-737420.jpg)
Saturday, November 22, 2008
-703950.jpg)
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Town Council explains herb garden removal
Town Council explains herb garden removal
Thursday, 30 October 2008, 9:02 pm 322 views
The following is a comment posted on The Online Citizen by Mr Goh Juak Kin, the General Manager of the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council, in response to media queries about the removal of the herb garden in Yishun. TOC has confirmed with the Town Council that Mr Goh indeed posted the comment.
In response to the media reports on the abovementioned, Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council would like to provide some clarification on the background of this matter.
The particular herb garden reported in the media was not a project by the Town Council nor Residents’ Committee (RC). Nonetheless, the Town Council allowed the garden to continue as we were appreciative of the residents’ commendable efforts to beautify their estate out of their own initiative.
Over the years, however, the maintenance of the garden was neglected, and very few people came forward to look after it. In spite of that, the Town Council did not take any action against the garden. This was until we received feedback from residents about the presence of rats in the vicinity.
On 3 October 2008, in response to the residents’ feedback about rats, officers from National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Town Council conducted a joint inspection at the said garden to investigate the source. Rat burrows were detected at the garden, which was found to be in a fairly unkempt state.
Our Property Officer then surveyed residents of Blk 819 around the garden area, and out of the 10 households spoken with, only 2 residents, Mdm Lim Loan and Mr Lim Ah Shuan claimed ownership of the garden. After our Property Officer explained to them the rodent problem and the need to upkeep and maintain the garden as responsible owners, both residents decided that they did not wish to keep the garden. However, they requested for some time to transplant some of the plants into pots, after which the Town Council could remove the rest of the garden. Other residents whom our Property Officer spoke with also indicated that they did not wish to maintain the garden anymore.
It was also explained to these residents that if they ever intended to take up gardening activities again, they could join the Community In Bloom garden a few blocks away at Blk 830. Community-In-Bloom gardens are a joint project between the Town Council and Residents’ Committees (RC), designed to foster camaraderie among community gardeners while ensuring proper management and central control. Mdm Lim and Mr Lim, however, declined to take up our Property Officer’s suggestion, citing old age as a reason.
On 20 October 2008, our Property Officer and horticulture contractor observed that the residents had already transplanted some plants into pots. The garden was eventually cleared on the same day, after having given the residents more than 2 weeks’ notice in advance.
On 23 October 2008, the Town Council received an email from resident Mr Mohd Rafiz Bin Mohyi Hapipi, expressing his unhappiness at the “sudden” removal of the abovementioned garden. On 24 October 2008, our Property Officer called Mr Mohd Rafiz personally to explain the Town Council’s actions, but he refused to accept our explanation and therefore reported the matter to the media.
While we understand Mr Mohd Rafiz’s sentiments, we wish to highlight the fact that the Town Council was willing to allow the garden to continue, but on the condition that the residents must take full responsibility to maintain it. Otherwise, it would be unfair to all the other residents in the vicinity, who would be faced with the rodent problem and the unwelcome consequences it brings.
We hope the above explanation has provided a more detailed background and objective sequence of events pertaining to the abovementioned matter. In spite of the fact that the residents had actually indicated to our Property Officer that they did not wish to continue gardening, the Town Council and the RC do indeed welcome all interested residents to join the Community-In-Bloom garden at Blk 830, Yishun Street 81.
Thank you.
Goh Juak Kin
General Manager
Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council
Thursday, 30 October 2008, 9:02 pm 322 views
The following is a comment posted on The Online Citizen by Mr Goh Juak Kin, the General Manager of the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council, in response to media queries about the removal of the herb garden in Yishun. TOC has confirmed with the Town Council that Mr Goh indeed posted the comment.
In response to the media reports on the abovementioned, Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council would like to provide some clarification on the background of this matter.
The particular herb garden reported in the media was not a project by the Town Council nor Residents’ Committee (RC). Nonetheless, the Town Council allowed the garden to continue as we were appreciative of the residents’ commendable efforts to beautify their estate out of their own initiative.
Over the years, however, the maintenance of the garden was neglected, and very few people came forward to look after it. In spite of that, the Town Council did not take any action against the garden. This was until we received feedback from residents about the presence of rats in the vicinity.
On 3 October 2008, in response to the residents’ feedback about rats, officers from National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Town Council conducted a joint inspection at the said garden to investigate the source. Rat burrows were detected at the garden, which was found to be in a fairly unkempt state.
Our Property Officer then surveyed residents of Blk 819 around the garden area, and out of the 10 households spoken with, only 2 residents, Mdm Lim Loan and Mr Lim Ah Shuan claimed ownership of the garden. After our Property Officer explained to them the rodent problem and the need to upkeep and maintain the garden as responsible owners, both residents decided that they did not wish to keep the garden. However, they requested for some time to transplant some of the plants into pots, after which the Town Council could remove the rest of the garden. Other residents whom our Property Officer spoke with also indicated that they did not wish to maintain the garden anymore.
It was also explained to these residents that if they ever intended to take up gardening activities again, they could join the Community In Bloom garden a few blocks away at Blk 830. Community-In-Bloom gardens are a joint project between the Town Council and Residents’ Committees (RC), designed to foster camaraderie among community gardeners while ensuring proper management and central control. Mdm Lim and Mr Lim, however, declined to take up our Property Officer’s suggestion, citing old age as a reason.
On 20 October 2008, our Property Officer and horticulture contractor observed that the residents had already transplanted some plants into pots. The garden was eventually cleared on the same day, after having given the residents more than 2 weeks’ notice in advance.
On 23 October 2008, the Town Council received an email from resident Mr Mohd Rafiz Bin Mohyi Hapipi, expressing his unhappiness at the “sudden” removal of the abovementioned garden. On 24 October 2008, our Property Officer called Mr Mohd Rafiz personally to explain the Town Council’s actions, but he refused to accept our explanation and therefore reported the matter to the media.
While we understand Mr Mohd Rafiz’s sentiments, we wish to highlight the fact that the Town Council was willing to allow the garden to continue, but on the condition that the residents must take full responsibility to maintain it. Otherwise, it would be unfair to all the other residents in the vicinity, who would be faced with the rodent problem and the unwelcome consequences it brings.
We hope the above explanation has provided a more detailed background and objective sequence of events pertaining to the abovementioned matter. In spite of the fact that the residents had actually indicated to our Property Officer that they did not wish to continue gardening, the Town Council and the RC do indeed welcome all interested residents to join the Community-In-Bloom garden at Blk 830, Yishun Street 81.
Thank you.
Goh Juak Kin
General Manager
Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council
Town Councils investments - be accountable to constituents
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/town-councils-investments-be-accountable-to-constituents/
Town Councils investments - be accountable to constituents
Thursday, 30 October 2008, 11:46 pm 196 views
Lim Chih Yang / Writer
The on-going financial crisis seems to claim victims in all shape and sizes, from all walks of life and from even the most unlikely of organizations.
Even as the various banks and financial institutions rush to contain the public anger over the failing of Lehman Brothers’ product, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported on 28 October 2008 that PAP Town Councils had invested in the same discredited products.
CNA’s report only says that, “Town councils said only a small percentage of their total investments were spent on those affected products.”
It seems the unlikeliest of union when one considers Town Councils’ sinking funds and a failed product from a major investment bank on Wall Street. Is this another black mark in the face of globalization? Not likely. It would nevertheless be prudent that as responsible stakeholders of Singapore, we would ask ourselves pertinent questions on the use of PAP Town Council sinking fund to invest in Lehman Brothers product.
For the uninitiated, it is perfectly legitimate that all Town Council manage sinking fund. This is common for condominium managements, for example, where they manage sinking funds to repair damages to the estate’s common areas or maintaining the elevators. In fact, from the report, it seems that the fourteen PAP Town Councils each manages between $30 million to $150 million in sinking funds. Another report back in 2007 put the amount managed by all the sixteen town councils at about $1 billion. Town Council sinking funds was previously governed by the Trustees Acts. Current guidelines stipulate that each town council can use 65 per cent of the funds to invest in government bonds, while up to 35 per cent can be invested in other financial instruments like corporate bonds and equities. Obviously, corporate bonds and equities carry a much higher risk of default than government bonds.
Re-assuring the public
When the report was first released by Channel NewsAsia, the various PAP Town Councils sought to reassure the public that despite the losses in Lehman Brothers products, the investments are minimal.
Dr Teo Ho Pin, Coordinating Chairman of the 14 PAP Town Councils and Mayor of North West District said:
“Maybe a couple of percentage out of the total investment portfolio (were used in those investments), so the exposure will not affect the overall investment portfolio or the sinking funds per se. There’s definitely no fear that any of the PAP town councils’ sinking funds will be wiped out. All the supporting PAP town councils’ sinking funds are in safe hands.”
In fact words like “conservative”, “err on the side of caution”, “guarantees the principal amount”…rattled off the mouth of the various PAP Town Councils management. Jurong Town Council had in fact stated that they did not invest in any of the failed products but had invested about 18% of its sinking fund of $85million into riskier products.
“The position that we’ve taken is really to be very cautious with our investments because we’re very clear that these are public funds, and therefore we decided to err on the side of being conservative in our investment policy. The public do not have to worry… there will not be enough funds in order to take care of their needs.” - Halimah Yacob, Jurong Town Council.
Perhaps I may be old fashion but I had always thought that Town Councils collect conservancy charges for the purpose of maintaining the estates.
When did these Town Councils start operating as fund managers?
Big exposure - to risks
Of bigger concerns are the losses that the Town Councils’ may have incurred in this current financial fallout. Words do not mean much in terms of assurance, not when even behemoths like Lehman Brothers could go bankrupt and file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and AIG was nearly brought to its knees if not for the US $85 billion bailout by the Fed.
Assuming that a median sinking fund of $60 million is managed by each of the fourteen PAP Town Council, this will work out to a whopping $840 million in total managed by all the fourteen PAP Town Council. Now given that the guidelines stipulate that only a maximum of 35 per cent of the sinking fund could be invested in corporate bonds and equities, let us assume that only 5% of the sinking fund is used to invest in relatively riskier investment assets like corporate bonds and equities. That will still work out to a whopping $42 million that are exposed to risky assets.
In a bear market that we are facing now, losses of more than 50% in risky assets are not unheard of. Is our sinking fund held by the Town Councils safe from the ravages of the financial crisis?
Town Councils must account to constituents
In the interest of public transparency and accountability, should not the PAP Town Councils give a detailed account to their constituents on the use of the sinking funds and its investment returns – or losses? In fact, given that the sinking funds are public funds, should not the PAP Town Councils provide regular updates to their constituents on their stewardship over the funds?
Words can be evasive, divisive and worse, intrusive. While it is commendable that the PAP Town Councils had sought to allay the concern that the financial investment losses in Lehman Brothers products may lead to bankruptcies of the funds, nothing can be more re-assuring to their constituents than complete and transparent accountability to the public.
A 5% loss in $100 is no more than $5, but a 5% loss in $840 million works out to $42 million, certainly not small change.
Interestingly, Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong was more forthcoming with his Town Council’s accounts. He was quoted as saying that of the $6 million in sinking fund held by Potong Pasir Town Council, $3 million is spent on government bonds like LTA bonds, while the other half is in the fixed deposit.
