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
Showing posts with label Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letters. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
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
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
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.
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.
Workers want urgent action
The following letter was published in the Straits Times on 26 June 2010.
Workers want urgent action
Straits Times, Jun 26, 2010
THE Building, Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union is troubled and dismayed at the injury and deaths of workers from accidents involving open-top vehicles year after year. Workers have a right to safe work places, decent and hygienic housing, and safe transport.
Businesses must worry about costs and profitability. That is fair, but it is not a reason for taking the safety of workers less seriously than they should.
It is convenient to fault workers and drivers for the accidents. While they may be at fault in cases, the issue is about employers practising due diligence for key aspects of the safety process; be it the choice of vehicle used, driving skills or passenger load.
We urge the authorities to reinforce these safety standards, and implement and enforce them rigorously without delay. The latest string of such mishaps requires urgent action.
Heng Chee How
Executive Secretary
Building, Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union
Workers want urgent action
Straits Times, Jun 26, 2010
THE Building, Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union is troubled and dismayed at the injury and deaths of workers from accidents involving open-top vehicles year after year. Workers have a right to safe work places, decent and hygienic housing, and safe transport.
Businesses must worry about costs and profitability. That is fair, but it is not a reason for taking the safety of workers less seriously than they should.
It is convenient to fault workers and drivers for the accidents. While they may be at fault in cases, the issue is about employers practising due diligence for key aspects of the safety process; be it the choice of vehicle used, driving skills or passenger load.
We urge the authorities to reinforce these safety standards, and implement and enforce them rigorously without delay. The latest string of such mishaps requires urgent action.
Heng Chee How
Executive Secretary
Building, Construction and Timber Industries Employees' Union
Don't wait for new measures
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 26 June 2010.
Don't wait for new measures
Straits Times, Jun 26, 2010
THE Land Transport Authority has given employers until 2012 to install higher railings and canopies on their lorries.
Does it not matter that more lives of foreign workers could be lost during this period before the deadline?
It is worth noting that when the new measures were announced, the work group which recommended them did not have any union representative or workers' group on its committee.
So, it is not surprising that the recommendations fell short of ensuring more urgent action to ensure worker safety.
We hope that Tuesday's fatal accident off the Pan- Island Expressway, in which three workers died, will not be treated as just another statistic.
It should be a strong wake-up call to fix the inadequacies of the current system with more effective and comprehensive measures.
Jolovan Wham
Executive Director
Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics
Don't wait for new measures
Straits Times, Jun 26, 2010
THE Land Transport Authority has given employers until 2012 to install higher railings and canopies on their lorries.
Does it not matter that more lives of foreign workers could be lost during this period before the deadline?
It is worth noting that when the new measures were announced, the work group which recommended them did not have any union representative or workers' group on its committee.
So, it is not surprising that the recommendations fell short of ensuring more urgent action to ensure worker safety.
We hope that Tuesday's fatal accident off the Pan- Island Expressway, in which three workers died, will not be treated as just another statistic.
It should be a strong wake-up call to fix the inadequacies of the current system with more effective and comprehensive measures.
Jolovan Wham
Executive Director
Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics
Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger
The following letter was published in the Straits Times forum on 26 June 2010.
Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger
Straits Times, Jun 26, 2010
TUESDAY'S fatal accident involving the death of three foreign workers being ferried in a lorry and similar tragedies are not due to safety issues regarding the mode of transport or the manner in which these workers are ferried.
The primary culprit is speeding.
Lorries travelling faster than most cars is a common sight. And heavy or sudden braking by such large speeding vehicles inevitably invites tragedy.
So, drivers of such vehicles and their minders - employers - should pay primary attention to the fact that they should not speed while driving a lorry for any reason.
Indeed, it may be worth checking what speed the drivers were travelling at in accidents involving lorries or similar vehicles.
Speeding also drastically reduces the chances of taking timely evasive action in emergencies.
Most workers, who sit at the back of the lorries, use the travel time to catch some sleep.
So, when the drivers brake heavily, sleeping workers who are completely vulnerable without seat belts will be seriously injured or die.
The authorities should implement initiatives to educate lorry drivers about speeding on our expressways.
