Alvin and Vivian’s Religious Provocation in Malaysia and Racial Harmony Day Singapore

Infamous Malaysian sex bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee are doing it again to score controversy. However, they got more than they bargained for by provoking Muslims in Malaysia and were charged with sedition today. Their crime was stupidity as they not only provoked Muslims, but provoked them during Ramadan. It was not accidental, and totally deliberate. Incidentally, Malaysia and Singapore are so similar in that Malaysia also resorted to sedition laws to squash racial and religious provocation. Although the slight difference is that in Malaysia it is used to protect the majority’s interests, in Singapore in past cases it is used to protect minority’s interests.

Alvin and Vivian’s precarious Internet stunt to gain attention is unwise in multi-racial Malaysia, given the racial and religious sensitivities of their bad joke. In Singapore, schools acknowledge Racial Harmony Day on Friday although to be exact, the Day is marked annually as on 21 July. Many of us would have forgotten or never knew the significance of this weird red letter day.

On 21 July 1964, the historic Chinese-Malay riots broke out in Singapore, supposedly because of provocation between Chinese and Malays when Malays were marching in Geylang to celebrate Prophet Mohammad’s birthday. Nonetheless, the context of the riots was deeper and charged by UMNO-PAP tension e.g. PAP’s campaigning in Malaysia for a Malaysian Malaysia which was a frontal challenge to UMNO’s bumiputra politics.

Malaysia sex bloggers charged over pork posting
Created 18/07/2013 – 14:09

A Malaysian couple known for a sexually explicit blog were charged Thursday with sedition after they caused outrage by posting a Ramadan greeting on Facebook which showed them eating pork.

Alvin Tan, 25, and Vivian Lee, 24, pleaded not guilty to publishing or distributing a “seditious publication” and two other charges in a Kuala Lumpur district court in Muslim-majority Malaysia, a court official said.

They were denied bail and so will be jailed pending trial, she said. The next court date has been set for August 23.

Sedition is punishable by up to three years in jail.

The duo had posted a greeting for the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan on social networking site Facebook last week, showing a poster of them eating pork, which is forbidden in Islam.

They later apologised in a video on YouTube for the posting, which sparked widespread anger. Their Facebook page is no longer accessible.

The other charges were causing disharmony on the grounds of religion and possessing or producing obscene material, which is punishable by up to five years in jail, the official said.

Prime Minister Najib Razak criticised the couple on Wednesday while discussing implementing a new law to replace the colonial-era sedition act, which has been slammed by critics as a tool to crack down on dissent.

“The insolent and impudent act by the young couple who insulted Islam showed that freedom of expression and irresponsible opinion can jeopardise the community,” he was quoted by The Star as saying.

Last year Lee, a kindergarten teacher, and Tan, who is currently unemployed and a former law student at the National University of Singapore, sparked outrage in Malaysia and Singapore by posting erotic photographs and videos of their lovemaking as well as close-ups of their genitals on a blog.

The duo, who said they aimed to destigmatise sex, shut down the blog because of family pressure in the conservative countries, where pornography is illegal.


WP Keeping their Game Face

PM Lee over the weekend put it to WP that they have no integrity over the hawker centre cleaning matter, which in perspective, is getting more and more of a mountain out of a molehill. Vivian Balakrishan already cheekily slapped WP’s face on the right cheek with a glove to provoke WP into a duel that WP would lose. Despite its cheek still stinging, WP was smart enough to do damage control and let the matter rest like asking WP deadweight Pritam Singh to remain stoically silent despite being called out a liar in parliament, rather than their mismanagement of their hawker centre cleaning be exposed more in court.

PAP scored by showing the political middle ground among us that WP is not as great as we thought e.g. PAP has AIM, WP has FMSS. On the other hand, WP also scored as they were seen as being bullied by the PAP over a small matter of asking hawkers to foot the bill of cleaning the roof structures. A small municipal misstep done by WP that would have been seen as a big matter if committed by the PAP.

The PAP could have dusted their hands and walked off pompously knowing that while they were seen as bullies as usual by the WP supporters, the PAP would have rested comfortably because the damage done to WP’s reputation so soon after WP’s FMSS fiasco was palpable. PAP could take a big hit as they normally do, but WP could not, not so soon in a string of mismanagement within the WP leadership that started with Yaw’s scandal, FMSS and now this so-called integrity controversy.

