<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Aug 24, 2009
TRANSPORTING WORKERS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Do we pay only lip service to ethics?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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)
TRANSPORTING WORKERS
</TR><!-- headline one : start --><TR>Do we pay only lip service to ethics?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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)
