Category: Komentar

Send in your opinion to [email protected].
Kirimkan pandangan anda kepada [email protected].

  • Underwater World Head Diver Killed By Stingray

    Underwater World Head Diver Killed By Stingray

    In what is believed to be the first such incident in Singapore, a man died after he was stung by a stingray yesterday afternoon.

    The victim is Mr Philip Chan, the head of the team of divers at Underwater World Singapore (UWS), which has been closed since June.

    Tributes to Mr Chan, who was also the senior supervisor of UWS’ curatorial department, began appearing on Facebook last evening.

    The New Paper understands that the once-popular attraction on Sentosa island was in the process of moving its marine animals at the time, and Mr Chan, who was in his early 60s, was working with stingrays when tragedy struck.

    The police said they were alerted at 2.20pm to a case about an injured man at UWS.

    A spokesman said he was taken to the Singapore General Hospital (SGH), where he died of his injuries.

    They are investigating the unnatural death.

    The Singapore Civil Defence Force said it dispatched an ambulance to the scene. The victim was unconscious when he was taken to SGH, its spokesman said.

    TNP and The Straits Times (ST) carried profiles of Mr Chan, an avid diver who had been with UWS since it opened in 1991, in June after the closure of the marine park was announced.

    It was obvious from the interviews how devoted he was to the marine animals he had worked with for 25 years.

    “They are so quietly tame,” he told TNP, adding that he was sad to say goodbye to his “band of friends”.

    “We intend to find them the best homes and environment. The next time I see them, I might not recognise them any more but if I dive, they might recognise me.”

    Mr Chan would usually be in scuba gear in the water to place food in the mouths of the stingrays and sharks during feeding time while visitors watched and took pictures.

    “I treat (the animals) like my babies,” he told ST.

    While describing the eagle rays and the nurse sharks as “gentle”, he told ST that he had been bitten a few times by sharks which mistook him for a fish, but they let go once they realised he was not food.

    “Whenever I get in danger, I just keep calm. I can overcome any danger by just being calm,” he said.

    Tragically, Mr Chan would lose his life to one of his “babies” that he had cherished for so long.

    PROVOKED WHEN STRESSED

    When contacted, Dr Tan Heok Hui, 45, an ichthyologist, told TNP that stingrays that have been in captivity can feel provoked and try to retaliate by stinging when they face stressful situations such as being moved from their tanks.

    Dr Tan, an operations officer at the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, added: “Stingrays attack when they feel threatened, cornered or alarmed. Sometimes, a stingray might feel threatened when someone accidentally steps on it.

    “Stingrays have backward pointing barbs on the spine that have serrated edges. They don’t just cause physical pain, the toxins in the spine can also cause extreme discomfort. When a spine pierces human flesh, it breaks and releases toxins into the flesh.”

    The toxins commonly found in stingray venom are protein-based enzymes like serotonin, which is known to cause severe muscle contractions.

    Whether a sting is fatal or not depends on where the victim is stung, said Dr Tan.

    “If a victim is hit in vital organs like the chest area, it may trigger a cardiac arrest, which could subsequently be fatal,” he added.

    The best known case of a stingray killing a human was Australian TV personality Steve Irwin, who was stung in the heart while swimming near a stingray in 2006.

    There are more than a dozen species of stingrays in Singapore waters. They include the blue-spotted stingray, whiptail stingray and Gerrard’s stingray that can commonly be found in murky waters.

    It is not known which species was involved in the attack at UWS.

    Dr Tan said: “Stingrays are not usually aggressive, and choose defensive methods to protect themselves. However, stingrays are still wild animals, and when provoked and left with no choice, they will defend themselves using their sting.”

    UWS, which was owned by Haw Par Corporation, closed its doors on June 27. When it opened in May 1991, it was the largest tropical fish oceanarium in Asia.

    Built at a cost of more than $20 million, it was best known for its 83m-long underwater tunnel, where visitors could view fishes swimming above their heads and around them.

    The closure did not come as a total surprise to industry experts who pointed out that the attraction had faced keen competition from the newer S.E.A. Aquarium and Universal Studios Singapore theme park, which are also located in Sentosa.

    UWS’ lease for the premises was due to expire in less than two years, and it decided to close early to facilitate the transfer of its marine creatures, said a UWS spokesman in June.

