Buangkok Stn: Everything is ready, the ticket machine...
-
Everything is ready, the ticket machine seems to be working and the train passes through there. So, I can understand residents' wish to see the station opened.
Thought Buangkok Stn has been in that state since NEL start running!
Buangkok residents probably has not made themselves heard. Despite much lobbying, someone still thought that Buangkok was not opened due to the ticketing machine, lightings, the tunnel still need some touch ups.....
-
It will not be opened until the Seventh Month is over, and the nearby graveyard that rests all the Japanese souls are given final blessings.
The fastest way for Buangkok residents to get the MRT opened, is to follow the residents of Potong Pasir that voted for CST, and loyally supporting him through every election.
This will give the Ruling Party a big incentive to truly be concerned with the needs of the Residents instead of the "Dollar and nonSense" that govern their deep pockets. -
The ruling party wil not be swayed by such a move. Eventually, CST has to step down and allow someone else to take over. And that's when the govt will make their move.Originally posted by Atobe:It will not be opened until the Seventh Month is over, and the nearby graveyard that rests all the Japanese souls are given final blessings.
The fastest way for Buangkok residents to get the MRT opened, is to follow the residents of Potong Pasir that voted for CST, and loyally supporting him through every election.
This will give the Ruling Party a big incentive to truly be concerned with the needs of the Residents instead of the "Dollar and nonSense" that govern their deep pockets.
They are simply waiting for time to run its course. -
I hope WP decides to run in Pasir-Ris Punggol this time. Goh Meng Seng, are you listening?
-
Don't need. Think they intend to open that station soon. Didn't they wayang with the white elephants thingy?Originally posted by Atobe:The fastest way for Buangkok residents to get the MRT opened, is to follow the residents of Potong Pasir that voted for CST, and loyally supporting him through every election. -
The police now have involve in investigating the "white elephants thingy",probably those PAP leaders cannot take the criticism and have a "heart-attacked" after the incident.Thats why they ringed up the police to investigate.This is another good example to show our PAP leaders are "narrow-minded and petty assholes" who cannot take critics.Oh well......
-
I feel existing Buangkok HDB residents were duped to buying HDB flats there.
Buangkok MRT was to be built but why didn't the decision-makers plan and build it within range of current Buangkok HDB residents so they can immediately benefit but instead plan and build it on remote soil away from the current residents that they can't benefit immediately but much later?
Because I think they realise that if they build it for current Buangkok residents to access now, there will be no demand for those HDB flats to be built 500m away.
One stone kills two birds.
Existing Buangkok residents, I feel sorry that you've been duped.
-
In the 1st place, a station whether is it going to open or not, would have machines in the event of opening...
Why everything all Buangkok? Another NEL stn also not opened leh -
Why concentrate so much on Buangkok??? Should concentrate on Woodleigh instead so it is easier for those runners and the Maris Stella Students to go to their schools.
-
Hold that cynicism, please
By Chua Lee Hoong
Sept 12, 2005
The Straits Times
WHEN the results of the police investigation into the white elephants at Buangkok MRT station are made public, what will the people's reaction be?
If the perpetrators are found to have been (mischievous) grassroots activists with the People's Action Party, and they are let off with a mild warning, will people say, 'Double standards. It would have been different if it had been an opposition party'? If they are levied a stiff fine, will people say, 'Oh, it's all for show?' In other words, will the people insist on, Heads I win, tails you lose?
These, more so than the rights and wrongs of the elephants themselves, are the questions that interest me.
Not that the rights and wrongs of the case are that clear. The incident has many facets with broader implications, which explains why an official decision on the case is so long in coming and why the public is so interested.
Legally speaking - that is, going by the letter of the law - it is clear enough: the placing of the eight white elephants on a road-divider outside the Buangkok MRT station can easily be construed as falling within the meaning of 'public entertainment' as governed by the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, and required a licence. (Which there wasn't - unlike in the case of the cow cut-outs that appeared on a number of grass patches around Singapore a few months ago, put up by an advertising agency.)
Singaporeans know however that the letter of the law is not always enforced when infringements are minor.
Housing Board by-laws, for instance, prohibit placing personal belongings like plants along the common corridors, but this is seldom enforced.
Displaying placards of a non-sensitive nature - advertising a new neighbourhood coffee shop, say - would normally also fall within this category.
