Lift Upgrading Program – Farrer Road – Why Blk 6 is not offered LUP

Following is retrieved from Ms Indranee’s facebook

31 December 2011
Indranee Rajah

Message for Residents of Blk 5 and 6 Farrer Road

During my walkabouts at Blks 5 and 6 over the last few years, I received requests from:

(a) Occupants of the top floor of blk 5 for a lift landing on that floor;

(b) Residents of blk 6 for LUP for that block. I had asked HDB to look into this as I can fully empathise with the residents desire to have lifts on every floor.

Chua Lay Hoon ( whose posts you can see below) has also been asking for updates, and you may recall that I had promised I would revert with the outcome by year end, one way or another.

HDB has studied the issue and reverted to me with the outcome. I’m happy to announce that LUP will be offered to the units on the top floor of block 5. Unfortunately, LUP will not be offered to block 6. The reason is that is not feasible to have LUP for that block due to site constraints. The reasons are explained below.

Block 5 Block 5 is a point block, which means that it has one lift shaft running through the whole block. During the MUP more than 10 years ago, lift landings were added onto every floor as part of the MUP programme – except for the top floor.

I understand that the reason why the top floor wasn’t given a lift landing was because the lift motor room is located just on top, and based on the available technology at that time, it was difficult to create a lift landing with the motor room just on top.

Nevertheless, in response to the requests by the units on the top floor, I have over the years asked HDB to review this to see what could be done. HDB has informed me that with technological advancements, it is now possible to have a lift landing on the top floor of block 5.

I am therefore pleased to inform the residents in the units on the top floor of block 5 Farer Road that the government is offering the LUP to your units. Details of the proposed LUP will be provided to your units shortly, and the HDB will follow up with you directly.

Block 6 Block 6 is a long segmented block. There are connecting corridors only on certain floors. Unlike a point block where you can just punch through the wall to create an opening for a new lift landing, in this segmented block, on the floors where there is no connecting corridor, the space where you would normally have a lift landing is occupied by a unit.

Therefore you cannot just punch an opening for a lift landing on the floor above the common corridor as the opening would end up in someone’s unit.

The only way to have lifts landings for every floor is to construct separate lift shafts next to the block, and then connect the shafts to the block. This however leads to the next issue, which is where to put such lift shafts?

HDB did a feasibility study to see where possible lift shafts could be built to connect to block 6. Due to the limited space available, there are only certain areas where the shafts can potentially be constructed. Five possible areas were identified and studied.

However, after the study was done, the conclusion was that it is not feasible for the lift shafts to be constructed, for the reasons explained below:

(i) the 1st proposed lift shaft would encroach into the fire engine hard-standing area. Under the FSSD requirements, no activity can be carried out on the fire engine access way / fire engine hard-standing area, as otherwise, in case of fire, the fire engines would not be able to access the block;

(ii) the 2nd proposed lift shaft would about the MRT wall. HDB had consulted LTA and was informed that the LUP proposal is not acceptable as the counter fort (MRT) wall is not designed to take additional weight from the lift shaft;

(iii) the 3rd proposed lift shaft, whilst technically possible, would however encroach onto the newly constructed covered walkway and pedestrian walkway, and block pedestrian traffic:

(iv) for the 4th proposed lift shaft, there is insufficient space for LUP construction as the proposed lift shaft would be too close to the multi-storey car park;

(v) the 5th proposed lift shaft would encroach into the multi-storey car park. In view of above findings of HDB’s feasibility study, HDB has concluded that it will not be feasible to build the lift shafts for Blk 6, and as such, LUP will not be offered for block 6.

I’m sorry that I am not able to give better news to the residents of block 6 re LUP for your block, but I thought I should let you all know the outcome and explain the reasons for HDB’s decision.

I am aware that there are elderly and disabled residents in block 6 who encounter difficulty without lift access to every floor. I have asked the Town Council and HDB continue to look and see what other improvements can be taken to facilitate mobility for them, within the site and technical constraints that we currently have.

Indranee

———————-

see also
– HDB – what is lift upgrading programme
– Only 200 HDB blocks not eligible for LUP

Vincent Wijeysingha – politician turned cartoonist? (2)

Part 1 –  here

Updated 31 December 2011

Very quickly, in reponse to netizens’ disapproval of Vincent’s ‘portrayal’ of Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his facebook, on his public page his admin posted in his defense.

Now, one would have expected an apology from Vincent for that distasteful cartoon.  But, apparently, apologizing is the last thing on his or for that matter, his admin / party’s (SDP)  mind.

Let’s see, “for his friends only” ……

1) A click on the privacy button showed up “Shared with : Public” – yes, even till now as I am typing.  (It would have been set back to “friends only” , if it had been wrongly set in the first place, no?).

But no, I can still see that photo and no, I am not a friend of Vincent.

2) If Vincent has meant his ‘cartoon’ for his ‘friends” eyes only, does it then mean that he possess and portray a different set of morals privately and when in public? 

I think there is a certain adjective for such people, something that starts with letter “H” ?

3) In response to above comment, the reply was :

Well, it is indeed sad that a politician, a ‘Dr’, behaved so disrespecfully.  It only tells us, the citizens, that we have to be even more careful as to who we cast our votes for to represent us.

Such persona has no place in our Parlimentary system, lest we want to turn it into a circus.

Vincent Wijeysingha (SDP) – politician turned cartoonist ?

Now, which cartoonist can be so disrespectful ? One asked.

Disrespectful – YES.    Cartoonist? – NO.

Yes, the creator of above piece of ‘artwork’ is a politician none other than Vincent Wijeysingha of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

Vincent ‘proudly’ showcased his ‘masterpiece’ on his facebook public wall on 30 December 2011.

Vincent Wijeysingha - SDP

For those who are not familiar with the Simpsons, henceforth, Mr Burns, a check on wikipedia –>
** Mr Burns – “ He uses his power and wealth to do whatever he wants, usually without regard for consequences and without interference from the authorities. These qualities led Wizard Magazineto rate him the 45th greatest villain of all time.” **
Now, what was Vincent thinking when he let his artistic juice overflowed? Was he so lack of attention that he “could’nt resist” but to create an “overnight internet sensation” ? Or was he trying to imply that Mr Lee Kuan Yew is like Mr Burns – ‘a villian’? Which part of the cartoon did Vincent think that it’s funny?

A comment on his post by a netizen said it all :-

So, there we have it. A MP wannabe, from SDP, who could have represented the residents of Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in Parliament, had he been elected in GE11.

A MP wannabe who does not even show a tinge of respect for an elder.  One who has no qualms in mocking our very own leader that even other world leaders look up to.

Do we want such a character to represent us  in Parliament?

——————
reference:
Vincent Wijeysingha Facebook
Bryan Ti Facebook

Gilbert Goh (NSP) and Temasek Review Emeritus (Temasek Review)

** update 28 Dec 2011 – on KojakBt’s Facebook public wall-

quote: Kojak Bt ” I’m a volunteered editor for TRE. The report on Gilbert Goh is incorrect. He’s got nothing to do with TRE. He merely gave permission for TRE to publish articles from transtioning.org on TRE. Hope this clarifies” unquote

Now, let’s help to refresh Kojak’s memory.  During the interview with TNP on Aug 28, 2011, he did mention Gilbert Goh as one of those who were involved with Temasek Review.

quote:

” He said Dr Ong, Mr Gilbert Goh, and two others he knew only as Edmund and Andrew, are linked to TRE.” (TNP above page 1)

“In Mr Goh’s case, Mr Wan said that as moderator, he is aware that articles appearing in Transitioning.org can be carried with permission in TRE.” unquote (TNP above page 3 )

TR Emeritus

The latest TR site TR EMERITUS ‘ officially opened’ for business on 18 December 2011.

Following is a collection from the net as to who could be behind TR Emeritus & their true guiding principle.

quote: “Just as I had guessed Kojakbt is running this site….” unquote

quote: “Think both Kojakbt and Alex Tan of SPP who ran the temasekrevealed blogspot have a stake in it.” unquote

And from the horse’s mouth, on 26 Dec 2011, in respond to a netizen, Joash, about Alex Tan’s (ex SPP) childishness, Kojak Bt replied :-

Now, what is TR’s guiding light ? Alex Tan had this to say:

Read a little about  Alex Tan (ex SPP on loan to RP during GE 11 – AMK GRC) who managed Temasek Revealed too.

Alex Tan

KojakBt aka Richard Wan – used to moderate for the original Temasek Review. Someone blew his cover to The New Paper, who subsequently had an interview with him.

Kojakbt aka Richard Wan

And during the interview with TNP, Kojak mentioned that  Gilbert Goh (NSP) was also involved in Temasek Review.