    DESERTED

    The park was deserted when TNP went there yesterday evening.

    Three staff members were seen walking out but when approached, they declined to comment on the incident.

    A worker at the nearby Shangri-La’s Rasa Sentosa Resort & Spa said he saw an ambulance at Underwater World yesterday afternoon.

    The middle-aged man, who requested anonymity, was surprised to find out what had happened.

    He said: “It all happened very quickly. The ambulance came and quickly left the premises. I’ve never seen such an incident happening here before.”

    Haw Par did not respond to TNP’s queries by press time.

  • A Floating Nuclear Power Plant – Off Singapore?

    A Floating Nuclear Power Plant – Off Singapore?

    The Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in 2011 left the world with a deep aversion to nuclear power.

    However, the approval last month by Britain for the construction of a nuclear plant at Hinkley Point is a symbolic turning point.

    Britain will pay £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity produced (S$0.165/kwhr), rising with inflation, for 35 years, according to the Financial Times.

    The price is substantially higher than the prevailing market rate for fossil fuels. The British government must have decided that the premium for the clean energy was worth paying. It is also a tacit acknowledgement that the harvesting of wind, solar and tidal current energies will not meet foreseeable demand.

    Nuclear fission emits no pollutants or gases. A gas-, oil- or coal-fired power plant insidiously emits toxins and carbon dioxide, threatening life and destabilising the environment.

    According to the Nuclear Energy Institute: “As of May 2016, 30 countries worldwide are operating 444 nuclear reactors for electricity generation, and 63 new nuclear plants are under construction in 15 countries.”

    In Asia, by 2030, China expects to have 150 gigawatts (GWe) of electricity – Malaysia, 1 GWe; Vietnam, 10 GWe; and Indonesia, 35 GWe. In France, 75 per cent of the energy is from nuclear sources.

    Is the nuclear option important for Singapore? Certainly. Ninety- five per cent of Singapore’s energy needs are piped from Indonesia and Malaysia in the form of natural gas. The economy’s heavy dependence on a single fuel type, and its mode of delivery, makes it vulnerable.

    To diversify its procurement strategy, Singapore has built liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and regasification facilities so that LNG can be shipped in addition to being piped. Storage facilities, including deep caverns and floating tank farms, have been developed.

    However, LNG reserves are finite. Nobody is sure how much is left.

    Renewable energy, such as solar power, is the only sustainable energy source for this century but the technologies to harness renewables economically still face challenges. Even if they are overcome elsewhere, in Singapore, the challenges will remain.

    Solar energy is very costly because it is land-intensive. And renewable energy from hydro, wind and tidal current sources are not that available in Singapore.

    THE ONLY VIABLE ANSWER

    The nuclear option is the only viable one. However, with an area of 713 sq km, Singapore does not have the space for a nuclear power plant. (For Fukushima, an area within a 20km radius from the plant was declared unsafe, an area 75 per cent larger than Singapore).

    Retired Cambridge University don Andrew Palmer, formerly Keppel Chair professor in the department of civil engineering at the National University of Singapore, advocates building a nuclear plant underground. He argues that, in this way, “any leak is contained, it is easier to defend the site against terrorism, and land is used more efficiently”.

    Leak or no leak, I wonder if anyone living or working above the plant will feel safe. Instead, I would like to propose that a nuclear plant, if needed, should be built at sea, as a floating platform. After all, in the event of a dangerous situation, we should move the plant – not the people around the plant. There is only one way to do this: The plant has to be afloat at sea.

    The advent of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) provides a viable solution. SMRs are serially manufactured fission reactors with capacities ranging from about 50 to 500 megawatts. A number of countries, notably Russia and France, produce SMRs.

    Each reactor module is transportable by sea. SMRs produce heat by fission of a nuclear material, emitting no gas. The heat may be used to produce steam to drive turbines or for desalination or other industrial processes.

    The systems downstream of the heat source are the same as those found in any conventional steam-turbine power plant.

    A floating SMR power plant (or fSMR) consists of a nuclear fission reactor below the water line. The boiler drum, turbine, condenser, alternator and transformers are, for ease of operation and maintenance, installed above the water line. An air-gap between both improves stability.

    The suite of offshore oil rigs – semi-submersibles, jack-ups, tension leg platforms, spars and drill ships – provides many possible solutions to the hull form.

