Who’s responsible?
Reinvestigation needed, says NEA prosecutor
Zul Othman, Today Online 13 Nov 08;
IT WAS meant to be a refuge for rescued animals when it opened two months ago. But more than half the Wildlife Rescue Centre site at Chua Chu Kang remains closed because of contamination.
Tonnes of woodchips and petrochemical were allegedly dumped into a backfill by the main contractor.
But the Subordinate Court yesterday gave ANA Contractors Pte Ltd a discharge not amounting to an acquittal after its lawyer argued that his client was not responsible for the dumping.
Defence lawyer Lee Kwok Weng pointed the fingers at the sub-contractors. However, neither the names of the individuals nor companies responsible — which were included in a letter given to prosecutors during the hearing — were released in open court.
In light of this development, National Environment Agency prosecutor Mr Abdul Ghani Abdullah said he had no other alternative but to “reinvestigate the matter”.
This had to be done, he said, because the contractor maintained that someone else was responsible.
However, Mr Abdul Ghani added that ANA could still be charged with the offence if investigators were to uncover evidence implicating the main contractor.
ANA had previously told the operator of the centre —— Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) — that the woodchips have been “accidentally” dumped.
However, a subsequent soil test revealed that the illicit backfill went as deep as 12m in some areas. The backfill — used to level a slope at the site — had decayed, mixed into the soil and polluted the groundwater.
ANA director Mr Tan Boon Kwee, who was present at yesterday’s hearing, turned down all attempts for aninterview.
Under the Environment Protection and Management Act, the penalty for discharging toxic substances into inland waters is a fine not exceeding $20,000.
If the offence is repeated, a further fine not exceeding $1,000 for every day or part thereof will also be levied.
Meanwhile, Acres has also initiated a suit against ANA as the contractor has not removed the woodchips — estimated to cost at least $1 million.
Acres’ executive director Louis Ng told Today: “Several contractors responded to our appeal for help and came down to have a look at the site and the scope of work required.”
Unfortunately, none was able to commit to the work as the cost was deemed “too high”, he said.
Acres, he added, is currently assessing the losses incurred because of the contamination. It is also currently discussing other options with the Singapore Land Authority.
Mr Ng declined to disclose details.
Wildlife centre contractor granted discharge not amounting to acquittal
Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia 12 Nov 08;
SINGAPORE: The contractor accused of dumping woodchips onto the site of ACRES Wildlife Rescue Centre has been granted a discharge, not amounting to acquittal.
This means that A.N.A Contractor Pte Ltd could still be charged with the offence, depending on how investigations unfold.
Investigations by the National Environment Agency (NEA) revealed that the ACRES's contractor had used woodchips for the earth work at the site.
This resulted in a blackish, foul-smelling discharge flowing from the land into the watercourse linked to Kranji Reservoir. The discharge is now contained in a tank that has to be emptied weekly.
Channel NewsAsia understands that A.N.A Contractor is now pinning the blame on its sub-contractor, which means the prosecution will have to re-open its investigations.
If convicted under the Environmental Protection and Management Act, parties could be fined up to S$100,000 and jailed up to 12 months.
Separately, ACRES has filed a civil suit against A.N.A Contractor and its director Tan Boon Kwee, who was the Clerk of Works for the rescue centre project.
ACRES will be claiming damages and losses it has suffered as a result of the actions of A.N.A and Mr Tan.
The Wildlife Rescue Centre remains partially opened and the back portion of its land is still undeveloped.
ACRES' executive director, Louis Ng, said it would cost S$1.6 million to demolish the existing infrastructure and excavate the land to get rid of the buried woodchips.
- CNA/so
More about the Acres Wildlife Rescue Centre and how you can help to make a difference.
Dumped woodchips claim incorrect?
Today Online 19 Nov 08;
Letter from Lee Kwok Weng
M/s Lee Kwok Weng & Co
WE REFER to “Who’s responsible?” (Nov 13). We would like to clarify that our Mr Lee Kwok Weng pointed the fingers at the sub-contractors on the instructions of our client, ANA Contractors Pte Ltd, who had in fact informed the National Environment Agency in writing some months back.
Accordingly, we are instructed that the allegation that our client had previously told Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) that the woodchips have been “accidentally” dumped is incorrect; if at all, this is a one-sided version and is not proven in court.
As regards the civil suit against our client, it must be pointed out that our client has already put up a very strong defence as well as mounted a counterclaim against Acres for the long outstanding payment that remained due and owing to our client.
Further, we are instructed that the alleged losses incurred were because of the contamination as alleged. According to our client’s experts, woodchips are inert and do not give rise to contamination.