The insistent shove by PM Lee that WP must give an explanation and clear the air is just overkill. For the PM to step in over a hawker centre cleaning bill and said that there was implicit dishonesty is just too much even if true. It’s like the Gomez saga in 2006. Everyone eventually knew that Gomez was mistaken, and made false stupid accusations that the PAP committed election sabotage. However, when the PAP kept clinging on to the Gomez-bashing that was fast becoming stale, the broken record that kept playing the same scratchy tune was just irritating and did more harm to the PAP than to WP after a while. It’s the same broken record now.

Our MPs’ consciences are clear

We refer to the statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office on 12 July 2013.

The various allegations against the integrity of Workers’ Party’s Members of Parliament contained in the statement have already been fully responded to and rejected by the Party, both in and out of Parliament.

Regarding the cleaning of hawker centres, we have put forth the facts as we have found them, based on our own earlier investigations. We defended our position in Parliament on 9 July 2013 with a clear conscience.

This matter has been in the public headlines since late May. We have made our position known both inside and outside Parliament and the relevant documents are already in the public domain, so the public can make its own judgment on the matter. We do not find it productive to continue debating and arguing with the ruling party over this issue.

The Prime Minister referred to the Workers’ Party’s slogan for General Election 2011: “Towards a First World Parliament”. The concept of a First World Parliament is not about the People’s Action Party or the Workers’ Party, but about what Singaporeans want for our country and what they believe is necessary to secure our country’s future.


13 Jul 2013

Personal Data Protection Act After 6 Months

Businesses from banks to property agents, those offering lucky draw, organisations and places which requires you to change your NRIC for a pass for entry would be affected when the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) comes into force next July when businesses have to comply by then. Many of us who had to surrender our IC or had to give an incomplete or fake NRIC when filling up forms by companies knowing that our personal data would be traded around behind our backs are now potentially protected. Businesses can’t peddle our phone numbers away for us to be harassed by another company selling insurance, a time share, a financial product, a survey, without our consent.

The No-Call Registry starting in January 2014 is an interesting repository of “do not harass me” handphone numbers. Companies can be fined up to $1 million by the Personal Data Protection Commission if the PDPA is flouted. Unless the commission is in reality all bark, no bite as they are flooded with complaints and paralysed into inaction. Still, be sure to register your handphone number if you are bothered by callers trying to sell you something.

There would be new industries – companies offering personal data protection services to SMEs. As companies and organisations big and small need personal data officers once they collect customer personal information, this is a niche skill set, like MAS compliance officers maybe. Companies are scratching their heads to get around the PDPA since collecting IC numbers would be increasingly frowned upon. Handphone numbers would be more important than before as personal identification although the PDPA also covers its collection, storage and use.

The PDPA is the right step ahead, similar to the UK’s 1998 Data Protection Act where it protects an individual’s right to privacy. Would Singapore also introduce a Freedom of Information Act like the UK, which is an act about the state’s responsibility for transparency?

Businesses want more clarity on Personal Data Protection Act

SINGAPORE — The newly-enacted Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which requires individuals to be informed and consent gained if organisations are collecting personal data, does not prescribe the circumstances under which NRIC numbers should be provided — posing a conundrum for some organisations here as they adjust their policies and practices.

The collection of NRIC numbers is a common practice among a variety of businesses here and those which spoke to TODAY said it serves verification and audit purposes to ascertain a person’s identity and they would like more clarity on the laws.

For example, telecommunications companies need customers’ NRIC numbers for regulatory requirements and some businesses ask visitors for NRIC numbers before they are allowed to enter secured office premises.

Responding to TODAY’s queries, a spokesperson for the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) said it will be publishing the final advisory guidelines to organisations before the end of this year. It had conducted two public consultations — one ended in April, the other last month — after it published an initial set of advisory guidelines on its website.

The Act does not prescribe the type of personal information an organisation can collect. Nevertheless, the PDPC guidelines said: “As a best practice, organisations should avoid over-collecting personal data, including NRIC numbers, where this is not required for their business or legal purposes. Organisations should consider whether there may be alternatives available that address their requirements.”

