw materials. Retailers providing the delivery could set a shorter credit term than the usual 30-day one now presently in use. One serious consideration for the current system of transporting workers is that the limit on the number of workers is given but it does not specify adequately what is unsafe. If workers are not seated on the floorboard but are in fact sitting on goods, doesn’t that alter number and safety considerations, for example? Thus to set a regulation of allocating a space of 0.33 sq m2 per passenger becomes virtually meaningless. I have read several blogs on this issue and these mostly demonstrate Singaporeans' prejudice against foreign drivers. The drivers could well be Singaporeans too.
I wonder why LTA did not mandate the same rules as SAF did for their trucks, land-rovers and official vehicles. A strict 50 km/h speed limit, built-in clocking device when a vehicle travels more than 55 km/h for more than 10 seconds (the points add up and these are by no means bonus points!), having their headlamps on at all times and (this should work) non-negotiable prison sentences for any accident unless it's entirely not the driver’s fault even one per cent.
A new look into insurance coverage of the workers on their way to work should also happen. Lastly when considering the difference between transporting workers on the backs of lorries and army personnel on military vehicles, one should take into account the following:
a) Military vehicles have sturdy chassies.
b) The backs of the military trucks are all fully covered with canvas protecting the passengers from the elements. The chassis includes a backrest.
c) Army personnel must wear their helmets and these must be strapped up tightly.
d) Personnel must either sit on the benches or on the floor. They are not allowed to sit on equipment. Those sitting on the benches must sit properly, while those sitting on the floorboard must sit facing the tailboard.
e) All goods must be secured and placed on the floorboard. For equipment required on the move, these must be secured in definite approved standards.
f) Soldiers are not allowed to sleep in the vehicle.
g) A senior personnel member must sit at the back of the vehicle nearest the tailboard.
h) The most senior personnel member acts as the Vehicle Commander, sitting beside the driver. He could be equally responsible for any incident along the way.
i) Proper logging of route details prevents the misuse of the vehicle and logs any incident along the way.
j) Designated routes have been spelled out for use by SAF military vehicles. These are usually roads with less traffic that link the various army camps and training areas.
k) Front headlamps are turned on all the times with the exception of during night deployment exercises in training areas.
I find it difficult even conceiving how a comparison of ferrying workers on lorries to army personnel can be made given the stringent regulations on the latter mode of transportation. I hope my brief sharing has shed more light on the transport issue.
Safe Transport for Workers
Dear Editor,
I have read about the topic of unsafe transportation of migrant workers on the back of trucks and I would like to share a little points that you could ponder upon before listening to what many might state is no issue at all. Firstly, consider that there is already a complete ban on transporting people on the back of trucks by some countries. Britain and Bahrain have issued this ban completely. 30 out of the 50 states of the US issue some restriction on how people are ferried on trucks. Secondly, consider the feasibility of the alternative, namely buses. I will quote here: “Mr Neo Tiam Beng, president of the Singapore School and Private Hire Bus Owners' Association says that the operators who run some 4,000 private buses for hire here have the capacity to provide transportation to foreign workers.” (taken from the articles in:
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/Motorworld/Story/A1Story20090522-143033.html)
Vehicles can be used more efficiently with more persons being transported. Initially, switching over from lorries to buses for transporting workers might cost more but could be decreased in the longer run. Alternative transport types could be improvised. These are two alternatives:
a) Class 4 lorries with a built-in 8 seater-cabin. This modification isn't difficult to construct. The use of larger lorries will ensure that only more skilled drivers are employed: it takes more skill to handle class 4 vehicles. The more stringent and sparing issuing of class 4 licenses could also ensure that drivers be more careful not to jeopardize their licenses. There could be some parking issues as these lorries: 2-axle ones cannot be parked in normal URA car-parks but only in those designated for Heavy Vehicle Parking.
b) Adding a compartment to the normal-sized 14-foot lorries, could probably mean fitting an additional cabin size for an additional 3 men, and this translates to a total of 4 passengers and one driver. The luggage space left would be that of the length of the normal pick-ups but with slightly longer dimensions for the width. This could prove limited. A structural change of retailers transporting the goods would translate into different retail and marketing strategies for raw materials. Retailers providing the delivery could set a shorter credit term than the usual 30-day one now presently in use. One serious consideration for the current system of transporting workers is that the limit on the number of workers is given but it does not specify adequately what is unsafe. If workers are not seated on the floorboard but are in fact sitting on goods, doesn’t that alter number and safety considerations, for example? Thus to set a regulation of allocating a space of 0.33 sq m2 per passenger becomes virtually meaningless. I have read several blogs on this issue and these mostly demonstrate Singaporeans' prejudice against foreign drivers. The drivers could well be Singaporeans too.
I wonder why LTA did not mandate the same rules as SAF did for their trucks, land-rovers and official vehicles. A strict 50 km/h speed limit, built-in clocking device when a vehicle travels more than 55 km/h for more than 10 seconds (the points add up and these are by no means bonus points!), having their headlamps on at all times and (this should work) non-negotiable prison sentences for any accident unless it's entirely not the driver’s fault even one per cent.
A new look into insurance coverage of the workers on their way to work should also happen. Lastly when considering the difference between transporting workers on the backs of lorries and army personnel on military vehicles, one should take into account the following:
a) Military vehicles have sturdy chassies.
b) The backs of the military trucks are all fully covered with canvas protecting the passengers from the elements. The chassis includes a backrest.
c) Army personnel must wear their helmets and these must be strapped up tightly.
d) Personnel must either sit on the benches or on the floor. They are not allowed to sit on equipment. Those sitting on the benches must sit properly, while those sitting on the floorboard must sit facing the tailboard.
e) All goods must be secured and placed on the floorboard. For equipment required on the move, these must be secured in definite approved standards.
f) Soldiers are not allowed to sleep in the vehicle.
g) A senior personnel member must sit at the back of the vehicle nearest the tailboard.
h) The most senior personnel member acts as the Vehicle Commander, sitting beside the driver. He could be equally responsible for any incident along the way.
i) Proper logging of route details prevents the misuse of the vehicle and logs any incident along the way.
j) Designated routes have been spelled out for use by SAF military vehicles. These are usually roads with less traffic that link the various army camps and training areas.
k) Front headlamps are turned on all the times with the exception of during night deployment exercises in training areas.
I find it difficult even conceiving how a comparison of ferrying workers on lorries to army personnel can be made given the stringent regulations on the latter mode of transportation. I hope my brief sharing has shed more light on the transport issue.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Getting street smart on worker transport safety
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 29 June 2010.
Getting street smart on worker transport safety
Enhance safety now, but stop ferrying workers in lorries in the long run
By Radha Basu, Senior Correspondent
Straits Times, Jun 30, 2010
Image credit: ST
LAST Tuesday, a Toyota Dyna lorry carrying Chinese construction workers skidded and overturned near the Thomson Road exit of the Pan-Island Expressway.
