Workers Party opposes Public Order Bill
Monday, 13 April 2009
Speaker Sir,
The Workers’ Party opposes the Bill.
The policing of public order has been the subject of contentious debate in democratic countries. How far should State power be used to restrict citizens from free movement and expressing their beliefs or grievances, to the point of using lethal force?
In Singapore, an individual’s right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV entitled Fundamental Liberties. However that Article also allows Parliament to place some restrictions on these for the sake of security and public order. Nevertheless, the primary assumption is that such freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens. Has this Bill crossed the line, asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-à-vis the State?
Special Events Security
The Public Order Bill is tabled ahead of the APEC Meeting to be held here in November. Singapore is obliged to ensure that such events proceed according to schedule and without untoward incident to world leaders. To ask Singaporeans to subject themselves to stringent checks to enter the Special Events area, for only the duration of the event, is a compromise on individual rights that people can understand.
However, there are several disturbing aspects of the Bill. The 3 aspects most glaring are the changes relating to:
a) Public Assemblies and Processions
b) Move On powers
c) Prohibition of filming of law enforcement operations.
Public Assemblies and Processions
The Bill repeals S 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and takes over the police permit regime under S5. Activists and political parties such as we in the Workers’ Party are very familiar with having our applications for police permits for outdoor activities rejected under that regime, due to so-called potential law and order problems. Such rejections were SOP up to as recently as 2007, when the Party’s application to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park to commemorate our 50th Anniversary was dismissed out of hand.
The Bill now suggests that outdoor assemblies and processions may be allowed, even if cause-based i.e. with political content. Does this mean that political parties in Singapore will now get approval to organize outdoor activities at venues besides Hong Lim Park and stadiums? Or is this designed to please international audience and to save the government from further embarrassment? We all remember in 2006 when Singapore hosted the IMF and World Bank meetings here. 27 foreign activists were blacklisted and 22 of them later de-listed, and a badminton court was designated as protest space, leading NGOs to go to Batam to protest, making us a laughing stock internationally.
The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.
First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support.
Regarding indoor political activities, MHA has said that these will continue to be exempted so long as organised by and for Singaporeans. Why is this exemption not written into the Bill, but left to regulations? Regulations can be amended as and when the government likes. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill states that “current exemptions under the MOA may retain their status” under the POA. Does this mean that the government is not prepared to commit to opening up to allow Singaporeans to discuss current issues even indoors, since it does not write this exemption into the Bill but continues to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of the government?
Move On Power
Clauses 34 to 37 give the police a new power to order people to leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
This is a convenient option for law enforcement to diffuse potential law and order problems, if not for the fact that such a Move-On direction conflicts with the right of peaceful assembly enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the government is well aware of this infringement of the rights under the constitution, as Clause 36(2) expressly recognises this.
Looking at Clause 36, the persons who are directed to Move On need not have been committing any offence, so long as the police officer believes it is reasonably necessary for them to Move On in the interests of good order. Disobeying such a direction itself becomes a criminal offence.
To illustrate, the police can order a group of persons outside a business or shop to disperse because the owner has complained that they are interfering with trade, say, by standing near the entrance to the shop or business. Could this become a pro-business Act of the government at the expense of consumers’ rights? There could be situations where these persons could have a legitimate claim against a business e.g. deaths or food poisoning from consuming contaminated food, or even bank customers who have lost their savings due to mis-selling of products. So long as the public are not committing or intending to commit any offences, why should they be told to disperse? The Explanatory Statement gives other examples such as people preventing others from leaving a place or people disrupting an event. But in such cases, we already have existing laws under which they can be charged e.g. with wrongful restraint under the Penal Code or disorderly behaviour under the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
MHA claims that our Bill is narrower than the Australian law specifically the Queensland legislation because our Bill targets behaviour rather than the mere presence of persons at a particular place. To me this is a minor difference, as a person’s mere presence could easily be classified as behaviour e.g. loitering by mere presence can be considered a kind of behaviour. There are also some Australian legislation which are much narrower. e.g. in the Australian Capital Territory, Move On powers are only to be exercised when violence is imminent.
Further, one important feature of the Queensland legislation totally absent in the Bill is how police directions to Move On will be monitored and reviewed outside the SPF. Minister referred to the requirement for a Sergeant as internal accountability. But Sergeant is an entry level rank for fresh recruits with A Levels or Diplomas. By contrast, in the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, S 49 provides for a Crime and Misconduct Commission (“CMC”) which reports to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly; the CMC must conduct a review of police orders to Move On and prepare a report, which must be submitted to Speaker to be tabled at the Legislative Assembly. Where is this provision for review under this Bill? Indeed, in MHA’s overview, there is mention of internal accountability but nothing on public accountability.
MHA has argued that Move On powers would give police an intermediate option and allow people to avoid being arrested. However, Australian research has shown that this was not true there – issuing Move On directions did not result in fewer arrests in public spaces. In fact, issuing Move On directions resulted in more charges for public space offences (Walsh, T. And Taylor, M.“ ‘You’re Not Welcome Here’ – Police Move On Powers and Discrimination Law” NSW Law Journal Vol 30 1(2007) 151. )
The Penal Code already allows us to charge people with criminal conspiracy for merely agreeing to commit an offence, and attempted offences, even if the act is not complete. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the police powers to prevent offences before they occur. The Miscellaneous Offences Act already criminalises a lot of anti-social behaviour such as abusive language and disorderly behaviour. Such an approach forces the police to take a strict and disciplined approach to proceed only when they have evidence of offences.
Minister referred to high ratings of Singapore by international bodies ranking us on stability. My argument would be: if we have maintained such a ranking thus far, doesn’t that show that the current regime is adequate?
Overall, I am not convinced that our existing arsenal of laws has hampered the police in law enforcement and the policing of public order. Move On powers have been very problematic in other countries due to the wide discretion given to police, to even order law abiding citizens to move on. Our regime does not even provide for any independent oversight of such actions. Move On powers are dangerous in leaving citizens in limbo over how they can move and seek legitimate redress.
Filming Of Law Enforcement Activities
Clause 38 allows police officers to stop a person from filming law enforcement activities. Minister earlier said that the provision was targeted at security operations and not ordinary law enforcement activities. But is that what the Clause says? Clause 38(5) defines “law enforcement” as activities carried on by law enforcement officers in exercise of any function, power or duty of such an officer in accordance with law. Therefore, Clause 38(1) will allow a police officer to stop someone filming any law enforcement activity if he thinks it will prejudice the conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation. The Minister’s interpretation that it applies to security operations only does not seem to be borne out by the wording of the section. Law enforcement operation or investigation could include crowd control, crime investigation or other routine matters.
With such wide wording, what is the potential cost of this to accountability for the exercise of State powers and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens?
