Give and take, not 'principled' approach

[TVT]

Like that also can huh ?

 

Initial letter by a member of the public:

Inconsistent parking enforcement

From Yolanda Chin Tsu-Li

04:45 AM Oct 31, 2012

I am concerned about the inconsistencies in enforcing traffic laws in Braddell Heights, where a string of restaurants were granted permits a few years ago to operate, along Jalan Riang, despite the absence of public car parks in the neighbourhood.

 

Diners and residents have since been competing for scarce parking, leading to congestions and scuffles. As a result, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has been regularly monitoring the neighbourhood to enforce traffic rules in the interest of safety.

 

I had brought the worsening traffic and parking situation to the attention of Member of Parliament Seah Kian Peng in the past.

 

He said that it was not within his jurisdiction to solve the problem, as it was legal for the restaurants to operate and for the LTA to enforce traffic rules. I was advised to park at less congested roads and walk, should no parking be available near my home.

 

I agree that it is not within his jurisdiction to instruct LTA officers how to do their job.

 

Then, on Oct 20, the grassroots organisation threw a party, attended by Mr Seah, at the park along Jalan Riang. As usual, many cars were parked illegally, and an LTA officer arrived that afternoon to enforce the law. But he left without booking any drivers.

 

I wish to clarify if the officer knew the implications of his dereliction of duties on public safety, and if so, why he still chose to leave.

 

I reported the incident to the LTA and was assured that I would hear from an officer who would be assigned to investigate. I have yet to hear from the LTA since.

 

Follow-up letter by MP:

Give and take, not 'principled' approach

From Seah Kian Peng Member of Parliament, Marine Parade GRC

04:45 AM Nov 02, 2012

Parking issues in private estates are common. I have helped mediate these and have conducted various dialogues with my residents in private estates for various streets. They are time consuming and require effort and cooperation by all parties.

 

Ms Yolanda Chin, who lives near the eateries and wrote "Inconsistent parking enforcement" (Oct 31), had approached me previously about noise and traffic issues. I asked the eateries to cooperate and ensure their patrons observe the rules.

 

I also asked for enforcement to be stepped up during busy periods, when there was indiscriminate parking in the area. Residents have told me that things have since improved.

 

The garden party on the day in question, from 4pm to 6pm on a Saturday, was to celebrate the completion of an estate upgrading project in Ms Chin's estate. All its residents were invited.

 

As I was driving there, I saw an enforcement officer about to book some cars; I stopped and told him that many residents would be at the party and, unless their cars were obstructing traffic, to apply a light touch and not issue any summons.

 

This was not the peak period, the cars were parked in an orderly manner and I do not think there were any public safety issues as Ms Chin stated.

 

I am an advocate that everyone, resident or not, should be reasonable and considerate, with a give and take approach.

 

All are neighbours there, and when one starts to adopt an uncompromising or unneighbourly approach, such behaviour normally spreads.

 

It then becomes a lose-lose situation. Most importantly, it destroys the neighbourly spirit in any community.

 

There will always be some residents who insist that there be constant enforcement, regardless of circumstances. I am against such a "principled" approach for such matters.

 

I take heart that in two streets in my estate where such disputes used to occur, things have improved following a series of mediation and consensus building among residents.

 

They have adopted their own ground rules and determination to solve matters internally and to call the enforcement agency only as a last resort.

 

It has worked well, and the neighbourhood is more peaceful and cordial now.

 

Back to the garden party: As it was raining heavily from 5.30pm, most residents and cars had already left by then. I hope this letter puts things in the right perspective.

Edited November 2, 2012 by TVT

[Galantspeedz]

what was the initial letter?

 

can post?

[Darryn]

Like that also can huh ?

 

Give and take, not 'principled' approach

From Seah Kian Peng Member of Parliament, Marine Parade GRC

04:45 AM Nov 02, 2012

Parking issues in private estates are common. I have helped mediate these and have conducted various dialogues with my residents in private estates for various streets. They are time consuming and require effort and cooperation by all parties.

 

Ms Yolanda Chin, who lives near the eateries and wrote "Inconsistent parking enforcement" (Oct 31), had approached me previously about noise and traffic issues. I asked the eateries to cooperate and ensure their patrons observe the rules.

 

I also asked for enforcement to be stepped up during busy periods, when there was indiscriminate parking in the area. Residents have told me that things have since improved.

 

The garden party on the day in question, from 4pm to 6pm on a Saturday, was to celebrate the completion of an estate upgrading project in Ms Chin's estate. All its residents were invited.

 

As I was driving there, I saw an enforcement officer about to book some cars; I stopped and told him that many residents would be at the party and, unless their cars were obstructing traffic, to apply a light touch and not issue any summons.

 

This was not the peak period, the cars were parked in an orderly manner and I do not think there were any public safety issues as Ms Chin stated.

 

I am an advocate that everyone, resident or not, should be reasonable and considerate, with a give and take approach.

 

All are neighbours there, and when one starts to adopt an uncompromising or unneighbourly approach, such behaviour normally spreads.

 

It then becomes a lose-lose situation. Most importantly, it destroys the neighbourly spirit in any community.

 

There will always be some residents who insist that there be constant enforcement, regardless of circumstances. I am against such a "principled" approach for such matters.

 

I take heart that in two streets in my estate where such disputes used to occur, things have improved following a series of mediation and consensus building among residents.

 

They have adopted their own ground rules and determination to solve matters internally and to call the enforcement agency only as a last resort.

 

It has worked well, and the neighbourhood is more peaceful and cordial now.

 

Back to the garden party: As it was raining heavily from 5.30pm, most residents and cars had already left by then. I hope this letter puts things in the right perspective.

 

Hmmm...while I agree with his sentiments, you have to wonder what else an MP can tell a public servant to do, where else could a public servant be told to take a light approach and give chance?

 

 

[Tatty]

so mp above the law

[TVT]

what was the initial letter?

 

can post?

Have posted the initial letter, which is a complaint letter about LTA inconsistent way of enforcement...

[Kb27]

Hmmm...while I agree with his sentiments, you have to wonder what else an MP can tell a public servant to do, where else could a public servant be told to take a light approach and give chance?

 

It's his party, and he cries if he wants to.

[Gitanic]

It happens everywhere.Not just her or any private estate.

 

When we have summons and appeal sometimes get cancel our summons right?

 

So there........

[Galantspeedz]

supposedly inconsistant enforcement by LTA till MP replied...

 

the issue seems to be the resident is not happy that she cannot get a free 'lot' outside her house so now she wants the summon to keep coming on all cars around there till no one dare to park

 

i think the MP requesting for flexibility in this case is correct

 

what people don't understand is when landed property were built 20-30 years ago not many has cars and most has space for only 1 car.

times has changed but we cannot change the land...

 

now 1 normal terrace house with 2-3 cars so at least 1-2 cars must park outside....... and those younger generation 40-50s and younger is also much less tolerant

[Watwheels]

How to have consistent enforcement of any kind at anywhere and any time? I think those kuku who practice zero tolerance are out of their minds.

[Icedbs]

I agree with the MP.

[TVT]

supposedly inconsistant enforcement by LTA till MP replied...

 

the issue seems to be the resident is not happy that she cannot get a free 'lot' outside her house so now she wants the summon to keep coming on all cars around there till no one dare to park

 

i think the MP requesting for flexibility in this case is correct

 

So meaning if I am attending a social event organised by an MP or govt, I can anyhow parked my car anywhere?

 

Might as well we abolish this law...every case just ask MP to decide can summon or not.

 

[Littleknown]

So meaning if I am attending a social event organised by an MP or govt, I can anyhow parked my car anywhere?

 

Might as well we abolish this law...every case just ask MP to decide can summon or not.

 

This is the type of rubbish arguments/conclusions that narrow minded Singaporeans draw on when things do not go their way. Classic.

 

No give and take. No social grace. Only say 'if you like that, then next time I also can'.

 

 

[Joseph22]

So meaning if I am attending a social event organised by an MP or govt, I can anyhow parked my car anywhere?

 

Might as well we abolish this law...every case just ask MP to decide can summon or not.

usually, when they organise this sort of things. they organiser if they are compitent, will apply to LTA to allow parking at the roadside one. so dont just see TP come and go off mean see MP then go off.

 

last time my friend's church wedding, they also got apply with LTA to allow roadside parking. somemore double yellow line.

[Sp4wn]

This is the type of rubbish arguments/conclusions that narrow minded Singaporeans draw on when things do not go their way. Classic.

 

No give and take. No social grace. Only say 'if you like that, then next time I also can'.

 

yup thats the sad state of affairs here ... people cant lose face, cant give away, if someone else has a benefit they also want it (even if they dont deserve it)

 

so other people benefited that day .. big whoop. lady needs to learn to move on with life ..

[1fast1]

I'm OK with "give and take", if it's applied fairly.

 

Problem is, when the oppo has a rally or something, suddenly all these "give and take" guys will start overflowing with "principle" out of every orifice.

[Galantspeedz]

So meaning if I am attending a social event organised by an MP or govt, I can anyhow parked my car anywhere?

 

Might as well we abolish this law...every case just ask MP to decide can summon or not.

 

because it is a social event.. it would be nice to exercise some flexibility

 

i personally dun give a fark who organise it

 

 

if you stay in landed and there is a death in your family, most times the canopy is outside and people that visit have to park their cars outside... even though it is not a social event, flexibility should still be exercise

 

 

as long as it does not inconvinence other road users

 

sometimes i really don't get it, why just because something is done by MP or govt and people support the decision, others will questioned is it because govt or MP is big fark

 

can't one be objective and just look at the issue first instead of who is involved first

[Darryn]

usually, when they organise this sort of things. they organiser if they are compitent, will apply to LTA to allow parking at the roadside one. so dont just see TP come and go off mean see MP then go off.

 

last time my friend's church wedding, they also got apply with LTA to allow roadside parking. somemore double yellow line.

 

This is the "proper" way to do it - to preapply through appropriate channels. They will then have their guidelines and make decision.

 

To have an MP come and "pressure" the sammans lady is questionable. (and make no mistake - if I were in that position I would feel pressured if an MP asked me to give chance)

 

 

 

 

[Galantspeedz]

This is the "proper" way to do it - to preapply through appropriate channels. They will then have their guidelines and make decision.

 

To have an MP come and "pressure" the sammans lady is questionable. (and make no mistake - if I were in that position I would feel pressured if an MP asked me to give chance)

 

the worst thing about govt agencies i think is even it has been applied... the wardens may not know

 

i always wondered with so much money and high techonology.. can't they link all the agencies together in 1 database?

Edited November 2, 2012 by Galantspeedz