Transportation of Workers on Back of Lorries

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Transportation of Workers on Back of Lorries

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

8.24 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, two workers, riding with 16 others on the back of a lorry, died in 2021 after their lorry crashed into another vehicle on the Pan Island Expressway (PIE). Since then, dozens more workers have been injured or killed because they, too, were riding on the back of a lorry. We have all seen these lorries full of workers cruising down our roads.

Back when she was just an eight-year-old, my daughter Ella pointed to such a lorry and said, "It's not safe, right? If they crash, they will die." She took a photo of that lorry which I shared on social media. Over 1,100 people liked that photo and many shared the same view about unsafe conditions, including Lisa Khoo who said, “Exactly...despite many accidents recently. We still see workers being transported this way on a daily basis. Nothing seems to have changed despite a lot of talk about change.”

We have known for many years that transporting people on the back of lorries is not safe. Over the years, we have done so much to make transport safer for our children taking the school bus, and soldiers in Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) tonners. But, we still continue to transport our workers in unsafe conditions on the back of lorries. Why the double standards?

The worker sitting on the back of a lorry is also someone’s son, brother or father; someone’s loved one. All I am asking today is that we give workers the same safety that we expect for anyone on our roads.

Today, we allow passengers to be transported on the back of lorries for “business purposes”. Business purposes are not good reasons for putting our workers at risk of death or injury every single day. We know an accident will happen. It is not “if”, but “when”.

We can all agree that safe transportation is good for everyone. We have worked hard to ensure safe transportation for our school children, our soldiers and even our cargo. We have done well, very well in these aspects.

For our school children, we moved decisively to retrofit seat belts in all school buses when an eight-year-old died in 2008 after being flung out of his school bus in a traffic accident. No expense was spared. We set aside $35 million to help bus companies make our school buses safer. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) appointed workshops to conduct the retrofitting. To minimise business disruptions, workshops even provided replacement buses where feasible. This was a whole-of-nation effort that involved the Government, bus companies, bus drivers, bus attendants and the Singapore School Transport Association.

These efforts paid off. In July 2013, a school bus carrying nine kindergarten students crashed into a road barrier. The children on board escaped without serious injuries. Media reports attributed this to the additional safety measures for school buses.

For our soldiers, the SAF equipped all SAF tonners with safety lap belts for rear passengers since 2011. Other safety features on our SAF tonners now include protective side boards, railings, canopies, rear safety straps, seating capacity limits and vehicular speed limits.

And it is not just our people; even our cargo has to be transported in a safe way. The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Construction and Use) Rules requires loads carried by vehicles to be secured in a way such that danger is unlikely to be caused by the load falling from the vehicle. The rules also require any load higher than the top of the side rails to be securely tied to the vehicle. It would seem that in an accident, the goods will be more protected than the workers sitting on the back of lorries who might be flung out.

We have introduced all these safety measures to keep our school children, soldiers and cargo safe. But why do we continue to allow our workers to be transported on the back of lorries when we already know this is unsafe?

I am sure that we all agree that it is not safe to transport our workers on the back of lorries. Workers tell us it is not safe. In a media article, workers shared horror stories of friends being injured during sudden breaks or swerves. Workers talked about frequent injuries incurred en route to worksites. A worker told the media that workers often talked about their mode of transport, but felt that it was pointless because their bosses were already well aware of the risks. Many workers fear for their safety and lives, but feel that they do not have a choice or a voice. The data backs up their fears.

Over the past decade, there have been so many fatalities and injuries of people on board these lorries. Many examples have been shared in this House so we all know this very well.

Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared in Parliament in May 2021 that the number of persons on board lorries who were injured or killed in road accidents has been on a downward trend over the last decade. It is good news. But we must remember that “downward trend” does not mean nobody is getting killed or injured. People continue to die or get injured because fundamentally, they are transported in unsafe conditions.

For our school children, one death in 2008 was enough to catalyse an industry-wide change. We know that deaths or injuries will occur every year for our workers who are transported on the back of lorries. Why do we tolerate this?

Even the suppliers of the lorries have said that it is not safe to transport workers on the back of lorries. Minister Iswaran said in May 2022 that the lorry suppliers’ view was that it is not ideal for lorries to carry passengers in their rear decks from a road safety perspective. And the Government agrees with this view.

This is also not a new issue I am raising. Other Members of this House have spoken up repeatedly against using lorries to transport our workers. Many activists, many of whom are seated in our gallery today, have also spoken up on this, and I thank them for speaking up on this important issue. It is almost weird that we allow something which, whoever we ask, agrees it is unsafe to continue. What more do we need to stop transporting workers on the back of lorries?

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) has raised “significant practical and operational considerations” for why it is not currently feasible to install seat belts or use other forms of transport for workers.