TGIF Bazaars, the operator for Sentosa’s Boardwalk Bazaars, said it needed vendors to produce either their NRIC, passport, Work Pass or business registration numbers in order to secure a booth.

Its spokesman pointed out that these identification numbers are the “only known ways” to validate the legality of a vendor’s participation and it is “a part of our responsibility” to request for such information. These numbers may also be needed for accounting and audit and may also be “required” by the authorities here, he added.

SingTel said it had several ways to verify the identity of its customers. “At our shops, verification is done by checking customers’ NRIC. Another way is to send a one-time password to customers’ mobile phone via SMS,” said a company spokesperson.

While it does not share personal information with any third-party organisations without consumers’ expressed permission, SingTel said NRIC numbers are collected as part of regulatory requirements when customers subscribe to its services.

During the PDPC’s public consultation in April, some companies also called for the commission to provide more clarity on the use and collection of NRIC numbers. For example, the Singapore Press Holdings asked for clarification on whether an individual can be refused entry into secured office premises if they object to their NRIC card being retained.

The PDPC had previously noted that NRIC numbers are of “special concern” to individuals as they are unique to each person and are used in many official transactions with the Government.

Government agencies and statutory boards are excluded from the law — which was passed in Parliament in October last year — as they are governed by internal rules, most of which have not been made public.

Organisations have 18 months to adjust to the Act, between January this year and July next year, when the rules come into force.

Under the Act, organisations must make “reasonable” security arrangements to protect personal data in its possession or under its control in order to prevent unauthorised access, collection, use, disclosure, copying, modification, disposal or “similar risks”.

The PDPC noted that there is no “one size fits all” solution for organisations to comply with the new law and each organisation should consider adopting security arrangements that are “reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances”.

“Organisations such as TGIF Bazaars are advised to review their processes that involve personal data, including NRIC numbers, to ensure that they comply with the PDPA when the act comes into effect. There is no enforcement during the transition period,” the PDPC spokesperson said.

Shane Todd: Rest In Peace

The coroner ruled that it was suicide from the suicide signs e.g. history of suicide sites visited and depression, signs of hanging. The US embassy in Singapore did not dispute the findings, saying that “The inquiry into Dr Todd’s death was comprehensive, fair and transparent.”

The Todds and their supporters would no doubt stick to the assassination conspiracy theory – to backtrack now would be a loss of face and also make them lose something to hold on to in life as a means to cope. Mary Todd is a pastor and to accept that her son committed suicide was unthinkable.  By indulging in a natural sense of denial over the death of their son and expose the supposed inter-government murder conspiracy, the Todds now have a mission in life. The Todds might even deepen the conspiracy later on that maybe their factions within their own US government silenced him as Shane was working for the PRC and was heading back to the US as spy. The conspiracy theory content is surely enough for a telemovie or book.

One behaviour that made the Todds look less convincing was of their own doing. The Montana couple had the opportunity to grill the police and medical consultants in court but they chose to storm out of the proceedings before their turn came instead. They explained that it was because they had enough of the court’s sham. Instead I believe that the evidence for suicide was overwhelming and they were afraid of being caught out in court for the untruths made and who urged them to do it e.g. the hard drive they said they found which was in fact returned to them by the police.

Financial Times insisted that they stand by their reporting as they understandably would as no respected international institution would back down over such an incident when reputation is at stake, and they have the opportunity to spin it as “Singapore government takes on the Western free press” if Shanmugam is dim enough to sue FT. However, whether esteemed FT would stand by the now radically less esteemed journalist Raymond Bonner who started the whole Todd conspiracy drama, staged from the time he wrote Death in Singapore in February this year, is a big question mark.

8 July 2013 Last updated at 06:23 GMT
Singapore coroner rules Shane Todd death suicide

A US engineer found hanged in his Singapore apartment killed himself, a Singapore coroner has ruled.

Shane Todd, 31, who had been working for a government research body, was found dead at his home in June 2012.

His death was registered as suicide, but his parents alleged he was killed over a project related to sensitive technology.

The coroner ruled that “there was no foul play”. The US has described the inquiry as “fair and transparent”.

