Tag: Singaporeans

  • Gangster LTA Officer Threatened Me With Fxxk Word!

    Gangster LTA Officer Threatened Me With Fxxk Word!

    On 07/07/2015 around 5pm I was passing by North bridge road I saw an LTA officer suddenly got down from his bike rushing towards a black car. Shortly he just took some picture and started to type on his device as the black car drove off. I also saw him printed the slip and put it inside his pouch.

    I approached and asked him, Sir why do you issue the summon though the car already moved off? I was appalled when the LTA officer answered me arrogantly, Who the f*** are you? Is that your car? What f*** do you want?

    I calmly told him to talk nicely and don’t have to be rude, instead he continued talking to me abusively along with his “fluent” vulgarities for the next 5mins or so. I was taken aback and told him to stop or I call the police for assistance. He finally stopped when I whipped out my handphone. He went back to his bike, continued uttering his vulgarity and rode off!

    It is not my car nor anyone related to me but for the next few moments, I started to wonder is this Singapore? Is this my country which I grew up in? Is this how an LTA Officer does his job? Do we need such an attitude person as an enforcement officer? Why must he misused his authority? Why must he used vulgarity publicly? Why do they simply issue a ticket as and when they wish?
    Our father of nation brought us up to SG50 and as a Singaporean, we are excited and looking forward to celebrate the joyous occasion next month.

    I have called LTA to complain about this incident and taken down some contacts from the members of public who witnessed the incident. There are so many innocent driver in my country. I dont want them to be the victim of such LTA officer who simply issue summons to achieve their target in order to get their allowance.

    This is the photos of the LTA officer or more appropriate to label him, the Hooligan LTA officer?

    Ummi Iza

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • MRT Breakdowns: If PAP Does Not Fire Paper General-CEO, Commuters Should Fire PAP

    MRT Breakdowns: If PAP Does Not Fire Paper General-CEO, Commuters Should Fire PAP

    The latest SMRT breakdown which affected more than 250,000 won’t be the last. As the population increases towards PAP’s 6.9 million target, rest assured the mother of all SMRT breakdowns will be making her appearance. The government should not continue to deny what’s inevitable.

    In URA’s Revised Concept Plan 1991, the government had wanted “to develop a viable land transport network that could meet the demand of a population of 4 million by the year 2030”. Obviously, even if it’s not obvious to our scholars, there are going to be issues. And plenty of them – more than 60 breakdowns and delays after GE 2011.

    What we currently have is a broken system and no amount of papering over the cracks from our perpetually-concerned politicians will help. Every assurance coming from the PAP will be another half-truth.

    Commuters are not blaming SMRT staff or engineers but PAP for a system which parachutes scholars with ZERO relevant experience into top positions in the civil service and GLCs.

    A permanent solution is to get rid of such a non-transparent and unaccountable system, failing which the alternative is to say good riddance to PAP.

    In view of the abject failure of ex Ferrari driving CEO Saw Paik Hwa, any responsible CEO would have employed personnel with decades of experience but not Kuek.

    Abject failure ex CEO Saw
    9044d3da3b6ea02ac17681737ff92684_330.jpg

    Instead, CEO Kuek roped in 4 of his army buddies with ZERO relevant experienceto steer the beleaguered transport operator back on track”. How’s that for an insult? Through his action, Kuek clearly had no intention to improve SMRT.

    On the latest incident, Kuek reminded the public that “the journey to bringing about a much higher order of reliability and assurance is a difficult one, but we are committed to doing so .”

    Hmm .. still dare to TKSS after inconveniencing more than $250,000 commuters? If his task was so simple, he would be earning a 5-figure annual salary, not $2,300,000. Without PAP support, Kuek would have been history. In fact, he wouldn’t be able to insult commuters as SMRT CEO.

    When we look at other parts of PAP’s system, we can see that it is rotten to the core and in urgent need of a revamp.

    As the regulator of SMRT, LTA is headed by ex navy chief Chew Men Leong. Not only did SMRT CEO have zero experience, neither did the head of its regulator!