———————————————————-

** update 28 Dec 2011 – on KojakBt’s Facebook public wall-

quote: Kojak Bt ” I’m a volunteered editor for TRE. The report on Gilbert Goh is incorrect. He’s got nothing to do with TRE. He merely gave permission for TRE to publish articles from transtioning.org on TRE. Hope this clarifies” unquote

Now, let’s help to refresh Kojak’s memory.  During the interview with TNP on Aug 28, 2011, he did mention Gilbert Goh as one of those who were involved with Temasek Review.

quote:

” He said Dr Ong, Mr Gilbert Goh, and two others he knew only as Edmund and Andrew, are linked to TRE.” (TNP above page 1)

“In Mr Goh’s case, Mr Wan said that as moderator, he is aware that articles appearing in Transitioning.org can be carried with permission in TRE.” unquote (TNP above page 3 )

———————————————–

Gilbert Goh – came back to Singapore early 2011 after having worked 3 years in Sydney. He joined RP in early Feb 2011 but jumped ship to NSP in less than 2 weeks, contested in Tampines GRC.

Gilbert Goh

So, there, we have it – two GE candidates, who jolly well might have become yours or my MPs, were / are involved in an online site that have no qualms in spouting lies.

Rewinding to the original Temasek Review, (later known as Temasek Review Emeritus), the site suddenly went off line on 5 September 2011. Temasek Review original was said to be the previous  ‘the Wayang Party’ and its supposingly founder was said to be Dr Joseph Ong aka Molina Han & a few other monikers.

On Sept 3, 2011, Dr Ong  was called up by the police  for conducting an exit poll on his site during GE11. A report on Sunday Times dated Oct 16, 2011, stated that Dr Ong had been released on bail pending investigations.

Joseph Ong Chor Teck

Lift Upgrading Programme Tampines GRC- Why 4 units not offered

source: http://www.somethingaboutsinapore.wordpress.com

LUP is in process for some old blocks in Tampines GRC and there is a particular walk-up block where 4 units are not being offered the program.  This is why —>

3 Dec 2011

Mr Baey Yam Keng’s (MP-Tampines GRC) in his facebook:

 

I had a session this evening with some residents to explain why their units would not be offered the lift upgrading programme due to cost issues. It was a very difficult situation and I know many of them are disappointed. We have had many meetings with the authorities and architects but we could not come up with alternatives that would meet the budget constraints. We also held two rounds of discussion with the residents to explain the challenges and I hope for their understanding.

===================

This is a very special case. The blocks involved are only 4 storeys high with fewer than 30 units per block. The challenge is that the blocks are segmented and three separate new lifts will have to be built to serve every unit in the block. There is this particular segment with only 4 units. At $30k budget per unit (where resident will pay only about 10%), $120k is not enough to pay for the lift which costs about $250k, more than twice the budget.

Of course, we can ask the government to give more budget. But should it be limitless? What about cases which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per unit? Should the government be using taxpayers’ money this way?

During last month’s parliament sitting, Minister Khaw shared that for the 200 odd blocks island-wide which will not have LUP due to various reasons, the ministry is working out another scheme to help them. Details will be shared when ready.

I will do my best to help these residents under this new scheme.

=======================There are three segments in the block, the one with just 4 units unfortunately did not get LUP becos based on the budget of $30k per unit, there is not enough $ to build the lift shaft. For the other 2 segments, there are more units hence the budget was enough and LUP will proceed for these two segments.
========================6 December 2011

Baey Yam Keng

On TOC’s posting about my reply on why LUP could not be offered to some units, Dom Su asked a valid question: “With 30 flats at $30k budget, that comes up to $900 k for each block. 3 lifts at $250k each comes up to $750k for each block. So block-wise, the budget should be enough to cover right?”The $250k lift I mentioned referred to a small lift which caters to a small no. of units (in this case 4), but for the other 2 lifts which serve 2 other segments of the same block (10 and 13 units respectively), they are bigger lifts which cost $400k each. So collectively, the budget for 23 units is just enough to pay for the $800k ($30k per unit from B and Town Council plus a small contribution from residents). However, $250k is just too much to be borne by 4 units. Hope this clarifies.

 

————————–

24 December 2011

Baey Yam Keng

I do not want to keep harping on this issue but since it is brought up again, I like to give a more detailed explanation. The affected residents would be familiar with the layout but I have attached the plan for everyone’s reference.

For this particular block, there are various isolated segments. A dedicated lift would have to be built to serve a single unit on 2nd floor while another to serve 2 units each on 3rd and 4th floors. While some may argue that it is a design fault, should public money be used to provide a lift at all costs, eg spending $250k for a lift to serve 1 household in this case? The residents could well need a lift badly hence I will work with HDB to help such families to relocate to a flat with lift access if they so require. I believe there are some people who do not mind making the climb if the environment and price suits them.