The PAP Town Councils should take a leaf from Mr Chiam See Tong’s approach to accountability and provide real figures of their investment management. Only when a thorough report of the sinking funds’ performance with up-to-date real figures can the public’s concern be put to rest.
Town Councils investments - be accountable to constituents
Thursday, 30 October 2008, 11:46 pm 196 views
Lim Chih Yang / Writer
The on-going financial crisis seems to claim victims in all shape and sizes, from all walks of life and from even the most unlikely of organizations.Even as the various banks and financial institutions rush to contain the public anger over the failing of Lehman Brothers’ product, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) reported on 28 October 2008 that PAP Town Councils had invested in the same discredited products.
CNA’s report only says that, “Town councils said only a small percentage of their total investments were spent on those affected products.”
It seems the unlikeliest of union when one considers Town Councils’ sinking funds and a failed product from a major investment bank on Wall Street. Is this another black mark in the face of globalization? Not likely. It would nevertheless be prudent that as responsible stakeholders of Singapore, we would ask ourselves pertinent questions on the use of PAP Town Council sinking fund to invest in Lehman Brothers product.
For the uninitiated, it is perfectly legitimate that all Town Council manage sinking fund. This is common for condominium managements, for example, where they manage sinking funds to repair damages to the estate’s common areas or maintaining the elevators. In fact, from the report, it seems that the fourteen PAP Town Councils each manages between $30 million to $150 million in sinking funds. Another report back in 2007 put the amount managed by all the sixteen town councils at about $1 billion. Town Council sinking funds was previously governed by the Trustees Acts. Current guidelines stipulate that each town council can use 65 per cent of the funds to invest in government bonds, while up to 35 per cent can be invested in other financial instruments like corporate bonds and equities. Obviously, corporate bonds and equities carry a much higher risk of default than government bonds.
Re-assuring the public
When the report was first released by Channel NewsAsia, the various PAP Town Councils sought to reassure the public that despite the losses in Lehman Brothers products, the investments are minimal.
Dr Teo Ho Pin, Coordinating Chairman of the 14 PAP Town Councils and Mayor of North West District said:
“Maybe a couple of percentage out of the total investment portfolio (were used in those investments), so the exposure will not affect the overall investment portfolio or the sinking funds per se. There’s definitely no fear that any of the PAP town councils’ sinking funds will be wiped out. All the supporting PAP town councils’ sinking funds are in safe hands.”
In fact words like “conservative”, “err on the side of caution”, “guarantees the principal amount”…rattled off the mouth of the various PAP Town Councils management. Jurong Town Council had in fact stated that they did not invest in any of the failed products but had invested about 18% of its sinking fund of $85million into riskier products.
“The position that we’ve taken is really to be very cautious with our investments because we’re very clear that these are public funds, and therefore we decided to err on the side of being conservative in our investment policy. The public do not have to worry… there will not be enough funds in order to take care of their needs.” - Halimah Yacob, Jurong Town Council.
Perhaps I may be old fashion but I had always thought that Town Councils collect conservancy charges for the purpose of maintaining the estates.
When did these Town Councils start operating as fund managers?
Big exposure - to risks
Of bigger concerns are the losses that the Town Councils’ may have incurred in this current financial fallout. Words do not mean much in terms of assurance, not when even behemoths like Lehman Brothers could go bankrupt and file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and AIG was nearly brought to its knees if not for the US $85 billion bailout by the Fed.
Assuming that a median sinking fund of $60 million is managed by each of the fourteen PAP Town Council, this will work out to a whopping $840 million in total managed by all the fourteen PAP Town Council. Now given that the guidelines stipulate that only a maximum of 35 per cent of the sinking fund could be invested in corporate bonds and equities, let us assume that only 5% of the sinking fund is used to invest in relatively riskier investment assets like corporate bonds and equities. That will still work out to a whopping $42 million that are exposed to risky assets.
In a bear market that we are facing now, losses of more than 50% in risky assets are not unheard of. Is our sinking fund held by the Town Councils safe from the ravages of the financial crisis?
Town Councils must account to constituents
In the interest of public transparency and accountability, should not the PAP Town Councils give a detailed account to their constituents on the use of the sinking funds and its investment returns – or losses? In fact, given that the sinking funds are public funds, should not the PAP Town Councils provide regular updates to their constituents on their stewardship over the funds?
Words can be evasive, divisive and worse, intrusive. While it is commendable that the PAP Town Councils had sought to allay the concern that the financial investment losses in Lehman Brothers products may lead to bankruptcies of the funds, nothing can be more re-assuring to their constituents than complete and transparent accountability to the public.
A 5% loss in $100 is no more than $5, but a 5% loss in $840 million works out to $42 million, certainly not small change.
Interestingly, Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong was more forthcoming with his Town Council’s accounts. He was quoted as saying that of the $6 million in sinking fund held by Potong Pasir Town Council, $3 million is spent on government bonds like LTA bonds, while the other half is in the fixed deposit.
The PAP Town Councils should take a leaf from Mr Chiam See Tong’s approach to accountability and provide real figures of their investment management. Only when a thorough report of the sinking funds’ performance with up-to-date real figures can the public’s concern be put to rest.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Destruction of herb garden contradicts active ageing message, says resident
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/destruction-of-herb-garden-contradicts-active-ageing-message-says-residen/
Destruction of herb garden contradicts active ageing message, says resident
Tuesday, 28 October 2008, 7:28 am 44 views
This is a follow-up to TOC’s earlier publication of an email from Mr Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi about the destruction of a herb garden in Yishun.