A good illustration is the recent incident in London involving Ian Tomlinson which took place on April 1, the eve of the G-20 meeting. Tomlinson was apparently on his way home after work when he had to pass through an area where there were some protestors. Police were on duty, conducting law enforcement operations. He collapsed and died of a heart attack on the way home. As questions were being asked about why Tomlinson died, the police initially said there was no indication that he had had any altercation with the police prior to his death. However, this position became untenable when a video taken by a New Yorker in London on business showed the police violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably. The revelation of this footage, together with other eye witness accounts, has now triggered an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the circumstances of Tomlinson’s death.
The question the government must answer is: does it not agree that a wide, discretionary power to ban films of law enforcement activities will make the police less accountable to the public for its actions? If the video taken by the New Yorker in London never came to light, the circumstances of Tomlinson’s death may have been covered up.
If the above case were to happen here, how does this government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens? The government may say it does not tolerate abuses by law enforcement officers but it cannot possibly believe that such abuses will never happen in Singapore. Even talking about covert operations, if I happen to film intelligence officers beating up someone excessively, am I to be silenced simply to protect their identities? What about the victim of excessive violence – where is his justice?
As I have said before, citizen journalists have important roles to play to counterbalance the edited reports of the mainstream media. At long last, ordinary citizens can harness new technology to secure evidence against the all-powerful State, something impossible before. In Singapore, this is particularly valuable as we still do not have any Freedom of Information Act, and there are wide provisions under the Official Secrets Act and Evidence Act to prevent disclosure of information relating to government actions. We do not even have any independent watchdog body to monitor law enforcement agency actions.
The government has already banned political films which are not totally factual under the Films Act. Must it also ban non-political films which faithfully record actual events? If the concern is not to prejudice ongoing operations, why is there no provision to return the films after the operation is over, instead of providing for the films to be destroyed altogether as in Clause 38(3)?
Instead of having such a blanket provision, can’t our law enforcement agencies find other ways to ensure operational effectiveness? During any operation, it already has discretion to physically cordon off areas if this is needed for operational reasons or public safety. This will limit the proximity of the public to such areas.
If we are to claim that our law enforcement agencies are world class, we should not tarnish the image of the agencies by disregarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. We believe world class status should be achieved not by way of severely curtailing legitimate rights of individual citizens; public accountability must be in the equation as well.
Minister and others have referred to the current situation in Thailand.
The problem in Thailand involves constitutional issues. The legitimacy of the each subsequent government after the 2006 military coup has always been in question since. Each camp believes it has a legal claim to power. The messages from both camps are similar. They want to force the existing government to call for fresh elections to ensure its legitimacy.
If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of having weak public order laws because the Thai people felt cheated. The Thai police and army are not weaklings either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the ‘Red shirt’ cause. Does the PAP government think that slapping a ‘move on’ order on 100,000 Thais will work?
The Singapore Government should not take advantage of the situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of citizens further. The Thais may be exercising their basic rights to the extreme. On the other hand, Singaporeans, who have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing, are being penalized further for nothing. As long as this government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we are seeing in Thailand will not happen here. But if the government wants to tinker with the individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.
The Bill as a whole will give the State a carte blanche to control citizen activity and further erode whatever little power Singaporeans have to pursue legitimate causes. This is in contrary to the Workers’ Party belief in Power to the People.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26776.1
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Thai and Perak Constitutional crises: the problem does not lie in democracy, but in politicians who do not believe in democracy
The Thai and Perak Constitutional crises: the problem does not lie in democracy, but in politicians who do not believe in democracy
The recent constitutional crises in Thailand and the Malaysian state of Perak have been given extensive coverage by the state media in a lame attempt to highlight the pitfalls of democracy.
The papers were splashed with photos of the Thai “red shirts” confronting the police and of the scuffle between the party supporters of the Barisan Nasional and PAS in Perak.
One reader posted a comment criticizing us for our frequent attacks on the PAP. “Would you rather have a situation similar to what is happening in Thailand now?” he asked.
It is precisely because we do not want to see a similiar crisis being repeated here that we have been actively educating our readers on their rights as citizens and to expose the glaring deficiencies in our political system.
Both the Thai and Perak constitutional crises are triggered by self-serving politicians who chose to cling on to power in spite of the desire of the people to have them removed.
It has nothing to do with democracy. Only when politicians do not adhere to the basic principles of democracy and play according to the rules will the nation be plunged into political chaos.
Democracy works on two basic tenets: one, the party which wins the majority vote in an election gets to form the government and two, the loser accepts the result and wait for the next election. The democratic process will be abused and rendered ineffective if either condition is not met.
In the Thai example, ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won two successful general elections before he was ousted in a coup engineered by the old Bangkok elite in 2006. The subsequent election was also won by an reincarnation of his Thai Rak Thai Party - the People’s Power Party led by his trusted loyalist Samak Sundaravej who was forced to step down by the Supreme Court.
Samak’s successor Somchai Wongsawat had to relinquish his position after 5 months by massive street protests led by the People’s Alliance for Democracy which had paralyzed Bangkok. The current Democrat government was formed only by defections from a Thaksin bloc led by Newin Chidchob with tacit support from the military.
Had the Bangkok elite played by the rules and sought to remove Thaksin from power via the electoral routes instead of launching a military coup, the ensuing fracas and chaos would not have occurred.
The current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit can defuse the situation by dissolving Parliament and call for a general election, but he will not dare to do so as he will probably lose the popular vote.
The Thai crisis is the result of the popular will of the people being subjugated by power-hungry politicians who chose to defy public opinion to cling on to power.
The Perak constitutional crisis is also triggered by politicians with scant regard for democratic principles. The Pakatan Rakyat coalition won control of the state during last year’s general elections by winning 31 out of the 59 seats contested.
In February 2009, three state assembly men and women resigned from the Pakatan component parties - Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (DAP) to become “independents” aligned to the state opposition Barisan Nasional.
In a stunning move which shocked the nation, then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak called a press conference to announce that Barisan Nasional had the “numbers” to form the Perak state government. Its previous Menteri Besar Datuk Nizar Jamaluddin was forced unceremoniously out of power. He rightly refused to accept the result of the coup and had since launched a lawsuit against the Barisan Nasional MB Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir.
Dissolving the state government and return to seek a renewed mandate from the people will be a simple and straighforward solution to resolve the political impasse. Again, Barisan Nasional dare not do so because it has no confidence of winning the election.
As we can see for ourselves, both the Thai and Perak governments are mired in crisis now because their respective legitimate governments which are voted into power by the people are being ousted by political opportunists who abused the rule of law.
Will the constitutional crisis which besieged Thailand and Perak for months happen in Singapore? It can as long Singaporeans remain contented to give the PAP limitless power to do as it pleases.
In 2006, MM Lee Kuan Yew sent an ominous warning as to what would happen if the opposition were to come to power one day: “Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it”.
His words speak for himself. Here is a man who does not believe in democracy and will cling on to power at all cost even by mobilizing the army to keep the PAP in government.
