Jaslyn Go’s Blog

After 8 emails to my MP – Mr Baey Yam Keng, over a period of 5 months, I still have not receive any reply from him.

During his block visit, Mr Baey indicated that he will get back to me with regards to some of the issues I raised.

My name, contact and address was taken down by one of his entourage.

Before he took his leave, he distributed a calendar pamphlet with his email address on it to me and my neighbour, encouraging us to write to him.

I waited for a month for him to get back to me as promise before I wrote the email to him.

Now, my question to MP Baey;-

1) is your purpose of block visit just to show face and shake hands with the residents?

2) isn’t our MP expected to listen to the ground and bring forth our concern to the parliament?

3) despite my numerous emails to you, with genuine issues at hand, you have choose not to reply to me, why invite residents to write to you in the first place?

4) is my email consider a spam to you?

Jan 13, 2008
Rants and raving mad e-mail
Most people have to deal with commercial spam. MPs, however, have to also deal with some strange politics-related e-mail
By Teo Cheng Wee

LAST month, Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng was scrolling through his e-mail when he spotted a familiar-looking one.

Addressed to himself and some 30 other MPs, it originates from a man in India who proclaims himself a ’self-styled world leader’ and ‘a hope of the world’.

‘The solution to Myanmar problem is in my hand!’ the mail proudly states, referring to the political crisis that broke out in the country last September.

He continues by stating that he wishes to become a Member of Parliament in India and subsequently its Prime Minister, but needs US$50 million to $100 million (S$71.6 million to S$143.2 million) from the Singapore Government to do so.

His plan? ‘First, I shall give a warning to the military junta in Myanmar to vacate from the seat of ruling the Myanmar. If it listens to my word, fine and well. Otherwise, I shall declare a war on Myanmar.’

The wacky mail went straight into the MP’s computer trash bin.

‘That guy is really persistent. I got a few from him already,’ Mr Baey says. He knows he is not alone, as he often sees his fellow MPs’ e-mail addresses copied on the mailing list of such mail.

Indeed, MPs are a key target of mass e-mail.

Other MPs say their In Box is cluttered with them, from a few times a day to once a month.

Other than asking for money to solve problems in strife-torn countries, topics include rants about governments (in Singapore and elsewhere), personal views about policies or complaints that an initial matter had not been attended to properly by the authorities.

Occasionally, there are political commentators who send their own take on policies. Some of them are quite well-argued, Mr Baey acknowledges.

Quite often the politicians are included in a large mailing list although the issue may not directly concern them. But they add that they always at least give all their e-mail a quick look.

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo, for instance, always scans at least the first few paragraphs of these mass e-mail. She looks out for specific feedback about her constituency or worker-related issues. If there is none, she deletes them.

Jalan Besar GRC MP Denise Phua does not want to dismiss such e-mail straightaway because ‘there may be underlying issues you need to check out’.

‘You never know – it could be someone who is doing this because there is no other way to get his grievances addressed,’ she says.

Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad spends about an hour or two clearing some 100 e-mail regarding his constituency every day. Of these, one or two might be mass e-mail, he says.

On the days when he has Meet-The-People sessions, which typically end around midnight, he might go to bed only at 3am after clearing his mail.

He prioritises his responses. He is more concerned about those from his residents; he pays less attention if it is from overseas and talks about, say, Singapore’s track record on human rights.

Despite the extra work that these e-mail seem to have caused, he says he does not mind them. ‘It’s part and parcel of my job and it’s what I’m here for – to listen to my residents. E-mail makes me more accessible, which is what’s important.’

Law lecturer Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University says people send political messages in mass e-mail because they feel that this would achieve the desired effect for action.

And because the e-mail addresses of Ministers and MPs are readily available in the government directory, people may think that their mail gets read personally and acted upon by the politician concerned.

