Let's walk the talk

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

Let's walk the talk

Let foreign workers take public transport

by From Woon Kok Keoong

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

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

Why the double standards when it comes to foreign workers?

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

Why the double standards when it comes to foreign workers?

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

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

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

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

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

Tan Thiam Soon

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

Lorries are designed to carry goods, not people

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

Lorries are designed to carry goods, not people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nel Broers (Ms)

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

The way we move workers doesn't do us proud

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

The way we move workers doesn't do us proud

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

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

Unfortunately, not much progress has been made since then.

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Staes

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

Do We Only Pay Lip-Service to Ethics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tan Chui Hua (Ms)

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

Dangerous Driving

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

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

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

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

“安全”与“成本”无法真正两全

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

“安全”与“成本”无法真正两全

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

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

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

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

　　作者：蔡晏霖

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