HDB lifts is the next Achilles Heel of the PAP Junta.
After holding Hougang and other Singaporeans hostage and extracting a ransom from us to vote for PAP or else be denied selection of voting district for priority in HDB lift upgrading scheme, PAP now finds itself HOSTAGE to the ransom demands of international passenger lift manufacturing companies who refuse to sell spare parts to 3rd party maintenance companies and thus maintain an effective monopoly in the ability to bid for HDB Town Council passenger lift maintenance contracts for their own brand of lifts.
PAP dirty tricks aside, besides designing their own political hegemonic rule over Singapore (as Raffles did on behalf of British East India company to colonise Singapore) I think it is a great failure of the PAP to allow Singaporeans to be held HOSTAGE to the pricing whims and fancies of passenger lift manufacturing companies.
To date, it is reported that assuming 100 units per block and 1million units built, there should be at least 10,000 blocks to HDB flats with many cookie cutter in initial design (1965): to meet Singapore's then critical public housing shortage. Assuming an average of at least 3 lifts per block, that would mean 30,000 passenger lifts needing routine repair, maintenance and periodic replacement if not addition (HDB lift upgrading scheme)... Yet to date, I don't think HDB owns a single lift design patent nor lift design blueprint which it can either produce (cookie cutter) lifts from or else request OEM manufuctures to efficiently produce parts for (especially the lift control circuit boards which according to Straits Times, the key source of a lift brand's monopoly rights to lift maintenance contracts ).
Without the knowhow to obtain passenger lift maintenance / replacement parts, the HDB/Town Councils are effectively held ransom to whatever lift brand manufacturers want to charge for lift maintenance contracts since HDB cannot obtain these proprietary items on the open market. Even the competition commission Singapore (CCS) is a toothless tiger since without owning the lift design blueprints, it is hard to prevent lift manufacturers from limiting the sale, distribution or replacement instructions for essential spare parts to 3rd party maintenance companies vz various dirty, anti-competitive tricks, tactics and obstacles the likes of which PAP frequently applies to the political opposition. Search PM Lee HL saying how he will "buy supporter's votes and fix the opposition ". Now stuck between rock and a hard place and facing the ransom high maintenance costs from the folly of dependence on proprietary parts for 30,000 passenger lifts, the CCS is now poling the public for answers: basically going through the motions to fill in the checklist that it has left no stone unturned, but i believe, ultimately to no avail.
So whilst the Ministry of National Development boasts loudly that many Singaporeans are "proud owners" of their apartment flats, Singaporeans are actually being held ransom by international lift manufacturing companies who deliberately design complicated spare parts such that monopoly over maintenance contracts can be a steady source of secondary income (just like computer laser printers like my Samsung brand one: sneakily inserted a paper count chip prohibiting consumer self refill the ink cartridge and have to buy new replacement toner cartridge costing more than the original printer itself).
HDB and the MND (and by extension the PAP) have been sleeping on the job and failed to own/ develop easily reproducible / obtainable spare parts for >30,000 HDB passenger lifts after >50 long years in building HDB flats.
HDB dropped the ball from the start and I hope that it is not to late to pick it up.
HDB has failed us.
Maybe Singaporeans should stop voting for PAP at the drop of the hat and demand that PAP focus more on national security and infrastructure longevity/ maintenance issues and not on cronism and other selfish, greedy and excessively partisan political interest.
HDB lifts: Feedback sought on issue of spare parts
Some lift manufacturers have allegedly refused to supply spare parts to third-party contractors.
Some lift manufacturers have allegedly refused to supply spare parts to third-party contractors.ST PHOTO: SEAH KWANG PENG
PUBLISHED: November 16, 2017
Calvin Yang
An alleged refusal by some lift manufacturers to supply spare parts for the maintenance of lifts in Housing Board estates to third-party contractors has prompted the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) to take action.
A lift manufacturer has an advantage when tendering for maintenance contracts, as it has the parts for its own brand of lifts.
The commission is seeking public feedback on proposals to address the issue and had earlier launched anti-competition probes on some companies supplying spare parts for lifts to HDB blocks. It is looking at practices, including the alleged refusal to supply vital parts such as motherboards to third-party lift maintenance contractors here.
These parts are required for the maintenance and servicing of lifts installed in HDB estates.
The practice may have prevented the third-party contractors from competing for contracts to maintain and service lifts of particular brands installed in HDB estates.
Each HDB estate typically has multiple brands of lifts installed. Town councils can choose to either appoint the original lift installers to undertake the maintenance services, or appoint a third-party contractor for the lifts within the estate.
In a statement yesterday, the competition watchdog said: "If a lift company or distributor does not provide proprietary but essential lift spare parts to third-party lift maintenance contractors, other lift maintenance contractors may be prevented from effectively competing for contracts to maintain and service lifts of that particular brand in Singapore."
The commission... is looking at practices, including the refusal to supply vital parts such as motherboards to third-party lift maintenance contractors here.
To address the competition concerns, lift parts suppliers BNF Engineering and C&W Services have proposed voluntary commitments to sell spare parts of the relevant brands to a purchaser, subject to certain terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions address issues such as the supplying of parts on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis and ensuring that the purchaser of parts is adequately qualified to service the lifts.
They also include clarifying liability, ensuring spare parts are not modified or used for other lift brands and seeking consent from the owner of the lift being repaired.
CCS will decide whether to accept or reject each of the proposed commitments following the market consultation.
