Any difference in Rusting Windows or Lamp Posts that kill?
-
It is surprising that the Government will pass the responsibility to the HDB Owner to ensure that the HDB installed windows are replaced when corroded, and will be held to be culpable for homicide if the window should fall off its fitting and kill somone.
It is even more surprising that the Coroner could not find anyone to be responsible when a lamp post that was corroded, fell and killed a young Singaporean.
In concluding the Coroner's enquiry to this mishap that resulted in the loss of a young life, the decision of the Coroner will clear the Town Council, its agents, and contractors even when they are responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and management of the basket ball court where the lamp post had fallen.
What more can be said ?
Lamp post case: None to blame for teen's death
Coroner says no individual or group to blame for his death - it was an accident; boy's dad visibly upset
By Selina Lum
NO ONE is to blame for the death of a teenage boy who was hit on the head by a falling lamp post at a Tampines basketball court last year.
After weeks of postponement, the verdict from the Coroner's Court on the death of Tay Wei Yi - that it was an accident - was finally delivered in less than two minutes yesterday.
Before returning a verdict of misadventure, State Coroner Malcolm Tan said he was 'satisfied that there is neither any individual nor organisation that is criminally concerned with the death'. He is expected to deliver his written findings on Oct 6.
The teenager's father, Mr Tay Chee Kwang, 41, an odd-job labourer, was visibly upset when the verdict was delivered.
'Even the coroner said no one is at fault, so I suppose it was my son's fault,' he said to reporters in Mandarin before storming off.
Wei Yi, 13, a student at Pasir Ris Secondary, never regained consciousness after being hit by the lamp post, which was badly corroded at the base, on Feb 28 last year.
The coroner's inquiry into his death was first heard in April this year, and several witnesses, ranging from experts to those who frequently played at the court, gave testimony.
Four experts - the principal consultant at PSB Corporation's mechanical testing group, a materials analyst, a mechanical engineer and a corrosion expert - gave differing opinions on whether the most severe corrosion had occurred above or below ground level.
This was deemed an issue as it would help determine whether the town council officer checking the post could have seen the rusted portion, and was therefore negligent in not calling for its replacement.
When the officer in question, Mr Kuah Yee Yee, 26, who works for Tampines Town Council's managing agent EM Services, testified in May, he said he did a visual check of the lamp post from a distance of about five to seven metres, but did not touch it.
He conducted his inspection on Feb 6 last year, a few weeks before the incident.
Testimony from those who played on the court also differed. Polytechnic student Goh Yong Ching, 20, who frequented it, said the lamp post had been tilting for a few months.
However, Wei Yi's five friends, who were playing volleyball with him when the incident occurred, did not notice anything wrong with the post.
There were yet more twists and turns to come in the case, including a twice-postponed verdict, which is a rare occurrence in such an inquiry.
On Aug 19, in what is a highly unusual move for a coroner's inquiry, the town council's lawyers, Mr Shashi Nathan and Mr Peter Chean, made written submissions to the court, saying that the teen's death could not be conclusively attributed to any known party.
The lawyers argued that Mr Kuah had 'adhered strictly to the town council's estate inspection system, and had carried out his duties conscientiously and diligently'.
Mr Kuah did not see any tilting or corrosion before the fateful accident, they said.
The lawyers also hit out at Mr Goh's testimony - another unusual move - arguing that he was either mistaken or had embellished his evidence, as it was untenable for the lamp post to have remained tilted for so long without falling.
They added that the Tampines Town Council had gone out of its way to provide Wei Yi's family with support and assistance, and had even helped to arrange for them to be relocated to a new home to 'facilitate the emotional healing process'.
The town council had also taken steps to ensure that such accidents would not occur again, the lawyers said. These include laying detailed maintenance plans and buying high-tech equipment to check for corrosion in lamp posts. -
The owners have to be responsible for their homes. The HDB cannot be everywhere all the time.
As for the fallen lamp post, it a mishap that nobody want or expect. Is there a need to go on a witch hunt to pin point the blame on somebody ? -
One gives out light, the other doesn't? One is public property, the other isn't? One is a public good enjoyed by all, the other is for private use?
The other day, I discovered a dirt stain on my lime-green walls, I must call the govt up to complain that they didn't make it law to use stain-resistant paint in all homes. hahaha!
-
If window fall on Atobe's head who will he blame ?
-
Have you guys begun to pay for the purchase of your own home, or are you guys still depending on pap-a to pay for the roof over your heads ?
