Search the Community

The good doctor has got some vaild points on town councils (TC) here Have my fair share of [shakehead] experiences with mine and frankly I am not very impressed. Not sure if the TC estate officers conduct rounds during their daily work but the maintenance was rather sloppy or not at all. Constantly giving feedback on defects, some of which are valid concerns, and many times I have to copy my e-mail to the MP before they take notice. Following-up on my feedbacks is another matter altogether [:|] From ST Forum: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-...idents-20130221 Town councils need to be more accountable to residents Published on Feb 21, 2013 RECENTLY, the Sembawang Town Council settled a lawsuit brought by a man who became paralysed after falling along a walkway ("Walkway suit 'resolved'"; Feb 1). The town council will also be fined by the National Environment Agency for having mosquito larvae in several water tanks in two Woodlands blocks ("Mosquitoes breeding in water tanks of 2 Woodlands blocks"; Feb 9). Who pays for the settlement and the fine? If they are paid from town council funds, which come mainly from service and conservancy charges, does this mean the residents have to pay the penalty for the town council's lapses? The current system is clearly not effective in keeping town councils accountable to residents. I have given feedback to the West Coast Town Council on pest-infested flower beds, smelly bin chutes, unswept walkways and the dumping of commercial trash in common areas, but have seen few results. There is no sign of a systemic resolution of the issues I raised. How can residents be assured that town councils are doing their job, especially in areas we cannot see, such as the washing of water tanks? There are few customer satisfaction surveys carried out to rate the performance of town councils. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call to review town council governance is timely. Hopefully it will empower residents and make town councils more accountable. Seto Hann Hoi (Dr)

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC09082...ers-accountable? Letter from Michelle Ho 05:10 AM Aug 20, 2009 TODAYonline A traffic summon I recently received has left me questioning the power with which police officers are able to issue such charges. On July 11 at 4 pm, I was pulled over by two traffic police (TP) officers on the AYE who told me I had caused the vehicle behind me to slow down while I switched lanes. The officers did not issue anything in writing but said I would be penalized with three demerit points-my first ones in almost four years of driving-- and a fine of $120. I was told to wait for the summon in mail. I received the notice a week later and was shocked to read that the officer had -- in my opinion-- grossly overstated my offences. Contrary to what was earlier said, the officers also doubled the demerit points penalty and increased the fine to $150. The charge itself was already questionable. On that occasion, I was driving within the speed limit of the expressway, had signalled prior to changing lanes and had ascertained that vehicles were at a safe distance behind before I switched lanes. In no event did I cause any driver to "apply sudden brakes in order to avoid a collision", as the summon had so dramatically described. Admittedly, the validity of the charge boils down to a case of "my word against his". But the officers certainly did their credibility no favours by issuing in written form a much more severe penalty than they had indicated verbally. How can the officers tell me one thing but write up a completely different one? I sent in an appeal and was told a month later that the matter had been reviewed and the charge still stands. No explanation was given. I find this apparent lack of accountability disturbing. In the first place, a proper summons form, instead of hand-written notes, should have been used to record the offences. The summons should state the offence committed and accompanying penalties, and be signed by both the officer and driver at the time of the incident. Notice of offences should also include names of issuing officers, since there is little reason for them to operate behind an anonymous veil. Lastly, the authorities should at least explain their reasons for rejecting an appeal instead of just leaving the accused feeling a sense of injustice. Such measures could impede the TP's efficiency that has for the large part served our nation so well. But surely, it is the lesser evil compared to the apparent free rein with which an officer could otherwise wield in issuing summons. Are police officers infallible, incapable of human error or always beyond reproach? Why is there no transparency or system of checks of balances that can hold the officers in question responsible and accountable for their actions or subject their potential wrongdoings to scrutiny? Such a system opens doors for inconsistencies by which the law is enforced upon, and as such, can cause government agencies to lose credibility.