How efficient is govt in preventing fire after Hougang fire
-
Just look at all the HDB estates where shophouses are located 2 weeks after the Hougang fire.
The situation is one of inaction or excuses when it comes to controlling its own town council. If this same fire was to occur in a private property we are certain that the owner of the property would be heavily fined if not jailed for manslaughter or criminal negligence like the Nicol Highway collapse where the contractor took the rap for non-structural checking by the LTA.
So excuses after excuses will be given why HBD and Town Council and MPs are not responsible whereas the occupiers are to be blamed for living above the shophouses.
If we just take a walk around any of the HDB shophouses in any estates it will be found that shopkeepers are obstructing all the corridors and staircases including escape routes around the staircases with huge quantities of wares and merchandizes.
Why the SCDF only takes enforcement actions on the private property owners or management and excusing the HDB, and Town council of fire risks thereby causing deaths in the Hougang fire.
This same question has been asked two months before the hougang fire at one recent seminar held by SCDF requiring Fire Manager to attend Continuous Professional Training courses and making them responsible for negligence while keeping silent on their difficulty in pursuading employers to comply with reguirements.
Why HDB was exempted from all these same strict fire regulations being imposed strictly on the private estates. There was no satisfactory reply from SCDF in that seminar. -
many pple is losing jobs after the fire lo. no more counters outside shops...
me closed a few counters le... sum more v little time given... less than 2 weeks -
In the first place why are the shopkeepers clamouring for corridor spaces and giving so many half-cooked excuses like not having enough space to do their business as sensationalised by CNA and the newspapes.
It is because when HDB or Town Council failed to prevent the first shop in any estate from starting the encroachment. Many private shopping centres have controlled their corridors very well and shopkeepers are not asking for permission to occupy the fire escape routes which often are the corridors.
Once a particular shop started the encroachment there will be a tendency for all the neighbouring shops to do likewise as then it becomes an issue business rivalry fighting for passers-by for impulse business.
When the situation reaches this stage the HDB, Town Council and MPs would be unable to stop all the rest from wanting the same treatment.
If HDB or Town Council or the MPs have leadership as claimed they could easily understand such a human psychology. If so they should be able to hold meetings with all shopkeepers and let them share the real problems at issue that is if all agree not occupy the corridors then there will be no necessity for any of the rest to seek encroachments to keep up rivalry of those who use corridor space.
This common-objective of not starting the rivalry for corridor advertisement or display to win more passers-by is deep rooted in human psychology and MPs do not understand such an issue.
If they do then not only will HDB estates be as pleasant as good-class private shopping centre where such encroachments are well controlled shopkeepers will find no need in practice to extend their trading frontage to corridors to win more customers because when no body encroaches the corridor there is no need for the rest to ask for same privilege. -
heng u not in charged yet...
many pple would then be out of jobs... poor economy... no surpluses... talk wad oso no use! -
Please lor... HDB allow the owner to rent out the place outside the shop one lor... if the owner do not purchase the area that was labeled, HDB will rent it out instead.
They always like that one lah... can earn money can liao... HDB belong to the Gahmen, fine also like that... money just go into circulation within the system... Private is a different case... fining them will means that adding funds to the treasury which in terms ended up in their big fat salary...
-
Some people will defend the "occupy corridor" practice of HDB/Town Council on the ground that the shopkeepers are unable to move their equipment in and out daily like the wet-market hawkers.
The wet market hawkers' need for occupying corridor spaces are is basically affected by the same root-cause - rivalry for business of passers-by.
If no body starts such a rivalry in a row of shophouse there will be no need for any neighbouring shopkeepers for wanting to ask for such occupation of common areas. Such a problem which has grown big-scale will eventually subside over time.
It is total understanding of the problems which holds the key to all. Now the situation has become so bad that many shopkeepers especially the coffee shops were so heavily and financially committed to occupying corridors that many of them have invested on purchases of fridges and shelves and structures of all kinds and even paying a licence fee to HDB.
It will take some gigantic effort to make all revert to operating within their originally allotted and leased shop space within their units boundaries.
If this problem is still not resolved in an in-depth manner there will be more fires and probably more deaths. -
It appears the govt is determined to solve the problems of clustered corridor in front of HDB shops.It is a right move.
-
corridor is meant for walking as simple as that, not for display of goods, why are the MP's can't convince the shop keepers
-
self-deleted.
-
Why recently spotlight incidentally cast on HG?
HG 21?
Low, where did you go? -
HG where the fire occurred is block 683 Ave 8 under the jurisdiction of Minister George Yeo.Originally posted by reddressman:Why recently spotlight incidentally cast on HG?
HG 21?
Low, where did you go?