HDB awards contracts based on the cheapest price - most of the time.
If windows cannot last beyond a 5 year period for an HDB home, should the cost be borne by the house owners, when they have sold the HDB homes at such a high price ?
If there is such a high incidence of faulty windows found in any private developed homes, the developer or the design team will be held responsible to replace such defective materials.
On the part of the lamp post, it was clear that the lamp post was found on a property MANAGED and MAINTAINED by the Town Council.
If NEW legislations are passed to make it the responsibility of HDB Owners to be responsible for faulty windows that fall off the window frame, it will be quite obvious, and by natural extension, that the Town Council should be held responsible for the death caused by a failure to notice the dangers posed by a corroded lamp post.
One can only wonder if the coroner's enquiry will be as lenient if a similar incident should happen in a Town Council ward that is managed by the Opposition Party. -
Obviously 'paperchicken' since the windows fell off from the "bird nests in the sky" that HDB is building, and sold at such a high price that only 'paperchicken' can afford to buy.Originally posted by paperchicken:If window fall on Atobe's head who will he blame ?
Unless 'paperchicken' has yet to have his own nest, since it is only a 'chick' and still living under the wings of PAPa's protection, which explains for his unfailing and ingratiating defense of PAPa.
It will be doubtful if you will ever know if it is the "acorn or the sky" that fall on your head when it happens.
A story for chickens of all breeds.
http://www.uuman.org/pdf/ChickenLittle.pdf -
My views:
Verdict from the Coroner's Court:
I would agree that
(1) Mr Kuah Yee Yee should not be guilty unless there are substantial evidence that he did not do his job. Punishing him would also means that few would ever dare to take up this job in future.
(2) EM Services should not be punished either since the service is indeed provided to check and maintain the lamp post. The only point of contention is whether visual checking from 5-7 metres is sufficient to be considered as job fulfilled. In any case, they may be forced to changed their work procedure to ensure physical check and not just visual checks. This is the only point which maybe punishable, but I tends to favor not punishing them, although I find punishment for not having physical check as one of work procedure may be fair as well.
(3) Town council cannot be punished because they did engage someone to inspect the lamp post. It cannot be considered as due negligent since the lamp poles are checked.
Law on Falling window,
(A) I think this could be set as a law and punishable
- Failing to ensure that windows are reasonably safe from falling - the criteria of casement windows with aluminium rivets and more than 5 years old has to be replaced may not be the best criteria, but some criteria has to be set. Of course, whether this is reasonable criteria has to be determine by experts who are in the construction sector. This law applies to all high raise apartment, not just HDB.
(B) And I think this should not be punishable
- Falling of windows even after reasonable care has been taken. This may be similar to the falling lamp pole situation, where reasonable care has been taken but accident still happens. In this case, home owners cannot be blamed as long as there is no substantial prove to show that owner is aware whatever window they have is not safe and they are not replaced or repaired.
Comparison:
The falling lamp pole is more comparable to (B) rather than (A). It may be comparable to (A) only if no checks are done on the lamp pole or if checks are done but the town council did not replace it when faults are discovered.
Conclusion:
The new law only requries (A) above and not (B). And it should be noted that the law applies to private apartment as well. Further, contrary to what Atobe said, private apartment owners are responsible for the replacement of windows as well. Once the home owner signs the contract and ownership passed to home owners from the developer, the developers are no longer responsible for it's maintenance.
Thus, from this perspective, the above two scenarios are not comparable and the law can be considered fair base on the points highlighted in (A). -
Good and calm effort made in trying to crystallize the issues.
If you will allow me, to redirect your positon.
The comment that "Punishing him would also means that few would ever dare to take up this job in future" is incorrect.Originally posted by Qitai:My views:
Verdict from the Coroner's Court: I would agree that
(1) Mr Kuah Yee Yee should not be guilty unless there are substantial evidence that he did not do his job. Punishing him would also means that few would ever dare to take up this job in future.
As an extension to your point - in punishing the two naval officers - (for their negligence in the loss of the navy ship that also led to the loss of four female navy crewmen) - it will also result in no one will ever dare to take up this job in future too.
To bring your line of argument further, if a police officer should be killed or miamed in the line of duty, will it deter anyone from joining the Police Force ?
If a police officer can be found to be in dereliction of duty, if he fail to protect a Civilian from assault - should we then not prosecute him for fear that no one will perform this job in future ?
