Humans Aren't Cargo

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

The following letter was published in TODAY on 25 August 2009. Matching up to First World safety standards by From F Bushfield I WAS in a foreign country last month. I noticed that their construction workers were transported by vans and other passenger vehicles. I said to a local colleague: "Why not follow Singapore's model of transporting these workers in the back of a lorry ... it is cheaper and the company does not need to have separate vehicles for goods and workers." He said it is illegal to do so. The country I was in is China. Is it okay for Singaporeans to have a lower standard than China? Where is the benchmarking we Singaporeans are so proud of? URL: http://www.todayonline.com/ Voices/EDC090825-0000041/ Matching-up-to-First-World- safety-standards

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

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 thos

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

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 in

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 fee

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

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

The following letter was published in TODAY on 21 August 2009. THEY'RE NOT CARGO Letter from Stephanie Chok 05:55 AM Aug 21, 2009 I REFER to "Greater safety in phases" (Aug 19). It is important that worker safety is emphasised. However, the new measures do not recognise that humans are being transported on the cargo decks of lorries - spaces meant for cargo, not people. Modifying spaces not meant for transporting humans is not innovation to be welcomed - it is an attempt to be "cost-effective". Most of us travel to and from work by buses, taxis, MRT, private buses or cars. These are modes of transport designed for people. How then can we, with a clear conscience, designate hundreds of others to sit on cargo decks as if they were goods, often squashed between mounds of equipment? Fitting in railings and canopies do not transform a goods vehicle into a passenger vehicle. People sitting on cargo decks could still sustain injuries if they are flung against one anoth

The following letter was published in the Straits Times Forum on 20 August 2009. Safer? Workers shouldn't be on lorries at all I REFER to yesterday's report, 'Workers on lorries get more protection'. I am deeply disappointed with this decision to keep transporting workers on the cargo decks of goods vehicles and urge its reversal. Are these goods vehicles meant for passenger transport? No. So they are inherently unsafe and as Dr Joseph Thambiah, head of National University Hospital's orthopaedic trauma division, has said, those sitting on cargo decks could still sustain injuries if they are flung against one another or to the back of the lorry. The death rate in accidents arising from this mode of transport is reported to be six times lower than in other accidents. But this category of casualties should not even exist. Singaporeans who take other modes of transport choose to do so, but workers have no choice but to risk death or injury while transported in this

The following article was published in TODAY on 19 August 2009. Reproduced photo caption: Foreign workers crowded on the back of a pick-up truck. (Photo from TODAY) Greater safety in phases By Lin Yanqin TODAY 19 August 2009 AFTER nearly 18 months of consultation and study, the measures to enhance the safety of workers being transported in the open back carriages of lorries have at last been finalised. However, it will be another three years before the full slate of measures — which include installing canopies and higher side railings on the back of lorries — are rolled out, as they will be implemented in phases, beginning next month. This led some Members of Parliament to wonder aloud yesterday if three years were too long a lead time, given that “life and limb” are at stake. “(Installing railings) is a very simple job, so why do you need three years to do that?,” asked Aljunied MP Cynthia Phua. The three-year time period, said Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Tr

The following story was published by the Straits Times on 19 August 2009. Reproduced photo caption: Rails along the backs of lorries will have to go higher so that there is less chance of a worker being flung out in case of an accident. The decks will also have to be fitted with canopies as a safety measure and to shield them from rain. -- ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI Workers on lorries get more protection By Teh Joo Lin 19 August 2009 Straits Times Safety rules tightened and will be phased in over a three-year period ACTION is finally being taken to ensure that foreign workers are ferried more safely to and from their workplaces. Rails along the backs of lorries will have to go higher so that there is less chance of a worker being flung out in an accident. The decks will also have to be fitted with canopies as a safety measure and to shield them from rain. The Government wants all lorries which double as worker transport to have these features installed in three years. They

More Stringent Measures To Enhance Safety Of Workers Transported On Lorries 1. The Workgroup 1 , co-chaired by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), in consultation with various stakeholders - industry groups, safety experts and transport operators, has completed its review on measures to enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries. Among the set of stringent measures recommended to enhance the safety of workers transported on lorries are stiffer penalties for errant lorry owners and drivers who flout safety regulations, ramping up of enforcement activities and tightening of rules for carrying workers on the carriage deck of lorries. 2. These measures have been accepted by the Government and will be rolled out progressively in the next three years. Workgroup Recommendations 3. Findings from the Workgroup show that the current safety and enforcement measures have generally been effective in keeping the fatality and injury rates of workers tran