Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officers have put out a fire which broke out at Marriott Tang Plaza Hotel on Tuesday morning (March 15). 

SCDF said in a statement that it was alerted to the fire at around 9.10am and dispatched a firefighting team to the scene.

A security staff first spotted the fire outside the third storey roof of the building and alerted the premises’ Fire Command Centre, which deployed its Company Emergency Response Team (CERT) for initial firefighting operations.

SCDF officers put out the fire within 20 minutes.

About 100 people self-evacuated from the building before SCDF’s arrival, and no injuries were reported.

The cause of the fire is under investigation.

minlee@sph.com.sg

SINGAPORE – Some worshippers at Sultan Mosque near Arab Street were “chased out” of its public praying area because a minister was visiting, a netizen claimed on Facebook.

Mr Saifudean Mead said in a  Facebook post on Saturday (March 12) that he and four other friends were seated in the public praying area of the mosque and having a religious discussion when one of the mosque’s staff told them to leave the premises.

Mr Saifudean said the staff told him that “five or more people sitting in the prayer hall is an offence”. He said the staff then went “on and on about ISIS and illegal gathering”.

He said that as he and his friends were getting ready to leave, the staff added that “as there will be a minister visiting this mosque, it is advisable for you guys to leave because this might be an ugly sight for the minister and the mosque”.

The mosque has since issued a statement denying that its staff chased away the congregant and his group, and has invited Mr Saifudean for a meet-up to resolve the matter.

In an update to his Facebook post, Mr Saifudean said that he has yet to give the mosque an answer over the invitation to meet. However, he took issue with the mosque’s denial over chasing his group out – calling it a “fabricated announcement”.

He also implied that the mosque had told him that the staff member has been “counselled”.

sinsh@sph.com.sg

Singapore’s Sultan Mosque completes $3.65 million upgrading and restoration works

Click on thumbnail to view photos. Source: 

The Straits Times, Berita Harian

Seldom has the Government been accused of having too much trust in Singaporeans’ ability to make their own decisions.

Which made it all the more striking, in yesterday’s Parliament sitting, when officeholders gently rejected MPs’ calls for more paternalistic approaches.

Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin said it clearest: “We respect the choices of a person who has mental capacity.”

Granted, he was speaking in the context of the debate on changes to the Mental Capacity Act.

In 2008, the Act introduced the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).

This is a legal instrument allowing individuals – known as “donors” – to nominate “donees” to make decisions on their behalf, if and when they are unable to do so.

Among other things, yesterday’s amendment Bill aimed to better protect donors from unscrupulous donees – while stopping short of paternalism.

Mr Tan began by setting out three fundamental principles behind the Mental Capacity Act. The first: Respect for donors’ choices.

“We cannot assume a donor lacks capacity just because we think he or she could have made a better decision.” This extends to their choice of donee, he added.

Not all the nine MPs who spoke in the debate seemed satisfied with that approach. Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) wanted stronger safeguards: audits, whistle-blowing procedures and stricter due diligence in granting LPAs “when the stakes are higher”.

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar GRC) asked if there were parameters against which LPA applications are checked.

“For example, if the donee is not closely related or unrelated to the donor despite the donor being married with children, would red flags be raised? What if the donee is a foreigner?” she asked.

Their fears were not unfounded. Hanging over yesterday’s debate was the shadow of an ongoing court case in which Chinese national Yang Yin stands accused of manipulating wealthy widow, Madam Chung Khin Chu, to gain control of her assets.

Yang became Madam Chung’s donee under an LPA signed in 2011. The LPA was revoked after a court hearing in November 2014.

Mr Tan, too, recognised this case in his opening speech. But his reply to the MPs made it clear that donors’ choices remained supreme.

It would not be appropriate for the Public Guardian – who oversees LPA-related matters – to raise red flags just because the donee is a foreigner or not a relative, he said. “The Public Guardian should not act as an arbiter of another’s choices.”

Here was a government, criticised more often for paternalism than permissiveness, turning down calls for greater intervention.

This dynamic had also surfaced in the earlier debate on the Tobacco (Control of Advertisements and Sale) (Amendment) Bill.

Proposed changes included tighter rules on displaying cigarettes. Two MPs, both medical doctors, had a more radical idea.

Completely ban the sale of cigarettes to those born after a specific date, suggested Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC) and Associate Professor Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade GRC).

Thankfully, this ultimate example of paternalism – taking choice away completely – was also rejected.

The rationale was a pragmatic one. Senior Minister of State for Health Amy Khor gave practical reasons not to have a cohort ban: It would be easy to circumvent, enforcement would be challenging and costly, and it might not even reduce smoking rates.

It was good to see the Government giving such leeway, at least in the two very specific policy areas raised yesterday – even if, in the case of tobacco, it seemed to be acting more out of pragmatism rather than principle. Doing otherwise – by heeding the MPs’ calls – would have seemed at odds with the trend in the Government’s policy-making approach in recent years, of seeking to get people to bear greater responsibility for their decisions, while also respecting their choices in more policy areas.

Indeed, one would have thought that MPs would serve as a check on paternalism, rather than its advocate.

In electing politicians, voters entrust them with the power to make decisions on their behalf, where they might lack capacity or expertise.

But where they do have the ability to decide – in their personal and social lives – most would surely not want to give up the freedom to make their own decisions, even if they turn out to be mistakes.

janiceh@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on March 15, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

MPs yesterday welcomed as timely the changes to strengthen the law to better protect those who lose their mental capacity.

But several of them called for more to be done to make sure those appointed as professional donees and deputies to safeguard the well-being of these individuals are properly regulated and trained.

They also wanted to know whether the fees charged by these entrusted persons will be regulated.

“The role as a donee and deputy is a serious obligation and may require the professional to make complex decisions,” said Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong GRC), who suggested they be given training.

Responding to MPs during the debate on changes to the Mental Capacity Act, Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin said he fully agreed with better training and regulation.

“Through that process of a training programme, we can possibly also detect that if individuals are not suitable, we may then not register them accordingly,” he said.

Mr Tan also said controlling fees might not be the best way to keep prices affordable. In fact, it might deter competent service providers from taking up such roles.

He added that his ministry will also work with partners to ensure that free or low-cost services and financial assistance is made available to low-income earners, to engage others to safeguard their interests.

Parliament yesterday approved amendments to the Mental Capacity Act to better protect those who lose the ability to make decisions for themselves.

Key changes include the introduction of professional donees and deputies who are paid to make key decisions on behalf of the mentally incapacitated. The courts will also have more powers to revoke or suspend a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA).

MPs welcomed the pre-emptive provision to revoke an LPA should the donor appear at risk of being exploited. But some wondered whether LPA appointments should be made more stringent.

Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) cited the case of former China tour guide Yang Yin and wealthy widow Chung Khin Chun, saying: “It is alarming that a foreign citizen who is not related to the donor can be granted an LPA that effectively gave him control of more than $35 million of her assets.”

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar GRC) said: “It is far better to choose a suitable one than to go through the process of getting rid of an unsuitable donee or deputy.”

She asked if a red flag will be raised when a person with children appoints an unrelated donee, and if the donee is a foreigner.

Mr Tan, in reply, said the law must respect the choice a person has made while he has mental capacity. “We may not always agree with the decision, we may think that the decision is unwise, but if they still retain their full mental faculties, that is something that we have to respect,” he said.

Mr Tan added that the Office of the Public Guardian will step in only when there is abuse, but the officer should not “act as an arbiter of another’s choices”.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) asked if applications for parents to be appointed deputies for their disabled children can be simplified, citing the high cost of applications.

Mr Louis Ng (Nee Soon GRC) asked if parents can be appointed as deputies by default. Not all parents are suitable for the role, said Mr Tan, citing those who are abusive, or seriously ill.

As for costs, Mr Tan said a pilot project with the Movement for the Intellectually-Disabled Singapore and the National University of Singapore Law Faculty has seen costs average $300 a family, compared with $5,000 if lawyers were involved.

The next phase involves children with special needswho have left school and have other forms of intellectual disabilities and autism.

MPs also called for greater publicity on LPAs, given the low take-up rate. Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC) said he did a straw poll of some MPs and was sorry to report that none, himself included, had executed their LPAs yet.

Some 20,000 LPA applications have been made since the scheme began in 2010, and over 17,000 have been accepted. Mr Tan said the figure grew from 480 in 2010 to 8,400 last year, but this “is still not enough”. He said he would consider a proposal to have Pioneer Generation Ambassadors promote LPAs to the elderly.

KEY AMENDMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF PROFESSIONAL DONEES, PROFESSIONAL DEPUTIES

These persons are appointed and paid to make key decisions on behalf of those who are mentally incapacitated, in response to a rising number of elderly singles and elderly couples without children

BETTER PROTECTION FROM ABUSE

It will be easier for the court to revoke or suspend a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) when there is a high risk of donors or deputies exploiting the person, such as when he is charged or convicted of offences involving fraud or dishonesty. This will prevent him from using any assets while investigations are ongoing

GREATER CERTAINTY

Commercial transactions made by a donee or third party who did not know that an LPA had been revoked or suspended will be protected. Previously, only transactions made on LPAs that were not validly created were covered

MORE HELP FOR PUBLIC GUARDIAN

Operations of the Office of the Public Guardian will be improved with the appointment of an Assistant Public Guardian.

The Public Guardian will also be allowed to appoint auditors and replace the Public Guardian Board with an administrative Advisory Panel

kxinghui@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on March 15, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Less than half of Singapore residents have read at least one “literary book” a year, the first National Literary Reading and Writing Survey by the National Arts Council (NAC) has found.

Out of the 1,015 Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) aged 15 and above interviewed, only 44 per cent said they read at least one such book between March 2014 and March last year.

The NAC said literary books include fiction, poetry, drama, graphic novels, creative non-fiction, critical writing and anthologies.

Singapore’s reading rate falls far behind that of other countries. For example, a 2014 survey by market research firm YouGov showed that 75 per cent of Britons aged 18 and above have finished reading a book for pleasure over a one-year period.

In the Singapore survey, over 90 per cent of readers said they read in English. On average, only a quarter of respondents who read said they read books in their mother tongue.

The NAC survey, which was conducted via street interviews based on a sample representative of the population by age, gender and ethnicity, also found that about 11 per cent of those polled read books by Singaporean writers. The most popular local writers were Catherine Lim; Russell Lee, the creator of True Singapore Ghost Stories; and Low Kay Hwa, who is known for his teen romance novels.

Close to half of the respondents said they did not read local literature because of lack of exposure or awareness, while 12 per cent said they did creative writing for self-expression and relaxation.

National Book Development Council of Singapore executive director R. Ramachandran said the survey “affirms (the council’s) thinking that Singaporeans have limited exposure to Singaporean authors and Singapore published titles”.

He said the council has recently reorganised its programmes to focus on promoting Singapore writers and books, particularly fiction.

“This effort, together with similar programmes organised by related professional literary institutions, would help towards developing Singapore into a mature and an avid reading society,” he said.

yuensin@sph.com.sg

This article was first published on March 15, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam assured Bukit Batok residents last night that their needs would be tended to even though their MP had resigned.

“We will make sure that problems are solved, that their needs are taken care of, that all the projects that are ongoing carry on smoothly and are completed,” he told reporters.

He also said that the People’s Action Party (PAP) had a few “very strong candidates” it was looking at to replace Mr David Ong, who stepped down two days ago over an alleged affair.

“We are quite fortunate to be in that position. When we finally announce the candidate, I can assure you it will be someone committed to the interest of Bukit Batok residents, and who will be able to also speak for them and Singaporeans in Parliament,” he added.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had, in announcing Mr Ong’s resignation last Saturday, also said he would call a by-election for the single seat “in due course”.

Speaker Halimah Yacob also confirmed she had received Mr Ong’s resignation and declared his seat vacant at the start of yesterday’s Parliament sitting.

Yesterday, Mr Tharman, an MP for neighbouring Jurong GRC, turned up at the weekly Monday night Meet-the-People Session at the PAP Bukit Batok branch, which began at 7.30pm as usual.

Jurong GRC MP Ang Wei Neng was there to see to residents who needed help, accompanied by PAP Bukit Batok branch secretary Leow Boon Swee, who some see as a possible candidate.

Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee, who has been tasked to look after the constituency for now, is abroad for work.

At least 30 residents turned up at the Meet-the-People Session last night, some of whom were not aware that Mr Ong had resigned.

