The Workplace Safety and Health Act - Safety in the lab

One of the great things the Ministry of Manpower has been doing over the last decade has been the increasing legislative muscle to ensure workplace safety. The Workplace Safety and Health Act that came into force in 2006 was a major milestone in this direction. Although obvious directed at industrial workplaces, there has been an increasing impact of the Act felt in our research laboratories. Without doubt, our labs are far safer than the labs of old where pretty much anything was possible. Now all labs are covered by safety SOPs, and both students and staff are definitely more aware and safety conscious in all that they do.

However we are still pretty much on the learning curve and there is still some way to go before the safety culture becomes internalized, and people do something because it is actually safer, and not because it was mandated by a line in the SOP.  

The NUS Office of Safety, Health and Environment has actually done a good job in translating and applying the WSH Act to the research labs. In this translation the responsible person in the lab for safety is the investigator in charge of the lab. For more general aspects of lab safety, the employer or the laboratory/institution may be responsible. Even so, things still do go wrong, and when they do sometimes it is difficult to be clear about who the responsible person is.

Many of us have been watching for the outcome of investigations surrounding a lab accident which occurred almost a year ago at the Centre for Life Sciences in the NUS. The accident was apparently a chemical explosion occurring in a lift which resulted in injuries to two men. Technically the WHS and the OSHE interpretation would identify the Principle Investigator as ultimately being responsible for any lapses in safety procedure that resulted in the explosion. But I think there is some shared responsibility with the Centre management.

Investigations have been going on for almost a year without any public statement about the progress of the investigations. According to the WSH Act, penalties can be quite serious. If guilt is found, this may be the first case where a researcher is charged for a lab safety offence.

So we are watching very intently as to how this will play out. The situation may be complicated by the fact that both the investigator and the Centre management involve high profile foreign talents.

The SCDF and CNB done in by a local Matahari?

Slowly the story begins to unfold, and the public awaits the sordid details about the dramatic falls from grace of the SCDF and CNB Chiefs. Much has been made of the fact that no money may have changed hands and that they had been done in by booze, makan and a local Matahari.

But I think we might be missing the point here.

Fact is two very big guns from the Ministry of Home Affairs had been so easily snared by the wiles of one woman. A pretty mysterious one at that. So much for our national security. I mean, these were no less than two major units with the Home Ministry! The Mas Selamat debacle pales by comparison.

Methinks our Minister of Home Affairs need to give us a bit more reassurance than to tell us the guilty will be punished.

High salaries discourages corruption? A reality check.

Singaporeans woke up this morning to the alarming news that the Chiefs of both the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) have been relieved of their position pending investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

This must have shaken the civil services to the core.

Without presuming guilt of these two guys, but if the suspicions are true that they have engaged in corrupt practices, it must surely raise serious concerns about the validity of the logic that corruption is prevented by paying high salaries. These guys have certainly not been paid peanuts.

To my reckoning, if we use money as the main lure into public service, surely that must attract only those for whom money and more money becomes the driving force for their ambitions. Corruption is fueled by greed, and there is never enough to assuage that thirst.

The most effective way to stem corruption is to have an independent, transparent and effective CPIB, and a vigilant public who is prepared to whistleblow. Our CPIB has done an excellent job so far, thankfully. But if we want our politicians to be free from corruption, then the CPIB must have the freedom to investigate all officials including the cabinet and even the Prime Minister. That the CPIB reports to the Prime Minister's Office does not give it a freehand in performing this critical function. Perhaps this line of reporting should be reviewed? Since we have an elected Presidency, should not the CPIB report to the President, rather than to the Prime Minister?