The outcome of any judgment should not be based on the fear of no one will ever take the responsibility of performing a task or any tasks that is punishable if neglected.
Unfortunately, as much as your views have tried to be fair, by differentiating between scenarios (A) and (B), in the eyes of the law, implementing a legislation passed by Parliament - they will see no such difference.continuing post by Qitai:
(2) EM Services should not be punished either since the service is indeed provided to check and maintain the lamp post. The only point of contention is whether visual checking from 5-7 metres is sufficient to be considered as job fulfilled. In any case, they may be forced to changed their work procedure to ensure physical check and not just visual checks. This is the only point which maybe punishable, but I tends to favor not punishing them, although I find punishment for not having physical check as one of work procedure may be fair as well. [/quote]
EM Services cannot possibly absolve themselves by being a non-Human entity and therefore cannot be responsible for the events that have occured.
The business entity has the responsibility to ensure that proper instructions and work procedures are made in fulfilling their accepted voluntary role of being contracted to perform a known task.
I cannot see how you could be so indecisive and ambivalent, to feel that the Business Entity should be punished, and yet you "favor not punishing them".continuing post by Qitai:
The Town Council cannot absolve themselves from a certain degree of responsibility to the present situation based on the simple cover that their responsibility ends when the task were contracted to others.
(3) Town council cannot be punished because they did engage someone to inspect the lamp post. It cannot be considered as due negligent since the lamp pole are checked.
Can responsibility be contracted out ?
Has the Town Council no responsibility to ensure that the contracted works have been performed diligently and accurately according to the terms of references stated in the contract ?
How does the Town Council justify for the expenditures incurred if they have no expertise in ensuring that the contracted works are of the standard that is desired for the money spent ?
Similar to the Business Entity that has been contracted to perform the tasks, the Town Council should also be held for negligence in not ensuring that the Contractor and the assigned worker has performed their contracted tasks with due diligence, accuracy and care.
No wonder the father of the dead child will feel helpless and frustrated, and was reported to be "visibly upset when the verdict was delivered.'Even the coroner said no one is at fault, so I suppose it was my son's fault,' he said to reporters in Mandarin before storming off.
[quote]continuing post by Qitai:
Law on Falling window,
(A) I think this could be set as a law and punishable
- Failing to ensure that windows are reasonably safe from falling - the criteria of casement windows with aluminium rivets and more than 5 years old has to be replaced may not be the best criteria, but some criteria has to be set. Of course, whether this is reasonable criteria has to be determine by experts who are in the construction sector. This law applies to all high raise apartment, not just HDB.
(B) And I think this should not be punishable
- Falling of windows even after reasonable care has been taken. This may be similar to the falling lamp pole situation, where reasonable care has been taken but accident still happens. In this case, home owners cannot be blamed as long as there is no substantial prove to show that owner is aware whatever window they have is not safe and they are not replaced or repaired.
Comparison:
The falling lamp pole is more comparable to (B) rather than (A). It may be comparable to (A) only if no checks are done on the lamp pole or if checks are done but the town council did not replace it when faults are discovered.
Conclusion:
The new law only requries (A) above and not (B). And it should be noted that the law applies to private apartment as well. Further, contrary to what Atobe said, private apartment owners are responsible for the replacement of windows as well. Once the home owner signs the contract and ownership passed to home owners from the developer, the developers are no longer responsible for it's maintenance.
Thus, from this perspective, the above two scenarios are not comparable and the law can be considered fair base on the points highlighted in (A).
You assume that in Example (A), the HDB Owner failed to ensure the safety of his windows - after 5 years and is liable for any mishaps.
While in Example (B), your statement has turned out to be confusing when you state - "home owners cannot be blamed as long as there is no substantial prove to show that owner is aware whatever window they have is not safe and they are not replaced or repaired"
Should I understand your statement (B) to be that the HDB Owner should be absolved from any responsibility, since he has followed guidelines to change the windows and maintain its condition - and thereafter should not be held responsible, as there is no proof to show that the Owner is aware whether the window remain safe - (this is the confusing part: whether the windows are replaced or repaired).
Unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as the situation described in your Example (B). In the eyes of the Law, "IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE".
With this new legislation, the HDB Owner remains liable and culpable for any mishap arising from a falling window from his home - whether he has replaced the window or not.
Repairing the window is not approve, as it must be changed to the approved type.
I would think that the Owner will still be responsible for the mishap, even if he has contracted to some Window Specialist to change or repair the windows.
In this case, the Owner's culpability maybe reduced, while the contractor will be judged on the quality and professionalism of the work done that still led to the window - (new window or old window that is maintained) - still falling off.
The Contractor cannot "pass the buck" to the Worker whom they employ to do the job, as the Worker will be investigated for the quality of training given, his competency to work alone without supervision and counter checking when work is completed.
If one is to replace the HDB Owner to be the Town Council, the Window Specialist Contractor to be EM Services, and the Worker who worked on the windows as Mr Kuah Yee Yee - then the line of responsiblity should be similar.
Has justice been served in an even handed way, when there seems to be a double standard - one for the HDB Owners, and another for Town Councils ?
Is there any justice left for the small man, a poor Singapore Citizen who cannot afford brilliant Senior Counsels to represent their case ? -
Atobe, your points are basically similar - strict responsibility. So I will just use the example of Mr Kuah Yee Yee.
Imagine you are Mr Kuah Yee Yee and your job is to inspect the lamp pole. Now, on your routine check, you find no obvious flaut with the lamp pole with whatever procedure and equipment that is given to your and hence conclude the lamp pole safe.
Despite that, an accident happens and killed somebody. You felt guilty. But would you think you are responsible for his death? And how would you punish yourself if you imagine that you are the judge now. Imprisonment? Fine? How much fine? Canning?
For once, please don't push it to others. Tell me what is your verdict. -
When window fall on Atobe's head he will blame
HDB
the govt
the house owner
the window manufacturer
the worker who install the window
the wind for blow the window off
....and the rest of the world except himself or his bad luck for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because he think he is always rite and the world revolves around him.
-
So the word 'responsible' is not applicable to HDB ah? After all they are the ones to use the aluminium rivets and they are the ones who build the flats leh. How can pass the responsibility to home owners later?Originally posted by The Barracuda:The owners have to be responsible for their homes. The HDB cannot be everywhere all the time.
As for the fallen lamp post, it a mishap that nobody want or expect. Is there a need to go on a witch hunt to pin point the blame on somebody ?
As for lamp post, of coz it's an accident, but that's why the town council performs checks and maintenance mah. So who's the responsibility here if need to perform manintenance? -
Originally posted by Qitai:
The Law should be basically similar, and applicable in an even handed manner to everyone that comes before the Court of Law - there should be no double standards.
Atobe, your points are basically similar - strict responsibility. So I will just use the example of Mr Kuah Yee Yee.
The Law must be exercised with strict responsibility to all those that comes before it, as in the present inquiry into the collapse of the MRT Circle Line.
In the present thread, why is the Law blind to justice, when the Government can be allowed to conveniently pass a legislation that allow HDB to transfer responsibility to hapless HDB Owners - to replace POORLY DESIGNED windows that are initially accepted by HDB ?
If the HDB Owner can be made responsible for something that they are not responsible in building, why is it that the Town Council cannot be made responsible for a DIRECT RELATIONSHIP in being responsible for the proper maintenance and upkeep of their property ?continuing post by Qitai:
Unfortunately, in this case, Mr Kuah actually admitted that he did his job of inspecting the lamp post from a distance of 5 to 7 meters away.
Imagine you are Mr Kuah Yee Yee and your job is to inspect the lamp pole. Now, on your routine check, you find no obvious flaut with the lamp pole with whatever procedure and equipment that is given to your and hence conclude the lamp pole safe.
Can he possibly be doing his job properly ?
Can he be effective in performing his job to check if the lamp post is corroded, when he inspected those lamp posts from a distance of 5 to 7 meters ?
Can he be said to have done his job with diligence and in a responsible way ?continuing post by Qitai:
Why do you not confine yourself to what I have posted, and make a response to the points made but have instead avoided those points by attempting to go around the issues by putting me into the position of Mr Kuah ?
Despite that, an accident happens and killed somebody. You felt guilty. But would you think you are responsible for his death? And how would you punish yourself if you imagine that you are the judge now. Imprisonment? Fine? How much fine? Canning?
For once, please don't push it to others. Tell me what is your verdict.
Just to amuse you - my reply shall be as follows:
If I am Mr Kuah, and due to my obvious inability or disinterest in the job - (as seen by my cursory attitude of inspecting a lamp post from a distance of 5 to 7 meters away) - I will submit to my conscience that my lack of diligence and improper conduct of my work attitude, and admit that I am probably the principal cause of the death of this innocent boy.
