A centralised refuse-collection centre in the Civic District was delivered satisfactorily and at an acceptable cost, National Development Minister Lawrence Wong said yesterday as he addressed the controversy over the high fees paid to the consultant of the project.

He pointed out that the Auditor- General’s Office (AGO) did not conclude the consultant was overpaid, but was instead concerned about how the fees paid were assessed.

Mr Wong was responding on behalf of Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu to a parliamentary question from Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun. Ms Fu is in Brazil at the Olympic Games.

The National Arts Council (NAC) had come under fire over the bin centre after the AGO’s annual report on public spending flagged the issue of the consultancy fees.

The AGO noted that the $410,000 paid to the consultant came up to nearly 90 per cent of what was paid to build the bin centre, which cost another $470,000.

Mr Wong said the scope of the consultant’s study was much wider than was typical for a bin centre, as an extensive feasibility study had to be done due to the historic nature of the buildings.

The original plan was to have a standalone bin centre for Victoria Theatre and Victoria Concert Hall, but it was later decided that a centralised centre that served other nearby buildings as well would be more suitable.

Moreover, the consultant’s quotation was assessed to be within the range of such fees for other complex projects in the area, he said.

The consultancy cost was 8.7 per cent of total costs to redevelop the Victoria Theatre and Concert Hall.

Mr Wong said this was within the industry benchmark of 10 per cent.

He added that the consultant had also helped to bring down the construction costs to $470,000, through “extensive value engineering”. The project’s contractors had initially quoted $890,000.

When asked by Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC) if the ministry would have decided differently in hindsight, he said it would have made the same choice.

Mr Wong added that as it was not clear at the start what form the final refuse centre would take, and how much it would cost to construct, the NAC had decided against pegging the consultancy fees to the project cost. Instead, it paid a lump sum to “limit any potential escalation of costs”. He acknowledged that detailed documentation should have been provided to clearly explain the scope and complexity of the project, and pledged that this would be done in future.

This article was first published on Aug 16, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Plumes of “smoke” came out of a train when the doors opened after it pulled into Tanjong Pagar MRT station yesterday.

It filled the station as commuters rushed out, their hands cupped over their mouths and noses.

Passenger Sophia Kee told The Straits Times Online that the cabin she was in became “smoky” during the journey between Raffles Place and Tanjong Pagar stations.

Huge plumes of smoke out from the train that pulled into Tanjong pagar mrt station! pic.twitter.com/MCncDJVSkD

— ZOE RAYMOND (@zoeraymond) August 15, 2016

It appeared to be “coming from underneath the train”, between the train and the tracks, and filled the train and the station, she said. “It was really strong, thick smoke.”

The 30-year-old environmental designer told ST that she and the other passengers did not know what to do when the train stopped and the train doors opened.

“We did not know if it was more dangerous on or off the train,” she said, adding that the “smoke” made her cough.

Not sure what just happen here at Tanjong Pagar MRT!! pic.twitter.com/APiKRGVcx2

— اسوادي روس (@IswadiRos) August 15, 2016

She also said that there were no announcements telling passengers what to do while she was there.

After about a minute, Ms Kee decided to get off the train and walk to her office in Outram Park.

As she left, she saw SMRT staff members arriving to help the passengers.

Another commuter, who did not want to be named and who was at the platform when the affected train arrived, told The New Paper that the SMRT staff members asked everyone to stop taking photographs and videos.

Police on patrol also began ushering people to the concourse.

The incident was captured on video by several passengers and shared on social media platforms.

REDUCED VISIBILITY

SMRT later clarified that the “smoke” was freon gas that had leaked from the train’s air-conditioning system.

It said: “The discharge of freon into the tunnel reduced visibility at parts of the station when the platform screen doors were opened for passengers to exit the train.”

SMRT staff responded by immediately switching on the tunnel ventilation system to disperse the gas.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force, alerted to the incident through a video submitted by a commuter, sent firemen as a precautionary measure.

It said there was no fire detected at the platform and there were no signs of smoke.

The passenger who spoke to TNP said that she, along with others, got on the next train that came five minutes after the affected train left.

On her way to Tiong Bahru MRT station, she continued to see “smoke” coming towards her cabin from the front of the train.

She said: “It was a little unbearable in the train because of the smoke but most commuters were calm and simply covered their mouths and noses.”

Police said the affected train had been towed to Ulu Pandan Depot for inspection.

In its statement, SMRT said the passenger platform at Tanjong Pagar MRT station remained in service during the incident and that train services were not affected.

It also apologised to affected passengers and said that it would be investigating the cause of the incident.

Expert: Scene looks scarier than it really is

Freon, the gas that caused the scary scenes at the Tanjong Pagar MRT station, is not particularly hazardous, said an A*STAR director.

Dr Keith Carpenter, executive director of the Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences in A*STAR, said freon is a trade name for a range of gases.

These gases are virtually odourless, non-flammable, inert and not particularly hazardous.

