Headlines

Tanah Merah “Mini Theme Park” Owner Claims Dispute with Chua En Lai’s Family Caused Him to Lose Park

redwire-singapore-tanah-merah-mini-theme-park-3

“This is the result of one bad and jealous neighbour that his continuous complaints to LTA now forces the removal of community benches and potted plants.”

A resident of a semi-detached house in Tanah Merah who spent S$150,000 creating a “mini theme park” alleges that he was forced to tear down the park because of a festering dispute with Mediacorp actor Chua En Lai’s family.

All this, because of an insurance claim against Chua after a car accident.

63-year-old Cheong Boo Wee, who has been staying at his Jalan Chempaka Kuning house for 25 years, said he built the “mini theme park” park in conjunction with the Community in Bloom programme launched by the National Parks Board (NParks) back in 2014.

The aim – to create a better common environment and foster community spirit.

redwire-singapore-tanah-merah-mini-theme-park-4
Cheong developed a garden, complete with benches and quirky animal statues, along the common pathway outside his home while he turned his courtyard into a mini-zoo which had some 30 birds.

But, Cheong said that all that came crashing down following an incident in 2015, when Chua Enlai reversed his car into Cheong’s.

Cheong claimed that the Chua’s family took offence at a subsequent insurance claim for damages, and Chua’s father made it his mission to get the “mini theme park” destroyed.

redwire-singapore-tanah-merah-mini-theme-park-1

Said Cheong:

“Things started in March 2015 with his Son, Chua Enlai reversing his car and hit mine which was parked in front of my house. He just drove off. The next day, we checked our cctv recording and found he hit my car. We approached the old man who told us his Son said no, he did not. So we made report to the police and our insurance company on a hit and ran accident. Initially his insurance company wanted to pay after asking us to bring our car down for survey. But unfortunately they rejected our claimed because they claimed their insured told them he didn’t hit. So my insurance workshop filed a civil suit against him.

It took two years with evidence from my cctv video recording that his lawyer has to accept liability. Court asked them to pay. Disappointed, integrity, trust and honesty of someone is lost. Then around 3rd Q of 2015, there were some misunderstanding on his feeding of stray cats. He wanted to punch me and said that if I want to play with him using police, he will play with me with his influence. He claimed he was formerly from PM office. LTA and our MP told me that complaints started in 2015.”

redwire-singapore-tanah-merah-mini-theme-park-5
Cheong said that in Feb 2017, he received a letter from LTA to remove articles on the road, to which he complied.

But in May 2018, the LTA acted on a complaint in May 2018 from one of Cheong’s neighbours about his sculptures blocking the public walkway and told him to remove all articles placed outside his home.

Cheong said that in a meeting with government agencies about his “mini theme park”, he felt intimidated by a LTA officer who claimed he was formerly from the police Criminal Investigation Department.

“In early May, our MP set up meeting with LTA, NParks, Bedok police station inspector, some GRLs and me. I explained the circumstances that led to the complaints. The LTA officer’s statement to me was he was formerly from CID and now with LTA. Honestly I find his statement about CID is irrelevant as our discussion is supposed to discuss on possibility of a win-win situation. Also his statement, I strongly feel is intimidating and could put me in fear if my background in my early days were notorious. This old man (Chua’s father) told a neighbour and claimed his father-in-law was formerly a very TOP man in CID. I wonder if there were connections.”

redwire-singapore-tanah-merah-mini-theme-park-2
Jalan Chempaka Kuning have expressed dismay at the dismantling of Cheong’s “mini theme park”, which they say brought lift to the neighbourhood.

They say that it was an area where neighbours could bond, and even people from outside the estate would flock down to see the “mini theme park” out of curiosity, adding to a bustling atmosphere.

Cheong says that was the spirit on which he built his park, and wonders whether any other factors were at play leading up to its destruction.

“Our government encourages keeping our area green with the campaign of community in bloom, Garden by the Bay, rooftop gardens, and kampung spirit and neighbourhood bonding where seniors should spend time with neighbours to bond. Unfortunately it appears some of their agencies are doing things differently. LTA told me, if no one complain, we will not act… Is it because of connections?”

 

 

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Ah Kow

    June 16, 2018 at 10:51 am

    Stop ranting and whining and just get your pile of junk out of public land.

    As a matter of fact, the NEA should look into your property for breeding mosquitoes in view of the state it is in. Private zoos need licensing in case you’re unaware.

    If you’re not following the rules and allowed to turn the Estate into one big junk yard, how will the authorities react to others who are similarly disposed to treating public areas as their own private property.

