The families of the victims in the fatal SMRT accident in March have questioned the operator’s sacking of the train driver involved in the tragedy, before investigations by the relevant authorities are complete and the Coroner’s Inquiry is held.
Expressing their sympathies for the sacked driver, they reiterated the need for the full picture to emerge. Amid concerns that the sacking could prejudice the ongoing probes, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said in response to TODAY’s queries that the sacking was “an internal decision by SMRT”.
“Investigations by MOM and LTA are ongoing and will be based on the facts of the case,” they added.
On Wednesday (Sept 14), The Straits Times reported that Mr Rahmat Mohd, 49, was dismissed on Tuesday after an internal disciplinary inquiry. Citing sources, it added that an operations control centre staff member had also left the company earlier on account of the incident, which occurred on March 22.
Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari, 24, and Nasrulhudin Najumudin, 26, were killed by an oncoming train while on their way, as part of a team of 15, to check on a warning signal from a monitoring device.
Speaking to TODAY, Nasrulhudin’s eldest brother Nasrifudin, 33, said his family was shocked to hear about the sacking of Mr Rahmat. “He could be the breadwinner of the family so we are also sad for him,” said the civil servant.
Asyraf’s cousin, who wished to be known only as Mr Khai, noted that all the staff involved in the accident as well as their colleagues would have been “affected emotionally and mentally”.
While he felt that SMRT had its own reasons for dismissing the driver, it would have been better if the operator based its disciplinary actions on the Coroner’s Inquiry, which would uncover the “real sequence of events”.
“They should wait (for the inquiry),” he said. Nevertheless, he said the family is thankful for SMRT’s support following the tragedy. “We have to accept the situation as it is … The takeaway from all this is that hopefully, none of this happens again,” he added.
Mr Melvin Yong, the National Transport Workers’ Union (NTWU) executive secretary, said that the union had previously written to SMRT, asking it to withhold any disciplinary action until official investigations are complete, so as to not prejudice the outcome.
“We will now review the situation, study the grounds for SMRT dismissal, and work with the affected staff on the next steps. The union will continue to render affected staff the necessary support and assistance during this difficult time, as we have since the incident,” he added.
In April, SMRT shared the findings by an independent panel on the accident. The panel found that the team involved had stepped onto the train track before “vital” protection measures were implemented. Also, a speed limit to prevent trains from entering the track area on automated mode was not set, and watchmen were not deployed to look out for and warn of approaching trains, “directly causing” the accident.
The report was submitted to LTA, MOM and the police to assist with their statutory investigations. A Coroner’s Inquiry will be held after official investigations conclude. LTA had earlier said that its investigations would be completed in the third quarter of this year.
When contacted, SMRT spokesman Patrick Nathan reiterated that the company does not comment on staff disciplinary measures.
The sacking of Mr Rahmat also drew flak online.
Writing on Facebook, prominent blogger Andrew Loh said the firing was a case of “scapegoating”. He asked if the sacked train driver was really at fault, and even if he was, whether he should be made to bear the full responsibility. He added: “Amazing that, at the other end, despite years of failures, disruptions, delays and all sorts of incidents on our trains, affecting millions of commuters, NOT A SINGLE higher-up has ever been held accountable.”
Referring to Mr Rahmat, Ms Emily Chong wrote on SMRT’s Facebook page: “At 49 years old, he now has to find a new job to support himself and his family — for a mistake that was not his to bear.”
Source: www.todayonline.com
