TR EMERITUS

I refer to Senior Minister of State Grace Fu’s response to my comment that opposition Town Councils which had never received either IUP, MUP or CIPC funding to improve and rejuvenate the estate would be in a disadvantaged position compared to PAP TCs. She was quoted in today’s press report to have said that “criteria for HDB’s upgrading programmes are clear and not all PAP wards qualify too.” And that “upgraded estate also faces maintenance issue as covered walk-way, for example, could need more effort to maintain than a clean patch of grass”. SMS Grace Fu is sidetracking the issue I raised and attempting to mislead Singaporeans to believing that the PAP government is fair to all Town Councils including those managed by opposition parties. Is she saying that upgrading programmes has no impact and implication on estate maintenance? Upgrading programmes such as IUP and MUP do not just build additional facilities like covered walk-ways as she mentioned. The upgrading programme also include upgrading of common areas like re-screeding of common corridor and replacement of lift lobby tiles as well as upgrading of playgrounds etc. One will not expect to find missing or worn off screws, nor floor mat being ripped off in new playgrounds. If the staircase railing is replaced with stainless steel railing instead of the existing mild steel railing inherited from the HDB as part of the upgrading program, one will not expect the railing to become rusty and corroded to become a maintenance issue. SMS Grace Fu also said that “not all PAP wards qualify for upgrading programme” and that “how much a town council gets from the government depends on the number and types of flat, not whether it is run by PAP or the opposition.” The funding she is referring to is SC/CC grants. What I am referring to in my statement is funding received by the PAP TCs via upgrading progamme. I have filed questions for written answers in Parliament twice, one in November 2009 sitting and another in April 2010 sitting asking for the amount of funding each benefitting PAP Town Council received from the various upgrading programmes. The answers given were the number of precincts upgraded at each PAP TCs and the estimated cost of the upgrading per unit. I am puzzled by this. It is time the Ministry of National Development let the public know how much additional funding each PAP TC has received through the various upgrading programmes funded by the national budget or has benefitted from the programme up to the financial year 2009 so that Singaporeans can have a clear idea of which PAP TC did not qualify for the upgrading program as mentioned by Grace Foo. The public should know how much additional funding is given to PAP TCs via the upgrading programs and hence can judge for themselves whether it could affect the outcome of town management. On the issue of SCCC arrears where the opposition TCs had exceeded the criteria set by the MND on TCMR. I noted that although MND had issued a “guideline” on writing off of SCCC arrears in 2008. PAP TCs had written off SCCC arrears. When SCCC arrears are written off, it is incomes written off and it will affect the bottom line. PAP TCs can do it perhaps they have more surpluses and are in a better financial position due to additional funding received through upgrading program? This is also why some PAP TCs are then able to use their own TC funds to help residents to pay SCCC arrears to reduce the number of months in SCCC arrears by way of offering part time employment. However, the more serious question is whether this is fair to other residents who pay promptly. I would suggest two more new criteria for TCMR for MND’s consideration. They are funding either directly received or indirectly benefitted from government programmes to improve and upgrade common areas managed by town councils; and amount of SCCC arrears written off by town councils. Band 5 being for the most funding and SCCC amount written off. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, when he was the Prime Minister once threatened voters not to vote for opposition candidates as opposition wards would become slum overtime. Both Potong Pasir and Hougang have not become slums today after more than a decade managed by opposition parties and the PAP must be rather disappointed with the outcome. The result of TCMR is a consolation prize to them.   Low Thia Khiang, Chairman   Hougang Town Council Source: Press Release on TCMR by Workers Party  Read More →