    Zero experience + zero experience = trial and error/need more breakdowns to learn lessons/commuters suffer.

    After Chew left the navy in 2011, he was parachuted into PUB and became CEO with zero relevant experience. When flash floods hit Singapore in December 2011, Chew was praising PUB for its efforts to alleviate floods and claimed that we are the “victims of our own success”. Chew could not empathise with businesses which had lost millions. To Chew, PUB was a runaway success and it was really not their problem.

    Trial to use buildings for water storage by PUB?
    20111223.181808_liat_flood.jpg
    Image credit: STOMP

    What about ex LTA CEO, Chew Hock Yong, who needs to shoulder some of the blame for the recent breakdowns? Under PAP’s merry-go-round system, Hock Yong was promoted to Second Permanent Secretary, MND, to oversee the newly-formed Municipal Services Office. Does one need to have extensive experience at LTA in order to be promoted to MND Perm Sec?

    In a statement, the Ministry of Transport extended its appreciation to Mr Chew for his significant contributions in his four years as LTA’s chief executive. It sounded like Chew Hock Yong did a perfect job as LTA CEO overseeing SMRT and one should not link any SMRT breakdown to him.

    During Roy’s cross-examination on 1 July, PM Lee had agreed that the CEO should take responsibility for MRT trains breakdown. 31 years earlier, Lee Kuan Yew had also said that if things did not work, the chief would be held responsible and “firing the chief is very simple”. (quoted from TOC article)

    Sadly, the reality is PAP is all talk but no action, one rule for ordinary Singaporeans and another for elites. Instances of unaccountability:

    During the twice in 50 years Orchard Road ponding in 2010 and 2011, PUB CEO Khoo Teng Chye put the blame on everything except himself and refused to apologise. Khoo was not fired but went on to head theCentre For Liveable Cities, fully funded by taxpayers.

    For serious lapses at CPIB involving $1.7 million in public funds, which tarnished its reputation, director Eric Tan was not fired but merely redeployed to another department in 2013. Instead of an internal promotion, Eric was replaced by Workforce Development Agency’s Wong Hong Kuan who had ZERO relevant experience. Before Eric became CPIB Director, he was with the ICA and had ZERO relevant experience. More about Eric Tan at Singapore Notes.

    And surely nothing beats this – a commissioner of police becoming PUB CEO.

    If there was succession planning, surely there must be employees within the organisation with more extensive experience to become CEO than appointing a scholar with ZERO experience. Truth be said, meritocracy is dead and promotion under the PAP is based on loyalty, nothing to do with merit.

    There are too many instances of PAP not holding itself accountable for epic screw ups. PAP can’t simply issue statements of perpetual concern and let the matter be. Instead of transferring a deadweight to another government department, it’s about time to let SMRT CEO go. Being a scholar with decades of experience in the military and government, Kuek should be able to find meaningful employment anywhere.

    By “firing the chief”, LKY must have meant letting him go before he wreaks more havoc on people’s lives, not transferred. With the mess that PAP has created, LKY is likely to be turning in his grave.

    Conclusion

    Public transport commuters must demand for Kuek to be held accountable, ie fired, or it will be too late after a disaster has struck. From the above examples, it is obvious PAP has acted irresponsibly by allowing government organisations to be helmed by parachuters with zero experience.

    Promotions in the civil service and GLCs are based on loyalty to a political party and unrelated to meritocracy. PAP is self serving and does not serve citizens. Such a system is rotten to the core.

    If PAP can’t even show that it’s serious on accountability for once by firing SMRT CEO, commuters should not hesitate to fire the PAP at the next election.

     

    Source: https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

  • A DBSS Ceiling For Khaw Boon Wan To Explain

    A DBSS Ceiling For Khaw Boon Wan To Explain

    As The Online Citizen (TOC) reported on Sunday, the Minister of National Development will be questioned about the poor quality of recent flats, especially those under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), and also those under the Build-To-Order (BTO) programme. (See here.)

