SINGAPORE: The HDB compulsorily acquired 39 flats from their owners last year as they had blatantly infringed the subletting rules. One of the flats acquired was at Pinnicle@Duxtin. The owner had sublet the entire flat without HDB's approval in the guise of subletting of rooms, shortly after the flat purchase in January last year. During its night inspections in May and June 2010, HDB found that the owner was not staying at the flat. HDB's investigations revealed that the owner did not have any intention to stay in the flat and had bought it purely for monetary gains. In another 56 cases, HDB warned or fined the owners. HDB said it stepped up its enforcement against unauthorised subletting last year. It carried out 7,000 flat inspections, up from 3,000 inspections in 2009. About 1,800 inspections were the result of public feedback. This is almost double the number of public feedback received in 2009. HDB said it takes a very serious view of any unauthorised subletting and will take stern actions against owners, including compulsory acquisition, even if it is the owner's first infringement. This is especially for cases where the flat owners had bought the flat purely for monetary gains, with no intention of occupying it. There have also been cases where flat owners try to circumvent HDB's rules by locking up one room and subletting the rest of the flat without physically staying in it. It said such cases will be treated as unauthorised subletting of the entire flat. Flat owners who wish to sublet their entire flats must meet the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) and obtain HDB's approval before they can do so.
DID U GET YOUR PRIORITY RIGHT?

Singapore permanent secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Mr Bilahari Kausikan reportedly told U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defence for East Asia Mr David Sedney that “a lack of competent leaders is a real problem for Malaysia” and that Najib need to “prevail politically to avoid prosecution in connection with the murder of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu.

HE HAD bought travel insurance for peace of mind in case emergencies crop up during his overseas trips.

Mr Ronnie Lim, 66, a retiree, and his wife were supposed to have left Singapore last Thursday to visit their daughter, who works for a multi-national company in Virginia.

But when he had to make changes to his trip schedule because of the Japan earthquake and tsunami, his insurer told him they would not be reimbursing him for the costs incurred.

Mr Lim said his flight to Washington, DC, had a stopover in Tokyo and he was advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) against landing in Japan because of the nuclear crisis.

He heeded the advice and cancelled his All Nippon Airways flight.

While he got a full refund from the airline, he could not get his money back for accommodation at a Washington hotel for the first two nights of his trip, March 25 and 26. Mr Lim paid US$180 (about S$227) for the hotel booking.

He thought his one-year travel insurance policy with NTUC Income would cover his loss.

But when he contacted it, he said he was told claims for earthquakes and natural disasters are covered under his travel insurance, but not those arising from a nuclear disaster.

He added: "My argument is that the nuclear crisis happened because of an earthquake and tsunami, and therefore, my claim should be honoured."

Mr Lim had booked his air tickets on Oct 29 last year.

But he was worried about explosions and radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear plant, which had been shut after being hit by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

He then called MFA.

Q. What do bad times mean for the PAP, which has based its legitimacy on providing the economic goods and asset enhancement? Is its social compact with the people in need of an update?A

Oh yes. And my advice is: Go back to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's old credo, where nobody owes us a living. After I had just taken over as the Housing Board's chairman in 2000, an astute academic asked me: 'Tong Dow, what's your greatest problem at HDB?' Then he diagnosed it himself: 'Initially, you gave peanuts to monkeys so they would dance to your tune. Now you've given them so much by way of peanuts that the monkey has become a gorilla and you have to dance to its tune. That's your greatest problem.' Our people have become over-fed and today's economic realities mean we have to put them on a crash diet. We cannot starve them because there will be a political explosion. So the art of government today is to wean everyone off the dispensable items. We should just concentrate on helping the poorest 5 to 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse. Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility rebates. You're dancing to the tune of the gorilla. I don't understand the urgency of raising the Goods and Services Tax. Why tax the lower-income, then return it to them in an aid package? It demeans human dignity and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out their palms. Despite the fact that we say we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most 'welfarish' states in the world. We should appeal instead to people's sense of pride and self-reliance. I think political courage is needed here. And my instinct is that the Singaporean will respect you for that.

