Current Affairs
Fights more likely in Clarke Quay than in dormitories
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2014/11/27074009/cqfight.jpg)
Minister Khaw Boon Wan’s Facebook posting of an anti-riot drill involving some “foreign workers ambassadors” and the Police and SCDF has come under fire for supporting the joint-exercise which some saw as racist and insensitive.
Migrant workers’ non-governmental organisations, TWC2 and HOME, have criticised it, along with members of the public who registered their disapproval on Mr Khaw’s Facebook page.
Mr Khaw and the police have since responded to the uproar and defended the joint-exercise which was held about two weeks ago at a foreign worker dormitory in Sembawang.
See TOC’s earlier report here: “Minister’s Facebook post comes under fire”.
Is the joint-exercise racist? Or racially-insensitive?
Mr Khaw explained in his posting that the exercise was to “test our response capability” in the event when “quarrels erupt, leading to fights or worse.”
“These are possible scenarios, given the concentration of foreign workers in one locality,” he said.
“It was a useful way to network up the various agencies, and spread preventive messages,” he added. “Prevention is always better than cure.”
Questions have been raised about why it was necessary to hold such exercises at foreign workers’ dormitories which, in this case, housed workers from the South-asian community – namely, Indians and Bangladeshis who make up the majority who spend their weekends at Little India.
The inference to last December’s Little India riot is thus unmistakable – Indians had rioted there.
And here perhaps is why asking both Indian and Bangladeshi “ambassadors”, as Mr Khaw described them, to participate in the drill held at a dormitory where they stay, is offensive to some.
The insinuation is that these – Indians and Bangladeshis – are more prone to rioting or causing unrest.
It feeds into the misrepresentation that South-asians are more susceptible to violent means than others – although evidence does not support such a claim.
In fact, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself cautioned against such mindsets after the Little India riot.
“We should not generalise a group because of some individuals. I don’t think that is fair or justifiable because their (foreign workers) crime rates are, in fact, lower than Singaporeans in general.”
Focusing on the South-asian community thus reinforces the discriminatory views that they are more prone to violent acts, despite what the PM himself had said.
Also, Mr Khaw’s post that the joint-exercise was because of potential “fights” in areas where there is a “concentration of foreign workers in one locality” does not make sense either. If that were so, why only conduct such exercises in dormitories for foreign workers?
Fights occur in other areas as well.
Some have thus rightly asked why similar exercises of this nature have not been held in other areas where crime and violence are, some argue, even more pronounced than in the dormitories for foreign workers.
Geylang, for example, which the Police Commissioner had described as a “powder keg” waiting to explode. The area is frequented by Chinese nationals.
And then there is Clark Quay, where Caucasian expats and Singaporean executives spend their time when away from work.
Just one and a half years ago, the Chinese newspaper Shin Min reported a rather alarming statistic:
It said that “each year, an average of 170 fights or violent acts break out in the Clarke Quay area.”
Read that again – “170 fights or violent acts”.
In the Clarke Quay area.
That’s an average of one fight or violent act every other day.
Is there any foreign workers dormitory which comes close to such a situation in comparison?
In a New Paper report in March 2012, titled “They club, then they fight”, the paper said:
Official numbers also indicate that fights at nightspots are on the rise.
Figures released by the police showed that there were 26 cases of reported nightspot brawls last year.
Police said that of these, nine were rioting cases and 17 serious hurt cases.
There were nine cases of rioting.
17 serious hurt cases.
But such cases didn’t happen only last year.
In May this year, for example, this headline appeared in the papers:
How many such cases have happened in foreign workers’ dormitories, or in areas where foreign workers gather, including Little India?
Even theft cases were reported to be on the rise at Clarke Quay.
So, the question: have the authorities conducted similar anti-riot/unrest drills at Clarke Quay, or at areas where known expats or Singaporeans congregate?
And have the police asked these expats or Singaporeans to be “ambassadors” and participate in such exercises or drills, simulating rioters?
If they did, it would be good for the authorities to release information about this, to debunk any allegations of racism.
At the end of the day, this is perhaps what those upset by the joint-exercise in Sembawang are unhappy about: that lower-skilled, lower-wage foreign workers are singled out for special attention when the evidence seems to indicate that in fact they are not the main troublemakers, as it were.
This was also what PM Lee said, did he not, when he said that foreign workers crime rates “are, in fact, lower than Singaporeans in general”?
So, if as Mr Khaw said, the joint-exercise is to prepare our security personnel for “fights” which may occur in areas where there is a concentration of foreign workers, then perhaps the focus should be in these other areas of Singapore which are frequented by expats and Singaporeans.