    The minister in charge, Khaw Boon Wan, has said little about the many complaints which homeowners have raised so far.

    Besides the by now infamously narrow corridors at Pasir Ris ONE, for example, buyers were also unhappy over an entire slew of defects found in their flats – including leaking pipes, badly located water heaters, hollow tiles in their bathroom walls, scratched tiles, tiles with different shades of colours, windows which are nor properly installed, and so on.

    At Pasir Ris ONE, one of the most obvious and conspicuous anomaly seems to be the ceiling at the ground floors.

    The “gas vent” runs through the ceiling along the corridors, together with what looked like gas pipes, all seemingly put together in haste, and left exposed.

    The “gas vent” looks like an after-thought thing. The developer seems to have forgotten about the gas vent, and then just plonk it up there, hold it up with a few screws and that’s it.

    It is a wonder that such designs have been approved by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) or the Housing and Development Board (HDB).

    TOC visited the DBSS development about a week ago and took a short clip of it.

    Perhaps Mr Khaw will explain why such a design is allowed by the authorities.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Poor People In A Rich Country

    Poor People In A Rich Country

    Cardboard collectors

    Growing up in Singapore through the 1970s and 1980s, the karung guni man was a common feature.  They collected newspapers and cardboard boxes.  Over time, the karanguni men that collected old stuff became more interested in electrical items.  There is a garbage collection/recycling industry out there that is lucrative.  As usual, it is lucrative for those higher up the economic food chain.

    At the lower end of this food chain are those that wheel around a trolley looking for discarded cardboard boxes at rubbish disposal areas behind shophouses and business premises.  Many of us are too busy rushing back and forth from work and we hardly come across these people.  However, I am sure that a growing number of Singaporeans have been noticing a trend of elderly individuals collecting cardboards or tin cans.  When my office was in the Bugis area, I used to come across a regular tin-can collecting uncle probably in his 70s or in his late 60s at the very least.  He would hang around the coffee shops to pick empty cans from tables.  There is an old lady with bent back that can be seen struggling to pull an old trolley loaded with flattened cardboard boxes.  With my office now located near Chinatown, I do come across more such old people in the back alleys of Chinatown.

    These are hardworking men and women. They are around the age of my mother and father or even older.  These are the men and women that have been working hard all their lives.  They struggle but they soldier on.  When I look at these elderly people, the thought that crosses my mind is: ‘Why? Why do they still need to work at this age?’  I know that the answer to this question cannot be unidimensional.  Cardboard collectors don’t make a fantastic amount of money.  I understand that a daily average can be anywhere from $2 to $5.

    Are these elderly people living on their own?  Do they not have children?  Do their children not provide for them?  Is it that their children cannot afford to take care of them?  Do these elderly people want to have their sense of dignity and fend for themselves?  Do they want to keep themselves occupied in their old age by doing the one job that they know?

    The State perspective

    One of the most disturbing aspects of the Singapore government’s official position on poverty has been its non-acknowledgement.  From statements to the effect that there are no homeless persons in Singapore to a refusal to define a poverty line, the state has systematically tried to keep the problem of poverty under wraps.  However, it cannot be denied that the government has rolled out initiatives to assist low-income families.  I remember attending a closed door seminar where Minister Shanmugam characterised the Singapore government as being socialist but giving the appearance of being capitalist.  From what he said on that occasion, I understand that the PAP leaders probably see themselves as being in a position where they need to appear to be very pro-business to keep investment in whilst at the same time quietly carrying out welfare measures.  Perhaps, this could be the reason for often sounding very pro-business and appearing to ignore the existence of a social underclass.  Perhaps, appearing to ignore but not really ignoring.

    That would be a kinder way of looking at how our leaders perceive the masses.  I’m not so sure if that is true.  I truly wonder if our leaders and decision makers are living too much in an ivory tower to fully appreciate what is going on at the ground level.