The comparison with another 4-storey block in Whampoa may not be a fair one as the configuration and hence challenges will be different. When I was serving in Queenstown, I managed to get LUP for 4-storey blocks in Lengkok Bahru and Alexandra Village. It was feasible in those cases becos 1 lift is able to serve all the units. In this case in Tampines, 4 lifts are required to serve all units. We have managed to proceed with 2 lifts (A1 and A2) as they will serve 10 and 13 units respectively across 3 floors.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2011/12/23/tampines-residents-shortchanged/

 

Also see:
http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My%2BMoney/Property/Story/A1Story20091022-175117.html

Mr Seng HanThong – what he actually said

Another case of twisting of ordss (words) and (intentional?) omson (omission) by the infamous Temasek Review:

The (New) Temasek Review headline shouted

quote: [MP Seng Han Thong: “because they are Malay, they are Indian,  they can’t converse in English well”] unquote

The Online Citizen headline screamed

quote: [MP Seng Han Thong: SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs English language inefficiency] unquote

What Mr Seng Han Thong actually said :

             quote

” I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.”

unquote

 In fact, if we read the transcript and watch the video above, we can see that Mr Seng Han Thong was actually saying in times of emergencies, communication of what is happening (even in improper English)  should be the main concern.

In my opinion, it was a case of improper public speaking, but definitely not racism at work.  

Nonetheless, Mr Seng made an apology for his message being miscontrued. His apology on his facebook dated 22 Dec 2011

quote:

Seng Han Thong

Statement of Apology

In my interview with blogtv.sg, I made a regrettable mistake in my language, which may be misconstrued as me saying that people speak bad English because of their ethnicity. I sincerely apologise to all Singaporeans, who have been offended by this error.

Singaporeans of all ethnicities and backgrounds speak varying standards of English. My own Chinese-educated background gi…ves me a special empathy for the non-English-speaking sections of our society. We should all be tolerant of people of different standards of linguistic ability.

The point I was trying to make is that this should not prevent people from trying to communicate, especially in times of emergency.

The remark was made in the context of a larger discussion about how we could better and faster improve the current problems we’re facing with our mass rapid transport system. Let us once again focus our minds and our public discussion on this issue.

unquote

—————
Mr Hri Kumar (MP – Thomson Constituency)

quote

” He made a disappointing comment, for which he apologised. Was his apology sincere? There is no doubt it was. Is he a racist? Any of us who know Han Thong, as I do, know that he clearly isn’t.

unquote

see full comment from Mr Kumar here
———————–
24 Dec 2011, Mr Seng Han Thong’s facebook entry, produced full here:

quote:

LETTER TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WORKERS’ UNION

Dear brothers and sisters of NTWU,

1 The recent series of breakdown incidents in our SMRT system has raised the attention of the public. You have had to work extra hard to repair and maintain the system during this period. Your exemplary performance is the pride of NTWU and will be duly recognized by the Singapore public.

2 I know that it was you, the workers standing at the front line, who were facing all the stress and pressure from the public commuters, every minute and second when we tried our very best to resume the train service. May I thank you for your service to the travelling public.

3 In the recent Blog TV programme, I expressed my view that SMRT needs to improve on the public communications during an emergency. I recalled I heard on the radio a view that cited our workers’ difficulty in English is a reason for the communication problems at the MRT stations.
I disagreed and said that even broken English should be acceptable.

4 Unfortunately, in trying to defend you, I made the mistake of only mentioning our “Malay” and “Indian” workers where the original quote in the radio interview I was commenting on had cited MRT staff of different races, “Malay, Chinese, or Indians or any other race”.

5 My wish to defend you was further taken out of context and misconstrued by The Online Citizen. Their misleading title “MP Seng Han
Thong: SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs (sic) English language inefficiency” (Dec. 21), made it look like I was blaming any unpreparedness during a emergency on your language inefficiency.

6 I understand that this episode has hurt the feelings of our workers, as well as other Singaporeans, and I apologize to you for this misquotation. I never had any intention to belittle or push the blame of the recent MRT breakdown to the workers of SMRT. Having been executive secretary for NTWU for many years, I am well aware that our workers are competent to communicate with the public in English. That is why when I heard on radio that our workers had difficulty with English, I disagreed . So in my Blog TV interview, I tried to make the point that our not so perfect English should not prevent us from communicating effectively with the public, especially in times of emergency.