Some workers - perched on the vehicle's open deck - were flung out. Three died. Fourteen were injured.
Traffic accidents of this kind happen, but it is sad to see them recurring.
The lorry flouted safety regulations by carrying more people than is allowed by law. And though it had railings, these obviously did not help.
The incident led Members of Parliament and community workers to suggest that enhanced safety rules for lorries ferrying workers - announced last August - should kick in sooner than September 2012.
By then, all lorries carrying workers must have higher railings and canopies. There are guidelines too, on the number of workers each lorry can carry, depending on its size.
Barely 24 hours after the Thomson Road accident, a lorry packed with workers rammed into a tree in Jurong. Six were injured. This vehicle had some of the required safety features, such as a canopy and higher railings. But the workers were injured anyway.
It is true that no amount of rules and penalties can prevent traffic accidents. Lorry drivers themselves must also be careful and avoid speeding, for example.
But many are also asking why workers - foreign or local - should continue to be ferried on the back of lorries and not in safer 'enclosed' vehicles like buses. They have a point.
Lorries are goods vehicles, designed to carry cargo. Humans are not cargo. Most developed nations and some Gulf countries have banned the risky practice of ferrying workers on the back of lorries.
In Singapore, traffic safety is usually of paramount importance. For instance, people who do not belt up in cars face a $120 fine.
Two years ago, when eight-year-old Russell Koh was killed after being flung out of his school van during a collision, the Government announced that it would spend $35 million over five years to help bus companies retrofit 6,400 small buses with seat belts and front-facing seats.
Last year, 166 people were killed or injured in accidents involving victims sitting on the cargo decks of lorries and pick-up trucks. In some cases in recent years, the casualty numbers have hovered around the 200 mark. Despite this, why do we continue to accept the practice of transporting humans like cargo?
To be fair, the Government has made efforts to improve workers' safety on the roads. After a review last year, a government-appointed workgroup recommended stiffer penalties for errant lorry owners and drivers who flout safety regulations, tighter rules for carrying workers on the back of lorries and more frequent checks.
The workgroup was co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower. But as the second accident last week showed, even the enhanced rules may not be enough.
The workgroup did consider whether buses could be used to transport workers. But having consulted a 'wide range of businesses in different industries', it felt that the 'impact on industries and businesses will be significant, should the transport of workers on the back of lorries be disallowed'. Around 200,000 workers are ferried in lorries here daily. So the status quo remained - but with lorries being required to add safety features.
Businesses that save money by transporting workers on lorries would naturally be averse to spending more to transport them in buses. But should they be allowed to continue with this low-cost method at the expense of worker safety?
In an ideal world, ferrying workers on lorries would be outlawed immediately and employers would deploy buses to move them around, mindful that workers' safety is worth the extra cost. This would be the long-term solution to the problem.
Meanwhile, if employers insist on using lorries to transport workers, the least they can do is retrofit the lorries for safety. Putting up high railings and canopies can cost as little as $1,500 per lorry.
More can also be done to create incentives for employers to do more, not less, for worker safety on the roads. The LTA is considering bringing forward the 2012 deadline for fitting all lorries with stricter safety features. This is a good step.
It might also introduce stricter rules to ensure that foreign workers are qualified to drive on Singapore's roads. The driver in last week's fatal accident - and another in an accident last May which resulted in four deaths - were foreign workers. They were allowed to drive here without practical tests.
There should also be stiffer penalties for infringing existing rules. Even after a revision last year, fines for lorries carrying extra workers - not exceeding a quarter of the permissible limit - are only $500 for first-time offenders.
The fine for not displaying the 'maximum passenger capacity' label, as mandated by law, is a paltry $100 - the same as for displaying a false sign. Increasing such fines substantially could prove a deterrent.
In the long run, the Government should consider setting a timeframe for companies to phase out the use of open deck lorries to transport workers.
Companies that transport large numbers of foreign or local workers may protest loudly about the high costs of such a move. This is their prerogative.
But the state has to balance their interests against those of workers and make a judicious decision. Besides, an accident could prove more expensive to companies involved. In a settlement last year, a Bangladeshi worker who fell off the back of a lorry was offered $50,000 in compensation.
The safety culture being assiduously promoted in our shipyards and construction sites should extend to our roads as well.
Getting street smart on worker transport safety
Enhance safety now, but stop ferrying workers in lorries in the long run
By Radha Basu, Senior Correspondent
Straits Times, Jun 30, 2010
Image credit: STLAST Tuesday, a Toyota Dyna lorry carrying Chinese construction workers skidded and overturned near the Thomson Road exit of the Pan-Island Expressway.
Some workers - perched on the vehicle's open deck - were flung out. Three died. Fourteen were injured.
Traffic accidents of this kind happen, but it is sad to see them recurring.
The lorry flouted safety regulations by carrying more people than is allowed by law. And though it had railings, these obviously did not help.
The incident led Members of Parliament and community workers to suggest that enhanced safety rules for lorries ferrying workers - announced last August - should kick in sooner than September 2012.
By then, all lorries carrying workers must have higher railings and canopies. There are guidelines too, on the number of workers each lorry can carry, depending on its size.
Barely 24 hours after the Thomson Road accident, a lorry packed with workers rammed into a tree in Jurong. Six were injured. This vehicle had some of the required safety features, such as a canopy and higher railings. But the workers were injured anyway.
It is true that no amount of rules and penalties can prevent traffic accidents. Lorry drivers themselves must also be careful and avoid speeding, for example.
But many are also asking why workers - foreign or local - should continue to be ferried on the back of lorries and not in safer 'enclosed' vehicles like buses. They have a point.
Lorries are goods vehicles, designed to carry cargo. Humans are not cargo. Most developed nations and some Gulf countries have banned the risky practice of ferrying workers on the back of lorries.
In Singapore, traffic safety is usually of paramount importance. For instance, people who do not belt up in cars face a $120 fine.
Two years ago, when eight-year-old Russell Koh was killed after being flung out of his school van during a collision, the Government announced that it would spend $35 million over five years to help bus companies retrofit 6,400 small buses with seat belts and front-facing seats.
Last year, 166 people were killed or injured in accidents involving victims sitting on the cargo decks of lorries and pick-up trucks. In some cases in recent years, the casualty numbers have hovered around the 200 mark. Despite this, why do we continue to accept the practice of transporting humans like cargo?
To be fair, the Government has made efforts to improve workers' safety on the roads. After a review last year, a government-appointed workgroup recommended stiffer penalties for errant lorry owners and drivers who flout safety regulations, tighter rules for carrying workers on the back of lorries and more frequent checks.
The workgroup was co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower. But as the second accident last week showed, even the enhanced rules may not be enough.
The workgroup did consider whether buses could be used to transport workers. But having consulted a 'wide range of businesses in different industries', it felt that the 'impact on industries and businesses will be significant, should the transport of workers on the back of lorries be disallowed'. Around 200,000 workers are ferried in lorries here daily. So the status quo remained - but with lorries being required to add safety features.