There is thus merit in asking if the authorities are – wittingly or unwittingly – reinforcing the racist impression that South-asians are more susceptible to violence, in spite of the evidence.
For the moment, it would seem that the fights which Mr Khaw spoke of are more likely to happen in areas such as Clarke Quay than the dormitories for low-wage foreign workers.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03132151/PHONE3.jpg)
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
Current Affairs
Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/30113758/case-fined-Ja2vq4.png)
The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has been fined S$20,000 by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) for breaches under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).
According to a judgement which was published on 28 August, the fine was imposed due to the consumer watchdog’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession and to establish necessary policies and practices required under the PDPA.
The breaches resulted in two significant incidents, one in October 2022 and another in June 2023, where the personal data of up to 34,760 individuals was potentially compromised.
Both incidents were handled under the Expedited Decision Procedure (EDP) at the request of CASE, with the organization admitting to all the facts and contraventions of the PDPA, leading to a faster resolution of the case.
The First Incident: Phishing Attack in October 2022
The first incident occurred in October 2022 when a threat actor accessed CASE’s email accounts and sent phishing emails from its official email addresses.
On 8 October 2022, some consumers received unsolicited emails from “[email protected],” which falsely claimed that their complaints had been escalated to the “collections and compensation department” and that they were eligible for compensation.
The recipients were asked to provide their banking details by clicking on a chat icon.
The following day, similar phishing emails were sent from “[email protected],” an account used for complaints that had progressed to mediation. CASE later discovered that the phishing emails had affected up to 22,542 email addresses.
Further investigations revealed that the phishing emails likely resulted from the threat actor obtaining login credentials from a CASE employee via a phishing attack.
The compromised accounts led to the sending of 5,205 phishing emails to 4,945 recipients. Although CASE acted swiftly to suspend the affected accounts and reset all administrator passwords, three consumers reported that they had clicked on the phishing links and collectively lost S$217,900. CASE subsequently lodged a police report.
The Second Incident: Data Breach During Vendor Migration
While PDPC was investigating the first incident, a second breach came to light in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, PDPC received a complaint about a phishing email that replicated a consumer’s complaint previously submitted to CASE.
This led to the discovery that the personal data of 12,218 individuals, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, and complaint details, had been exposed. The PDPC concluded that the breach likely occurred during a data migration exercise conducted by CASE between December 2019 and January 2020 when CASE switched vendors.
Investigations revealed that CASE’s contract with one of its vendors, Total eBiz Solutions Pte Ltd (TES), did not stipulate clear security responsibilities. This lack of contractual clarity contributed to the data breach during the migration process, highlighting CASE’s negligent vendor management.
PDPC Findings and Penalties
The PDPC found that CASE had failed to enforce its password management policy, with some passwords not meeting minimum length and complexity requirements and others remaining unchanged for up to four years. Furthermore, CASE’s vendor management was deemed negligent, as one of its contracts did not specify clear security responsibilities, putting personal data at risk.
CASE admitted to not conducting regular security awareness training for its staff, with the last session held five years before the first incident.
The PDPC also noted that CASE lacked an Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy, particularly in relation to patching and maintaining IT systems. The absence of a documented IT infrastructure management plan, insufficient logging and monitoring practices, and the lack of security reviews over the three years preceding the first breach were significant failures highlighted in the judgment.
In assessing the financial penalty, the PDPC considered the nature and gravity of the breaches, the duration of non-compliance, and CASE’s annual turnover. The fine of $20,000 was determined to be appropriate in light of these factors.
Remedial Actions by CASE
It is said that CASE, which is headed by Mr Melvin Yong, People’s Action Party Member of Parliament for Radin Mas, has implemented several measures to enhance its cybersecurity in response to the breaches.
These include introducing multi-factor authentication for all web-based applications, strengthening password complexity requirements, decommissioning end-of-life devices, and implementing patch management software for security updates.
CASE has also revised its contracts with outsourced vendors to include data protection clauses and mandated annual data protection training for all staff members.
CASE is working towards obtaining the Cyber Essentials Mark and the Data Protection Trust Mark to reinforce its commitment to safeguarding personal data and complying with PDPA obligations.
The PDPC has directed CASE to review and update its data protection policies, rectify all identified security gaps, and report back within one week of completion. The organization has also been instructed to conduct a penetration test after addressing the vulnerabilities to ensure no further security gaps exist.
The post Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents appeared first on Gutzy Asia.
-
Opinion4 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy3 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food3 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics2 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society5 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion6 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy4 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Parliament4 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting