<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Fines for illegal ferrying of workers too low to have any effect
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Thursday's report, '$50k settlement for worker who fell off lorry', concerning, among other things, the penalties companies must pay if they breach new rules on ferrying workers.
While I welcome the new penalties - which seem to herald the beginnings of more humane treatment of workers - I am dismayed by the low amounts stipulated for the fines.
As was shown in the report, sitting on the back of a lorry can be very dangerous, even with higher railings and canopies which must be fitted in three years' time. If a worker falls from the back of a lorry while it is travelling at high speed, it is highly likely that he will suffer grievous hurt. The fines suggest a worker's life, or at least his livelihood, is worth a pittance.
Further, considering that the effectiveness of a fine usually increases with its amount, it is doubtful that it will promote worker safety. After all, construction companies are involved in projects worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, so what is $200 to them? Such a fine will hardly prick the conscience of these construction companies, nor will it greatly affect their operations.
Singapore has been called a 'fine' city. Among the better known fines in place, eating or drinking on public transport will cost $500, while cycling through an underpass will cost a hefty $1,000. Do fines of $200 and $500 for breaches of the new ruling on worker safety and transport imply that a company's negligence towards worker safety is a less severe offence?
Lee Yue Lin (Miss)
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Thursday's report, '$50k settlement for worker who fell off lorry', concerning, among other things, the penalties companies must pay if they breach new rules on ferrying workers.
While I welcome the new penalties - which seem to herald the beginnings of more humane treatment of workers - I am dismayed by the low amounts stipulated for the fines.
As was shown in the report, sitting on the back of a lorry can be very dangerous, even with higher railings and canopies which must be fitted in three years' time. If a worker falls from the back of a lorry while it is travelling at high speed, it is highly likely that he will suffer grievous hurt. The fines suggest a worker's life, or at least his livelihood, is worth a pittance.
Further, considering that the effectiveness of a fine usually increases with its amount, it is doubtful that it will promote worker safety. After all, construction companies are involved in projects worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, so what is $200 to them? Such a fine will hardly prick the conscience of these construction companies, nor will it greatly affect their operations.
Singapore has been called a 'fine' city. Among the better known fines in place, eating or drinking on public transport will cost $500, while cycling through an underpass will cost a hefty $1,000. Do fines of $200 and $500 for breaches of the new ruling on worker safety and transport imply that a company's negligence towards worker safety is a less severe offence?
Lee Yue Lin (Miss)