Businesses that save money by transporting workers on lorries would naturally be averse to spending more to transport them in buses. But should they be allowed to continue with this low-cost method at the expense of worker safety?
In an ideal world, ferrying workers on lorries would be outlawed immediately and employers would deploy buses to move them around, mindful that workers' safety is worth the extra cost. This would be the long-term solution to the problem.
Meanwhile, if employers insist on using lorries to transport workers, the least they can do is retrofit the lorries for safety. Putting up high railings and canopies can cost as little as $1,500 per lorry.
More can also be done to create incentives for employers to do more, not less, for worker safety on the roads. The LTA is considering bringing forward the 2012 deadline for fitting all lorries with stricter safety features. This is a good step.
It might also introduce stricter rules to ensure that foreign workers are qualified to drive on Singapore's roads. The driver in last week's fatal accident - and another in an accident last May which resulted in four deaths - were foreign workers. They were allowed to drive here without practical tests.
There should also be stiffer penalties for infringing existing rules. Even after a revision last year, fines for lorries carrying extra workers - not exceeding a quarter of the permissible limit - are only $500 for first-time offenders.
The fine for not displaying the 'maximum passenger capacity' label, as mandated by law, is a paltry $100 - the same as for displaying a false sign. Increasing such fines substantially could prove a deterrent.
In the long run, the Government should consider setting a timeframe for companies to phase out the use of open deck lorries to transport workers.
Companies that transport large numbers of foreign or local workers may protest loudly about the high costs of such a move. This is their prerogative.
But the state has to balance their interests against those of workers and make a judicious decision. Besides, an accident could prove more expensive to companies involved. In a settlement last year, a Bangladeshi worker who fell off the back of a lorry was offered $50,000 in compensation.
The safety culture being assiduously promoted in our shipyards and construction sites should extend to our roads as well.
Monday, June 28, 2010
TOC Special Feature: Safer transport – what are we waiting for?
The following article was posted by The Online Citizen on June 28, 2010.
TOC Special Feature: Safer transport – what are we waiting for?
Story by Stephanie Chok / Video edited by Natalie Soh / Pictures by Stephanie Chok & Mykel Yee / Additional reporting by Patrick Chng /
As a nation, we are wired, advanced and wealthy. So surely Singapore can find a better, safer yet financially feasible alternative to transporting humans on the cargo decks of lorries?
It is illegal in China[1] and banned in Bahrain.[2] It shocks overseas guests,[3] including migrant workers from around the region who endure this mode of transport daily. Shen, a construction worker from China, says, “When I first arrived at Changi Airport, I was so impressed. Then a goods vehicle came to pick us up. I was shocked and felt very ill-at-ease, why is this company sending a goods vehicle to pick us up?” Construction worker, Yash, says that in India, people take buses (though they may not be luxurious) – if employers transported workers in this way, “the police will come after you and beat you up”. Raj, who has previously worked in Saudi Arabia, says, “I never imagined here in Singapore they will transport us this way. In Saudi, you will never see this, it is not allowed”.
The debate about transporting workers in open-deck lorries has been revived since the horrific lorry accident[4] along the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) last Tuesday morning. The lorry skidded and crashed into a divider, resulting in 3 workers dead, 14 injured (and 1 driver arrested[5]). Just one day later, there was yet another lorry accident[6], this time involving a 24 foot lorry carrying 40 workers – the lorry crashed into a tree, leaving six workers injured and having to undergo treatment for head injuries.
It is estimated that over 200,000 workers[7] are ferried to and from their worksites daily on the cargo decks of lorries. While not a practice exclusive to foreign workers, male migrant labourers in the construction, marine and landscaping industries form the bulk of the passengers who are transported this way on a daily basis, in the searing heat or pouring rain.
In 2009, it was reported that an average of four workers a week[8] who are transported on lorries never make it to their destination in one piece. A total of 210 passengers[9] transported in this manner were injured or killed in 2008, a disturbing increase from 69 in 2005.
“You just have to trust that you won’t get hurt”: what workers say
Gulzar, an electrical worker from India, says the lorry rides, where workers have no safety belts or anchorage, are dangerous. He once witnessed a co-worker falling off the lorry when it was making a turn. When a lorry jam brakes, men may fall on each other or fly from the back to the front, resulting in bruises and other injuries. Murugan, a construction worker, says “people have been flung out” when there are sudden stops. It is even more dangerous when there is equipment on board, which may fall on workers. Photographs of lorries carrying workers and equipment show men squashed beneath or between stacks of towering furniture, tree trunks, ladders and all manner of machinery. One can only wonder what the impact would be if there was a crash. (In the lorry accident on 22 June 2010, one of the workers who died on the spot was found with a metal rod sticking out of his head.)
Kadal, also from India, says that sometimes the back of the lorry is not latched properly and it opens up. Zhang, a construction worker, says this is especially hazardous when the lorry is speeding and makes a turn. In the meantime, there is nothing for the men to hold on to unless they are seated at the sides – those in the middle have to simply grab on to their co-workers.
Subash, who works in the shipyards, says sometimes drivers fall asleep at the wheel because it is so early in the morning and they do shift work; often the lorry drivers start at 4am and drive non-stop till 10am, so they are fatigued. “When traveling this way,” he says, “you just have to trust that you won’t get hurt, that’s all you can do”.
Meanwhile, things get worse when it rains. Ju, a construction worker, says that when it rains, the workers seated at the four corners will hold up a sheet, or else the men use trash bags to shield themselves. For Kadal and his colleagues, there is no cover, even when it rains – the men are left to their devices. Zhang says the inside of the lorries are often dirty with silt and debris.
When it rains, the men find themselves not only getting drenched by rainwater but their pants soaked by the murky water that fills up the lorry. By the time they arrive at work, they are not just wet but caked in dirt. According to Zhang, there isn’t even a chance to change their clothes – the men have to get straight to work. Shen, also a construction worker, says that when it rains, the handlebars (if any) are slippery and sometimes the lorry may overturn on wet roads. He laments that it is a miserable experience sitting under the pelting rain, especially if one falls ill after. When workers catch a cold as a result, they may or may not be granted sick leave – if they are, they are often not paid for those days they are resting. Zhang says that in all his years of working here, he has never taken medical leave for the flu. If you rest, he says, you won’t get paid and he “cannot afford not to work”.
Other hazards of traveling on the back of goods vehicles include backaches from the prolonged bumpy rides on uneven surfaces and exposure to high heat, wind and dust. When asked why workers are sometimes seen rushing to board lorries, Zhang explains that you need to do that in order to get a “good seat” close to the front. If you sit at the back, he says, the wind is so strong you can’t open your eyes and all sorts of debris flies in. (Kadal once got a severe eye infection after particles flew into his eyes and he could not work for two weeks) Meanwhile, if you sit in the centre, there is nothing to hold on to.
