Former SMRT bus drivers He Jun Ling and Liu Xiang Ying responded to SMRT’s first press statement here. Since then, SMRT has released a second press statement rebutting the men’s claims, as was reported in the Straits Times on 25 January 2013. Three of the drivers, He Jun Ling, Gao Yue Qiang and Liu Xiang Ying respond to SMRT’s second statement below. A copy of this statement has been sent to local media.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Reply to SMRT’s Second Press Statement on 24 Jan 2013
- We refer to SMRT’s statement of 24 January 2013. We are disappointed that SMRT continues to evade the substance of our response of 23 January 2013.
- SMRT continues to fail to take responsibility for their numerous actions that clearly indicate they were no longer interested in keeping us as employees even before the Board of Inquiry was to be convened.
- SMRT’s latest statement attempts to evade their responsibility for the dormitory management’s actions in de-activating our access cards as well as putting up notices banning us from the premises.
- This follows a pattern of SMRT failing to take responsibility for the living conditions in the dormitories that they rent to house their staff.
- Instead of continuing to shift the blame, SMRT should clearly clarify: did they or did they not have control over their dormitory management’s actions?
- It is ridiculous for SMRT to claim that posters saying “BANNED FROM ENTRY” were put up to “allow the dormitory staff to recognize (the men) should they return, so that SMRT could be informed of their presence”. Why would we be expected to return to the dormitory if we have been banned from the premises?
- There is also clear evidence that SMRT deleted us from their employee databases before the outcome of the BOI. We attach photos (see below) of our attempt to log in at employee terminals on 20 December 2012. We look forward to seeing whether SMRT will blame another third party for this deletion.
- We are also shocked that SMRT has chosen to reveal the substance of private and confidential communications relating to the BOI. In their first letter to us and in subsequent letters to our lawyers, SMRT stated that “this letter and its contents are strictly private and confidential”.
- Is it regular practice for SMRT to reveal the outcome of private BOI findings of their employees?
- Or are we being unduly discriminated against?
- SMRT’s actions in making this issue public are extremely prejudicial to our ongoing Court case.
- We might only be bus drivers, but we deserve to be treated with the dignity and respect due to any other human being. We value our reputation and will fight to protect it.
- SMRT’s statements in public have implied that we were negligent in our duty and evasive in our actions. This is a grave slur on our names and we are taking the necessary legal advice on all our legal options.
- Please contact our lawyers for further queries.
HE JUN LING
ABOVE: Screen captures of the four men’s failed attempts to log in at SMRT’s employee terminal using their driver IDs in December 2012. Their attempts were met with the words ‘No record’.