As for why the tone of such letters are sometimes aggressive, Dr Adrian Wang, a consultant psychiatrist at Gleneagles Medical Centre, says it is because e-mail allows people to say things that they ordinarily would not dare to in a face-to-face confrontation. ‘I think many emotionally charged e-mail are written in anger. The fastest way of dealing with these feelings would be to fire off an e-mail to let the sender know your thoughts.’

Prof Tan says such methods of corresponding rarely work. ‘Each government ministry or agency has established protocols in dealing with correspondence from the public. Furthermore, mass e-mail is likely to elicit a negative first impression.’

Instead, he feels that people with a grievance would be better off writing a formal letter addressed to the relevant person, rather than mass-copied.

Mr Zaqy agrees: ‘I understand that people have grievances, but if there is an issue to solve, relevant to what I do, then I will certainly try to help. But if you’re just ranting about a policy and using foul language, I don’t know how to help you.’

But most MPs agree that they have come to accept these mass e-mail as part of their jobs.

‘I don’t think we need to get too irritated by these. E-mail is the current modus operandi – it’s the way people express themselves today,’ says Ms Phua.

chengwee@sph.com.sg

From: “STForum”
Subject: Re: Letter to the Forum with regards to Police Intimidation
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:33:11 +0800

Thank you for writing to us. We do appreciate your making the effort.

We receive up to 70 letters each day. Limited space means we can publish only about a dozen every weekday.
This means having to make often-difficult editorial judgments on which letters to publish.

We regret we are unable to publish your letter.

If your letter relates to a matter under the purview of a government department, you may want to visit
www.sgdi.gov.sg for a list of officials to contact.

Yours sincerely

Ms Noor Aiza
for Forum Editor
The Straits Times

Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:48:20 +0800 (CST)
Subject: Letter to the Forum with regards to Police Intimidation
To: stforum@sph.com.sg

I was a participant in the 15 March 2008 protest organized by SDP along with two of my young children.

On 20th March 2008, at about 9.45pm, while trying to put my two tired kids to sleep, a loud bang on my door jolted them up.

At the door, I was greeted by two non-uniformed police officers who identified themselves and told me that I was under investigation for participating in an illegal assembly and procession.

My questions are:

1) Since they could identify me as one of the protesters, I am sure they are well aware that I have two young children. Did they need to bang on my door so hard? Yes, my door bell is not working, but my ears are. I am certainly not deaf!

2) Is this police way of intimidating citizens who are not afraid of exercising their constitutional rights to participate in a peaceful protest?

3) Do the police want my young children to see them as intimidating figures rather than as “friendly neighbourhood policemen”, as they like to market themselves to be?

4) What has become of our society if even speaking up is a crime, citizen are being intimidated for doing so, and yet limping terrorists are out on the loose?

From: STForum
Subject: Re: Letter to the Forum with regards to 15 March Protest
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:30:17 +0800

Thank you for writing to us. We do appreciate your making the effort.

We receive up to 70 letters each day. Limited space means we can publish only about a dozen every weekday.
This means having to make often-difficult editorial judgments on which letters to publish.

We regret we are unable to publish your letter.

If your letter relates to a matter under the purview of a government department, you may want to visit
www.sgdi.gov.sg for a list of officials to contact.

Yours sincerely

Ms Noor Aiza
for Forum Editor
The Straits Times

Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:50:27 +0800 (CST)
Subject: Letter to the Forum with regards to 15 March Protest
To: stforum@sph.com.sg

I refer to the peaceful protest by SDP held on 15 March 2008.

I got to know about the protest through word of mouth and decided to exercise my constitutional rights as a Singapore Citizen by participating together with my two young children. My purpose was simple: to highlight the rising cost of living that is affecting me and my family.

Recent increases in childcare costs, milk powder, transportation and medical costs, are taking a toll on families like me with very young dependents.

What started out as a peaceful protest turned unnecessarily rowdy in the end because the police held up the group of protesters outside Funan Digimall and prevented them from moving.

The police intervention created a scene that attracted big crowds of passersby.

As a Citizen who is non-partisan, I will support causes I believe in, regardless of who the organizers are. In times of price hikes where we were told by our ministers to buy house brand bread, eat frozen meat, I do not think I have the spare cash to enjoy the luxury of junk foods. It’s World Consumer Day on 15 March 2008, so what is wrong with protesting about the recent escalating price hikes?

What has become of our society if even speaking up has become a crime, and peaceful protests end up with arrest, yet limping terrorists are out on the loose?

I wrote to my trusted MP – Mr Baey Yam Keng..

He forwarded my email to CEO of URA / HDB..

From: BAEY.YamKeng@capitaland.com
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:09:41 +0800
Subject: Re: Rights As A Resident To Purchase A Season Parking Ticket Was Denied By HDB / URA

CEO URA
CEO HDB

I refer to the following email from my resident Ms Goh. I would
appreciate it if both URA and HDB could assess the request favourably. Thank
you.

Regards
Yam Keng

Sent from my Blackberry

I have a story to tell. This story is about the arrogance, high-handedness and incompetence of the civil service administration in the form of two government bodies: the URA and HDB.

I am a housewife but I have a business registered under my name. Under the business is registered a van. One of my drivers incurred a parking fine and failed to report / settle it. To make things worse, the letters of reminder sent by URA to the office were misplaced.

I only found out when a letter was finally sent to my home stating that a warrant of arrest had been issued against me for failing to attend a court summons from the parking offence. The letter stated that I had to attend at the Warrant Enforcement Unit to execute the warrant of arrest and then see the URA officer to review my case.

I then attended at the police station and executed the warrant. I was given a new court mention date and after that I went to the URA officer to appeal. The appeal in short was as follows:

1. I am a housewife and I am not at the office premises.

2. I never had notice of the matter until the warrant of arrest which was sent to my home.

3. Due to the fact that the offence happened some time ago, long delay from the offence till issuance of the court summons, failure to attend the court date and issuance of the warrant of arrest, it is no longer possible to identify the culprit in the company as there are 3 drivers in total and I would have to bear the amount.

4. This was unfair as I have paid many fines on time and I had never allowed any parking offence to escalate to such a stage in the past. . This particular parking offence had been escalated because of pure oversight by the staff at the office and I was not present there. As a result the S$30/- fine became a S$400/- figure.

The meeting with the URA officer was most disappointing. She never had the intention to listen to the appeal at all. She rejected my reasons stating that

1. one of the reminders which was a registered letter was claimed.

2. the only ground for an appeal is if the company has moved and changed address the registered letters were sent to the previous address.

3. the URA checks for latest ACRA registered address before the A. R. registered 2nd reminder is sent.

4. in any event, all A R Registered letters once sent out are deemed received whether or not anyone signed for the article.

5. The URA does not consider past records of fines settlement at all.

I was flabbergasted by her positions / assertions bearing in mind the following:-

1. It was URA’s own letter informing me of the warrant of arrest that expressly invited me to attend at the URA to review the case. The letter did not state the supposed strict and narrow scope of appeal which was used by the officer.

2. I am a mother with 2 young children. I had to find time for others to babysit my children before I could come to the URA. I went to substantial trouble before I managed to do so only to be met with a brickwall on attending before the URA officer.

3. their refusal to exercise their minds and not addressing or considering the points does not give fair consideration for an appeal.

4. If I had known of the criteria set by the URA, I would not have wasted my time to even bother to arrange to attend before the investigating officer.

I then wrote to feedback the poor workflow, poor case management by the URA. I stated my clear intention to bring the matter up to higher authorities of what the URA was doing in accordance with the officer’s words:-:

1. they had set a narrow scope of appeal yet not making it clear.
2. they wasted people’s time to attend before the URA only to be rejected.
3. In essence, the URA deliberately creates the illusion of hope of a successful appeal to patronize citizens.
4. If appeals were only granted on the narrow scope change of addresses, there was nothing to consider at all.
5. they were wasting a lot of taxpayer’s money having so many officers hearing false appeals.