Ju explains that this rush – particularly on large worksites – is due to workers anxious not to be left behind if the lorry is full. Waiting for the next ride (or the next) may mean workers, particularly those whose dormitories are situated far away, may not arrive in their dormitories till hours later. Akhtar, a Bangladeshi shipyard worker, says that the limited number of lorries hired by the company for a large number of workers means that he and his colleagues may sometimes not return to their far-flung dormitory till 10pm at night. After cooking their dinner, washing up, showering and doing their laundry, they will head to bed past midnight. Early morning lorry rides suffer from a different problem – Akhtar must wake up at 4am to be in time for a 5am lorry ride that drops him off at the shipyard by 6am, although work only begins at 7.30am. Another construction worker, Devraj, is dropped off at his worksite at 5.30am, while work only begins at 8am. This may explain the sight of sleep-deprived workers dozing off in lorries, dangerous as this practice may seem.
Almost all the workers I spoke with complained about speeding, which seriously jeopardizes their safety. Ju says his company’s drivers “don’t care if there is a red light” and sometimes speed off without first checking that all the workers are seated properly or have boarded the lorry. According to Ju, the drivers are paid per trip, so their imperative is to hurry. They tend to drive very early in the morning, to lessen the chances of being caught by authorities. Zhang explains that sometimes drivers rush because they have many different work sites to get to so they need to make multiple trips and ensure workers are not late. The perils of speeding are compounded by overcrowding. Raj says he has seen lorries that are meant to seat 13 hold up to 19 men; those with a capacity of 23 may cram in 30.
Many of the workers express surprise that they are transported in this manner in Singapore. Says Murugan, “I didn’t expect it when I first came, I thought we would be transported by bus. The first time I had to travel by lorry, I felt quite shocked and embarrassed”. Ju and Zhang express similar sentiments, recalling – like Shen – their ‘welcome ride’ from Changi Airport when they first arrived. “It was so unexpected,” says Zhang, “to see a goods vehicle crammed full with all these men squeezed among their luggage and have to climb inside”. In China, says Zhang, there isn’t this form of transport for people. Ju adds, “In China, this is definitely not allowed and people will get fined for transporting workers like this”.
When asked if they have raised the hazards of this form of transport with their bosses, Gulzar shakes his head and says, “You cannot tell the company these things. If you say this, you will have lots of problems”. Zhang widens his eyes at this question. “Of course not! No one else has mentioned it so how could you dare bring it up? My boss will tell me, If others can take it, why can’t you? Do you think you are better than them?” Meanwhile, Murugan says that yes, he has complained about this, but the boss said, “If you are not happy, go back to India”. Kadal, similarly, has requested for the lorry to be covered. He was told, “No, if you want you can take the bus. If you cannot take this, don’t work, go back to India”. Shrugs Kadal, ‘What to do? We have to work”.
Do safety measures make it safe?
After years of debate and a spate of accidents last year[10], the Land Transport Authority announced new safety measures in August 2009[11] regarding the transport of workers on lorries. To be phased in over three years, the measures include height restrictions, the installation of side railings and canopies and doubling the minimum deck space per seated worker. At the time, there were questions over why it should take three years to implement these measures, and the accidents last week have renewed calls to expedite this process.[12]
But let’s get one thing straight: there is no such thing as “safe travel” on the cargo decks of lorries. While certain control measures – observing speed limits, installing railings, not sitting on unsteady platforms – may mitigate risks, it is still an inherently unsafe practice because these are spaces not designed to carry human passengers. As Dr Joseph Thambiah,[13] head of National University Hospital’s orthopaedic trauma division, has pointed out, “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”. A Business Times commentatory[14] has said of these measures: “While enhancing safety, [they] still do nothing about the fact that commuting unbelted in the back of an open-top truck is simply a fatality waiting to happen”.
John Gee, President of Transient Workers Count Too, advocates that “transporting workers in buses should still be the ultimate goal”.[15] Workers from India and China have also mentioned that this is how workers back in their home country are also transported – and Singapore is recognized as a well-resourced city with advanced infrastructure.
In general, there is little disagreement that this mode of transport for workers is undignified and unsafe. The calls to enforce stringent safety regulations and educate as well as punish those who violate them are mostly uncontroversial. It gets contentious only when discussion turns to banning this practice – essentially, a problem of dollars and cents. This is especially so for situations where small or medium-sized companies may be ferrying workers and equipment together at the back of their lorries, and traveling to and from multiple sites in one day. However, as has been pointed out, the government “readily forked out $35 million”[16] towards a five year plan for minibuses to be equipped with seat belts; this was following the death of an eight-year-old boy who was flung out of a school van. This new ruling was in place less than six months after the boy’s death following a public outcry.[17] In the meantime, Jolovan Wham, from the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics,[18] pointed out that “[the] cost of hiring buses can be significantly reduced if employers sign collective agreements with transport companies offering bus services.”
The workers I spoke with generally rejected “cost-effectiveness” as a sufficient reason to compromise their safety. Kadal insists companies should pay for workers to be transported on buses, where they will be seated safely and sheltered from the rain. If there are accidents, asks Kadal, the employer may look after immediate medical costs, but what about long-term injuries? It was also pointed out that workers transported safely in buses will be happier and more productive. Ju acknowledges it may be cheaper to ferry workers in lorries rather than buses, but says if the company truly cared about safety they would. However, in his experience, workers’ safety is his company’s lowest priority – “where they can save, they will save”. As Gulzar emphasizes, this practice is so pervasive, “the government must take action, we individuals cannot do anything”. Murugan, meanwhile, states it plainly: “We are talking about the cost of a human life – saving money should not be the consideration”.
Photographs were taken from an overhead bridge in Toa Payoh overlooking the PIE during the evening rush hour on 24 June 2010, two days after a horrific lorry accident killed 3 men and injured 14 others.
*All the names of workers interviewed in this report have been changed*
References:
1) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/matching-up-to-first-world-safety.html
2) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/ferrying-workers-safely.html
3) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/lorries-are-designed-to-carry-goods-not.html
4) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/3-dead-in-pie-accident.html
5) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/driver-in-fatal-lorry-crash-arrested.html
6) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/safety-calls-grow-after-2nd-accident.html
7) http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=2174
8) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/ferrying-workers-safely.html
9) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-safety-regulations-for-transporting.html
10) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/four-workers-killed-as-lorry-crashes.html
11) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/safety-measures-for-worker-transport-in.html
12) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-safety-rules-should-kick-in-sooner.html
13) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-safety-regulations-for-transporting.html
14) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/foreign-lives-not-worth-much.html
15) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-safety-regulations-for-transporting.html
16) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/foreign-lives-not-worth-much.html
17) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/ferrying-workers-safely.html
18) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-price-worker-life.html
TOC Special Feature: Safer transport – what are we waiting for?
Story by Stephanie Chok / Video edited by Natalie Soh / Pictures by Stephanie Chok & Mykel Yee / Additional reporting by Patrick Chng /
As a nation, we are wired, advanced and wealthy. So surely Singapore can find a better, safer yet financially feasible alternative to transporting humans on the cargo decks of lorries?
It is illegal in China[1] and banned in Bahrain.[2] It shocks overseas guests,[3] including migrant workers from around the region who endure this mode of transport daily. Shen, a construction worker from China, says, “When I first arrived at Changi Airport, I was so impressed. Then a goods vehicle came to pick us up. I was shocked and felt very ill-at-ease, why is this company sending a goods vehicle to pick us up?” Construction worker, Yash, says that in India, people take buses (though they may not be luxurious) – if employers transported workers in this way, “the police will come after you and beat you up”. Raj, who has previously worked in Saudi Arabia, says, “I never imagined here in Singapore they will transport us this way. In Saudi, you will never see this, it is not allowed”.
The debate about transporting workers in open-deck lorries has been revived since the horrific lorry accident[4] along the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) last Tuesday morning. The lorry skidded and crashed into a divider, resulting in 3 workers dead, 14 injured (and 1 driver arrested[5]). Just one day later, there was yet another lorry accident[6], this time involving a 24 foot lorry carrying 40 workers – the lorry crashed into a tree, leaving six workers injured and having to undergo treatment for head injuries.
It is estimated that over 200,000 workers[7] are ferried to and from their worksites daily on the cargo decks of lorries. While not a practice exclusive to foreign workers, male migrant labourers in the construction, marine and landscaping industries form the bulk of the passengers who are transported this way on a daily basis, in the searing heat or pouring rain.
In 2009, it was reported that an average of four workers a week[8] who are transported on lorries never make it to their destination in one piece. A total of 210 passengers[9] transported in this manner were injured or killed in 2008, a disturbing increase from 69 in 2005.
“You just have to trust that you won’t get hurt”: what workers say
Gulzar, an electrical worker from India, says the lorry rides, where workers have no safety belts or anchorage, are dangerous. He once witnessed a co-worker falling off the lorry when it was making a turn. When a lorry jam brakes, men may fall on each other or fly from the back to the front, resulting in bruises and other injuries. Murugan, a construction worker, says “people have been flung out” when there are sudden stops. It is even more dangerous when there is equipment on board, which may fall on workers. Photographs of lorries carrying workers and equipment show men squashed beneath or between stacks of towering furniture, tree trunks, ladders and all manner of machinery. One can only wonder what the impact would be if there was a crash. (In the lorry accident on 22 June 2010, one of the workers who died on the spot was found with a metal rod sticking out of his head.)
Kadal, also from India, says that sometimes the back of the lorry is not latched properly and it opens up. Zhang, a construction worker, says this is especially hazardous when the lorry is speeding and makes a turn. In the meantime, there is nothing for the men to hold on to unless they are seated at the sides – those in the middle have to simply grab on to their co-workers.
Subash, who works in the shipyards, says sometimes drivers fall asleep at the wheel because it is so early in the morning and they do shift work; often the lorry drivers start at 4am and drive non-stop till 10am, so they are fatigued. “When traveling this way,” he says, “you just have to trust that you won’t get hurt, that’s all you can do”.
Meanwhile, things get worse when it rains. Ju, a construction worker, says that when it rains, the workers seated at the four corners will hold up a sheet, or else the men use trash bags to shield themselves. For Kadal and his colleagues, there is no cover, even when it rains – the men are left to their devices. Zhang says the inside of the lorries are often dirty with silt and debris.
When it rains, the men find themselves not only getting drenched by rainwater but their pants soaked by the murky water that fills up the lorry. By the time they arrive at work, they are not just wet but caked in dirt. According to Zhang, there isn’t even a chance to change their clothes – the men have to get straight to work. Shen, also a construction worker, says that when it rains, the handlebars (if any) are slippery and sometimes the lorry may overturn on wet roads. He laments that it is a miserable experience sitting under the pelting rain, especially if one falls ill after. When workers catch a cold as a result, they may or may not be granted sick leave – if they are, they are often not paid for those days they are resting. Zhang says that in all his years of working here, he has never taken medical leave for the flu. If you rest, he says, you won’t get paid and he “cannot afford not to work”.
Other hazards of traveling on the back of goods vehicles include backaches from the prolonged bumpy rides on uneven surfaces and exposure to high heat, wind and dust. When asked why workers are sometimes seen rushing to board lorries, Zhang explains that you need to do that in order to get a “good seat” close to the front. If you sit at the back, he says, the wind is so strong you can’t open your eyes and all sorts of debris flies in. (Kadal once got a severe eye infection after particles flew into his eyes and he could not work for two weeks) Meanwhile, if you sit in the centre, there is nothing to hold on to.
Ju explains that this rush – particularly on large worksites – is due to workers anxious not to be left behind if the lorry is full. Waiting for the next ride (or the next) may mean workers, particularly those whose dormitories are situated far away, may not arrive in their dormitories till hours later. Akhtar, a Bangladeshi shipyard worker, says that the limited number of lorries hired by the company for a large number of workers means that he and his colleagues may sometimes not return to their far-flung dormitory till 10pm at night. After cooking their dinner, washing up, showering and doing their laundry, they will head to bed past midnight. Early morning lorry rides suffer from a different problem – Akhtar must wake up at 4am to be in time for a 5am lorry ride that drops him off at the shipyard by 6am, although work only begins at 7.30am. Another construction worker, Devraj, is dropped off at his worksite at 5.30am, while work only begins at 8am. This may explain the sight of sleep-deprived workers dozing off in lorries, dangerous as this practice may seem.
Almost all the workers I spoke with complained about speeding, which seriously jeopardizes their safety. Ju says his company’s drivers “don’t care if there is a red light” and sometimes speed off without first checking that all the workers are seated properly or have boarded the lorry. According to Ju, the drivers are paid per trip, so their imperative is to hurry. They tend to drive very early in the morning, to lessen the chances of being caught by authorities. Zhang explains that sometimes drivers rush because they have many different work sites to get to so they need to make multiple trips and ensure workers are not late. The perils of speeding are compounded by overcrowding. Raj says he has seen lorries that are meant to seat 13 hold up to 19 men; those with a capacity of 23 may cram in 30.
Many of the workers express surprise that they are transported in this manner in Singapore. Says Murugan, “I didn’t expect it when I first came, I thought we would be transported by bus. The first time I had to travel by lorry, I felt quite shocked and embarrassed”. Ju and Zhang express similar sentiments, recalling – like Shen – their ‘welcome ride’ from Changi Airport when they first arrived. “It was so unexpected,” says Zhang, “to see a goods vehicle crammed full with all these men squeezed among their luggage and have to climb inside”. In China, says Zhang, there isn’t this form of transport for people. Ju adds, “In China, this is definitely not allowed and people will get fined for transporting workers like this”.
When asked if they have raised the hazards of this form of transport with their bosses, Gulzar shakes his head and says, “You cannot tell the company these things. If you say this, you will have lots of problems”. Zhang widens his eyes at this question. “Of course not! No one else has mentioned it so how could you dare bring it up? My boss will tell me, If others can take it, why can’t you? Do you think you are better than them?” Meanwhile, Murugan says that yes, he has complained about this, but the boss said, “If you are not happy, go back to India”. Kadal, similarly, has requested for the lorry to be covered. He was told, “No, if you want you can take the bus. If you cannot take this, don’t work, go back to India”. Shrugs Kadal, ‘What to do? We have to work”.
Do safety measures make it safe?
After years of debate and a spate of accidents last year[10], the Land Transport Authority announced new safety measures in August 2009[11] regarding the transport of workers on lorries. To be phased in over three years, the measures include height restrictions, the installation of side railings and canopies and doubling the minimum deck space per seated worker. At the time, there were questions over why it should take three years to implement these measures, and the accidents last week have renewed calls to expedite this process.[12]
But let’s get one thing straight: there is no such thing as “safe travel” on the cargo decks of lorries. While certain control measures – observing speed limits, installing railings, not sitting on unsteady platforms – may mitigate risks, it is still an inherently unsafe practice because these are spaces not designed to carry human passengers. As Dr Joseph Thambiah,[13] head of National University Hospital’s orthopaedic trauma division, has pointed out, “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”. A Business Times commentatory[14] has said of these measures: “While enhancing safety, [they] still do nothing about the fact that commuting unbelted in the back of an open-top truck is simply a fatality waiting to happen”.
John Gee, President of Transient Workers Count Too, advocates that “transporting workers in buses should still be the ultimate goal”.[15] Workers from India and China have also mentioned that this is how workers back in their home country are also transported – and Singapore is recognized as a well-resourced city with advanced infrastructure.
In general, there is little disagreement that this mode of transport for workers is undignified and unsafe. The calls to enforce stringent safety regulations and educate as well as punish those who violate them are mostly uncontroversial. It gets contentious only when discussion turns to banning this practice – essentially, a problem of dollars and cents. This is especially so for situations where small or medium-sized companies may be ferrying workers and equipment together at the back of their lorries, and traveling to and from multiple sites in one day. However, as has been pointed out, the government “readily forked out $35 million”[16] towards a five year plan for minibuses to be equipped with seat belts; this was following the death of an eight-year-old boy who was flung out of a school van. This new ruling was in place less than six months after the boy’s death following a public outcry.[17] In the meantime, Jolovan Wham, from the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics,[18] pointed out that “[the] cost of hiring buses can be significantly reduced if employers sign collective agreements with transport companies offering bus services.”
The workers I spoke with generally rejected “cost-effectiveness” as a sufficient reason to compromise their safety. Kadal insists companies should pay for workers to be transported on buses, where they will be seated safely and sheltered from the rain. If there are accidents, asks Kadal, the employer may look after immediate medical costs, but what about long-term injuries? It was also pointed out that workers transported safely in buses will be happier and more productive. Ju acknowledges it may be cheaper to ferry workers in lorries rather than buses, but says if the company truly cared about safety they would. However, in his experience, workers’ safety is his company’s lowest priority – “where they can save, they will save”. As Gulzar emphasizes, this practice is so pervasive, “the government must take action, we individuals cannot do anything”. Murugan, meanwhile, states it plainly: “We are talking about the cost of a human life – saving money should not be the consideration”.
Photographs were taken from an overhead bridge in Toa Payoh overlooking the PIE during the evening rush hour on 24 June 2010, two days after a horrific lorry accident killed 3 men and injured 14 others.
*All the names of workers interviewed in this report have been changed*
References:
1) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/matching-up-to-first-world-safety.html
2) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/ferrying-workers-safely.html
3) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/lorries-are-designed-to-carry-goods-not.html
4) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/3-dead-in-pie-accident.html
5) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/driver-in-fatal-lorry-crash-arrested.html
6) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/safety-calls-grow-after-2nd-accident.html
7) http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=2174
8) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/ferrying-workers-safely.html
9) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-safety-regulations-for-transporting.html
10) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/four-workers-killed-as-lorry-crashes.html
11) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/safety-measures-for-worker-transport-in.html
12) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-safety-rules-should-kick-in-sooner.html
13) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-safety-regulations-for-transporting.html
14) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/foreign-lives-not-worth-much.html
15) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-safety-regulations-for-transporting.html
16) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/foreign-lives-not-worth-much.html
17) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2009/05/ferrying-workers-safely.html
18) http://humansnotcargo.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-price-worker-life.html
MPs to raise lorry safety in Parliament
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 28 June 2010.
MPs to raise lorry safety in Parliament
They also question if it is too easy for foreigners to get driving licence
By Ng Kai Ling
Straits Times, Jun 28, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: Some MPs want the Government to consider phasing out the use of lorries for ferrying workers altogether, in the long run. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM
THE issue of using lorries to ferry workers will come up in Parliament next month, with three members of the House having already submitted questions on it.
In the wake of the accident last week which killed three workers and injured 14, the Members of Parliament want the Transport Ministry to explain whether:
- The previously announced safety measures, such as having higher side railings and canopies, can be enforced earlier than the planned Sept 1, 2012;
- The measures announced last August are enough to ensure workers' safety;
- It is too easy for foreigners who work as drivers to get driving licences here.
These questions will be raised by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport; Madam Halimah Yacob, the chairman of the GPC for Manpower; and Aljunied GRC MP Yeo Guat Kwang.
The question about driving licences for foreigners is a new aspect of the issue that has cropped up since it has come to light that some lorries ferrying workers are driven by foreigners. This aspect was not discussed last August, when the stepped-up safety measures were announced.
Madam Halimah said: 'These drivers have licences from their countries, but may not be competent to drive here.'
For work permit holders with valid licences from their home country to drive here, all that is needed is for them to pass a written test and for their companies to apply to the Manpower Ministry for them to do so.
Mr Yeo said this is not enough. These drivers should be tested on road knowledge and safety before they are allowed to drive here.
'We have very strict requirements for our public transport drivers seeking their vocational licences. The ministry should consider having similar vocational licensing for foreigners,' he said.
He and Madam Halimah also question the sincerity of companies when it comes to taking care of their workers.
Madam Halimah, an MP for Jurong GRC, noted that employers are 'dragging their feet' about installing the higher railings and canopies: 'Enough notice has been given to businesses on the safety measures. I think it's reasonable to have the rules in place by the end of the year.'
She reiterated that even with cost being an important consideration among employers, taking care of workers is a company's 'basic obligation'.
Transport Minister Raymond Lim and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Teo Ser Luck said at separate events over the weekend that the issue is being reviewed and that the Government is considering bringing the enforcement of safety measures forward.
Dr Lim suggested that, in the meantime, lorries should be banned from expressways, given that most such accidents happen on expressways. But in the long run, the Government should consider phasing out the use of lorries for ferrying workers, he said.