7 These are challenging times for you and SMRT. I am sure you will rise to the occasion and work in cooperation with the management to restore public confidence in our train system.

8 Once again, I ask for your understanding, and urge you to work together to get MRT back in good shape. I salute your hard work at the frontline of our public transport system!

Han Thong

unquote

———————–

Mr K Shanmugam (Law & Foreign Affairs Minister) in a Channel News Article

quote:

 “A significant part of what has been attributed to Mr Seng is false, to be quite blunt about it.”

Weighing in on the controversial remarks, Mr Shanmugam said the key point is that Mr Seng had sought to rebut a statement made by an officer from train operator SMRT.

unquote.

On In his facebook entry dated 25 Dec 2011, Minister K Shanmugam

“There are 3 points that I will make:

1. What did SHT actually say ?
2. Was the TOC article accurate ?
3. Is SHT a racist ?

What did SHT say ?

1. There has been a lot of response, to what people believe SHT said. That response is entirely understandable, if indeed he had said what has been attributed to him. Unfortunately, what has happened is that a significant part of what has been attributed to SHT is false.

2. SHT heard over the radio what an officer from MRT had said – essentially suggesting that the poor language skills of Chinese, Indian and Malay drivers who worked with SMRT was part of the problem, in the inadequacy of the response. SHT disagreed with this comment. On TV he referred to this comment and in essence made the point that the language skills of workers should not be blamed and that broken English can be accepted (meaning that broken English would have sufficed for effective communication). The real problem, according to SHT, was that the drivers had not been given adequate training. The problem lay with management and not the workers.

3. This is what he said. The meaning is clear enough. The key point is that SHT referred to the MRT officer’s statement in order to rebut it, to say that he, SHT, disagreed with it.

4. The mistake SHT made was that he misquoted the MRT officer and said that the officer had referred to Indian and Malay drivers when in fact the officer had referred to drivers of all three races. SHT could also have explicitly disagreed with the view (which he thought that the MRT officer had expressed) that the Indian and Malay drivers had poorer language skills. SHT has since apologized for the error he made.

Was the TOC article accurate ?

5. The TOC headlined its article : “ MP Seng Han Thong : SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs English language inefficiency”
6. This is quite false. It attributes to SHT the very opposite of what SHT had said. The article does not say that SHT was quoting what an MRT officer had said, and the article does not say that SHT quoted it in order to disagree with it. Instead it says ( both in the headlines and in the text) that he in fact said the above.

Is SHT a racist ?

7. My colleagues and I have known SHT for many years. He is not a racist. He works hard on the ground and helps everyone. It is quite unfair to label him as a racist. If he had indeed made the comments which have been attributed to him, then I would have come out to say that that is completely unacceptable.

Conclusion

I hope we can deal with this matter on the basis of facts and not on the basis of a false statement which has been quite wrongly attributed to SHT.”

 

————-

 ST Forum- Published on Dec 24, 2011

MP Seng’s gaffe: Let’s keep it in perspective

AS AN Indian Singaporean who has had the privilege of working under Mr Seng Han Thong, I can testify that the Member of Parliament is not only kind-hearted but fair-minded (‘Outcry over MP’s remarks on SMRT train drivers’; yesterday).

As the divisional director supervising human resources where I worked at the administration and research unit of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC-ARU), he always was a joy to work with and always concerned for the ordinary man.

He respected his colleagues regardless of their race.

When he dined at the staff canteen at the old Trade Union House, he always made sure that everyone present had a drink or food.

Before I left NTUC-ARU, he made sure we dined together before we parted ways. He was present at the wedding of our old colleague’s daughter, clearly appreciating and at ease with Indian culture.

Let us not get carried away by this episode. Politicians have families too. Mr Seng has apologised, and he is a gentleman.

K.S. Thomas

————-

See Also :
1- http://journalism.sg/2011/12/22/theres-enough-real-racism-in-singapore-toc-neednt-cry-wolf/
2- http://journalism.sg/2011/12/23/we-need-anti-racism-whistleblowers-but-they-should-protect-their-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-174901
3-http://journalism.sg/2011/12/24/seng-han-thong-alternative-media-and-choosing-sides/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
4-Sg Hard Truth

Mr Vikram Nair – got angry during house visit ?

On 3 December 2011, The Online Citizen (TOC) published on their Facebook Page (probably something they received from their reader) regarding Mr Vikram Nair’s (Sembawang GRC) outburst during a house visit.

