National High Ropes Standards introduced in Singapore

[Taken from https://centralusa.salvationarmy.org/armylakecamp/high-ropes-course/]

An interesting development...

https://www.todayonline.com/.../new-national-standards...

The SSCMF Secretary-General was quoted in the article as saying:

"There isn’t a common training standard now that practitioners can refer to because different organisations offer different standards,” he said.

“So what we did was we enhanced the current standards to create a structure for practitioners to refer to as they progress (in their training).”

My thoughts:

1. 'Different' doesn't mean 'less safe or effective'.
2. When he uses the word 'enhanced', there is an implication that the current standards (such as they are) are somehow inadequate. I hope I can get a look at the new standards to see the 'enhancements'.
3. Private operators are not obliged to follow these new standards, and it will be difficult if not impossible to 'force' them to adopt these standards (unless by legislative means). They are perfectly within their rights to train their staff to operate their own high ropes courses, and there is little attraction in having a qualification that can be recognised in other venues with high ropes courses. This is especially so if the operators have to incur additional costs to do this, when in-house training is, well, free.
4. For practitioners, this may be of some interest, but if the fee involved is prohibitive and if there is no compulsion/need to be qualified in them, then the appeal will be limited.
5. The Outdoor Learning and Adventure Education Association recently put out its own media release [https://www.facebook.com/.../a.576432992.../2006718442830520] on 18 Jan 22, which pointedly left out the SSCMF media release, and made sure to mention its collaboration with National Youth Council/Outward Bound Singapore. The signal being sent out is that OLAE was not consulted.
6. For a small industry, we certainly have great difficulty achieving some kind of industry consensus. This is because there is a lack of political and legislative will to push for it. Personally, I chafe at any kind of 'overlord'-style governance. It is administratively convenient of course, but it doesn't guarantee that the activity/industry will be any safer because of it.

[As at 19 Jan 22, I visited the SSCMF website and couldn't find the standards for viewing or download.]