They are mostly in liquid form as refrigerants in fridges, freezers and air-conditioning units.

Dr Carpenter said: “What you see in the video happened because when released, freon is vapourising and cold.”

In general, exposure to the gas needs to be at above 10 per cent in air and for a prolonged period for it to have major health effects.

“The incident looks dramatic, but it really looks scarier than it really is,” he added.

This article was first published on Aug 16, 2016.
Get The New Paper for more stories.

Singapore lawmakers on Monday night passed the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill, after seven hours of heated debate.

Law Minister K Shanmugam single-handedly took up two-and-a-half hours of that time, using two lengthy speeches to debunk criticism that the Bill was rushed into Parliament, curbs freedom of expression, and places the government above the judiciary.

The Bill – passed with 72 votes “for” and nine “against” – puts in writing contempt of court laws that have until now been left to the courts to define. It sets out the types of conduct which amount to contempt of court: disobeying court orders, interfering with court proceedings, sub judice contempt (where ongoing court proceedings are prejudiced as a result of comments), and scandalising the court.

Explaining the government’s decision to include contempt law in the statutes – despite the Law Ministry’s assertion that “the boundaries of contempt … will not change” – Mr Shanmugam said that it is “not satisfactory” to have this as the only criminal law in Singapore that is based on case law.

Rejecting claims that the government had rushed the Bill into Parliament without sufficient public consultation, Mr Shanmugam said the genesis of the Bill was six years ago, when former chief justice Chan Sek Keong mooted the enactment of such a law. He added that the six-year timeframe was long by Singapore’s standards.

Mr Shanmugam reiterated that stakeholders such as the Judiciary, the Law Society of Singapore, academics, and media practitioners had been consulted prior to the tabling of the Bill. He also said that according to a “scientifically-valid statistical survey” by the government, a “very substantial majority” of respondents supported the Bill. Without the survey on hand, however, he was unable to quote the exact figures.

Still, he noted that only 249 members of the public had signed an online petition seeking to delay the passage of the Bill, on the grounds that it may restrict the legitimate discussion of issues that are of public interest.

Several online commentators and Members of Parliament (MPs) had also expressed concern that the government was attempting to limit citizens’ freedom of speech – fearing that they would run afoul of the law by simply commenting on a matter before the courts. Representing several opposition MPs’ views, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Dennis Tan characterised the Bill as an “unjust and draconian piece of law”.

But Mr Shanmugam shot down such perceptions as “untrue”, stating that “the law tomorrow is the same as the law yesterday” when it comes to one’s right to criticise judgments and policies, and disagree with rulings.

Mr Shanmugam said the new law does not affect what people have already being doing – unless they decide they want to start publicly attacking witnesses, attacking judges, and trying to get certain results from the court.

He stressed that public discussions are not prohibited per se, and that the question is whether such discussions prejudice court proceedings or pose a real risk of doing so.

Indeed, the crux of Mr Shanmugam’s message was that the government has consciously chosen to stick to the law as developed by the Singapore courts, except for one change – where the threshold for being in contempt by scandalising the court has been lowered. Previously, for a statement to be in contempt, it had to have a “real risk” of scandalising the judiciary. Now, the word “real” has been dropped.

He also dismissed the notion that opinions aired over coffeeshop talk or Facebook updates could be considered contempt.

“If the law yesterday is the same as the law tomorrow, have you seen anyone being charged for sitting in a coffeeshop and talking about cases? You know, I think we want a debate that engages honestly on the facts,” said Mr Shanmugam, chiding those who had suggested that one could now be in contempt just by making a comment to a friend over a meal.

“I’ll tell you when someone sitting in a coffeeshop discussing a case could be in contempt. If you catch hold of a witness, have a beer with him, and try and influence him or threaten him in the coffeeshop, that will be contempt. But if you sit with your friends and talk to them about a case, how do you think it impacts on any case?,” asked Mr Shanmugam, urging MPs to “get real”.

He also firmly rejected speculation that the Bill places the executive branch above the judiciary. Critics had taken issue with a clause containing an exception to sub judice contempt, which states: “A statement made by a person on behalf of the government about the subject matter of or issue in a pending court proceeding is not contempt if the government believes that such statement is necessary in the public interest.”

Mr Shanmugam tried to allay those fears by stating: “I confirm for the record (that) the courts are the final arbiters … as to whether the power of the executive was exercised in accordance with the clause.” He said that this has to be the case “if the rule of law has got any meaning”.

As for suggestions to amend the bill so that contempt is actionable only if it “seriously prejudices” the court proceedings – as opposed to simply having prejudiced them – Mr Shanmugam said: “This is not right.”

“Think about it: A person is a defendant in a criminal trial. He could face years in prison. Do we really want to say it is okay to prejudice his right to a fair trial? What happens to the presumption of innocence and the basic right to a fair trial?”

This article was first published on Aug 16, 2016.
Get The Business Times for more stories.