OPINION The American author Napolean Hill once wrote: "Big pay and little responsibility are circumstances seldom found together." He will be flabbergasted to know that they are pretty common circumstances in Singapore where political leaders and top honchos of public-listed companies take home astronomical pay without the accompanying responsibility. The recent security lapse at a SMRT depot which shocked the entire nation is one classic example. On May 17, two foreigners - a Swiss and a Briton allegedly slipped undetected into a SMRT depot at Changi and sprayed graffiti on the carriage of a train. The vandalized train was allowed to continue in service for two days with the graffit in full view of the commuters, one of whom took a video recording of it and uploaded to Youtube. A police report was lodged only two days later by SMRT which later explained that its staff "mistook" the graffiti for advertisements followed by a week of silence. In other countries, the head of the train company would have called a press conference and offered a public apology before resigning in shame, but not so in Singapore. For days, SMRT dithered over its public response while the government, afraid of triggering unhappy memories of its own security lapse two years ago with the escape of famed terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri chose to keep a distance from the fallout. Nobody seemed to realize the gravity of the security breach until one Singaporean wrote in to the Straits Times Forum questioning what the outcome might be had the vandals been terrorists instead. An information vacuum ensues as all parties - the government, SMRT, media and public continue to figure who should take responsibility for the lapse. The Ministry of Transport is the first to absolve itself of any responsibility with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) issuing an official statement that while it owns the SMRT depots, the management of its security lies with SMRT. This is followed a few days later by the Ministry of Home Affairs which passed the buck to businesses for assumming individual "responsibility" for overseeing the security at its premises. SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa finally expressed her "regrets" over the security lapse, but stopped short of a public apology. So who is ultimately responsible for security at the SMRT depots? While the bulk of the blame lies with SMRT for being complacent, the two ministries are implicated as well. In April 2004, the government established the Public Transport Security Committee (PTSC), made up of four working groups—protective security; information technology; crisis consequence management; and public vigilance and education—to identify weaknesses and gaps in the security system and implement solutions. Security measures implemented include hardening measures, such as: extra fencing at pedestrian overhead bridges along MRT tracks; the deployment of transit security officers (TSOs) at MRT stations and bus interchanges to patrol and conduct bag searches; thedeployment of police MRT units (PMUs) to complement the TSOs; raising commuter vigilance and security awareness; and security exercises to test inter-agency response to multiple attacks. Obviously the government is heavily involved in the planning, coordinating and management of public transport security. A workshop was organized in 2007 to "deliberate on security issues that pertain to Singapore’s land transport sector and to explore viable technological solutions to the threats faced." The ease at which the security at the SMRT depot was breached made a mockery out of the security measures which the PTSC apparently put in place to ensure the security of our public transport system. A gaping hole was left in the barbed fence around the depot and completely undetected for two full days, thereby allowing ample time for one of the culprits to make his escape from Singapore. Who is the overall in charge of security at SMRT depot? Are the Standard Operating Guidelines being followed? Are TSOs being deployed at the SMRT depots as well? How did the breach occur without sounding the alarm? Is there anybody keeping watch on the CCTVs at all? These are the questions which the government officials and SMRT personnel have to ponder hard over behind closed doors away from the prying eyes of the media and public. The lack of leadership displayed in the handling of this fiasco raises further questions on whether Singapore's security apparatus is ready to deal with a much more serious threat posed by global terrorism. The situation resembled the aftermath of the 2008 attacks on Mumbai where mayhem broke loose with the police, army, security personnel and journalists getting in one another's way in the field. One of the hallmarks of leadership is the willingness to accept responsibility for mistakes made. Judging from the "tai-chi" being played out by various parties last week, it is apparent that no organization is keen to step forward to accept ownership of the fallout. It is a shame that the immediate response of the government is evade responsibility and keep a distance away from the saga, leaving SMRT alone to clear up the mess. When one is not ready to accept heavy responsibility on one's shoulders, one should not be demanding out of the world salaries to perform their duties. The SMRT fiasco epitomizes the "honest mistake" mentality ingrained in Singapore culture where highly paid leaders can expect to get away with almost any mistake without having to pay a price for it.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

