Connect with us

Current Affairs

Fights more likely in Clarke Quay than in dormitories

Published

10 years ago

on

Photo: Khaw Boon Wan Facebook page

Photo: Khaw Boon Wan Facebook page

By Andrew Loh
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?
cqfight
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:
cqslashed
cqslashed2
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.
cqtheft
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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
7 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

4 hours ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending