RE: PAP MP Indranee wants no alcohol zone near Zouk
RE: 'High' life shattered by drunk party goers
"MS INDRANEE Rajah wants to set up a "no-alcohol zone" around Robertson Quay.
This comes after the MP of Tanjong Pagar received feedback from residents at Rivergate condominium about drunken revelry.
Ms Rajah was planning to visit the area, which is a five-minute walk away from Zouk, early this morning to determine the severity of the issue along with 30 other people."
 |
| TNP PICTURE: Jonathan Choo |
BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS
Before we get started, I wanna highlight a couple of background points:
(1) While I think it's great that MP Indranee speaks up for her constituents who are living in Rivergate, I cannot help but to wonder about:
(i) the number of Singaporeans staying at Rivergate, and
(ii) whether the complainants are Singaporean citizens.
This in turn points us to the nagging issue of whether MPs ought to be responding to complaints/appeals from non-citizens. Because it is the citizens who have voted for the MPs, not PRs, not foreigners.
What is the standing policy within Singov on MPs appealing on behalf of non-citizens?
Is there an MP's code of conduct which governs who they should be speaking up for?
(2) I wonder if MPs ought to view 'peace' and 'being clear of unsightly people/things/activities' within expensive residential neighbourhoods as more essential than the same phenomena within common folks' HDB estates.
Read such sentiments on this very issue via a local discussion forum:
Qn: "my HDB block also have people loiter, drink, smoke, si ginna play football etc. Huai moi MP neh take interest?"
(Translation: There are people who loiter, drink, smoke etc at my HDB flat block, and children playing football too. Why doesn't my MP take interest in these issues?)
Ans: "because you are not rich"
.............................................................................................
THE PROBLEM
Assuming all's fair and right, i.e. the complainants were ALL Singaporean citizens, and MPs respond to all peace-disturbing complaints regardless of how atas the neighbourhoods are, now let's study the problem raised about Zouk.
Simply put, Zouk is very popular and its drunk party-goers are causing dis-amenities to the residents nearby. These party-goers puke and litter on the public pavement/bridge and into the river between Zouk and the nearby high-end residential developments. They hang around late into the night, and some make noise and mischief.
Btw, I love Zouk and have ever been a 'Zoukette', if anyone still uses that term these days, i.e. going to Zouk up to thrice per week over a sustained period (e.g. years).
However, my other experiences as a Real Estate student, window-shopper, and former public servant scream out to me that Zouk indeed poses many dis-amenities to its quiet and tidiness-seeking neighbours, especially the ones occupying recently purchased expensive real estate.
During my undergraduate industrial attachment to one of the condominiums nearby, I was told by the property manager that the heavy bass of Zouk's sound system can be heard, even after Zouk had spent copious amounts of money to insulate its premises. Complaints flooded the management office, and then to the authorities. That was back in 1998, when there were only a couple blocks of residential apartments near Zouk.
10 years later, the authorities have given more approvals for residential units to be developed in the same area. Just by eye-balling the developments, the number of dwelling units in that area must have gone up by 10 times. However, this so-called Zouk problem has not been resolved.
In early 2011, a tenant in Rivergate tells me that her family can hear Zouk from the inside of their apartment on the 20+ floor, even with the windows shut, especially on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
And now, you have this reflection by MP Indranee Rajah.
MP Indranee's solution to this problem?
A 'no alcohol zone' in that area to be policed by the Police.
*Cracks knuckles and neck*
I can totally understand where MP Indranee is coming from.
She can't say aloud to SINGOV, 'Move Zouk away, please!"
That's simply not business-friendly, especially when this is a business set up by a Singaporean-citizen, and that Zouk is an establishment which touches the heart and flames the memories of many many English-educated P65 Singaporeans.
She also doesn't have that much influence to get the stat boards involved to do something about the Zouk situation, when these stat boards created the problem to begin with, and would have already done something about this decades-old problem if they had any will to.
So, her last option is to suggest for the all-encompassing and ever obliging Police to police her little proposal.
Now... Here's what's wrong with this nett outcome:
Firstly, the phenomenon of drunk Zoukettes shouting, littering and peeing along/into the river is neither the main nor only problem which comes with Zouk. Other problems include vibrations from Zouk's sound system, traffic on popular nights etc.
Also, such problematic phenomena is not unique to Zouk, i.e. it happens to any area near highly successful nightspots around the island. If so, why should a 'no alcohol zone' only apply to the atas residential area around Zouk? I want it to be applied to my HDB estate too.
If this policy is expanded islandwide, the nett effect is that one can no longer consume alcohol in public, except in Tuas and Pulau Ubin.
Secondly, Zouk does not own the plot of land it's sitting on. Zouk is on State land via a relatively short-term lease. This means that the government could have removed (and can still remove) Zouk from its present location quite easily, i.e. by doing nothing and letting the lease lapse.
But in the past 10 years, the authorities have actively renewed Zouk's lease, despite receiving the complaints and not tackling them at the roots.
Also, on top of not renewing its lease, the government can always help Zouk move by suggesting a few attractive alternative locations elsewhere. E.g. Zouk could be part of the great Marina Bay, MBS etc.
Thirdly, I'm sure that Zouk, as the most successful and internationally-recognised nightspot in Singapore for the past couple of decades, pulls its own weight with the authorities. And rightly so. It didn't get to where it is today by chance.
Which trouble-avoiding officer wants to end Zouk's land lease? What if Zouk decides to stop its operations? What if Zouk fails after the relocation? Which public agency wants to risk being responsible for the demise of such a great (organically-developed) national entertainment and tourism product? What if there is no river buzz once Zouk moves away from the river! OMG?!! How do we live with that?!
Everyone involved just wants to be nice and cordial, and avoids buying an apartment in that area, while hoping that someone else, e.g. the Police (or the Home Team/ Ministry of Home Affairs), will sort the mess out that Zouk has brought along with its success.
Once again, lemme bring your attention to how some public agencies just want to focus on 'Beautification and Buzz' projects, while neglecting their core duties such as enforcement etc.
And when they are like this, some other more public-spirited public agencies, usually the Home Team, will have to pick up the former's slack.
So, my fellow people, neither Zouk nor the Zoukettes are the problem.
For right or wrong reasons, MP Indranee has brought the problem to the surface, but because her hands are tied, she comes up with a palliative solution (治标不治本), i.e. get the Police to police a 'No Alcohol Zone' around Zouk.
If the new SINGOV is sincere and serious about its promises to the people, stop wasting time on shoving mistakes such as Tin Pei Ling down our throats, but instead spend time and energy on tackling such deep-seated problems at the roots.
A lot of mess has been created during the huge accelerated party in the past decade. It's time for house-keeping. Clear out the crap to make space for the future. A lot can be done in 4.5 years.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar