Patrick Nathan

It has been reported that the SMRT Corporation had fired the train driver who was involved in the fatal accident on 22 March, that claimed the lives of two SMRT maintenance staff along the track at a servicing point near Pasir Ris station.

Mr Rahmat Mohd, 49, the train driver involved in the accident in March, had been assigned to a non-driving job after the accident. According to The Straits Times, he was called to the SMRT office yesterday for an internal inquiry and discharged right away afterward.

Mr Rahmat is quoted to have said, “I feel sad, I have no plan at the moment.”

According to its sources, ST reported that a SMRT staff in the control center has also left as the result of the accident, preceding Mr Rahmat.

In response to its queries, SMRT spokesman, Patrick Nathan, said the company does not give comment about staff disciplinary matters. This non-answer somewhat confirms that Mr Rahmat had been dismissed based on disciplinary reasons.

The two victims, Mr Nasrulhudin Najumudin, 26, and Mr Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari, 24, were SRMT maintenance workers trainees. They were tasked to examine a signaling condition monitoring device along the tracks near Pasir Ris MRT Station, along with a joint engineering team.

Based on the findings by an Accident Review Panel formed to seek out the cause of the fatal accident, it is discovered that the vital safety protection measure of setting a code to ensure the speed limit on the affected track sector to 0 km/h so that no train can enter on automated mode was not applied. Neither was the deployment of watchmen to look out for approaching trains and provide early warning to the work team.

The panel noted that as the train was on automated mode when the accident happened, he was unable to prevent the accident despite having applied emergency brakes immediately when he saw the staff on the track.

It is uncertain why the train driver was fired given that the panel has not pinned any responsibility of the accident to the driver.

Given that the findings of the panel found systematic lapses of safety measures which resulted in the tragic accident, however after coming close to six months, SMRT has not shed light on why the lapses took place in the first place and who was involved in lapses to ensure that the safety measures were not enforced despite giving the go-ahead to go onto the tracks.

 

Netizens who followed up the story were outraged and questioned the decision by the company. Here are some of the comments posted :

  • Jeannie Tifinny Tara wrote, “The CEO should be sack for not doing his job to see that procedures are followed. Stop killing the’ ikan bilis’ to answer for your failure Desmond Kuek! A good CEO takes the fall for failure. Good for nothing paper general, go back and be a pen-pusher in the army!”
  • Choo Choo wrote, “The driver is not at fault at all… The fault should lie on who bring them to walk on the track without even checking on the condition…WHY is that person do not need to answer for his fault at all!”
  • Wei Seng Teo wrote, “There are a lot of missing details. Lapses included allowing a train to ply in automatic mode while workers were on site, not deploying watchmen to look out for approaching trains, and failing to provide early warning to the work team. Was the train drivers informed there are workers on site? If the driver was not informed, he should not be responsible.”
  • Andrew Rvictor wrote, “Who is in charge of safety procedures when work or people are on the track, is the driver the guy that wrote and implemented the safety protocols for train safety and work procedures? Is the driver in charge of placing the watchman when he is in charge of the train?
    Why in the first place is there an active train running on the same track where there are workers, doesn’t make sense. If there are people on the track, should there be trains running in the first place or if there are trains running should workers be allowed to be on the track? Yes, there maybe many lawyers that can defend the driver if need be, but he is a nobody and any lawyer worth his salt is not going to go against the big boys you do not get rich and famous that way.”
  • Thou Zen wrote, “The main culprit is the lapse in entering the track. That why the train is still in auto mode. The train must be in a manual so the driver can look out and communicate with the track personnel. Be transparent to the public in your investigation lah. Don’t just say the driver sleeping on the job and the control is playing checkers. An easy way out for the death of two young innocent victims.”
  • Koh Wee Leng wrote, “While I am serving the National Service, as a sub-commander, we are taught even our men did something wrong , the responsibility fall on the sergeant .
    However, Our Ex-SAF Scholar Paper General who maybe did NOT pass out from OCS is quick to put the blame and fired the driver for his negligence while he is handsomely rewarded for the investigating the truth and sitting comfortably in air-con office counting his paycheck.
    Is LTA going to take stern action against him for the serials of blunders and hold him responsible for the demise of the 2 SMRT workers?”
  • Bernard Chia wrote, “SMRT got fault meh? It always tracks fault, train fault, signal fault, employees fault. Never SMRT fault.”
  • Andrew Loh wrote, “The higher-ups making scapegoats of the lower-downs. Such great leadership! What a boost to staff morale! Have to really salute the general and military officers in SMRT for such wonderful leadership!”
  • Eric Ng wrote, “Can anyone here give an example of a situation/incident where the responsibility cannot be pushed downwards and undertaken by the lowest in the organization?? Be it SMRT, LTA, SIA, MAS, SBS…? I think all here would agree that there is nothing that cannot be pushed downwards and furthermore done legally….and unfortunately, these people who take the blame are almost always the lowest paid…sad but true….”
  • Shenwei Teo wrote, “To sack the drivers means that there is evidence to support they were able to stop the train in time and not hit the trainees. If there is not evidence to show that they were able to stop in time, then the sacking in unreasonable. It is not like they drivers were able to swerve left or right to avoid hitting the trainees.”
  • Robert Ridzuandowski wrote, “They should release the full result of the investigations so that we know if the sacking was justified. Gonna be hard for them to find a job after this sacking.”
  • SK Tan wrote, “Congratulations SMRT! You just celebrated Hari Raya Haji by sacrificing a scapegoat. What we want is a good honest admission and accountability for lapses from the top.”
  • Darren Delong wrote, “The supervisor or manager who was conducting the inspection should be fully responsible because he is the one who should be ensuring the safety of his staff.”
  • Lui Yong Sheng wrote, “Just hope that the two, can find a new job and restart their career.”
  • Wong Yking wrote, “The only solution is to sack SMRT worker. Case close.”
  • Zhiyu Huang wrote, “If I remember correctly, a certain someone said it is a norm to stand technicians onto the tracks when the trains are in operation. It sounds like he agrees that such actions are okay. Will he be sacked too? I have learned a very long time ago to never believe anything unless hardcore evidence is produced. I DO NOT THINK THE DRIVER IS ALL FAULT BECAUSE NO HARDCORE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED!”
  • Simon Cheng wrote, “Why none of the TOP MANAGEMENT from LTA or SMRT got sacked!!!! how come, please, explain that to the public.”
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Aussie prof: SG one of greatest failures in world; SG now most infected 1st world country per capita

