Veteran blogger and human rights campaigner Leong Sze Hian took to his Facebook on Friday (16 August) to share e-mail screenshots of the replies between him and a Singapore Land Authority (SLA) officer.
In his post, he asked for advice, suggestions or help from people after the SLA officer mentioned that the rear boundary wall and fence of his house at 59 Walmer Drive had encroached onto part of State Land.
Mr Leong explained that the only way for him to rectify the encroachment is to knock down and rebuild the wall of his 64-year-old home as he was told that his wall and fence encroached the state land by 1.3cm to 4.9cm.
If that is not all, Mr Leong was also asked by SLA when he would be removing the encroachment, forcing him to seek “advice, suggestions or help” from his social media friends.

Shortly after his post was up, SLA promptly responded and said that Mr Leong’s “post contains deliberate untruths and half truths”, and “the suggestion you (Mr Leong) make is that the request by SLA was unreasonable”.
SLA then went on to point out the actual length of the encroachment to be between 13cm and 49 cm, which is 10 times more than the number that the blogger stated in his original post. SLA also accompanied their post with a picture to make it clear to the public.

“Your rear boundary fence had encroached between 13cm and 49cm onto the State land behind your property. A picture of the fence with concrete footing is enclosed. It is not a whole wall as you have suggested,” SLA said.
If that is not all, the Authority also noted that since February last year, they’ve been asking the blogger to rectify this encroachment and he failed to do so until now.
“Your neighbours have also similarly encroached on State Land. Several have been contacted, and have been co-operative, and have taken steps/are taking steps to move their fences back, unlike you,” SLA noted.
They added, “The Singapore Land Authority respects private property but also has a responsibility to safeguard state land, which belongs to all Singaporeans. You ought to know the law, and we expect you to keep within the legal boundaries of your own premises.”

Leong Sze Hian replies to SLA

Upon reading the Authority’s counter to his original claim, the blogger then took to his Facebook on 18 August (Sunday) to state his side of the story.
He said that the diagram that was sent to him said “0.13 and 0.49”, without providing any unit of measurement in the diagram. As such, he thought that it was 1.3cm and 4.9cm since his neighbour said that two of the other six affected houses were between 5 to 10cm.
“As it is a large drain behind the houses which is in a straight line – if you look at my back wall – you may also have the impression that it is not the disputed encroachment size, as my wall is only about 25cm thick,” the blogger wrote.
Based on the photo that SLA posted, Mr Leong noted that the encroachment line drawn on the photo was along the entire edge of the wall. He then questioned, “If there is a huge 49cm gap, shouldn’t the line be far away from the wall?! That’s also why I thought the gap was small (4.9cm).
“Now that it has been suggested to me – I have taken another closer re-examination of the diagram – I just realised that the “49 cm” portion of the encroachment may be due to a tall metal tower with electric cables (“EP5 Cable above”) – of about 35 cm (of the 49 cm), outside my wall?” he explained.
He added, “In the SLA’s photo sent to me – the encroachment line drawn on the photo is along the edge of the wall – and since the wall is about 25 cm thick – anyone who sees it may like me – think that it is 4.9 cm and never even think or crossed my mind that it is 49 cm. As the back boundary-wall/fence have been there for 64 years (probably for all the 6 houses too), and also in view of the above – I dispute the size of the encroachment.”
Responding to SLA’s comment for saying that his post contained “deliberate untruths, and half truths”, Mr Leong slammed back and said no one “would be stupid enough to reduce the figures by 10 times”, as the Authority can easily and immediate dispute the figure.
“Why accuse an ordinary Merdeka Generation senior citizen of “deliberate untruths”, “half truths”, “(not) co-operative”, etc, who was simply posting on Facebook asking for advice and suggestions? I did not tag SLA nor did I accuse SLA of being “unreasonable”. Isn’t it disingenuous of SLA to say that “the suggestion you make is that the request by SLA was unreasonable”?” he pointed out.
He added, “My facebook post was merely asking for advice and suggestions, as I was at my wit’s end – when I had already informed the SLA that I did not see any issue with the encroachment inserted into my 64 year-old house’s title, but am still being asked to knock down and rebuild the wall to rectify the encroachment?”
In addition, Mr Leong also states that based on SLA’s Facebook post, it called the wall as just a “fence” and concrete footing”, but according to the letter that it sent to the blogger, the Authority called it “a wall”.

