Supervisor gets discharge amounting to acquittal, after man’s head was crushed in workplace accident

SINGAPORE: A supervisor in charge of a printing machine involved in a grisly accident, which crushed a worker's head and killed him, was cleared of a criminal charge against him on Monday (Oct 6).

This was after a Ministry of Manpower (MOM) investigation officer admitted and accepted that Mr Wai Chong Weng should not have been charged. The officer was cross-examined on the stand by Mr Wai's defence lawyer on issues related to his investigation.

MOM said in a statement to CNA on Tuesday that its decision to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Wai was made "after a careful review of all the evidence presented in court".

"The decision reflects MOM's commitment to uphold the integrity of our enforcement process and to ensure that actions taken are fair, objective and supported by evidence," it added.

Mr Wai, a 50-year-old Malaysian, was given a discharge amounting to acquittal for one charge under the Workplace Safety and Health Act of doing a negligent act that endangered the safety of others.

This was for allowing a printer to continue operating with its bundle stacker's viewing window opened, and allowing a practice where operators extend their body parts through the opened viewing window at the bundle stacker while the printer was in operation, exposing them to the risk of moving parts.

In February 2022, 34-year-old Sun Zaitao, a worker from China, died of extensive crush injuries to his head after leaning into a window of the cardboard processing machine to clear waste.

His head was caught by parts of the machine and his death was ruled a work-related misadventure in a coroner's inquiry.

Mr Sun worked as a production fitter for AMB Packaging, a manufacturer of paper and cardboard containers and boxes, with its premises at 17 Senoko Loop in Sembawang.

Mr Wai was the printer superintendent and was later charged over the allegedly negligent act of allowing Mr Sun to continue the dangerous practice taken up by the worker.

Mr Wai was represented by lawyers Terence Seah and Joavan Pereira.

At the trial, Mr Seah put it to MOM investigation officer Ng Chee Hwee that the company and Mr Wai did not allow workers to enter the bundle stacker movement area when the printer was in operation.

Mr Ng agreed. He also accepted that Mr Wai did tell the workers not to extend their bodies into the viewing window when the printer was in operation and he did not allow the workers to do that.

After several questions back and forth, Mr Ng agreed with Mr Seah that because Mr Wai did not allow this practice, he should not be charged.

However, on re-examination by an MOM prosecutor, Mr Ng said he did not have an explanation for why he said Mr Wai should not have been charged.

"Most probably, at that time (during cross-examination), I had panicked and I was in a panicked state," he said, based on transcripts of the trial obtained by CNA.

NOT SUPERVISOR'S JOB TO ROLL OUT SAFETY MEASURES

Under cross-examination earlier, Mr Ng conceded that there had been no risk assessment telling Mr Wai that the practice was dangerous.

He added that AMB Packaging's management and the designated internal safety officer had never told Mr Wai that it was unsafe for the bundle stacker window to be open while the machine was running.

Mr Ng agreed that Mr Wai only had general duties as an employee and it was not his job to implement any safety measures or enforce any risk assessment.

He also agreed that the workers at the company did not know at the time of the accident that there ought to be an interlocking guard function at the window of the printer's bundle stacker.

There was no reason for them to know of such a function because the machine's manufacturer was "okay" with the window being open when the equipment was running, and because there was no mention of the interlocking guard in the printer's manual.

Mr Wai told CNA through his lawyer, Mr Seah, that it has been a difficult few years since investigations began in March 2022 and since he was charged two years later.

"I am very grateful the company supported me throughout this time and found the best defence team who was able to demonstrate why the investigating officer's findings were wrong and obtained justice for me," he said. "Without the lawyers, I would not have survived this ordeal."

Had Mr Wai been convicted, he could have faced a jail term of up to two years or a fine of up to S$10,000, or both.