Neither MM Lee or the PAP has the right to call on the Singapore army to force an elected government out of power. The army owes its allegiance to the state of Singapore which overrides all petty partisan interests.
The PAP is only a political party. If it loses in an election, then it must be prepared to hand over the reins of power to another party chosen by the people and be contented with a period of time in the opposition till the next election.
In mature stable democracies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and many others in the West, governments come and go every few years. They do not experience any constitutional crises or chaos because all the parties and politicians obey the rules of democracy. The losers accept defeat gracefully and allow transfer of power to take place peacefully without any disturbances or upheavals.
The present PAP is led by politicians in the mold of Thailand’s Abhisit and Malaysia’s Najib Razak - they will not accept defeat and will try ways and means to remain in power.
In fact, a minor constitutional crisis has already happened in Singapore last year. When Bukit Batok MP Ong Chit Chung passed away and left his seat vacant, a by-election was not held because it was deemed “unnecessary” by the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The undeniable right of Bukit Batok residents as Singapore citizens to vote for their elected representative in Parliament has been robbed from them right under their very eyes.
Though Singapore is spared the street protests and rallies in Thailand which has brought the country to a virtual standstill, the use of undemocratic measures such as the GRC system by the PAP to entrench themselves in power has led to a pervasive political apathy in the populace such that even the PAP itself has problems recruiting talented Singaporeans to join its ranks.
The government should be afraid of the people and not the other way round. Politicians who believe in democracy are never afraid of losing power because they respect the will of the people. Only dictators will try ways and means to keep themselves in power in defiance of public opinion and expectations.
To quote from U.S. President Thomas Jefferson - “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. Singaporeans must step up their vigilance now before it is too late. Will there come a time when even elections are abolished by Prime Minister Lee because they are “unnecessary” to him?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26775.1
The recent constitutional crises in Thailand and the Malaysian state of Perak have been given extensive coverage by the state media in a lame attempt to highlight the pitfalls of democracy.
The papers were splashed with photos of the Thai “red shirts” confronting the police and of the scuffle between the party supporters of the Barisan Nasional and PAS in Perak.
One reader posted a comment criticizing us for our frequent attacks on the PAP. “Would you rather have a situation similar to what is happening in Thailand now?” he asked.
It is precisely because we do not want to see a similiar crisis being repeated here that we have been actively educating our readers on their rights as citizens and to expose the glaring deficiencies in our political system.
Both the Thai and Perak constitutional crises are triggered by self-serving politicians who chose to cling on to power in spite of the desire of the people to have them removed.
It has nothing to do with democracy. Only when politicians do not adhere to the basic principles of democracy and play according to the rules will the nation be plunged into political chaos.
Democracy works on two basic tenets: one, the party which wins the majority vote in an election gets to form the government and two, the loser accepts the result and wait for the next election. The democratic process will be abused and rendered ineffective if either condition is not met.
In the Thai example, ex-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won two successful general elections before he was ousted in a coup engineered by the old Bangkok elite in 2006. The subsequent election was also won by an reincarnation of his Thai Rak Thai Party - the People’s Power Party led by his trusted loyalist Samak Sundaravej who was forced to step down by the Supreme Court.
Samak’s successor Somchai Wongsawat had to relinquish his position after 5 months by massive street protests led by the People’s Alliance for Democracy which had paralyzed Bangkok. The current Democrat government was formed only by defections from a Thaksin bloc led by Newin Chidchob with tacit support from the military.
Had the Bangkok elite played by the rules and sought to remove Thaksin from power via the electoral routes instead of launching a military coup, the ensuing fracas and chaos would not have occurred.
The current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit can defuse the situation by dissolving Parliament and call for a general election, but he will not dare to do so as he will probably lose the popular vote.
The Thai crisis is the result of the popular will of the people being subjugated by power-hungry politicians who chose to defy public opinion to cling on to power.
The Perak constitutional crisis is also triggered by politicians with scant regard for democratic principles. The Pakatan Rakyat coalition won control of the state during last year’s general elections by winning 31 out of the 59 seats contested.
In February 2009, three state assembly men and women resigned from the Pakatan component parties - Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (DAP) to become “independents” aligned to the state opposition Barisan Nasional.
In a stunning move which shocked the nation, then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak called a press conference to announce that Barisan Nasional had the “numbers” to form the Perak state government. Its previous Menteri Besar Datuk Nizar Jamaluddin was forced unceremoniously out of power. He rightly refused to accept the result of the coup and had since launched a lawsuit against the Barisan Nasional MB Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir.
Dissolving the state government and return to seek a renewed mandate from the people will be a simple and straighforward solution to resolve the political impasse. Again, Barisan Nasional dare not do so because it has no confidence of winning the election.
As we can see for ourselves, both the Thai and Perak governments are mired in crisis now because their respective legitimate governments which are voted into power by the people are being ousted by political opportunists who abused the rule of law.
Will the constitutional crisis which besieged Thailand and Perak for months happen in Singapore? It can as long Singaporeans remain contented to give the PAP limitless power to do as it pleases.
In 2006, MM Lee Kuan Yew sent an ominous warning as to what would happen if the opposition were to come to power one day: “Without the elected president and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it”.
His words speak for himself. Here is a man who does not believe in democracy and will cling on to power at all cost even by mobilizing the army to keep the PAP in government.
Neither MM Lee or the PAP has the right to call on the Singapore army to force an elected government out of power. The army owes its allegiance to the state of Singapore which overrides all petty partisan interests.
The PAP is only a political party. If it loses in an election, then it must be prepared to hand over the reins of power to another party chosen by the people and be contented with a period of time in the opposition till the next election.
In mature stable democracies like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and many others in the West, governments come and go every few years. They do not experience any constitutional crises or chaos because all the parties and politicians obey the rules of democracy. The losers accept defeat gracefully and allow transfer of power to take place peacefully without any disturbances or upheavals.
The present PAP is led by politicians in the mold of Thailand’s Abhisit and Malaysia’s Najib Razak - they will not accept defeat and will try ways and means to remain in power.
In fact, a minor constitutional crisis has already happened in Singapore last year. When Bukit Batok MP Ong Chit Chung passed away and left his seat vacant, a by-election was not held because it was deemed “unnecessary” by the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The undeniable right of Bukit Batok residents as Singapore citizens to vote for their elected representative in Parliament has been robbed from them right under their very eyes.
Though Singapore is spared the street protests and rallies in Thailand which has brought the country to a virtual standstill, the use of undemocratic measures such as the GRC system by the PAP to entrench themselves in power has led to a pervasive political apathy in the populace such that even the PAP itself has problems recruiting talented Singaporeans to join its ranks.
The government should be afraid of the people and not the other way round. Politicians who believe in democracy are never afraid of losing power because they respect the will of the people. Only dictators will try ways and means to keep themselves in power in defiance of public opinion and expectations.
