SMRT is responsible, says Shanmugam

Some letters to our MSM will never get published, such as this one to TODAY, which is one reason why I set up this blog.

Dear Editor

I refer to the above captioned report (Today, June 21).

As the Law Minister had slammed public listed companies over "security", he seemed to have clarified on two important issues :-

(a) Whether a "private sector organisation" like the SMRT is directly responsible for the security of the premises of a gazetted "Protected Place",

(b) Who should be paying for the security costs when the profits of a public listed transporter, such as SMRT, go to the shareholders ?

His answer to (a) is clearly SMRT has direct responsibility. The physical hardware for ensuring security protection, like the CCTVs; and its software for implementation of security measures such as the monitoring of security has to be the responsibility of the "private" company as well.

His answer to (b) above, which seemed to be aimed at appeasing public anger and concern over this security breach, is that costs should not be borne by the ordinary Singaporeans, but by the "public listed company" and its shareholders.

While the physical hardware and software for implementing security could be traced to that of SMRT, a basic question remains unanswerd, i.e., - Who should ensure the basic safety provided for the general public is adequate and what if there is a lapse of security provisions for a gazetted "Protected Place" by a "private" company? I am sure the current laws do not spelled these out clearly. However, the duty of care would certainly falls on the Government and the relevant Ministries.

This "safety and duty of care demanded" is not confined to the physical protection of the "Protected Place" itself as currently laid now in the Acts , but extended beyond to cover the general aspect of public safety which I am sure is still lacking in the Acts.

Why has the relevant Authorities not realised and communicated this vulnerability to the Government despite the setting up of a high level security "umbrella" with the appointment of high level Ministers at SM and DPM level to focus on coordinating and implementing national security measures since the 911 and Mas Selamat Escape events?

There seems to be a total lack of postive attention and actions at the top level. What we had heard is warning sounded for the public to be wary, but this act of public education alone does not solve problems of the nature well illustrated by this incident, if it had been a terrorist act. 

This responsibility expected is not that from the top management of the SMRT or its shareholders alone, which perhaps ultimately falls on financing. Does our Government and / or the relevant Authorities claimed it could "washed" its hand off in this matter with the Law Minsiter's slamming clarifications?

In fact, I note that the police patrols at MRT stations seemed to have slowed downed sometime before this incident. Quite obviously in the case of a MRT station, the issue of public alertness seems to be paramount since the SMRT had decently added on many security cameras during its recent upgrading. But in the case of the depots, they are totally out-of-bound to the public, except only authorised staff and contractors, and yet they posed the greatest risks to the public. 

Shouldn't there be a counter-check in security implementation if the Acts are insufficient to cover?

Reference

Abstracted From

TODAY (Jun 21, 2010)

by S Ramesh

SINGAPORE - The recent vandalism incident at SMRT's Changi depot has sparked debate over who should be responsible for security on premises like train depots.

Is it the Government's job, or should the responsibility fall on SMRT?

To Law Minister K Shanmugam, the answer was clear - the rail operator's security is its own responsibility and the cost of beefing up its defences should not be borne by ordinary Singaporeans.

Speaking to reporters at a community event yesterday, Mr Shanmugam, who is also Second Minister for Home Affairs, said it is impossible and unacceptable to require taxpayers to pay for the security of thousands of profit-making entitles in Singapore...

.....

China's 'post '80s' workers stand up for their rights

This report taken from TODAY ( Jun 23, 2010 ) illustrates the evolving trend of the present economies, no matter what political system the country belongs to.

Even in Communist China, the more educated 'post 80s' labour force is posing a new challenge to both the top management of the FIRM and COUNTRY...and the economy as a whole.

It suggests an evolving CHANGE, a drift away from the "capitalistic" approach in managing human resources.

This CHANGE is also in contrast to democratic Singapore.

Reference
TODAY ( Jun 23, 2010 )
by AP

BEIJING - Younger workers now make up the majority of China's migrant labour force - and they are quicker to speak up than older workers when they feel their rights are being violated. This is according to a report by the country's official trade union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.

