A SingPost mail trolley was stolen (http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/mail-stolen-after-singpost-trolley-left-unattended).
According to the news report, “SingPost said it was the first time a mail trolley had been stolen although mail had been left unattended in the past.”
It is shocking that despite the history of unattended mail, SingPost had not taken adequate steps to prevent a recurrence. Instead, the matter had gotten so much worse with a whole trolley of mail being stolen. This is not just a simple case of the postman being careless but a blatant failure of the postal supervisors and SingPost management to learn from past incidents of unattended mail and implement timely preventive measures.
SingPost is always quick to take disciplinary action against its postmen when such incidents happen. It is right to ask what disciplinary action SingPost takes against its own management and its postal supervisors.
A whole trolley of mail was stolen because the trolley that the postwoman was allowed to use did not come with any theft-prevention security facility. The postwoman left the trolley unattended while using a restroom. May I ask SingPost what standard operating procedure for mail security did the management put in place to take care of such a situation? Was it the fault of the postwoman that she did not or could not put nature’s call on hold, or that no means was provided by her employer to securely stow away the mail? Did SingPost expect her to push the trolley into the toilet cubicle so that her eyes would not be taken away from the mail?
Let me quote this from the same news report:
“The Straits Times reported in June that a bundle of letters had been left unattended at a void deck in Toa Payoh with a note attached telling residents not to touch it and that a postman would return for it later.
SingPost said then that the postman had a heavy workload that day due to the haze.
As his storage box was full, he did not take all the mail with him to the next block. Disciplinary action was taken.”
In the June incident, SingPost was quick to say that disciplinary action was taken. Who was the disciplinary action taken against – just the postman? What did SingPost expect the postman to have done in his situation of having a heavy mail load with his scooter storage box full?
Let’s assume the scenario that the postman carried the mail with one hand (since the storage box was full) and controlled the scooter with the other hand. As a result, he committed an offence for failing to ride his scooter safely. Alternatively, he caused an accident with his scooter. Certainly, SingPost would say that it would take disciplinary action against the postman. Passing the buck to the poor postman would save the skin of management for failing to enable the postman to do his job safely.
It was ridiculous for SingPost management not to foresee that its postmen would just be humanly unable to do their job properly and safely riding their delivery scooters with an extra load of mail to take care of when the storage box is inadequate to hold the load. If the postmen were to leave the mail unattended, they would flout SingPost operating procedure and be disciplined. If the postmen were to overload the scooter and with attention distracted to make sure that the extra load does not drop off the scooter or without both hands controlling the scooter, they would be flouting traffic safety and would be disciplined also. Did SingPost even consider whether the extra load was of a size placeable safely on the light scooter? SingPost should look to its management for accountability that its postmen have to juggle impossible responsibilities.
Complaints against SingPost for poor service have been rife as the company has become ambitious in transforming its postal business into one involving the selling of all kinds of “barang barang”.
Jo Li