The public consultation will close on Nov 28.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on November 16, 2017, with the headline 'HDB lifts: Feedback sought on issue of spare parts'.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/hdb-lifts-feedback-sought-on-issue-of-spare-parts
After holding Hougang and other Singaporeans hostage and extracting a ransom from us to vote for PAP or else be denied selection of voting district for priority in HDB lift upgrading scheme, PAP now finds itself HOSTAGE to the ransom demands of international passenger lift manufacturing companies who refuse to sell spare parts to 3rd party maintenance companies and thus maintain an effective monopoly in the ability to bid for HDB Town Council passenger lift maintenance contracts for their own brand of lifts.
PAP dirty tricks aside, besides designing their own political hegemonic rule over Singapore (as Raffles did on behalf of British East India company to colonise Singapore) I think it is a great failure of the PAP to allow Singaporeans to be held HOSTAGE to the pricing whims and fancies of passenger lift manufacturing companies.
To date, it is reported that assuming 100 units per block and 1million units built, there should be at least 10,000 blocks to HDB flats with many cookie cutter in initial design (1965): to meet Singapore's then critical public housing shortage. Assuming an average of at least 3 lifts per block, that would mean 30,000 passenger lifts needing routine repair, maintenance and periodic replacement if not addition (HDB lift upgrading scheme)... Yet to date, I don't think HDB owns a single lift design patent nor lift design blueprint which it can either produce (cookie cutter) lifts from or else request OEM manufuctures to efficiently produce parts for (especially the lift control circuit boards which according to Straits Times, the key source of a lift brand's monopoly rights to lift maintenance contracts ).
Without the knowhow to obtain passenger lift maintenance / replacement parts, the HDB/Town Councils are effectively held ransom to whatever lift brand manufacturers want to charge for lift maintenance contracts since HDB cannot obtain these proprietary items on the open market. Even the competition commission Singapore (CCS) is a toothless tiger since without owning the lift design blueprints, it is hard to prevent lift manufacturers from limiting the sale, distribution or replacement instructions for essential spare parts to 3rd party maintenance companies vz various dirty, anti-competitive tricks, tactics and obstacles the likes of which PAP frequently applies to the political opposition. Search PM Lee HL saying how he will "buy supporter's votes and fix the opposition ". Now stuck between rock and a hard place and facing the ransom high maintenance costs from the folly of dependence on proprietary parts for 30,000 passenger lifts, the CCS is now poling the public for answers: basically going through the motions to fill in the checklist that it has left no stone unturned, but i believe, ultimately to no avail.
So whilst the Ministry of National Development boasts loudly that many Singaporeans are "proud owners" of their apartment flats, Singaporeans are actually being held ransom by international lift manufacturing companies who deliberately design complicated spare parts such that monopoly over maintenance contracts can be a steady source of secondary income (just like computer laser printers like my Samsung brand one: sneakily inserted a paper count chip prohibiting consumer self refill the ink cartridge and have to buy new replacement toner cartridge costing more than the original printer itself).
HDB and the MND (and by extension the PAP) have been sleeping on the job and failed to own/ develop easily reproducible / obtainable spare parts for >30,000 HDB passenger lifts after >50 long years in building HDB flats.
HDB dropped the ball from the start and I hope that it is not to late to pick it up.
HDB has failed us.
Maybe Singaporeans should stop voting for PAP at the drop of the hat and demand that PAP focus more on national security and infrastructure longevity/ maintenance issues and not on cronism and other selfish, greedy and excessively partisan political interest.
HDB lifts: Feedback sought on issue of spare parts
Some lift manufacturers have allegedly refused to supply spare parts to third-party contractors.
Some lift manufacturers have allegedly refused to supply spare parts to third-party contractors.ST PHOTO: SEAH KWANG PENG
PUBLISHED: November 16, 2017
Calvin Yang
An alleged refusal by some lift manufacturers to supply spare parts for the maintenance of lifts in Housing Board estates to third-party contractors has prompted the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) to take action.
A lift manufacturer has an advantage when tendering for maintenance contracts, as it has the parts for its own brand of lifts.
The commission is seeking public feedback on proposals to address the issue and had earlier launched anti-competition probes on some companies supplying spare parts for lifts to HDB blocks. It is looking at practices, including the alleged refusal to supply vital parts such as motherboards to third-party lift maintenance contractors here.
These parts are required for the maintenance and servicing of lifts installed in HDB estates.
The practice may have prevented the third-party contractors from competing for contracts to maintain and service lifts of particular brands installed in HDB estates.
Each HDB estate typically has multiple brands of lifts installed. Town councils can choose to either appoint the original lift installers to undertake the maintenance services, or appoint a third-party contractor for the lifts within the estate.
In a statement yesterday, the competition watchdog said: "If a lift company or distributor does not provide proprietary but essential lift spare parts to third-party lift maintenance contractors, other lift maintenance contractors may be prevented from effectively competing for contracts to maintain and service lifts of that particular brand in Singapore."
The commission... is looking at practices, including the refusal to supply vital parts such as motherboards to third-party lift maintenance contractors here.
To address the competition concerns, lift parts suppliers BNF Engineering and C&W Services have proposed voluntary commitments to sell spare parts of the relevant brands to a purchaser, subject to certain terms and conditions.
The terms and conditions address issues such as the supplying of parts on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis and ensuring that the purchaser of parts is adequately qualified to service the lifts.
They also include clarifying liability, ensuring spare parts are not modified or used for other lift brands and seeking consent from the owner of the lift being repaired.
CCS will decide whether to accept or reject each of the proposed commitments following the market consultation.
The public consultation will close on Nov 28.
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on November 16, 2017, with the headline 'HDB lifts: Feedback sought on issue of spare parts'.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/hdb-lifts-feedback-sought-on-issue-of-spare-parts
Last edited:
