-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Beyond the Smokescreen: NEA-Hawkers-WP AHPeTC Saga
- Thread starter Goh Meng Seng
- Start date
On one hand you blame PAP regulating Internet speech, on the other hand you practise PAPism silencing GMS's freedom of speech?
GMS has exactly the same right to hate WP as you have in hating PAP, nothing more nothing less.
It is NEA that has dragged out the issue by obfuscation. WP has already clarified many times. The ones playing dirty politics is not WP.
it's an honest mistake that has gone viral and turned acutely political. if this is a sign of things to cum in sg with a 2- or multi-party system, may god and his sun goddess help sg. it'll be finger pointing to no end, and nothng ever gets done.
sinkies may get much more than they wish or bargain for with true blue western style demoncrazy. :p
The longer this drags on, the more harm will be done to the Whites.
I guess every Sporeans with basic intelligence will know that this is something to make the Town Council look bad as the agency keep on harping the issue when everyone thought things have been settled after the meeting on Thursday. Instead Sporeans woke up again in the national news that the agency accused the WP of deflecting the blame. If the E N Agency were to solve the issues earlier instead, people who do not follow the news might think there are indeed some little faults with the newbie WP TC. But with the daily see saw unending shooting against the TC with even a sudden "concern" for the hawkers (that give you the goosebumps ) coments by a minister , the answer is now quite obvious to the public.
What is worse is the detailed coverage given to the Chinese printed media which make the coffeeshop uncles eager for a hot topic of discussions. Already full of negative news about the high cost of living, FTs and now dengue,this saga will inevitably affect badly on the Whites even more which the WP is more than happy to engaged as well.
I guess every Sporeans with basic intelligence will know that this is something to make the Town Council look bad as the agency keep on harping the issue when everyone thought things have been settled after the meeting on Thursday. Instead Sporeans woke up again in the national news that the agency accused the WP of deflecting the blame. If the E N Agency were to solve the issues earlier instead, people who do not follow the news might think there are indeed some little faults with the newbie WP TC. But with the daily see saw unending shooting against the TC with even a sudden "concern" for the hawkers (that give you the goosebumps ) coments by a minister , the answer is now quite obvious to the public.
What is worse is the detailed coverage given to the Chinese printed media which make the coffeeshop uncles eager for a hot topic of discussions. Already full of negative news about the high cost of living, FTs and now dengue,this saga will inevitably affect badly on the Whites even more which the WP is more than happy to engaged as well.
Last edited:
Sir, you have high hope for Singaporeans, unfortunately, don't underestimate the daftiness of 5996.
You were the one who said Leong had been "silent throughout", so I thought it warranted a bit of correction. I am not going to read too much into his periods of silence and ruckus on various issues.
No human is ever totally free from fault. I thought it will be better to focus on the discrepancies of each party in the action.
1. WP denied failing in its duties to carry out cleaning. No one has been able to prove otherwise.
2. WP denied telling the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding. No one has been able to prove otherwise.
On the other hand:
1. NEA denied sending an email to mislead AHPE that started the whole thing. The email was revealed.
2. NEA denied victimizing AHPE by revealing that there was a letter for 538. The letter turned out to be for 511. NEA's interpretation of the letter is also wrong. Own goal.
WP had not been caught for discrepancies and inaccuracies based on accusations by the opponent. NEA has.
The other issues are subjective. Eg whether NEA should stand with the hawkers or be neutral or WP should be washing more than they should. For these, we can argue until the cows come home. The only thing we should avoid is if both sides made the same mistakes, even if we do not judge them fairly, do not be extreme. Or if one party makes a mistake that causes the other to stumble, fault mining should not be on the latter.
You are alright to say that "NEA behavior leaves much to be desired, yet WP is not free from fault either". The person you defend on the other hand said that NEA has done very well and describes WP as corrupt and decadent over an issue that has nothing to do with Sylvia Lim pocketing any money. So it's strange you want to be ideological equals with GMS who is of ideological difference.
Last edited:
Both sides have responsibility lah... I thought with 6 June meeting, all settled.... Sylvia should not come out to accuse NEA playing politics. Now, another round of fire with Vivian B and Pritam...haha... Pritam is hopeless.
Goh Meng Seng
Goh Meng Seng
You got it wrong, Harban Goh. It was NEA that fired the next volley after the meeting. Stop imagining things, read lah.