Teng Jingwei
All that remains of a 21-year old herb garden is a patch of carelessly levelled soil and several haphazardly arranged potted plants. The herb garden located at Block 819, Yishun, was a haven for senior citizens and other residents alike. It was razed to the ground a few days earlier by the town council on the pretext of it being the source of rodents in Zone D, which the area is in.
Mr Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi, aged 33, who resides in the area, lodged a complaint with the town council about the removal of the garden. His letter to the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council questions the relevance of such action in the face of active ageing campaigns, particularly the recommendation to “encourage seniors to lead active lifestyles” made by the Committee of Ageing Issues. Mr Rafiz asserts that “the town council is sending out a contradicting message”.
“They would have had something to do if the herb garden was not destroyed” he said, referring to a couple of senior citizens who could be seen sitting around listlessly. “The herb garden served as a gathering area for neighbourhood activities such as barbeques and brought joy to the community.”
Mr Rafiz affirms that the plot of land had been in use for 21 years and is almost as old as the block of flats. “There was an implicit agreement to the existence of the herb garden,” he said. Residents attended to the garden voluntarily, and the elderly in particular looked after the herbs to keep themselves occupied. “There were no designated caretakers but if we would like to take some herbs from the garden we would ask permission from the 6 or 7 senior citizens who regularly water the plants,” Mr Rafiz explained.
According to him, the town council did not consult the residents before they cleared the garden.
The plants were dug up within a few hours one morning while he was away at work.
Unsuspecting residents returned to a scene of wreckage littered with uprooted herbs. Plants that could be salvaged are now stored in an array of pots near the void deck, but these bore no resemblance to the healthy garden that was once resplendent with life and joy..
The manager of the Residents’ Committee stated that the garden was removed in response to complaints of rodents breeding in Zone D. Mr Rafiz informed TOC that the sightings of rodents are at the coffee shop which is a 5-minutes walk away. What was termed as a “blanket policy”, in the words of Mr Rafiz, may have been an “over-simplistic approach” to solving the pest problem. He also maintains that there were no signs of damage by rodents on the herbs.
Mr Koh, aged 42, whose mother-in-law lives in block 819, has been visiting the area for more than 10 years. He expressed regret over the loss of the herbs, many of which had medicinal properties. “I don’t see any reason behind the destruction of the garden,” he said.
Mr Rafiz and Residents’ Committee members were to discuss “the unhappiness cause by the destruction of the herb garden”. Residents’ Committee members, however, did not show up for the meeting on Sunday, 26 October.
Mr Rafiz also told TOC that the Member of Parliament for the area, Ms Lee Bee Wah, has also not contacted him or the elderly residents who had cared for the garden.
Destruction of herb garden contradicts active ageing message, says resident
Tuesday, 28 October 2008, 7:28 am 44 views
This is a follow-up to TOC’s earlier publication of an email from Mr Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi about the destruction of a herb garden in Yishun.
Teng Jingwei
All that remains of a 21-year old herb garden is a patch of carelessly levelled soil and several haphazardly arranged potted plants. The herb garden located at Block 819, Yishun, was a haven for senior citizens and other residents alike. It was razed to the ground a few days earlier by the town council on the pretext of it being the source of rodents in Zone D, which the area is in.
Mr Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi, aged 33, who resides in the area, lodged a complaint with the town council about the removal of the garden. His letter to the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council questions the relevance of such action in the face of active ageing campaigns, particularly the recommendation to “encourage seniors to lead active lifestyles” made by the Committee of Ageing Issues. Mr Rafiz asserts that “the town council is sending out a contradicting message”.
“They would have had something to do if the herb garden was not destroyed” he said, referring to a couple of senior citizens who could be seen sitting around listlessly. “The herb garden served as a gathering area for neighbourhood activities such as barbeques and brought joy to the community.”
Mr Rafiz affirms that the plot of land had been in use for 21 years and is almost as old as the block of flats. “There was an implicit agreement to the existence of the herb garden,” he said. Residents attended to the garden voluntarily, and the elderly in particular looked after the herbs to keep themselves occupied. “There were no designated caretakers but if we would like to take some herbs from the garden we would ask permission from the 6 or 7 senior citizens who regularly water the plants,” Mr Rafiz explained.
According to him, the town council did not consult the residents before they cleared the garden.
The plants were dug up within a few hours one morning while he was away at work.
Unsuspecting residents returned to a scene of wreckage littered with uprooted herbs. Plants that could be salvaged are now stored in an array of pots near the void deck, but these bore no resemblance to the healthy garden that was once resplendent with life and joy..
The manager of the Residents’ Committee stated that the garden was removed in response to complaints of rodents breeding in Zone D. Mr Rafiz informed TOC that the sightings of rodents are at the coffee shop which is a 5-minutes walk away. What was termed as a “blanket policy”, in the words of Mr Rafiz, may have been an “over-simplistic approach” to solving the pest problem. He also maintains that there were no signs of damage by rodents on the herbs.
Mr Koh, aged 42, whose mother-in-law lives in block 819, has been visiting the area for more than 10 years. He expressed regret over the loss of the herbs, many of which had medicinal properties. “I don’t see any reason behind the destruction of the garden,” he said.
Mr Rafiz and Residents’ Committee members were to discuss “the unhappiness cause by the destruction of the herb garden”. Residents’ Committee members, however, did not show up for the meeting on Sunday, 26 October.
Mr Rafiz also told TOC that the Member of Parliament for the area, Ms Lee Bee Wah, has also not contacted him or the elderly residents who had cared for the garden.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sudden removal of herb garden heartless, says resident
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/10/sudden-removal-of-herb-garden-heartless-says-resident/#comment-27546
Sudden removal of herb garden heartless, says resident
Friday, 24 October 2008, 8:01 am 934 views
We received this email from Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi which he wrote to the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council.