Naturally, Mr Vikram received quite a many unfavourable remarks about him base from there.

On 6 December 2011, Mr Vikram replied on his Facebook:-

quote

I do remember a resident who shared his story about how he had lost his job when his employer outsourced his function to a private contractor. He then explained that when he was rehired in the same line, he took a significant pay cut and had to work on a contract basis, which meant substantially less benefits and security of employment. He was upset at times when sharing his story, probably because it was a painful experience. I certainly did not feel any anger towards him, let alone throw a tantrum. In fact, the overwhelming feeling I had was one of sadness when I listened to him.

I did ask him if he needed any help. At the time, he mentioned he was not in any need of financial assistance because he was making enough to make ends meet, but he was still upset about being retrenched and had not been able to secure a job that paid as well or provided as much benefits and security as the one he lost. I can fully understand the pain he is going through, and I will be there for him if he should ever need my help. I believe I left him a calling card, and as far as I am concerned, the door is still wide open from my end.

unquote

An ex colleague, Mr L.C Yeoh, stood up for Mr Vikram, wrote on TOC’s wall :

quote : ” …..Knowing Vikram personally (as I do) as an ex-colleague I would be very surprised if this post has an iota of truth in it.” unquote

Following is the ‘complain’ post on TOC

Well, it’s always good to clarify before we spread stories that may cause unnecessary unhappiness.

———————————–

Also see:

– Fabrications About The PAP

Hazel Poa (NSP) – “pushing our children to get better grades”

At NSP’s (National Solidarity Party) outreach event in Nov 2011, titled ‘Own Your Future – Tomorrow Starts Today’ , in setting out the party vision, Ms Hazel Poa – Secretary General said:

quote

“If we move along the current trajectory, what can we look forward to? A bigger population? Higher GDP? 1% real wage growth? Rising costs of living? Greater income inequality? Pushing our children to get better grades, so that they can be more competitive in finding a job, then spending more and more time to make more and more money to pay for more and more expensive roofs over our heads?” “Singaporeans are not mere economic digits”.

unquote

Coming from an opposition, above seems nothing wrong.

The thing is, you see, Ms Hazel Poa owns an elite tuition centre –Smartlab , with her husband Tony Tan Lay Thiam (also NSP)

Smartlab has a special program that guarantees Top Result and it charges :

PSLE – S$3500/ subject;  GCE O level – S$4500/ subject ; GCE A level – S$6500/ subject

Now, a tuition centre’s main objective is to help children to get better grades, isn’t it? And Smartlab even have a Money Back Guarantee Program for Top Result.

Does it then not mean that:

1) Ms Hazel and Mr Tony’s Smartlab, ARE themselves helping to push students to get “better and better grades”?

2) Ms Hazel and Mr Tony – may be trying to “make more and more money” with their high tuition fees ? 

—————–

Reference:
— Bryan Ti Facebook :

– ST Article dated August 28, 2010 – “Transparency & Results Guaranteed” 

Against Racism

Singapore is a multi racial country and racism definitely has no place here. 

In mid Nov 2011, a photo of a bus of Muslim children with offensive caption, in a Mr Jason Neo’s facebook was chanced upon by Mr Noor Firdaus. 

Mr Firdaus emailed  his MP of Sembawang GRC – Mr Ong Teng Koon.   Mr Jason Neo was reprimanded and he immediately removed the photo which he had taken and posted in March 2011. He issued a statement of apology and resigned from his party the next day. At least three police reports were being made against Mr Neo. Such act must not be condoned.

Just when we wondered what was the photo about,  the said sensitive photo immediately resurfaced with full caption in Mr Firdaus’ own page, on top of that it was being tagged to close hundred, which just led to more shares.

It was really puzzling that Mr Firdaus, the whistle blower, who insisted that Mr Neo removed the photo because it was too sensitive, had himself pasted on his own wall and made sure more saw it by tagging it.

Well, what was Mr Firdaus intention when he reproduced the photo with the full caption? Knowing fully well that it will upset other Muslim friends.  The photo was later removed too, but not after probably thousands have seen and  shared it.

Oh,  forgot to mention, Mr Jason Neo was an activist in YPAP (June 2011 to Nov 2011), while Mr Firdaus is an activist with NSP (National Solidarity Party).

E-mail From Firdaus

 Hi Ong Teng Koon,

 Can you advise your YOUNG PAP member, Jason Neo to remove this photo and caption in his facebook account. I am very sensitive to it.

 He is really asking for trouble.

 Mr Noor Firdaus Bin Abdul Samad