One of them was factory worker Aesha Amat, 64, who said: “If you made a mistake, you should come out and say ‘sorry’. You cannot just suddenly quit and then go missing in action.”

Technician Francis Ng, 51, however, noted that he had approached Mr Ong in person a few times.

“He’s very polite, quite easy to talk to and can connect with residents. He doesn’t give off a haughty vibe,” he said in Mandarin.

But Mr Ng added that he did not think Mr Ong handled the matter well, and that he should have come out to apologise publicly.

Told that some residents had hoped Mr Ong would address them and explain his actions, Mr Tharman said Mr Ong needed his privacy now and would have to decide for himself when to reappear in public.

Mr Ong yesterday told The Straits Times via e-mail: “I have expressed my deep regret and acknowledged my personal indiscretion. It would be best to leave it at that.”

He also thanked the Bukit Batok residents for the strong support they had given him.

“I have done my best to perform my responsibilities, and deeply apologise to them for having to step down prematurely,” he added.

Yesterday, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim told reporters at her Meet-the-People Session in Aljunied GRC’s Serangoon ward that her party will not contest the Bukit Batok by-election.

She cited two reasons: The WP is not active in that area, and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had declared at the weekend its intention to run, having contested the single-member constituency in last year’s general election.

The SDP received 26.4 per cent of the vote in that contest.

It held a walkabout on Sunday in Bukit Batok, and party chief Chee Soon Juan said there was a possibility he might run as the SDP was still considering who to field.

This article was first published on March 15, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.

After putting up posters stating that the playing of chess is banned in common areas, a town council has made a U-turn by removing them and apologising.

This was after a picture of the posters was put online on Sunday, sparking criticism from those who felt that the move was too harsh.

Marine Parade Town Council said yesterday that the three posters, which went up at the void deck and covered walkway of Block 11, Haig Road, in early January, were “a mistake”.

A spokesman said it would “like to apologise for the wrong context of our poster”.

“We admit that it’s a mistake by our side. We do not actually ban chess in common areas. We just wanted to deter people from gathering and blocking the way,” she said, referring to the covered walkway between blocks 11 and 12.

The posters were removed yesterday morning and replaced by new ones with the heading, “Please be considerate”. The new signs also urged residents not to block the linkway and to keep their volume down after 10pm.

The town council said some residents had complained that “chess” players – who were actually playing draughts (or checkers) – were causing a nuisance and blocking the pathway.

The players, many of whom do not live in the estate, would set up chairs and tables and sometimes play until the wee hours, it added.

Dr Fatimah Lateef, an MP for Marine Parade GRC, said she and some agencies have tried various ways to solve the issue, including working with the police, town council, Housing Board and grassroots patrol. But the players “remain recalcitrant and downright antagonistic”, she said on Facebook.

She added that she has personally invited them to use nearby facilities such as a community club and senior citizens’ corner instead, “but all have fallen on deaf ears”.

“Some of them have even scolded me and used vulgar words,” she said. She doubts that the new posters will work. “Who is going to enforce it? It’s not easy. But we will keep looking for new ways and new ideas to deal with this.”

Draughts players at the block said they do not feel they are doing anything wrong, though some admitted to talking loudly at times.

The group of mostly elderly men, which sometimes grows to more than 10 people, would gather daily for their games. They said they used to play at the Block 11 void deck, but stopped doing so after residents complained of noise.

One of the players, retired police investigator Mohd Salleh, 75, said: “We just want to have fun.We behave ourselves. We don’t commit crime. I’m angry that they treat us as though we are hooligans.”

The Aljunied resident and his friends said the police and town council staff have confiscated their stools and chairs several times. The town council said items such as sofas were confiscated as they “obstructed the way” or were “fire hazards”.

Geylang Serai Residents’ Committee chairman Steven Oh, 53, a liaison officer, said the players inconvenience him and his father, who uses a wheelchair.

“I have to purposely push my father onto the uneven grass patch beside the linkway to get around them. Sometimes it’s raining and we get wet.”

But Block 11 resident Stanley Chong, 43, a logistics officer, is not bothered. “We should let the elderly have their activities, not ban them. If not, what will they do?”

This article was first published on March 15, 2016.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.