    Just look at the photographs. It’s spoiling the neighbourhood ambience.

  2. Anonymous

    June 18, 2018 at 8:01 am

    But it’s like encroaching into public area.

  3. Bill Chua

    June 18, 2018 at 3:24 pm

    REDWIRE has printed “Cheong’s mini-theme park” or “zoological park” (by Straits Times), presumably form the horse’s mouth – Cheong himself?

    Let me point out the glaring anomalies. On the 23rd March, 2015 Cheong’s wife was screaming outside my gate & claimed I had knocked into her car. I told her to calm down & she claimed that her CCTV showed that a car had reversed into her rear bumper while doing a 3 point turn. I told her not to worry. In Singapore, it is compulsory to have insurance coverage to drive a car. In case of accidents, we are covered comprehensively. She showed me the CCTV for 1 hour, unfortunately, I could not see any contact because it was dark & the car lights were glaring & the video just too dark. I gave her the Insurance details (NTUC cover note) & asked her to contact the NTUC Insurance direct. The next day I took pictures of both cars on the supposed point of contact. Her Mercedes car was black. My brother in law’s car was metallic blue. There was whitish paint on the Mercedes. I email the photos to the NTUC Insurance to let the professionals handle it.

    A few months went by & my brother in law sent me a Letter from Cheong’s lawyer making a claim for
    $11179.00 against NTUC Insurance. NTUC Insurance’s lawyer Richard Tan contacted us to get our statement. Based on the first blurry video, NTUC & their lawyer will contest Cheong’s claim. However, a few weeks later, a newly edited video appeared from the Plaintiff. The new video showed a sliding contact between vehicle but not a direct impact, however, Richard Tan informed us that NTUC & himself will settle the claim based on the second video, do not need us or our statement anymore. Apparently, the claim was reduced from $11179 to $4200(inclusive of legal fees). I can provide Richard Tan’s contact, all the pictures of the vehicles involved, both videos & the frivolous claim from Cheong’s lawyer – just provide me your email address. Cheong got compensated but it did not cost us a cent because we are covered. Our NCD were intact. Should we send the second video for forensic tests? Life is too short! The person that lost his integrity in his attempt to rip off NTUC Insurance was Cheong.

    About the cat feeding incident. Cheong was lying through his teeth. There was this kind of lady Kim that was feeding cats for more than 10 years. His FDW chip in as Kim broke her hip bone. One morning while feeding some cats outside House 81, Cheong pick up the cat food & water & throw it at the FDW. Shocked, she jumped on her bicycle & took off for home at 47 Jalan Chempaka Kuning. Cheong chase & followed her. In the afternoon, Cheong brought 2 Policemen to 47 Jalan Chempaka Kuning & reprimanded her for feeding cats & littering the area. Kim has about 10 cats at home. Just a cat lover. Shocked by Cheong’s attitude Kim called me & I assure her I will come to assist her work. I asked her to inform the Police that feeding cats are not a crime, tell them to go back to their station & just ignore Cheong, he is just a big bully.

    That evening I was walking to the supermarket when I saw Cheong & his friends sitting down chatting. This is the first time I talk to Cheong. I asked him did he called the police & harass Kim at 47 Jalan Chempaka Kuning? He denied flat to the Board, so I said I will call Kim on the phone now, he then admitted he did call the police to Kim’s residence. His excuse was cats have been killing his parrots & he does not want people feeding or rearing cats around his property. I told him not to harass womenfolk ever again if he has a problem with cats, he can let me know. All this while, Ah Hua was standing between me & Cheong. Cheong is spinning stories to protect his vested interests. Anyone that can stand up to him is his enemy. I never had another conversation with him until about 5-6 weeks ago. As I was walking at about 10 pm, Cheong was with a group of about 7-8 grassroots members & he was swearing & cursing at the top of his voice, walking back & forth into his house. When I sat on my balcony for some fresh air, Cheong was screaming that he is going to trap all my cats & send them to AVA to be euthanized. I decided to confront him for an explanation, this is my second conversation with him in my 6 years in Jalan Chempaka Kuning. When I approached them & before I could speak out, 2 of his members grabbed my arms & pulled me aside & apologized to me that Cheong is drunk & he doesn’t know what he is screaming about. I left with a warning for Cheong, “I will be waiting for him to trap the cats with my CCTV”.