The report comes in the wake of recent high-profile strikes at plants run by foreign car makers including Toyota, and Honda. Although it did not mention the unrest, it did refer to worries about social instability.

The report said a study conducted in 10 cities from March to May showed young migrant workers between the ages of 16 and 30 now number about 100 million, making up nearly two-thirds of China's estimated 150 million migrant labourers, and nearly half of the country's 230 million workers overall.

The average younger migrant worker was aged 23, had finished middle school education, and 80 per cent were unmarried, it said.

It characterised the younger generation - known as the "post-'80s generation'' - as more willing to file complaints when their rights are violated and less fearful of retaliation compared to the older generation of workers.

Younger migrant workers are also "more aware of equality and rights", and have higher expectations of getting equal jobs, labour and social welfare, education, and other basic public services.

And it added that these workers show "a higher willingness" to defend their rights. According to the surveys taken by the national union, only 6.5 per cent of the younger workers said a fear of retaliation would prevent them from filing complaints compared to 13 per cent for their older counterparts.

Tactics and strategies for making complaints were also more sophisticated, the report said. Nearly half the younger migrant workers file joint complaints, while only 28 per cent of their older counterparts said they would.

The report added that the younger generation, who were more likely to have been raised in an urban setting, were less willing to endure hardship than traditional migrant workers.

And resolving the problems facing the new generation of migrant workers was important to avoid social unrest.

The report was posted on the federation's website on Monday and reported in the Chinese media yesterday.

Leviathan At Work at SMRT

After the seemingly "face-losing" act of not preventing and discovering the security breach by a Graffiti painter at its "restricted" Changi Depot premises, the SMRT seems to be trying to recover ground by projecting an "on-the-ball" image, through catching a granny feeding milk to a baby on a moving SMRT train to enforce the "no drinking and eating" rule.

Once again this exhibits the silly Leviathan mindset typical of Singaporean Authorities.

Reference

ST Forum

Jun 14, 2010

Letter By Michelle Joan Fernandez (Mrs) 

Does MRT no-drinking rule apply to babies?

LAST Friday, at about 3pm, my mother, my aunt and my six-month-old child were travelling on the North-East Line from Outram to Serangoon.

My mother was feeding my baby milk from a feeding bottle during the journey when a staff member approached her and stopped her from doing so. He told her that the "no drinking and eating" rule applied to everyone, including babies.

When my mother explained to him that my baby was crying and needed to be fed, he told her that if she continued to feed the child, she would have to get off the train and seek permission from the station master. My mother was then forced to stop feeding my crying child.

Is the train operator so unreasonable as to forbid a baby from drinking milk? Would it also forbid a mother from breastfeeding her child?

I am shocked that this can happen in a society that is encouraging people to have more babies.

Michelle Joan Fernandez (Mrs)

SMRT Security - Whose Job and Who to Bear Costs?

Based on the following report in ST Online, the SMRT will be engaging a professional security consultant to carry out a thorough audit of its systems. MRT depots - including the ones operated by SMRT in Changi,Ulu Pandan, and Bishan and SBS Transit's facility in Sengkang - will be looked at first.

The actual works now fall on the shoulder of the security consultant who will be appointed. I do not know, at whose costs? Will it result in higher fares for the commuters in the next fare review by the PTC?

Why had  the SMRT not taken such initiative more proactively and earlier? I agree with Blogger Mr. Tan Kin Lian that SMRT's management was too focussed on making profits, i.e. perhaps aiming for super-normal profit, rather than just looking at normal profit which is more cost-centred, and not totally profit-eccentric in its management strategy. Such a managment strategy tends to look at cutting costs which could explained the neglect of depot's physical security by SMRT, despite earlier waking calls that our MRT stations are targetted by terrorists. This could be probably be due to the alignment and setting of personal KPIs for the top executives who command million-dollar salaries, just like Ministers.

Despite the appointment of high level Ministers at SM and DPM level to focus on coordinating national security, there seems to be a lack of postive attention and actions at the top level.. What we had heard is warning sounded for the public to be wary, but the attention alone does not solved problems of the nature well illustrated by this incident.