Out of fairness, I stated my intention to criticize the URA’s management of such cases and offered the URA the right of reply before I bring the matter up further.

In supposed reply, the URA claimed that it had to consider facts and information available before granting an appeal but URA refused to reply to the other points.

However the URA appeals officer had clearly stated that there was only one ground on which the URA would entertain an appeal: There was a change in address with proof of such change in address.

The representation of the URA officer was not disputed by the URA. Therefore, there can only be two possibilities. Either:

1. the appeals officer had conveniently and irresponsibly and dishonestly abused her position and authority to misrepresent the URA’s position when she decided to summarily reject my reasons for the appeal; or

2. the appeals officer was telling the truth and there was indeed a narrow scope set for the appeal.

The scenario begets the question of what would suffice to move URA to grant an appeal bearing in mind that it was URA’s letter that urged me to take time to attend to present my case to the URA in the first place. This would have to be clarified.

However, the second scenario would inevitably lead us to the following questions:-

1. If the URA was indeed adopting a narrow scope of appeal and its investigating officers were acting as instructed. The URA could have simply expressly stated its criterion for successful review in its letters to avoid wasting people’s time.

2. But the URA did not make clear its strict scope for appeal. What does the URA hope to achieve when obviously it would be inviting many people to attend to review their cases only to be rejected by the narrow scope of appeal set by their officers?

3. Is the URA deliberately by creating the illusion of hope to the persons receiving the summonses? What is the URA trying to achieve here?

4. Is the URA intent on patronizing our citizens by asking them to take time to attend at the URA with the illusion that an appeal / review channel was available with some chance of success?

5. Is the URA wasting taxpayers’ money by employing so many investigation officers to review cases when in actual fact its scope for appeals is so narrow that the bulk of appeals would be eliminated had the appeals / review policy been clearly stated to begin with?

The URA’s reply did not answer the above questions.

Subsequently, I received notice from HDB on 12th February 2008 stating that URA had requested the HDB to refuse renewal of my season parking ticket for my personal vehicle (a totally unrelated vehicle and a vehicle which had no outstanding fines with any authority) until my parking offence with URA was settled.

This is made worse by the fact that the carpark that I use would be going ERP type of electronic per minute parking charges in a matter of less than a month.

This is clearly deliberately making things difficult for me and putting me in the position of incurring exorbitant per minute parking charges when I am denied my season parking ticket and when my car park is going electronic parking on 4th March 2008 .

I am surprised and disappointed to discover that the URA practices strong-arm tactics on Singapore citizens in such situations. Is the URA is acting in accordance with the law in doing so? Even if the URA finds justification in the law, does it think it morally right to do so?

Given the above aggravation, I do not have any choice but to take this matter up accordingly. The URA’s actions and refusal to address pertinent questions will only put it in bad light.

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:33:33 +0800 (CST)
From: “Jaslyn Go” Add to Address Book
Subject: UNRESOLVED ISSUES ARISING FROM BLOCK VISIT ON 4th September 2007 – Final Reminder
To: BAEY.YamKeng@capitaland.com, yamkeng@pacific.net.sg

Hi Mr Baey..

Email send on 09 October 2007 – No reply.

1st reminder – 25 October 2007 – No reply

2nd reminder – 08 November 2007 – No reply
3rd reminder – 23 November 2007 – email bounce back
4th reminder – 27 November 2007 – No reply
5th reminder – 7 December 2007 – No reply
6th reminder – 27 December 2007 – No reply

Let this be my final reminder Mr Baey..

Good Day!

Ms Jaslyn Go

25th September 2007

Mr. Baey Yam Keng
Member of Parliament for
Tanjong Pagar GRC, Bukit Merah Division

Dear Sir,

UNRESOLVED ISSUES ARISING FROM BLOCK VISIT ON 4th September 2007

When you came to my unit during a block visit on 04/09/2007, I raised several issues to you and we had the following exchange, set out below for your easy recollection and reference:-

1. My neighbour and I commented on the slow timing of the Singapore Police Force in response to our complaints listed in short as follows:-
There are Indian glue sniffers who often loiter at the staircase and hide there to sniff glue.
Inhalant abuse, a criminal act, is known to intoxicate the abusers who are then predisposed to committing more crimes.
This situation has occurred many times and whenever I call the police, the latter would take 30 to 45 minutes to arrive, by which the time, the suspects would have finished their glue sniffing and left the scene.
I shifted out 2 years back partly because of this situation as I was pregnant and I did not feel that the neighbourhood was safe at times.
I also raised another incident in which I spotted an axe-wielding Indian man sitting in the ABC hawker centre with his eyes fixated on the adjoining car park as if he was waiting to greet someone. I called the police and offered to help identify the axe-wielder.
The axe-wielder must have been loitering around on a frequent basis for the Indian man in your entourage was also able to describe him as limpy and short.
I told you that the police had reasoned that they had to catch him red handed for them to take action. However, in order to apprehend any suspect red-handed, the police must respond in time but they never did so.
2. You trusted the police not to deliberately take their own sweet time to respond and cited the lack of manpower in the Police force as the cause. An Indian male in your entourage who identified himself as a policeman seconded your view.

3. I responded that the lack of manpower was not a valid reason as it is the right of every citizen and resident to be protected by the Singapore Police Force.

4. The grassroots policeman had replied that the Police had other complaints to handle and that our wards have kept them busy. I grew up in Bukit Merah and I know the ward very well and I asked him:-
Whether he was asserting that Bukit Merah was very much unsafe and with a lot of criminal activity necessitating police attention and which leads to slow response time of the Police, and
Since there was indeed so much crime in Bukit Merah, why did not the Police deploy more manpower to cope with the cases?
5. You surprised me by asking me in return, “So Madam, what you think we should do? If no one wants to join the police force we can’t force people to join right?¡±

6. To this unimaginative excuse, I told you very frankly that: -

As an MP, you have been given the mandate by the people to find solutions to our complaints; and
If you need me to provide you with the answers, what then are you supposed to do in your position as our Member of Parliament?

7. You quickly retracted your words and instructed your grassroots policeman to look into this matter. You also responded that since my opinion was formed 2 years ago, it might not be justified now as it may not be happening now. [I have since verified with my neighbour that the glue sniffers are still loitering around at times and now of course I am asking for a reply]

Town Council issues

8. Next, my neighbour and I brought up the following issue concerning the management of common areas in our block under the purview of your town council:-
I reside in a point block where the lift lobby area’s natural lighting is dim. This is made worse by having doors installed at the staircases such that even during daytime it is dim and made worse when it is cloudy, rainy or overcast
On several occasions, my neighbours, our maids, our children and myself have slipped and fallen because the bad lighting prevented us from seeing that the floor was wet from the rain.
9. As MP and Town Councillor,:-

you asked your accompanying town council staff whether the lights could be switched on when it is cloudy or rainy. The town council staff replied that residents could just call and request the town council to switch the lights on. He added that he needed to check if this was feasible and would revert
You asserted that the doors were a design flaw which you could do nothing about. The staircase and door provides the residents privacy and therefore as residents we should give and take.

10. I replied that staircase doors cause more danger to residents as they provide cover for the glue sniffers. Furthermore residents could be ambushed by robbers hiding behind the staircase doors.

11. You then responded as follows:
to switch the lights on 24 hours a day and 7 days a week would increase the electricity bill and this cost will have to be passed onto the residents. You asked whether or not we would want that.
you cannot accede to every resident¡¯s request and that I would be very surprised at what some of the residents are asking for.

12. I replied that if I am requesting for TC to paint the wall in specific colours, then it is obviously unreasonable, but there is nothing unreasonable about requesting for proper lighting.