A Malaysian youth is languishing in death row awaiting hanging after Singapore’s judiciary found him guilty of possessing heroin weighing 47 grams, lawyers fighting to save him tell IPS. Lawyers, human rights activists and chapters of leading human rights advocate Amnesty International in both countries are working to save Yong from execution. “We will mobilise public opinion against the death penalty, against the bid to kill Yong for such a paltry offence,” said human rights lawyer N. Surendran. “If need be, we will protest outside the Singapore mission here and organise boycott of anything that is clearly Singapore,” he said, adding the aim is to pressure Singapore to be “humane.” Yong Vui Kong, 21, a Malaysian from the South-east Asian country’s eastern state of Sabah, was only 19 years old when he was sentenced by the Singapore High Court to death in November 2008. Yong and his family of nine were abandoned by his father when he was only three years old. As a young boy he left his village in Sandakan, Sabah for the bright lights of Kuala Lumpur and later Singapore. Like hundreds of thousands of other people displaced by rural-urban migration, Yong was chasing the same dream – work hard, save and strike it rich. But his life took an unexpected spiral. His clemency petition for the death sentence to be commuted to life was rejected and he was scheduled for hanging on Dec. 4, 2009. But he was saved by an unprecedented stay granted by the Singapore Court 24 hours before the hanging. His lawyer, Ravi Ramasamy, a prominent human rights champion in Singapore, rushed to court and argued that mandatory death sentences were unconstitutional, citing numerous decisions of famous judges in Commonwealth countries, including India. The mandatory element of the death penalty removes discretion from judges and grants it to the state, and this is unconstitutional, Madasamy told IPS in an interview in this capital. “The state is the judge and executioner.” “The power to hang has been given to the state by taking away the discretion from the judges. Mitigating circumstances are ignored,” said Malaysian Bar Council (MBC) president Ragunath Kesavan. A higher court has overturned the stay and re-imposed the death sentence, and Yong is again facing the hangman’s noose. Madasamy, who has battled the Singapore criminal justice system on numerous occasions, has only until about August this year to keep Yong alive. “I have asked Yong, his mother and siblings to expect the worst because the system in Singapore is merciless,” Madasamy said. “They want to make a point and they might want to do it not by mercy but by hanging,” he added. “We are racing against time to safe Yong.” It usually takes about three months between submission of a clemency petition and its rejection and immediate execution of the victim, said the lawyer. Activists in Malaysia and Singapore have argued that even top lawyers in London are involved in challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty provision in Singapore. “We are mobilising public opinion in Malaysia to show the inherent injustice in mandatory sentences. We want our parliament to repeal this provision from Malaysian laws,” said MBC’s Kesavan, urging Singaporeans to do likewise. Both Singpore and Malaysia have mandatory death penalty for certain offences, particularly murder and possession of a certain amount of illegal drugs. Both countries have hanged scores of people of different nationalities for drug possession, which is punishable by mandatory death by hanging, which human rights groups say is a primitive way of killing, because it causes agony and sufferings to its victims. “Singapore has world-class facilities but not world-class humanism,” lawyer Surendran said, adding it was time the city-state showed its human side by giving Yong a chance to live. He has urged the Malaysian government to speak up for Yong by pressuring Singapore to grant clemency and commute the death sentence to life. As Yong awaits his execution, he hears others being dragged from their cells to the execution chamber, crying, wailing and begging to be freed and to be forgiven, his family said. Yong was 12 years old when he ran away from a “life of pain,” said his brother Yun Leong. At 15, he made his way to Kuala Lumpur, hoping to find a better job but faced discrimination because of his “rural” origins. He found work in a Chinese restaurant but was paid far less than his colleagues. “He told us while work was hard and the pay was low, there was always ample food to eat,” Yun Leong said. “He was always looking for better-paying jobs.” Later, a local gang recruited him to hawk pirated video compact discs or VCDs. From hawking he moved into “helping out” at collecting debts. An unnamed ‘Big Brother’ came into his life for whom he felt compelled to do anything. According to friends and family, Yong soon started delivering small packets of heroin to people in the city. In May 2007 he was caught by Singapore police with 47.27 grams of heroin with him. Lawyer Madasamy said his client has come to terms with his impending death. He has also embraced Buddhism, waking up early to meditate and seek advice from Buddhist monks, who visit him regularly, the counsel said. Yong continues to hope for a miracle.   By Baradan Kuppusamy Source: IPS    Read More →