    Circulating water for the condenser comes from the sea beneath, eliminating space for cooling towers. The footprint of each fSMR is less than 100m in any direction. Its design is not site-specific. It can be installed anywhere with sufficient water depth, regardless of the geology of the seabed. It is deployable, and is easily replaced with a new one when it gets old.

    These floating plants do not require refuelling for months or even years. Refuelling is done at a dedicated place to which they may be towed. Maintenance and decommissioning are carried out at an accredited shipyard. A spare fSMR can stand in during the time it is taken out of commission.

    BUILDING SUCH PLANTS IS DO-ABLE

    Singapore is a world leader in offshore rig solutions. Although it would be a quantum leap, it is an incremental step to move from the construction of oil rigs to fSMRs.

    We need only to develop the expertise to install and commission the nuclear reactor. The skill set for the rest of the system downstream of the reactor is not new.

    The existing infrastructure – mooring specialists, heavy-lift cranes, classification societies and dry tow transporters – will support an fSMR construction industry. From being a world leader in offshore rigs, Singapore has what it takes to be a world leader in building fSMRs. However, its yards need a strategic partner that can deliver the SMR, with a good brand like France’s Areva. A matchmaker is needed to bring the two parties together. The Economic Development Board can fulfil that role.

    Can an fSMR be defended against terrorism? Sure.

    The sea surrounding Singapore is among the safest in the world due to the high level of vigilance and port protocol. Nevertheless, a concrete floating barrier/breakwater of 200m in diameter should be built around the fSMR.

    The mooring system for the barrier would be designed to allow the barrier to move a couple of metres. The compression of the fenders, the motion of the barrier and the friction of the water will absorb the kinetic energy of the impact when any collision occurs.

    Radar, underwater ultrasonic, weapon-bearing drones and high- voltage fencing would provide additional surveillance and protection.

    Can the fSMR’s off-peak output be used? Of course.

    I have encouraged the national water agency PUB to consider the use of floating, steel-framed reservoirs with fabric linings.

    A desalination plant with a floating reservoir can be located close to an fSMR to tap energy during the night off-peak hours. This would smooth the load and optimise efficiency. The reservoir may be used to grow vegetables or rear fish.

    Has it been done before? Yes. Since the first nuclear submarine USS Nautilus in 1954, many naval and icebreaking ships are nuclear-powered.

    Shipyards in Russia and China are, or will be, increasingly used to build floating nuclear plants.

    In the United States, even though wind, tidal current, solar and shale gas are abundant, fSMR interest is emerging. Professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Wisconsin have gone public with plans to design fSMRs, inspired by advances in offshore rig-building technology.

    While the capital cost of an fSMR is high, the levelised cost is not prohibitive. This is a measure of the cost of producing renewable energy over its expected lifetime energy output. This unit cost is derived by dividing the lifecycle cost, including land, capital expenditure, construction, fuel, operation and maintenance on a present-value basis by all the energy produced over the life of the plant.

    In Singapore, due to the very high cost of land, the difference between the levelised costs of an fSMR and a conventional gas-fired plant would be attractive.

    To be sure, the notion of a floating nuclear plant in Singapore may seem startling to some. But my point is that this is a sensible solution that builds on Singapore’s expertise in offshore rig building, and which can be cost-effective. It is no sci-fi solution, but a distinct possibility.

     

    Source: The Straits Times

  • Walid J. Abdullah: Think Chinese Privilege Does Not Exist?

    Walid J. Abdullah: Think Chinese Privilege Does Not Exist?

    Seeing quite a few Singaporean Trump supporters commenting on CNA and ST articles, is scary, yet totally unsurprising. Hatred, fear of others, racism: that’s what people who support him have in abundance.

    On a slightly-related note, bumped into a Singaporean here earlier today. I smiled at him, suspecting that he was likely Singaporean or Malaysian. He asked how i was doing, and after a short conversation, guessed that i was from Sri Lanka (which is not a bad attempt by the way: my ancestors from my dad’s side are indeed Sri Lankan Tamils. And later on in the day, someone of Sri Lankan-Tamil origin asked me the same question. Has happened many times before.)

    But, the difference is, this was an elderly Singaporean (probably 60-70 years old). After speaking to him, he still did not know i was Singaporean. Which was, hmm, shall i say, borderline racist perhaps?

