Tag: Singaporeans

AHPETC Paid Highest Rates To Managing Agent In Three Out Of Past Four Years

Among all the town councils, the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) paid the highest rates to its managing agent (MA) — for both residential and commercial units — for three out of the past four years, figures from the Ministry of National Development (MND) showed.

Ms Sylvia Lim, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman and Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, had filed questions for written answers, asking the MND for the MA rates of each of the town council for residential and commercial units in 2011, 2012 and 2013. She also asked for the names of the firms that were appointed as the MA of each town council for those years.

In response, the MND released figures for the rates between 2011 and last year. For residential units, AHPETC paid the highest rates to its MA, FM Solutions and Services (FMSS), for the four years, except in 2013 when its rates was behind what Potong Pasir Town Council paid its MA, EM Services.

For commercial units, AHPETC’s MA rates were the highest in 2011, 2013 and last year, but its rates were topped by those paid by the East Coast and Pasir Ris-Punggol town councils in 2012.

The ministry also highlighted that all MA contracts charge a “clean MA rate” for each property type, with the exception of the FMSS’ 2011 MA contract with the town council. Unlike other MA contracts, FMSS’ MA fee comprises three separate cost components: The MA rate, a fee to cover the costs of existing staff of the former Hougang Town Council, and a fee to cover the costs of new staff.

During last month’s parliamentary debate on the Auditor-General’s audit report on AHPETC, which found several accounting and corporate governance lapses, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam cited the MA rates of each town council last year to show that the fees paid by AHPETC to FMSS were significantly higher. Among other things, Mr Shanmugan charged that the town council made inflated payments to FMSS — whose directors were also key office holders in the town council — without transparency and accountability.

Ms Lim questioned the figures cited by Mr Shanmugam, asserting that MA rates for commercial and residential units are usually different. In response, Mr Shanmugam said the figures were accurate.

The ministry has since clarified that the MAs of all town councils, with the exception of FMSS, have done away with the practice of charging differentiated rates for residential and commercial units. The ministry also said Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council had called for a fresh tender last year, which adjusted its rates for commercial units from S$11.50 to S$5.50.

Ms Lim also tabled a question asking the ministry what were the rates charged by the MA for the former Aljunied Town Council — which was then run by People’s Action Party — for 2010, 2011 and 2012. The ministry noted that the contract which the former Aljunied Town Council signed with its MA, CPG Facilities Management, is in fact in AHPETC’s possession. CPG’s rate per commercial unit was S$12.80 in those three years. Its rate per residential unit during the period was between S$6.03 and S$6.73.

Taking into account various components in FMSS’ MA fee, the town council’s payments to FMSS in 2011 were effectively 20 per cent higher than the amount paid to CPG Facilities Management in 2010. By last year, AHPETC was paying about S$1.6 million more to its MA than other town councils, the ministry reiterated.

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Hri Kumar Nair questioned the additional fees that the town council paid to FMSS in 2011. “Since the work of running the enlarged Aljunied-Hougang Town Council fell on former Hougang staff — some of whom became owners of FMSS — as well as the new staff whose salaries were provided for, why were additional MA fees payable for that year to FMSS?”

Source: www.todayonline.com

March 6, 2015
Singaporeans And AWARE Slams Nivea Ad About Malay Woman Being Shunned For Dark Armpits

According to women’s rights group AWARE, NIVEA’s recent TV advertisement about a Singaporean woman being shunned for her dark armpits actually promotes “shame and insecurity about our bodies”.

NIVEA’s 3 minute long advertisement films a young, attractive Malay woman, who unwittingly shows off her dark armpits in daily life situations, like flagging down a taxi or at the gym.

Throughout the course of the video, the lady receives disgusted looks from onlookers, who rush to get away from her when she raises her arms. The poor woman is clueless about their reactions until she herself realizes how dark her own armpits are.

After NIVEA uploaded the video on its Facebook, Singaporeans condemned the advertisement for being sexist and racist. They said that the portrayal of a Malay woman in the video with darkened armpits was discrimination against their natural skin tone. Some felt that the advertisement placed unnecessary pressure on women these days to conform to rigid standards of female beauty.

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

March 5, 2015
Blogger Alex Au Fined $8,000 For Contempt Of Court

Singapore’s High Court on Thursday fined a prominent dissident blogger $8,000 for “scandalising” the city-state’s judiciary in an online commentary.

Alex Au, 62, was punished over an October 5, 2013 post insinuating that hearing dates on a constitutional challenge to an old law criminalising gay sex between men had been rigged.

Au, also a gay-rights activist, apologised to the court and paid the fine. He would have been jailed for one day if he failed or refused to pay the fine.