Q. What is the kind of Singapore you hope your grandchildren will inherit?

A. Let's look at Sparta and Athens, two city states in Greek history. Singapore is like Sparta, where the top students are taken away from their parents as children and educated. Cohort by cohort, they each select their own leadership, ultimately electing their own Philosopher King. When I first read Plato's Republic, I was totally dazzled by the great logic of this organisational model where the best selects the best. But when I reached the end of the book, it dawned on me that though the starting point was meritocracy, the end result was dictatorship and elitism. In the end, that was how Sparta crumbled. Yet, Athens, a city of philosophers known for its different schools of thought, survived. What does this tell us about out-of-bounds markers? So SM Lee has to think very hard what legacy he wants to leave for Singapore and the type of society he wants to leave behind. Is it to be a Sparta, a well-organised martial society, but in the end, very brittle; or an untidy Athens which survived because of its diversity of thinking? Personally, I believe that Singaporeans are not so kuai (Hokkien for obedient) as to become a Sparta. This is our saving grace. As a young senior citizen, I very much hope that Singapore will survive for a long time, but as an Athens. It is more interesting and worth living and dying for.

NATIONAL Serviceman Dave Teo Ming was often caned by his mother when he was a young schoolboy and his father was in and out of jail for various offences.

His mother would beat him sometimes for no discernible reason or whenever she lost money on gambling.

And the beatings were no "normal beating'.

'The cane anyhow whack, whack until I got bruises,' he said in a psychiatric report submitted by the Institute of Mental Health, which was tendered in the High Court on Monday, when he was sentenced to nine years and two months, with 18 strokes of the cane for unlawful possession of a rifle, bullets and a knife.

The report presented a picture of his disturbed upbringing, scarred by constant beatings, rejection by his own mother who left him in the care of his paternal grandparents when he was in Primary one or two, after she walked out on him with his younger sister.

Teo's grandparents and aunt confirmed the beatings and remembered how traumatised Teo was as a child. They reported that his mother would even throw chairs at him.

After she left the family, the grandparents became the main caregivers to Teo and his brother who was two years younger.

Although he was not beaten as much, his paternal uncle, who lived with him, would punch and slap him if he misbehaved during his teens.

When he was 14, his younger brother was killed in a road accident.

This caused Teo 'to spiral downwards with disciplinary problems', said the IMH report. 'He was filled with anger and 'hated everybody''.

He became depressed and isolated himself from the family.

The behavioural problems and brushes with law continued, and he had to drop out of school at Secondary 3.

Possessive boyfriend

Teo started dating Ms Crystal Liew when he was 16. She was then 14. The relationship graduated to a sexual one when she turned 16.

By his own admission, Teo was a highly possessive boyfriend.

When she went out with her friends, he would feel extremely jealous and become abusive of her. He would call her up and demanded that she went home immediately.

There were times that he would hurl vulgarities at her and he also admitted that he had hit her several times, according to the IMH report.

In early 2007, Teo was posted for a short stint to Taiwan as part of his national service.

The couple continued to quarrel over the phone and in April last year, they broke up.

That was the final act and Teo snapped.

'He had nightmares about dying or being killed and in his waking hours, thought of suicide,' said the psychiatric report.

His sleep became disturbed, he lost weight over the next few months and he became withdrawn. His concentration became poor and 'his libido also dropped'.

In camp, he became easily irritated, and vented his anger by kicking the cupboard and being rude to his superiors.

He also began to hear voices of people who were not there.

Stalked ex-girlfriend

When he returned to Singapore from Taiwan, he started stalking Ms Liew, hanging out at her condominium and outside her school.

He even went absent without leave from camp to spend his nights at a stairwell at her condo. He was eventually caught and sent to the SAF detention barracks.

After he stopped contacts with Ms Liew, he went further downhill. He no longer cared about his appearance, became reclusive and started drinking to overcome his insomnia.

'He became self-destructive and recalls exercising till the point of exhaustion and then denying himself water,' said the report.

JUSTICE Tay Yong Kwang explained to Awol National Serviceman Dave Teo Min why he would have to impose a deterrent sentence before jailing him for a total of nine years and two months, with 18 strokes of the cane, for having a rifle, eight bullets and a knife.