Such high level complacency displayed by the incident is quite typical of our Government bureaucracy and related Authorities which surprising are rated the world's "best bureaucracy" by the  HK-based PERC in a recent survey. I always advise readers to appreciate such survey results in greater depth, due to the objectives of persons in publishing such results and data, and the inherent limitations with the data collection methods and techniques used in posing the survey questionaire.

The public (actually a student) perhaps should be commended this time for discovering the security breach and is no more in complacency. However, the feedback was surprisingly first to YouTube and not to our "complacent" Authorities. What does this illustrates?


Reference

Strats Times Online Jun 12, 2010

Public transport review

MRT depots first to be looked at; SMRT to get thorough audit of systems

By Melissa Kok

IN THE wake of the break-in at SMRT's Changi train depot, a comprehensive security review of the entire public transport network will be conducted over the next six months.

MRT depots - including the ones operated by SMRT in Changi, Ulu Pandan, and Bishan and SBS Transit's facility in Sengkang - will be looked at first.

This was announced by the Public Transport Security Committee (PTSC) last night. Alongside this review, SMRT will be engaging a professional security consultant to carry out a thorough audit of its systems.

In a statement last night, PTSC chairman Lim Bok Ngam said the council 'takes a very serious view of the security of our public transport system and will improve and enhance security in a risk-based and practical manner'.

Mr Lim added that public transport operators have already taken immediate steps to enhance security at their train depots.

The PTSC has begun a joint security review of the Changi depot with SMRT and several measures have already been implemented.

The curious case of the diners and the casino - Another letter writter's views.

This is the view of another letter writer to TODAY.

Reference
TODAY Online Only; Jun 10, 2010
Letter from Dudley Au

When diners had no intention to gamble

I refer to "The curious case of the diners and the casino" (June 10) which comprised three letters, and in particular to the one from Mr Tan Sin Liang, a compliance lawyer who wrote under the heading "Law should be clarified".

In it, Mr Tan said, based on the law, both the casino and the diners have technically breached Section 116 (5) of the Casino Act and the Schedule of The Casino Control (Entry Levy) Regulations 2010.

In theory, he said, the casino staff were right in asking the diners to pay the levy and, in continuity, from the action, infuriate the diners since the breakdown of the lifts. The alternate exit was impossible to access because of the lifts breakdown and the casino (another exit) had to be used through no fault of theirs.

The patrons of the restaurant were forced by circumstances beyond their control to use the casino exit. This in turn created the issue of the law not being specific in its provision of exceptions to its rule. Marina Bay Sands' administration should have used their common sense and not create this ridiculous issue which should never have occurred.

This is a reflection of the enigma of the fundamental law (Constitution) of the United States and the judges who enforce the law. Dworkin, Professor of Jurisprudence, Oxford and former Professor of Law at Yale, described this about the institution of judicial review of legislation as an institution as both the pride and the enigma of American jurisprudence.

He said, the puzzle lies in that everyone agrees that the Constitution forbids certain forms of legislation but neither the Supreme Court justices nor constitutional law experts, nor ordinary citizens can agree on what it does forbid because of the abstract language and absence of specific framing. Dworkin believed the dilemma could be bypassed by an apolitical programme for deciding constitutional cases.

Two ideas, he said, were prominent. One is the idea of constitutional intention, called the original intention of the "Framers" of the Constitution. The second relies not on the idea of an original intention but on a sharp distinction between matters of substance and matters of process. It involves not the reviewing of the fairness or justice of substantive decisions in the law but only of protecting the fairness of the process through which these statutes were made.

In any case, Dworkin asserts, judicial review only polices democracy, it does not seek to override political process as judicial review of substance does.

In the case of the predicament of the diners who had no choice but to leave the restaurant through the casino what was the intention of the framers of the law on the levy? If it was to gamble, there would be no justice in someone forced to leave through the gambling area (casino) through no fault of his.

It was the owner of the building's fault that the other avenue of exit was blocked (lifts not functioning). Judicial review of the circumstances in protecting the fairness or equity of the of the process should see the "intrusion"' of the diners into the casino was not of choice but of necessity.