Madam Halimah agreed. She said: 'These are not just numbers. These are human beings. It is not good for Singapore for them to come here to work and go back in coffins.'
MPs to raise lorry safety in Parliament
They also question if it is too easy for foreigners to get driving licence
By Ng Kai Ling
Straits Times, Jun 28, 2010
Reproduced photo caption: Some MPs want the Government to consider phasing out the use of lorries for ferrying workers altogether, in the long run. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIMTHE issue of using lorries to ferry workers will come up in Parliament next month, with three members of the House having already submitted questions on it.
In the wake of the accident last week which killed three workers and injured 14, the Members of Parliament want the Transport Ministry to explain whether:
- The previously announced safety measures, such as having higher side railings and canopies, can be enforced earlier than the planned Sept 1, 2012;
- The measures announced last August are enough to ensure workers' safety;
- It is too easy for foreigners who work as drivers to get driving licences here.
These questions will be raised by Dr Lim Wee Kiak, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Transport; Madam Halimah Yacob, the chairman of the GPC for Manpower; and Aljunied GRC MP Yeo Guat Kwang.
The question about driving licences for foreigners is a new aspect of the issue that has cropped up since it has come to light that some lorries ferrying workers are driven by foreigners. This aspect was not discussed last August, when the stepped-up safety measures were announced.
Madam Halimah said: 'These drivers have licences from their countries, but may not be competent to drive here.'
For work permit holders with valid licences from their home country to drive here, all that is needed is for them to pass a written test and for their companies to apply to the Manpower Ministry for them to do so.
Mr Yeo said this is not enough. These drivers should be tested on road knowledge and safety before they are allowed to drive here.
'We have very strict requirements for our public transport drivers seeking their vocational licences. The ministry should consider having similar vocational licensing for foreigners,' he said.
He and Madam Halimah also question the sincerity of companies when it comes to taking care of their workers.
Madam Halimah, an MP for Jurong GRC, noted that employers are 'dragging their feet' about installing the higher railings and canopies: 'Enough notice has been given to businesses on the safety measures. I think it's reasonable to have the rules in place by the end of the year.'
She reiterated that even with cost being an important consideration among employers, taking care of workers is a company's 'basic obligation'.
Transport Minister Raymond Lim and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Teo Ser Luck said at separate events over the weekend that the issue is being reviewed and that the Government is considering bringing the enforcement of safety measures forward.
Dr Lim suggested that, in the meantime, lorries should be banned from expressways, given that most such accidents happen on expressways. But in the long run, the Government should consider phasing out the use of lorries for ferrying workers, he said.
Madam Halimah agreed. She said: 'These are not just numbers. These are human beings. It is not good for Singapore for them to come here to work and go back in coffins.'
Sunday, June 27, 2010
You have the power to protect them
The following article was published in The New Paper on 27 June 2010.
You have the power to protect them
By Eugene Wee
The New Paper
27 June 2010
Three foreign workers died earlier this week after the lorry transporting them lost control along the PIE near Thomson Road.
And many called for the enhanced measures to protect such workers to be enforced now instead of 2012 as scheduled.
But is this enough?
Workers may be a little safer on the road, but what of the host of other problems that beset them?
Many live in squalid dorms. Others are worked to the bone, hardly getting any time off. If they get injured or sick, some employers find every excuse in the book to get out of paying for their treatment.
The reason for a lot of these happening is simple - we, as consumers, want everything as cheap as possible,
If we continue to demand the cheapest option available, businesses will find ways to give it to us.
Cost gets cut by putting a few more workers behind the lorry to reduce trips, shoving more of them into tiny rooms, stacked like chickens, to save on accommodation, and squeezing their pay packets.
Can we do anything about this other than demanding that the Government intervene? Yes, we can.
Clash clout
Because we are in control of something much more powerful than legislation - our wallets.
One way to start is by choosing to work with businesses with good labour practices.
In the West, companies which insert green and humane labour policy clauses in their call for proposals are fairly common.
This means that they won't award contracts to companies that do not have eco-friendly practices or those that treat their workers badly.
We can practice this too, albeit on a smaller scale.
If you are renovating, don't engage contractors who ferry workers to your home in unsafe ways.
If you work for a company which deals with contractors, make your views known to your superiors, who may then be prudent in how they choose their suppliers.
But will people put their money where their mouth is when it comes to campaigning for the safety and well-being of foreign workers here?
Better working conditions and higher safety standards cost money to implement and maintain.
When costs go up, so do prices.
So when it comes to the crunch, will you reward companies who invest more in treating their workers better?
Or will financial prudence prevail? Consumers cry foul over worker ill-treatment, but quietly benefit from the affordable goods and services they churn out.
It is easy to condemn and pity after the fact.
To act will take a bit more effort.
You have the power to protect them
By Eugene Wee
The New Paper
27 June 2010
Three foreign workers died earlier this week after the lorry transporting them lost control along the PIE near Thomson Road.
And many called for the enhanced measures to protect such workers to be enforced now instead of 2012 as scheduled.
But is this enough?
Workers may be a little safer on the road, but what of the host of other problems that beset them?
Many live in squalid dorms. Others are worked to the bone, hardly getting any time off. If they get injured or sick, some employers find every excuse in the book to get out of paying for their treatment.
The reason for a lot of these happening is simple - we, as consumers, want everything as cheap as possible,
If we continue to demand the cheapest option available, businesses will find ways to give it to us.
Cost gets cut by putting a few more workers behind the lorry to reduce trips, shoving more of them into tiny rooms, stacked like chickens, to save on accommodation, and squeezing their pay packets.
Can we do anything about this other than demanding that the Government intervene? Yes, we can.
Clash clout
Because we are in control of something much more powerful than legislation - our wallets.
One way to start is by choosing to work with businesses with good labour practices.
In the West, companies which insert green and humane labour policy clauses in their call for proposals are fairly common.
This means that they won't award contracts to companies that do not have eco-friendly practices or those that treat their workers badly.
We can practice this too, albeit on a smaller scale.
If you are renovating, don't engage contractors who ferry workers to your home in unsafe ways.
If you work for a company which deals with contractors, make your views known to your superiors, who may then be prudent in how they choose their suppliers.
But will people put their money where their mouth is when it comes to campaigning for the safety and well-being of foreign workers here?
Better working conditions and higher safety standards cost money to implement and maintain.
When costs go up, so do prices.
So when it comes to the crunch, will you reward companies who invest more in treating their workers better?
Or will financial prudence prevail? Consumers cry foul over worker ill-treatment, but quietly benefit from the affordable goods and services they churn out.
It is easy to condemn and pity after the fact.
To act will take a bit more effort.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
What price a worker's life?
This letter was published in TODAY on 26 June 2010.
What price a worker's life?
