Pedestrian, Cyclist and Motorists

Saw two forum letters with regards to the the rights and place of cyclist.

Bikes vs Bus (Today, 17 Jun 2008)

Cyclist v pedestrian: whose right of way? (ST, 20 Feb 2008)

My view is that the issue lies not in deciding should bicycles stay on the road or pedestrian walkway. The issue lies in how we (motorist, pedestrian and bicyclist) can accommodate each other. The issue also lies in how we view our "rights".

Cyclist should not be restricted to either the road or pedestrian walkway. Cyclist should be free to choose which path is safer for them. Having said this, I think all cyclist should exercise caution and put on protection gears such as helmets, arm and knee guard and install blinking/warning lights. Cycle in a single file and keep to the left so that motorists can bypass them. Also, if they choose to ride on pavements, they should slow down or even come down and push their bicycles if they arrive at a crowded/tight spot.

Pedestrians too, should exercise a bit of patience and not hog the entire pavement. When a cyclist rings the bell, he is trying to warn the pedestrian and hopefully, make some space for him to pass through. Pedestrian can simply step aside, make way for the cyclist to pass and continue on their leisurely stroll.

Motorists too, should slow down and overtake when they spot cyclists on the road. Tailgating cyclists or anyone for that matter, is (to me) a foolish thing to do.

What I have suggested above is commonsense and simple thing for everyone to do but why are some people so intolerant of each others' presence? and demand to know who has the right of way?

Pedestrians do not have full, absolute and exclusive rights to use the pavement, neither do the motorists have full, absolute and exclusive rights to use the road.

Cyclists, too have to be considerate to the pedestrians who have as much right as cyclist to use the pavement.

Motorists... just because you paid road tax, COE and ERP doesn't make you king of the road.

But why are we so obsessed with determining who has the rights to what? More strangely is that we seem to be always appealing to the authorities to set rules/laws to determine our "rights". Are we being deprived of rights in the first place? Or are we so naive to think that every rights has to be determined by the "authorities"? Don't we exercise our basic human rights with common sense to share the common places in this little dot that we call home? Can't we use our common sense and exercise our rights and at the same time not depriving others of their right? Or are we still behaving like little children and run to mommy/daddy to tell us what to do and what not to do.

Growing Up - Religion, The Introduction

Sorry, folks... been busy lately doing someone else's job... but that's life.

In my previous post some time ago, I mentioned that I'll talk more about growing up in Singapore or should I say, MY growing up in Singapore. (Noticed how egoistic am I? :p)

Anyway, as I was on my way home just now, thoughts about my religion, or rather, my journey into discovering religion came into my mind. So, I will blog about it here.

I was born into a typical Chinese family and religious inclination is a mixture of Taoism and Buddhism... just like any typical Chinese family in Singapore. I had no idea what is Taoism or Buddhism. I just followed what my parents, and grandparents, did. We worship the Goddess of Mercy (which is in line of Buddhism), Tian Gong, Guan Gong, Tu Di Gong and our ancestors (the latter are more in line with Taoism). Nevermind if you do not know these deities but just to let you have a brief introduction to the polytheistic nature of traditional Chinese faith in contrast to the monotheistic nature of other religion such as Christianity.

Like I said before, I merely followed what my elders did and went through the religious rites without knowing what we were actually doing. It was until about the age of 10 when I started to be more explorative and involved in understanding religion and it was actually Christianity where I started off.

It all started when I would "sneak" into the church right beside the HDB flat where I used to stay. Theplayground in the church compound is particularly attractive :p. Furthermore, churches are typically peaceful. Occasionally, I would attempt to go as far as into the building itself and sit in the Sanctuary (where mass service is held) and contemplate. It was on one such incident when Pastor Yap caught sight of me and extended his invitation to the Saturday children session with promises of singing, games, story-telling and friends. The songs, games, stories and friends certainly appealed to me and before long, I attended the Saturday sessions regularly.

It was obvious that all the songs and stories were related to the Christian faith and it was through those where I started to understand Christianity more. Before long, I was baptized through prayer and the Saturday service was no longer just about fun. Don't be mistaken - the singing, story-telling etc still went on but I went to church for reasons more than just fun. I was slowly discovering another aspect of myself, i.e. my perceptions towards the world beyond mortal affairs. Furthermore, I discovered certain potential in me when I was occasionally tasked as the song/prayer leader and even a team leader once, during a church camp. Well, actually it wasn't something great as other kids did get their chance but my point is we were given opportunities to take lead at one time or another. From the bible, parables and sermons, I begin to see more into the adult world... the real world.

However, my going to the church wasn't warmly received in my family. My dad was openly skeptical about Christianity with me. My mom was skeptical too but she's more reserved on her opinion. In any case, my parents had never forbid or restrict me from going to church.

On one occasion, I got an earful from dad when I say grace at the dinner table, thanking God for providing food for us. My dad had a poor grasp of English but he certainly knew what I said. "What did Jesus do to provide food for you?!?! I worked so hard to feed the family and you thanked Jesus instead of me, your father!" Well, both my parents were workers with little education and they certainly worked very hard to feed this family of six. I can understand his unhappiness. Since then, I made my prayer in my heart. If I'm still a Christian now and if my dad is still around, having dinner with us, perhaps I'll amend my prayers to "Thank you Lord, for giving us a father who worked so hard to feed us, and for giving us a mother who can cook so well (my mom can really cook)". But my dad is no longer around and I'm not a Christian now - I'm what they call a Backslider.

There are several reasons why I backslided. The initial reason was that when I went into secondary school, the ECA took its toll on me. Saturday was full day ECA for me, not the typical half day. That left Sunday for me to attend church but Sunday is the only day when I have full day for my family. Following my missing church, a few upsetting incident happened with the members of that church which made me lose faith. One of it was that a couple of the church members went to my home, supposedly to enquire why I missed church. I was in school for my ECA, as usual, and my mom attended to them. My mom didn't know that I seldom attend church service then and explained that she didn't stop me from going.

Sensing that they were unable to get anymore answers from her, they turned their attention to the deities and ancestor tablet place on the altar and remarked that my mom was worshiping idols (in Mandarin, the word is rock). THAT upsetted my mom and she retorted that she respected their rights to they religion and respected her son's choice in religion and told them not to make such insulting remark on her choice of religion. If we had knew about the Seditions Act then, those two fellas could have ended up in jail. My mom didn't tell me about that encounter immediately then when I returned from school... still respecting my choice. There were other incidents with some Christians, personally experienced by myself and finally made me gave up Christianity totally.

Before anyone say I am against Christianity and attempting to spread not-so-nice messages, let me add that another person (Lay Hoon's the name) who got baptized with me, had a totally different experience. Her life had certainly changed for the better. She had certainly found hope in Christianity (and I have no idea how is she doing now since I stopped going to church). My experiences with some were not pleasant but that was mine experiences. I was almost against Christianity at one point of my life. Thank goodness, a sound minded Christian friend once told me, man can fail you because it is human to err but God will not - do not judge a religion base on the actions of man. With those words, I'm managed to keep an open mind about Christianity and any other religion.

If there's a church nearby with its doors wide open, perhaps I'll sneak into Sanctuary and contemplate once more. :p

Who Should Take Responsibilities?

In my previous post, I talked about responsibility and accountability and the fairness of taking actions on those responsible and accountable for the lapses.

Coming back to the issue of Mas Selamat's escape. Without the benefit of knowing the full details other than looking the the COI Executive Summary and Ministerial Statement, I am of the opinion that accountability and responsibility goes beyond the officers stationed in Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC). Everyone has to take responsibility and account for something... and what is that something?

In my earlier post, I quoted from the Ministerial Statement that there were "no evidence of connivance, collusion, or assistance given to Mas Selamat" nor "malice or criminal liability on the part of any officer implicated". In other words, none of the staff actually intended for Mas Selamat to escape. Thus, for that matter, I don't think anyone (including the GC and SDO) should face any "permanent" punishment such as termination. Doing so will only encourage their successors to be more resistant to taking responsibilities... or perhaps even deny their lapses. However, some disciplinary actions along the lines of stoppages of leave, bonus, demotion, reassignment or at least re-educate and re-train should be necessary. By doing so, it sends a clear message across that the lapses are serious matters and cannot be condone, and yet the "authority" is prepared to hear out the difficulties the officers may face in conforming to the expectations.

To determine who is responsible for the lapses and weaknesses can go very high up. The GC guards and SDO who did not follow SOP by leaving Mas Selamat out of their sight are certainly responsible for this non-conformance. It seems that they are not the only ones. There have been cases where MS had closed the door. Who should take responsibility for not preventing such non-conformance to take place? Should he face disciplinary actions? The toilet was not meant for detainees but was used nevertheless for convenience. Again, who should take responsibility for not preventing such practices? Should he face disciplinary actions? Although the COI did not explicitly mention it, who should be responsible for the weaknesses that warrants improvement in

1) Command and Control
2) Communication Coordination
3) Regular Exercises and Audits
4) The WRDC itself

The WRDC is a "complex-multifunctional facility" (Ministerial Statement). Who is responsible for ensuring that the WRDC has all the resources necessary to run such a facility? Who runs the renovation and re-development programme? Were there any risk assessment done to ensure that the renovation and re-development programme do not alter the security eco-system? Who do all these works? Are they trained to manage renovation and re-development projects? Is the WRDC provided with sufficient resources to not only carry out the multifunctional roles but additional resources to carry out the re-development program? Are there other detention centres (I'm do not know how many are there but let's include the prisons as well) that faces similar cultural, operational or infrastructure weakness? If there is, who should be accountable? These questions can go on and on, higher and higher into the organizational hierarchy and may very well implicate everybody but that is not the point. The point is for everyone to ask themselves "Am I one of the confluencing factor?"

Anyway, I don't think Minister for Home Affairs or Director ISD need to answer all these questions to the public - the COI's Executive Summary is quite comprehensive and the Ministerial Statement is even more detailed. However, I hope for everyone's sake, they will find the answers within themselves and take any corrective actions where required.

Responsibility, Accountability, Culpability & Actions

The nature of my job (past and present) places safety management on high priority. In the course of my work, I've been exposed to much knowledge on the concepts and methodologies of safety management. After reading the Executive Summary by the COI on Mas Selamat's escape and the Ministerial Statement by the Minister of Home Affairs, I find many areas where the knowledge on safety management can be applied to security management.

When lapses (be it safety or security) have been found, the rational and natural approach is to take actions to "plug" the lapses. However, in my opinion, the issue of determining responsibility, accountability and culpability will determine the effectiveness of the "lapses-plugging-actions". To put it in another way, what "personnel-related-actions" to take on those who are responsible, accountable and culpable will have an effect on how the "lapses-plugging-actions" are being carried out. If the "personnel-related-actions" are not perceived to be fair and just, "lapses-plugging-actions" will be carried out half-heartedly. So what do I mean about who are responsible, accountable and culpable? Here's my definition:

Responsible - the person who is actually carrying out the job, e.g. the Gurkha Contingent (GC) guards and Special Duty Operative (SDO) or, in my line of work, the technician who does the repair work.

Accountable - the person whom those responsible reports to. This person may not be actually doing the job of escort or repair but has to account for how well or badly was the job done. These people include supervisors, management staff, auditors, independent checkers etc.

Culpable - When there are procedures to be followed but the person chose to do otherwise, in maintenance, we call it non-conformance (to procedures). However, that person is not culpable (of misdeeds) yet. If his non-conformance is due to malice, intent to sabotage, wanting the adverse consequences to happen or clearly defies commonsense, then we would deem this person to be culpable. Rightfully, he should be removed from his job or face other severe disciplinary actions because he is a threat to himself, his colleagues and the organisation. However, if his non-conformance is due to a misunderstanding of the procedure, or even lack of clear procedures, inadequate resources, etc or when his non-conformance is actually a "cultural norm" (everyone else does it)... well, what action should we take? I'll come to that later on.

Back to Mas Selamat's case...

There were "no evidence of connivance, collusion, or assistance given to Mas Selamat" nor "malice or criminal liability on the part of any officer implicated"(Ministerial Statement). Thus, in my opinion, no one is culpable, not even the GC guards and SDO operative, based on my description of culpability. However, that does not mean that no one is held responsible or accountable for the lapses leading to Mas Selamat's escape. Looking the COI's recommendations, clearly the lapses went beyond the escorts' not keeping line of sight of the detainee, un-grilled window and weakness in the perimeter fencing. The COI's key recomendations include,

1) Centralised Command and Control
2) Enhance Communication Coordination
3) Regular Exercises and Audits
4) New Detention Facility

These recommendations suggest that there are "high level" weaknesses. There are people, most likely high up, who are responsible for effective command and control, communication and coordination etc and even higher up who are accountable for the "need-to-be-improved" areas. There are people who have to be responsible and accountable for the weaknesses.

So what "personnel-related-actions" should be taken? If no one is culpable of intentionally assisting Mas Selamat's escape directly or indirectly, does it mean that no (disciplinary) action will be taken on anyone? No. The personnel-related-actions can include re-train and re-educate, stoppages of leave/offs/bonus/promotion for a fix period of time etc for all those responsible and accountable for the lapses and weaknesses. This is to send a clear message that lapses cannot be condone, whether it was done intentionally or not. Since these disciplinary actions are not permanent, it gives hope to the staff that they have an opportunity to do better in future.

On top of that, the disciplinary actions must be seen to be fair and not exonerate anyone, especially the top management. If not, all the talks and recommendations about centralised command and control, enhancing communications and coordination will turn into "blah blah blah" in the ears of the lower ranking staff. All the weaknesses will still be present.

Should anyone be sacked or asked to leave? Since the COI and CID did not find any evidence of connivance, collusion or malice, I don't think anyone should be sacked. In fact, sacking someone or making someone resign is really a simple way out. That person will take away a full load of knowledge and experience about the "honest mistakes" he made. I would even advocate that everyone should stay on, from the director of ISD to the GC and SDO. Stay on to make things right. Stay on to ensure that the correct ways of doing things are materialised.

A punitive culture within any organization is always counter-productive. It will not only make everyone shirk responsibilities - such a culture "encourages" people to cover-up or even distort truths. In such a cultures, those directly responsible (normally the lower ranking staff) for the lapses are removed immediately but the indirect causes e.g. inadequate tools, ambiguous procedures, crazy-boss-who-make-me-repair-the-nuclear-reactor-in-5-minutes etc are unchecked and unrectified. Someone else is bound to make the same mistake, again. Weaknesses will occur and go undetected, unreported, waiting to blow up on anyone "suay" (unfortunate) enough to step on it at the wrong moment.

Ha! I Found The Prince

Just found out that the Frog Prince is still in town and not in Paris as he claims!

He's been stalking my children! :p

No la, actually he really is out of town. I was just having a bit of fun with my mobile phone with camera features. It came as a surprise that under the Frame facility, Frog Prince actually made it into the features. Can't help it but to capture a couple of shots with it. Kinda cool, don't ya think?