    Today I noticed some funny comments on facebook about elderly people exercising by collecting cardboard boxes in the hot sun.  I traced those comments to the origin and it turns out that Minister Tan Chuan Jin has posted on his facebook about elderly people collecting cardboard boxes.  To be fair, he appears to acknowledge that there are different reasons why the elderly engage in this work.  However, what is disturbing is that the post is intended to build on the narrative that old people want to have a sense of dignity and they derive that through work and also for the elderly people work is a way of keeping themselves occupied or even getting some exercise.

    I reproduce the Minister’s post in full here as I don’t want to take him out of context:

    “While I often chat with them when I meet them, I haven’t gone so far up the value chain to know the middle man and the whole set-up. I was most happy to join a group of young Singaporeans from Youth Corp on a project they initiated – to get first hand insight into the lives of elderly cardboard collectors: what motivated them to do what they do; and the challenges they face. The youngsters devoted their weekends over a 2-month period to befriend the cardboard aunties and uncles on the streets in the Jalan Besar area, and spent time talking to them to understand what they are going through in life.

    They shared with me that they were surprised by their own findings! The normal perception that all cardboard collectors are people who are unable to take care of themselves financially is not really true. There will be some who do this as their main source of income. Some do so to supplement what they have. Some prefer to earn extra monies, treat it as a form of exercise and activity rather than being cooped up at home. They do this to remain independent, so that they can have dignity and not have to ask their families for help.

    For members of the public, the simplest thing that one can do for these people is to talk to them to understand them. More often than not, people make judgements without finding out the facts of the matter, in this instance, the stigma surrounding cardboard collectors. But of course, for those who genuinely need financial help because they are unable to find other jobs to supplement their income from cardboard collecting, the government will do what it can to help these people. If you know of individuals who need help, do let us know.

    I’d like to thank Zaihan Mohamed Yusof who started it all with his articlehttp://www.tnp.sg/news/when-cardboard-gold in The New Paper. The youngsters picked up on the idea and followed up. Cheers to Koh Cheng Jun (Tm Lead) and Muhammad Syazwan Bin Mohamed Suhri who were with me on the ground, and thanks to the team who shared their thoughts with me…Goh Pei Yi Valerie, Janarthanan Ahalya, Khoo Lay Keat Bryan, Lee Jun Xian, Serena Mok Jia Xin.

    Inspired by you guys for taking that extra step. We all can too!”

    The truth is that there are bound to be some elderly people working for those reasons pointed out as there will be those that work because they have no other choice. I have nothing against looking at cardboard collecting elderly people from a nuanced perspective by considering all the varieties of reasons for which they collect cardboard boxes. However, I do object to highlighting a particular perspective that assists in bolstering the state narrative that there is no poverty in Singapore.

    I know many of my fellow Singaporeans (especially professionals) have no idea that there is poverty in Singapore. I have engaged in social work with residents in rental flats and some of these in localities such as Chai Chee where the flats house the elderly. Many of these residents are surviving on a mixture of government grants and charitable donations of food and groceries from social workers. (As an aside, the great redeeming feature of our rat-race driven country is the existence of a decent number of charitable, socially conscious and responsible citizens. There is still hope for our society.) The plight of the underprivileged in our society is unpardonable considering that we are a 1st world country. Clearly more can be done by average Singaporeans as well as by the state. It really doesn’t help to build a narrative that eventually makes it acceptable for our pioneer generation to work till the day they die. If they are to work as an MP till the day they die without having to turn up in Parliament or carry out active constituency duties, I don’t think anyone would object to that kind of work for the elderly. If you expect someone in his/her 80s to work as a cardboard collector with no safety net, then somewhere along the way, the system has failed these people.

    One problem with my parents’ generation is that many of them had no retirement planning. That was their background. It is not possible to blame them. To many, their kids would have been the retirement safety net. My parents have been fortunate to be able to retire. I know that this is not the case for many elderly people. Some elderly people have to resort to working because they don’t want to burden their children. They see their sons and daughters struggling to maintain their families. Wages for many have not increased to keep up with inflation and many low-income families find it virtually impossible to fully support their parents. It is true that if you asked some of the working elderly they would reply that they work to have dignity and not to have to ask their families for help. The sub-text in that reply is that their children are not in a position to properly support them.cardboard-collector

    This year we celebrate 50 years of our nationhood. We have progressed economically and many have benefited but many have also been left behind. Let’s not forget the back breaking work of a generation of Singaporeans that continue to work in the shadows of our skyscrapers. There is no point in constructing myths about how the PAP turned a fishing village into a modern metropolis when the people that were responsible for the rapid growth of the 1970s are now left to toil till the day would die.