I am writing to express my deepest regret and unhappiness over the sudden destruction of the herb garden surrounding block 819 Yishun Street 81.
I have been a resident of this block and neighbourhod for the past 7 years. This was a peaceful and happy neighbourhood with a good mix of multi-cutural elderly, young adults and children. My two school-going children enjoy the company of Chinese and Indian friends as well as the care and concern of the eldery in the neighbourhood.
Since the day I moved into this neighbourhood, I have seen the elderly here tending to the herb garden that they have worked on for over twenty years. Others who retire later joined in and the herb garden became a regular routine activity that kept the elderly here active and cheerful.
At the same time, while they were working on the garden or having their short rests in between, the elderly here lend their watchful eyes over the children. My own children grew up with their friendly smiles and hugs. They learnt the value of multiculturalism through experience away from force-fed curriculum of National Education taught in schools. My own parents who are themselves retirees, although not staying with me, frequented my place and enjoyed the company of people their age here.
The last few days have been traumatic for the elderly here. With much grieve they saw the herb garden that they have put their sweat and soul in for many years being destroyed heartlessly. I saw tears and heard voices of despair as some of the elderly tried to salvage whatever is left from the plants into pots. Some had given up. An elderly Chinese neighbour at the second floor shared with me, “Sudah Dua Puluh Satu Tahun saya jaga ini pokok. Ini bukan pokok bunga tapi semua ini pokok Ubat yang banyak gunanya. Siapa lagi yang tahu? Kita (orang tua) saja yang tahu. Saya sedih. Macam saya nak cakap suruh buang saja semua jadi saya tak nampak. Apa boleh buat? Diorang boleh buat apa diorang suka. Dua puluh satu tahun diorang takda peduli tapi sekarang semua buang.”
“It has been 21 years since I cared for these plants. These are not flowers but all these are herbs that have many uses. Who else would know (about the herbs)? Only us (the aged) would know. I’m sad. I feel like telling them to dispose of everything so that I can’t see (anything left behind - note: some small plant in pots were left behind). What can I do? They can do what they want. For 21 years nobody cared about this area and now every they dispose.”)
I personally share my tears and grieve with them. I find the whole episode appalling. It is an outright contradiction to the messages of Active Aging that have been sloganised over and over.
My own daughter who is only a kindergarten student was upset when she saw the workers grabbed and dumped the plants aside. I personally feel that the actions in this episode is a reflection of heartless and cold-hearted mechanical policies.
Twenty years of effort have been destroyed. The pride of the aged here has been badly hurt. This episode will definitely be part of my memory and the memory of my children as well as the children in this neighbourhood.
Please relay my message to the Town Council Advisor.
Thank You.
In Utmost Unhappiness,
Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi
Sudden removal of herb garden heartless, says resident
Friday, 24 October 2008, 8:01 am 934 views
We received this email from Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi which he wrote to the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council.
I am writing to express my deepest regret and unhappiness over the sudden destruction of the herb garden surrounding block 819 Yishun Street 81.
I have been a resident of this block and neighbourhod for the past 7 years. This was a peaceful and happy neighbourhood with a good mix of multi-cutural elderly, young adults and children. My two school-going children enjoy the company of Chinese and Indian friends as well as the care and concern of the eldery in the neighbourhood.
Since the day I moved into this neighbourhood, I have seen the elderly here tending to the herb garden that they have worked on for over twenty years. Others who retire later joined in and the herb garden became a regular routine activity that kept the elderly here active and cheerful.
At the same time, while they were working on the garden or having their short rests in between, the elderly here lend their watchful eyes over the children. My own children grew up with their friendly smiles and hugs. They learnt the value of multiculturalism through experience away from force-fed curriculum of National Education taught in schools. My own parents who are themselves retirees, although not staying with me, frequented my place and enjoyed the company of people their age here.
The last few days have been traumatic for the elderly here. With much grieve they saw the herb garden that they have put their sweat and soul in for many years being destroyed heartlessly. I saw tears and heard voices of despair as some of the elderly tried to salvage whatever is left from the plants into pots. Some had given up. An elderly Chinese neighbour at the second floor shared with me, “Sudah Dua Puluh Satu Tahun saya jaga ini pokok. Ini bukan pokok bunga tapi semua ini pokok Ubat yang banyak gunanya. Siapa lagi yang tahu? Kita (orang tua) saja yang tahu. Saya sedih. Macam saya nak cakap suruh buang saja semua jadi saya tak nampak. Apa boleh buat? Diorang boleh buat apa diorang suka. Dua puluh satu tahun diorang takda peduli tapi sekarang semua buang.”
“It has been 21 years since I cared for these plants. These are not flowers but all these are herbs that have many uses. Who else would know (about the herbs)? Only us (the aged) would know. I’m sad. I feel like telling them to dispose of everything so that I can’t see (anything left behind - note: some small plant in pots were left behind). What can I do? They can do what they want. For 21 years nobody cared about this area and now every they dispose.”)
I personally share my tears and grieve with them. I find the whole episode appalling. It is an outright contradiction to the messages of Active Aging that have been sloganised over and over.
My own daughter who is only a kindergarten student was upset when she saw the workers grabbed and dumped the plants aside. I personally feel that the actions in this episode is a reflection of heartless and cold-hearted mechanical policies.
Twenty years of effort have been destroyed. The pride of the aged here has been badly hurt. This episode will definitely be part of my memory and the memory of my children as well as the children in this neighbourhood.
Please relay my message to the Town Council Advisor.
Thank You.
In Utmost Unhappiness,
Rafiz Mohyi Hapipi
Friday, August 8, 2008
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/08/national-day-or-mp-day/
National Day or MP Day?
Thursday, 7 August 2008, 12:00 pm 1,244 views
Announcement: Watch out for TOC’s National Day video tomorrow. It includes an original song by the band Blackstar.
Gerald Giam / Deputy Editor
As August 9th draws near, springing up all over the island are posters of smiling People’s Action Party Members of Parliament (MP) and Government ministers wishing Singaporeans a Happy National Day. While this might be a regular sight that Singaporeans have been conditioned to accept all these years, I question its necessity.
Like most other Singaporeans, I love National Day and the festivities that come with it. Singapore has achieved much over the past 43 years and we have much to be proud of and grateful for.
But why is there a need for politicians to splash their faces across every other National Day poster? In my little sub-constituency of Canberra in Sembawang GRC, I have counted at least two giant sized billboards.
When I travel through Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Timah and Tanjong Pagar, almost every other lamp post on the main roads is decked with smiling pictures of PAP politicians superimposed on pictures of children. The main intersection of each town has a giant billboard with all the MPs in the GRC waving, some even with their names and titles labelled on their photos, lest any resident forgets.
One huge billboard in Joo Chiat even has a politician with his fist clenched across his chest, as if reciting the Pledge. (Picture right).
The purpose of these billboards is quite clear: to give the MPs more visibility so that residents will recognize them and hopefully vote for them at the next elections.
Who pays?
I am guessing all these posters and billboards are not paid out of PAP coffers, but from town council funds — to which I contribute over $740 each year.
I emailed Sembawang Town Council and Tanjong Pagar Town Council to ask, but they did not reply. Strange, since my town council has always been very prompt in replying to the municipal problems I have raised.
Is this a prudent use of my hard-earned money, particularly in a time of a slowing economy and high inflation? Why should my town council payments be used to further my MP’s political interests?
Worse, some giant billboards are lit up the entire night with bright spotlights. What happened to our eco-friendly drive? And what about the cost of the electricity used, keeping in mind that the prices of fuel have increased recently.
In fact, some of these posters look no different from election posters sans the lightning symbol. Doesn’t the Parliamentary Elections Act prohibit election advertising outside of the campaign period?
I do not see posters of MPs in opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang. In Potong Pasir, there are some posters, but without Chiam See Tong’s face. Hougang has a simple landscaped display of the Singapore flag along Avenue 2 – and no, Low Thia Khiang’s picture is not included either.
Views of other Singaporeans
I checked with a Singaporean friend living in the US whether such banners and posters appeared on the 4th of July, America’s Independence Day. There were none in the city where she lives.
She emailed me, “I personally think that the banners…look hideous and distasteful. When I tried to raise this matter up with someone a long time ago, I remember being told off that those posters were being targeted at the heartlanders.”
She added, “To put banners like the one you sent me…when there is no GE (General Election) near in sight, that’s definitely propagandistic”.
Another friend, who works in the media, told me: “It gets very confusing here. Can’t tell the difference between country, state, government and ruling party.”
Suggestions
I would like to suggest that the PAP and its town councils immediately stop the use of public funds to promote their partisan causes. For a start, all the spotlights for the billboards should remain off at night to save electricity.
I hope our ruling party MPs realise that National Day is a day of celebration for the whole nation, not a season to honour themselves.
=================
Comments:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/08/national-day-or-mp-day/#comments
National Day or MP Day?
Thursday, 7 August 2008, 12:00 pm 1,244 views
Announcement: Watch out for TOC’s National Day video tomorrow. It includes an original song by the band Blackstar.
Gerald Giam / Deputy Editor
As August 9th draws near, springing up all over the island are posters of smiling People’s Action Party Members of Parliament (MP) and Government ministers wishing Singaporeans a Happy National Day. While this might be a regular sight that Singaporeans have been conditioned to accept all these years, I question its necessity.
Like most other Singaporeans, I love National Day and the festivities that come with it. Singapore has achieved much over the past 43 years and we have much to be proud of and grateful for.
But why is there a need for politicians to splash their faces across every other National Day poster? In my little sub-constituency of Canberra in Sembawang GRC, I have counted at least two giant sized billboards.
When I travel through Ang Mo Kio, Bukit Timah and Tanjong Pagar, almost every other lamp post on the main roads is decked with smiling pictures of PAP politicians superimposed on pictures of children. The main intersection of each town has a giant billboard with all the MPs in the GRC waving, some even with their names and titles labelled on their photos, lest any resident forgets.
One huge billboard in Joo Chiat even has a politician with his fist clenched across his chest, as if reciting the Pledge. (Picture right).
The purpose of these billboards is quite clear: to give the MPs more visibility so that residents will recognize them and hopefully vote for them at the next elections.
Who pays?
I am guessing all these posters and billboards are not paid out of PAP coffers, but from town council funds — to which I contribute over $740 each year.
I emailed Sembawang Town Council and Tanjong Pagar Town Council to ask, but they did not reply. Strange, since my town council has always been very prompt in replying to the municipal problems I have raised.
Is this a prudent use of my hard-earned money, particularly in a time of a slowing economy and high inflation? Why should my town council payments be used to further my MP’s political interests?
Worse, some giant billboards are lit up the entire night with bright spotlights. What happened to our eco-friendly drive? And what about the cost of the electricity used, keeping in mind that the prices of fuel have increased recently.
In fact, some of these posters look no different from election posters sans the lightning symbol. Doesn’t the Parliamentary Elections Act prohibit election advertising outside of the campaign period?
I do not see posters of MPs in opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang. In Potong Pasir, there are some posters, but without Chiam See Tong’s face. Hougang has a simple landscaped display of the Singapore flag along Avenue 2 – and no, Low Thia Khiang’s picture is not included either.
Views of other Singaporeans
I checked with a Singaporean friend living in the US whether such banners and posters appeared on the 4th of July, America’s Independence Day. There were none in the city where she lives.
She emailed me, “I personally think that the banners…look hideous and distasteful. When I tried to raise this matter up with someone a long time ago, I remember being told off that those posters were being targeted at the heartlanders.”
She added, “To put banners like the one you sent me…when there is no GE (General Election) near in sight, that’s definitely propagandistic”.
Another friend, who works in the media, told me: “It gets very confusing here. Can’t tell the difference between country, state, government and ruling party.”
Suggestions
I would like to suggest that the PAP and its town councils immediately stop the use of public funds to promote their partisan causes. For a start, all the spotlights for the billboards should remain off at night to save electricity.
I hope our ruling party MPs realise that National Day is a day of celebration for the whole nation, not a season to honour themselves.
=================
Comments:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/08/national-day-or-mp-day/#comments
Saturday, August 2, 2008
.jpg)
.jpg)
请防止巴刹火患发生
（2008-08-02）
● 黄永民
在勿洛南大牌16巴刹，有一间小店，#01-249，每天收摊后，把大量的货物（香烛，金银纸料）放在小店的门口，不收进店内，这是非常危险的事，因为这些都是十分容易燃烧的东西，万一发生火患，把巴刹烧掉，有很多小贩的生活将成大问题，投诉东海岸市镇理事会也无法解决，希望民防局能真正的把问题解决，防止火患发生。
● 黄永民
在勿洛南大牌16巴刹，有一间小店，#01-249，每天收摊后，把大量的货物（香烛，金银纸料）放在小店的门口，不收进店内，这是非常危险的事，因为这些都是十分容易燃烧的东西，万一发生火患，把巴刹烧掉，有很多小贩的生活将成大问题，投诉东海岸市镇理事会也无法解决，希望民防局能真正的把问题解决，防止火患发生。
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Friday, June 20, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Aljunied Town Council - Taking the easy way out?
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/05/07/aljunied-town-council-taking-the-easy-way-out/
Aljunied Town Council - Taking the easy way out?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on May 7, 2008
Leong Sze Hian & Andrew Loh
All 14 town councils run by the People’s Action Party (PAP) will not be increasing their Service and Conservancy (S&C) charges this year.
- Channel NewsAsia, “PAP town councils to freeze S&C charges this year” (February 28, 2008)
Barely two and a half months later, on May 5 2008, this is what ‘officials’ at the PAP-run Aljunied Town Council (TC) said:
Officials also said they will consider raising the conservancy charges for the dirtiest precincts to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them …
- “Aljunied trash index aims to wipe out litterbugs.” (Straits Times, May 5, 2008)
The Finance Minister had called for all town councils to freeze their fees during the recent Budget debate in Parliament when he announced the extension of a one-year freeze on fee increases for government-provided services till the end of 2008.
And indeed, as the Channel NewsAsia report said, all 14 PAP TCs declared that they will not increase S&CC for 2008.
However, it seems that PAP town councils, and Aljunied GRC TC in particular, are already looking for ways to increase S&C charges next year – Aljunied TC citing “hardcore litterbugs” in the “dirtiest precincts” as its reason for doing so.
With inflation hitting 26-year highs, isn’t this proposed increase in fees for “the dirtiest precincts” a breach of the PAP town councils’ promise to Singaporeans?
Aljunied GRC Town Council
The fact of the matter is that Aljunied TC, along with all PAP-run TCs, have enough funds to address the “hardcore litterbugs” problem. (Read here for TOC’s earlier article on town councils’ funds.)
According to Aljunied Town Council’s Annual Reports, it had $84 million in its Sinking Fund, an increase of 5 per cent over it’s $80 million in 2005/2006.
Its accumulated surpluses as at 31 March 2007 was $5 million.
Its funds invested with fund managers was $44 million, an increase of about 33 per cent over the $30 million in 2005/2006.
In an earlier article, TOC reported:
According to the Straits Times’ report of March 25, 2006, “The gathering storm”:
Taking into account all the grants from the Government, the Aljunied Town Council, for example, gets $560 per household for the financial year ending March 2005.
The grants include funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC), which is controlled by the Ministry of National Development.
In contrast, government grants came up to just $113 per household in Potong Pasir.
In another report on the same day, “Hougang’s Low may be ‘heart’ to beat”, the Straits Times reported:
Government grants came up to about $111 per household in Hougang in 2004-05. By contrast, neighbouring Aljunied Town Council, which has access to funds such as the government-controlled Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC), got $560 per household for the same period.
One therefore will have to question why the Aljunied Town Council charges more for S&CC than Potong Pasir and Hougang, across the board – from 2 rooms to executive flats – when the Aljunied TC is getting more government grants than the two opposition wards.
In one instant, a one-roomer’s S&CC in Aljunied Crescent rose from $3.50 to $18.50 from 1994 to 2005 – an increase of about 428 per cent.
Raising fees, penalties, legal cost, jail, lose your home!
Instead of charging more, how about reducing S & CC for the cleaner precincts instead?
Instead of using penalties almost all the time, how about incentives to motivate people, for a change?
By the way, we understand that if you couldn’t pay your S & CC, the penalty used to be just 50 cents or a dollar or so.
Now, we believe it is 2 per cent per month of the amount owed or a fixed penalty of a few dollars, whichever is the higher.
2 per cent is the highest charge for all financial transactions allowed in Singapore, and only credit cards charge such a high rate.
If you can’t pay your S & CC, you are slapped with penalties. If you still can’t pay, you get a legal letter for which you have to pay the legal cost. As it’s a standard letter for which thousands are sent every month, why charge $20 as the legal fee for such a letter?
