Connect with us

Current Affairs

My neighbourhood… after dark.

Published

on

By zyberzitizen

In the heartlands of Singapore – and away from the glamour and glossy pictures we see on promotional brochures, advertisements and postcards – lies a question. A question which will be asked at the end of this essay.

I took a late night stroll around my neighbourhood 2 days ago. I’ve never done this before – not at 3 am, anyway, when everyone would be asleep, all shops closed, traffic has died down and the air is somehow cooler (and fresher).

So, a little blurry-eyed, I left the confines of my 3 room flat and started my own little ‘observation walkabout’, if you like, of my neighbourhood somewhere in the east of Singapore.

All was quiet except for a group of young men playing ping-pong at the void deck. (What were they doing so early in the morning?). I left them alone although the thought of speaking with them did cross my mind. Everything else around was dark, silent and the air rather cool, chilling even.

And then I saw this:

He must be in his late 60s, early 70s. Very sound asleep. He must’ve worked hard today (I’ve seen him picking up discarded stuff like cardboards and newspapers around the area a few times.) Normally, he would be without his shirt. But tonight, as he lies there, I could see that he was trying to keep warm, with his clasped hands, and a chequered shirt which he uses for blanket.

I know some might find that me taking a picture of him sleeping is not very nice. I did think about it for a while before I snapped the above picture – without using the flash. My only hope and aim in doing so is that it will somehow make us more aware of those around us – those we do not see, or see but never realise. I certainly do not mean any disrespect to this man. Indeed, I admire his resilience – to physical weather, to life’s hard knocks, and the struggle to fend for himself.

A few thoughts went through my head as I left him to slumber peacefully. Does he have a wife? What happened to her? What about children? Did they abandon him, like those stories we hear and read about? How does he feel being left alone like that?

Where does he (and the likes of him) fit in, in our globalised, cosmopolitan, metropolitan, “biopolis-tan”, Asian-tiger, confucianist society?

The above is by no means an isolated case of homeless singaporeans. I’ve written about this in a previous essay here. There are also more examples of the homeless here.

How much dignity must a man lose before he is considered ‘deserving’ of help?

Perhaps the answers to these questions can be found (in some ways) in what I discovered next – still within my neighbourhood – in the behaviour of some Singaporeans. By no means am I saying that the following account is representative of Singaporeans in general (although some would say it is).

A few blocks away, this is what I saw:

I would have dismissed this as just an isolated incident if not for what I saw again…and again…

As i said previously, I do not think this is representative of singaporeans in general – or singapore at large. I would rather think that this is only the behaviour of some singaporeans – although ‘some’ may mean quite a lot.

Perhaps some might say what is shown above is not that bad. But the next time you walk around Singapore (especially after dark and before the cleaners come out and do their job), you might change your mind.

The pictures I’ve shown above are not the only ones I’ve seen in person. (They’re just a few photos which I snapped.) At other blocks, there were cigarette butts, lots of them, left on the floor by people who had gathered to play chinese chess earlier. At another block, there were discarded newspapers, empty packet drinks, even a small mattress strewn on the floor. More boxes with their contents thrown out at yet another block.

What upsets me is that the entire area had just had its surroundings upgraded by the town council recently.

And this brings me to the question which I mentioned at the beginning of this essay.

Are we on the right track to being a ‘caring society’ – a caring society for our homeless singaporeans and a caring society for our environment? These two questions, really, are at the heart of what being singaporean is all about, is it not? At least it should be.

For despite all the glamour and all the talk of being first-world, it is in the hearts of men (and women) that real grace is found. And what is in the hearts of men and women, I would argue, is found in the heartlands.

At the moment, at least from where I am, it is not a very pretty sight.

Nor very grace-ful.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

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

on

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

Trending