In a display of compassion, the High Court judge on Monday told the 20-year-old, who had earlier pleaded guilty to the three charges: 'My heart hurts for you that so young a man will have to spend some of the best years of his life in prison and have to undergo so many strokes of the cane, but I trust that you understand that a deterrent sentence is unavoidable in the circumstances.'

Justice Tay said Teo had committed a very grave offence by taking a rifle and ammunition out of camp for his 'own purposes' - 'especially so in this age of increased security concerns everywhere'.

In his statement read out in court, the full-time NSman had told his army buddy, a pimp, that he had taken the rifle and eight bullets from Mandai Hill camp on Sept 2, 2007, to kill his ex-girlfriend who had broken off their relationship. He also said he was going to use it in a robbery and to kill five people who he hated.

In his pre-sentencing remarks, Justice Tay also advised Teo on what he should do in jail and on his release.

He told the NSman who sparked a 20-hour manhunt on Sept 2, 2007, when he walked out of Mandai Hill camp with an SAR-21 rifle and eight rounds of bullets, and was finally tracked down to a toilet in a shopping mall the following day: 'Dave, you have had a very hard life.'

'I hope that this unfortunate and traumatic wrong turn in your life will make you much more mature and a whole lot wiser and that you will spend the next few years reconstructing your young life.'

'I hope that you will pursue your studies, listen to good advice from counsellors and learn many skills while in prison and that, upon your release, you will have a life full of meaning and purpose to honour the memory of your grandmother and your beloved younger brother.'

'It has been written, 'To everything there is a season.' There was a time when you loved, there came a time when you hated. There was a time when you felt you wanted to kill, now is the time for you to heal.'

'There was a time you were broken down, now is the time to build yourself up. There was a time when you were at war in your being, now is the time to restore peace within.'

'In spite of your difficult childhood and in spite of what you have done, do not ever give up on yourself.'

How can you place the trust of the people in characters who won't even give a straight answer to a simple question? Asked whether he could be a People's Action Party candidate in the coming election, Ong Ye Kung said "If it happens, it happens."

The 41 year old had just quit his high flying super-scale salaried career in the recession-proof ranks of the civil service because he "happened to meet" Foreign Minister George Yeo this week, who also happened to ask "if I want to accompany him around his GRC". If Ong really had it in his heart of hearts to serve the people, why couldn't he have joined the private sector and still "continue my work for workers" in the NTUC? His move to NTUC as "an employee" was obviously a safety net, in case he misses the extra $190,000 allowance as a member of parliament. Not for his kind the rough and tumble of the uncertainties of the private sector. When Mah Bow Tan lost his maiden and straight electoral battle with Chiam See Tong in 1984, he had SPH to provide safe harbour until a GRC ticket was handed to him at the next election.

HE GOT INTO TROUBLE: Mr Kassim showing how he dozed off at Sun Plaza Park. TNP PICTURES: KUA CHEE SIONG, JONATHAN CHOO

IT was a 15-minute nap on a park bench. And it cost him $200 - equivalent to a comfortable night's stay in a three-star hotel complete with a soft bed and fluffy pillows.

He had dozed off on a Sun Plaza Park bench while taking shelter from the rain.

For doing so, the 62-year-old private bus driver, who wanted to be known only as Mr Kassim, was fined $200 by the National Parks Board (NParks).

The agency said Mr Kassim had misused the park facility by sleeping on the bench.

On 1 Sep this year, Mr Kassim was cycling near the park in Tampines when it began to drizzle. He decided to wait out the rain in a shelter at the park.

It was pouring heavily by the time he reached the shelter, so he lay down on one of the wooden benches, and dozed off after about five minutes.

'About 15 minutes later, I opened my eyes and saw that the rain was about to stop,' Mr Kassim told The New Paper.


FORBIDDEN: A man spotted snoozing in a park in Bishan.

'I saw two men walking towards me. I didn't know who they were. I closed my eyes again.

'Then I heard someone shouting, 'Wake up, wake up!' in Malay.'

