Flyover collapses at Upper Changi, PIE

[Carbon82]

I am dealing with contractors daily,what I stated are what I am seeing on many sites. I have companies bosses telling me straight in my face that RA is just paper work.

 

If you have a chance to see their tool box meeting and you will know they write the same things everyday...no smoking, good housekeeping, wear PPE. Some just photocopy and fill in the date daily.

 

If you have a chance to see the PTW forms, you will realise most dont understand the purpose of the form and everything inside also ticked "Yes"

 

Even the safety training is not really effective. Most safety courses conducted in English and the course duration only a few days , many FW cannot even clear the language barrier and you expect them to understand the technical portions? But most still will pass. MOM emphasis on training and without the training certificates , even if the workers who have lot of experience are not allowed to perform the work. I have seen many locals uncles who operate cranes, excavators, forklifts for many yrs but now cannot enter the site and work because they cannot pass the CSOC cos they cannot read the test questions.

 

So many FW start to obtain fake certificates as there are syndicates selling them. SPF and MOM not putting in enough effort to stop this.

 

Over last few years, MOM closed about 30 safety training centres cos of malpractices, and many FT workers have their BCSS certifcates cancelled, cos they never attended the training or went thru the full course duration and still able to get the certificates. These grp of BCSS FW are holding safety supervisors appointment on site, so what safety standard can you expecr from them?

 

There are many more things I can give examples, but if you in construction and safety you will know.

 

Of course there are companies who really put in effort to ensure safety ,but many companies will need to tender low for survival, and usually safety is the area that is being compromised.

 

If I remember correct, for all tenders, in the breakdown of costing, there is no allocation for safety cost. Why MOM never do something to ensure safety cost must be part of the tender ? Even PUB make sure ECM costing must be part of the tender cost.

 

All these boil down to the pay master and relevant authorities, i.e. LTA, BCA. MOM, etc. When I engage contractors to work for me, I laid down all requirement (health and safety inclusive) clearly before each tender, so that they can factor in the necessary cost and resoucres (especially PM, PE & EHS part) and no reasons for them to deny liabilities when I audit them during their course of work. Any violation, it is either penalty, stop work / suspension for a certain duration for them to make good the system, no waiver. My bosses did jump on me on a few occasions, but my point is that whatever law / rules / regulations, without strict enforcement will be just for show, and as the owner, we cannot escape the responsibility if any mishap do occur.

 

The same for this flyover case. Yes, people can continue to point fingers at OKP and it sub-con for going through the motion (with RA, PTW, training, PPE, etc.), but a experienced WSH personnel would be able to tell whether all that has been done properly (through IP PI). For example, RA stated a particular control measure, while workers do otherwise, this would be a clear cut violation and work should be stopped! PTW not filled up correctly, the WSH personnel has the right not to approve it. What is the point of recruiting so many WSH personnel on site, if everyone don't want to flag things out? On structural integrity, PE are the one responsible and the plan has to be buy off by BCA / LTA and such. Proper check and balance from system point of view, so if something do goes wrong, go after these few parties. Full Stop. (OK, workmanship and material are the other concerns but let see what the COI pen down in the final report). 

 

I do have peers in construction industry, and their company do factor in safety cost, BUT that is for penalty. Say $200K for a 1 year project, if so lucky never got any summon, this $200K will be come the "bonus" to the company. I was curious the very first time I heard it, why not spend the amount to improve on EHS performance instead? And the answer strike me hard in my head: Some of the requirement are too stringent and it will cost a lot more to implement, then just paying summon. Sounds familiar?

 

- Indonesia farmers rather pay fines than investing much higher amount in machinery / automation to cut down the trees in the forest

- EU have set such a stringent vehicular emission standard, till it become feasible to pass with cheating software

 

Now you see the link why I mentioned pay master is responsible after all?

Edited July 18, 2017 by Carbon82

[Solar]

Thanks bro for sharing.. really scary.