To quote from U.S. President Thomas Jefferson - “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”. Singaporeans must step up their vigilance now before it is too late. Will there come a time when even elections are abolished by Prime Minister Lee because they are “unnecessary” to him?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26775.1
Paradox of recession
Paradox of recession
Nothing is predictable in Singapore nowadays, or at least, some things do not work according to the script.
Consider the opening of the newest shopping mall, Tampines 1, in the middle of one of the deepest recessions in Singapore. Retailers and even the Retailers' Associations have, in the recent past, asked the government for help in cutting costs, such as reducing the GST from 7% to 5%. The government said no. And after witnessing Tampines 1, who can blame them?
Tampines 1 sits on the site where Sogo was. It opened last week, to throngs of people. If there is one thing you can trust Singaporeans to do, it is shopping at the latest malls. I avoided the mall (yea, I am an atypical Singaporean) on its opening day, as well as the weekend, for obvious reasons. I thought today, Monday, would be a good day to visit. I was wrong. The crowd at this Mall on Monday afternoon is nothing like a weekday crowd. Everybody on the island seem to be there, from the children to the teenagers to the adults in businesses and casual wear to the aunties and uncles, all of them were there. I can begin to understand the gridlock that shoppers were faced with last weekend at this mall.
The Japanese retailer chain, Uniqlo, the newest new thing, was shuttered, not because there weren't any customers. Yes, it had drawn down its shutters, but a long queue of would-be customers were lining up just outside, ready to rush in when the shutters come up again. How any retailer would envy at this state of affairs. The mall is much bigger than I'd imagine it to be because I used to visit the old Sogo quite often before it shut. I could imagine the retailers at Tampines Mall and Century Square swatting flies all day long. The crowd was over the other side of the MRT station - in Tampines 1, stupid!
People just came, like bees to flowers, except that visitors came to dump their money into this newest of new places whereas bees would suck dry the nectar from the flowers. Come to think of it, that's what the shoppers were doing - sucking dry the merchandise using their not-so-hard-to-part money. Hey there's a recession going on, if you've forgotten. But then again, it should be like this if one wants to break the spiraling cycle of thrift, which has the effect of choking economic activity thereby worsening the recession.
My one complaint is the food sold at Kapitan, the Kopitiam food court located at the 4th level. Let me rephrase that. My complaint lies with one food stall in Kapitan, the stall that sold char siew rice. When my companion put the plate of char siew rice on the table, the stranger sitting next to me exclaimed at the portion - it was very small indeed. This is the first time that a total stranger has ever made such a remark. Singaporeans tend to be a reserve lot. They'd usually just whisper among their own group of friends. So you can imagine how small the portion really was to elicit such an unbridled comment! But this takes the cake - it costs $3.80! Cough cough cough... And in case you were wondering, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rice, the char siew, the cumcumber and the sauce. In fact, you could getting better char siew rice at $2 elsewhere.
I thought, if this is how much things will cost, I shuddered to think how high prices will be at the planned wet market in Sengkang Square when it goes into operation. Kopitiam won the bid to build and operate it just 2 weeks ago. And their bid was 2 times the next highest bid. There may be some red faces in Kopitiam right now, but I think they will have the last laugh because they know they can recoup this exorbitant investment quite quickly. That's because people will still flock to this market even if it prices are higher. The reason is very simple - there just isn't anywhere that can compete with the convenient location of this planned wet market. This lack of competition is something that HDB overlooked when it pretended to understand how free markets (there is no effective competition) worked. Of course, there have been complaints and dismay expressed by heartlanders of the prospect of having yet to pay more. The initial euphoria of having a wet market at your doorstep is turning to disillusionment. At the end of the day, the ward's MP and the HDB will be the ones with red faces.
This is living in Singapore today - all full of irony and contradictions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26739.1
Nothing is predictable in Singapore nowadays, or at least, some things do not work according to the script.
Consider the opening of the newest shopping mall, Tampines 1, in the middle of one of the deepest recessions in Singapore. Retailers and even the Retailers' Associations have, in the recent past, asked the government for help in cutting costs, such as reducing the GST from 7% to 5%. The government said no. And after witnessing Tampines 1, who can blame them?
Tampines 1 sits on the site where Sogo was. It opened last week, to throngs of people. If there is one thing you can trust Singaporeans to do, it is shopping at the latest malls. I avoided the mall (yea, I am an atypical Singaporean) on its opening day, as well as the weekend, for obvious reasons. I thought today, Monday, would be a good day to visit. I was wrong. The crowd at this Mall on Monday afternoon is nothing like a weekday crowd. Everybody on the island seem to be there, from the children to the teenagers to the adults in businesses and casual wear to the aunties and uncles, all of them were there. I can begin to understand the gridlock that shoppers were faced with last weekend at this mall.
The Japanese retailer chain, Uniqlo, the newest new thing, was shuttered, not because there weren't any customers. Yes, it had drawn down its shutters, but a long queue of would-be customers were lining up just outside, ready to rush in when the shutters come up again. How any retailer would envy at this state of affairs. The mall is much bigger than I'd imagine it to be because I used to visit the old Sogo quite often before it shut. I could imagine the retailers at Tampines Mall and Century Square swatting flies all day long. The crowd was over the other side of the MRT station - in Tampines 1, stupid!
People just came, like bees to flowers, except that visitors came to dump their money into this newest of new places whereas bees would suck dry the nectar from the flowers. Come to think of it, that's what the shoppers were doing - sucking dry the merchandise using their not-so-hard-to-part money. Hey there's a recession going on, if you've forgotten. But then again, it should be like this if one wants to break the spiraling cycle of thrift, which has the effect of choking economic activity thereby worsening the recession.
My one complaint is the food sold at Kapitan, the Kopitiam food court located at the 4th level. Let me rephrase that. My complaint lies with one food stall in Kapitan, the stall that sold char siew rice. When my companion put the plate of char siew rice on the table, the stranger sitting next to me exclaimed at the portion - it was very small indeed. This is the first time that a total stranger has ever made such a remark. Singaporeans tend to be a reserve lot. They'd usually just whisper among their own group of friends. So you can imagine how small the portion really was to elicit such an unbridled comment! But this takes the cake - it costs $3.80! Cough cough cough... And in case you were wondering, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the rice, the char siew, the cumcumber and the sauce. In fact, you could getting better char siew rice at $2 elsewhere.
I thought, if this is how much things will cost, I shuddered to think how high prices will be at the planned wet market in Sengkang Square when it goes into operation. Kopitiam won the bid to build and operate it just 2 weeks ago. And their bid was 2 times the next highest bid. There may be some red faces in Kopitiam right now, but I think they will have the last laugh because they know they can recoup this exorbitant investment quite quickly. That's because people will still flock to this market even if it prices are higher. The reason is very simple - there just isn't anywhere that can compete with the convenient location of this planned wet market. This lack of competition is something that HDB overlooked when it pretended to understand how free markets (there is no effective competition) worked. Of course, there have been complaints and dismay expressed by heartlanders of the prospect of having yet to pay more. The initial euphoria of having a wet market at your doorstep is turning to disillusionment. At the end of the day, the ward's MP and the HDB will be the ones with red faces.