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation published a news report last month, highlighting the…

小学华文课本歌颂李光耀为“伟大的园丁”

脸书专页獅子島上: 新加坡人生活日記,前日发布一则照片,照片是华文小学二年级教科书的内页,内容和已故建国总理李光耀有关。 作者提到:尽管新加坡建国领导之一李光耀,生前嘱咐不要在他身故之后有任何的造神。但是,新加坡华语小二年级的教科书,带点疑似“造神”的形态。 有关题为《伟大的园丁》的小学课本文章内容如下: 很多年前,他在荷兰村种下了一棵黄牛木。后来,他每年都会在这个小岛上种下一棵树。 现在,这个小小的岛国已经变成了大大的花园,到处都有高大的树木,遍地开满鲜艳的花朵。 我们住在这个美丽的岛国。我们热爱这个美丽的花园。我们感谢这位伟大的园丁,他就是见过总理–李光耀先生! 贴文作者提到,如果他有小孩的话,会教导他或她,建立新加坡不是一个人的功劳。 其实早在2016年3月,《海峡时报》刊载一则《我们的父亲,我们的国家,我们的旗帜》的文章,配图是由110名17至35岁新加坡人用4877块印有国旗的擦胶,拼成高3.1米宽2.3米的李光耀肖像。 这种吹捧和造神行为,就连李光耀的女儿李玮玲都受不了,当时让她直接宣告罢写《海时》专栏。 李玮玲直言这样的描绘,想起1976年隨父亲访问文化大革命时代的中国,中方安排大批孩子在街上列队欢迎。但是李光耀则不甚认同,曾指出新加坡人“不习惯面对过度、不自然发出的情感。”  …

Grab to disallow passengers to sit in the front as part of enhanced precautionary measures

Aiming to reduce the risks of COVID-19 transmission on its transport services,…

与日本韩国齐名 新加坡护照重夺全球最强

新加坡护照重新夺得全球最强护照冠军,与日本和韩国护照并列为全球最好用、通行自由度最高的护照。 英国伦敦咨询公司亨利(Henley & Partners)昨日(28日)公布最新护照指数显示,我国和日韩两国的护照一样,能在190个国家和地区免签证。 韩国护照是在去年10分,经由与印度签署新的签证协议,才取得了190个国家和地区的免签证。 德国则以188个国家屈居第二。而第三则由丹麦、芬兰、法国、意大利和瑞典共享,他们的护照能在187个国家取得免签证。 卢森堡和西班牙夺得第四,英国受到脱欧影响,夺得第五。美国紧接在后,夺得第六。 东南亚国家方面,与我国毗邻的马来西亚夺得第13,汶莱夺得第21,而缅甸殿后,夺得第91名。 我国护照曾在去年10月和今年1月的排行榜中被日本赶超了,屈居第二。 根据数据分析公司FutureMap创办人康纳指出,全球最强护照都是来自亚洲国家,说明了在全球进化进程中,亚洲地区已经逐渐成为焦点。