When Mr Kassim opened his eyes, he saw the two men towering over him. They identified themselves as NParks rangers.

They asked for his identity card, which he gave to them.

But Mr Kassim was puzzled.

'I asked them, 'What have I done wrong?'

'They told me I had abused park facilities by sleeping on the park bench. They then issued me a ticket.'

Mr Kassim did not know that it was an offence to sleep on a park bench. But he accepted the ticket.

An NParks spokesman told The New Paper that Mr Kassim was fined as he 'was found sleeping in the park shelter with his colleague, and had repeatedly ignored our ranger's actions to wake him up'.

But Mr Kassim claimed that he woke up as soon as the rangers told him to, and that he was at the park alone.

He said there was another man also sleeping on another bench in the same shelter, but he did not know the man.

He claimed that the rangers approached the man and another man who was lying on the bench in the opposite shelter.

'It was the first time I'd fallen asleep in Sun Plaza Park,' said Mr Kassim, who lives in Pasir Ris.

It was also his first time at Sun Plaza Park.

'I've fallen asleep on benches in Pasir Ris Park before and nothing happened to me,' he said.

Five days after he was issued the ticket, Mr Kassim received a letter from NParks detailing his offence and asking him to pay the $200 fine.

When he went down to the NParks office to pay the fine, he claimed that he was told by a staff member that he could appeal.

Mr Kassim decided against appealing. It was too much trouble, he said.

He called The New Paper because he wanted to warn others about this little-known rule, lest they be fined too.

'I think most people don't know this. I'm the unlucky one, so I want to tell people not to sleep in parks, or they may end up like me having to pay $200,' he said with a laugh.

The New Paper asked eight regular park-goers if they knew that sleeping on park benches was an offence. None was aware. (See report on facing page.)

The NParks spokesman said: 'We try to create the conditions that make visitors feel at ease when they come to our parks. When people abuse our parks by overstaying or squatting, they make genuine park users feel uncomfortable.

'Others sleep on benches or in shelters in an inconsiderate manner and deny park users from using these facilities.

'During their daily patrols, our rangers will advise people who sleep or squat in our parks to stop misusing our park facilities.'

Since June this year, more than 10 people have been fined for misusing the facilities in the parks, the spokesman added. He did not say if these specifically involved sleeping on park benches.

But Mr Kassim pointed out that if sleeping on park benches was an offence, there should be signs to tell people.

On the NParks website, there is a list of 'Dos' and 'Don'ts' for visiting parks.

Sleeping on a park bench was not among the 'Don'ts', though there is a disclaimer which said the list was 'not exhaustive or intended to be a complete list of the prohibitions or regulations governing our parks'.

It also stated that 'any omission does not constitute a waiver of any offence'.

Park visitors can refer to the Parks and Trees Act 2005 and the Parks and Trees Regulations 2005, the website said.

Mr. K. Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs, has commented on the hand cuffing of Lianhe Wanbao photographer Mr. Shafie Goh.

Answering Dr. Ong Seh Hong's question in parliament today, Mr. Shanmugam said that in this particular case, the issue was not about the photographer taking pictures of the flood, but about public safety.

Mr. Shanmugam said that after Mr. Goh was told to move off from the central divider, he did not go onto the pavement, but instead walked along the road next to the flooded divider and continued to take photographs.

The police officer advised him against doing so again but Mr. Goh did not heed the advice.



According to Mr. Shanmugam, up to this point, Mr. Goh did not have his media pass on, nor did he identify himself as a reporter.

The officer decided that he had to intervene directly and therefore went up to him and held his arm with a view to stop him from continuing to walk along the central divider and to move him to the pavement.

However, the Wanbao photographer struggled free and the officer handcuffed him on one hand to restrain him and take him into custody.

Upon reaching the pavement, Mr. Goh had calmed down and he produced his media pass for verification and to identify himself as a photographer from the media.

He was uncuffed after his identity was verified.

Mr. Shanmugam clarified the use of handcuffs in this situation as a necessity and was not intended to be an arrest.

