Despite the many hours spent engaging residents and other stakeholders on the temporary Yishun bus interchange, grouses among commuters have arisen days after the SMRT-run interchange began operations.
In particular, the location of the temporary facility and its larger size came in for criticism.
The old Yishun bus interchange was situated opposite Yishun MRT station and beside Northpoint Shopping Centre, and all three places were connected by an underground links. The new facility, which opened on Saturday (March 14) is positioned opposite Northpoint Shopping Centre, and commuters must now cross an extra road to get from the MRT station to the interchange.
The temporary interchange is meant to serve residents until the new Yishun Integrated Transport Hub is ready in 2019. The hub will feature an air-conditioned bus interchange with an underpass link to Yishun MRT station and it will also be connected to the upcoming Northpoint City development.
In a Facebook post on Mar 14, SMRT said before the move, it invested “many hours” engaging Yishun residents, schools in the area, the Ministry of Transport and the Land Transport Authority, noting “such relocations can make the headlines for the wrong reasons”. It conducted trials with wheelchair users and engaged commuters to serve as service ambassadors in the first few days of operations.
Commuter Fatimah Jaafar, 62, found the distance between the new interchange and the MRT station a strain on her body. “I have to walk from the MRT station all the way to the interchange every day from Monday to Saturday. Not good for an old woman like me,” said Ms Fatimah, who has had a kidney transplant.
Some commuters were also unhappy that the new interchange, at 27,000 square metres, is bigger than the old 20,000-square metre interchange. “Just walking from one end to the other is very tiring,” said student Dwight Adriel, 14.
Other minor complaints include the misuse of the priority queues, the occasional traffic jams that occur at the entrance of the interchange, and confusion over the amended routes of a certain number of buses.
However, some commuters agreed that it is too soon to judge the new interchange. Visiting the new interchange for the first time on Monday, Mr Zulkifli Ariffin, 34, said: “It just opened a few days ago. Give it maybe one or two months and we can then see whether it is good or not. Right now, I think the interchange is not that bad for a temporary one.”
The major telcos here have been dragged into a controversy over the conduct of social media agency Gushcloud, with M1 and StarHub asking the authorities to look into allegations that Singtel, through the agency, incentivised social media “influencers” to conduct a smear campaign against them.
Singtel has distanced itself from Gushcloud’s actions and clarified that it did not issue the brief that asked the influencers — a term used to describe people having a substantial reach and following on social media platforms — to complain about the other two telcos’ services or network connections. The brief, written by a Gushcloud employee, has since been circulated online.
Singtel said it uses different digital agencies for its campaigns and Gushcloud was among the agencies that it had hired in June last year.
“It is Singtel’s policy to focus on the strengths and differentiators when marketing our products and services. It is not our practice to run negative campaigns against any individual or organisation. This is not the way we manage our marketing promotions. We will remind our agencies to strictly adhere to this policy when running campaigns for Singtel.”
Both M1 and StarHub said they were taking up the matter with Singtel and the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA). An M1 spokesperson said: “Such practices are unethical and we intend to seek clarification with the relevant operator on this matter. We will also request the IDA to look into this pursuant to the Telecom Competition Code and will explore further action if necessary.”
StarHub chief marketing officer Jeannie Ong said the company is “deeply disturbed by the tactics employed and the possible damage to our brand”. “We will be engaging with both the IDA and the relevant operator on this issue,” she said.
The IDA said it was aware of the matter. A spokesperson said the authority has always encouraged its licensees to “focus on promoting the availability, price and quality of their own services or equipment, and refrain from negative campaigns against their competitors”.
She added: “This will allow end users to make informed choices. Operators should abide by the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice when conducting marketing activities.”
On Saturday, prominent blogger Wendy Cheng, who is involved in a long-running spat with Gushcloud, had posted the agency’s brief, which promised incentives — including cash, discounts on mobile phones and VIP invites to Singtel events — for its influencers if they drove new subscribers to Singtel’s Youth Plan by complaining about the services of M1 and StarHub. It also provided templates for the influencers to voice their dissatisfaction.
Ms Cheng, better known by her moniker Xiaxue, also put up screenshots of subsequent social media postings by Gushcloud’s influencers criticising the services of M1 and StarHub.
