SACKING OF CAPTAIN RABINDER SINGH

20 Feb 1994

        I refer to the letter "Employee not qualified to comment on 
safety" (ST, Feb 19) by Mr S. Gerard Vincent, Company Secretary, 
Sembawang Shipyard Ltd.

        Sembawang continued to insist on the thinnest of grounds that 
Captain Singh intended to represent Sembawang when he voiced his 
concerns in his letter to the Forum. It accused Captain Singh of playing 
on the emotions of the families of the deceased and of misleading them. 
The press and Captain Singh are lambasted for being "insensitive to the 
affected families." Coming from Sembawang, that is rich.

        Sembawang's continued harping on Captain Singh mis-
representing the shipyard is ridiculous. The Straits Times has already 
clarified that Captain Singh wrote in his personal capacity, so that is a 
non-issue. 

        More interesting is Sembawang's concern that the families of 
the deceased not be misled. Misled? Misled into thinking that Jurong 
Shipyard was negligent, perhaps? Is Sembawang concerned that the 
families could be misled into suing?

        Sembawang claimed that it has been magnanimous in giving 
Captain Singh three months' salary in lieu of notice of dismissal. Three 
months' pay is scarce compensation for  wrongful dismissal and the 
loss of employment pass and livelihood.

        Captain Singh is disparaged as a person who helps to dock 
ships - a mere "driver" and no expert on shipyard safety. However, Mr 
Willy Tan ("Captain speaks for safety of all", ST, Feb 18) wrote that 
Captain Singh was a ship master of ocean-going vessels. Surely, ship 
masters must know something about safety in shipyards. I am 
"astounded" that Mr Vincent did not know this.

        This case has nothing to do with Captain Singh's expertise or 
hypothetical prejudice to the inquiry, and least of all with the possibility 
of misleading the families of the deceased. The real issue is whether 
Captain Singh should have been fired at all for raising public 
consciousness of industrial safety. Sembawang is obfuscating by raising 
irrelevant issues.

        Sembawang complains of press sensationalism and that it has 
been unfairly depicted as a cruel employer. The only sensational thing is 
Sembawang's stubborn unwillingness to admit that it had over-reacted 
and its continued refusal to redress its mistake. The crude attempt at 
intimidating critics by threatening legal action is unlikely to gain 
Sembawang any public sympathy. Truly, Sembawang's worst enemy is 
itself.