GMS subscribes the belief that anything said often enough without rebuttal will be accepted as truth by enough people to make a difference. This is the reason why he has been spewing quarter-baked opinions, half-truths and outright lies here and on fb. On fb, he would start numerous threads on the same issue to promote his hateful agenda, making it difficult to rebut him without stalking him.
Unfortunately for us, he seems to have all the time in the world to do this sort of thing. In any case, to take him on is also to feed his distended ego and give him a mistaken belief of importance. Still, we cannot let him speak unchallenged because his hate-fired energy is dangerous and we must check him.
So, on we plod.
Unfortunately for us, he seems to have all the time in the world to do this sort of thing. In any case, to take him on is also to feed his distended ego and give him a mistaken belief of importance. Still, we cannot let him speak unchallenged because his hate-fired energy is dangerous and we must check him.
So, on we plod.
Sure. But to make baseless smear and malicious stir? Can?
Not surprising since having Rabid GohMS aka Mr I'm-always-correct aka Mr I-always-have-the-last-word around embarrassingly himself, it helps to generate traffic where people are falling over one another to rebut him.
To learn something +ve or -ve?
Again, you are practicing PAPism, which is characterized by subjective decision of what is true vs. what is baseless.
It may be your opinion that what GMS say is baseless and malicious, but you can exercise your freedom of speech to rebutt him. To silence him, is precisely like what PAP did.
I may agree or disagree with what GMS (or for that matter, what your good self too) had say, but I defend GMS or your right to voice his or your opinion.
If you read the few posts I had, it had never been whether GMS is right or wrong, rather I am concerned only not to blindly like or dislike one person or one party. History had proven itself, from NAZI to LKY to Taiwan... Blindly adoration or hatred of one person or one ideology is dangerous. We all had been brought into MSM demolishing CSJ, or even JBJ (in 80-90s) haven't we?
Harban Goh is a pain in the butt. We already have lots of PAP IB to deal with ...many came by in recent days to humtum WP ...then we Harban Goh. Alamak, so much work ah, reading his convoluting and verbose lies. Most of the time I ignore him but sometimes, have to rebut him.
Ahh yes, name calling, accusing me of things you will need to substantiate.....
What do you call a person who does not substantiate his allegation repeatedly? Not baseless then what?
Dun give me the nonsense it is difference in opinion. We are talking about documented proof here.
it's an honest mistake that has gone viral and turned acutely political. if this is a sign of things to cum in sg with a 2- or multi-party system, may god and his sun goddess help sg. it'll be finger pointing to no end, and nothng ever gets done.
sinkies may get much more than they wish or bargain for with true blue western style demoncrazy. :p
Indeed, this has been capitalized and blown out of proportion like a sex doll overinflated.
If hawkers have been unfairly charged all these years they would have made it known and produced evidence that it happened. Instead all this matter is about is missing scaffolding and a quotation that is used to allege unfair charging.
Totally disingenuous
<header class="entry-header"> [h=1]AHPETC-NEA Stand-Off: What’s Really Going On? (Part 1)[/h] Posted on <time class="entry-date" datetime="2013-06-10T17:57:05+00:00" pubdate="">June 10, 2013</time> by My Right to Love
</header> I finally took a proper look at the ongoing AHPETC-NEA standoff, after taking time off the ongoing MDA Licensing Framework saga.
I am losing track with all the sagas ongoing! You would remember the following:
In my analysis, I had tried to look at the arguments for consistency and to identify what other information Singaporeans would need to decide with certainty the key issues in this matter.
Key Issue: Hawkers Had To Pay For Scaffolding?
On 26 May 2013, The Straits Times had broken the news that stallholders in two food centres in blocks 511 and 538 located within the AHPETC were in dispute with the AHPETC because “they had to pay for the scaffolding that is erected for the washing (of ceilings and ceiling fixtures), but said they never had to in the past (under the PAP).”
This is the key issue. So, let’s take a look at how the various parties had responded.
AHPETC’s Stand: We Never Asked Hawkers to Pay And We Do Clean Annually
On 29 May, AHPETC responded to say that, “it was the NEA … that informed us in February that the hawker association would be making the necessary arrangements for the scaffolding to clean the high areas” and that the AHPETC had not “advise(d) hawkers or anyone that there would be additional charges imposed by the town council (TC) on the hawkers for the cleaning”.