Singtel did not respond by press time when asked if it is still hiring Gushcloud for its campaigns, and whether the Singtel logo, which was found on Gushcloud’s brief documents, was used without its permission.
Contacted yesterday, Gushcloud co-founder Vincent Ha said the agency is investigating the matter. On Saturday, Gushcloud said on Facebook that it was an internal brief and apologised for any misunderstanding.
“The brief is not meant to be read in isolation without the full context and verbal briefings given by Gushcloud. Singtel’s brief for the campaign was to focus on key differentiators in the services and strengths,” it said.
The Singapore Code of Advertising Practice states that advertisements “should not unfairly attack or discredit other products, organisations or professions directly or by implication”.
The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore, which handles complaints about advertising practices, is an advisory council to the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).
CASE executive director Seah Seng Choon said: “As far as this matter is concerned, we are not certain whether the information put out by Gushcloud is an advertisement, because it is not clear whether Singtel authorised all the content released by the bloggers contacted by Gushcloud.”
Still, experts stressed the need for marketers to be above board.
PRecious Communications founder Lars Voedisch said while there is an unspoken rule that companies should highlight their strengths instead of running down their competitors, they can criticise their rivals’ products as long as it is done transparently.
Direct Marketing Association of Singapore chairperson Lisa Watson said it is “not proper marketing practice” to engage bloggers to complain about companies. Stressing the importance of credibility and trustworthiness, she said: “You might, as a marketer, get away with (transgressions) once or twice, but eventually it is likely you are going to be found out, and (will) pose far more damage than good.”
Almost a year has passed since her four-year-old son’s death but time has done little to ease her pain.
Madam Rosnani Ismail, 35, still has his clothes, despite being advised by friends to give them away, because they are all that she has to remind her of him.
Muhammad Irfan Salam, who had epilepsy, died while under his father’s care in his rented flat at Toa Payoh on April 7 last year.
A Coroner’s Inquiry into his death returned an open verdict on Friday because it could not be determined how Nitrazepam, a drug used to relieve severe anxiety and insomnia, had got into Irfan’s system when it had not been prescribed to him.
Madam Rosnani said that when she saw her son’s body, she shouted at her husband: “You did this to him!”
She added: “I will never forgive him for what he has done.”
To start, we should also note that PAP activists Victor Lye, who made a Facebook post thanking his team for distributing the fliers, and Muralidharan Pillai, who confirmed to media that the flyers were from PAP, have both clearly indicated the origins of the flyers. In spite of that, the documents in question do not carry any PAP logo. The flyers were also distributed past midnight, as if done to avoid direct contact with residents.
Notwithstanding the highly mysterious and secretive air surrounding the distribution, Muralidharan had insisted to media that they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”.
Precedence set by the SDP
Ms Chee Siok Chin was jailed for a week for distributing flyers which were critical of the Government.
You are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12:15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with 5 persons did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Mark Chua
Senior Investigation Officer
Central Police Division
29 December 2008
The SDP members were charged under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules which states: Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
It is difficult to imagine that the legislative intent of this law was to curb the handing out of flyers, or similar communicative-type activity. I daresay the law was meant to prohibit gatherings that pose a threat to public peace, e.g. gangs out to intimidate or fight, or sit-ins that block traffic. The name of the law, after all, is Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Moreover, in actual practice, no action is taken against the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who stand at metro stations handing out flyers, or even those who interfere with traffic in some way, e.g. stopping people to sell them insurance
The point made by Mr Au definitely makes sense – the execution of laws should target the intended consequence, rather than the offending act itself. Unfortunately, the way the law was applied in the case must be taken into account in evaluating the present facts.
In the judgement passed by District Judge Chng Lye Beng, it is understood that, if a group of five or more persons distribute flyers of a political nature in a public place without a permit, they may likely be in breach of the law. Let us now compare the first three elements of the offence with the facts of the case at hand.
Five or more persons?
After the distribution of the flyers, Mr Lye posted this image on his Facebook page. According to his post, the people featured in this picture are the “(PAP) activists who worked through the night… to distribute flyers.” From this picture, one can easily make out seven people, which suggests that there were more than five people who helped to distribute the flyers. There might also have been more who helped out in the distribution but were not featured in this photo.
Post on Mr Lye’s Facebook page after the flyer distribution
Public places?
