Facts, views – and names – appreciated

The brakes failed. That’s why a leg on the rig in Jurong Shipyard tilted and men got pushed out into the sea. It’s good that SembCorp Marine came out so quickly to explain what happened rather than resort to the hackneyed phrase: Investigations are underway. Methinks corporations are learning that it’s better to say something, than nothing.

The same thing is happening on the SMRT front, with Desmond Kuek making the rounds of the media to answer concerns over its human resource management practices. So, there will be a reshuffle in the SMRT soon, he told Lianhe Zaobao, presumably to resolve what he had called deep-seated problems in the transport operator. I wonder if he will be speaking to his predecessor about these problems – I would so love to be a fly on the wall.

But while corporations seem more open now to putting their top officers in the frontline, the same isn’t true for those down the line or even those whose views could help avert similar problems. So the SMRT bus drivers have been gagged by the company and SembCorp Marine staff were seen ticking off workers who had been talking to the media.

Sigh.

I’m also rather tired of supposedly expert views from those who “declined to be named’’. If you have something to say, say it and put your name behind it. Instead we have the usual suspects, MPs, and the more or less same bunch of economists and academics (you should know the list by now..) who put their names down to what they say. And what they say (sometimes) are what anyone could have said too, although without the backing of votes and academic credentials.

What’s the worry? That the likes of SMRT and SembCorp Marine will “come after’’ you? That you won’t get contracts from them? That you worry about getting flak for speaking up? Or, maybe, you’re not sure about what you’re saying?

Back to SembCorp Marine.

You have to read TNP for a bit more than in the other media – like how come there was only one gangway. Apparently, there was supposed to be two. And how come the emergency services, such as the police and civil defence people, weren’t alerted. Apparently, the SembCorp people thought they could cope. It has a doctor and four nurses on site, and called in for more staff from outside. Also, some workers were ferried by lorries to clinics and hospitals. There were some ambulances used – but seems like they were from private operators and not the usual emergency services.
I don’t know if we’re supposed to applaud SembCorp for being “independent’’ or wonder why common sense didn’t kick in. I mean, anyone would have rang 999 when something like this happens, no? At least, more helping hands or some kind of easing of red tape at hospitals etc could have taken place. Or maybe SembCorp didn’t think it was serious enough to have cops and emergency officers helping or sniffing around? And bring the terrible horde of media people in their wake?

Terribly odd.

Graphics needed

When it comes to instant news graphics, I’ve always thought the TNP unbeatable. It does it again with a graphic on the jack-up rig in Jurong shipyard which collapsed. It described the parts of the rig, where the workers’ living quarters were and looked at the jacking mechanism which apparently failed causing the rig to tilt.  I learnt about this thing called a spud can – shoes that secure the legs of the rig to the seabed. Canned potatoes?

I’m not sure though about why TNP made a big deal about there being only one single-file gangway for the workers to get to safety. Is there supposed to be more than one? What if the rig was offshore? No gangway then.

I was also interested in one unnamed oil rig expert’s view that the failure of jacking mechanisms usually happen off shore – and not in a shipyard, except for one case he recalled that happened in Korea. I wonder what happened over there.

(While I am on this, I was interested to read in ST that the shipyard did NOT call for emergency help. I suppose the shipyard thought it could handle the cases on its own? It was members of the public which alerted the civil defence people.)

I wish the TNP did more graphics beyond the death and disaster types. I’m referring to two big stories that I have some difficulty following today: the possible SIA-Virgin split and Olam’s rights issue response to Carson Block.

I thought BT did the best in both stories, in explaining the issues and using rather fine language that didn’t descend into financial jargon.

I learnt from BT about the history of the SIA-Virgin marriage and how SIA thought it would reap the benefits of Virgin’s access to the American eastern seaboard when it bought a stake in the carrier – but got only the occasional dividends. Housekeeping allowance, I suppose.

There’s some kind of cold war on: how Virgin didn’t want SIA having a say in its management. And how SIA bars Virgin from competing with it in the Asia-Pacific region.

I liked how BT explained that this advantage was more or less erased when SIA was granted rights to fly to US from London. Still, because Heathrow was crowded, the Virgin connection was useful.

In other words, it wasn’t a marriage on the rocks as described by BT methinks,  more like an indifferent, cold marriage which can be dissolved amicably now that there is a potential buyer for SIA’s Virgin stake.

Now could TNP have presented the issue graphically? I think so. What about a couple fighting over the world  with an atlas in background and details of the SIA-Virgin connections including those to Australia?

Likewise BT explained Olam’s latest move to counter short seller Carson Block – in text. It did creditably methinks as even Sunny Verghese said the rights/warrants deal was a complicated structure for the layman to understand. The main reason for Olam’s move, I THINK, was to get those who lent their shares to Carson Block to get them back from him because some better deals are in store for them. That’s my flimsy understanding of the issue.

Of course, some people would argue that readers of TNP aren’t interested in financial deals. Maybe so. It’s a waste. Because I don’t see other media doing good enough explanatory graphics.