Trade groups criticised by netizens for defending practice of ferrying workers on lorries

SINGAPORE: Netizens have levelled sharp criticism at a joint statement by several industry bodies issued on Tuesday (Aug 1) about how imposing a ban on transporting migrant workers on the back of lorries would involve “complexities”. 

The statement was issued in the wake of an earlier petition by advocacy groups calling for a timeline for banning the transporting of workers on lorries, which has drawn criticism for years. The petition came after two accidents involving such lorries in July.

Business chambers and associations from a range of industries stated in the statement that any move to eliminate the transportation of workers on the backs of lorries for safety reasons involves “real, practical and operational complexities".

One consequence of transporting workers more safely would be more traffic on the roads and greater commuter congestion, it added.

"UNETHICAL" PRACTICE  

Netizens were quick to condemn the group's statement. CNA's Facebook post on the issue has drawn more than 800 comments, most of which criticised what was said.

One commenter said that it was “unethical” that the business groups had pointed to more traffic on the roads and greater commuter congestion as a consequence of transporting workers more safely, as the workers “are as human as we are”. 

Another highlighted that school buses also cause traffic jams and “that’s why school timings are different from work timings”. Addressing the issue of potential congestion is a matter of “simple scheduling”, and has “nothing to do with mode of transport”, they said.  

A few added that companies should, in the first place, ensure compliant driving by their workers to prevent injuries and deaths. 

Singapore’s Ambassador-At-Large Professor Tommy Koh also weighed in on the issue, writing in a Facebook post on Wednesday that “Singapore has the dubious distinction of being the only wealthy country” where employers are allowed to transport workers at the back of lorries without seats and seat belts, adding that he wasn’t surprised by the business groups’ joint statement. 

“They are resorting to scare tactics to support their cause … The real reason for their opposition is money. It will increase their costs of doing business if they are required to transport their foreign workers in vehicles with seats and seat belts. We should not be misled by their campaign,” he wrote. 

The lives of these workers are “as precious as our own” and they should be “treated in the same way as we treat ourselves”, including requiring them to have seats and seat belts, stated Prof Koh, who has previously commented on the “third world” way that workers are treated in “first world” Singapore. 

“As a first world country, we should abolish practices from the past which are incompatible with our status and reputation," he said in his post. 

In response to CNA's queries about the joint statement by the business bodies, workers' rights group Workers Make Possible said they "challenge the executives of the 25 business groups who signed the statement to ferry themselves to work day after day on the back of goods-lorries to reduce the traffic congestion they are so worried about".

CNA contacted the joint business group on Wednesday for their response to the public sentiment around its statement, but has not received a reply.

NEED FOR "GREATER SENSE OF URGENCY" 

Earlier on Wednesday, the Ministry of Transport and government partner agencies had said in response to the petition by advocacy groups and the joint statement by businesses that there are mixed views on whether the transportation of workers in lorries should be banned, even as all stakeholders agree on the importance of safety. 

According to their joint response, employers and industry associations had shared their concerns that if the government imposes a ban, many companies will not be able to continue operating their business. 

Workers Make Possible told CNA that "it is misleading to paint the issue as one where businesses wouldn’t survive the ban, and polyclinics and housing won’t get built in time", since "workers are artificially subsidising these costs and projects ... (by) paying with their life and limbs".

On Wednesday in parliament, MP Louis Ng (PAP-Nee Soon) further pointed out that various Members – President Halimah Yacob when she was an MP and MP Christopher de Souza (PAP-Holland-Bukit Timah) – have raised similar issues of protecting workers since 14 years ago. 

“I really hope that we can have a greater sense of urgency. Not an immediate ban, but bearing in mind that we have talked about this for 14 years now,” he said, addressing the Transport Ministry’s response to his parliamentary questions about the issue.  

Responding to Mr Ng, Senior Minister of State for Transport Amy Khor reiterated the government's joint response earlier in the day. She stressed that the government and more than 20 industry associations are "all on the same page", and are committed to improving and ensuring the safety and welfare of workers.

"Our commitment is to ensure the safety of all road users, including all our workers, and therefore, really the way forward is for us to continue to work closely together in order to look at practical solutions; solutions which are implementable, workable at the ground in the best interests of the workers to protect their safety as well as their livelihoods," said Dr Khor.

But “there are challenges, practical constraints and difficulties, and therefore it is really not meaningful to talk about a timeline”, she added. 

MP Melvin Yong (PAP-Radin Mas) suggested that the Transport Ministry could consider the “interim measure” of prohibiting heavy equipment and passengers being on board lorries at the same time as that may pose higher risks of injuries and fatalities in an accident. 

COST ISSUES, TRANSPORT CAPACITY, POLICY ADJUSTMENTS 

Weighing in on both sides of the issue, economics Associate Professor Walter Theseira said he feels that it is unacceptable in principle for migrant workers to have a separate “safety system” from everyone else, and that it is important to take the ban proposal seriously. 

However, there are various considerations before implementing change to accommodate “reasonable concerns” from all stakeholders. 

First, the feasibility of a ban depends on the timeframe contemplated, along with the effort needed to adjust policies to accommodate the changes in market and work practices should the ban be implemented, noted Assoc Prof Theseira, who teaches at the Singapore University of Social Sciences. 

Even if some businesses might agree “in principle” that workers should no longer be transported on the back of lorries, most are “not able to see how other policies and market practices would adjust” to accommodate that, he said. 

The associate professor, who regularly comments on urban transport issues, added that a common market response when transport costs increase is to move closer to the site of work when possible. As such, the market processes that are likely to take place with a ban – or transition to a ban – would have first to look at whether current practices of where workers’ living quarters are situated make sense. 

“The old practice of co-locating more foreign worker quarters with worksites may have to be resumed or increased,” he added. 

Second, transport capacity will pose a problem, as diverting workers to public transport is “not going to be a viable solution for all, given work site hours and location”, said Assoc Prof Theseira.

“The existing private bus capacity is likely insufficient, and policies may need to change to accommodate growth in that sector,” he explained. 

“It has to be noted that what makes transport capacity a real challenge is that capacity is often sized for the peak, but this means capacity gets under-utilised the rest of the time. This is the reason why it is often so difficult to economically meet travel demand.” 

Finally, said Assoc Prof Theseira, businesses will incur additional costs that he believes “will just have to be passed on to end service buyers”. 

He doesn’t think costs will be the determining factor – but without an industry-wide ban or regulation at the moment, “it is obvious why any one firm does not want to be the first mover, if it makes them less cost-competitive (than) others”. 

“To be clear, one might also decide that (transporting workers on lorries) is not acceptable in principle, but that the costs of changing the system are also insurmountable,” he added. 

“I personally don't think that is the case, but if it is so, then we should be prepared to understand that we are accepting a system that is disagreeable on principle for economic reasons.”