fire

Time to eradicate death trap dormitories

On 3 April, two foreign workers from Bangladesh were killed in a dormitory fire in Geylang.

This was the second incident in four months which has resulted in fatalities.

On 6 December last year, four foreign workers (Malaysians) were also killed in a fire in Geylang, also in a dormitory.

That fire took place just a mere 200m from the one last week.

The December blaze was described as Singapore’s worst fire in a decade.

6 deaths in four months should be a wake-up call for everyone involved.

The similarities between the two incidents?

One, they are both walk-up apartments converted to dormitories for foreign workers.

Two, they were both reported to be overcrowded with workers.

Three, they were both death traps when fire breaks out because of inadequate or non-existent fire exits.

Four, apparently the workers – for some reason – did not feel compelled to lodge complaints with the authorities about their living conditions.

There really should be no more excuses, or delays or the pointing of fingers to escape responsibility for everyone involved.

It has been four months, for example, since the December tragedy and we are still awaiting the results of investigations.

Six dead is reason enough to truly get serious and do something to prevent similar incidents from happening.

As pointed out by the Straits Times’ Toh Yong Chuan on 7 April, there are several parties which must be taken to task for allowing such incidents to happen, or allowing such poor living conditions to exist which then leads to such disasters and loss of lives.

“These parties are, first, landlords who allow their premises to be turned into cramped quarters,” Mr Toh writes.

“In last week’s fire, the landlords, a Singaporean couple who gave their names only as Mr and Mrs Bala, told reporters that their tenancy agreement had limited the number of tenants to “eight or 10”, but admitted that they did not carry out checks. Such a mentality cannot absolve landlords of their responsibilities.”

Indeed, in December’s incident, it was reported that the shophouse had been partitioned into 11 rooms each occupied by about 10 people.

Neighbours said the 3-storey dormitory had housed foreign workers from China, India and Bangladesh, which might have totalled about 100 people.

This is clearly against regulations for dormitories.

According to Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) guidelines, rented residential properties can house only a maximum of eight people, regardless of size.

“Premises that house more than eight workers are considered to have been illegally converted into a workers’ dormitory,” the Ministry of Manpower’s website says.

Mr Toh writes:

“Then there are the middlemen who make a quick buck from illegal subletting. In the latest fire, the Singaporean landlords had rented their apartment to a master tenant for $3,200 a month.

“The master tenant – an unidentified foreigner here on a work permit – then partitioned the unit and reportedly rented out beds to more than 30 workers for more than $200 each, or at least $6,000 in total.

“Second, employers who do not take full responsibility for their workers’ living conditions also cannot be let off the hook.

“The employer of the two workers killed last Friday, Mr Thanapalan Vijayan of Prower Tech Engineering Services, told The Sunday Times that he was unaware of the cramped living conditions. Apart from the two who died, four more of his workers also lived in the unit. How can he be unaware of this?”

While landlords, middlemen and employers should be brought to task, perhaps the parties which should bear the heaviest responsibility are the enforcement agencies.

And there are at least six of these agencies which are responsible for foreign workers’ housing:

–         The Ministry of Manpower (MOM)

–         The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)

–         Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF)

–         The National Environment Agency (NEA)

–         Building and Construction Authority (BCA)

–         The Public Utilities Board (PUB)

In all, there are as many as 9 or 10 parties involved who should be aware of such poor living conditions.

How then did all of them fail to raise the matter before things got worse and lives were lost?

Yet, such warnings of potential danger are not new.

In 2012, for example, the risk of fire posed by illegal dormitories was raised by the SCDF itself.

Illegally turning a home into a place for other uses accounted for four in 10 safety violation notices issued for unauthorised change in the use of premises, a SCDF report said then.

One of the dangers of such illegal dormitories is the lack of adequate fire exits in times of emergencies.

The SCDF explained then that a building meant for use as a home usually has only one exit, which becomes a problem if a fire should break out.

The consequences are worse if that one exit becomes impassable in a blaze.

From this writer’s past experience of visiting dormitories, inadequate fire escapes are a common problem in such poorly managed dormitories.

Yet, such dormitories are also common. A walk down Geylang or Little India or even in some industrial estates finds dormitories which are overcrowded, with workers squeezed into rooms which do not have the capacity to house so many.

And because of the overcrowding, safety evacuation measures are either overlooked or ignored altogether. Some fire exits are actually locked or boarded-up.

As far back as 2010, for example, when a fire broke out at a coffeeshop in Joo Chiat Road, many foreign workers were seen scurrying out of the second floor, with some literally jumping to the ground floor to escape the fire.

An eyewitness was surprised to see so many workers in that second floor dormitory.

[See TOC’s report then: “Joo Chiat fire – an old issue surfaces”]

With so many such dormitories around, and with news reports regularly highlighting these, why is there still a seeming lack of enforcement to correct this and bring those responsible for such atrocious accommodation to task?

