- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
JCTC’s statement, however, puzzled Dr Chee who had been told by a man claiming to be affiliated with the contractor in charge of maintaining the hose reel that the contractor inspected the hose reel hours after the fire and found it to be in working condition. Claiming that the inspection was supervised by a JCTC official, the man also provided Dr Chee with a copy of the job sheet purportedly proving the inspection.
JCTC’s statement omitted explaining why the fire hose reels were padlocked and failed to mention that the SCDF issued Fire Hazard Abatement Notices to the town council.
Dissatisfied with the town council, which also did not mention whether an inspection occurred right after the fire as per the job sheet that Dr Chee highlighted in public, the SDP chief has raised more questions for Mr Pillai.
In a Facebook post published this afternoon (14 Nov), Dr Chee summarised the SCDF’s findings and said that the two violations the SCDF discovered constitute an act of omission – or absence of action – and an act of commission, where a deliberate decision resulted in the violation. He wrote:
The opposition politician then raised a series of critical questions for Mr Pillai to answer:
1. Did the MPs know that the cabinets were locked? If yes, why did they authorise it? If no, were they sleeping on the job? This is the safety of the residents we’re talking about.
2. If the padlocking was authorised, who authorised it?
3. What was the reason(s) given for padlocking the cabinets?
4. Were Town Council funds disbursed for the purchase of the locks and installation?
5. How widespread is the problem? Have other town councils also padlocked the hosereels?
http://theindependent.sg/murali-pil...all-for-mps-to-be-transparent-chee-soon-juan/
JCTC’s statement omitted explaining why the fire hose reels were padlocked and failed to mention that the SCDF issued Fire Hazard Abatement Notices to the town council.
Dissatisfied with the town council, which also did not mention whether an inspection occurred right after the fire as per the job sheet that Dr Chee highlighted in public, the SDP chief has raised more questions for Mr Pillai.
In a Facebook post published this afternoon (14 Nov), Dr Chee summarised the SCDF’s findings and said that the two violations the SCDF discovered constitute an act of omission – or absence of action – and an act of commission, where a deliberate decision resulted in the violation. He wrote:
“There were two violations that the SCDF cited. One, the cabinets housing the fire hoses were padlocked. Two, when firefighters managed to break the locks, they discovered that there was no water.
“There is a difference between these two violations. One is an act of omission. The lack of water supply could be due to oversight, carelessness and/or negligence. That is, there was an absence of action.
“The second, which is altogether more serious, is an act of commission. The installation of locks on the cabinets required proactive measures. In other words, someone (or some people) made a conscious decision that resulted in the commission of the violation.”
The opposition politician then raised a series of critical questions for Mr Pillai to answer:
1. Did the MPs know that the cabinets were locked? If yes, why did they authorise it? If no, were they sleeping on the job? This is the safety of the residents we’re talking about.
2. If the padlocking was authorised, who authorised it?
3. What was the reason(s) given for padlocking the cabinets?
4. Were Town Council funds disbursed for the purchase of the locks and installation?
5. How widespread is the problem? Have other town councils also padlocked the hosereels?
http://theindependent.sg/murali-pil...all-for-mps-to-be-transparent-chee-soon-juan/