If you still can’t pay, you are charged in court, and slapped with a fine.
Well, here’s the paradox - if you can’t pay for your S & CC, how can you afford to pay the fine?
If you can’t pay the fine, you may end up in jail.
By the way, how many people in Singapore have been to jail?
The Town Council Act also empowers the Town Council to sell your HDB flat to recover unpaid S & CC.
A billion dollars in funds, yet…
In the spirit of keeping one’s promise, this new idea to increase S & CC should be nipped in the bud, before we waste anymore of taxpayers’ money and time to figure out how to implement it.
Perhaps our MPs may have rather short memories, as the promise was made just about 2 months ago.
By the way, with more than a billion dollars in PAP town councils’ sinking funds, as well as operating surpluses – does Aljunied Town Council still need to charge more “to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them”, as officials at the TC claimed?
It is high time that PAP-run Town Councils stop taking the easy way out.
Read also:
Aljunied Town Council and a matter of principle by Mr Wang.
More and more enigmatic by Melvin Tan.
Aljunied Town Council - Taking the easy way out?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on May 7, 2008
Leong Sze Hian & Andrew Loh
All 14 town councils run by the People’s Action Party (PAP) will not be increasing their Service and Conservancy (S&C) charges this year.
- Channel NewsAsia, “PAP town councils to freeze S&C charges this year” (February 28, 2008)
Barely two and a half months later, on May 5 2008, this is what ‘officials’ at the PAP-run Aljunied Town Council (TC) said:
Officials also said they will consider raising the conservancy charges for the dirtiest precincts to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them …
- “Aljunied trash index aims to wipe out litterbugs.” (Straits Times, May 5, 2008)
The Finance Minister had called for all town councils to freeze their fees during the recent Budget debate in Parliament when he announced the extension of a one-year freeze on fee increases for government-provided services till the end of 2008.
And indeed, as the Channel NewsAsia report said, all 14 PAP TCs declared that they will not increase S&CC for 2008.
However, it seems that PAP town councils, and Aljunied GRC TC in particular, are already looking for ways to increase S&C charges next year – Aljunied TC citing “hardcore litterbugs” in the “dirtiest precincts” as its reason for doing so.
With inflation hitting 26-year highs, isn’t this proposed increase in fees for “the dirtiest precincts” a breach of the PAP town councils’ promise to Singaporeans?
Aljunied GRC Town Council
The fact of the matter is that Aljunied TC, along with all PAP-run TCs, have enough funds to address the “hardcore litterbugs” problem. (Read here for TOC’s earlier article on town councils’ funds.)
According to Aljunied Town Council’s Annual Reports, it had $84 million in its Sinking Fund, an increase of 5 per cent over it’s $80 million in 2005/2006.
Its accumulated surpluses as at 31 March 2007 was $5 million.
Its funds invested with fund managers was $44 million, an increase of about 33 per cent over the $30 million in 2005/2006.
In an earlier article, TOC reported:
According to the Straits Times’ report of March 25, 2006, “The gathering storm”:
Taking into account all the grants from the Government, the Aljunied Town Council, for example, gets $560 per household for the financial year ending March 2005.
The grants include funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC), which is controlled by the Ministry of National Development.
In contrast, government grants came up to just $113 per household in Potong Pasir.
In another report on the same day, “Hougang’s Low may be ‘heart’ to beat”, the Straits Times reported:
Government grants came up to about $111 per household in Hougang in 2004-05. By contrast, neighbouring Aljunied Town Council, which has access to funds such as the government-controlled Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC), got $560 per household for the same period.
One therefore will have to question why the Aljunied Town Council charges more for S&CC than Potong Pasir and Hougang, across the board – from 2 rooms to executive flats – when the Aljunied TC is getting more government grants than the two opposition wards.
In one instant, a one-roomer’s S&CC in Aljunied Crescent rose from $3.50 to $18.50 from 1994 to 2005 – an increase of about 428 per cent.
Raising fees, penalties, legal cost, jail, lose your home!
Instead of charging more, how about reducing S & CC for the cleaner precincts instead?
Instead of using penalties almost all the time, how about incentives to motivate people, for a change?
By the way, we understand that if you couldn’t pay your S & CC, the penalty used to be just 50 cents or a dollar or so.
Now, we believe it is 2 per cent per month of the amount owed or a fixed penalty of a few dollars, whichever is the higher.
2 per cent is the highest charge for all financial transactions allowed in Singapore, and only credit cards charge such a high rate.
If you can’t pay your S & CC, you are slapped with penalties. If you still can’t pay, you get a legal letter for which you have to pay the legal cost. As it’s a standard letter for which thousands are sent every month, why charge $20 as the legal fee for such a letter?
If you still can’t pay, you are charged in court, and slapped with a fine.
Well, here’s the paradox - if you can’t pay for your S & CC, how can you afford to pay the fine?
If you can’t pay the fine, you may end up in jail.
By the way, how many people in Singapore have been to jail?
The Town Council Act also empowers the Town Council to sell your HDB flat to recover unpaid S & CC.
A billion dollars in funds, yet…
In the spirit of keeping one’s promise, this new idea to increase S & CC should be nipped in the bud, before we waste anymore of taxpayers’ money and time to figure out how to implement it.
Perhaps our MPs may have rather short memories, as the promise was made just about 2 months ago.
By the way, with more than a billion dollars in PAP town councils’ sinking funds, as well as operating surpluses – does Aljunied Town Council still need to charge more “to cover the extra work that goes into maintaining them”, as officials at the TC claimed?
It is high time that PAP-run Town Councils stop taking the easy way out.
Read also:
Aljunied Town Council and a matter of principle by Mr Wang.
More and more enigmatic by Melvin Tan.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)