TR EMERITUS

Last month (27 Jun), TRE published an article highlighting that new residents moving into HDB BTO flats in Anchorvale Horizon at Seng Kang were complaining about the defects and poor workmanship found in their newly completed flats (‘Complaints against poor workmanship in new HDB flats‘). It was so bad that the grassroots leaders at Anchorvale Horizon were themselves complaining about the problem too. The grassroots leaders even roped in Seng Kang West MP Lam Pin Min to visit Anchorvale Horizon just to show him how terrible the defects are. As it turned out, the construction company responsible for the Anchorvale Horizon BTO project was China Jingye Engineering Corporation Limited. Two weeks ago (5 Jul), Jingye was in the news again. It was reported that Jingye has been told to stop work and clean up its Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1 HDB construction site, another HDB BTO project which it has been awarded. The media reported then that some 35 of its workers were down with dengue fever. NEA said it will take the Jingye to court after an inspection of the site found four mosquito breeding areas. It was the 4th time the site has been found to be breeding mosquitoes. Jingye has already paid fines of more than $10,000 in total for the 3 previous cases of mosquito breeding. At the time of reporting 2 weeks ago, about 22 Choa Chu Kang residents in the area were also down with dengue. Now, the number of cases in the area has grown to 391 as of 18 Jul. MP Zaqy Mohamad was clearly upset over Jingye and called for heavier penalties for construction companies found to have mosquitoes breeding at their sites. He said it was very likely that the outbreak started from the Sunshine Gardens construction site and spread to housing estates. "It's quite upsetting, we've always had very few cases. It's disappointing that despite the various measures taken, we had an external party close by cause the outbreak, and they've also contributed to a third of the cases," he said. Jingye is the main contractor for the Sunshine Gardens, a HDB BTO development. Allegedly, Jingye is said to have caused the largest dengue cluster in Singapore's history. NEA said the cluster was formed less than a month on 25 Jun when only 3 of Jingye's workers came down with dengue. Mr Zaqy was so upset with Jingye that he wants Jingye to be banned from tendering for HDB projects for at least half a year. He added that any fines meted out should be scaled to the size of its construction project and the "huge impact" it has had on residents and their health. "They have to feel the pinch. Look at the number of cases they (Jingye) have sparked in Chua Chu Kang," he said. Speaking to the media on Friday (18 Jul), HDB confirmed that it has banned China Jingye from tendering for its contracts - but for three months. HDB said, "HDB takes a serious view of China Jingye's improper dengue control management. In view of its second stop-work order last month, we are looking into tougher penalties against it. This could include demerit points, administrative charge and extension of their tender restriction." NEA said it will pay particular attention to "high-risk sites such as those with poor track record", and impose stricter requirements and, where necessary, longer stop-work orders, to break the transmission of dengue. "I've lived here since 1998 and there were never this many cases," said a resident in the area, Jasmah Abu Bakar, whose daughter is down with dengue. "I noticed these only after the construction started." "I'm watching my daughter suffer and a few of my neighbours have also kena (been hit) last month, so I'm more worried now," she added. "I'm not sure what more we can do at home, other than hoping that we don't get sick." Jingye is a Beijing-headquartered, wholly state-owned company of China. It is a subsidiary of Metallurgical Corporation of China Ltd (MCC), which is listed in Hong Kong and Shanghai [Link]. It was also found that in the various projects in Singapore, Jingye’s work-sites had been issued with Stop Work Orders (SWO) by the Manpower Ministry (MOM) [Link] 5 times since 2008: Mar 2013 Apr 2013 Jun 2011 Aug 2009 Nov 2008 An SWO is issued by MOM in instances where severe lapses in safety and health conditions cause immediate danger to the persons at work. Failure to comply with SWO is considered an offence [Link].    Read More →