Mr Denis Distant in his letter "Diners hard done by" asked if a fire broke out in the restaurant will the patrons have to pay the levy to escape via the casino? This shows the incongruity of the administration in enforcing the statute on the levy. It appears the hotel administration has no dialectic in enforcing the law. To the administration - if the law says this but circumstances say that it is the law that prevails.

May I ask the administration if someone faints or collapses on the grass in a park, where the law says do not walk on the grass under penalty of a fine, do you leave that person lying there because it is unlawful to walk on the grass? If a non- swimmer falls into a reservoir where there is a sign saying no swimming under penalty of being charged in court, do you leave that person to drown because the law prohibits swimming?

As Justice Holmes, speaking on the right to the freedom of speech, said, the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic, in Schenck v. United states.

The most stringent law on a levy for gambling cannot be used to take money from the diners who did not gamble, had no intention to gamble and who were forced by circumstances beyond their control to leave by the casino entrance.

Reductio ad absurdum.

The curious case of the diners and the casino - Views of writer to TODAY

This is another view of a letter writer to TODAY.

Reference
TODAY Jun 10, 2010
Letter from Darius Lee

The spirit of the law

I REFER to the report "Group walked through casino without paying" (June 8). It is unhelpful to frame every single issue as a legal one, with loose talk of sanctions and penalties. The issue is first and foremost an administrative one, and only secondly, a legal one.

The problem in this case is primarily an administrative one. The lifts were not operational, and the only way out is through the casino. The problem seems to have been with the maintenance of the lifts, and the failure of the architects of the building to create an alternate exit out of the restaurant that does not pass through the casino.

The 15 diners were in a bona fide difficult situation. Surely $1,500 is an obscene and extravagant amount to be paying for lunch! In fact, they may have a legal cause of action in the tort of false imprisonment.

A reasonable solution would have been for the staff to escort the group through the casino as they made their exit; this would not fall afoul of the purpose of the statute when imposing the levy.

While the report was technically correct pertaining to the technical breach of the law, rather than simply highlighting the numerous operational difficulties that the integrated resorts are facing, it would be more constructive to at the same time highlight the economic and other benefits that the opening of the IRs have provided.

The curious case of the diners and the casino - A Lawyer's View

This is a lawyer's view re-posted from TODAY.

Reference

TODAY  Jun 10, 2010

Letter from Tan Sin Liang

Law should be clarified

I AM a compliance lawyer who recently acted for one of the casinos. This incident has raised an interesting issue: Is a lift breakdown a legal excuse not to pay the mandatory levy to enter the casino? Does the law provide exceptions to such incidents?

The people who are exempt from paying the $100 levy are specified in Section116 (5) of the Casino Act and the Schedule of The Casino Control (Entry Levy) Regulations 2010. In theory, the casino staff were right in asking the diners to pay the levy as matter of compliance with the law - but this rightly would infuriate the diners, since the breakdown was no fault of theirs.

There's no "exceptional circumstances" provided in both the Casino Act nor the Casino Regulations that excuses the diners, no matter the circumstances, from paying the levy in entering the casino.

Based on the law, in my opinion, both the casino and the diners have technically breached Section116. The casino was wrong in not collecting the levy. The diners were wrong in not paying (if they were Singapore residents).

A common-sense approach should be adopted by the authorities in deciding whether to prosecute such a technical violation.

A better solution is to amend and clarify the law so innocent visitors are not unnecessarily exposed to any form of legal sanctions.

Bubble Theory - Not for Stocks & Properties

Abstracted From
Straits Times Online
Jun 10, 2010

Bubble theory
 

PARIS - BUBBLE don't just disappear when they pop but deflate in a rapid cascade of ever-smaller 'daughter' bubbles, scientists reported on Wednesday.

The physics behind this bursting effect seems to hold true whether the liquid is as thin as water or as thick as heavy oil, suggesting that the researchers have found a universal theory of how bubbles behave when they break.