    May i add, i was with my Malay wife and Khalid, both of whom, last i checked at least, do not look Sri Lankan/Indian/Pakistani/Bengali.

    I answered: Wah, you have lived in Singapore your entire life, and you still don’t know there are non-Chinese living in Singapore? Cannot like that lah Uncle.

    Him: No no, because you look like you’re from Sri Lanka.

    Me: (in a semi-joking manner, while laughing) Alamak uncle, i feel insulted that you think i’m not a fellow citizen. Surely you could tell (that I’m Singaporean) from my accent right?

    Him: Errr. No no, it’s because of your look.

    (Of course, again unsurprisingly, no apology from him. Because how is it his fault right that a non-Chinese is Singaporean?)

    So the next time you wish to think Chinese privilege does not exist, think again.

    Or just go to the comments section on CNA and ST articles.

     

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

  • Nazem Suki: Pakar-Pakar Penyelidik Dan Golongan Terorisma Dari Golongan Sama Yang Sesat

    Nazem Suki: Pakar-Pakar Penyelidik Dan Golongan Terorisma Dari Golongan Sama Yang Sesat

    Pakar-pakar penyelidik dalam ideologi terorisma juga adalah golongan yang menyelewang dan sesat.

    Apabila golongan teroris memesong salah guna fatwa dan ajaran ulama muktabar untuk kepentingan ideologi terorisma mereka, golongan pakar selidik terorisma juga memesong salah guna fatwa dan ajaran ulama muktabar yang sama untuk melabel ulama tersebut adalah ‘ibu’ ideologi terorisma.

    Maka secara khusus nya, golongan terorisma dan penyelidik terorisma adalah sama dari golongan yang sesat yang parah.

    Mungkin tidak menjadi melampau sekira pakar selidik terorisma ini akan mengatakan Al Quran dan Sunnah adalah ‘ibu’ ideologi terorisma.

    Yang lebih parah ialah pakar ini dilahirkan seorang Muslim, atau hanya Muslim pada nama.

     

    Source: Mohamed Nazem Suki

  • Sembawang Hostage Situation Was Over A Lovers’ Tiff

    Sembawang Hostage Situation Was Over A Lovers’ Tiff

    It started as a lovers’ tiff and escalated into a 17-hour stand-off with the police after a man locked himself in a Sembawang flat with his girlfriend’s two-year-old son on Tuesday evening.

    The stand-off ended at around noon yesterday when the police stormed into the fifth-storey unit and apprehended the 39-year-old man. The boy was rescued unharmed.

    The man was arrested for wrongful confinement, possession of a scheduled weapon and drug-related offences.

    His girlfriend, a widow in her 30s with four young children, was also arrested at the scene for drug-related offences.

    The 17-hour stand-off is believed to be one of the longest in which the police’s Crisis Negotiation Unit (CNU) has been involved.

    This is how the drama unfolded:

    THE SPARK

    After the couple moved into the one-room rental flat about a year ago, neighbours often heard them quarrelling, mostly over money and his accusations of her infidelity. (See report, far right.)

    She, on the other hand, was upset over his possessiveness and attempts to control her every move.

    On Tuesday afternoon, he asked her to run an errand, and she left her two-year-old son alone at home with him.

    She took the opportunity to complain to her mother about her problems with him.

    Mother and daughter returned to the flat at Block 462, Sembawang Drive, where the mother confronted the man.

    They had a tearful and furious argument, which sparked the situation that turned into the 17-hour stand-off.

    The man refused to open the door and challenged them to call the police.

    A 36-year-old housewife told The New Paper that her 57-year-old mother, who lives a few doors away from the couple, witnessed the incident.

    The woman, who wanted to be known only as Ms Rosli, said: “My mum heard a row between the man and the two women at about 5pm. The women were outside the flat, and he was shouting at them to go away.

    “My mother heard one of the women shouting at the man to let the boy go because ‘he’s not yours’.”

    THE PHONE CALL

    Mr Iskandar Mariano, 32, an event coordinator who lives down the corridor, heard the couple quarrelling and a child screaming at around 5pm.

    A woman, whom he recognised as the widow, came over, looking distressed, and asked to use his home phone.

    “She looked like she was under a lot of pressure and in need of help,” he told TNP.

    “She looked blank and confused, as if she was in a dilemma about who to call. She even forgot the number she wanted to call.”

