SMRT Gets a Painful Slap on the Face

$1million fine slapped on left cheek. $1million fine slapped on right cheek. Total is $2 million fine and two slaps on the ass cheeks! Some will always say it is not enough. OK. Since when it is ever enough LOL.

Back in 2007, SMRT was fined before by LTA about $400,000 for a 7-hour delay for services between Tanah Merah and Pasir Ris MRT stations. This time, the fine is about 5 times more. $1 million for disruption on December 15, and another million for the frustration and inconvenience caused on December 17. The amount fine is the max permitted under the Rapid Transit Systems Act and that is the law, so we should not be dumbfuck and bitch that the right formula for the fine is 10% or 50% or 90% of the average profit for the past 5 years and some shit pulled-out-of-our-ass keyboard commentator insights.

The fines are huge amounts and the limits of the law, although they are loose change dropped into the seat for one player in the public transport oligopoly. According to SMRT, the profit from train services was around $91 million in FY 2012 (while buses and taxis were in the red). Remember also that the government as part of Budget 2012 gave a $1.1 billion subsidy to SMRT and SBS to renew and improve their bus fleets and routes earlier this year. A handout to the strained and stretched public transport system. Seriously?

So SMRT shareholders, don't feel too down about the hefty fines and jump in front of a MRT train and further disrupt MRT services and inconvenience the peak hour commuters out of stupid spite. There is still net gain in the books, although the company reputation's has derailed.

Singapore subway operator fined for December breakdowns


(Reuters) - Singapore subway operator SMRT will be given the maximum fine of S$2 million ($1.58 million) for two major disruptions in December that affected hundreds of thousands of commuters, a regulator said on Monday.

SMRT, about 54 percent owned by Singapore state investor Temasek Holdings, failed to maintain its network in good working order, the Land Transport Authority said.

A series of train disruptions in December tested Singapore's reputation for efficient services and dealt a blow to government efforts to promote public transport in the small and densely populated city-state of 5.2 million people.

During one of the biggest outages, hundreds of commuters were trapped underground without light or ventilation for more than an hour before they heard from SMRT.

"There were overall shortcomings in SMRT's maintenance and monitoring regime," the regulator said, adding that the maximum fine it could impose for each incident was S$1 million.

SMRT, which also operates buses and taxis, had net profit of S$120 million in its 2011 fiscal year on revenues of nearly S$1.06 billion, according to Temasek's latest annual report. ($1 = 1.2650 Singapore dollars)

The PR HDB Owner and Landlord: Boooooo!!!!!!

BTW in case you were distracted by more entertaining but less widespread impact personal stories like AGC vs Alex Au or save the Malaysian drug donkeys, HDB came up with a small reassuring gesture mid-week, a token of the PAP's understanding and concern for us citizens. Sarcasm here in case you think I was sincere.

There are now more restrictions on PR renting out flats. They can rent out a max 5 years, only after the PR owners reach MOP, and if they have not sublet the flat before. The approval to rent out is for 1 year only compared to previously, 3 years.

About to clap your hands and think HDB is very understanding? Wait! Stop! Think! HDB did something right, of course, but it is not enough here. Not because we are spiteful whiners about anything the government and its agencies do. It is because with national day staring right at us in the face, and when there is an identity crisis over why our national anthem is in the national language, Malay, we must be reminded that foreigners are still getting a free lunch at our expense.

PRs are here to work supposedly in industries we don't want to work in or don't have enough locals to work in. Fine, I don't bitch about that. Since they are here to work, they need somewhere to stay. However, why are they allowed to sublet their HDB flats and get rental yield as moonlight income, so to speak? And we go even a step further. Why are they allowed to buy HDB flats at all as HDB, even resale, should be for citizens? I spoke to PRs before now and then at social functions and one reason why they got PR, which they admitted to me while we were lining up to get satay bee hoon at the buffet table, is so that they can buy HDB flats and then cash out the property when they leave! WTF

HDB flats are the spartan means for Singaporeans to be rooted here since the 1960s. Ownership of their own property gave Singaporeans a stake in Singapore. Furthermore, HDB was supposed to be "subsidised" housing for locals, a cheaper alternative to private housing.

So why are foreigners allowed to buy HDB homes? HDB flats are the cash cows of Singaporeans only, not the engineer from India, the researcher from China or even the businessman from Malaysia. These PRs are not citizens. Their Blue IC and when they leave Singapore for home or another stepping stone as a global citizen, they would sell their HDB flat as a profit. Does that sound right? No it doesn't. Just like it doesn't sound right that PRs can even sublet their flats.