NEA had also sent out an “Advisory on Maintenance of Hawker Centres” on 31 May 2013 and which was reported “in the Straits Times and Zaobao on 1 June 2013”.
Accordingly, AHPETC then clarified on 1 June that, “It is clear from the Advisory that Town Councils do NOT need to clean the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts at each spring cleaning exercise, but annually. It is also clear from the Straits Times’ article dated 1 June 2013 that (in spite of this) the Town Council had carried out cleaning of the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts last year. We reiterate that no authorized TC staff told any hawker or anyone of any additional charges to be imposed for the cleaning.”
NEA Changed Tack No. 1: AHPETC Does Not Want To Clean
When the AHPETC clarified that it had never asked hawkers to pay “additional charges”, on 3 June, the NEA then changed tack and said that it had “received feedback that the AHPETC does not intend to clean areas above 2.5 metres at another hawker centre.” From suggesting that the AHPETC wanted hawkers to pay additional, it was now reported that AHPETC didn’t want to clean the ceilings.
But the AHPETC responded that they do keep with their “obligation to clean the high areas annually”. And so, “To allay unnecessary anxiety caused to hawkers and the public due to the media reports, … the tentative schedules for annual cleaning of the five hawker centres within our jurisdiction” was released by the AHPETC.
AHPETC also reiterated that in an “email dated 7 Feb 2013, NEA informed the Town Council that “the Hawkers’ Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on the scaffolding erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4-8 March 2013.” So, the question is – why didn’t the NEA follow-up?
NEA Changed Tack No. 2: There Is More Than One Type of Scaffolding
On 5 June, NEA then changed tack again and said that pertaining to the email, “There are two types of scaffoldings. One is for the cleaning of high areas and it is paid for by the town council. The other is for the putting up of canvas to cover the stalls and the cost is borne by the hawkers.” Is this a new development?
NEA Changed Tack No. 3: AHPETC Cleaned At The Wrong Time
On 6 June, it was reported that the “dispute then shifted” and that hawkers at the hawker centre at Block 511 Bedok North Street 3 said that “cleaning of the hawker centre … should take place as scheduled in June and not in November”. So, now it’s not that the AHPETC wanted the hawkers to pay or that the AHPETC was not willing to clean the ceilings but the scheduling was wrong?
Is the NEA now confirming that all along, the AHPETC was going to clean the food centres anyway?
Fortunately, it looked like everything would be resolved when the Channel NewsAsia reported that, “Parties agreed that spring cleaning at the hawker centres at Block 511 in Bedok North Street 3 and Block 630 at Bedok Reservoir Road will be done within a month.”
AHPETC’s Reiterate Its Stand
On 7 June, the AHPETC released a media statement to clarify its position – a position that it has taken consistently. It said:
</header> I finally took a proper look at the ongoing AHPETC-NEA standoff, after taking time off the ongoing MDA Licensing Framework saga.
I am losing track with all the sagas ongoing! You would remember the following:
- The Aim Saga: The latest news was that Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of the Worker’s Party and the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council had, on 16 May, invited “them to make a report to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations” against the Worker’s Party on the management of the town councils. This has been left hanging after Ms Lim had fired the salvo. The PAP has yet to follow up on this.
- During the Punggol East by-election, which the Worker’s Party had also contested in and won, The Straits Times had conducted an election poll, even though one is not allowed under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Apparently, since 13 January 2013, “the case is currently being looked into by the Police” but there has been no outcome after 5 months now.
In my analysis, I had tried to look at the arguments for consistency and to identify what other information Singaporeans would need to decide with certainty the key issues in this matter.
Key Issue: Hawkers Had To Pay For Scaffolding?
On 26 May 2013, The Straits Times had broken the news that stallholders in two food centres in blocks 511 and 538 located within the AHPETC were in dispute with the AHPETC because “they had to pay for the scaffolding that is erected for the washing (of ceilings and ceiling fixtures), but said they never had to in the past (under the PAP).”
This is the key issue. So, let’s take a look at how the various parties had responded.
AHPETC’s Stand: We Never Asked Hawkers to Pay And We Do Clean Annually
On 29 May, AHPETC responded to say that, “it was the NEA … that informed us in February that the hawker association would be making the necessary arrangements for the scaffolding to clean the high areas” and that the AHPETC had not “advise(d) hawkers or anyone that there would be additional charges imposed by the town council (TC) on the hawkers for the cleaning”.