A host of practical applications could follow in areas ranging from health care to climate to glass manufacturing, according to the study published in the British journal Nature. It may also prove valuable for controlling industrial processes in which bubble formation can be detrimental....

The Great Sinkhole Mystery

It makes me think if our SWF's investment losses can also be like this?

Abstracted and Re-posted From
ST Online Jun 11, 2010

GUATEMALA CITY - A MASSIVE sinkhole that gulped down a clothing factory and an entire intersection in Guatemala's capital is mystifying geologists who have yet to figure out what caused it.

'It's the million-dollar question,' said David Monterroso, a geophysical engineer with the National Disaster Management Agency. Nearly 30m deep and 20m wide, the hole formed during a deadly tropical storm in late May.....

SECURITY of key installations - WHOSE job is it?

The case of the MRT Graffiti incident raised a serious issue on the lack of security on key installations in Singapore. I recall that I belonged to one such reservist military unit tasked to protect one sensitive "civilian" installation, often with make-believe training at one of the Marsiling hills (which is now flattened) as simulation of the installation.

Despite attention raised about MRT stations being possible targets for terrorists, the daily announcements on the crowded trains is just "lip-service".

The reply from the CEO of the SMRT, short of an apology from SMRT, paints a bad picture of "Board and committee culture" towards the task of ensuring "security" here for such installations in Singapore,  a picture worse than that signified by the graffiti itself. It pushed the responsibility for feedback on "security" back to the general public, when the incident took place at a highly "rectricted and protected" depot, fully under the control of the SMRT. 

She said "This incident also reaffirms the importance of the public's participation and support in reporting any suspicious sightings in our system, to assist us to handle them expeditiously.”It is indeed ironical that the incident had happened in a "restricted and protected" area but was discovered by a member of the public who is a student and much later. [Note "We have 82 MRT and LRT stations across Singapore, serving 1.5 million passengers daily and five train depots covering more than 82 hectares (equivalent of 106 football fields). With such an expansive system, it is necessary to involve the public through our engagement programmes to assist us in boosting vigilance by reporting suspicious persons or articles."]

The message added "Furthermore, any intruders who attempt to sabotage the trains run the risk of being electrocuted, as the power rails that run along the tracks in our depots are 'live' throughout the day...what about the night when all the trains and rails are totally off service?

Perhaps, a new head with relevant military training should be talent-hunted for the SMRT. As the incident illustrates, it is not enough to manage the SMRT as a commercial entity just by improving the shopping experience at its various existing stations. In particular, the depots were left vulnerable and "unprotected" whether by cameras or guards.

And what about the armed security patrols in grey berets which seemed to take place just to reassure public presence? In fact, I do not seem to notice them patroling that often on the trains these days. 

What if a bomb was planted during that night for the morning crowd the next morning? This scary question was raised by many commuters in their hearts that day. While the public maybe expected to feedback on suspicious looking items left here and there on the trains or stations, the depots are certainly out of reach to the ordinary commuters.

Whose job is it to protect the depots? Whose responsibility is it to ensure that the depots are protected as a "restricted and protected" installation in normal days? Look for the number of surveillance cameras installed and/or added at the exits to the MRT stations, you would be shocked to see so many of them. But then, why not at the depots?

Is it a job for the super-salaried Senior Minister and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security appointed just to care about security coordination or the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs taking care of the HOMETEAM or is it the direct responsibility of the SMRT CEO who is equally well-spurred in terms of salary motivation ?

No budget for SMRT? - look at the profits declared, not forgetting the numbers of surveillance cameras installed at upgraded stations like Boon MRT, and others.

Or is it an issue with "whom to spend the money and how to recover costs" ... and if more security monitoring devices are required to be installed ... SMRT must recovered their costs from the commuters ?

Just like Mas Selamat's "Great Escape", this great "security" intrusion with "graffiti art" is not just another case of "complacency" anymore !  If the public had been complacent, the graffiti and the security breach would not have been discovred. Whom and how to fix the "spurs"?

Stop wrestling with the "Leviathan" mindset,  just do the basics which is practical !