Stricter rules for PRs subletting flats

SINGAPORE - Singapore permanent residents (PRs) who want to rent out their public flats will now face stricter subletting rules, such as a shorter rental period of one year.

The Housing and Development Board (HDB) announced several revisions yesterday, which take immediate effect, to "reinforce the policy intent of providing HDB flats as homes to the SPRs and to deter those who are buying the flats for rental yield or investment purposes".

Singapore citizen homeowners will not be affected by the changes.

Previously, all flat owners - both Singaporeans and PRs - who meet the minimum occupation period could apply to rent out their flats for a period of three years. They could then ask for an extension, with no cap on the number of renewals, or the total period of subletting.

Under the new rules, when the new one-year rental period expires for PRs, any extension will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and approval will be granted only if there are extenuating reasons, said the HDB.

In addition, PRs can now only rent out their flats for a total period not exceeding five years.

For PR homeowners already renting out their flats, the HDB said they would be allowed to see out the three-year agreement, after which they would be subject to the new rules.

Said the HDB: "If the SPR families no longer need the flats for their own occupation, they should sell the flat instead of subletting them."

As of April, 49,190 flats are owned by Singapore PRs. Of this number, 2,142 owners currently sublet their flats, making up just 5 per cent of the total approved sublet cases.

However, property firm ERA said its figures showed that more PRs are renting out their HDB flats, and this might have prompted the revision of the rules.

ERA Key Executive Officer Eugene Lim said the new rules are "just to put a check on the potential numbers of PR households that would actually consider renting out their flats".

Another market watcher, Dennis Wee Group Senior Manager of Research and Consultancy Lee Sze Teck, felt the changes better fit the housing needs of PRs.

"PRs may only be here for work-related purposes … one year is good enough for them."

Chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development Lee Bee Wah supported the changes, saying that PRs should not be "entitled to the same privileges or benefits that Singapore-born citizens enjoy".

She added: "This will also resolve some of the concerns residents have pertaining to an influx of strangers and foreigners in their neighbourhoods as a result of their neighbours subletting their flats freely."

The changes come two days after the Manpower Ministry tightened the criteria for work pass holders to sponsor dependents, as part of plans to moderate the growth of Singapore's non-resident population.

As for the impact on the rental market, PropNex CEO Mohamed Ismail said that PRs held too small a share of the HDB sublet pie for the move to have a significant impact on rental supply and prices. JOANNE CHAN

Thank You for Smoking

They are tax-payers, they are fellow Singaporeans. They are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They used to have freedom to practice what they do. They used to have more space for themselves. Over the years, there is a public campaign to marginalise them, keep them out of public spaces. They can't do it anymore in restaurants, bars, indoors and even outdoors. Their rights are being encroached, it is the tyranny of the public. Why is nobody defending their rights? I'm not talking about gays or lesbians. I'm not talking about Scientologists or Satanists. I'm talking about smokers.

More public places to be designated as non-smoking areas

There will be more non-smoking areas in Singapore within the year.

Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said in Parliament yesterday that the National Environment Agency (NEA) will be extending the prohibition to common areas in residential buildings, sheltered walkways, linkways, overhead bridges, outdoor compounds of hospitals and a five metre buffer zone around bus shelters.

In reply to a question posted by Member of Parliament for Nee Soon GRC Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim about the effectiveness of non-smoking areas in Singapore, Dr Balakrishnan said that the Ministry is actively monitoring and implementing initiatives to protect non-smokers and to reduce smokers.

The ministry's long-term goal is to prohibit smoking at all public places, except at designated smoking points.

Dr Balakrishnan said that the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act was introduced in 1970 to protect the public from the toxic health effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Other measures to achieve their objectives involve public education, legislation and taxation measures, provision of smoking cessation services and promotion of a smoke-free lifestyle.

Through the enforcement rounds conducted regularly and with the help of the public, the number of offenders caught has increased from 4,379 in 2007 to 5,057 in 2011.

Those caught smoking in a prohibited area will be liable to a maximum court fine of $1,000.

The Death Penalty is Dead! Long Live the Death Penalty!

