-
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.
Why is GMS keep attacking WP everyday?
- Thread starter alantan27
- Start date
He is trying to get LHL to appoint him as a PAP candidate in GE2016.
yes please
I think many people have hit the right notes if you do a search.
That explains why he would not come in here to bitch anymore but go elsewhere, because only in this forum were his deep-seated reasons exposed.
I only stand on the side of Truth, Honesty and Integrity.
WP has been dishonest when they tried to flip flop in their argument. Any fair minded person can see that very clearly. When the issue first appear, they brought up an email and say they were ready to wash the ceiling but NEA said hawkers were to be responsible of the scaffolding and when the scaffolding wasn't up, thus they didn't clean.
However, after it was reported that their own contractor ATL has put up unsolicited quotation of not only scaffolding but everything including cleaning fees of the high ceiling, WP tried to distance itself from its own contractor and change their tune to say that they didn't intend to wash the ceiling back in March as they can choose to do it later in November.
They have basically unwittingly contradicted their first argument that they intended to wash but couldn't do it initially! Such dishonest flip flopping of argument is so glaring and I hate to say this, I have to agree with the Whites that WP is dishonest and tried to cover up wrong doing.
Goh Meng Seng
WP has been dishonest when they tried to flip flop in their argument. Any fair minded person can see that very clearly. When the issue first appear, they brought up an email and say they were ready to wash the ceiling but NEA said hawkers were to be responsible of the scaffolding and when the scaffolding wasn't up, thus they didn't clean.
However, after it was reported that their own contractor ATL has put up unsolicited quotation of not only scaffolding but everything including cleaning fees of the high ceiling, WP tried to distance itself from its own contractor and change their tune to say that they didn't intend to wash the ceiling back in March as they can choose to do it later in November.
They have basically unwittingly contradicted their first argument that they intended to wash but couldn't do it initially! Such dishonest flip flopping of argument is so glaring and I hate to say this, I have to agree with the Whites that WP is dishonest and tried to cover up wrong doing.
Goh Meng Seng
What is being said here is basically PM and PAP chief Lee Hsien Loong's points and regurgitation.
It doesn't really matter, what matters most is that it is a valid point against WP. Such argument was first put up by Smart Alec Pritam in reply to NEA. He is just too smart for his own good.
We can give a lot of benefits of doubt over whether Tai has told hawkers to pay extra or not but this flip flopping of argument is the most glaring dishonest attempt to argue for the sake of argument.
It would have been best for WP just cut loss there and then, do an investigation and apology to hawkers, instead of carry out such dishonest attempt which end up with the present sorry state. Kiang jiu hor, mai gei kiang lah!
Goh Meng Seng
We can give a lot of benefits of doubt over whether Tai has told hawkers to pay extra or not but this flip flopping of argument is the most glaring dishonest attempt to argue for the sake of argument.
It would have been best for WP just cut loss there and then, do an investigation and apology to hawkers, instead of carry out such dishonest attempt which end up with the present sorry state. Kiang jiu hor, mai gei kiang lah!
Goh Meng Seng
The PAP has taken that line because it sees itself as the enemy of WP. By taking the same line, you are indirectly agreeing that your position is not objective, especially if you agree that the PAP's retortation does not contain a single flaw at all.
Neither the PAP nor the WP have claimed to be neutral. This is what is expected of politics. You, I don't know.
Anyway back to your latest post:
The first statement states that WP did flip flopping but the second statement states that WP has refused to budge. Only you yourself know what you mean.
You are quite rubbish. Taking side on the facts and the truth can be politicised as you against us? LOL!
No wonder WP has tripped over itself again and again because there are WP people like you around. Sigh.
Goh Meng Seng
No wonder WP has tripped over itself again and again because there are WP people like you around. Sigh.
Goh Meng Seng
Well, according to your definition, I guess Alex Au and Bertha would have become enemies of WP! lolx...
Just read this latest one from Bertha... very apt in describing your sentiments...
by Bertha Henson
There are two ways to view the Prime Minister’s intervention into the curious case of clean ceilings at hawker centres.
First: There blows the People’s Action Party again. Big bully. Now using the biggest gun to hit the small guy. Enough already, the ceilings already been cleaned what…! Is the PAP trying to take revenge on WP for launching the AIM saga?