 
Reference
TODAY 7 June, 2010
FIDS beats a hundred pairs of eyes
Letter from Paul Antony Fernandez 05:55 AM Jun 07, 2010
 SECURITY of key installations is vital and MRT depots are perfect targets for terrorists.

In the wake of the recent intrusion in which graffiti was sprayed on a train, I wonder - as a security professional - why a Fence Intrusion Detection System (FIDS) was not installed, especially when the depot covers a very large area.

SMRT said more security personnel will be deployed.

I am of the humble opinion that a hundred pairs of eyes may not detect an intrusion but a FIDS will be able to, as it activates upon detection of any kind of motion, day or night.

Supporting SAVING GAIA Everyday - World Environment Day June 5

SINGAPORE :

"If we save our planet, we save ourselves."

~~~ Saving Gaia campaign on ~~~

~~~~~World Environment Day, June 5 ~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leviathan at Work at MBS Casino

The article abstracted below from TODAY (June 8, 2010) illustrates how our LEVIATHAN state is affecting visitors to the MBS's resort for purpose other than gambling.

Although I do not support the habit of gambling at casinos, I also could not support this LEVIATHAN mindset at work.

The following comment, by a certain Daniel in YAHOO NEWS, is simply apt.

Abstract

Daniel on June 8, 2010 at 2:47 am

Well, maybe MBS should start a fire and have all the fire exits behind the casino area [sealed] ! They’ll make a fortune! $100 per person.

Seriously, this is damn ISO thinking, totally rigid, totally follow procedure with no flexibility. Is it any surprise that we end up having a reputation for lack of creativity or thinking? If the government does charge either party, I’m definately going to write a complaint letter, probably titled “Overly rigid, lack of intelligence”, it’s not as if the patrons were there for the casino, you want them to wait until the lifts were fixed? How many hours will that take?

We know in Land Law, if a property is surrounded all around by other pieces of land, this land owner enjoys an "easement" over the surrounding pieces of land, and enjoys a free passage through them. This situation is pretty similar, and what right is there to deprive one of such natural justice even if there is the Casino Control Act?

However, the main issue is about the flexibility in exercising a waiver during an emergency and how people are empowered to act without the creation of more rules to support a Leviathan state, especially when the objective is to collect a hefty "LEVY".

Can the common people including the casino staff exercise a discretion under such extraordinary circumstances and during an emergency, without refering to an Authority, just like this incident warrants and illustrates?

Read more about LEVIATHAN and how a civil society can correct the damages of excessive government under the following links :-

(a) Thomas Hobbes & Leviathan in Literature

(b) Leviathan - Doctrine of the Foundation of States and Legitimate Governments

(c) A Framework For Thinking About Civil Society

(d) How can civil society correct the damages of excessive government?

Reference

Abstracted from TODAY June 8, 2010.

Group walked through casino without paying

Incident raises question: Should law on levy be tweaked?

Teo Xuanwei

SINGAPORE — The letter of the law is clear: No local residents — save for casino employees and authorities carrying out their duties — are exempt from paying the levy to enter the casinos.

Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong paid $100 when he and some grassroots leaders visited Resorts World Sentosa “to take a look” a few weeks after it opened.

"No choice, all Singaporeans must buy!" he had recounted in a speech last month.

Yet, there remains a question mark — one month after it happened — about the 15 diners who waltzed through Marina Bay Sands' (MBS) casino without paying the levy.

Under the Casino Control Act, such an action carries a fine of up to $1,000, plus the levy amount.

MBS, by failing to collect the levies, would have also flouted Section 116 of the Act — which makes it liable to disciplinary action, such as cancellation or suspension of its casino license, a letter of censure or being fined not more than $1 million ....................................................................

The diners had patronised one of MBS’restaurants, Imperial Treasure, on May 4. They were on level 2 of the restaurant, but when it was time to leave, they discovered that the two lifts — their only exits on that level — were out of order.

The only other exit was through the casino, but MBS staff told them they would then have to pay the levy.

The diners refused and after a 30-minute impasse — part of which one of them recorded and uploaded on YouTube — they decided to walk through the casino without paying.