This is living in Singapore today - all full of irony and contradictions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26739.1
What a genius!
What a genius!
What an ingenious idea! This appeared in the St. Petersburg Times
Newspaper yesterday. TheBusiness Section had asked readers all week for ideas on "HOW WOULD YOU FIX THE ECONOMY?"
This man nailed it.
Dear Mr. President,
Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 years old in the work force - pay
them $1 million apiece severance with the following stipulations:
1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - UNEMPLOYMENT
FIXED
2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - AUTO INDUSTRY
FIXED.
3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - HOUSING CRISIS
FIXED.
Like I have been saying, they are bailing out the wrong people.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26737.1
What an ingenious idea! This appeared in the St. Petersburg Times
Newspaper yesterday. TheBusiness Section had asked readers all week for ideas on "HOW WOULD YOU FIX THE ECONOMY?"
This man nailed it.
Dear Mr. President,
Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 years old in the work force - pay
them $1 million apiece severance with the following stipulations:
1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - UNEMPLOYMENT
FIXED
2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - AUTO INDUSTRY
FIXED.
3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - HOUSING CRISIS
FIXED.
Like I have been saying, they are bailing out the wrong people.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26737.1
154 casualties. 48 hospitalized. 2 deaths. 122 rats. All the rojak man’s fault?
154 casualties. 48 hospitalized. 2 deaths. 122 rats. All the rojak man’s fault?
Monday, 13 April 2009
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure on the part of the NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee.
As the nation tries to grapple with the physical cost of the tragic mass food poisoning incident, preliminary investigations by the Ministry of Health have revealed that the outbreak is “most likely due to cross-contamination of rojak and raw seafood ingredients harbouring the (Vibrio parahaemolyticus) bacteria”. There have also been questions raised about the hygiene regime of the Geylang Serai temporary market - not least underscored by the discovery of 122 rats during the spring-cleaning efforts recently.
While it is convenient to isolate and attribute this tragedy to Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen, the rojak stall owner, this perspective does not sufficiently answer broader concerns of hygiene and cleanliness standards.
An NEA official was reported by the Today newspaper to have berated the stall owners attending a hygiene course conducted last Thursday, while Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, condemned the events as “totally unacceptable” and that it was “outrageous that this has happened”. The minister promised to hold those responsible accountable.
Strong sentiments indeed, but his counterpart in the Health Ministry, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, has raised a more germane concern about the overall cleanliness standard having “dropped to maybe 5/10 or worse”.
This begs the question: doesn’t NEA have a major part to play in maintaining the “overall cleanliness standard?”
Responsibility – Yaacob and 122 rats
There are essentially two separate, albeit overlapping, issues that have been conveniently conflated by the authorities: the hygiene standard of individual stalls, and the cleanliness of the temporary market.
Stall owners who are diffident towards the hygiene standards of their own stalls face strong financial disincentives in fines that may be imposed, and the loss of potential customers; most stall owners interviewed recognize their “individual responsibility” in maintainng hygiene standards, given that their source of income and livelihood is on the line. Hence, the inevitable few errant stall owners should not tar the efforts of the majority, and NEA also has some responsibility in its checks to detect these instances of non-compliance.
However, the responsibility in ensuring that the overall cleanliness of the market should fall squarely on NEA. Despite Dr Yaacob assurance of a ’sound regime’ to the Straits Times, the fiasco of 122 rats suggests a failure on the part of NEA to intervene and nip an incipient safety threat in the bud.
As much as stall owners should be held responsible for any hygiene lapses, surely NEA is also culpable in its failure to ensure a clean market environment at Geylang Serai.
The temporary market houses both the hawker and wet market stalls in close vicinity, a conducive environment to encourage the prevalence of pests.
These circumstances might be understandable considering the market was meant to be temporary; however there was an appalling lack of effort to mitigate this potential threat to cleanliness: in the entire 3 years since its establishment, there were no spring-cleaning effort held until last Wednesday and Thursday – after the food poisoning happened.
The notable absence of regular clean-up efforts raises questions for the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee to answer: why was there only one spring-cleaning held after three years of operation, and that taking place only two months before the planned move to the new Geylang Serai market?
Taking into consideration that such clean-up efforts take place once every two months at the old Geylang Serai market, according to a vegetable stall owner who have worked at both locations, it seems that the Management Committee has been astoundingly complacent towards the need to maintain the cleanliness condition of its market.
And more striking is how NEA reacted in the catastrophe’s wake– passing the buck to respective local management committees of each market. Without ensuring these cleanups happen, NEA’s tough stance in maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness standards are nothing but sanctimonious words.
The NEA is the only agency with the mandate to enforce these standards, and adopting a laissez-faire approach and devolving its authority to the discretion of individual management committees without any oversight makes a mockery of the ’sound regime’ that Dr Yaacob has been talking about.
One stallholder told the ST that huge rats run around the market regularly, playing like “Tom and Jerry”. Is NEA playing a Tom and Jerry hide-and-seek game with its responsibility?
A tale of 122 rats
The 122 rats caught in the spring-cleaning effort constitute a significant failure in the hygiene management of the market, and it would be disproportionate to attribute the presence of the rats to the individual stall owners since it concerns the conditions of the entire temporary market. It would only be fair for either the management committee and NEA to answer for the prevalence of these pests, as with any stall owner who has committed hygiene lapses.
A blame game is never prudent, particularly in crises of confidence such as this. The NEA, in its strong reprobations to the stall owners, has pinned the blame of the entire affair on the stall owners - but the lack of oversight and its detachment from the management of the markets points to the agency’s culpability of this episode.
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure in the part of NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee. This incident however should prompt for a soul-searching exercise at the NEA and the respective local management committees of the various markets and food establishments to review the execution and enforcement of safety standards, which has evidently failed at Geylang Serai.
Pinning the guilt alone on the individual lapses of a rojak seller, yet ignoring the systemic lapses that has allowed for 122 rats to fester (and this number are the ones caught - who can safely hazard that no rats have been left behind?) means that the 152 people who endured an uncomfortable week have suffered in vain. Leadership in matters like these are best provided by those in authority, and the public should expect a more stringent regime to ensure the cleanliness of our food establishments.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26715.1
Monday, 13 April 2009
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure on the part of the NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee.
As the nation tries to grapple with the physical cost of the tragic mass food poisoning incident, preliminary investigations by the Ministry of Health have revealed that the outbreak is “most likely due to cross-contamination of rojak and raw seafood ingredients harbouring the (Vibrio parahaemolyticus) bacteria”. There have also been questions raised about the hygiene regime of the Geylang Serai temporary market - not least underscored by the discovery of 122 rats during the spring-cleaning efforts recently.