As such, Mr Leong said that it’s “disingenuous” of SLA to call him deceptive and providing “half truths” when they themselves used the word wall in the letter that they sent him.
On top of all the other questions that he has raised to SLA, he also asked how is it possible for the encroachment of his house be 13 to 49cm, whereas all the other six affected houses only encroached by 5 to 10cm. This seems rather impossible since Mr Leong’s house is somewhere in the middle of the six houses, the blogger noted.
Lastly, Mr Leong also pointed out that two SLA officers told him on 6 August that all his neighbours have already rectified the encroachments. However, based on SLA’s Friday post, it stated that his neighbours “have taken steps/are taking steps to move their fences back”, prompting him to ask which is the exact truth.
He also added that he wants SLA to “tell us how many of the 6 houses affected have already rectified the encroachments?”

This is not the first time Mr Leong had troubles with the authorities. He is famously known for his legal battle with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as he sued the Singaporean blogger last year for defamation over a Facebook share he made on his Facebook profile with an article from TheCoverage.My. The article claimed that editor-in-chief of investigative journalism platform Sarawak Report (SR) Ms Clare Rewcastle had mentioned Singapore as “one of the key investigation targets, alongside Switzerland and United States” in the 1MDB scandal during an interview with Malaysian media.
Following this, Mr Leong filed a countersuit against PM Lee for the abuse of the process of the Court.
After Mr Leong filed the counterclaim, PM Lee’s lawyers made an application to strike out the counterclaim “on the ground that it has no basis in law and is completely hopeless”. In response, the veteran blogger then filed an application to strike out PM Lee’s claim for abuse of process of the court and the hearing for both their applications were heard on Monday (25 February).
As such, after hearing counsel from both sides, Justice Aedit Abdullah released a judgement that strikes out the blogger’s counterclaim against PM Lee, citing Mr Leong’s failure to disclose a “reasonable cause of action” in his counterclaim.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

政府投资公司对南韩恋爱主题酒店Yanolja融资

路透社昨日(11日)报导,新加坡政府投资公司(GIC)联同美国Booking控股,对南韩民宿预订和恋爱主题旅社连锁业者“Yanolja”,投资高达两亿美元。 在韩语,“Yanolja”的意思是“嘿,让我们玩吧”。 这项融资使得“Yanolja”的估值升至10亿美元。恋爱酒店可以廉价收费提供客户低至数小时的钟点住宿。然而,这类酒店过去为当地社会所诟病,被指助长婚外情、娼妓和隐藏针孔摄像头,一些酒店花俏的装饰和低暗灯光,也玷污了这类酒店的声誉。 Yanolja在2005年创立,创办人李秀珍,之前也是爱情酒店管家。他的搜索网站逐步转变成为爱情酒店经营者的广告平台。2004年南韩推行反卖淫法,他们不得不另开门路寻找流失的客户。 而如今的Yanolja总裁金志云(KimJong-yoon)则有意改变爱情酒店过去的负面形象,并瞄准寻找短租的经济型旅客或千禧夫妇客户群。 金志云表示:“我可以很骄傲地宣称我们为整个行业带来转型。”他说,“过去许多人对于住爱情酒店感到难为情,但如今我们已吸引了旅行客人,这是最大的转变。”他也渴望能把业务拓展至全球。 尽管去年收入翻了一番,但该公司仍然在合并报表基础上亏损。金志云表示,该公司的目标是在2022年之前,能公开发行IPO。 新加坡在2009年加紧对钟点旅店管制 反观在2009年9月,我国时任贸工部高级政务部长易华仁曾在新加坡国会指出,新加坡250家酒店近半都有提供钟点住宿预订,并宣布对这类提供钟点住宿的酒店加紧管制。 而酒店业者要申请营业执照,也会符合酒店牌照局规定的先决条件,包括如有意提供短时间住宿收费,就要解释原因。为了确保住客的安全和避免非法活动,酒店也必须采取预防措施,例如安装电眼和增派保安人员。 当时易华仁表示,酒店牌照局也会和相关单位监督在酒店业可能出现的妨碍社会风化行为。  

Chinese theme park forces pig to bungee jump off 68-metre tower as a publicity stunt