NEA had also sent out an “Advisory on Maintenance of Hawker Centres” on 31 May 2013 and which was reported “in the Straits Times and Zaobao on 1 June 2013”.
Accordingly, AHPETC then clarified on 1 June that, “It is clear from the Advisory that Town Councils do NOT need to clean the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts at each spring cleaning exercise, but annually. It is also clear from the Straits Times’ article dated 1 June 2013 that (in spite of this) the Town Council had carried out cleaning of the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts last year. We reiterate that no authorized TC staff told any hawker or anyone of any additional charges to be imposed for the cleaning.”
- In sum, the hawkers had apparently complained that the AHPETC had wanted the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding.
- AHPETC said that they had never asked the hawkers to do so.
- AHPETC said that the NEA had informed them in February that NEA would make the necessary arrangements for the scaffolding, so the NEA should have taken responsibility but did it?
- AHPETC also said that they had fulfilled their obligations by cleaning the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts last year, which has to be performed on an annual basis.
NEA Changed Tack No. 1: AHPETC Does Not Want To Clean
When the AHPETC clarified that it had never asked hawkers to pay “additional charges”, on 3 June, the NEA then changed tack and said that it had “received feedback that the AHPETC does not intend to clean areas above 2.5 metres at another hawker centre.” From suggesting that the AHPETC wanted hawkers to pay additional, it was now reported that AHPETC didn’t want to clean the ceilings.
But the AHPETC responded that they do keep with their “obligation to clean the high areas annually”. And so, “To allay unnecessary anxiety caused to hawkers and the public due to the media reports, … the tentative schedules for annual cleaning of the five hawker centres within our jurisdiction” was released by the AHPETC.
AHPETC also reiterated that in an “email dated 7 Feb 2013, NEA informed the Town Council that “the Hawkers’ Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on the scaffolding erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4-8 March 2013.” So, the question is – why didn’t the NEA follow-up?
NEA Changed Tack No. 2: There Is More Than One Type of Scaffolding
On 5 June, NEA then changed tack again and said that pertaining to the email, “There are two types of scaffoldings. One is for the cleaning of high areas and it is paid for by the town council. The other is for the putting up of canvas to cover the stalls and the cost is borne by the hawkers.” Is this a new development?
NEA Changed Tack No. 3: AHPETC Cleaned At The Wrong Time
On 6 June, it was reported that the “dispute then shifted” and that hawkers at the hawker centre at Block 511 Bedok North Street 3 said that “cleaning of the hawker centre … should take place as scheduled in June and not in November”. So, now it’s not that the AHPETC wanted the hawkers to pay or that the AHPETC was not willing to clean the ceilings but the scheduling was wrong?
Is the NEA now confirming that all along, the AHPETC was going to clean the food centres anyway?
Fortunately, it looked like everything would be resolved when the Channel NewsAsia reported that, “Parties agreed that spring cleaning at the hawker centres at Block 511 in Bedok North Street 3 and Block 630 at Bedok Reservoir Road will be done within a month.”
AHPETC’s Reiterate Its Stand
On 7 June, the AHPETC released a media statement to clarify its position – a position that it has taken consistently. It said:
- “Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.”
- All cleaning contractors employed by AHPETC are well aware of its obligation under the contract to clean the high areas of all the markets under AHPETC management at least once a year. Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts.
- It also said that because the NEA had informed the AHPETC that because, “the Hawker Association will make the necessary arrangements with its contractors on the scaffold erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning”, “The scaffolding was not provided as indicated” by the AHPETC. It was thus because the NEA had not carried out its duty that, “AHPETC cleaners were unable to carry out the work of the high areas”.
- AHPETC reiterated that, it “did not ask or impose any additional charges for cleaning.”
- And the AHPETC went further by saying that, it would be “prepared to consider any stallholders’ request on cleaning arrangements to ensure smooth operations and to minimize disruption to their business and inconvenience to customers.”
[h=1]AHPETC-NEA Stand-Off: What’s Really Going On? (Part 2)[/h] Posted on <time class="entry-date" datetime="2013-06-11T09:55:42+00:00" pubdate="">June 11, 2013</time> by My Right to Love
This is Part 2 of the article. In Part 1, I had discussed how the NEA had seemed to constantly changed tack in its argument, as the AHPETC had managed to successfully counter each accusation. In this article, I would explore loopholes by both parties and the information that we would require to make a more informed understanding of the matter.
Who Manages The Contracts?
On 9 June, “NEA (then) released a letter dated 8 May from Aljunied MP and town council member, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, appealing to the town council on the hawkers of Blk 511 Bedok North St 3 Market Association’s behalf”, which it suggested “is proof Mr Faisal had considered the hawkers’ appeal against the town council’s requirement that hawkers paid the extra charges, to be serious and valid”.
AHPETC rebutted to say that what the letter, “showed was that Mr Faisal was aware that it was not town council policy to not clean the high areas of the market nor collect additional charges from the hawkers” instead. So, who’s right?
More importantly, if you look at the wording of Mr Faisal’s letter, it had said that, “Mr. Chan said that he was informed by your good office that the contract with the vendors does not include the cost for cleaning above 2.5 metres above the ground”.
This is where it gets blurry. If Mr Faisal had to write to the NEA regarding the “contract”, then who exactly is in charge of the contract, if not the AHPETC? If the AHPETC had to write to the NEA, is the NEA in charge of the contract? Yet, the AHPETC had invited “Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts”, so who is managing the contracts?
NEA And Hawkers Knew That They Had To Pay Additional Already?
The NEA had also released “A second document (which) was a quotation by the cleaning contractor ATL Maintenance for high-rise cleaning at the hawker centre at Blk 538 Bedok North St 3, for the sum of S$7,200” and said that, “this shows the contractor wanted hawkers to pay them separately for both the scaffolding and cleaning of high areas”.
But the AHPETC rebutted in their media release to say that, “It was the Market Association of Blk 538 Market that requested the quotation, as confirmed by ATL’s media release on 6 June 2013. Attributing the quotation to AHPETC is misleading and politically motivated to tarnish the reputation of AHPETC.”
So, did the market already know that it had to pay additional anyway? Did the NEA knew that the market had to pay additional anyway? Does it mean that the AHPTEC was right all along?
Yet, this continues to beg the question– does the AHPETC or the NEA manage the contracts? And why is it that the contracts are not released but only the quotation? Without the contract(s), how are we to sensibly make sense of the quotation?
A Petition With No Dates And Signatures?
The NEA had also released, “the hawkers’ petition to the media, dated 3 June 2013, saying the town council and its cleaning contractor had said told them “they will not clean anything above two-and-a-half metres”.
However, if you look at the “petitions”, they weren’t dated or signed. How representative are these petitions of the hawkers?
AHPETC Reaffirms Their Same Stand Yet Again
Finally, the AHPETC reiterated its stand yet again by saying that, “The Blk 538 market incident was caused by NEA’s email of 7 Feb 2013. NEA had confirmed that the hawkers’ association would be providing the scaffolding which was not done for reasons unknown to us. In addition, any decision for market closure came from the hawkers’ association and not from the town council, as it was not needed by us.
The appeal letter by Mr Faisal released by NEA pertained to Blk 511 Market, which is scheduled for cleaning at the end of June 2013 by the Market Association. Contrary to NEA’s portrayal, the letter evidently shows MP Faisal’s awareness that it was not the policy of AHPETC not to clean the high areas of the market during annual cleaning, nor to collect any additional charges from the hawkers; otherwise, MP Faisal would not have written to AHPETC to look into Mr Chan Kheng Heng’s claim.”
Who Is Playing Politics?
But yesterday, Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan chimed in and said that, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim was “arrogant and wrong” to make a “political attack” on NEA. He had also said that, “It is obvious that the hawkers are speaking the truth.”
Obviously, many observers would consider that the PAP and the Worker’s Party are both playing politics, so it would be seen as a case of the pot calling the kettle black – perhaps one more so than the other.
But as to whether it’s obvious that the hawkers are “speaking the truth”, who really knows at this point? The only evidence that we have so far are the “hawkers’ petition to the media” that the NEA had released and AHPETC’s claim that they had “investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless”.
I hardly consider that Mr Balakrishnan could make such a sweeping statement at this point about who is speaking the truth. This is political.
NEA and AHPETC Have To Release More Documents and Evidence
All in, there are still some loopholes. I am more inclined to believe that the AHPETC is telling the truth because there is more consistency in their arguments. However, I stumbled at the point where the NEA had released a letter by Mr Faisal – I simply do not have enough information to make an informed understanding.
