Skip to main content

SMRT "Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind" Reaction To Public Defecation Poses A Danger To Transport Security

During my Army days, one of the unwritten rule we were told was that you could do what you want, but don't get caught. SMRT's response to the woman defecating publicly at their Holland Village station seems to support the unwritten rule above and this poses a danger to transport security.

SMRT wrote, in a reply to Temasek Review's query,
Please be assured that should any of our staff spot a member of the public committing such unlawful acts, they will most certainly approach the person and put a stop to it. He/ she is also likely to be issued with a Notice of Offence (NOO) and a summon from the National Environmental Agency (NEA).

However, this incident had occurred away from our staff’s line of sight. Whilst our staff would endeavour to ensure that our stations are looked after properly, they would also need to attend to other duties and passengers as well. Hence, constantly focusing on CCTV would be counterproductive for them. On that note, we seek the public’s assistance to report any unlawful acts upon sight, immediately to our station staffs so action could be taken to address such problems.
The reply was signed off by Ang Siew Tee, Customer Relations, SMRT Corporation Ltd

The reply raises a few eyebrows.

First, the reply " incident had occurred away from our staff’s line of sight" can be perceived as SMRT's attempt to resolve all responsibility for the incident. This also can be perceived that if anything is done illegally at SMRT stations and as long as it out of their staff's line of sight, nothing can be done about it.

Alarm bells are already ringing in my head. What if something more sinister were to happen at the station and the incident occurred away from their "staff's line of sight'? Does this mean that SMRT will allow this even more sinister and illegal activity to happen?

SMRT has highlighted that it is "counterproductive" for them to be constantly focusing on CCTV. This can be seen that incidents on the CCTV are not taken seriously. What if, again, something more sinister were to happen? Will it be then considered "counterproductive" for SMRT?

Since 2010, security at SMRT depots have been breached three times. In 2010, two vandals managed to cut through the security fence at SMRT's Changi Depot and spray-painted graffiti on the outside of one of the train.

In August 2011, yet a similar incident occurred at the Bishan Depot and that resulted in graffiti also spray-painted on one of the trains.

In May 2014, another train was also found to be sprayed with graffiti but all signs pointed to an inside job.

In the earlier two cases, SMRT installed close-circuit television to enhanced security. However, from SMRT's reply to the Holland Village incident, who is watching these CCTV and is it "counterproductive" for them to do so?

Dr Kumar Ramakrishna, head of the Centre for Excellence for National Security at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies was quoted to say,
This is hypothetical, of course. If they find out who is responsible is indeed from within, then certainly that calls for more stringent background checks.


One of the potential scenario one could think of from a homeland security point of view, for example, one of cases we’ve had in Singapore — in the past a few cases actually — of self-radicalised individuals, these cannot be entirely ruled out.

It always pays to be prudent. This is just a case of vandalism, but in future who knows, it may not be a case of vandalism, it might be worse.
The Holland Village incident might just be a case of public defecation, but what if in future, it may not be a case of public defecation, it might be worse. Would SMRT then also reply with the same line of thought?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …

Kudos To Huawei 2 Year Warranty For P9 Series

When it comes to smartphones, I think I am jinxed.

For my history of owning smartphones, every time it comes close to the end of the two year contract with my mobile service provider. This time round, it happened to my Huawei P9.

All of a sudden, the LCD screen sort of decolourised. I thought it was a temporary issue but the decolourisation lasted for a few hours. Then the nightmare began.

The touchscreen couldn't be touched. This made it the smartphone a brick.

I thought the Huawei P9 only had one year of warrant. With my contract ending in mid-year, I thought I would have to wait it out till the contract ended and allowed me to buy a new phone under a contract.

Luckily, a friend reminded me that the phone came with a 2 year warranty.

So I decided to go to the Huawei service center, right smack in the center of the city, to see if my phone is under warranty and if Huawei would honour their 2 year warranty.

Thankfully, Huawei isn't as popular as the Samsungs or Apples, and the …