Unhappy DBS Employees?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internal Bliss <internal.bliss@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2007 10:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: Unhappy DBS Employees?
To: jermyn.chow@gmail.com, BaoYing@mediacorpnews.com, crystalc@sph.com.sg, mellwee@gmail.com, melvin@sph.com.sg, swatic@sph.com.sg, kxster@gmail.com, mariaa@sph.com.sg, sgtforum@gmail.com
Cc: groupcomms@dbs.com

Pl follow up.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internal Bliss < internal.bliss@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 31, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Unhappy DBS Employees?
To: groupcomms@dbs.com

Hi

I happened to chance upon this forum thread by one of your employees (that's what she/he claims)
http://www.flowerpod.com.sg/forums/index.php?showtopic=33569

From the postings, i get the impression that the morale is very low.
Maybe you would like to comment?

Serious Implications of 'Second Chance For Jailed Doctor'

I refer to the article 'Second Chance For Jailed Doctor' reported on 9th March 2007 in the Straits Times.

I am perturbed by the fact that an ex-convict - for a drug related offence, no less - can so simply be assimilated back into government healthcare. From his conviction in June 2006 to date, it has barely been 9 months, including the period of incarceration. Notwithstanding, he has been vouched for by his peers and other doctors and has managed to be 'an active volunteer'. (Note: These facts were sourced from the CNA report)

My question is - under what possible justifications can a trainee doctor with limited reference be supported by testimonials? Also, how actively could he have volunteered in that short time to display 'his passion for the medical profession'? I am not convinced by these arguments and feel that the SMC Disciplinary Committee have taken the issue too lightly. When the researcher Simon Shorvon was dealt with so severely when he allegedly conducted himself unethically not long ago, I find that there is no reason not to administer an equally harsh punishment to an inexperienced doctor with such serious criminal misgivings.

As this doctor will be put in a government hospital treating members of the general public, I feel that it is clearly a matter of public concern and should be accordingly debated in a public forum. I am with the opinion that the justifications be openly declared by the SMC and the referees for the character of this ex-convict-cum-doctor be willing to reiterate their stand publicly. To think that one day my life or the lives of my loved ones may be in the hands of a possible drug-addict is nothing short of alarming.

The implications of this development are also equally troubling. By virtue of the same 'passion for the profession' and 'peer testimonials', will a teacher who has molested a female student under 'tremendous exam stress' be allowed to return as a teacher in an all-boys school? Will then a former convicted CEO be re-employed into another charity based on his years of success and demonstrated 'passion for fund-raising'? When these 2 scenarios are a firm impossibility, then how can a convicted doctor practice medicine?

I would expect the SMC and even MOH to detail the justifications and precedent(s) for this current state of affairs, or, urgently review the decision with the public’s safety and well-being in mind. I have nothing against giving second chances, but taking a chance with positions of such huge responsibilities is going beyond the limit.

Thank you

Ganga (Mr)
Profile : http://www.gangasudhan.20m.com
Articles : http://ganga.proboards41.com/index.cgi?board=welcome
CNA Report - http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/262847/1/.html
Simon Shorvon case - http://www.todayonline.com/articles/159538.asp

Woman hit by train at Woodlands MRT Station (2 Mar 07)

We refer to the articles "Woman hit by train at Woodlands Station, service disrupted" (Mediacorp Radio 938 live, 2 Mar 07) and "Leaked CCTV Clips: Police probe over, SMRT to do review" (Straits Times, 3 Mar 07). From the Straits Times article, it appears that SMRT's main concern is with security breach as a result of the leaked videos and does not even address the issue of the clear need to improve safety that many have brought up.

From the Mediacorp Radio 938 live article, we now know that yet another incident of a commuter being hit by a train has occurred, just only 2 days ago! We are reiterating our question to SMRT: What is being done to improve the safety of commuters in stations without full platform doors?

Expensive? Can you really put a price on human lives?

There was quite a bit of debate yesterday, over whether the videos of the MRT Suicides were real or fake. However, the Straits Times has confirmed with SMRT that the Yishun MRT Suicide video IS real. They are still trying to confirm the authenticity of the Admiralty MRT Suicide video.

It is clear that people are missing the point - whether the videos are real or not, the deaths DID occur. And all the deaths occured in stations where there were no platform doors to prevent people from falling (accident) or jumping onto the MRT Track (suicide).

SMRT has defended its decision not to install platform doors, despite so many deaths in recent months, by citing cost as the main reason. We would like to remind everyone however that SMRT has been making healthy profits in the last 5 years. Appended is a screenshot of SMRT's P&L Statement for 2002-2006.

Source: SMRT's 2006 Summary Annual Report
Clearly, SMRT can afford to install the platform doors, without the need to pass on the cost to its passengers. Afterall, close to half (just a rough estimation) of the MRT Stations island wide are already equipped with platform doors (aka the underground stations) anyway. The one time investment to upgrade the remaining stations would definitely improve safety and reduce downtime due to unfortunate accidents/suicides.

It is time for SMRT to reconsider the installation of platform doors, to improve the safety of its transportation network.