Ignoring safety will cost firms more in the long run
Letter from Jolovan Wham Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics
TODAY
Jun 26, 2010
WE REFER to "Expedite timetable, train lorry drivers" (June 24). The Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics agrees with Chairman for the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, that the deadline for employers to comply with the new transport regulations should be expedited.
The Land Transport Authority has given employers until 2012 to install higher railings and canopies on their lorries. Do the lives of foreign workers which are lost during this period before the deadline not matter?
Based on the press release issued last year when the new measures were announced, it is worth noting that the work group which recommended them did not have any union representatives or worker's groups on its committee. Therefore, it is not surprising that the recommendations fell short of ensuring more urgent action was taken to prioritise the safety of workers.
Small- and medium-sized companies may be concerned that hiring safer modes of transport such as buses may add to their costs. However, the lives of human beings should not be measured in dollars and cents.
The recent stories of the workers affected by the attacks at Kallang have shown how deaths and injuries can have an adverse impact on the families of the workers, many of whom are sole breadwinners.
Employers should also take a broader perspective and view such alternatives as necessary investments for their businesses which will benefit them in the long run. A company which ignores safety will be saddled with costly medical bills and lost man hours; ultimately, the company's productivity will be affected.
The cost of hiring buses can be significantly reduced if employers sign collective agreements with transport companies offering bus services. These companies will be able to offer lower rates when there is a strong demand. This will create economies of scale, making it more affordable for employers to hire buses.
What price a worker's life?
Ignoring safety will cost firms more in the long run
Letter from Jolovan Wham Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics
TODAY
Jun 26, 2010
WE REFER to "Expedite timetable, train lorry drivers" (June 24). The Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics agrees with Chairman for the Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, that the deadline for employers to comply with the new transport regulations should be expedited.
The Land Transport Authority has given employers until 2012 to install higher railings and canopies on their lorries. Do the lives of foreign workers which are lost during this period before the deadline not matter?
Based on the press release issued last year when the new measures were announced, it is worth noting that the work group which recommended them did not have any union representatives or worker's groups on its committee. Therefore, it is not surprising that the recommendations fell short of ensuring more urgent action was taken to prioritise the safety of workers.
Small- and medium-sized companies may be concerned that hiring safer modes of transport such as buses may add to their costs. However, the lives of human beings should not be measured in dollars and cents.
The recent stories of the workers affected by the attacks at Kallang have shown how deaths and injuries can have an adverse impact on the families of the workers, many of whom are sole breadwinners.
Employers should also take a broader perspective and view such alternatives as necessary investments for their businesses which will benefit them in the long run. A company which ignores safety will be saddled with costly medical bills and lost man hours; ultimately, the company's productivity will be affected.
The cost of hiring buses can be significantly reduced if employers sign collective agreements with transport companies offering bus services. These companies will be able to offer lower rates when there is a strong demand. This will create economies of scale, making it more affordable for employers to hire buses.
Parliament must act to ensure safety
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 26 June 2010.
Jun 26, 2010
WORKERS IN FATAL CRASH
Parliament must act to ensure safety
I REFER to Wednesday's report ('New safety rules should kick in sooner, many say'), and fully agree with Madam Halimah Yacob, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, that buses are the best way to transport workers.
In fact, it should be the only way.
Tuesday's fatal accident killed three foreign workers who were among a group of workers being transported in a lorry when the crash occurred.
It seems clear enough that ferrying people on the back of lorries built to carry goods is dangerous. Installation of higher railings is ineffective when the lorry tips over or when another vehicle hits the side of the lorry.
Tuesday's accident suggests that Parliament cannot maintain that its paramount aim is worker safety, and yet contradict itself by accepting that installing canopies and higher railings and lowering the number of workers transported per lorry are sufficient safety measures.
It is clear that cost, and not safety, is paramount to the employers. So, until the market provides a cheaper alternative to ferry workers, Parliament must step up and protect these workers, and do so soon.
If we hope for Singaporeans to be more gracious and caring as a society, then we have to start by ensuring that no more innocent lives are lost by the passivity of the law and because of the bottom line of construction companies.
Esther Yee (Ms)
Jun 26, 2010
WORKERS IN FATAL CRASH
Parliament must act to ensure safety
I REFER to Wednesday's report ('New safety rules should kick in sooner, many say'), and fully agree with Madam Halimah Yacob, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Manpower, that buses are the best way to transport workers.
In fact, it should be the only way.
Tuesday's fatal accident killed three foreign workers who were among a group of workers being transported in a lorry when the crash occurred.
It seems clear enough that ferrying people on the back of lorries built to carry goods is dangerous. Installation of higher railings is ineffective when the lorry tips over or when another vehicle hits the side of the lorry.
Tuesday's accident suggests that Parliament cannot maintain that its paramount aim is worker safety, and yet contradict itself by accepting that installing canopies and higher railings and lowering the number of workers transported per lorry are sufficient safety measures.
It is clear that cost, and not safety, is paramount to the employers. So, until the market provides a cheaper alternative to ferry workers, Parliament must step up and protect these workers, and do so soon.
If we hope for Singaporeans to be more gracious and caring as a society, then we have to start by ensuring that no more innocent lives are lost by the passivity of the law and because of the bottom line of construction companies.
Esther Yee (Ms)
Don't just look at cost
The following letter was published in TODAY on 26 June 2010.
Don't just look at cost
Letter from Heng Chee How Executive Secretary, Building, Construction and Timber
Industries Employees’ Union (Batu)
TODAY
Jun 26, 2010
The Building, Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union is troubled and dismayed by the injury and deaths of workers from accidents involving open-top vehicles, year after year. Workers have a right to safe workplaces, decent and hygienic housing, and safe modes of transport.
Costs and profitability should not be reasons for taking the safety of workers less seriously than they should be. It is easy to blame workers and drivers for the accidents, and in some cases, they may be at fault. Yet, whether it is the choice of vehicle or driver, or deciding the number of passengers these vehicles carry, employers have the responsibility to ensure that their company arrangements comply with safety standards.
We urge the authorities to make clear these standards once again, and implement and enforce them rigorously without further delay. The latest string of such mishaps compels all to act with a sense of urgency.
Don't just look at cost
Letter from Heng Chee How Executive Secretary, Building, Construction and Timber
Industries Employees’ Union (Batu)
TODAY
Jun 26, 2010
The Building, Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union is troubled and dismayed by the injury and deaths of workers from accidents involving open-top vehicles, year after year. Workers have a right to safe workplaces, decent and hygienic housing, and safe modes of transport.
Costs and profitability should not be reasons for taking the safety of workers less seriously than they should be. It is easy to blame workers and drivers for the accidents, and in some cases, they may be at fault. Yet, whether it is the choice of vehicle or driver, or deciding the number of passengers these vehicles carry, employers have the responsibility to ensure that their company arrangements comply with safety standards.
We urge the authorities to make clear these standards once again, and implement and enforce them rigorously without further delay. The latest string of such mishaps compels all to act with a sense of urgency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)