I am less inclined to align myself with what the NEA had said because of what seems like stances which flip-flop. The NEA doesn’t seem to hold on to a consistent argument but relies on new ones, as the AHPETC constantly defends itself successfully.
But in order for there to be clarity, the following needs to be released to the public:
The question is, would this issue end up as how the Aim saga had ended, where the Worker’s Party would invite the NEA to invite “the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter”? Would the NEA remain silent after that as well?
Afterword: After I had written Part 2 of this article, “The AHPETC … invited the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan to a dialogue with the MPs in the council to “settle any outstanding matters”.” AHPETC Vice-Chairman, Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh, had also said that, “the council has been consistent in its attitude and always prepared to cooperate with government agencies for residents’ benefit. “However, the Minister should not mistake this to mean that AHPETC can be bullied or is an easy target to be used by the government to score political points.”
As expected, the Worker’s Party had fired their salvo. To know how this will end, you just need to look at how Vivian went silent after making disrespect and disparaging remarks about politician Vincent Wijeysingha during the general elections in 2011.
Our Civil Service Are Pawns On The Chess Board?
Actually, the whole thing is very simple. When you have belief and conviction in what you do, it will come out in what you say. Why do I say that? When you believe in what you do, you would be consistent in what you say. I say that because in my emails to the MDA, this is also what I’ve encountered – there seems to be a constant shifting in the goal posts by the MDA, as does the NEA. Which is why I’m more inclined to agree with the AHPETC because their responses have by far been much more consistent.
The problem is when you start playing politics, the strategies you use are about keeping yourself in power, and sometimes, you lose what you had originally stood for. In my analysis, this is what has happened – has our civil service become pawns in a chess set, where they are powerless to control their own destiny, being that for years, they’ve been controlled by the PAP?
This is why the independence of our civil service and the other estates of governance – presidency, judiciary and media – needs to remain independent, so that they would always be held responsible and accountable for what they say or do. Otherwise, you can already see how the ridicule that has lent itself to the NEA and the MDA can be detrimental for the stability and strength of our institutions. When our civil service loses its credibility, and then when the government falters, what can we count on to prop our country up?
In playing politics, have our politicians become so short-sighted that they are willing to allow our civil service to languish and the reputation of the strength of our institutions to languish, at their pride and ego?
Have they allowed their personal interests to get ahead in the long term interests of our country and people? I am honestly quite tired that my country’s history and truths are constantly being manipulated out of our common senses. A country which loses its sense of history loses a wealth of experience that it needs to base itself on.
We Need to Protect the Freedom of Our Internet
This episode has shown us one thing – it is important that the Internet is free. When we are able to have an open access to information on the Internet, we can make better sense of what is going on in Singapore.
I am also better able to form an opinion of what is going on by sieving through the information.
If the government can successfully impose a $50,000 performance bond and to ask a website to take down its article within 24 hours, I might not be able to access information which can provide me with more insight.
Thus we need to take a stand to ensure that the independence of our Internet is protected. You can sign the online petition by #FreeMyInternet here to protect our right to access information on the Internet:
http://www.petitions24.com/petition_for_the_immediate_withdrawal_of_the_licensing_regime
http://thehearttruths.com/2013/06/11/ahpetc-nea-stand-off-whats-really-going-on-part-2/
This is Part 2 of the article. In Part 1, I had discussed how the NEA had seemed to constantly changed tack in its argument, as the AHPETC had managed to successfully counter each accusation. In this article, I would explore loopholes by both parties and the information that we would require to make a more informed understanding of the matter.
Who Manages The Contracts?
On 9 June, “NEA (then) released a letter dated 8 May from Aljunied MP and town council member, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, appealing to the town council on the hawkers of Blk 511 Bedok North St 3 Market Association’s behalf”, which it suggested “is proof Mr Faisal had considered the hawkers’ appeal against the town council’s requirement that hawkers paid the extra charges, to be serious and valid”.
AHPETC rebutted to say that what the letter, “showed was that Mr Faisal was aware that it was not town council policy to not clean the high areas of the market nor collect additional charges from the hawkers” instead. So, who’s right?
More importantly, if you look at the wording of Mr Faisal’s letter, it had said that, “Mr. Chan said that he was informed by your good office that the contract with the vendors does not include the cost for cleaning above 2.5 metres above the ground”.