    Not wanting to intrude, Mr Iskandar walked away and did not overhear her phone conversation.

    “Afterwards, she went back to (stand outside) her unit, and continued to quarrel with the man.”

    The police received a call about the incident at 6.44pm.

    When officers from Ang Mo Kio Police Division arrived, the man refused to open the metal gate to let them in.

    Mr Iskandar said: “I heard the man was taking drugs with the door open when the police arrived.”

    THE STAND-OFF

    The CNU was activated to negotiate the safe release of the boy, and the Special Operations Command (SOC) team was deployed in case there was a need for forced entry.

    TNP observed the man, dressed in a white shirt, pacing around the flat as the night went on.

    He appeared calm and was not armed.

    Several SOC officers were seen standing outside the flat at about 10pm as the negotiations continued.

    The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) sent a fire engine, a Red Rhino, two fire bikes, an ambulance and three support vehicles.

    As a precaution, a safety life air pack was deployed at the foot of the block and the Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team was on standby.

    TNP understands that more than 100 officers from SCDF and the police were deployed.

    At 4.15am, the man appeared at the gate and spoke to negotiators for about five minutes.

    The child was unharmed and had access to food and water while he was confined in the flat, said Dr Lim Wee Kiak, the MP for Sembawang, yesterday morning.

    Around noon yesterday, the police saw an opportunity to take action.

    THE RESCUE

    SOC officers broke into the flat through the windows to rescue the boy, while the front gate was cut for other officers to enter and arrest the man, said the police in a statement yesterday.

    During the operation, the sound of breaking glass could be heard and sparks could be seen as the gate’s lock was cut.

    The man was taken out in handcuffs, with a blanket draped over his shoulders, and put inside a police car.

    The boy was later assessed by para­medics, but was not taken to hospital.

    He was physically unharmed throughout the operation, and the police are working with the Ministry of Social and Family Development on his well-being.

    Police investigations are ongoing.

    Assistant Commissioner of Police Lian Ghim Hua, who was in charge of the operation, said: “It was a challenging operation as the safety of a two-year-old child was involved, and the negotiations were also protracted, running to some 17 hours.

    “Securing the safe release of the child was my top priority. I am glad the operation turned out well with the child safely secured through a coordinated operation involving officers from various police units and SCDF.”

    THE AFTERMATH

    The media were later allowed to gather outside the unit where the hostage situation took place.

    The metal gate was burned where the police had cut through the lock, and there was debris on the floor. Glass shards from shattered window panels were scattered all over the corridor. The one-room flat was furnished simply with a queen size bed, television and fan.

    Five of the woman’s relatives were seen entering the flat. They declined to speak to the media.

    A resident on the sixth storey, who wanted to be known only as Madam Aliyah, 55, said she felt relieved.

    “I couldn’t sleep the whole night, I even called my boss to tell him I couldn’t come to work today,” she said.

    “I was praying for the boy the whole night. I was so relieved when they rescued him.”


    Neighbours: Couple frequently argued

    The couple moved into a one-room rental flat on the fifth storey of Block 462, Sembawang Drive, about a year ago.

    The woman is a widow with four young children. The 2-year-old boy in the centre of the drama is her youngest.

    Her other children were with their grandmother in Woodlands when the incident happened, said Sembawang GRC MP Lim Wee Kiak.

    Neighbours in the rental block said they often overheard the couple arguing over money and infidelity.

    The quarrels got violent sometimes, with the neighbours hearing glass breaking, doors slamming and furniture being dragged around.

    A neighbour, who lives on the third storey and wanted to be known only as Ms Ana, said she saw the couple arguing at the void deck two weeks ago.

    “They quarrel every day, sometimes into the wee hours. I often hear the baby crying and the television turned on loudly,” she said.

    POLICE

    Ms Ana, 38, who is self-employed, added that the police were called to the unit after one argument two months ago.

    Another neighbour, Madam Masdia Gea, 33, who lives on the same floor, said: “I told my children to ignore their quarrelling.

    “They always slam the doors, and they have been fighting ever since they moved in a year ago.”

    But the housewife added that the couple were friendly, and did not cause any trouble to their neighbours.

    “They would usually just say ‘hi’ and ‘bye’ and smile when we meet in the corridor,” she said.

     

    Source: The New Paper