Stewart Sanjay
Speeding by lorry drivers the deadliest danger
Straits Times, Jun 26, 2010
TUESDAY'S fatal accident involving the death of three foreign workers being ferried in a lorry and similar tragedies are not due to safety issues regarding the mode of transport or the manner in which these workers are ferried.
The primary culprit is speeding.
Lorries travelling faster than most cars is a common sight. And heavy or sudden braking by such large speeding vehicles inevitably invites tragedy.
So, drivers of such vehicles and their minders - employers - should pay primary attention to the fact that they should not speed while driving a lorry for any reason.
Indeed, it may be worth checking what speed the drivers were travelling at in accidents involving lorries or similar vehicles.
Speeding also drastically reduces the chances of taking timely evasive action in emergencies.
Most workers, who sit at the back of the lorries, use the travel time to catch some sleep.
So, when the drivers brake heavily, sleeping workers who are completely vulnerable without seat belts will be seriously injured or die.
The authorities should implement initiatives to educate lorry drivers about speeding on our expressways.
Stewart Sanjay
Thursday, June 24, 2010
'Lorries not meant to transport people.'
The following letters were published in the Straits Times forum on 24 June 2010.
'Lorries not meant to transport people'
MS TAN CHUI HUA: 'It is time for the Land Transport Authority to take passenger safety seriously. To insist on technicalities such as overcrowding of lorries or whether railings should be installed over a specified period does not address the core issue which is lorries are not meant to transport people. The attention paid to passenger safety in buses and cars versus the indifferent attitude towards the risks faced by passengers in lorries suggests double standards.'
'I cannot comprehend why LTA raised the speed limit'
MR CHIANG MENG LEE: 'My answer to Wednesday's report ('Must workers travel this way?') is yes. Provided, of course, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) effectively ensures that these lorries observe the 60kmh speed limit and they are confined to travelling on the slowest lane on the expressways. I cannot comprehend why the LTA raised the speed limit for vans, lorries and trucks and allowed them free rein on all expressway lanes bar the speediest. It is common these days to see such vehicles hogging most of the lanes, holding up the flow of expressway traffic.'
'Workers must be ferried in buses or vans'
MR ROGER OH: 'People should never be ferried on pick-up trucks and lorries that offer them little or no protection. Workers must be ferried in buses or vans. All too often, I have seen drivers of pick-up trucks tearing down the expressways with a load of passengers at speeds of 90kmh or more.'
'Lorries not meant to transport people'
MS TAN CHUI HUA: 'It is time for the Land Transport Authority to take passenger safety seriously. To insist on technicalities such as overcrowding of lorries or whether railings should be installed over a specified period does not address the core issue which is lorries are not meant to transport people. The attention paid to passenger safety in buses and cars versus the indifferent attitude towards the risks faced by passengers in lorries suggests double standards.'
'I cannot comprehend why LTA raised the speed limit'
MR CHIANG MENG LEE: 'My answer to Wednesday's report ('Must workers travel this way?') is yes. Provided, of course, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) effectively ensures that these lorries observe the 60kmh speed limit and they are confined to travelling on the slowest lane on the expressways. I cannot comprehend why the LTA raised the speed limit for vans, lorries and trucks and allowed them free rein on all expressway lanes bar the speediest. It is common these days to see such vehicles hogging most of the lanes, holding up the flow of expressway traffic.'
'Workers must be ferried in buses or vans'
MR ROGER OH: 'People should never be ferried on pick-up trucks and lorries that offer them little or no protection. Workers must be ferried in buses or vans. All too often, I have seen drivers of pick-up trucks tearing down the expressways with a load of passengers at speeds of 90kmh or more.'
Friday, August 28, 2009
Safer to ferry workers in buses
The following letter was published in ST Forum online on 28 August 2009.
SAFER TO FERRY WORKERS IN BUSES
I welcome the Government's initiative to give more protection to workers ferried on lorries.
It is a step forward. However, it may still not be enough. Lorries are for transporting goods, not people.
As a general surgeon in a public hospital, I have seen many cases of lorry passengers suffering serious injuries in traffic accidents.
We emphasise the use of safety devices such as seat belts and airbags in cars, and it is obvious that none of these features is available at the back of a lorry.
