Ferrying workers: Do the right thing now
The following article was published in the Straits Times on 27 July 2010.
Ferrying workers: Do the right thing now
By Jessica Cheam
Straits Times, Jul 27, 2010
Big companies should show the way by not using open-top lorries
ST cartoon
SINGAPORE'S builders have had to overcome many challenges in recent years - from the sand crisis of 2007, to the manpower and materials crunch of 2008, and the property slump last year.
But the most recent challenge they face could be the trickiest, for it has both moral and business implications: Employers are now being pressured to stop ferrying workers on the back of lorries.
Debate on the issue was reignited by an accident last month where an open-top lorry transporting workers overturned on the Pan-Island Expressway, killing three workers and injuring 14.
It was the worst accident since May last year, when four workers died after their vehicle slammed into a stationary trailer in Tuas.
Several MPs spoke up on the issue in Parliament last week, calling for urgent action to address the problem. Newspaper forums have received a number of letters since the accident.
On one side of the debate, some letter-writers have called for an outright ban on the practice of ferrying workers on the back of lorries. MPs such as Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang GRC) and Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) have echoed this.
On the other side, writers like Mr Tan Lek Lek argue that banning the use of lorries to transport 'workers following a recent fatal accident is unreasonable'. His concern is that small businesses such as construction and services companies will find an increase in costs if they were barred from transporting workers thus.
On the surface, cost-centred arguments like Mr Tan's are not without reason. Construction firms operate on a narrow profit margin. Hiring buses or minivans would cost up to $3,000 per month for daily two-way trips, according to transport firms. Bosses say retrofitting a lorry to comply with new regulations will cost up to $1,800 each - but that at least is a one-off cost.
Contractors also say that lorries are still the most flexible vehicles for transport - they can ferry materials, workers, or a combination of the two. Changing the law could lower productivity, thus running counter to the recent Economic Strategies Committee's call to increase output per worker, the argument goes.
These concerns are perhaps the reason the Government has stopped short of imposing an outright ban on the ferrying of workers on lorries. Instead, it is bringing forward the deadline for lorries to be retrofitted with canopies and higher side railings from September 2012 to Feb 1 next year for light lorries, and Aug 1 next year for heavy lorries.
A tighter licensing scheme will also ensure that foreign workers who double as drivers are competent drivers and familiar with local driving conditions.
At the same time, the Land Transport Authority and the Traffic Police have promised to crack down on lorries exceeding the speed limit.
But are all these enough?
In fact, some question if canopies, side railings, more deck space and better drivers can really prevent the loss of lives.
And how does one weigh the loss of a human life against higher business costs?
Similar issues came to the fore when the death of an eight-year-old boy in a minibus accident led to a nationwide debate on installing mandatory seat belts in school buses.
In the end, the nation rightly decided that it would bear the cost of keeping its children safe as they ride in buses to school - some $35 million from taxpayers' monies over five years.
If we do not respond with the same conviction in the case of foreign workers on lorries, we run the risk of seeming to apply double standards.
Already, Singapore is behind the curve on the issue. One Forum writer, Robert J. Cochrane, expressed shock that a First World country like Singapore, whose attractions include being a safe place to work, would tolerate workers being crammed into open-top vehicles.
The practice is banned in Britain and Bahrain, for example. Seat belts are mandated in the United States.
Will employers in Singapore do the right thing?
To be sure, some firms are already leading the way. Vinjoe Engineering & Construction, for example, hires ComfortDelGro buses to transport its workers from their worksite at Marina Bay Financial Centre to their dormitories.
Evan Lim & Co tries as much as possible to house its workers on site, and when needed, hires SBS Transit buses or minivans for them. The firm, and others such as Lian Beng Construction, has already sent its lorries to be retrofitted to make them safer, instead of 'dragging their feet' - an observation Madam Halimah made about some employers.
But many other bosses will be less enlightened, especially in the rush to do business as the economy recovers. And large numbers of foreign workers are hired by employers from various industries - including those in the marine, oil and gas, and landscaping sectors, for example - who are much less in the public eye than construction companies.
Singapore's leading businesses should make a public pledge to ban this practice. This could spur smaller and medium-sized enterprises to follow suit.
If that doesn't work, the only solution is for the Government to insist that buses be used for all workers' transportation.
Companies must learn to factor safety into the cost of doing business in Singapore, just as they have accepted everything from higher labour costs to steeper rentals.
From the consumer point of view, this may result in slightly higher prices for everything from residential homes to restaurant meals. But should this be so unacceptable to us, living as we do in one of the few First World cities in Asia?
With the economy roaring away, now may be a good time to bite this bullet once and for all.
Ferrying workers: Do the right thing now
By Jessica Cheam
Straits Times, Jul 27, 2010
Big companies should show the way by not using open-top lorries
ST cartoonSINGAPORE'S builders have had to overcome many challenges in recent years - from the sand crisis of 2007, to the manpower and materials crunch of 2008, and the property slump last year.
But the most recent challenge they face could be the trickiest, for it has both moral and business implications: Employers are now being pressured to stop ferrying workers on the back of lorries.
Debate on the issue was reignited by an accident last month where an open-top lorry transporting workers overturned on the Pan-Island Expressway, killing three workers and injuring 14.
It was the worst accident since May last year, when four workers died after their vehicle slammed into a stationary trailer in Tuas.
Several MPs spoke up on the issue in Parliament last week, calling for urgent action to address the problem. Newspaper forums have received a number of letters since the accident.
On one side of the debate, some letter-writers have called for an outright ban on the practice of ferrying workers on the back of lorries. MPs such as Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang GRC) and Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) have echoed this.
On the other side, writers like Mr Tan Lek Lek argue that banning the use of lorries to transport 'workers following a recent fatal accident is unreasonable'. His concern is that small businesses such as construction and services companies will find an increase in costs if they were barred from transporting workers thus.
On the surface, cost-centred arguments like Mr Tan's are not without reason. Construction firms operate on a narrow profit margin. Hiring buses or minivans would cost up to $3,000 per month for daily two-way trips, according to transport firms. Bosses say retrofitting a lorry to comply with new regulations will cost up to $1,800 each - but that at least is a one-off cost.
Contractors also say that lorries are still the most flexible vehicles for transport - they can ferry materials, workers, or a combination of the two. Changing the law could lower productivity, thus running counter to the recent Economic Strategies Committee's call to increase output per worker, the argument goes.
These concerns are perhaps the reason the Government has stopped short of imposing an outright ban on the ferrying of workers on lorries. Instead, it is bringing forward the deadline for lorries to be retrofitted with canopies and higher side railings from September 2012 to Feb 1 next year for light lorries, and Aug 1 next year for heavy lorries.
A tighter licensing scheme will also ensure that foreign workers who double as drivers are competent drivers and familiar with local driving conditions.
At the same time, the Land Transport Authority and the Traffic Police have promised to crack down on lorries exceeding the speed limit.
But are all these enough?
In fact, some question if canopies, side railings, more deck space and better drivers can really prevent the loss of lives.
And how does one weigh the loss of a human life against higher business costs?
Similar issues came to the fore when the death of an eight-year-old boy in a minibus accident led to a nationwide debate on installing mandatory seat belts in school buses.
In the end, the nation rightly decided that it would bear the cost of keeping its children safe as they ride in buses to school - some $35 million from taxpayers' monies over five years.
If we do not respond with the same conviction in the case of foreign workers on lorries, we run the risk of seeming to apply double standards.
Already, Singapore is behind the curve on the issue. One Forum writer, Robert J. Cochrane, expressed shock that a First World country like Singapore, whose attractions include being a safe place to work, would tolerate workers being crammed into open-top vehicles.
The practice is banned in Britain and Bahrain, for example. Seat belts are mandated in the United States.
Will employers in Singapore do the right thing?
To be sure, some firms are already leading the way. Vinjoe Engineering & Construction, for example, hires ComfortDelGro buses to transport its workers from their worksite at Marina Bay Financial Centre to their dormitories.
Evan Lim & Co tries as much as possible to house its workers on site, and when needed, hires SBS Transit buses or minivans for them. The firm, and others such as Lian Beng Construction, has already sent its lorries to be retrofitted to make them safer, instead of 'dragging their feet' - an observation Madam Halimah made about some employers.
But many other bosses will be less enlightened, especially in the rush to do business as the economy recovers. And large numbers of foreign workers are hired by employers from various industries - including those in the marine, oil and gas, and landscaping sectors, for example - who are much less in the public eye than construction companies.
Singapore's leading businesses should make a public pledge to ban this practice. This could spur smaller and medium-sized enterprises to follow suit.
If that doesn't work, the only solution is for the Government to insist that buses be used for all workers' transportation.
Companies must learn to factor safety into the cost of doing business in Singapore, just as they have accepted everything from higher labour costs to steeper rentals.
From the consumer point of view, this may result in slightly higher prices for everything from residential homes to restaurant meals. But should this be so unacceptable to us, living as we do in one of the few First World cities in Asia?
With the economy roaring away, now may be a good time to bite this bullet once and for all.
Comments
Post a Comment