wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  Today Online 17 Mar 07
NParks should stick to things botanical
Letter from Heng Koon

Today Online 13 Mar 07
Boat storage at East Coast Park not meant to be a leisure facility
Letter from Kong Yit San Director, Parks National Parks Board

Today Online 7 Mar 07
Boat owners sail into rough weather
Boating a tough indulgence due to NPark's new rules
Letter from Heng Koon

The Singapore Government has for decades encouraged Singaporeans to engage in healthy sports and outdoor activities.

Like thousands of Singaporeans, I responded by buying a small motor boat and took up fishing and boating. These activities also enabled me to feed my family with fresh seafood.

The Maritime and Port Authority is doing a great job of facilitating this by issuing lifetime boat licences without any fuss; providing training; and even producing free identification transponders for national security and for the safety of boat owners.

I am, therefore, puzzled by the recent actions of the National Parks Board (NPB). NPB controls the storage of boats on land. Since late 2005, it has withdrawn many permits to store boats along the East Coast Park (ECP).

Has there been a change in Government policy on boating, fishing and water sports?

The NPB wrote to boat owners stating: "The intention of the boat storage area is for individuals who are dependent on fishing as a livelihood, and therefore, this is a condition for renewal (of permits)." However, this was never an announced condition before.

How many owners of small boats in Singapore depend on fishing for a livelihood? From what I know, the answer is: Very few. There are not enough fish off the ECP. Even kelongs are closing down, with owners complaining of poor catches.

Last year, boat owners were ordered to make a statutory declaration--a rare requirement nowadays--about whether our total household monthly income was above $1,500. We were also required to make arrangements to pay NPB storage fees by Giro.

After going through this rigmarole, we were told our permits could not be renewed as we did not depend on fishing as a livelihood, and because we earned more than the magic income of $1,500 monthly.

When I appealed, the NPB suddenly shifted the goalposts again, and demanded to see my "identity card, marriage certificate/deed of separation/divorce certificate, birth certificates of my children, Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's Computer Information (business profile), valid licence of businesses/trade, latest income tax assessment or original payslips".

Why were we not told of these conditions upfront to save us from going through the process needlessly?

Today Online 13 Mar 07
Boat storage at East Coast Park not meant to be a leisure facility
Letter from Kong Yit San Director, Parks National Parks Board

We refer to the letter, "Boat owners sail into rough weather" (March 7).

The licence that NParks grants for boat storage at East Coast Park originated in the 1970s. Its intended purpose was to provide subsidised boat storage facilities to assist those affected by resettlement and who depended on fishing for subsistence. The licence fee, at $170 a year, is highly subsidised.

Today, many boats stored in these facilities are registered as "pleasure craft" or used for larger-scale commercial purposes. This departs from the original intent to provide subsidised boat storage facilities to low-income fishermen.

There are four boat storage areas that cater to this scheme along East Coast Park. NParks plans to consolidate them better in the next year. This will help improve the hygiene and safety conditions in these areas, and make the beach more accessible for recreational purposes.

In this effort, we will continue to allow low-income fishermen to store their boats in these areas. Priority will be accorded to those whose monthly household income is below $1,500, and who are from the resettlement cases of the 1970s.

To determine who qualifies, we request that existing boat owners declare their income levels and the purpose of using their boats. Some of those who were disqualified subsequently appealed--this explains why there is a requirement that they produce relevant documents to substantiate their appeals.

For boat owners who use their boat for pleasure and sports, we regret that they will not continue to enjoy boat storage under this scheme. There are commercial boat storage facilities that cater to their needs.

To assist them, we have granted them a grace period of six months to seek other boat storage arrangements. We will also be happy to help them dispose of unwanted items at their current boat storage site.

This is a difficult exercise and we have been having many face-to-face meetings to ensure genuine low-income fishermen are not inadvertently penalised.

If the writer or other boat owners feel that their needs are not clearly understood, NParks will be happy to meet them to discuss their case. They can call 6440 0046 to arrange for such a meeting.

Today Online 17 Mar 07
NParks should stick to things botanical
Letter from Heng Koon

I thank the National Parks Board (NParks) for its reply, "Boat storage at East Coast Park not meant to be a leisure facility" (March 13), to my letter, "Boat owners sail into rough weather" (March 7 ).

Parks Division director Kong Yit San did not address all my points, though. He contends that the boat storage was "intended" for those affected by resettlement and who depended on fishing for subsistence.

I have been licensed to store my boat there for well over 20 years. These intentions were not conveyed to me until recently. If the licences were meant to help fishermen, was NParks remiss in issuing licences to pleasure craft owners? Did NParks know that all fishing boats have "SF" as a prefix in their registration numbers, whereas it is "SZ" for pleasure craft?

The matter of subsidised storage licence fees is also new to boat owners. NParks did not provide basic facilities such as toilets, showers or lockers. It did not employ guards to ensure our boats and gear were not stolen. Hence, there have been many cases of theft. So, how were the fees subsidised? What is the quantum of subsidy?

NParks calls it "boat storage" but it is nothing of the kind. Far from "storing" our boats, we had to leave our boats at the top of the beach, in the open air. We constructed storage boxes for our fishing nets, engines and gear. We installed expensive winches to drag our boats up the beach — all at our own expense.

NParks says it is helping low-income fishermen. Among the 40 boat owners in the area where we store our boats, not one person we know of depends on fishing for a livelihood.

NParks should stick to things botanical and leave boating matters to, say, the Maritime and Port Authority, which has been very supportive of boating activities. The MPA would be in a better position to solve the current problem.

Just as the Government issues driving licenses and builds carparks for car owners, perhaps the MPA can help middle-class boat owners by building a "boat-el" at East Coast Park. Most of us cannot afford marina membership and charges, contrary to what NParks thinks.
links
Related articles on recreation in our wild places and wild shores
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com