Ang Mo Kio fire: ShouldnÂ’t the Town Council do more?
-
Posted by theonlinecitizen on October 22nd, 2007
By Leong Sze Hian
The entire wet market and food centre at Block 628A, Ang Mo Kio Street 61, was destroyed in a fire on 16 October 2007. (link)
The affected stallholders are being asked to pay an estimated $8,000 to $10,000 to build a temporary market.
With 232 stalls, the total sum assuming an average of $9,000 is $2.1 million.
Why does it cost so much to build a temporary market which will be demolished after 18 to 24 months?
If all condominiums insure the entire building for fire, why wasnÂ’t the market insured by the town council or the HDB?
I estimate the annual fire insurance premium for a sum insured of $2.1 million to be only about $2,500.
As most of the stallholders are tenants, they may not have the insurable interest to insure the building (stall) which they rent.
If a landlord rents a part of the building to a tenant, is it reasonable to ask the tenant to be financially penalised by making a contribution, in the event of a fire which destroys the entire building (which was not insured) ? ShouldnÂ’t this be the responsibility of the owner? Who is the owner of a market?
I do not know how much funds the Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang Town Council (AMK-YCK) has, but in my constituency, the Aljunied Town Council has $93 million of funds, with $67 million in itÂ’s sinking fund, according to itÂ’s annual financial report. (See here)
Should not the AMK-YCK Town Council use some of its funds to help towards the building of the temporary market?
This is not the first time that there has been a fire in a market. In fact, another market in the same constituency, at Block 342 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, had a fire in January 2001.
Why have we not learned the lessons and experience from the several fires in markets in the past?
In this connection, Mr Wee Siew Khim, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC said: “As we have practised in all the other market fires in the past, all stallholders will pull together and share the cost of building that market which they are going to use for the next 18-24 months”.
With 35 per cent of the Service and Conservancy Charges (S & CC) going into the sinking fund, why not use some of it to buy fire insurance for markets?
It is hard enough for small stallholder entrepreneurs to have lost all their business assets, equipment and stocks (hopefully most of these have been insured adequately), and endure months without income until the temporary market is ready - isnÂ’t it akin to a double catastrophy to have to decide and try cough up another $8,000 to $10,000?
Some of the stallholders interviewed have expressed their despair and predicament in this regard.
I would also like to suggest that affected stallholders be given the option to have the first priority to rent on a temporary basis the available stalls all over Singapore, at the same if not reduced rentals to what they have been paying.
By the way, how much will their rentals increase when the new market is built? And, consequently, how much will prices increase for the residents of Ang Mo Kio? -
I think Leong has posed alot of questions to which we have no answers to. Will we ever know ? Maybe the Ang Moh Kio residents can take this up to their MP and seek an answer.
-
well, these markets and hawker centres are for public usage, i do not see any reason why the money cannot be used to help to rebuild these amenities. These places are more often use than parks.
-
SINGAPORE : Help is on hand for hawkers and stallholders who are affected by the fire at Ang Mo Kio market and hawker centre on Tuesday night.
For a start, an interim market will be set up by Monday morning, so that those selling market produce can continue doing business.
At 4pm on Wednesday, the hawkers and stallholders had a meeting with the representatives from the relevant agencies such as the town council, Community Development Council (CDC), Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) as well as MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, Wee Siew Khim, who stood in for MP Seng Han Tong who was away.
At the end of the meeting, stallholders were given the following few options.
- Give up their business and opt for a cash grant of $16,000 (for market stallholders) or $23,000 (for cooked food stallholders), or
- continue at an interim market which will be set up for one and a half month. They may then move to a temporary market that will be set up for between 18 months and 2 years or they can opt for an alternative stall in other markets and hawker centres.
But for those opting for the temporary market, they will have to pay at least a few thousand dollars to help build it.
Wee Siew Khim, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC said: "As we have practised in all the other market fires in the past, all stallholders will pull together and share the cost of building that market which they are going to use for the next 18-24 months.
"We took note of their concerns and those who have any constraints or financial problems, we will probably structure it for them to pay by instalments. Or they could come to us and we'll treat each case on a customised basis."
Because of that, many stallholders are thinking twice about taking the offer to operate their business at the temporary market.
"I'll try to take it but if the rent is very expensive, like $8,000 to $10,000, then I think I can't afford it. If I don't take, I don't know what I can do," said Peh Thiam Hock, a stallholder.
Some have decided to take a break till the market is rebuilt in about two years' time, while others have decided to throw in the towel.
"Some of them, up to 40% of them, are first-generation stallholders, so they have the option of taking an ex-gratia payment and not operate anymore," said MP Wee.
The stallholders have till Friday to make their decision.
The fire on Tuesday night was one of the worst market fires in recent years.
More than 100 people were at the food centre having their meals when the fire broke out at about 9.30pm on Tuesday. They made a quick dash for safety when they saw the fire spreading quickly.
The SCDF said investigations are ongoing to determine the cause of the fire. - CNA /ls -
Want them to buy insurance for the market, wait long, long. Public or stallholders themselves buy, they will agree and very fast do it for you. Best still from NTUC income.
They will love stallholders to share the burden of cost. They still earn high rents even if your business failed. They can rent to another sucker. -
if this thing happen to Ang Mo Kio nearing the period of general election, i think the stall owners will not need to fork out a single cent.