Penalties cost lesser than preventing it.

 

Gets me to relate to drug trafficking. Penalty is so high that not many is willing to try it out.

[Lala81]

Very insightful.

To me, there's only one organization that at least doesn't pay token lip service to safety. And that's Saf despite what some people say.

[Playtime]

Very insightful.

To me, there's only one organization that at least doesn't pay token lip service to safety. And that's Saf despite what some people say.

 

 

but in the smoke grenade death case... they tell you to your face, immune to prosecution. follow by promotion shortly after.

 

during my ict. they said that to prevent vehicular accidents, drivers must have sufficient hours of sleep before they can drive. don't follow its your own fault.

BUTTTTT.... they then come out with exercise plan that means you will never get enough sleep hours, actually no ones does in any large exercise.

 

So are they taking responsibility or just avoiding it? not so clear cut eh..

[Neost]

Very insightful.

To me, there's only one organization that at least doesn't pay token lip service to safety. And that's Saf despite what some people say.

 

SAF sure can. Cheap or almost free resources are everywhere. 

 

And do or don't do sometimes makes no difference. So, be safe, wayang wayang and go canteen break. 

[Kusje]

Very insightful.

To me, there's only one organization that at least doesn't pay token lip service to safety. And that's Saf despite what some people say.

 

Having gone outfield multiple times, this is certainly not my experience and observation.

[Freeder]

Where's the cow?

So who will Kanna harakiri in rgd to this serious incident?

If it's a cost cutting measure in building this flyover, then heads must roll..no ifs n buts abt it...

MRT already cut corners on the maintenance due to more profit for the corporation during Saw reign.

Now all the problems creeping in.....

One of the most incredible solution was using cable tie to hold the joints...pengzzzzz..

Nbzzz...Think they got the idea from Mustafa ..

That's million dollar salary management style for you..

Edited July 18, 2017 by Freeder

[Jusnel]

Thanks bro for sharing.. really scary.

Penalties cost lesser than preventing it.

 

Gets me to relate to drug trafficking. Penalty is so high that not many is willing to try it out.

Many of our laws are like that. Penalties are not harsh enough.

 

Imagine case like this safety issue and deaths, if it comes with capital punishment example caning and death by hanging, for the top guy to the safety engineer of the construction company, we will see everyone from top to bottom wake up to safety compliance and spend $$$ on improvements.

[Koma7]

All these boil down to the pay master and relevant authorities, i.e. LTA, BCA. MOM, etc. When I engage contractors to work for me, I laid down all requirement (health and safety inclusive) clearly before each tender, so that they can factor in the necessary cost and resoucres (especially PM, PE & EHS part) and no reasons for them to deny liabilities when I audit them during their course of work. Any violation, it is either penalty, stop work / suspension for a certain duration for them to make good the system, no waiver. My bosses did jump on me on a few occasions, but my point is that whatever law / rules / regulations, without strict enforcement will be just for show, and as the owner, we cannot escape the responsibility if any mishap do occur.

 

The same for this flyover case. Yes, people can continue to point fingers at OKP and it sub-con for going through the motion (with RA, PTW, training, PPE, etc.), but a experienced WSH personnel would be able to tell whether all that has been done properly (through IP PI). For example, RA stated a particular control measure, while workers do otherwise, this would be a clear cut violation and work should be stopped! PTW not filled up correctly, the WSH personnel has the right not to approve it. What is the point of recruiting so many WSH personnel on site, if everyone don't want to flag things out? On structural integrity, PE are the one responsible and the plan has to be buy off by BCA / LTA and such. Proper check and balance from system point of view, so if something do goes wrong, go after these few parties. Full Stop. (OK, workmanship and material are the other concerns but let see what the COI pen down in the final report).

 

I do have peers in construction industry, and their company do factor in safety cost, BUT that is for penalty. Say $200K for a 1 year project, if so lucky never got any summon, this $200K will be come the "bonus" to the company. I was curious the very first time I heard it, why not spend the amount to improve on EHS performance instead? And the answer strike me hard in my head: Some of the requirement are too stringent and it will cost a lot more to implement, then just paying summon. Sounds familiar?