In a surprise ass-kissing thought-provoking sensible move, the PAP decided that they are going to kill the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers. Clap clap, pop a champagne, clap clap. Drug donkeys are happy, among them Yong Vui Kong, the poster boy for the anti-death penalty crowd, who love him and want to give him a second chance. Eee-haww. He is not let off the noose just yet BTW, just that it is not guaranteed he is a dead drug donkey, for the moment. His gay lawyer Ravi probably got a hard-on at the good news - his years of love the dead man walking on death row lobbying paid off. Finally, the government has the pig brain that the mandatory death penalty is a cock idea. If there is a mandatory death penalty in the first place, it should be for kidnapping and armed robbery with a firearm. Where is the sense of proportion if it is confirmed gallowing for drug peddlars but not for psycho killers? If there is a mandatory death penalty. That's my disclaimer.

Don't think that I'm a lefty softy wussy. I'm all for the death penalty for serious crimes. What is serious? Murder, kidnap, use of firearms in crimes, drivers who change lanes without signalling. OK maybe the last is not serious enough for the death penalty, but chopping off their fingers on the right or left hand for Jap or Conti car drivers at least is a must.

Anyway, the death penalty is not a deterrence in my book, should be fucking retribution, let's not be pussies - the noose is sometimes better than rehab. The government can kill mandatory capital punishment, but I want them to save capital punishment in the law and courts. Let the judge earn his pay and reserve the right of offing a kidnapper or murderer, or a driver who changes lanes without signalling - there I go again on road idiots. Some harsh penalties must remain, it is the fiery court of public opinion and the cold court of law to exercise together whether death is bestest form of punishment.

Seriously, the softy wussies over at changi-gallow.blogspot.com or sgdeathpenalty.blogspot.com or whatever can argue to save drug donkeys but they can stop there and don't come over and take away the court's and therefore public's right to off some kinds of criminals. The anti-death groupies know that - people at The Online Citizen, Maruah, and the usual suspects know all too well. They didn't bother save the lives of the murderers - oops! An obvious selective this-but-not-that "they deserve a second chance" crap. Their efforts to remove the mandatory from death penalty is a great small step. However, that should be the last step.

Singapore to Soften Death Penalty for Drugs
By SHIBANI MAHTANI

SINGAPORE—Singapore announced plans to amend laws that dictate a mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, a surprise move that signaled a small but significant shift in the city-state's strict laws on drug-related crime.

The proposed new law will give courts the discretion to sentence some people convicted of drug-related crimes to life in prison with caning, rather than to death, provided they cooperate with authorities in a "substantive way," or provided they have a mental disability, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.

Speaking in Singapore's parliament on Monday, Mr. Teo, who is also the Minister for Home Affairs, said the changes would apply to drug couriers, rather than to those involved in the supply or distribution of drugs at higher levels. Convicted drug distributors and syndicate leaders would still face the mandatory charge of death by hanging. Mr. Teo didn't elaborate on how the law will differentiate between low-level couriers and more-serious offenders.

The changes come after a yearlong review of the county's death penalty, and include an easing of the penalty for homicide in the city-state. Also speaking in Parliament, the country's Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs K. Shanmugam said that certain types of homicide cases, in which there is no explicit intention to kill, will no longer result in the mandatory death penalty.

"Our cardinal objectives remain the same. Crime must be deterred," said Mr. Shanmugam when announcing the proposed laws on Monday. "But justice can be tempered with mercy and where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance."

The changes to the laws must be approved by Parliament before they are adopted, but will likely pass with little opposition as the ruling People's Action Party controls a majority of seats—81 of 87—in Parliament.

Legal representatives, including the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore and the Law Society of Singapore, called the proposed changes a "milestone" in the country's legal history and said.

They are a sign that the government has been responsive to the views of the legal community, many of whom have pushed for a change to the mandatory death penalty in favor of giving courts more discretion.

"This change... recognizes that the measure of a society is how it treats its most unfortunate," said Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore and one of Singapore's most prominent defense lawyers, in a statement. "Death row inmates deserve punishment, but not all deserve death. These new measures...will have a massive impact on the criminal justice system."

But some legal experts say the law doesn't represent a huge shift in Singapore's policy on capital punishment, but rather is a refinement of an existing policy according to changing social norms.

"There is a concern that this could lead to false hope and expectations. This is not a big bang at all, but a refinement," said Eugene Tan, a professor of law at the Singapore Management University and an independent lawmaker. "This is not Singapore sending a signal that it is soft on capital punishment."

Many activists who have campaigned against the country's strict death penalty said the announcement was unexpected but is a step in the right direction for Singapore, which has long been criticized for what human-rights group say are unnecessarily harsh laws around drug control.

"[We] certainly did not expect this announcement to be made today," said Kirsten Han, co-founder of the anti-death penalty activist group We Believe in Second Chances. "I think it is a good first step and hope it means that inmates... will be able to have their cases relooked, and that they will be shown mercy."