The first reason given is that transport by buses mean higher costs for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). SMEs also require lorries which can transport both workers and goods to facilitate their business operations. I understand these valid concerns and will speak about these trade-offs later in my speech.

The second reason MOT has given is that there are insufficient buses. Minister Iswaran said that a full transition to buses to ferry all workers will require many more buses than the available fleet of private buses. Insufficient buses, however, cannot be an excuse when we know for sure that people have died and have been injured every year and will continue to die and get injured. How much more time do we need to increase our fleet of buses for a permanent solution to this problem?

We would never accept this excuse for our school children and soldiers. We cannot accept this excuse for our workers. For all the parents seated here, would you be okay for your children to be transported on the back of lorries? Would you be okay for your son to be enlisted and transported in conditions which are unsafe?

The third reason MOT has given is that retrofitting lorries with seat belts is not safe. Minister Iswaran said that Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) shared that retrofitting of seats, seat belts and reinforcements compromises the structural integrity of the lorry. He said that OEMs said that this may create new safety risks. Of course, the views of the experts manufacturing and supplying the lorries are important. We should listen to them.

But – and this is a big "but" – let us not forget that lorry suppliers have also said that it is not ideal to transport workers on the back of lorries. Why do we ignore that view? The long-term solution must be to ban the transport of workers on the back of lorries. I know that MOT has taken some steps to improve transport safety for workers. We require lorries ferrying passengers to be fitted with rain covers. We also require lorry drivers to work no more than 12 hours a day. I am sure Senior Minister of State Amy Khor will mention all these in her reply shortly.

I commend these steps, but they simply do not go far enough to address the root of the problem. The fundamental issue is that it is not safe to transport workers on the back of lorries. All the steps we have taken thus far do not address this fundamental issue. We need a permanent solution.

I have three recommendations, including interim measures that we can take. My first recommendation is that we ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. I know I have repeated this many times in this speech. But let me clarify that I am not calling for this to be done overnight but, instead, we should set a timeline for this ban. This is not a radical step.

Under the Road Traffic Act, goods vehicles are already not allowed to be used for passengers. There are clearly safety reasons for this. It is unusual, unreasonable and unsafe that we have carved out a "business purpose" exception to the rule. Why do the safety issues disappear when the same exact vehicle is used for business purposes? We should remove this exception and implement a clear rule across the board that for safety reasons, no passengers should be transported on the back of lorries.

If we cannot do this right now, then we should set a target year for this safety goal and plot a roadmap to achieve it. Setting a target year will also give the industry certainty and help build organic industry-driven solutions to achieve the goal.

My second recommendation is that the Government pilot the use of buses to transport workers for the larger construction companies. I understand that we currently do not have enough buses to transport all workers. A pilot with larger construction companies is a realistic interim step while we scale up to a full ban on transporting workers on the back of lorries. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor shared that there have been consultations with trade associations in the construction sector and private bus operators. To transport workers in key sectors by buses, we may need to double or triple the number of large buses.

Senior Minister of State Amy Khor also noted that there are private sector efforts to transport workers using buses. One example is Tong Tar Transport, which was asked by a multinational corporation (MNC) to ferry about 3,000 workers of their main and sub-contractors between dormitories to the construction sites via buses. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor said that this was a large-scale endeavour that involved coordination among various bus operators but showed that it is possible under the right circumstances. She encouraged more in the industry to follow.

This is too important for the Government to just leave to the industry to figure out. As Senior Minister of State Amy pointed out, transport by buses is not impossible but requires coordination. MOT and LTA are well-placed to coordinate this and perhaps even consider providing some funding to make things happen.

I propose that the Government work with the larger construction companies, dormitories and bus operators to coordinate and provide some funding to help in the transportation of workers using buses. This may also involve staggered working hours for workers so that buses can pick them up over multiple trips. We may not be able to fully transition to bus transport for all workers. But a pilot like this is one step in the right direction, and the funding and coordination by the Government will help the workers and companies significantly.

My third recommendation is that we have designated drivers who only perform driving duties. Again, this is an interim measure until we achieve a full ban on transporting workers on the back of lorries. Under the new requirements, lorry drivers cannot work for more than 12 hours a day. Workers who have worked six hours must have at least 30 minutes rest immediately before driving. Imagine working 12 hours a day continuously for six hours in a physically exhausting role under the hot sun and resting for 30 minutes before having to drive a heavy vehicle. Would we allow someone like that to drive a school bus?

Driving a heavy vehicle and transporting human lives is an important task. We should have specifically designated drivers who can fully focus on this task. We should start a pilot for this and, again, the Government can help provide some funding to kickstart this pilot.

