URA Service

Got booked by a Certis Cisco for an expired car park coupon last weekend. The gahmen had outsource almost everything under the sky and enforcement of traffic offences is just one of them. In this case I was at Singapore Expo and since the carparks were all full (NATA, Food fair, John Little Sale) I had to park along Changi South's streetside lot. I wasn't too peeved about the ticket. This is the problem with the paper coupon. One can never fully judged the time required and so it is either over displayed or under display sufficient coupon to cover the time but the issue I had was the guy was walking around looking at the dashboard of all the cars parked in the car lot (presumably checking for expired coupon or no coupon) and he was ignoring the many many cars that were illegally parked on double yellow line; next to fire hydrant etc. Which made me very kapo. Just exactly what was in the terms of the outsourcing contract to Certis Cisco? Does it cover only parking within a designated car park lot and nothing else?

So I wrote to the Traffic Police, URA and the Straits Times. Of course, the Straits Times as is normal ignore it only printing those politically correct or sensational items. This one probably got no news making potential. The Traffic Police was nice enough after the usual automated reply to follow up with another email to URA and copied to me to ask URA to respond to me directly. And URA?

After the usual automated reply, I got another email. I will publish here the full content of the emails exchanges

This was my first email to TP, URA and ST:

I was booked by Certis Cisco on 29/8/09 at Changi South St 2 for an expired
coupon (Notice Number: __________). I am not disputing this as I understand
the officer has his job to do.

However, due to the ongoing fairs at the Singapore Expo, I noticed that
there were a lot of vehicles which were illegally park all over the roads
around the expo including along Changi South St 2. They were parked along
double yellow line; next to fire hydrant etc but the Certis Cisco officer
did not book any of these vehicles but instead concentrated only on
vehicles which were parked in proper car lots and looking only for expired
coupon or no coupon.

I am not too sure what was the mandate to Cerits Cisco in the outsourcing
contract but something is wrong with the logic here if only legally parked
vehicles can be booked and illegally parked vehicles can get away scott
free.

This was the first reply I got from URA (other than the automated reply)

URA CPPLU
To: _____________ <_____________>
Date: 08/31/2009 04:12 PM
Subject: Re: Role of Certis Cisco in Traffic Enforcement - Notice Number: __________
Sent by: Eunice WAN

Dear Sir/ Mdm

We refer to your email below.

In order for us to process your case officially, please provide us with
the following information within the next 7 days:

1) Your Full name & NRIC/passport no.
2) Your registered address & Contact no.
3) Whether you are the driver responsible for the parking offence.

Yours sincerely
Eunice Wan (Ms)
For Deputy Superintendent
Car Parks Division

That wasn't the reply I want since I wasn't asking for a waiver so I shot another reply this time to the Eunice Wan (hurray a real name!)

Dear Ms Wan,

I am not asking for a waiver of the fine. I returned to my car late. The
coupon has expired. The officer was right to give me a ticket. So be it. I
will pay the fine.

I am questioning why the Certis Cisco did not book the other vehicles which
were illegally parked.

That is all.

I don't think you require my full particulars for this.

And this was the reply I got:

Dear Sir/ Mdm

We refer to your email below.

In order for us to process your case officially, please provide us with
the following information within the next 7 days:

1) Your Full name & NRIC/passport no.
2) Your registered address & Contact no.
3) Whether you are the driver responsible for the parking offence.

Yours sincerely
Eunice Wan (Ms)
For Deputy Superintendent
Car Parks Division

This reply is sent via email which requires no signature.

And in reply to the TP's forwarded email, I got a reply from URA as well:

Dear Mr Koh

We refer to your email below.

In order for us to process your case officially, please provide us with
the following information within the next 7 days:

1) Your Full name & NRIC/passport no.
2) Your registered address & Contact no.
3) Whether you are the driver responsible for the parking offence.

Yours sincerely
Eunice Wan (Ms)
For Deputy Superintendent
Car Parks Division

Noticed anything? All the emails from URA are the same! It makes me wonder firstly whether they have read my email and secondly is there really a real person behind the name Eunice Wan or is it just a generated name to throw the public off! It is things like that from the Public Service that made me boiling mad whether I have to deal with anybody from there.

Anyway, I gave up my kapo quest for an answer to my query from URA. Me think I will now go and dig for the tender documents to see what is the terms. That will probably be faster and easier.