13. The Indian follower in your group claimed that in your block visit from the 25th floor to the 7th floor, no one complained about lighting problem except me and then blamed the poor lighting on my neighbour¡¯s bamboo blind.

14. My neighbour explained that the blind prevents children from climbing and rain from coming in but your entourage insisted that blind causes bad lighting.

15. If a mere blind can block natural light and cause lighting problems, what about the staircase doors then?

16. I then asked whether it was your position that since there was indeed nothing you could do about it, the residents would have no choice but to live with the inconvenience stemming from the fault of the person who designed the flats.

17. You then replied that you needed to check with the town council before you could reply to me. You asked to take leave as you had a few more floors to cover, but I managed to raise the following final issue.

The Compulsory Annuity

18. I asked for your position on the proposed Compulsory Annuity. To my surprise, you turned the question around to ask for my opinion. I replied that I was definitely against it for the following reasons:-

CPF money is our money. As owners, we have the right to decide whether or not we need any annuity. It is not for the Government to decide for us
In any event, what proportion of people live beyond 85 years of age? How big is that sector of the population in actual fact
I reminded you that not everyone is as long lived as our great leader Mr. LKY. Furthermore in our generation, with the degree of stress and pollution environment, not many can even make it to their 60s.
For the small percentage fortunate to lives beyond 60, the Government should do its duty to look after them and not pass the responsibility to others
Our generation, being more educated, will know the importance of planning for our future retirement, and we do not need the Government to tell us what to do and what to buy for retirement.

19. You replied with the extremely common tagline these days: “To wait for 17 Sept, when all the details are out before adopting such a negative view about this annuity scheme”.

20. I replied that knowing the style of the PAP government:

By the time the details are released on the 17 Sept parliamentary hearing, there will simply be another rubber-stamping exercise, and the fate of all those aged 50 or below will be sealed
One need not look very far into history for examples of such arrogance: the GST increase, Presidential, Parliamentarian and Ministerial salary increments: Once the details are out, the decision is passed and our fate is sealed!

21. You then responded as follows:

You referred to statistics which purportedly show that almost 50% of the current population will benefit from the annuity scheme
You threw the challenge for me to walk around Block 3 to witness the large number of single old folk or those abandoned by their children and who have no one to look after them
You cited the need for the government to increase the pool of resources to help those who have no means of supporting themselves in old
age.

22. You tried to lower my manifest resistance by commenting that you believe that I would not need to rely on the annuity because I would have planned for my own retirement.

23. I pointed out to you the following:-

The current older generation who could live to an old age would not benefit from the proposed annuity scheme as it applies only to those aged 50 or below
Furthermore, like my case where I have my own retirement plan, why is the government still making it compulsory for these people who are better-off to buy the annuity
Should it not be every citizen’s personal right to decide how we spend our CPF money? CPF Money is after all our money AND NOT the Government’s money.

24. You then tried to justify the compulsory annuity scheme’s workability on the following reason that the cost would only be a few thousand dollars.

25. I replied that being an MP who makes $13.5k per month and maybe possibly much more, a few thousands is not a lot to you, but if you being the MP were to take a walk around Block 3 as you have suggested, you would realize that a few thousand dollars would be enough to feed several families for a single month.

26. You declined to continue the discussion on the reason that you had to take leave to cover the remaining floors. Before you left you advised my neighbour and I to read a well written article by a financial adviser who is not related to the Government who had given a good insight on this annuity issue in the previous Friday’s Today newspaper.

27. I replied you that the article was all crap and that a number of my friends and I were going to write a letter to refute that article and that I would forward a copy of that letter to you. The letter drafted jointly with my friends on the compulsory annuity will be forwarded to you in due course.

28. In the meantime, this letter serves to remind you that the outstanding issues raised at the above block visit are still outstanding which I am now seeking your replies / action on the same.

29. My name, address and contact number was recorded by one member of your 10-man strong entourage, therefore I do believe that you would have not difficulty remembering me and the above conversation.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely
Ms. Jaslyn Go