Vivian's Dossier

[winnipegjets]

The Vivian's dossier provides lots of clarity on the PAP vs WP over cleaning of hawker centres.

Conclusion - The NEA screwed up (that's being generous) on the organization of the cleaning. It is apparent that the NEA communicated to the hawkers that there would be an Annual cleaning when the WP TC was planning for a Spring cleaning. After the screw up, the NEA tried to push the blame on to the WP TC.
Another conclusion is that the NEA wanted to score points with the PAP by micro-managing the WP TC; they don't do likewise on PAP wards. And when they failed, they tried to push their screw-up onto the WP TC.


http://app2.nea.gov.sg/docs/default...awker-centres-under-their-charge.pdf?sfvrsn=0

You can tell that the some of the notes have been changed after the initial public spat ...eg. the sentence in bold.

7 Feb 2013
Ms Chin responded to Mr Pradeep that “The Hawkers Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors
on the scaffold erection/dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4-8 March 2013 for the above food centre”. Ms Chin was referring to the scaffolding and canvas covers forthe individual stalls. (The hawkers’ canvas cover contractor was M/S Fatt Chan Iron Canvas Tent Construction)

Vivian is now speaking on behalf of Mr Ng Kok Khim? If NEA bother to ask Ng (Vivian says the hawkers never asked for it ...did Ng asked for it?), why can't they ask ATL Maintenance who requested for the quotation? Just because ATL Maintenace is WP TC contractor, it does not mean that every activity it does is at the instruction of the TC.

19 Feb 2013
– Mr Ng Kok Khim, the honorary advisor and immediate past Chairman of Block 538 Hawkers Association, received a quotation for $7200 by handfrom AHPETC’s contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd for the scope of work which includes the “provision of manpower, equipments, materials, chemicals, insuranceand supervision for the cleaning of the entire premises...”
This quotation was irregular in several respects. First, the hawkers had never asked for it. There was absolutely no reason for them to
do so given the longstanding arrangements and legitimate expectation that all costs for comprehensive cleaning would be fully borne by the Town Council. Second, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd is AHPETC’s contractor, and according to Ms Sylvia Lim, had a prior contract to do the same scope of work paid for by the Town Council. This would therefore be tantamount to an attempt to double charge for the same scope of work. Third, the scope of work goes far beyond merely the erection of scaffolding. Hence, this could not have arisen simply because AHPETC was confused
about the scope of work needed. Consequently, the quotation was quite rightly rejected by the hawkers.

Here is a possible anomaly ...you hire a contractor to cover your stalls, how the contractor get that done - whether using scaffolding or ladder - would not be spelt out in the PO. So, why in this case, is there a need to spell out that scaffolding are needed?

Second point ...the NEA screwed up ...the meetings have been discussing spring cleaning and the NEA ASSUMED that this spring cleaning was in tandem with ANNUAL cleaning. The NEA advised the hawkers as such?

Perhaps this is the reason why Vivian is going hard at WP TC ...to cover up a major screw up by the NEA. The hawkers want blood and Vivian is trying to push the blame onto the WPTC.

Before 4 Mar 2013
As there was no further communication from AHPETC or ATL, the Blk 538 hawkers paid $140 each to their canvas cover contractor (M/S Fatt Chan
Iron Canvas Tent Construction) to erect scaffoldings to cover up their stalls with canvas in anticipation of the cleaning of the high areas by the Town Council, and closed their stalls for 5 days.

I am surprised that the NEA still didn't bother to admit that they screwed up and try to push the blame on WP TC. This was the time to fess up but the NEA, specifically Lim Peng Siang, Assistant Director (Operations) and Lee Sau Yong, Executive (Operations) didn't clarify matters.

At the meeting, Mr Tai informed NEA and the hawkers that AHPETC would not clean areas above 2.5m, and if the hawkers wanted those cleaned, they would have to pay the extra cost of doing so

And Tai's response is correct. It was a Spring Cleaning and if the NEA wanted to change the requirements of Spring Cleaning on the fly, then the hawkers should consult with the NEA. It is clear from here that the NEA screwed up ...telling the hawkers that the ceiling would be cleaned at this Spring Cleaning when the NEA did not check with the WP TC.

2 May 2013, 8.22am
Mr Tai issued a stock reply "We would like to inform you that Spring Cleaning is a practice set by NEA, not Town Council. As such we advise the
Merchant Association to liaise with NEA directly on the requirement" (sic). This shows the Town Council's intention to abdicate its responsibility for comprehensive cleaning.

This again proves that the NEA was responsible for telling the hawkers that the last spring cleaning was an annual cleaning. Now the NEA is pushing for an annual cleaning.
Does the NEA dictate to the PAP TCs the dates of Spring and Annual cleaning?

Why should the NEA be involved with the operations of the WP TC ward? Has the WP TC violated any Town Council regulations?

15 May 2013, 11.40am
NEA (Ms Chin Peiyun) then emailed Mr Tai to remind him that the Hawkers' Association had proposed that the next spring cleaning take place on 24 June, and to get confirmation on the number of days the AHPETC would be setting aside for the cleaning

NEA seems to have no bloody clue as to what they are asking. The NEA has asked for cleaning of ceilings for a spring cleaning ...of course, the WP TC will not pay for it. It is an additional requirement imposed by the NEA.

NEA screwed up and trying to pin the blame on WP TC.
1. NEA said that they were arranging the scaffolding but that did not happen;
2. NEA had assumed that that WP TC was doing an annual cleaning when they didn't bother to find out and they communicated to the hawkers accordingly;
3. It could be that the NEA director wanted to score points with his boss in getting NEA involved in the cleaning operations of the WP TC. The NEA does not get involved in the same extent with the PAP wards, why is it so involved in the WP wards?

9 June 2013

NEA responded to clarify again that the hawkers of Block 538 had been asked to bear extra charges for the cleaning of the high areas as evidenced by the quotation from the cleaning contractor, as well as the position reflected in their petition, that they had paid money to cover their stalls with canvas in preparation for the cleaning of high areas during the annual spring cleaning exercise, which AHPETC did not eventually carry ou

 

[oli9]

Thanks for that! It seems the NEA bigwigs stepped into their own shit & some of the shit splattered on Mrs Vivian's face as a result!

 

[Confuseous]

Thanks for that! It seems the NEA bigwigs stepped into their own shit & some of the shit splattered on Mrs Vivian's face as a result!

NEA CEO still missing. VB wanted to act hero, stepped on a pile of shit. Self-inflicted.

 

[Dark Knight]

The $7200 quotation was specifically attention to Mr Ng Kok Khim by ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd.
Obviously this chap is the one trying to "play smart" but got everything messed up and back fired.