Those who put up the white elephants would presumably argue that what they did was harmless enough. After all, it was just eight cardboard cut-outs, which remained in the public eye for less than 24 hours before they were taken down.
And the date - Aug 28, 2005 - was also the second anniversary of the opening of the North-East Line. The then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the guest of honour, had promised at that time: 'We do not squander money on big white elephants that become financial burdens for our future generations.' What's more, he had worn a specially-bought tie with an elephant motif that day.
So white elephants have been on the minds of Buangkok residents for a while, and if a little visual reminder helps to hasten the opening of the station, well, why not? All in the practical interests of Buangkok residents; nothing subversive at all.
But therein lies the rub. Where does one draw the line between promoting residents' needs and pushing the boundaries, between acceptable political activism and unacceptable civil disobedience? This is the grey area, the contentiousness of which is bound to grow, if one goes by how the white elephant incident seems to have struck a chord among Singaporeans.
Early last month, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng drew a line in the sand when he warned against wilful breaking of the law: 'Regardless of whether he thinks it is a silly law or not, he does violence to the rule of law even if his actions are peaceful.'
That warning, however, doesn't seem to have received much traction. There are still many Singaporeans who think the Government is over-reacting to the white elephants, and who would prefer that investigations be dropped. But that, from the official standpoint, is clearly a non-starter because it would be an unwanted precedent. Buangkok station today, Raffles Place MRT tomorrow? White elephants today, hammer and sickle tomorrow? Laws become meaningless if too many remain unenforced.
When the results of the investigation are made known, the police will have to show that it is impartial in enforcing the law, regardless of which political parties are involved. And I hope Singaporeans will hold that cynicism, because heads I win, tails you lose isn't exactly a fair sporting approach.
http://www.asiaone.com/st/st_20050912_340319.html
It's fair to say the white elephants are a harmless display with more jest than an out and out political message. Still, it would be interesting to see who initiated them and how the men in blue handle this case after the fiasco at the CPF building. -
two questions: instead of the white elephants cut out, if those were cardboards of pictures welcoming the visiting pap guests, would the police be investigating?? many signs put up by ah long, the loan sharks in hdb flats, police came and gone without pursuing further, why work so hard on these "white elephants"?Originally posted by drawer:The police now have involve in investigating the "white elephants thingy",probably those PAP leaders cannot take the criticism and have a "heart-attacked" after the incident.Thats why they ringed up the police to investigate.This is another good example to show our PAP leaders are "narrow-minded and petty assholes" who cannot take critics.Oh well......
the priorities of our police ought to be protecting the citizens.!! and not working for the politicians. -
it will be opened when the election comes around the corner.....
-
Anyway, Charles Chong is 1 leg stepping on 2 boats
-
Then the citizens are happy for the MP and a lot of people vote for him during GEOriginally posted by sgboy2004:it will be opened when the election comes around the corner..... -
You are probably closer to the truth than you know it....Originally posted by sgboy2004:it will be opened when the election comes around the corner..... -
u betOriginally posted by gorby107:Then the citizens are happy for the MP and a lot of people vote for him during GE
-
I treat her writings like the scribbles on toilet doors.Originally posted by BillyBong:Hold that cynicism, please
By Chua Lee Hoong
Sept 12, 2005
The Straits Times
WHEN the results of the police investigation into the white elephants at Buangkok MRT station are made public, what will the people's reaction be?
If the perpetrators are found to have been (mischievous) grassroots activists with the People's Action Party, and they are let off with a mild warning, will people say, 'Double standards. It would have been different if it had been an opposition party'? If they are levied a stiff fine, will people say, 'Oh, it's all for show?' In other words, will the people insist on, Heads I win, tails you lose?
These, more so than the rights and wrongs of the elephants themselves, are the questions that interest me.
Not that the rights and wrongs of the case are that clear. The incident has many facets with broader implications, which explains why an official decision on the case is so long in coming and why the public is so interested.
Legally speaking - that is, going by the letter of the law - it is clear enough: the placing of the eight white elephants on a road-divider outside the Buangkok MRT station can easily be construed as falling within the meaning of 'public entertainment' as governed by the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, and required a licence. (Which there wasn't - unlike in the case of the cow cut-outs that appeared on a number of grass patches around Singapore a few months ago, put up by an advertising agency.)