To ensure the safety of their workers, contractors can instead hire buses from private operators to ferry their workers to and from worksites.
In my travels around the world, I have not witnessed transportation of workers in the back of lorries in developed countries.
The speed limit of 60kmh for lorries is a good safety measure. However, many lorry drivers do not comply with the rule.
Enforcement and public education are essential. We need to educate the public, especially the drivers, on the consequences of speeding - that it not only causes the loss of a life, but also threatens the livelihood of a victim's family who depends on him.
Dr So Bok-Yan
URL: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_422156.html
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Matching up to First World safety standards
The following letter was published in TODAY on 25 August 2009.
Matching up to First World safety standards
by From F Bushfield
I WAS in a foreign country last month. I noticed that their construction workers were transported by vans and other passenger vehicles.
I said to a local colleague: "Why not follow Singapore's model of transporting these workers in the back of a lorry ... it is cheaper and the company does not need to have separate vehicles for goods and workers." He said it is illegal to do so. The country I was in is China. Is it okay for Singaporeans to have a lower standard than China? Where is the benchmarking we Singaporeans are so proud of?
URL:
Let's walk the talk
The following letter was published in TODAY on 25 August 2009.
Let's walk the talk
Let foreign workers take public transport
by From Woon Kok Keoong
SINGAPOREANS are a tough bunch of people to please. I have no qualms about foreign paying workers being transported in buses and paying higher prices for my renovations, but would the majority of the population agree to it? The next option would be to let these workers take public buses or the MRT, and I'm sure this is going to create a huge uproar like the Serangoon Gardens dorm issue. People want humanity, yet refuse to pay a price for it or even share public space with these workers.
URL: http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC090825-0000039/Lets-walk-the-talk
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why the double standards when it comes to foreign workers?
The following letter was published in ST Forum online on 24 August 2009.
Why the double standards when it comes to foreign workers?
I REFER to last Thursday's letter by Ms Isabel Vadivu Govind, 'Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all'.
I have always been baffled by the fact that passengers in enclosed private cars are required by law to put on seat belts, but workers are allowed to travel in open lorries and pick-up trucks. Many accidents and deaths involving foreign workers transported this way have occurred over the years.
Higher cost has been cited by both employers and the Government as the main reason a safer arrangement cannot be provided. I cannot understand the logic of comparing human life with economic costs.
When a life is lost, it is lost forever and no amount of money can bring it back. Would we have accepted the argument if those dead were Singaporeans? Would we not have asked (or demanded) safer protection for workers on the road?
Every one of those lives lost is someone's father or son or brother or husband. If we can make seat belts compulsory for all car passengers, we should expect equivalent safety measures for foreign workers who have come all the way here at considerable expense to earn a living and help us build our nation.
Tan Thiam Soon
URL:http://www.straitstimes.com/
Lorries are designed to carry goods, not people
The following letter was published in ST Forum online on 24 August 2009.
Lorries are designed to carry goods, not people
I WRITE in support of last Thursday's letter by Ms Isabel Vadivu Govind, 'Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all'.
In 2006, I moved from the Netherlands to Singapore to experience a marvellous time living in your beautiful country. However, the first time I saw a lorry packed with people in the back, I was astonished and was convinced this must be an illegal way to transport people.
This is certainly not the norm in my home country. We do not even transport animals this way. Soon I learnt this is common practice to take foreign workers in Singapore to their workplace, but every time I saw it, I could not believe it was legal and accepted.
I did not want to think what would happen to the men if the lorry had to make an emergency stop or, even worse, was involved in an accident.
This should not be the way to transport people, especially when the men are so vital to Singapore's construction work. I had a hard time explaining this back home.
I read in the newspaper that in three years' time, lorries will have to meet new guidelines. These may appear to protect workers but they are far from sufficient and will not safeguard workers in the event of hazard.
In the long run, these small improvements may actually delay implementation of what is really needed: passenger vehicles, with seats and belts.
This is a requirement for all others in Singapore, so why these different standards?
Lorries remain designed to transport goods, and people should not be transported in this way.
Nel Broers (Ms)
URL:http://www.straitstimes.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)