News

I wonder whether anyone would seriously argue that requiring helmets or safety harnesses for construction workers would be undesirable because of “real, practical and operational complexities”.  Of course there are complexities and costs, but we as a society tackle these complexities and incur these costs because .  Respect for safety and human life is part of our social compact. Therefore, the alleged “complexities” of arranging bus transport for workers, instead of having them ride in lorries, would not involve a “change in the social compact”, as . Far from it — it would advance the values that Singaporeans hold dear. One might argue that costs may increase (although I have seen no attempt to quantify these costs concretely).  But other safety measures — protective equipment, safety protocols, and limits on working hours also cost money. The question, then, is whether taking more steps to secure the safety of workers, to the equal extent that we secure the safety of other road users, is worth the money.  I say it is. And if the costs of prohibiting lorry transport are intangible, I ask: What about the intangible costs of allowing it?  Would workers who are made to ride in lorries lose morale, resulting in a diminished question of work?  Perhaps this argument is speculative. But it is no less speculative than the claims by the business groups that banning lorry transport will . There is also an issue of consistency in policy. If riding in the back of a lorry is safe, why should workers be the only ones carried in lorries? If lorries are deemed safe enough, why not allow large families or groups of friends to get around in lorries instead of multiple cars?  Why not allow minibus operators to provide lorry transport for the public, or have a lorry service to carry groups of tourists on tours?  Why not replace school buses with lorries (which can probably hold more children)? These, too, may well be cheaper for everyone. But if lorry transport is deemed not safe enough for the public generally — even if it is cheaper — then why should we consider it safe enough for some workers?