Caged lorry deck ban affects minority of firms, but raises costs; worker safety concerns persist

SINGAPORE – Three years after Mr Richard Lim, 68, installed caged decks on his 10 lorries, he will need to modify his vehicles again to comply with the ban on ferrying workers in such lorries taking effect in 2027.

The director of waterproofing and plumbing company B4 Water Leakage Specialist, which employs about 100 workers, paid almost $5,000 to modify each lorry in 2023.

Explaining why he spent “so much” on installing caged decks, Mr Lim said he felt it would be safer for the workers riding on the back of the lorries, as the barriers would prevent them from falling out if the vehicle braked suddenly.

“My first priority is the safety of my workers... I want them to come back in one piece and go home happily.”

Mr Lim added that these cages are useful for storing expensive equipment such as water jets and high-pressure polyurethane foam machines, preventing theft when his lorries are parked by the road.

The ban, which kicks in on Jan 1, 2027, was announced on March 4 during the debate on the Transport Ministry’s budget.

It is meant to address the issue of workers being unable to escape when a lorry with a caged compartment – locked or latched from the outside – is involved in an accident or a fire.

Companies may continue to use their caged lorries to transport goods and equipment, but would need to replace the cage structure with a canopy, side railings and rain covers if they want to transport either workers or goods on their rear decks.

According to the Land Transport Authority, caged lorries comprise about 1 per cent to 2 per cent of the approximately 50,000 lorries here.

B4 Waterproofing Specialist plumbing worker Muthu Krishnan, 35, is among those ferried between jobs on the company’s caged lorries.

The Indian national said the rear cage doors have always been fully opened and secured to the sides of the deck when the lorry is on the move with workers at the back. He does not fear being thrown out, as the lorry “cannot drive quickly” since the speed limiter caps its speed under 60kmh.

He and his co-workers usually secure all equipment tightly so they do not budge when the lorry moves, and there is enough space for five workers at the back, he added.

The rear doors are closed only when costly equipment and waterproofing machinery are left on the lorry deck, after he and his co-workers have exited the lorry, Mr Krishnan added.

When the ban enters into force, lorries used to transport workers cannot house caged compartments, even if the rear gates are kept open. Companies would need to remove the rear doors entirely and install side railings.

Mr Lim disagreed with some of the reasoning behind the ban. For instance, he said, lorries’ engines are installed at the front where the driver’s seat is, so it is unlikely that fires will break out at the back where the workers are seated.

Mr Dexter Yeo, general manager of truck customisation firm Meng Hui and Sons, said he charges about $600 to remove the wire mesh walls and swing doors of a lorry and to install a pair of stainless steel railings. These works can usually be completed within one or two days.

He said the firm has not received any formal requests for such conversions, but it expects a surge in requests about two months before the Jan 1, 2027, deadline – based on its experience when previous regulations were rolled out.

Mr Dickrose Masalamani, president of Singapore Plumbing Society, said most plumbing companies transport workers together with tools and materials such as brass fittings, copper components and stainless steel pipes.

This is why some firms use caged lorries to secure and protect materials while moving from site to site. These companies may need to switch to alternatives, such as closed vans or pickup trucks that can still house both workers and materials safely, he added.

But Mr Masalamani said the impact on businesses within the society will be “relatively limited”, as plumbing firms typically operate with smaller teams that do not require transporting many workers in lorries with caged decks.

Likewise, Mr Eddy Lau, executive director of Specialists Trade Alliance of Singapore, which represents contractors and suppliers in the building and construction industry, said the impact on the alliance’s members is “expected to be limited” as caged lorries are used to transport workers by only “a very small number of companies”.

He called for practical and flexible solutions, such as removable systems, to help lorries be adapted to different transport needs more effectively.

Construction worker Sellaiah Ramkumar, 45, who would sit on the back of caged lorries in his previous role at a flooring works company from 2014 to 2016, said that it was “not comfortable” as he had to squeeze with nine other workers and bulky equipment in a smaller enclosed space.

He added that he also had to worry about heavy equipment falling on him during transit in a caged lorry deck, and that some of his co-workers were injured previously.

Mr Ramkumar’s current company ferries its workers on larger lorries without caged compartments, accommodating up to 24 workers on the back of each lorry.

Former MP Louis Ng, who was vocal in Parliament about banning the use of lorries to transport workers, said the upcoming ban is a positive step, but a fundamental concern remains about whether it is safe to transport workers on the back of lorries.

“We won’t put our children or full-time national servicemen on the back of lorries, so why should it be acceptable for workers?”

He added: “It’s not a question of ‘if it happens’, but ‘when it happens’ for the next incident (involving workers on lorries).”

Migrant worker groups said the ban is a small, albeit important, step in the right direction, though efforts to protect workers could go further.

While the ban signals that workers “deserve dignified transport”, Dr Stephanie Chok, executive director at migrant worker rights group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics, said it will affect only a small fraction of workers. These workers will continue being transported on the back of lorries, exposing them to serious injury and death during accidents.

Acknowledging that businesses – particularly small and medium-sized enterprises – may face practical and financial challenges in transitioning to safer transport modes, Dr Chok suggested that some of the funds collected from foreign worker levies be used to help these businesses transport their workers safely.

“There needs to be a clear timeline on moving towards a complete ban on lorry transport,” she added.

Mr Ethan Guo, executive director of migrant workers group Transient Workers Count Too, said: “We should not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is to use passenger buses, rather than goods vehicles.”

He added: “This isn’t something that should be viewed through the lens of profit and loss, but the value of a human life.”