    Cheong can use hearsay, threats, insinuations, fake allegations, blinkered perceptions & downright lies to argue his vested interests if he cannot substantiate any, it is just hot air. His house is a corner terrace, with plenty of room to keep his hoardings from KFC, Red Bull, 3 donkeys, replicas of clay & terracotta objects found in Sungei Road inside his house. No need to invent lies to appoint himself grassroots leader so that he runs shoulder with MPs & Ministers to help him to occupy public footway to camouflage his parrot breeding operations. What bloom initiative? The plants were provided free by Mr. Tan at 97 Jalan Chempaka Kuning. $150,000.00 spent? Concreting 200 sq ft public footpath cost $150,000? Same like an Insurance claim, must claim big? The only time I spoke to LTA was in March 2018 about the traffic coming from the condominium at Jalan Chempaka Kuning Link.

    Attached is what I wrote to Nat Phang of Straits Times (you can check it up).
    “June 10, 2018

    Dear Nathanael Phang,

    Your Sunday, June 10th article up in the Sunday Times is entertaining but there are a certain amount of glaring anomalies for residents in Jalan Chempaka Kuning, which you may not be aware.

    1. “zoological” garden may be a little overrated to describe an LTA designated corner public footpath into a storage corner for a man’s hobby of hoarding statues of little or no artistic value. Display it within the parameter of his property, not on public property. There are 2 public GRID transformers in that corner (obvious from your picture) that access should not be compromised & surrounded by big flower pots & paraphernalia.
    2. Having 30 breeding parrots (his main business) in a residential property contravenes the Law. Check it up with AVA whether a business permit for breeding parrots was ever issued? Hang around the property in the morning & evening feeding time & measure the noise racket. Bring along a noise dosimeter to measure the decibel. A neighbor at 106 Jalan Chempaka Kuning once wrote to Cheong requesting his help to lower the parrot’s noise level as his son was sitting for his matriculation exam. Cheong responded by issuing a summon through his lawyer, threatening legal action against the neighbor. Cheong barged into the neighbor’s unit but was chased out by the son. Cheong then tried to explain to other neighbors that it was a misunderstanding when the neighbor followed up with a legal response from his own lawyer. Cheong went quiet & apologized.
    3. “fuelled by his love for plants & animals” – a strange statement coming from a man known to be an anti-cat man – claimed that cats are responsible for killing his caged parrots? Cheong admitted he threw water & cat food at an FDW working for Kim at 47 Jalan Chempaka Kuning. He even called 2 policemen to harass Kim for feeding homeless cats. He also trapped cats & sent them to AVA in Buona Vista to be put down. Did U call him an animal lover?
    4. His kampong spirit started only 3-4 weeks ago in order to curry support for his appeal letter to LTA. All of them are the grassroots supporters that got him elected as a leader late last year.
    5. Cheong loves to drop names like MPs & Minister to argue his vested interests but alas it does not work in Singapore otherwise pigs can fly too”

  4. Nigel Dunlop

    June 19, 2018 at 9:28 pm

    The noise produced by more than 30 breeding parrots during feeding time (morning & late afternoon) is deafening. How can the neighbors tolerate it for so many years? No wonder 91 Jalan Chempaka Kuning been empty for 3 years? “Mini-theme park” or “Zoological Garden” is just a RED HERRING! It is a commercial parrot breeding organization in a residential area! Cheong must be a magician? Is he trying to shift the focus away from his commercial parrot breeding program into a mini-theme park? H7N9 bird flu, please do not come to Singapore! Garfield, please stay away from cat traps in Jalan Chempaka Kuning.

  5. Nigel Dunlop

    June 20, 2018 at 2:19 pm

    Can Cheong face the truth? He is a grassroots leader. He has been squatting on Government land for 25 years, now whingeing & blaming everyone except himself. Casting aspersions on Chua without an iota of evidence? Tried to claim $11179 from NTUC with a blurry video for a scratched Mercedes bumper? Rejected!. Came back with an edited version of the video, compensated $4200. Wow, so lucrative to claim from NTUC Insurance. Last week local media stated NTUC & Aviva were robbed of $1.6M by fake insurance scams. Time for stragglers to swop job?

  6. Andy Lee

    June 21, 2018 at 3:25 pm

    Make so much money claiming from NTUC Insurance for a scratched bumper. Is the Mercedes gold plated? Take 2 years to claim? Requires edited video to prove? The first video rejected – rather fishy to me. No wonder our insurance premium keeps rising. Grassroots leader must be well connected with MPs & Government Department, so occupying public footpath for 25 years for his “karang guni” curios is OK for him? Just describe it as a mini theme park for public bonding??? Pulling the wool over one’s eye, one can get away with it. At the same time, blame your neighbor as the whistleblower. The perfect character assassination app in Singapore!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

To Top