 

- Indonesia farmers rather pay fines than investing much higher amount in machinery / automation to cut down the trees in the forest

- EU have set such a stringent vehicular emission standard, till it become feasible to pass with cheating software

 

Now you see the link why I mentioned pay master is responsible after all?

From the way you write, you seem to be from owner side. If so it is alot easy to implement what you mentioned, issue fine, stop work etc....You can stop work without worrying about LD, the most your bosses need to answer to the top management the reason for stop work which is due to safety issues and is a very valid reason.

 

When you work for main con and when everything is about progress, you will encounter many problems.

 

You can dont sign the PTW but very soon you will be replaced by someone who will sign. You can stop the work and very soon the big boss will call you regarding the SW. You can reject a poorly done RA submitted by sub and the PM will tell you to help cos project delayed

 

There will be main con which have and implement strict enforcement, but how many WSHO or safety personnel can they employ? The rest of the safety personnel can only join the other companies where safety might not be the top priority.

 

You are right that paymaster is fully responsible, so the authorities should look into this area and not coming out new requirements where the implementation is always at lower levels

 

Today they mention mandatory daily safety meeting, how effective is the daily meeting if the top management is not supportive to solve the safety issues brought up in the meeting ?

 

For malpractice in safety training, instead of going more harsh on the centres directors, they require all trainers to take a trainer ethnic course..in the first place who allow the malpractices in the centre ?

 

Let's see the new regulation where they say they will take the top management to task for safety lapses, maybe this will be the wake up call to the top management

[Lala81]

Having gone outfield multiple times, this is certainly not my experience and observation.

You haven't even gone back ict right. Quite different now.

[Kusje]

You haven't even gone back ict right. Quite different now.

 

Admittedly, my experience is from 2010....

 

They might have changed after the 2012  smoke grenade death (clear negligence and disregard for safety there!) but knowing how the SAF functions, I doubt it.

 

Any specifics you could share that could change my/our minds?

[Leo72]

Court say cannot claim lol. I have no idea what kind of laws we have. That's why someone said can only claim the Bangla.

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/seaview-condo-defects-residents-hit-snag

I read on the defence clause that the developer and main con used and it's true that it's difficult for the MC to get the developer and main con to be responsible for the defects at the common area. But the individual unit owners can sue the developer for the defects and the developer cannot use that same clause as defence since the purchase is made between the owner and the developer.

[Lala81]

Admittedly, my experience is from 2010....

 

They might have changed after the 2012 smoke grenade death (clear negligence and disregard for safety there!) but knowing how the SAF functions, I doubt it.

 

Any specifics you could share that could change my/our minds?

You are so young? I thought you only few years behind me. Haha different reference point liao...I think it's really a world of difference from what it was like in 1999/2000. Edited July 18, 2017 by Lala81

[Blueray]

PIE work site collapse: Cracks found at 11 other locations of collapsed viaduct, says LTA

 

 

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/cracks-found-at-11-other-locations-of-collapsed-viaduct-says-lta

[Wt_know]

wah ... already found 3 cracks in addition to the collapse section

this means the entire flyover need to re-do? jit tong jeng liao !!!

[Mockngbrd]

Erm...... Existing structure built by this Co how?

[Volvobrick]

The only fortunate thing about this case is that the beams collapsed now, rather than a few years down the road - it could be a few fully loaded buses dropping down!

[Kusje]

You are so young? I thought you only few years behind me. Haha different reference point liao...I think it's really a world of difference from what it was like in 1999/2000.

 

No la. 2010 is when my brother completed his NS - I completed mine in 2006.

 

I don't doubt that it could be better right now than in 2000 but to say that it isn't wayang is not true. So many "safety" rules still being purposely overlooked or ignored.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Kusje