Mr Todd died of “asphyxia due to hanging”, the inquest concluded.

The verdict in the case – which attracted considerable attention after Mr Todd’s parents contested police findings and campaigned for an investigation – is final and cannot be appealed against.
Suicide websites

Mr Todd had just left a job at a state-owned research organisation, Singapore Institute of Microelectronics (IME), at the time of his death.

His parents alleged he was working on a project linked to China’s telecoms giant, Huawei, involving sensitive semiconductor technology, and that his death was the result of foul play linked to the project.

Both Mr Todd’s former employer and Huawei – last year named a potential national security threat by a US Congressional committee because of fears over links to China’s government and military – rejected this, saying they had been involved in preliminary talks on a project that did not get off the ground.

The court also said that the project had not materialised.

“Even if it did, which I did not find, the listed specifications show it would not have violated general export control laws, nor could it have been used for military applications,” District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt said.

“The deceased was not in possession of confidential and valuable classified information in the course of his employment at the IME,” he added.

Instead the coroner found that the evidence showed “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Mr Todd had killed himself.

Mr Todd, who had suffered from depression in the past, had been described by witnesses as being under considerable stress in the weeks leading up to his death.

The coroner’s inquiry, which convened in May, heard that in the days before he was found dead analysis of his computer showed he had visited a number of websites on suicide.

The Todd family’s key witness, a deputy medical examiner from Missouri in the US, also faced stringent questioning during the inquiry that saw him revise his position that Shane Todd could have been garrotted.

He maintained that the 31-year-old was probably killed – putting him at odds with four other experts, two Singaporean and two from the US, who concluded suicide was most likely cause of death.

In a statement, the US embassy said: “The inquiry into Dr Todd’s death was comprehensive, fair and transparent.”

His family “was given the opportunity to participate in the hearing and was represented by experienced Singapore legal counsel”, the statement added.

Mr Todd’s parents withdrew their support for the Singapore probe in May, saying they had no confidence in the investigation. They were not present in court for the verdict.

“It was apparent that the state was only interested in proving suicide and that was why we left,” Rick Todd, Shane Todd’s father, told AP news agency last week.

“They never interviewed us and it became obvious from the court that they never investigated the possibility of murder.”

Politics Right then Economics Right? Right? Wrong?

Well it depends on what kind of politics. PM Lee was probably saying that his PAP politics was the right politics for Singapore, and the best for GDP growth. In small Singapore, maybe, in the past, to an extent. However, shouldn’t it be get the policies, not politics, right then the economics is right? This has always been the PAP’s raison d’etre and raised every election – only the PAP style of global looking strong government politics can attract foreign investment as investors want stability and predictability. If an opposition like SDP gets into power and implements minimum wages, decoupling of the trade unions and government, xenophobia and encouragement of union activism, this woud drive foreign MNCs away to Vietnam or Thailand.  Our loss is their gain in PAP’s appeal to our fear.

Yes, the strong government and firm politics worked well before until the 80s perhaps. But as manufacturing became less important for our econommy, investors in the knowledge and financial industries that Singapore is courting are more interested in intellectual property, corruption-free, transparent regulatons and predictability more than accomodating trade unions. If PM Lee was referring to growing dissatisfaction with his government, what has that got to do with scaring away investors and industries as long as the activism and complaints are lawful and peaceful?

Truth be told, the main competitor which is going to snatch at least East Coast GRC from the PAP is WP and so far it is so similar to PAP that investors won’t tell the difference and the economy would plod along just fine depending on global conditions. The current increasing popularity of  the WP is fine and welcomed. Maybe that is why the PAP is worried. There is PAP lite just around the corner that can replace it soon and PM Lee better scare investors and voters alike again that it is the best party for the job.

SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said for economic growth to sustain, what’s important is getting the politics right.

He said what is important is for Singaporeans to think about where the country is heading in the longer term.

Speaking at a dialogue session at the DBS Asian Insights Conference, Mr Lee said the world out there is full of many new opportunities but if the country’s politics is not right, things could go wrong for the country.

Mr Lee said: “What can go wrong for Singapore? If you look at it in the long term, you can lose the specialness of this place, a place that people look at it an say, “wow, the economy prospers, the housing scheme is something special, the city is something special, the education is world class, even healthcare, low spending, good outcomes, let’s go and see what’s happening.”