Happiness of the residents in the GRC top priority to get the votes.
let's me anaylse a situation:
bad prices force the current stall tenants to go elsewhere to set shop, resulting in current location drop in standard of food or number of stalls = less variety available for makan = need to go elsewhere for makan = unhappiness for residents / people working around there.
If this is not handle well enough, the opposition will see this as an opportunity to talk abt during the next GE. -
So actually the cost of contribution for building the temp market is a "few" thousand. Temp market houses those who opt for it while the new one is built ? This amount can be paid by installments and assistance on case-by-case basis..
those who opts out of the business gets a grant. So we have established the facts.
Now question is what the town council can do to further help these businesses. Is further help necessary ? -
Singapore style.... no free lunch unless u are the elite of cos...
-
More help is definitely necessary.Originally posted by kramnave:So actually the cost of contribution for building the temp market is a "few" thousand. Temp market houses those who opt for it while the new one is built ? This amount can be paid by installments and assistance on case-by-case basis..
those who opts out of the business gets a grant. So we have established the facts.
Now question is what the town council can do to further help these businesses. Is further help necessary ?
These stallholders have to fork out thousands of dollars each just to restart a stall in the temp market.
1) The amount works out to be $1-2 million collected. Is so much money needed to build a temp market?
2) Why is it that the stallholders have to bear so much costs given that the the landlord (town council) also has a huge amount of insurable interest in the market?
Fire insurance (markets) premiums are only about $2,000 to $3,000 per annum for an insured amount of $2,000,000, so why can't town councils look after the welfare of these stallholders given that their sinking funds amount to millions?
Maybe welfare is truly an undesirable culture. -
If WP were to contest for AMK GRC again, it is unlikely they will harp on this issue.Originally posted by sLeEpWaLkErInG:if this thing happen to Ang Mo Kio nearing the period of general election, i think the stall owners will not need to fork out a single cent.
Happiness of the residents in the GRC top priority to get the votes.
let's me anaylse a situation:
bad prices force the current stall tenants to go elsewhere to set shop, resulting in current location drop in standard of food or number of stalls = less variety available for makan = need to go elsewhere for makan = unhappiness for residents / people working around there.
If this is not handle well enough, the opposition will see this as an opportunity to talk abt during the next GE.
Criticism, even if constructive, has never been an effective way to garner votes during elections. Slyvia, I believe is intelligent enough to understand this. -
It is unfair to say the Town Councils should pay for the insurance. However, it is also unfair to make the stall holders pay for the temp market. The Council should pay for the temp market, and rent it as per usual.
As for the insurance, if all the town councils buy insurance for their tenants, it would be a few billion bucks of money wasted. Just rebuild the market! -
A few thousand dollars of premiums a year to insure the entire market for millions is surely like a drop in the ocean for a town council's funds which average between $20 to $80 million (if my memory serves me right).Originally posted by WinnieThePooh:It is unfair to say the Town Councils should pay for the insurance. However, it is also unfair to make the stall holders pay for the temp market. The Council should pay for the temp market, and rent it as per usual.
As for the insurance, if all the town councils buy insurance for their tenants, it would be a few billion bucks of money wasted. Just rebuild the market! -
well, it is for public interest, hawker centres, coffee shops are of public places where most people will hang out, else there would be restricted smoking area there..
-
I'm not disagreeing but for the sake of discussion, are businesses responsible for fire insurance or the landlord ? i.e Should funds from conservancy charges paid by Ang Moh Kio residents be channelled to business owners by means of paying the insurance? Or should business owners be responsible for insurance by means of paying from their profits as a business cost ?Originally posted by Rock^Star:A few thousand dollars of premiums a year to insure the entire market for millions is surely like a drop in the ocean for a town council's funds which average between $20 to $80 million (if my memory serves me right). -
We also need to establish how much is a "few thousand" to judge the costs of constructing the temp market. Those that bought fire insurance would well afford it but those that didn't, especially your vegetable seller, i pity them.
-
Let's quote an example:Originally posted by kramnave:I'm not disagreeing but for the sake of discussion, are businesses responsible for fire insurance or the landlord ? i.e Should funds from conservancy charges paid by Ang Moh Kio residents be channelled to business owners by means of paying the insurance? Or should business owners be responsible for insurance by means of paying from their profits as a business cost ?
Compulsory fire insurance for HDB flats cover all structural damages in the event of fire. It does not cover loss of household items nor the paint on the walls. This would then be up to the indivdual house owners to purchase private fire insurance.
Same principle should apply to the AMK market.
1) It seems that the town council is making the stallholders bear the entire costs
2) Why has the town council not insured the entire market structure?
3) This market fire has not been the first and will not be the last. Yet, the stallholders seem to be ignorant about fire insurance as evident that only a few have purchased it. Perhaps the town council as the landlord could have educated more on this matter?
Even if a mere few thousand per annum out of millions of dollars of sinking fund is deemed as against the principles of fund usage, the town council could have at least done tie-ups with insurance companies to offer the fire insurance schemes to the stallholders. -
It is easy to pay them, but you want them to give out 0.1% of their sinking fund for insurance they ngiao this ngiao that.
-
Fair enough...a few of them actually didn't renew or buy fire insurance as they thought it's too expensive though...how expensive i wonder..
Anyway i'm waiting to find out what caused the fire...its quite pornographic.