A WEB page enabling workers to gain rapid access to essential information about their health and safety rights and responsibilities has been set up by the Health and Safety Executive.

The "workers’ webpage" http://www.hse.gov.uk/ workers
- covers the roles and responsibilities of employers and employees, as well as issues such as ‘whistle-blowing’ and reporting accidents.

EDITORIAL

A foreign employer report says there is a critical shortage of ship officers in the world today, roughly 10,000 and growing 2,000 per year. The Philippines, being the biggest source of seafarers, should take that cue to fill the gap and act quickly. Our country badly needs money to pay our mounting debts as well as to bring forth economic recovery in this country of over 80 million people.

PRC, again, is in the forefront of this endeavor giving license to our officers to be employed, not anyone else and surely not DECS! PRC holds the key to a ship officer’s employability. If PRC deteriorates in the delivery of its services, our government likewise, fails in realizing its revenue goals. In this context, PRC must be inhabited by people who are really “professional” in stricter sense. People who know what is proper and what is not; what is fair and just. Many Filipinos say our government is a failure because of red tapes and corruption in all levels. But, looking closely into the national picture, it’s not that bad. There’s still big hope that these failures can be corrected.

As Senator Dick Gordon once said “what this country needs today is not just the change of men, but the change in men.” The authority of this government resides in the people and its power emanates from them. That’s enshrined in our constitution. Therefore, if a government agency like PRC fails to deliver, the professionals can stand their ground and institute change for the better.

Not necessarily all the professionals should react, by golly, just a few good men can make a difference. For better understanding, let  me describe the PRC structure, its powers, and limitations. As a commission, PRC is mandated by law to regulate the conduct of various professions; 42 boards at present. Each board has its own enabling law and implementing rules. In general, the commission, headed by three commissioners, one of whom is the chairperson, sees to it that the boards are functioning properly.

The enabling law and the corresponding IRR govern each board. The connecting line that links the board and the commission is the duty  to deliver what is necessary, what is best, and what is beneficial to the profession. That gives the commission the supervisory function over the board. Other than that, the commission and the boards are distinct  and separate entities with each one minding its own business.

The Marine Board, not the commission, should attend to what the seafaring industry needs as mandated by the Philippine Merchant Marine Law of 1998. The computerized walk-in examination is one of the provisions mentioned in the PMML 1998 which is long overdue by now. This should not be mistaken as the PRC modernization law. The PRC modernization law desires to computerize the entire PRC operation and among the 42 boards the PMML is perhaps the only law with specific mention of a computerized walk-in examination.
From here it is clear that the Marine board can “walk-in” ASAP without necessarily waiting the collegial decision of the 42 boards simply because their respective laws maybe tinkered first in order to subscribe to the PRC Modernization Law. 

Unfortunately, there are hindrances superficially delaying the walk-in system of the Marine board. One of which, and this is a common knowledge in the industry, is the insensibility and defiance of the old boys protecting the business interest of the few in the maritime industry.

Walk-in examination is not merely the mode of giving an exam. It’s more than that. Walk-in examination is the potent system badly needed by the seafaring industry to speed-up the licensing and COC issuances with greater control and more transparent implementation responsive to the standards of the world shipping. 

The old paper exam method is totally besmirched by the past corrupt practices and keeping that old rag gives more trouble than cure in today’s reality. 

The integrity of our certificates and licenses are being questioned by port authorities and rapidly losing the respect of many flag administrations. If we have ship officers who fall short of the world standard, it’s because of the unjustifiable failure of the past in screening who should and who should not get a license that bred “paper-based” officers. The faulty machinery, though old and clunky, is still there working and destroying the moral fiber of the industry.

Our ship officers had long been victims and held hostage by these grinding machines. In spite of this, we still have thousands of highly qualified ship officers who can do better but opt to remain good followers as against a few vulgar individuals leading government functions.

The excellence manifested by thousands of our officers around the globe attest to the awesome capability we have, much more if our seafarers are given all the government support to achieve greater heights. 
Sad to say, a pint of poison contaminating a tank of drinking water is what drowns thousands. Our board examiners (five each for Deck and Engine) are heavily-laden facing the license requirements of the more than 50,000 registered ship officers. 

Come to think of it, how can the board manage that magnitude manually when not all of their time is devoted to PRC? Changes in the international shipping and the demands for greater quality by the employers overwhelm the Marine Board.

Definitely, the implementation of walk-in examination will lessen that load tremendously. As it is today, many officers are confused by the myriads of training requirements, stained by cross-eyed interpretation of the STCW 95 requirements dumped on their lap when applying for COCs.  To mention a few, here are some of the unthinkable responses we are getting from the Marine Board: 

Case 1: A Second Engineer on board a chemical tanker would be promoted as Chief Engineer. He carries an E2-COC oil-chem, a Chief Engineer license, and served as Second Engineer continuously the past five years. He needs a COC upgrade to E1. The company represented him in PRC. Prescription: Send the officer back home to take some shore-based training, then the E1 COC - chem will be issued.

Case 2: A long time Master on an oil tanker moved to command a bulk carrier three years ago and continued to serve dry cargo vessel in that capacity. Now he is needed back by the company to serve their tanker fleet. The Master went personally to PRC to apply for change in his COC requesting to include his Tanker competency. Prescription: Take a few more trainings (marine laws, ship handling, and two tanker courses). After some bargaining the Master consented to taking only one tanker course. When he went back to PRC STCW department, hoping to be issued a COC, he was told to go first to NAC (National Assessment Center) and have his training certificates evaluated there. In NAC, the expert there required him to take some more trainings in the long list. 

I can’t imagine why an agency mandated by an R.A. would accommodate the function of a non-R.A. entity in processing COC. Is this sub-contracting? The board may wash hands and say they don’t give orders like that. Sorry folks, in government service the ultimate price you have to pay is “command responsibility.” You get blamed for every little mistake that occur in your turf. You get all the credit when everything is alright and you get all the flak when the going gets rough.

That’s why a public office is an office of public trust. You better do it right or you better get out. You see, fellows, these things happen because the ship officers are not respected by some people sitting in the government desk. Perhaps they thought the ship officers are idiotic that their scheme will go unnoticed among thousands of applicants. Our officers, in their quest for a better Philippines, are misled into different directions whenever they work on their license or COC. 

It’s about time that we question the harm by which some civil servants inflict upon our seafarers. In fact, STCW 95 is very specific in its directives that for a signatory country to comply, it must see to it that the personnel tasked to implement the provisions are themselves compliant and competent. In layman’s term this means all the civil servants attending to seafarers should understand thoroughly and implement correctly the STCW 95 all the time.

Even the examiners and evaluators are themselves NOT exempted on compliance! As far as COC is concerned, an examiner, assessor or evaluator experienced only in dry cargo vessels should not render his decisions on the COC of a liquid cargo officer and vice versa. In simulator-based assessment, for example, no assessor is allowed to render his judgment using an equipment he himself is not thoroughly familiar. That’s moot and academic. 

The code is also specific in saying that any new impositions outside what is mandatory in the convention should be done in consultation with the seafarers (the term used there is “those concerned”). Therefore, any plan to impose a course, for instance the Management Level Course or any equivalent course for that matter, for the sake of improving safety on board, should be “ratified” first by the affected seafarers.

This is where MMAP and MEOAP, being the accredited professional organizations, can play a decisive role especially in getting the consensus. If MMAP or MEOAP would not lift a hand and address vital issues affecting its members, then the officers should better work out contingency plans to save the ship. We have shortage of “qualified” officers, they say.  Why?

Because right here at home the government players are there outside blocking the drive way, playing Ping-Pong, keeping our officers in waiting. In the process, smashing our ship officers back-and-forth and running around like headless chickens…isn’t it disgusting? What a mess.

You can now join or start any discussion on seafarer's issues anytime or anywhere you are with