This is where it gets blurry. If Mr Faisal had to write to the NEA regarding the “contract”, then who exactly is in charge of the contract, if not the AHPETC? If the AHPETC had to write to the NEA, is the NEA in charge of the contract? Yet, the AHPETC had invited “Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts”, so who is managing the contracts?
NEA And Hawkers Knew That They Had To Pay Additional Already?
The NEA had also released “A second document (which) was a quotation by the cleaning contractor ATL Maintenance for high-rise cleaning at the hawker centre at Blk 538 Bedok North St 3, for the sum of S$7,200” and said that, “this shows the contractor wanted hawkers to pay them separately for both the scaffolding and cleaning of high areas”.
But the AHPETC rebutted in their media release to say that, “It was the Market Association of Blk 538 Market that requested the quotation, as confirmed by ATL’s media release on 6 June 2013. Attributing the quotation to AHPETC is misleading and politically motivated to tarnish the reputation of AHPETC.”
So, did the market already know that it had to pay additional anyway? Did the NEA knew that the market had to pay additional anyway? Does it mean that the AHPTEC was right all along?
Yet, this continues to beg the question– does the AHPETC or the NEA manage the contracts? And why is it that the contracts are not released but only the quotation? Without the contract(s), how are we to sensibly make sense of the quotation?
A Petition With No Dates And Signatures?
The NEA had also released, “the hawkers’ petition to the media, dated 3 June 2013, saying the town council and its cleaning contractor had said told them “they will not clean anything above two-and-a-half metres”.
However, if you look at the “petitions”, they weren’t dated or signed. How representative are these petitions of the hawkers?
AHPETC Reaffirms Their Same Stand Yet Again
Finally, the AHPETC reiterated its stand yet again by saying that, “The Blk 538 market incident was caused by NEA’s email of 7 Feb 2013. NEA had confirmed that the hawkers’ association would be providing the scaffolding which was not done for reasons unknown to us. In addition, any decision for market closure came from the hawkers’ association and not from the town council, as it was not needed by us.
The appeal letter by Mr Faisal released by NEA pertained to Blk 511 Market, which is scheduled for cleaning at the end of June 2013 by the Market Association. Contrary to NEA’s portrayal, the letter evidently shows MP Faisal’s awareness that it was not the policy of AHPETC not to clean the high areas of the market during annual cleaning, nor to collect any additional charges from the hawkers; otherwise, MP Faisal would not have written to AHPETC to look into Mr Chan Kheng Heng’s claim.”
Who Is Playing Politics?
But yesterday, Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan chimed in and said that, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim was “arrogant and wrong” to make a “political attack” on NEA. He had also said that, “It is obvious that the hawkers are speaking the truth.”
Obviously, many observers would consider that the PAP and the Worker’s Party are both playing politics, so it would be seen as a case of the pot calling the kettle black – perhaps one more so than the other.
But as to whether it’s obvious that the hawkers are “speaking the truth”, who really knows at this point? The only evidence that we have so far are the “hawkers’ petition to the media” that the NEA had released and AHPETC’s claim that they had “investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless”.
I hardly consider that Mr Balakrishnan could make such a sweeping statement at this point about who is speaking the truth. This is political.
NEA and AHPETC Have To Release More Documents and Evidence
All in, there are still some loopholes. I am more inclined to believe that the AHPETC is telling the truth because there is more consistency in their arguments. However, I stumbled at the point where the NEA had released a letter by Mr Faisal – I simply do not have enough information to make an informed understanding.
I am less inclined to align myself with what the NEA had said because of what seems like stances which flip-flop. The NEA doesn’t seem to hold on to a consistent argument but relies on new ones, as the AHPETC constantly defends itself successfully.
But in order for there to be clarity, the following needs to be released to the public:
- All the contracts involved, if not, the managers of these contracts – so that we know who should rightfully be taking responsibility, but has shifted the “blame” away
- The full schedule of the cleaning of the food centres in the past 2 years – so that we know what the regular schedule has been like and whether the demands made are reasonable
- An independent survey and/or report with all the hawkers to find out what their involvement and agreement in this issue is like – so that know if all the hawkers are agreeable to the current matter or only certain hawkers have been given fair airing
The question is, would this issue end up as how the Aim saga had ended, where the Worker’s Party would invite the NEA to invite “the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter”? Would the NEA remain silent after that as well?