While it is convenient to isolate and attribute this tragedy to Mr Sheik Allaudin Mohideen, the rojak stall owner, this perspective does not sufficiently answer broader concerns of hygiene and cleanliness standards.
An NEA official was reported by the Today newspaper to have berated the stall owners attending a hygiene course conducted last Thursday, while Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, condemned the events as “totally unacceptable” and that it was “outrageous that this has happened”. The minister promised to hold those responsible accountable.
Strong sentiments indeed, but his counterpart in the Health Ministry, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, has raised a more germane concern about the overall cleanliness standard having “dropped to maybe 5/10 or worse”.
This begs the question: doesn’t NEA have a major part to play in maintaining the “overall cleanliness standard?”
Responsibility – Yaacob and 122 rats
There are essentially two separate, albeit overlapping, issues that have been conveniently conflated by the authorities: the hygiene standard of individual stalls, and the cleanliness of the temporary market.
Stall owners who are diffident towards the hygiene standards of their own stalls face strong financial disincentives in fines that may be imposed, and the loss of potential customers; most stall owners interviewed recognize their “individual responsibility” in maintainng hygiene standards, given that their source of income and livelihood is on the line. Hence, the inevitable few errant stall owners should not tar the efforts of the majority, and NEA also has some responsibility in its checks to detect these instances of non-compliance.
However, the responsibility in ensuring that the overall cleanliness of the market should fall squarely on NEA. Despite Dr Yaacob assurance of a ’sound regime’ to the Straits Times, the fiasco of 122 rats suggests a failure on the part of NEA to intervene and nip an incipient safety threat in the bud.
As much as stall owners should be held responsible for any hygiene lapses, surely NEA is also culpable in its failure to ensure a clean market environment at Geylang Serai.
The temporary market houses both the hawker and wet market stalls in close vicinity, a conducive environment to encourage the prevalence of pests.
These circumstances might be understandable considering the market was meant to be temporary; however there was an appalling lack of effort to mitigate this potential threat to cleanliness: in the entire 3 years since its establishment, there were no spring-cleaning effort held until last Wednesday and Thursday – after the food poisoning happened.
The notable absence of regular clean-up efforts raises questions for the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee to answer: why was there only one spring-cleaning held after three years of operation, and that taking place only two months before the planned move to the new Geylang Serai market?
Taking into consideration that such clean-up efforts take place once every two months at the old Geylang Serai market, according to a vegetable stall owner who have worked at both locations, it seems that the Management Committee has been astoundingly complacent towards the need to maintain the cleanliness condition of its market.
And more striking is how NEA reacted in the catastrophe’s wake– passing the buck to respective local management committees of each market. Without ensuring these cleanups happen, NEA’s tough stance in maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness standards are nothing but sanctimonious words.
The NEA is the only agency with the mandate to enforce these standards, and adopting a laissez-faire approach and devolving its authority to the discretion of individual management committees without any oversight makes a mockery of the ’sound regime’ that Dr Yaacob has been talking about.
One stallholder told the ST that huge rats run around the market regularly, playing like “Tom and Jerry”. Is NEA playing a Tom and Jerry hide-and-seek game with its responsibility?
A tale of 122 rats
The 122 rats caught in the spring-cleaning effort constitute a significant failure in the hygiene management of the market, and it would be disproportionate to attribute the presence of the rats to the individual stall owners since it concerns the conditions of the entire temporary market. It would only be fair for either the management committee and NEA to answer for the prevalence of these pests, as with any stall owner who has committed hygiene lapses.
A blame game is never prudent, particularly in crises of confidence such as this. The NEA, in its strong reprobations to the stall owners, has pinned the blame of the entire affair on the stall owners - but the lack of oversight and its detachment from the management of the markets points to the agency’s culpability of this episode.
While the mass food poisoning may be the fault of an errant individual stall owner, the dirty state of the market reflects a worrying systemic failure in the part of NEA and the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Management Committee. This incident however should prompt for a soul-searching exercise at the NEA and the respective local management committees of the various markets and food establishments to review the execution and enforcement of safety standards, which has evidently failed at Geylang Serai.
Pinning the guilt alone on the individual lapses of a rojak seller, yet ignoring the systemic lapses that has allowed for 122 rats to fester (and this number are the ones caught - who can safely hazard that no rats have been left behind?) means that the 152 people who endured an uncomfortable week have suffered in vain. Leadership in matters like these are best provided by those in authority, and the public should expect a more stringent regime to ensure the cleanliness of our food establishments.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26715.1
State media’s verdict on Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
State media’s verdict on Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
Even before the investigations into the Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster are complete, the state media has already reached a verdict: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
In the Sunday Times yesterday, there were six reports on the tragedy alone whereas there were only one or two on each day for the last few days.
The gist of the above articles are as follows:
1. Poor public hygiene is a contributory cause to the disaster - Singaporeans are at fault for not paying more attention on their own personal hygiene.
2. There many “dangers” in the environment such as rats - therefore, nobody is to blame for the discovery of rats at the premises.
3. Food handling is to blame for the disaster - had the food handlers at both the Indian rojak and the Mee Siam stalls been more vigilant, the outbreak would not have occurred.
4. Singaporeans don’t really care about the hygiene rating system of hawker stalls - therefore it matters little if the Indian rojak stall gets a “C” or “D” rating as Singaporeans will still continue to patronize it.
5. The government has been taking a proactive approach to prevent a similar repeat - yeah, that’s what they always say after a major screw-up, why not they do it earlier and have to wait till the loss of 2 preventable deaths?
Nowhere was it mentioned about NEA’s role in ensuring public hygiene at these eating outlets as if it was not involved at all! The reports were downright biased, one-sided and misleading! Is this the kind of standard we expect of a national English Daily?
While I concur that every Singaporean has a part to play in ensuring public hygiene and food safety, it is not fair to attribute the blame squarely on us.
If we are responsible for everything, then why do we still need to pay million of dollars for a Minister to be in charge of the Environment?
The Straits Times should have adopted a more balanced and objective stance towards the incident instead of rushing in to exonerate the government from any blame.
It could have asked the NEA or the relevant ministry serious questions such as the last time they conducted a check on the implicated stalls, the officers in charge of the check and their reports etc.
Instead, they chose to remain silent on the role of the government and focus solely on the food handlers, diners and even the environment!
It is human to err and lapses are inevitable. That’s why we need NEA to detect these lapses and take action against errant food stalls with poor public hygiene.
Nobody expects the minister or his Permanent Secretary to check the premises themselves, but they should ensure that the stalls were checked on a regular basis especially temporary market stalls which are not owned by NEA.
In one of the reports “Four wrong steps to food poisoning“, the writer Abdul Rahman revealed that he had a diarrhoea frequently after eating food from the Indian rojak stall.
I am unsure if other customers suffer a same fate as him, but by giving the stall a “C” rating, is NEA signaling that such atrocious hygiene standards are acceptable to them?
It is of little relevance if diners are bothered by the hygiene ratings. Any stalls with a rating less than “C” should not be allowed to operate in the first place.
The government needs to account for the following:
1. The deficiency of its present hygiene rating system: I cannot fathom how the food sold by a stall with a “satisfactory” rating can lead to the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore with two deaths. Nobody dies from gastroenteritis in a developed country. It is a real shame for us especially when the Singapore government is the highest paid government in the world, all the more it is unacceptable for such a public health disaster to occur here.
2. The 61 rats were found at the temporary market. These rats did not appear overnight from nowhere. They had infested the place for weeks or even months! Without the disaster, would the pest controllers be called in to flush out the rats? Even if most Singaporeans do not care about the hygiene rating of a stall, surely they will mind having their meals together with these uninvited rodents? Why weren’t these rats detected earlier? How could NEA miss them in its spot checks? These are BIG RATS, not small flies and mosquitoes.
3. The failure of its spot checks to detect hygiene problems in the two stalls. The seafood used by the Indian rojak stall was reportedly found to be contaminated with the Vibro parahemolyticus bacteria which causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea. Did NEA conduct checks on the way food was handled by the stall holder? Or the refrigerator used to store the food?
Can we honestly expect these stall holders to know if their food is contamined with pathogens and if their food handling methods are inadequate to kill them?
Since they have been given a “satisfactory” rating by NEA, they must have assumed there is nothing wrong with the way they handle and cook their food.
It is ridiculous to expect ordinary Singaporeans - diners and hawkers alike to shoulder full responsibility for public hygiene at eating outlets.
SM Goh said: ‘If you have poor hygiene, spitting in public places, littering, food all over the place, rats running around the market, that’s very ungracious behaviour’ (read article here)
To be fair to Singaporeans, while we may not be as gracious as the Japanese, our hygiene standards are much higher than some countries in the region. There will always be people around who spit and litter. As for leaving food all over the place and rats-infested markets, it is more of a maintenance than a hygiene problem.
Are diners responsible for clearing the leftover food and litter? Should we bring rat traps to catch the rats ourselves? Or perhaps NEA should just put a “Eat at your own peril” signboard at every hawker centre in Singapore to make life easier for themselves.
It is undeniable that Singaporeans should be responsible for their own personal hygiene, but at the same time, the government should examine its own role in the incident and lessons to be learnt from it.
If Singaporeans are expected to take the rap and responsibility for every mistake, big and small, then the PAP should cut down the size of their bloated cabinet and take a pay cut.
Given the amount of money Singaporeans are paying to line the pockets of these ministers and permanent secretaries, we have the right to demand that all public eating outlets are kept squeaky clean with good hygiene, no litter and most importantly no rats.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26713.1
Even before the investigations into the Geylang Serai food poisoning disaster are complete, the state media has already reached a verdict: it has NOTHING to do with the government!
In the Sunday Times yesterday, there were six reports on the tragedy alone whereas there were only one or two on each day for the last few days.
The gist of the above articles are as follows:
1. Poor public hygiene is a contributory cause to the disaster - Singaporeans are at fault for not paying more attention on their own personal hygiene.
2. There many “dangers” in the environment such as rats - therefore, nobody is to blame for the discovery of rats at the premises.
3. Food handling is to blame for the disaster - had the food handlers at both the Indian rojak and the Mee Siam stalls been more vigilant, the outbreak would not have occurred.
4. Singaporeans don’t really care about the hygiene rating system of hawker stalls - therefore it matters little if the Indian rojak stall gets a “C” or “D” rating as Singaporeans will still continue to patronize it.
5. The government has been taking a proactive approach to prevent a similar repeat - yeah, that’s what they always say after a major screw-up, why not they do it earlier and have to wait till the loss of 2 preventable deaths?
Nowhere was it mentioned about NEA’s role in ensuring public hygiene at these eating outlets as if it was not involved at all! The reports were downright biased, one-sided and misleading! Is this the kind of standard we expect of a national English Daily?
While I concur that every Singaporean has a part to play in ensuring public hygiene and food safety, it is not fair to attribute the blame squarely on us.
If we are responsible for everything, then why do we still need to pay million of dollars for a Minister to be in charge of the Environment?
The Straits Times should have adopted a more balanced and objective stance towards the incident instead of rushing in to exonerate the government from any blame.
It could have asked the NEA or the relevant ministry serious questions such as the last time they conducted a check on the implicated stalls, the officers in charge of the check and their reports etc.
Instead, they chose to remain silent on the role of the government and focus solely on the food handlers, diners and even the environment!
It is human to err and lapses are inevitable. That’s why we need NEA to detect these lapses and take action against errant food stalls with poor public hygiene.
Nobody expects the minister or his Permanent Secretary to check the premises themselves, but they should ensure that the stalls were checked on a regular basis especially temporary market stalls which are not owned by NEA.
In one of the reports “Four wrong steps to food poisoning“, the writer Abdul Rahman revealed that he had a diarrhoea frequently after eating food from the Indian rojak stall.
I am unsure if other customers suffer a same fate as him, but by giving the stall a “C” rating, is NEA signaling that such atrocious hygiene standards are acceptable to them?
It is of little relevance if diners are bothered by the hygiene ratings. Any stalls with a rating less than “C” should not be allowed to operate in the first place.
The government needs to account for the following:
1. The deficiency of its present hygiene rating system: I cannot fathom how the food sold by a stall with a “satisfactory” rating can lead to the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore with two deaths. Nobody dies from gastroenteritis in a developed country. It is a real shame for us especially when the Singapore government is the highest paid government in the world, all the more it is unacceptable for such a public health disaster to occur here.
2. The 61 rats were found at the temporary market. These rats did not appear overnight from nowhere. They had infested the place for weeks or even months! Without the disaster, would the pest controllers be called in to flush out the rats? Even if most Singaporeans do not care about the hygiene rating of a stall, surely they will mind having their meals together with these uninvited rodents? Why weren’t these rats detected earlier? How could NEA miss them in its spot checks? These are BIG RATS, not small flies and mosquitoes.
3. The failure of its spot checks to detect hygiene problems in the two stalls. The seafood used by the Indian rojak stall was reportedly found to be contaminated with the Vibro parahemolyticus bacteria which causes an explosive form of watery diarrhoea. Did NEA conduct checks on the way food was handled by the stall holder? Or the refrigerator used to store the food?
Can we honestly expect these stall holders to know if their food is contamined with pathogens and if their food handling methods are inadequate to kill them?
Since they have been given a “satisfactory” rating by NEA, they must have assumed there is nothing wrong with the way they handle and cook their food.
It is ridiculous to expect ordinary Singaporeans - diners and hawkers alike to shoulder full responsibility for public hygiene at eating outlets.