“I have instructed my attorneys to file an appeal,” Au told reporters.

In an earlier ruling, the High Court said Au was “guilty of scandalising contempt” for publishing the article on his blog site.

Contempt of court carries a possible jail sentence, a fine or both. There is no maximum penalty specified under the law.

Au is well-known in Singapore for his commentaries critical of the long-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

He has also called for the repeal of the controversial Section 377A of the penal code, which criminalises sex between men.

First introduced by British colonial administrators in 1938, the law is not actively enforced by authorities.

But the government says it has to remain on the books because most Singaporeans are conservative and do not accept homosexuality.

Singapore’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, in October upheld rulings by lower courts that it was up to parliament to repeal the Section 377A.

The government has taken a strong stand against attacks on the integrity of the judiciary, saying they undermine public confidence in the institution.

In 2010, British author Alan Shadrake was given a six-week jail term for publishing a book critical of the administration of the death penalty, which was ruled an insult to the judiciary.

Source: http://news.asiaone.com

March 5, 2015
Court Of Appeal Throws Out Legal Challenges By Convicted Foreign Drug Trafficker Yong Vui Kong

SINGAPORE — The punishment of caning is not unconstitutional, the apex court ruled yesterday, throwing out the latest in a string of legal challenges mounted by convicted drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong.

After he became the first to escape the gallows following changes to the mandatory death penalty regime, the 26-year-old Malaysian last year sought to be spared from the 15 strokes of the cane he was re-sentenced to, by arguing that the punishment violated the Constitution.

However, his bases for the contention that caning is tantamount to torture were dismissed by the Court of Appeal yesterday.

Prescribed as a punishment for selected crimes in Singapore, caning differs from the cases defined as torture under a United Nations convention, which either involved “severe and indiscriminate brutality”, or extra-legal acts of abuse in interrogations and war crimes, said the court, which was presided over by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.

There are also legal requirements, enshrined in statute, on how the punishment is carried out here, the judges added. For example, a medical officer must be present and caning starts and continues only if the offender is certified to be fit enough.

“It is undeniably the case that caning inflicts a considerable level of pain and suffering on a prisoner. But this level of pain and suffering is far exceeded by that endured by the victims in those cases where courts held that the conduct in question amounted to torture,” they said.

The judges, who included Appeal Judge Andrew Phang and Justice Tay Yong Kwang, added that these statutory requirements act as “safeguards” to ensure caning in Singapore’s prisons “does not breach the high threshold of severity and brutality that is required for it to be regarded as torture”.

For instance, caning is administered on the buttocks, which minimises the risk of injury to bones and organs, they said. It is also carried out in private and out of sight of other prisoners.

The rattan, which is soaked in water beforehand to prevent it from splitting and shearing the skin, is also treated with antiseptic, while the strokes of the cane are “meted out in a measured and controlled manner at regular intervals”, the judges added.

How international law norms regard caning is also irrelevant, the court said, since Parliament has prescribed for caning under Singapore’s laws, and the judiciary is bound to implement legislation, as long as they are not incompatible with the Constitution.

A similar line of reasoning defeats another of Yong’s argument against caning, which was that it is too irrational and arbitrary to be regarded as law, since its deterrent effect is unclear.

In response, the judges said: “The simple answer is that sentencing policy is a matter for the legislature and it is not for the courts to judge whether a particular type of sentence prescribed by Parliament is justified as a matter of deterrence.”

Yong’s argument that caning discriminates against men under 50 — the punishment is not carried out on an offender above that age — is also without merit, the judges said.

This differentia clearly serves the objective of ensuring that only those who are physically fit to be caned suffer the punishment, they said.

In addition, the criteria for exclusions are policy decisions that Parliament is entitled to make and “there is no justification for us to interfere”, the judges added.

Yesterday’s court decision marked the end of a series of legal bids Yong has launched since he was caught in 2007 as a 19-year-old for trafficking 47.27g of heroin.

These ranged from his appeal against the compulsory death sentence originally handed down to him to his challenge on the lack of discretion for the President to grant clemency.

Suspended from legal practice pending a psychiatrist’s assessment, Yong’s lawyer M Ravi was in court yesterday to observe proceedings.

Source: www.todayonline.com

March 5, 2015
Commuters Slam LTA And SMRT, Asks Lui Tuck Yew To Follow Suggestion Khaw Boon Wan Made To WP In Parliament

It was reported that yesterday alone (3 Mar), SMRT was hit by two train service incidents, both during peak hours.