    Let’s acknowledge the existence of a problem. Let’s see what can be done to solve it.

    (P.S. To be fair to Tan Chuan Jin, he does mention in his post to let the government know if we know of individuals that need help.)

     

    Subra

    * The author blogs at article14blog.wordpress.com primarily about the law & politics in Singapore, occassionally veering off into socio-economic issues. Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech, Expression, Peaceful Assembly and Association. But, there are excessive restrictions on these Freedoms. He hopes that he can, in his own small way, contribute to the gradual realisation of these Freedoms in this land.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Lee Hsien Loong: Electoral Boundaries Committe Formed Two Months Ago

    Lee Hsien Loong: Electoral Boundaries Committe Formed Two Months Ago

    The committee that reviews electoral boundaries was formed two months ago, a sign that the general election is round the corner.

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the formation of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee on Monday, in response to questions in Parliament.

    The forming of the committee, which redraws constituency boundaries ahead of a general election, is the first formal step towards calling a GE.

    Leading up to the polls in 2006 and 2011, the committee had taken four months to do its work before issuing its report.

    While there is no fixed date for the election to be called after the report is submitted, it has taken as short as one day and as long as one month and 26 days in the past.

    Mr Lee told the House that he had asked the Committee in its review to consider the population shifts and housing developments since the last boundary delineation exercise.

    He also asked them to consider having smaller group representation constituencies, so as to reduce the average size of such constituencies to below five members, and have at least 12 single member constituencies. There are currently 15 group representation constituencies and 12 single-seat constituencies.

    “As per past practice, the Committee is chaired by the Secretary to Prime Minister. It is now in the midst of its deliberations and will make its recommendations to me when it is ready,” said Mr Lee.

    He was responding to questions from People’s Action Party MP Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC) and Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong of the Workers’ Party on whether the committee has been formed.

    Mr Lee added that he could not promise a minimum period between the publication of the report and the calling of a general election, which Mr Yee had asked for.

    The reason is that “it depends very much on the exigencies of the situation, and … on when elections become necessary,” said the Prime Minister.

    The committee’s work is to split or shrink group representation constituencies, and absorb or create more single-member constituencies, based largely on population shifts.

    It is appointed by the Prime Minister and is usually made up of five civil servants.

    Mr Yee had asked if the committee’s members can be drawn from various political parties as well, as it was done before Singapore became independent.

    Mr Lee said the committee has, for many years, comprised civil servants with experience and domain knowledge.

    This allows them to make considered decisions on how to divide up the constituencies, taking into account population shifts and housing developments in Singapore, and prevents “complete upheaval” each time the boundaries are redrawn, he added.

    “As for bringing political parties in, I’m not sure that’s an entirely good idea,” he said, adding that this is the practice in the United States.

    In America, members of the House of Representatives decide on the demarcation of electoral boundaries, said Mr Lee, and “what happens is they carve it up among themselves”.

    “It’s a political deal. I think that’s not a good arrangement. I think it’s best we leave this to the civil servants to work at,” he added.

    Furthermore, Mr Lee said that he would leave the committee to decide whether it would open its meeting minutes to the public, as Mr Yee had requested.

    But he added: “I don’t believe that it is helpful to have every twist and turn in the minutes reported and published. I think the committee’s report is the final word.”

    After the committee’s report is released, Parliament is dissolved and the writ of election issued. Nomination Day – which must take place no earlier than five days and no later than one month after the writ is issued – then signals the start of the campaign period, leading up to Polling Day.

    This process took between two and seven months in the past GEs.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

deneme bonusu