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew If you are not feeling shameful for being a Singaporean, then you ought to feel shameful for having a PAP Government! Because our ministers are not only brainless, they have insensitive skin on their face! We do not know the real reasons behind Singapore Government’s recent move to raise fees on foreign vehicles entering Singapore from Malaysia. Some claimed that it was politically motivated, while others speculated that it was aimed to meet certain financial KPI of our Immigration & Checkpoints Authority. Whatever the reasons behind the fee increase, when our ministers were considering the measure of imposing a higher fee on Malaysian vehicles, they must have weighed on the possibility of retaliations by the Malaysian authorities. One of the most basic doctrines which students learned in the subject of strategy is: always bear in mind, when you strike, your opponent will react! In other words, do not hold the dream of your enemy standing still, right in front of your gun barrel and waiting for you to squeeze the trigger! No, it is not going to be “one shot, one kill” as our Chief of Defence Force had fantasized! And now that the Malaysian authorities have hit back with a fee imposed on Singapore vehicles entering Johor Bahru, our PAP ministers cried foul play! The tit for tat between both sides ended up with citizens of both countries suffering through higher costs. And it seemed our ministers were the one who stirred up the hornet’s nest first. It is not only stupid, but shameful as well, to think that you are entitled to hit others and at the same time, others are not entitled to retaliate against your attack! This is precisely the same attitude the PAP Government has been adopting towards its citizens and political opponents! They slapped you, they broke your rice bowls, they tainted your reputation ... but you are prohibited from doing the same to them! We have a ruling party who is so used to believe that it holds the exclusive licence to bully! Singapore 'concerned' over Malaysia's move to impose vehicle entry fees http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-concerned-over/1270886.html The Ministry of Transport says it is concerned whether the entry fee on foreign-registered vehicles is directed towards Singaporean vehicles.   Celia Lim * Contributed by TRE reader   Editor's note: Many of our Ministers are ex-generals and admirals of the SAF. Perhaps they are too used to striking standing-still targets with their "one shot, one kill" computer simulated engagements?    Read More →

On Thursday, lawyers for both Lee Hsien Loong and blogger Roy Ngerng were in court for a pre-trial conference regarding the defamation suit brought by the former against the latter. The suit stems from a blog post which Mr Ngerng had written and published on 15 May 2014, titled, “Where your CPF money is going: learning from the City Harvest trial”. In that article, says Mr Lee’s lawyers from law firm Drew and Napier, Mr Ngerng had allegedly accused Mr Lee, who is also the chairman of the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC), of “criminal misappropriation” of monies from Singapore’s state-run pension fund, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), by comparing the criminal trial of the leaders of City Harvest Church (CHC) with the management of the CPF monies. The CHC leaders are facing corruption charges in how they managed church funds. The Straits Times, on 18 July put out the following report, titled, “Blogger suit: Hearing on summary judgment plea in Sept”. The report was written by Nur Asyiqin Mohamed Salleh. In paragraph 3 of her report, Ms Nur Asyiqin reported that M Ravi, lawyer for Mr Ngerng, had told her that the full day hearing of the case “will be presided over by a High Court judge, rather than a registrar as is normally the case.” She then reported: “This, said Mr Ravi, is because ‘both halves have indicated they will appeal’ if the court rules against them.” However, when contacted, Mr Ravi’s office said he did not say the word “halves.” “What Mr Ravi had actually said, was in fact, ‘both have indicated they will appeal’,” his office said. “While the error might appear inconsequential, Mr Ravi takes strong exception as the error has the potential to suggest malapropism on his part and consequently be a cause for embarrassment.   Further, there was never a ‘whole’ in the equation which could have prompted the suggestion of halves.” In paragraph 13 of the Straits Times report, it said: “The Singapore Mediation Centre has, as a standard procedure, sent a letter to both parties inviting them to resolve the matter amicably.” Mr Ravi was then quoted as having said, “I don’t think either of us is interested.” Mr Ravi’s office has clarified that this was “erroneous.” “What Mr Ravi had intimated was that he was not sure if either party was interested,” his office said. “The writer had omitted what Mr Ravi had also said, namely that if the Prime Minister, being the plaintiff who had initiated the action, were minded to propose mediation, then his client will consider it, and therefore the possibility of mediation has not been ruled out.” And in paragraph 14 of the Straits Times report, it quoted Mr Ngerng as having said, “I will continue writing about CPF in the meantime, and (Mr Ravi and I) will fight against summary judgment, to have a full-blown trial.” When contacted by The Online Citizen (TOC), Mr Ngerng said he did not say “full-blown trial.” Instead, what he did say was that he hopes there will be a “full trial.” “I hope that we are able to resist the summary judgment to go for an open trial,” Mr Ngerng told TOC, “because the CPF is a matter of public interest and I hope there will be a debate that will allow information to be revealed to the public so that there will be accountability and transparency.” Mr Ravi’s office also questioned the accuracy of the paragraph in the Straits Times. “The words contained in the parentheses suggest that both Mr Ravi and Mr Roy Ngerng are together engaged in the same objective,” Mr Ravi’s office said. “While it is true that Mr Ravi will strive to represent his client in the best manner, he cannot be identified with his client to suggest that he will fight against the summary judgment when he is not and never was the defendant. Mr Ravi is the Counsel and cannot be identified with the client’s cause.” When contacted by The Online Citizen (TOC), Mr Ravi said he has contacted the Straits Times about the inaccuracies and leaves it to the newspaper to make the necessary corrections. * Article first published on The Online Citizen  Read More →