In the early morning, a signalling fault at HarbourFront station on the Circle Line stopped all trains between Haw Par Villa and HarbourFront. And in the evening, track faults disrupted services on the East-West Line. Track faults at Clementi and Lakeside stations caused trains to slow down from Queenstown to Boon Lay. Commuters were advised to add 20 minutes to their travelling time between Bugis and Jurong East stations in both directions as bridging bus services were activated. Services resumed about 2 hours later.

Many commuters were, understandably, angry with SMRT and lashed out at SMRT on social media (‘SMRT: Recent train incidents were ‘technically unrelated’‘).

In all, there were 5 train disruptions in the spate of 9 days. LTA also joined in to condemn SMRT, saying that the situation is “unacceptable”.

On LTA’s Facebook page yesterday, it said [Link]:

“Today’s disruptions on the Circle and East-West Lines are the latest in a recent spate of incidents on the SMRT rail network. Commuters have been severely inconvenienced again. This is unacceptable.

LTA has directed SMRT to investigate the various disruptions and give a full account of them. LTA is also conducting our independent investigations.

LTA will be working with SMRT on the immediate remedial actions to turn around the situation. We expect the SMRT Board and management team to put in maximum effort and resources. We intend also to review again SMRT’s management of resources and processes for the maintenance of the rail system.”

SMRT CEO Desmond Kuek was forced to come out to make, yet, another public apology.

However, commuters were still not pleased. They also took the opportunity to slam LTA on its Facebook page:

Shao Wei Chui Dear LTA, you most certainly do not keep my world moving. You keep mentioning that it’s “unacceptable” but so what? All that happens is a slap on a wrist on the transport companies and a fine but nothing changes and the fares go up to cover the fine

Leon Chow: Don’t be a joke. If you all bother, things would not have gone out of hand. Useless jokers

Shibly Mahmat: After investigate then what? Increase the fares again citing doing this for better service. Thats what you guys have been saying. But has the services ever improve? As far as all of us are concern, train disruptions due to faults are at an all time high now..is this your idea of better service?

Evonne Sim: LTA, what can/will u do besides telling us this is unacceptable. How many times u want SMRT to investigate/explain! How many times we have to go thru these inconvenience over & over again! n what u going to do besides having endless meetings with no outcome? stop FINE SMRT as it will not solve any problem other than increasing their so-called operating cost n resulted fare hike. don’t juz lip service, we want to see action by the authority…

Edmund Khor: you said you wanted to improve service.. but 4 years already, and it keeps getting worse. talk is cheap..

Ken Ong: It’s all wayang. Lta n smrt management are pretty useless. They should all step down n resign.

Calvin Xun Hui Wong: Another classic scene of relevant authority ‘takes action’ and ‘fine’ transport company, then on the other hand transport company takes the opportunity to raise fares with support from PTC (AKA the authority) to ‘improve transport system’. Its like LTA condemning SMRT but making the commuters pay their fines. So this is ‘action taken against SMRT’ ?

Some even asked Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew to do what National Development Minister Khaw had suggested to WP MPs during the AHPETC saga, which Mr Khaw blamed WP:

Rongjing Zeng: “In Japan, the chairman and CEO would call a press conference, take a deep bow and, in the good old days, they may even commit hara-kiri.” – KBW

Gordon Teo: Why Tuck Yew haven’t hara kiri yet ah?

Jabez Chai: What is our Transport’s Minister doing about it after so many years of breakdown and while doing nothing… He are being paid millions of dollars….

Some questioned the rationale of approving the recent transport fare hike when the train services are “unacceptable”:

Vasanthan Kanagasundaram: Could you also review why you think you deserve a fare hike.

Ray Ng: Dear SMRT, the upcoming fare hike in April is not written in stone. please have the conscience to delay the fare hike in light of the recent train faults

Robin Low: LTA, please justify why you allow price hike when there is no improvement and still lots of profits.

Still, others think that it’s the fault of the government to increase the population of Singapore quickly by importing too many foreigners:

Jeffrey Lim: So y import so many foreigners in the first place, if our mrt system can’t cope with it???

Tan Cheng Siong Leslie: Nothing new. Cant imagine if population is 6.9, those top ‘elite’ mgmt dun care coz they dun take public transport, to them say a few words of apology n conduct investigation for show fat salary still goes to their pocket. TALK ONLY la.. Increase fare some more? Aiyooo, i so paiseh to say tat!

Daniel Tan: Don’t blame SMRT, LTA. Blame the people who made the decision to overcrowd Singapore.

Finally, one commuter said:

“Main reason why I still hold on to my motorbike. Screw public transport. Now COE high, MRT haven’t improve, wanna encourage to take public transport. Screw that! I’ll never EVER let go of my motorbike!!”

Source: www.tremeritus.com

March 5, 2015