A Chinese theme park came under heavy scrutiny recently after forcing a…

台湾通过亚洲首个同婚专法

5月17日是“国际不再恐同日”,也是台湾通过同性婚姻合法化的历史性一天。今日同性婚姻专法(5月17)在台立法院通过三读。台湾执政民进党在立法院强力支持该草案,反对党国民党则有多数委员投下反对票。 根据台媒报道,台湾同性婚姻历经多年争议,自2017年起,台湾大法官释宪,要求立法院必须在2年内完成相关修法或制定专法,若未能于今年5月23日达成同性婚姻的平等保护,同性伴侣将可根据《民法》规定结婚,拥有和异性伴侣相同的权力和义务。 台湾立法院日前召开朝野协商,针对不同党员与政府机关提出的草案商讨,其中包括政院版《司法院释字第748号施行法草案》、国民党立委赖士葆版《公投第12案施行法草案》,以及民进党立委林岱桦版《司法院释字第748号解释暨公投第12案施行法草案》 三法律版本差异存于双方关系及收养关系中。例如,双方当事人的关系在民进党版本称为“同性婚姻”,赖士葆版是“同性家属”,而林岱桦版是“同性结合”。行政院草案规定同婚双方可“收养”另一人亲生子女,而其余2版本否定收养权,但可共同“监护”未成年子女。 最终同意通过政院版,并以66同意票,27反对票三读通过,由蔡英文为首的民进党大多投同意票;反对票则大部分由国民党投出。 专法由5月24日开始实施,意味着年满18岁以上的台湾同性伴侣可以依法登记结婚,但专法内并没有未对领养小孩与跨国婚姻多做叙述。 一直以来,同性婚姻课题在台湾备受争议,性别维权团体与反对同性婚姻团体双方各持己见,为了有效解决争议,于去年11月24日举办全民公投结果。根据结果显示,逾70巴仙台湾人民以保障异性婚姻制度而反对同性婚姻法案。因此台湾政府决定不修改民法对婚姻的定义,而是为同性婚姻另立专法。 今日已有逾四万名台湾公民聚集在立法院周遭,包括台湾各地维权团体,声援支持同性婚姻合法化,并全程关注消息出炉。结果出炉后,许多维权团体纷纷表示感谢与支持,而网民也随即患上印有彩虹背景的大头照,庆贺同性婚姻合法化, 总统蔡英文也于社交媒体上为此祝贺。她承认多年来备受争议的同性婚姻问题,已造成台湾公民间的严重分歧,但她强调,目前唯有行政院版草案是与立法院的判决匹配。 虽然如此,反对声浪并未随之减缓,据BBC报道,台湾许多保守教会团体已陆续表达反对同婚法案之意见,批评蔡英文政府不遵守去年台湾公投结果。他们认为公投民意应大于大法官释宪决议,而且国民党也随即谴责蔡英文政府在拖延处理同婚造成对立,故不应仓促通过。

港政府宣布正式撤回修订《逃犯条例》

香港在经历两个多月的示威后,终于有突破性的进展。特首林郑月娥于周三(4日)正式宣布撤回修例,在立法会复会后会按议事规则撤回条例草案。 林郑月娥下午4点在特首官邸礼宾府会见多名建制派人士,包括港区人大代表、政协及立法会议员,讨论反修例风波。6点左右,她透过录影向全港市民发表讲话。 她在录影中针对五大诉求一一作出回应。有关撤回条例,她指出早在6月中旬已表示暂缓条例草案并表明修例工作已停止;第二点,亦是港人目前最关注的一点,有关成立独立调查委员会一事,她认为港警执法行动应按既定机制,交由专责的独立监警会处理,不应另设独立调查委员会,详细审视6月9日起,一连串大型公众活动,包括721 元朗袭击事件。 再者,有关示威活动的定性,她强调已多次重申,法律程序不存在暴动定性,每宗案的刑事捡空决定都会按照证据,以及法律执行;有关示威被捕人士不捡空、不追究违法,她认为这些行为是身为法治社会无法接受的,这已有违法治精神。 最后有关双普选,她表示欲达目标,社会首先必须站在法理的基础上,以平和互信的氛围下进行务实的讨论。 提出四大行动望与社会共同前行 另外,她在录影中提出四项行动,希望作为社会向前行的起点。 第一,政府会正式撤回条例草案,完全释除市民的疑虑。保安局局长会在立法会复会后,按《议事规则》动议撤回条例草案。 第二,政府会全力支持独立监察警方处理投诉委员会(简称监警会)的工作,除了邀请海外专家,她已委任新成员加入监警会,包括曾任其竞选办资深顾问的前高官余黎青萍,以及资深大律师林定国。林郑月娥承诺,政府会认真跟进监察会日后提交的报告建议。 第三,本月开始,她和所有司局长会走入市区与市民对话,让社会各个阶层,不同政治立场、不同背景的人士,透过对话平台直接说不满,一起去探讨解决方法。 第四,林郑月娥表示会邀请社会领袖、专家和学者,就社会深层次问题进行独立研究和检讨,向政府提出建议。…