Singaporeans know however that the letter of the law is not always enforced when infringements are minor.
Housing Board by-laws, for instance, prohibit placing personal belongings like plants along the common corridors, but this is seldom enforced.
Displaying placards of a non-sensitive nature - advertising a new neighbourhood coffee shop, say - would normally also fall within this category.
Those who put up the white elephants would presumably argue that what they did was harmless enough. After all, it was just eight cardboard cut-outs, which remained in the public eye for less than 24 hours before they were taken down.
And the date - Aug 28, 2005 - was also the second anniversary of the opening of the North-East Line. The then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the guest of honour, had promised at that time: 'We do not squander money on big white elephants that become financial burdens for our future generations.' What's more, he had worn a specially-bought tie with an elephant motif that day.
So white elephants have been on the minds of Buangkok residents for a while, and if a little visual reminder helps to hasten the opening of the station, well, why not? All in the practical interests of Buangkok residents; nothing subversive at all.
But therein lies the rub. Where does one draw the line between promoting residents' needs and pushing the boundaries, between acceptable political activism and unacceptable civil disobedience? This is the grey area, the contentiousness of which is bound to grow, if one goes by how the white elephant incident seems to have struck a chord among Singaporeans.
Early last month, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng drew a line in the sand when he warned against wilful breaking of the law: 'Regardless of whether he thinks it is a silly law or not, he does violence to the rule of law even if his actions are peaceful.'
That warning, however, doesn't seem to have received much traction. There are still many Singaporeans who think the Government is over-reacting to the white elephants, and who would prefer that investigations be dropped. But that, from the official standpoint, is clearly a non-starter because it would be an unwanted precedent. Buangkok station today, Raffles Place MRT tomorrow? White elephants today, hammer and sickle tomorrow? Laws become meaningless if too many remain unenforced.
When the results of the investigation are made known, the police will have to show that it is impartial in enforcing the law, regardless of which political parties are involved. And I hope Singaporeans will hold that cynicism, because heads I win, tails you lose isn't exactly a fair sporting approach.
http://www.asiaone.com/st/st_20050912_340319.html
It's fair to say the white elephants are a harmless display with more jest than an out and out political message. Still, it would be interesting to see who initiated them and how the men in blue handle this case after the fiasco at the CPF building. You can clearly see that it's a perfect example of one-sided party journalism. -
That's why its published....Originally posted by LazerLordz:I treat her writings like the scribbles on toilet doors. You can clearly see that it's a perfect example of one-sided party journalism.
She did LEAN on the other side momentarily...should give her points for effort -
agree!Originally posted by LazerLordz:I treat her writings like the scribbles on toilet doors. You can clearly see that it's a perfect example of one-sided party journalism.
is it just a matter of enforcing the law? a zhaobao journalist asked two questions: if those cut outs were somethings welcoming the vip from pap, would police look into the matter to enforce the law? many loan sharks posted all kinds of things in hdb and police just came and gone, why is there the necessity for the police to go to the bottom of these white elephants?
chua lee hoon certainly gained points for towing the party line, but i don't think such leaning is momentary. -
LTA needs a few months for Buangkok review
By Ken Kwek
Sept 20, 2005
The Straits Times
BUANGKOK residents will have to wait a while longer before they hear from the Land Transport Authority (LTA) on when their MRT station can open.
The LTA can complete its feasibility review only 'in a few months time', Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong said yesterday.
He had said on Aug 29 he would 'hurry' the LTA to provide its assessment of whether there are enough commuters within a 500m radius to open the station.
Mr Yeo said that at the time he asked the LTA to respond within 'a month or so'.
When he was reminded of this time frame by Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) yesterday, Mr Yeo replied that the LTA had got back to him and said the study could be completed only in a few months.
The exchange between Mr Yeo and Mr Chong followed renewed calls in recent weeks by residents - including anonymous protesters who put up white elephant placards outside the station last month - for it to be opened.
Mr Yeo reiterated yesterday that, based on current housing development plans in the area, the station is set to open only in 2008.
The current number of 500 housing units within a 400m radius of Buangkok station did not meet the LTA's requirement of 2,000 to 3,000 needed to justify opening the station.