Lastly, as an interim measure of this interim measure, can we at least reduce the limit of 12 hours of working before driving? That can go some way towards reducing the risk of accidents.

In conclusion, Sir, I am asking that: (a) we plot a roadmap to achieve a ban on the transport of workers on the back of lorries; (b) in the interim, we pilot the use of buses to transport workers for the larger construction companies and implement staggered working hours – the Government can help coordinate and provide some funding for this; (c) in the interim, we pilot the use of specifically designated drivers to transport the workers, and in the interim and as soon as possible, look into reducing the limit of 12 hours of working before driving for the workers currently driving the lorries.

I believe everyone in this House and in this country agrees that transporting workers on the back of lorries is not safe. All I am asking is that we treat our workers with the same care that we do for our children and soldiers. Why not? The worker on the back of the lorry is also someone's child, someone's loved one. Ms Teo shared in a Facebook comment on a video of workers being transported by lorries that, "Each worker is the son of a faraway family. Like kids in Singapore, he is the apple of his mother's eye. Accord dignity to the sons who have left their families. It is not a privilege only for Singaporeans. We are better than this."

Some have said that this is a migrant issue. Let us not forget that it is not just migrant workers but Singaporean workers, sons, daughters, husbands and wives who are also riding dangerously on the back of lorries, too. We should also remember what Prime Minister Lee said on workplace accidents. He said, "We must put this right. I call on everyone involved – employers, supervisors and workers – to take safety at the workplace seriously."

He said, "Lives are at stake. We have the responsibility to keep all our workers safe, whether they are local or foreign." I hope that we can heed Prime Minister Lee's call, take this safety issue seriously and put this right by banning the transport of workers on the back of lorries. I know that the reply from MOT to this speech will be about practical, operational and cost considerations as well.

But as my fellow colleague Mr Alex Yam put it when he spoke up about the transport of workers on the back of lorries, "We often quote trade-offs and costs as part of our decision-making matrix, but for the families in the recent accident who have lost their sons in Singapore, that cost would surmount all other costs we talked about".

Indeed, the real trade-offs that we should be focusing on here are people's lives and the injuries that could disable a person for life. We know that the reality is that none of us sitting here would like to be transported on the back of a lorry. We should put our hearts and minds towards solving this fundamental issue of safety and the fundamental question of whether anyone should be transported in these kinds of unsafe conditions. The lives of our workers matter, too.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Amy Khor.

8.38 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for raising concerns about the transportation of workers in lorries. We are equally concerned about the safety of our workers. Our goal to improve safety in transportation is a work in progress and we will seek to do more and do better. But this is a goal that cannot be achieved solely through the efforts of the Government. For there to be enduring change, this goal needs to be shared by all stakeholders.

Over the years, Government agencies have been reviewing and studying this issue on a regular basis to ensure that transportation of workers is done as safely as possible. Just last year, I announced four new measures during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate. However, what is less salient perhaps, are the many hours of careful policy consideration, stakeholder engagement before and after the announcements that agencies put in to be able to roll them out with the stakeholders' support. The industry and workers themselves will need time to react, adapt and comply. Thereafter, the Government will also have to review the effectiveness of the measures. These are measures which affect both lives and livelihoods, including those of the workers themselves, and that is why we need to approach them carefully and holistically.

These new measures have been rolled out progressively. We released the Inter-agency Advisory on Safe Transportation of Workers on 31 December 2022, which provides practical guidance to employers and workers on the new and existing legal requirements and recommends practices to enhance safety of workers on lorry transportation. The requirement for dual-role drivers to have sufficient rest and the appointment of a designated "vehicle buddy" as well as for all newly-registered lorries used to ferry workers to be installed with rain covers came into force on 1 January this year. The requirement for in-use light lorries used to ferry workers to install rain covers just came into effect on 1 July 2023 and will come into effect for heavy lorries on 1 January 2024. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is working with the industry to implement speed management devices in all lorries and will announce more details when ready. These are all in addition to the earlier requirements for lorries to be fitted with canopies and higher protective side railings, lower speed limits and minimum space requirements.

We believe that these efforts will build on the earlier enhancements and further improve the safety of our workers. The average number of fatalities from road traffic accidents involving persons onboard lorries has declined, from around six from 2013 to 2017, to around three from 2018 to 2022, even as we recognise that one fatality is one too many. The average number of injuries has also dropped by one-third, from 522 from 2013 to 2017, to 359 from 2018 to 2022. And as I mentioned earlier, we will need to give the industry and workers time to adjust to the measures. We will then review them and continue to work with the industry to explore further enhancements.

The Member has called on the Government to ban the transportation of workers on the back of lorries. Let me reiterate that from a road safety perspective alone, it will be ideal for lorries not to carry any passengers in their rear decks. We have acknowledged this multiple times in the House.