The flyers in question were placed at the doors of HDB flats, as seen in the picture above. This means that Mr Lye and his team were operating at the common corridors of HDB flats. It is also clear from the photographs taken from Mr Lye’s Facebook page that the flyers were left outside the flats – which suggests that they in no way entered into the home, or what might be considered private property.
Flyers of political nature?
To give the reader a better understanding of what would constitute ‘political nature’, it would be good to look at the contents of the flyers that the SDP members distributed. The flyers contained the following words:
Tired of being a voiceless, 2nd class citizen in your own country without any rights? Sick of the Ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore? Then join us for the
EMPOWER SINGAPOREANS
RALLY & MARCH
Saturday, 16 Sept 2006, 11 am
Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park
FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO
www.singaporedemocrat.org
In comparison. here are the contents of the flyers that the PAP activists distributed:
Comparing the contents of the two flyers, I opine that if the former can be constituted to be of a political nature, the latter undoubtedly is of a political nature too. The later also makes explicit references to the Workers’ Party and its Town Councils which should dissipate any doubts one may have about the political nature of the flyers.
Without a permit?
Prima Facie, it seems as though the actions of the PAP Aljunied team on Friday evening have satisfied the first three elements of the offence. In other words, Mr Lye and his team of five or more persons did distribute flyers which were of a political nature in a public place.
The question now would really be whether they had a permit for the distribution of the flyers. Both Mr Lye and Mr Muralidharan had not any any point in time produced any evidence to show that a permit has been obtained. If they do not have such a permit, they would technically be in breach of the law.
Alternative charge of Sedition
However, the SDP is not the only precedence we have of people distributing flyers without a permit and getting into trouble for doing so.
In what was popularly referred to as the “poison letters“, a flyer that was critical of the PAP was distributed to residents in the heartlands via letter boxes. The Strait Times described the flyer as “an A4-sized sheet with the criticisms in English and Chinese, made allegations about corruption and exploitation and complained about cost of living issues, among other things.”
It was reported that Police investigations were ongoing although we didn’t get to hear the end of the matter. TODAY reported that the flier was in breach of the Sedition Act which states, among other things, that a seditious tendency is one which seek:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore
The “poison letter” incident raises another bag of issues for the PAP flyer distribution in Aljunied GRC. While the target of the flyers – the Workers Party – do not form the government, its members are rightfully elected Members of Parliament, who are part legislative arm of the government. The contents of the flyers might possibly be also be construed instigate dissatisfaction among the residents of Aljunied against WP. Might it have the consequence of causing political unrest? The potential is unthinkable. However, to a certain extent, it may be possible to interpret the contents of the flyers to amount to a “seditious tendency” under subsections (b) and (d).
Conclusion
Ultimately, if this case ever goes before the courts, the issue of the legality of the flyer distribution lies with the Judiciary. Personally, I do hope that it never will, just as I wished the case of SDP and the “poison letter” never did. Even though I believe the actions of Mr Lye and team are akin to a political lowblow, I am of the firm opinion that, as far as the law is concerned, they should be free to do what they do – just like how all political parties distribute flyers during their house visits. I an no fan of laws that can be interpreted and applied in a manner that is over-reaching and discretionary.
However, should a police report be made by a recipient of the flyers against the PAP activists, might it be an uphill task for PAP activists to justify the legality of this flyer distribution?
KUALA LUMPUR: Two days after government officials found imitation packs of Milo on sale in Negeri Sembilan, the manufacturers, Nestle Malaysia, began a campaign to warn its customers.
The company posted a warning on its Facebook page with photographs to show customers how to tell counterfeit products, based on the perforations on the plastic packs of the chocolate malted powdered beverage, media reports said.
Utusan Malaysia had reported today that the domestic trade ministry had seized RM250,000 worth of imitation Milo packs in Mantin, Negeri Sembilan on Friday.
The state enforcement officer Saifulbahri Abdul Kadir said 1,000 empty boxes, 50,000 empty plastic packs, a printer, a weighing machine and a numbering printer had been seized and the fake Milo was ready to be distributed around the state. The ministry would take court action under the Trade Descriptions Act, he said.
Six immigrant workers from Myanmar and Indonesia were arrested in the raid.
Nestle has claimed that Malaysians are the biggest drinkers of Milo in the world.