However, Mr Yeo said that earlier this year, the Housing Board had completed almost 1,000 units in the vicinity of the station. Of these, about 390 fall within a 400m radius of the station.
He also said there are other housing programmes in the pipeline, including a private condominium that will be built just south of the station.
Although there is still insufficient residential support to create the mass needed to open Buangkok station, Mr Yeo said the LTA will now take a few months to review and assess the feasibility of opening the station sooner.
In doing so, it will look at the latest figures for completed residential units in the area.
Mr Chong's initial reaction was to point out the apparent change in the deadline for the LTA to respond.
However, he told The Straits Times later he merely wanted to urge the Government to act quickly, without compromising the quality and accuracy of its findings.
'If the LTA says it needs a little more time, I think we should accept that, provided it can come up with a good review and arrive at the right conclusion,' he said.
'Buangkok residents have been quite patient over the past two years, and they can afford to wait for another two or three months if that means the LTA is able to make a reasonable decision. I will encourage them to continue to be patient.'
http://www.asiaone.com/st/st_20050920_341783.html
Isn't it ironic? When the LTA offered the terms for Hock Kee, they were a mere 1 month. But when pressed by residents over the delayed opening of Buangkok, they 'appeal' for a few more months.
What is 'a few more months'? 2 maybe 3 additional months beyond the deadline? It seems the LTA has a lopsided respect for deadlines...i.e. projects which they are directly responsible tend to have rubber timings. It doesn't matter that their inefficiencies and bureaucratic foot dragging delays resident-affected amenities.
On the other hands, they have no qualms with evicting tenants when they are being pressed by the threat of liquidated damages by their contractors.
Could the LTA get any worst? -
I don't think I agree with u for this. My thoughts were, they gonna sell the vacant plot around Buangcock to private developers for a handsome prize.Originally posted by macjoe:Buangkok MRT was to be built but why didn't the decision-makers plan and build it within range of current Buangkok HDB residents so they can immediately benefit but instead plan and build it on remote soil away from the current residents that they can't benefit immediately but much later?
Because I think they realise that if they build it for current Buangkok residents to access now, there will be no demand for those HDB flats to be built 500m away.
Look at Covan Melody? Those occupants there were told to vacate using the what land acquisition..... then? Sold to Wind Dai. Now, we heard of Hockey being chased out for the circusline.
Lets see if there's going to be any condom coming up around Buangcock. -
more white elephants in the pipeline when circle line is completed
-
It would cost more if you build the station aft the MRT starts running as the construction can now be totally be done in that 5 hrs bet MRT cease operationsOriginally posted by crazy monkey:more white elephants in the pipeline when circle line is completed -
Public transport is constructed for the benefit of citizens who can't afford private cars. That is why they are called public transport. The fact that we are taxpayers, the gov is obligated to provide some means to commute within SG and thus the public transport system. It is therefore a necessity.
Profiteering from a public transport system is really shameful. Public transport systems in other countries like the UK are heavily subsidised by their gov becos of their obligations.
In SG, sadly, it always seem to be different from the norm. Making profits from the PTS is shameful enough but not opening the 2 stations citing cost is embarassing. They entire MRT is a system. You cannot decide to open those stations at your wimp and fancy. You win some you lose some. It's a system.
All the lame excuses for not operating the 2 stations are jus some stupid idiots idea of profiteering.
For God's sake, operate all the stations be it profit or loss.
-
No... In London, it is so called sub..Originally posted by Archie_boy:Public transport is constructed for the benefit of citizens who can't afford private cars. That is why they are called public transport. The fact that we are taxpayers, the gov is obligated to provide some means to commute within SG and thus the public transport system. It is therefore a necessity.
Profiteering from a public transport system is really shameful. Public transport systems in other countries like the UK are heavily subsidised by their gov becos of their obligations.
In SG, sadly, it always seem to be different from the norm. Making profits from the PTS is shameful enough but not opening the 2 stations citing cost is embarassing. They entire MRT is a system. You cannot decide to open those stations at your wimp and fancy. You win some you lose some. It's a system.
All the lame excuses for not operating the 2 stations are jus some stupid idiots idea of profiteering.
For God's sake, operate all the stations be it profit or loss.
In reality, the govt collects all the revenue, they pay the operator