And why aren’t these sort of illegal accommodation stopped once and for all? The problem has existed for many years.

As mentioned above, no fewer than six government agencies are involved in ascertaining or certifying such dormitories for legal use.

How did all these agencies miss the danger posed by the shophouses in Geylang?

The Minister of Manpower, Tan Chuan-jin, said after the December fire:

“If workers have not been given good housing, they should report to the authorities.”

But this is an inane thing to say. In fact, it smacks of ignorance of the context in which foreign workers live and work here in Singapore.

To place the onus on the workers is simply misguided.

Jolovan Wham, executive director of migrant worker welfare group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, explained in February:

“These premises are not designed to house people in large numbers. Turning them into dorms would be irresponsible especially if large numbers of workers are housed. Workers are packed like sardines into these places.

“These places are usually stuffy and crowded and some have triple-decker beds. But workers are often reluctant to file complaints, for fear of losing their jobs.”

The top priority now is to ensure that the living quarters of foreign workers are not overcrowded such that they become death traps when a fire breaks out.

“This must be done before the dead bodies pile up higher,” says Mr Toh.

Indeed. There have been three shophouse fires which housed foreign workers in the last seven months, with two of the fires resulting in 6 fatalities and many more injured or hurt.

As Mr Toh asks, “How many foreign workers have to die before something is done? That the workers had died from a ‘Third World’ cause, like a fire, in ‘First World’ Singapore ought to prick the conscience of people here, especially that of the parties involved in housing foreign workers.”

It is time to stop making excuses or placing the onus or blame on the workers themselves, and get down to eradicating this problem once and for all, for all our sakes.

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

License, certificates required for drone fliers in Singapore beginning from February 2021

Users of certain unmanned aircraft (UA) – such as radio-controlled aircraft, drones…

40-year-old male in viral video beating up another on train along Downtown line, arrested for public nuisance

A 40 year-old man has been arrested by the police on Sunday…

法庭判决后 工人党议员续走访群众

上周五(11日),高庭法官加南拉美斯(Kannan Ramesh)宣读判词,指工人党主席林瑞莲、秘书长毕丹星和前秘书长刘程强,须为阿裕尼-后港市镇会蒙受损失,承担法律责任。 针对法院对工人党市镇会诉讼的判决,工人党主席林瑞莲、秘书长毕丹星和前秘书长刘程强,也在同日发表简短声明,指出他们目前将检视该判决,并寻求律师的建议,并在适当时候披露有关他们下一步行动的详细消息。 毕丹星则在脸书透露,他们会在专为诉讼案设立的网站“秉诚行事”(in good faith),更新进一步信息;与此同时,市镇会的工作仍要认真做。 例如他今天下午,仍和议员费沙一同出席简报会了解OneService应用程序的进展,刘程强和方荣发则在数百米附近的建屋局后港分局开会,讨论后港区的邻里更新计划。 “感谢各位朋友和支持者与我们同行,我们仍有更长的路要一起走。” 似乎当前的判决,仍无阻工人党议员继续走访选区和接触选民。隔日早上(12日),阿裕尼集选区议员还在勿洛蓄水池路第622和623组屋地带展开群众活动,向居民更进一些市镇会的发展计划和民生课题。 此外,根据工人党官方脸书的贴文,工人党林瑞莲、刘程强、毕丹星,贝理安等人,前往实龙岗北拜访居民。  

沙拉蛋黄酱中藏异物 网友:险些吃了塑料片

沙拉?塑料片?傻傻分不清,一名妇女在食用沙拉时,险些吃下藏匿在其中的塑料片,令她感到震惊非常。新加坡食品局在接获有关投诉后,已经展开调查了。 有网民分享于本月17日中午12时,透过送餐服务Deliveroo,订购了新邮中心内日本餐厅Maki-san,价值12.20元的沙拉。 收到餐点时,有关的沙拉和调味料是分开放置,调味料放在一个单独的容器内。 她将沙拉和调味料搅拌后,开吃时发现要到好似塑料片的东西。 她接着就开始查看,发现放置调味料的容器内有一个较大的塑料片,和一些塑料碎片,因此怀疑有关容器是来自某种分配器。 网民ET表示,她当时几乎吞下了塑料碎片,想起还觉得非常恶心,且震惊不已。 她将此事投诉给新加坡食品局和Deliveroo知晓,送餐公司也退还了定金,并给予补偿。 她希望通过有关的分享,能够提高消费者和业者的意识和警惕心。 食品局:已展开调查 食品局针对此事指出,接获有关蛋黄酱(mayonnaise)容器中发现塑料碎片的投诉,并且了解到有关容器是民众透过手机程序订购的外卖食品,出处是来自新邮中心的一家餐厅,目前已展开调查。 当局表示,食品安全是共同责任,因此不会容许任何一方的违规或不符合卫生标准。 Deliveroo:全额退还…