Since the review of the mandatory death penalty last year, all pending executions have been halted, Mr. Teo said. He added that draft legislation implementing changes outlined in Parliament on Monday will be introduced later this year, but all accused people, including those in open cases and those already convicted, may choose to be considered for resentencing under the new laws.

Adding that she had "initial concerns" on how certain criteria and specifics would be defined, and that drafting and implementation of the new laws remain to be seen, Ms. Han said that the new rulings are a sign that the government is responding to civil society groups and is willing to engage with them.

Other groups, while applauding the government's efforts, maintain that this is but a "small step" in the right direction but want to see an end to the mandatory death penalty without any conditions such as those sketched out by the government. Human-rights group Maruah, for example, said in a statement that the government still has not provided evidence of the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring crime and added that the death penalty is "fundamentally troubling" and continues to be applied to a substantial number of offenses.

Singapore's use of the death penalty, particularly to control narcotics, has invited widespread criticism over the years. In the early 1990s, a journalist dubbed the city-state "Disneyland with the death penalty"—a catch phrase that has stuck. According to an Amnesty International report published in 2011, at least 26 people were sentenced to death between 2007 and 2010—though not all of these people have been executed. Since 2009, nine people have been executed in the city-state, according to official prison statistics.

In recent years, cases of those on death row—including Yong Vui Kong, a 24-year-old Malaysian—have garnered emotive responses from those in the increasingly politicized city-state who believe the mandatory death penalty should be implemented mercifully. Lawyers and activists say Mr. Yong is illiterate, didn't know the penalty for smuggling drugs was death, or that the package he was carrying contained drugs. Appeals for clemency on his case have so far been turned down by courts, and his case has widely been viewed by opponents of the death penalty as a symbol for the problems with Singapore's implementation of the death penalty.

Mr. Tan added that high-profile cases, including that of Mr. Yong, may have pushed the government to amend the laws in tandem with what he said are society's norms and expectations.

The government has long defended its strong stance on crime and the death penalty, which it says has succeeded in keeping drug usage and homicide rates among the lowest in the world.

Not Urban Legend! Swear! Singaporeans in Peril in Msia!

Don't look away or act blur. It's for real! M'sians have a penchant to screw Singaporeans. It's all to do with that "I can kick him around as he is just adik" thinking. Believe it, it happens, even if you are not a Singapore high commission (it's not "embassy" for those dumbasses who call it "embassy"). BTW, if you haven't realise it yet, that stunt about 3 MFA diplomats attending a Bersih protest, nothing bersih or clean about the political shit heaped around - elections time and BN wanted to pull out the nationalist and race card to distract Msian voters with tried and tested Singapore-bashing, with threats to cut water supply thrown in again. Yeah right.

Oh, how average Singaporeans can be screwed? It's all in the drive up north. Carjacks are the big slam, at least the victims this time were not hurt, raped, killed, kidnapped or sold off not necessarily in that order. Frankly, don't matter if you are Singaporean Ah Beng, Mat or Ah Neh, once they see Singapore car plate it means free-for-all for them to victimise you and me. Do you hear of M'sian cars being singled out for crime along PIE or any other Singapore roads?  I don't. If you want to go M'sia, sure go ahead, fly up direct to KL or Penang, and drive up in convoy with baseball bats placed next to the umbrella at the back of the car. For every 10 incident-free trips up you hear one suay case of someone getting screwed. Just be prepared and hope that you are not that unlucky one.

Kidnapped S'porean family now safely back home

Updated 08:04 PM Jul 01, 2012SINGAPORE - A Singaporean family is now safely back home after a harrowing experience early this morning in Johor Bahru.

37-year-old Rita Zahara was driving back to Singapore with her sister, two children and her maid.

About three kilometres from the Immigration Checkpoint at Woodlands, she stopped at a petrol station to top up her tank.

Her sister, two children and maid remained in the locked car while Rita left to buy fruits.

That was when two men armed with guns and knives demanded they open the door.

After accessing the car, they sped off with the four members in the car.

Upon seeing that her car was missing, Rita called her sister's cell phone, which was answered by one of the kidnappers.

They demanded money from her and threatened to kill her family if she went to the police.

For the next four hours, Rita negotiated with kidnappers.

At the same time, she was also in contact with Malaysian and Singapore authorities.

The kidnappers finally released her family by the roadside.

Helped by villagers nearby, they were brought back to the police station.

The culprits stole her car and all the valuables inside worth some 200,000 Malaysian ringgit (S$80,000).