Even if I am not prosecuted by the Law, and found by the Coroner to be not responsible, I will quit my position from EM Services - as a matter of conscience and principle.
Seriously, is it not negligence - (or a lack of due diligence) - if an inspection of a lamp post condition is made from a distance of 5 or 7 meters away ?
Did Mr Kuah have a "Spiderman's" rubber arms that can be telescoped to the lamp post from a distance of 5 to 7 meters away ?
How can EM Services condone such work method in performing a contracted task ?
How can the Town Council not have any supervisors to check on the performance of EM Services and the works completed by the workers from EM Services ? -
A few things.
(1) Please do not repeat yourself. You are just repeating statements that was already made and I have given my views.
(2) You keep changing what the actual law is about - all high raise buildings, not just HDB flats.
(3) You failed to answer what the law should do. You keep saying someone needs to be responsible, but refuse to say who and what punishment should be dish out and on what charges.
(4) With your attitude of strict responsibility, you fail to see that a common folk doing a job just follows procedure of what is required. If my job only requires me to do a visual inspection, then am I responsible? So, in that case, maybe I shouldn't even accept the job in the first place if I think the work procedure is wrong? Or should I accept the job but do more than what the procedure requires me to do? And spend 50% more the time everyone else requires, working 12 hours a day on this job which does not pay me much? I am afraid a common folk do not think that much when accepting such a job.
Finally, I repeat myself, I asked a simple question of what do you think should be the verdict. So, please answer that directly. Opposition talks, but when asked to propose a solution, they keep quiet. -
Giving your views by making unsubstantiated statements, or deviating into new areas of debate that have been challenged without a response, will only result in the repeat of the situation to bring your attention to the key points.Originally posted by Qitai:A few things.
(1) Please do not repeat yourself. You are just repeating statements that was already made and I have given my views.continuing post by Qitai:
Have I changed my position at all - about what the actual Law is about, or is it your attempts to read more into my simple statements, so as to find a new angle to avoid complicating your defence of the Coroner's decision in making "No One" responsible for the death of a child by a falling lamp post ?
(2) You keep changing what the actual law is about - all high raise buildings, not just HDB flats.
The point of contention now is about the Government's avoidance of its responsibility - whether the Law applies generally to Owners of appartments built by HDB or ALL High Rise Building, it remains a fact that with 90 to 95 percent of Singaporeans being accomodated by HDB, it is obvious that HDB is the main beneficiary of this Law.
This Law concerning the responsibility of HDB Owners - (including Private High Rise Buildings, if you insist) - is brought into this argument, to illustrate the fact that the Government can make an innocent HDB Owner to be culpable and responsible for the maintenance of his windows; and yet the Coroner will not make the Town Council nor its Agents to be responsible for works that they are MORE immediately and directly responsible than that of the HDB Owner.continuing post by Qitai:
In some of your replies, you have shown a huge propensity to make inferences of posted replies to suit your point of views, yet in this thread you display an opposite capacity to come to a conclusion that your position - in defense of the coroner's decision - cannot be attainable.
(3) You failed to answer what the law should do. You keep saying someone needs to be responsible, but refuse to say who and what punishment should be dish out and on what charges.
Is it not clear as daylight from my postings of how the Town Council, its Agent - EM Services, and the immediate person responsible Mr Kuah Yee Yee, should all be culpable at different levels of responsibility - as so clearly stated ?continuing post by Qitai:
Will you try to convince the Singapore Chief Justice to change from his declared and astute observance to the principle of 'actions and culpable responsibility' ?
(4) With your attitude of strict responsibility, you fail to see that a common folk doing a job just follows procedure of what is required. If my job only requires me to do a visual inspection, then am I responsible?
If your job only require you to do a visual inspection, you are responsible for the methods and actions in how your job is done to the given final objective or end result that is expected to be performed by you.
If Mr Kuah's job is to ensure that lamp posts are to be checked for corrosion to ensure safety to the public using the area which the lamp posts are serving, can he be deemed to have done a proper job at a distance of 5 to 7 meters away from the lamp posts ? Where is due diligence on his part, or the part of his employer (EM Services), or the Owners cum Managers of the facility (the Town Council) to ensure that expected standards of work is made ?
Are you suggesting that the Law should be applied with a generous degree of flexibility ?continuing post by Qitai:
If the work procedure is a "Standard Works Format" approved by your Employer, the ultimate responsibility for such works standard will rest with the Employer.
So, in that case, maybe I shouldn't even accept the job in the first place if I think the work procedure is wrong?
However, as a thinking person, should you not be responsible to highlight the weaknesses of the "Standard Works Format" ?continuing post by Qitai:
It depends entirely on your sense of "Professional Integrity" - as well as your own standard of conscience and work ethics.
Or should I accept the job but do more than what the procedure requires me to do? And spend 50% more the time everyone else requires, working 12 hours a day on this job which does not pay me much? I am afraid a common folk do not think that much when accepting such a job.
This will bring us to the situation of the collapse of the Nicholl Highway incident during the tunnelling work of the MRT Circle Line, in which events leading up to the fateful day is now slowly revealing itself, as the Coroner's investigation moves through each investigating day.
It is this type of "not my business" attitude, or avoidance of being labelled as a "kiasu" that result in one to be less diligent and not to be a "kaypoh" that will cause more accidents like this major disaster at the Nicholl Highway.continuing post by Qitai:
My verdict is already there with my stated views, unless you refuse to see or is incapable to conclude how my post has been clearly stated.
Finally, I repeat myself, I asked a simple question of what do you think should be the verdict. So, please answer that directly. Opposition talks, but when asked to propose a solution, they keep quiet.
Or do you only want to see what you hope to see that I will agree with your position - that the Coroner is right, that no one is responsible ? -
Don't want to continue this with you since this is going nowhere. I stick to what I stated in my first post.
-
All that i want to be said has already been covered by atobe.
Thankfully there are some among the existing population who agree that this verdict is flawed and perhaps our justice system has been made poorer for it.
If, to illustrate a neutral example, such a verdict has happened before. The case of Expat driver vs Korean father who lost his entire family in a car accident on the road boasts similar circumstances.
All the facts pointed to a guilty verdict. Yet in an astonishing delivery, the presiding judge ruled that the female driver had driven with 'sufficient due care' and was not to blame since the family had jaywalked in heavy rain.
In a repeat of the father who lost his son to the falling lampost, the korean father who flew here from overseas to attend every courst session berated our justice system for failing to award even a small degree of responsibility to the defendant. "Where is the justice?" he mentioned, his face teary eyed.
This incident of the falling lampost, serve to indicate that in rare cases, some ppl who supposedly performed their job 'diligently' from 5-7m away can escape some measure of responsibility. And while the boy's father is left to weep in sorrow, the rest of us should wonder had that child been ours, would the same decision be equally enraging? -
If Atobe is the person in charge of checking the lamp post or window and when accident happens he is made to shoulder the responsibility, will he still say the same thing ?
-
Originally posted by papertiger:
Yes, if you have pride in the quality of your work.
If Atobe is the person in charge of checking the lamp post or window and when accident happens he is made to shoulder the responsibility, will he still say the same thing ?
Yes, if my work has not been professionally executed, and has resulted in the loss of an innocent Life.
Yes, if you believe in 'Karma'. -
Easy for you to say. If the person have a few hundred lampost to check is he going to dig up every one of them ?
-
who actually bothers to check if lamp posts will fall down? I mean....even if you check, you check whether the lamp is working and Shit. but to check if it will fall down. jia bak bo sai pang izzit?
-
Dear Atobe and BillyBong
my sentiments exactly.
The lack of accountability in this country on the part of the establishment is scary.
the people supporint such lack of accountability are even scarier.
i am minded to beleive that they are either PAP fellas or just plain brainwashed citizens.
i believe in karma too. to shield a wrongdoer at the expense of an innocent party brings unforetold consequences for oneself. -
....and if HDB goes into ppl's house to check a2b complain sg is a nanny state intrude his privacy blah blah blah ........
-
I use to say "someone has to responsible" or "there must be a law against that" too.
But after I start working, I face up with the reality that there are situations where there is no one is to be blame. And when pressed, you just get "someone" to take the blame. Since then, I have learn to look at solutions rather than blame.
And I can tell you, a lot of things moves a lot faster for me now when I start looking for solutions rather than blame. In fact, very often I will just take the blame whenever anything goes wrong and that keeps everyone happy. Things gets done a lot faster since once you get done with the blaming, everyone concentrates on the work after that.
Now, do you want to spend you time finding "who fault is it?" OR do you want to spend your time on "how can we prevent this from happening again?".