“In 20 years’ time, if people are not interested in Singapore and we are not up there in terms of the quality of our services, in terms of the quality of our living environment, the kind of country we are, something different from what three or four or five million people are entitled to be just living in Southeast Asia, we are in big trouble. We are today exceptional, and if you are not exceptional and ordinary, I think you are in big trouble and it can easily happen.”

And that’s where everything starts with politics.

Mr Lee said: “It starts with politics because if your politics is wrong, then your economics is bound to go wrong. And the reason why so many countries cannot get the economies right is because if the politics don’t work, the benefits don’t get spread to the right people or broadly enough, or there are vested interests which have to be taken care of, or there’s some divide in the society which cannot be bridged, and you spend your time fighting over that, rather than working together productively.

“And I think we’ve got to be able to get the fundamentals right, and so far we have been able to do so. And if we can continue to get the politics right, then I think the economics can work out.”

He said it’s like helping Singaporeans achieve their fullest potential through training and skills upgrading, so that they can be well employed and improve their incomes.

Mr Lee said: “I don’t think it will make us a society where everybody is absolutely equal and I don’t think we want to do that. In fact if I can get another 10 billionaires move to Singapore and set up their base here… I think Singapore will be better off because they will bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs, and I think that’s the attitude with which we must approach this problem.”

He said governing a country must also evolve with changing expectations by involving people to focus on issues that concern and reach a consensus on what the country’s aiming for.

And that’s what the “Our Singapore Conversation” process is all about.

Mr Lee said there are things Singapore can do well which will make a difference to its people, but that will not make for a society that is absolutely equal.

He said this in response to a question on balancing growth and equity in Singapore.

He also said investment in overall infrastructure ensures a good business environment where things work, and policies to give less successful Singaporeans a leg-up are important too.

Mr Lee said: “I don’t think if you give up growth you will have a lot of equity. I mean if the economy was stagnant, it doesn’t mean everybody’s going to be happy, and it may be equally unequal.

“Part of the answer has to be skills and education – that we invest in our people and give them the ability to improve their standards of living. I cannot make everybody a billionaire, but I can make sure everybody can earn a good living for himself. I think that’s possible. But it takes effort and you have to be competitive.”

– CNA/de

Vincent Wijeysingha and SDP’s Gay Vote

During GE 2011, Vivian Balakrishnan made a then unwise move to out his Holland Bt Timah GRC opponent Vincent Wijeysingha as gay. This caused a backlash as the PAP until then did not learn that during a GE like in the James Gomez circus in GE 2006, the PAP should stick to policies and not personal attacks. SDP was however shaken enough to know that it was hard to tell if Singaporeans were conservative enough to be worried about SDP championing gay causes. After all, SDP’s closest competitor WP was shrewd enough to be vague and the PAP already said that it had a live and let live policy although 377A would be kept – a vague delicate position during a GE that offended some yet appeased others.

SDP old hand Dr Chee Soon Juan took the gamble and staked it all on his version of delicate balance – “We are not pursuing the gay agenda and none of our MPs will”  although they would push for the repeal of 377A. A quick and clever balance under the circumstances whether one likes SDP’s politics or not.

Fast forward to today, sometime in the midway point after GE 2011 and before GE 2016, SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha came out and said openly that he was gay, timed with the annual Pink Dot carnival-protest, and orchestrated to secure the gay vote. However, with that declaration of identity and not so subtle declaration of getting support from gay voters, it was not without serious risk of alienating supporters. Dr Chee made a serious blunder to act with Vincent to raise SDP’s profile, a policy which is a reverse from their previous position of win-win ambiguity.

Vincent’s “coming out” is a double-edged sword that could cut SDP deeply as the monotheistic religions are fundamentally on the other side of the fence on 377A, the first line of their defence to thwart the gays from heading towards same-sex marriages and adoption of children by gay couples in Singapore.  Not only the religions,  the opposition conservatives might also throw their lot behind WP rather than SDP now.

SDP might let this “coming out” affirmation slide away but if it doesn’t handle it now, it would come back again in GE 2016, politicised by the PAP.