However, this is not a matter of legislating or imposing rules and expecting compliance from the industry, without regard for the wider implications and unintended consequences. Simply mandating that workers travel on buses or banning the transport of workers on lorries, without considering ground realities and constraints, is not a realistic solution. Setting a timeline without understanding the varied concerns of all stakeholders is also not meaningful or workable. Transporting workers on lorries is a practice that cuts across various sectors and industries. Hence, we must understand the different challenges faced by each sector and ensure that our measures are effective, implementable and sustainable.

Let me recap some of the key challenges.

First, there are insufficient private buses to meet the needs across various sectors. A full transition to transportation via buses would require at least a doubling of the number of large private buses today. This will have knock-on effects on the rest of society, including more congestion.

Second, operating buses also requires a different driver's licence. Members may have seen recent articles about the shortages of school bus drivers, resulting in some bus operators cancelling their service contracts despite underlying demand for school bus services. In fact, the shortage of bus drivers is not limited to the school bus sector. A wider shift to mandate the use of buses will likely exacerbate this shortage and affect other bus service providers, including our public buses.

Third, the nature of businesses of many micro, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as those in specialist trades, require them to be able to transport a small crew of people together with some equipment or goods to several locations in a single day. It is neither practicable nor productive for them to have different vehicles to transport workers, equipment and goods. Making it mandatory for them to do so may lead to decisions which impact the livelihoods of their workers.

On a similar note, while the intent of the Member's recommendation to have designated drivers is a good one, smaller enterprises, in particular, will find it challenging to employ full-time drivers. The recent Ministry of Manpower (MOM) measures of at least 30 minutes' rest immediately before driving for dual-role drivers who have worked six hours, and designated a vehicle buddy is intended to address the concern of driver alertness. I do want to assure the Member, however, that the 12-hour daily limit of working hours includes the time spent driving, as that is considered part of work.

The Member has suggested that the Government consider providing funding to larger construction companies, dormitories and bus operators to facilitate this shift. As I explained earlier, at its core, the challenges are not necessarily financial in nature and, if so, funding would not be an effective remedy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have therefore taken a different, multi-pronged approach towards addressing the issue. Our agencies are looking at specific sectors, engaging the companies that have been able or are open to shifting to buses or other modes of transportation, understanding the specific pain points and seeing how adoption can be scaled up.

Today, there are already several bus companies that provide such services to transport workers. Besides Tong Tar Transport Services, which I had previously mentioned, other examples include Bedok Transport, Hui Leong Transport Service and JK59 Transport Pte Ltd.

We are similarly studying these use cases to see how they can be scaled up as well as other possible modes of transportation that may be used.

Industry will be best placed to spearhead this effort as they best understand the ground needs and challenges. The Government will work with the industry and consider any further support required, but this will need to be effective and sustainable.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this approach will take time and effort, as well as many difficult conversations as we grapple with the realities and constraints. Our agencies are working hard on the ground and I seek the support of the House as we continue to work together with our workers, associations and industry to bring about further effective and sustainable improvements to the safety of our workers.

In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with the implementation and monitoring of the set of measures we had last announced at COS 2022 to enhance worker safety, even as we look at how we can further transit from the use of lorries.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

8.47 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Thank you, Sir, and I thank Senior Minister of State Amy Khor for the reply. Could I just ask whether MOT can consider that roadmap, similar to what we have done with climate change? We have a net-zero emissions target for 2050, something that we said was not possible a few years back. Now, it is possible, and we have set up a roadmap for that. I hope it does not take that long to the ban. But could MOT just look into a roadmap towards a ban on the transportation of workers on the back of lorries?

Second, I am wondering how often does MOT ignore the advice of suppliers? If we look back, fundamentally, the people who supply the lorries tell us, "Do not put people on the back." How often is it that the Government does not listen to the advice of the people who supply us with equipment?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I think I have given a detailed response to the Member's suggestions and views. What he is asking is still similar with regard to our plans to transit to safer modes of transportation. As I have said, I think this is something that we have to work out with the industry, with the associations. It will take time because we are looking at various sectors.

We will share further when we are ready on this transit. As I have said, we have already implemented various measures and we are implementing a new set of measures. Some have been implemented and another one is ongoing. We will have to review this, but our foot is still on the pedal and we are still looking at further measures to enhance safety for our workers.

With regard to your point about ignoring the advice of suppliers, no. In fact, we were talking about whether we can install safety belts on the back of lorries. The advice of the supplier is that it is not useful, meaningful or safe to do, because lorries were not built for safety belts.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Mr Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 12.30 pm. Order, order.

Adjourned accordingly at 8.49 pm.