Afterword: After I had written Part 2 of this article, “The AHPETC … invited the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan to a dialogue with the MPs in the council to “settle any outstanding matters”.” AHPETC Vice-Chairman, Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh, had also said that, “the council has been consistent in its attitude and always prepared to cooperate with government agencies for residents’ benefit. “However, the Minister should not mistake this to mean that AHPETC can be bullied or is an easy target to be used by the government to score political points.”
As expected, the Worker’s Party had fired their salvo. To know how this will end, you just need to look at how Vivian went silent after making disrespect and disparaging remarks about politician Vincent Wijeysingha during the general elections in 2011.
Our Civil Service Are Pawns On The Chess Board?
Actually, the whole thing is very simple. When you have belief and conviction in what you do, it will come out in what you say. Why do I say that? When you believe in what you do, you would be consistent in what you say. I say that because in my emails to the MDA, this is also what I’ve encountered – there seems to be a constant shifting in the goal posts by the MDA, as does the NEA. Which is why I’m more inclined to agree with the AHPETC because their responses have by far been much more consistent.
The problem is when you start playing politics, the strategies you use are about keeping yourself in power, and sometimes, you lose what you had originally stood for. In my analysis, this is what has happened – has our civil service become pawns in a chess set, where they are powerless to control their own destiny, being that for years, they’ve been controlled by the PAP?
This is why the independence of our civil service and the other estates of governance – presidency, judiciary and media – needs to remain independent, so that they would always be held responsible and accountable for what they say or do. Otherwise, you can already see how the ridicule that has lent itself to the NEA and the MDA can be detrimental for the stability and strength of our institutions. When our civil service loses its credibility, and then when the government falters, what can we count on to prop our country up?
In playing politics, have our politicians become so short-sighted that they are willing to allow our civil service to languish and the reputation of the strength of our institutions to languish, at their pride and ego?
Have they allowed their personal interests to get ahead in the long term interests of our country and people? I am honestly quite tired that my country’s history and truths are constantly being manipulated out of our common senses. A country which loses its sense of history loses a wealth of experience that it needs to base itself on.
We Need to Protect the Freedom of Our Internet
This episode has shown us one thing – it is important that the Internet is free. When we are able to have an open access to information on the Internet, we can make better sense of what is going on in Singapore.
I am also better able to form an opinion of what is going on by sieving through the information.
If the government can successfully impose a $50,000 performance bond and to ask a website to take down its article within 24 hours, I might not be able to access information which can provide me with more insight.
Thus we need to take a stand to ensure that the independence of our Internet is protected. You can sign the online petition by #FreeMyInternet here to protect our right to access information on the Internet:
http://www.petitions24.com/petition_for_the_immediate_withdrawal_of_the_licensing_regime
http://thehearttruths.com/2013/06/11/ahpetc-nea-stand-off-whats-really-going-on-part-2/
<header class="entry-header"> [h=1][Infographics] AHPETC-NEA Stand-Off: What’s Really Going On? (Part 3)[/h] Posted on <time class="entry-date" datetime="2013-06-11T18:58:44+00:00" pubdate="">June 11, 2013</time> by My Right to Love
</header> Alright! So, what really happened between the AHPETC, NEA and now, our dear Vivian? I had tried to be amicable in the first two articles but things have gotten out of hand. So let it rip! Below is the chronological order of what has happened thus far.
Please note that this infographics pertain only to the food centre at Block 538, as the issues for Block 511 are different.
Note the smoke bombs that were thrown too.
Note: The blue boxes represent what the Worker’s Party had said and the white boxes represent the others. The white box with the red border represents NEA, the white boxes with the green borders represent the food centres and/or hawkers and the white boxes with the grey borders represent dearest Bala.
</header> Alright! So, what really happened between the AHPETC, NEA and now, our dear Vivian? I had tried to be amicable in the first two articles but things have gotten out of hand. So let it rip! Below is the chronological order of what has happened thus far.
Please note that this infographics pertain only to the food centre at Block 538, as the issues for Block 511 are different.
Note the smoke bombs that were thrown too.
Note: The blue boxes represent what the Worker’s Party had said and the white boxes represent the others. The white box with the red border represents NEA, the white boxes with the green borders represent the food centres and/or hawkers and the white boxes with the grey borders represent dearest Bala.
Similar threads