SDP: ‘We don’t have a gay agenda’
SDP says it will not promote homosexuality but supports repeal of anti-gay law
April 26, 2011 – 10:16pm

DECLARE your political agenda and motives.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and the People’s Action Party Holland-Bukit Timah team laid down that challenge to Dr Vincent Wijeysingha.

Dr Wijeysingha leads the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in contesting for the same GRC.

His party secretary-general, Dr Chee Soon Juan, responded in a video on the party’s website. “We are not pursuing the gay agenda,” he said.

What gay agenda is he talking about?

The background to this bloody battle for the GRC is a YouTube video entitled “Vincent Wijeysingha – Gay Agenda”, uploaded on April 14 by a contributor with the moniker “JohnTan88888”.

The video was later tagged with the statement, “This is the video the Singapore Democratic Party is trying to hide.”

In the video shot during a forum, a speaker refers to Dr Wijeysingha as possibly the first gay MP (Member of Parliament).

Dr Wijeysingha speaks after he is introduced.

Addressing a crowd of about 10 people in the undated video, the speaker calls for a constitutional challenge to repeal Section 377A.

The PAP team quoted Dr Wijeysingha as saying at the forum: “I think the gay community has to rally ourselves.

“Perhaps one outcome of today’s forum would be, for those of us who are interested, to come together to further consider how we can address the 377 issue as well as further rights issues in relation to gays and lesbians.”

Would Singaporeans mind if their MP is gay?

Of 100 people polled by The New Paper, 76 said they would have no issue. (See poll results below.)

But in its statement, PAP’s Holland-Bukit Timah team said: “The issue is not Wijeysingha’s sexual orientation. That is a matter for him.”

Instead, the statement said the video raises the question on whether Dr Wijeysingha would “pursue this cause in the political arena”.

In response, Dr Chee said: “Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has asked whether the SDP is pursuing the gay agenda.

“Let me state categorically, we are not pursuing the gay agenda, and none of our MPs will.”

Repeal Section 377a

While SDP said it is not pursuing the “gay agenda”, it has been championing the repealing of Section 377a.

In the YouTube video, the speaker calls for a constitutional challenge to repeal Section 377a of the Penal Code, dubbed by some in the gay community as the anti-gay law. The section states that it’s a crime for men to commit an act of gross indecency with each other.

The New Paper asked Dr Chee during an SDP press conference yesterday where the party stands on the law.

He said: “We do not discriminate against race, religion or sexual orientation. We are very sure that we want to speak up for all Singaporeans.”

Mr Alec Tok, who was introduced as the party’s candidate for Bukit Panjang SMC had also said that 377A ought to be removed, adding:

“As far as my position is concerned, this discrimination was created and should be removed.”

The New Paper had also asked during the press conference where the party stood on gay rights.

The response?

“What you see posted on our website, that is our stand. The party’s stand has been made clear,” said Dr Chee.

So what is posted on the party’s website?

Since 2007, the party has been arguing that Section 377a “discriminates against a segment of our population and that discrimination, in whatever form, has no place in society”.

It also argued that it wasn’t enough to show tolerance. The nation must accept fellow citizens regardless of their sexual orientation.

The New Paper turned to new candidate and former government scholar Tan Jee Say.

The ex-principal private secretary to then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had argued that the Government lost its moral compass when it went down the casino road.

Does he think he has lost his moral compass working with a party that advocates gay rights?

Mr Tan replied: “I will quote to you what Nelson Mandela said. This was told to me by someone.

“When he was young, he was against gays. When he became an adult, he stood corrected. When he became old, he embraced gays.”

But while his party advocates acceptance, Mr Tan, declined to go so far.

“I am tolerant,” was all he said.

The PAP team also raised another issue in their statement.

And that is on sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years.

It is now against the law to have sex with a boy under 16. The New Paper polled 137 Singaporeans to ask if they would agree to a lowering of the age to 14.

Only eight said yes.

In his video response to the PAP team, Dr Chee said the party’s candidates were people of integrity and capability who speak up for all Singaporeans and “not just a segment of Singaporeans”.

He again called for Dr Balakrishnan to make public the accounts of the Youth Olympic Games and debate the SDP’s Holland-Bukit Timah team.