SM Goh said: ‘If you have poor hygiene, spitting in public places, littering, food all over the place, rats running around the market, that’s very ungracious behaviour’ (read article here)
To be fair to Singaporeans, while we may not be as gracious as the Japanese, our hygiene standards are much higher than some countries in the region. There will always be people around who spit and litter. As for leaving food all over the place and rats-infested markets, it is more of a maintenance than a hygiene problem.
Are diners responsible for clearing the leftover food and litter? Should we bring rat traps to catch the rats ourselves? Or perhaps NEA should just put a “Eat at your own peril” signboard at every hawker centre in Singapore to make life easier for themselves.
It is undeniable that Singaporeans should be responsible for their own personal hygiene, but at the same time, the government should examine its own role in the incident and lessons to be learnt from it.
If Singaporeans are expected to take the rap and responsibility for every mistake, big and small, then the PAP should cut down the size of their bloated cabinet and take a pay cut.
Given the amount of money Singaporeans are paying to line the pockets of these ministers and permanent secretaries, we have the right to demand that all public eating outlets are kept squeaky clean with good hygiene, no litter and most importantly no rats.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26713.1
Old and new citizens do not get equal chance in Singapore
Old and new citizens do not get equal chance in Singapore
Singapore is a meritocracy that does not distinguish between old or new citizens, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Whether it comes to the giving out of jobs or business contracts or scholarships, whoever excels will be rewarded, he stressed yesterday at the launch of a new feature section in Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. (read article here)
While few can refute MM Lee’s claims that Singapore is a meritocracy, whether there is a level playing field for both old and new citizens is a different matter altogether.
Native-born Singaporeans are more than willing to compete with new citizens on an equal footing, however the increasing odds stacked against us is fuelling resentment and disgruntlement on the ground.
I fear for is future generations of Singaporeans who may struggle to achieve the same standard of living as their parents.
During my time when there were less foreigners, the starting pay of an university graduate is $S2,000. A 5 room HDB flat in Bishan cost less than S$100,000.
Nowadays, fresh graduates are finding it difficult to secure a stable, long-term job saved for those in Medicine and Law. Even engineers are being crowded out by the influx of Chinese and Indian engineers.
The salary of the Singapore worker, especially that of the lower income group has remained relatively stagnant for the last few years and being outpaced by the cost of living. Our purchasing power has been eroded to the extent that many are barely making ends meet let alone save enough for retirement.
The reservist obligation of Singapore males is a bane to us. How can we compete with new citizens who do not have to take 14 days off each year to serve national service?
There are many worthy Singaporeans who are denied a place in local universities because their grades were not deemed good enough. Yet we have many foreign students from the region who are being sponsored by our government to study in Singapore. Their tution fees are entirely covered on top of a generous monthly allowance and they are guaranteed a job upon graduation.
A place in our universities occupied by a foreigner is one denied to a local Singaporean who may have to pursue his/her tertiary education overseas or give it up completely.
Are our Singaporean students of inferior quality compared to let’s say, second-rate Chinese students? The top students in China do not come to Singapore. They are either sent to prestigious universities in the West or to the elite Chinese universities like Qinghua and Fudan.
I recognize the need for Singapore to increase its population via immigration. What I can’t reconcile with is the government’s blatant neglect for local Singaporeans. Much more can be done to develop the human capital we already have.
Singapore’s low birth rate is further exacerbated by a brain drain which is getting worse with each passing year. Can the number of new citizens made up for the loss of native Singaporeans to other countries? I seriously doubt so.
Without a core nucleus of locals to retain the unique Singapore identity, we are no different from a hotel where people come in and go. New citizens have little sense of belonging to Singapore and they can always change their citizenship again should they don’t like it here.
The United States became a great nation of what it is today through opening its doors to immigration. Many immigrants who set up their homes in the U.S. stayed there for good and few natives renounced their American citizenship.
It is pointless to dish our PRs and citizenships to foreigners like some freebies while local Singaporeans are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere at an alarming rate.
Foreigners who are contemplating to emigrate here will think: if Singapore’s governance is so open, transparent and fair as boasted by MM Lee, why are we having one of the highest emigration rates in the world?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26712.1
Singapore is a meritocracy that does not distinguish between old or new citizens, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Whether it comes to the giving out of jobs or business contracts or scholarships, whoever excels will be rewarded, he stressed yesterday at the launch of a new feature section in Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. (read article here)
While few can refute MM Lee’s claims that Singapore is a meritocracy, whether there is a level playing field for both old and new citizens is a different matter altogether.
Native-born Singaporeans are more than willing to compete with new citizens on an equal footing, however the increasing odds stacked against us is fuelling resentment and disgruntlement on the ground.
I fear for is future generations of Singaporeans who may struggle to achieve the same standard of living as their parents.
During my time when there were less foreigners, the starting pay of an university graduate is $S2,000. A 5 room HDB flat in Bishan cost less than S$100,000.
Nowadays, fresh graduates are finding it difficult to secure a stable, long-term job saved for those in Medicine and Law. Even engineers are being crowded out by the influx of Chinese and Indian engineers.
The salary of the Singapore worker, especially that of the lower income group has remained relatively stagnant for the last few years and being outpaced by the cost of living. Our purchasing power has been eroded to the extent that many are barely making ends meet let alone save enough for retirement.
The reservist obligation of Singapore males is a bane to us. How can we compete with new citizens who do not have to take 14 days off each year to serve national service?
There are many worthy Singaporeans who are denied a place in local universities because their grades were not deemed good enough. Yet we have many foreign students from the region who are being sponsored by our government to study in Singapore. Their tution fees are entirely covered on top of a generous monthly allowance and they are guaranteed a job upon graduation.
A place in our universities occupied by a foreigner is one denied to a local Singaporean who may have to pursue his/her tertiary education overseas or give it up completely.
Are our Singaporean students of inferior quality compared to let’s say, second-rate Chinese students? The top students in China do not come to Singapore. They are either sent to prestigious universities in the West or to the elite Chinese universities like Qinghua and Fudan.
I recognize the need for Singapore to increase its population via immigration. What I can’t reconcile with is the government’s blatant neglect for local Singaporeans. Much more can be done to develop the human capital we already have.
Singapore’s low birth rate is further exacerbated by a brain drain which is getting worse with each passing year. Can the number of new citizens made up for the loss of native Singaporeans to other countries? I seriously doubt so.
Without a core nucleus of locals to retain the unique Singapore identity, we are no different from a hotel where people come in and go. New citizens have little sense of belonging to Singapore and they can always change their citizenship again should they don’t like it here.
The United States became a great nation of what it is today through opening its doors to immigration. Many immigrants who set up their homes in the U.S. stayed there for good and few natives renounced their American citizenship.
It is pointless to dish our PRs and citizenships to foreigners like some freebies while local Singaporeans are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere at an alarming rate.
Foreigners who are contemplating to emigrate here will think: if Singapore’s governance is so open, transparent and fair as boasted by MM Lee, why are we having one of the highest emigration rates in the world?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26712.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)