"The police officer assessed that it was necessary to use handcuffs to restrain the photographer and stop him from continuing an action which the officer felt posed a danger to others and the photographer himself," he said.

"Looking at this incident with the benefit of hindsight, I think both parties could have handled the situation better."

Question:

Dr Ong Seh Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the facts and circumstances of the arrest and handcuffing of the Lianhe Wanbao chief photographer over taking of photographs of the flood in Bukit Timah on July 16, 2010; (b) what are the guidelines for police officers when dealing with journalists and the general public taking photographs at public places where there are floods or other accidents; and (c) what are the guidelines for handcuffing them.

Mr. K. Shanmugam's reply:

Mr Speaker, the case in question happened in the morning of July 17, 2010, along Bukit Timah road near Maplewoods Condominium.

It was raining heavily and the rain had caused a road divider, which had been excavated, to be flooded. Ordinarily, the construction work would have been surrounded by safety barriers, but unfortunately in this case the safety barriers had been washed away due to the flood.

Motorists driving along the road were not able to see the depression. As a result, three cars landed in the depression.

Under these difficult conditions, the Lianhe Wanbao photographer had stopped his car illegally along the road at about 7.40am to take the photographs, causing an obstruction to other motorists.

There was clear danger not only to the photographer but to other motorists as well. A Police Officer at the scene therefore asked him to move away, which he did after he was told a second time.

However, the photographer returned shortly after and stood on the covered manhole within the flooded central divider to take photographs.

This was dangerous as there was moving traffic on both sides of the divider. The Police Officer therefore advised him to move to the pavement where it was safer for him to take photographs.

According to the Police officer, the photographer moved off only after repeated advice. The photographer however recalled only being told to move off once before he complied.

Be that as it may, when he moved off from the central divider, he did not go onto the pavement, but instead walked along the road next to the flooded divider and continued to take photographs.

The Police Officer advised him against doing so again. He did not heed the advice. Up to this point, he did not have his media pass on, nor did he identify himself as a reporter.

The officer decided that he had to intervene directly. The officer went up to him and held his arm with a view to stop him from continuing to walk along the central divider and to move him to the pavement.

However, the photographer struggled free and the officer handcuffed him on one hand to restrain him and take him into custody. Upon reaching the pavement, the photographer had calmed down and he produced his media pass for verification and to identify himself as a photographer from the media.

He was un-cuffed after his identity was verified.

The Member asked about guidelines for Police Officers when dealing with journalists and the general public taking photographs at public places where there are floods or other accidents.

The Police generally do not interfere with the media or members of the public taking photographs of floods so long as it does not obstruct Police operations and so long as this does not pose a danger to others or themselves.

In this particular case, the issue was not about the photographer taking pictures of the flood, but about public safety. Police had taken action as, in its judgement, public safety was involved.

The Member also asked about the guidelines for the use of handcuffs. Police Officers are trained to assess the situation when exercising discretion in using handcuffs.

Depending on the officer's risk assessment, handcuffs may be used if a suspect is violent or if there is a flight risk, or if a serious offence had been committed.

In this case, although it was not intended to be an arrest, the Police Officer assessed that it was necessary to use handcuffs to restrain the photographer and stop him from continuing an action which the officer felt posed a danger to others and the photographer himself.

The moment the need for such restraint had passed when the photographer had ceased such an action and had been moved to the safety of the pavement, the officer rightly removed the handcuffs and decided not to arrest the photographer for obstructing a police officer in the course of performing his duty after it became clear that the photographer was from the media and was trying to do his job.

Both the Police and the media have important roles to play. While the Police respect and understand the role the media has to play, the Police have a duty to ensure public safety and security.

We cannot allow our officers on the ground when performing their duty to ensure public safety and security to have their directions ignored.

Anyone who disagrees with or feels aggrieved by any such directions by a public servant doing his job can make an official complaint later and it will be thoroughly looked into.

But he must first comply with such directions or be liable to face arrest and prosecution.

Looking at this incident with the benefit of hindsight, I think both parties could have handled the situation better.

Nevertheless, I am glad to know that the Police and the media have discussed the incident dispassionately and have amicably resolved it.