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.
continuing post by Qitai:
(2) You keep changing what the actual law is about - all high raise
buildings, not just HDB flats.
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 ?
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:
(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.
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.
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:
(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?
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' ?
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:
So, in that case, maybe I shouldn't even accept the job in the
first place if I think the work procedure is wrong?
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.
However, as a thinking person, should you not be responsible to
highlight the weaknesses of the "Standard Works Format" ?
continuing post by Qitai:
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.
It depends entirely on your sense of "Professional Integrity" -
as well as your own standard of conscience and work ethics.
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:
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.
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.
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 ?