Second: Something looks wrong. Does Workers’ Party really know what’s going on in its town council? Are there really people wanting to make money from, gasp, hawkers?
PM Lee (Photo by Shawn Danker)
PM Lee (Photo by Shawn Danker)
Frankly, most people cut opposition parties a lot of slack. We tend to support the underdog and view even just criticism as bullying. It’s the small guy, we say, and surely it will make mistakes. It doesn’t have the resources or the manpower to police itself. It, therefore, can be forgiven.
But even the most ardent supporter of the WP must be wondering why its leader Mr Low Thia Kiang simply doesn’t launch into an investigation on what really happened. There seems to be enough evidence of how its property manager wanted hawkers to pay for something that they shouldn’t. Possibly, he might think it is too small a matter to waste resources.
It was interesting how the PAP politicians referred to the silence of Mr Pritam Singh, the WP MP who had, along with Ms Sylvia Lim, stoutly denied that the town council had asked for undeserved payment – but failed to mention the other GRC member, Mr Faisal Manap. He had actually written to the town council on the issue, handing over an appeal letter from hawkers about being made to pay extra. Was he in Parliament? Couldn’t he have shed light on the matter? Or was he merely acting as a post box for hawkers when he handed over the appeal?
The WP has to realise that the clean ceiling saga is coming after another “attack” on WP, that it was putting party members into town council positions which they might not be suited for or which might give members a pecuniary gain that is not in residents’ interest. This is like slow dripping poison, tarnishing the image of the town council.
Critics of WP will surmise that it has something to hide. That it condones having “shady people” people in its ranks. Supporters will say the WP was merely trying to defend its staff from attacks. People in the middle might well say that the WP thought it was right to defend its staff, kneejerk and is now embarrassed to be caught short. An investigation might well open up another can of worms for the PAP to, errrm, feast on.
What would be WP’s motivation for launching an investigation? Well, clearly, hawkers in its ward seem angry; they are a huge constituency and probably influential voters at the grassroot. Placating voters with a clear explanation, and even an apology if needed, is good politics. Sure, the PAP would be laughing away but even the PAP knows that a “sorry” can go a long way in making people happy.
More importantly, the WP should come up with its code of conduct for the running of town councils, whether it be on separation of political duties and paying jobs. This would avoid the perception that jobs are being parcelled out to cronies, rather than people of merit. (Unless of course, the residents are perfectly okay with party members being rewarded with paying posts, especially if other people with better qualifications for the posts balk at being associated with an opposition party).
As for the kerfuffle over whose job is it to do spring cleaning, annual cleaning, low and high places… Sigh. Isn’t this spelt out somewhere for all to see, including residents? Like “regulations”? That’s something the review committee led by Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan might want to think about. Because frankly, this ding dong between the PAP and WP is so convoluted, its going over our heads.
PM Lee Hsien Loong has used a heavy word to try and distil the bottomline in this saga: Integrity.
Let’s make it simple: Mr Low, just investigate lah. If wrong, say sorry and sack some people. If right, sue the PAP.
Just read this latest one from Bertha... very apt in describing your sentiments...
by Bertha Henson
There are two ways to view the Prime Minister’s intervention into the curious case of clean ceilings at hawker centres.
First: There blows the People’s Action Party again. Big bully. Now using the biggest gun to hit the small guy. Enough already, the ceilings already been cleaned what…! Is the PAP trying to take revenge on WP for launching the AIM saga?
Second: Something looks wrong. Does Workers’ Party really know what’s going on in its town council? Are there really people wanting to make money from, gasp, hawkers?
PM Lee (Photo by Shawn Danker)
PM Lee (Photo by Shawn Danker)
Frankly, most people cut opposition parties a lot of slack. We tend to support the underdog and view even just criticism as bullying. It’s the small guy, we say, and surely it will make mistakes. It doesn’t have the resources or the manpower to police itself. It, therefore, can be forgiven.
But even the most ardent supporter of the WP must be wondering why its leader Mr Low Thia Kiang simply doesn’t launch into an investigation on what really happened. There seems to be enough evidence of how its property manager wanted hawkers to pay for something that they shouldn’t. Possibly, he might think it is too small a matter to waste resources.
It was interesting how the PAP politicians referred to the silence of Mr Pritam Singh, the WP MP who had, along with Ms Sylvia Lim, stoutly denied that the town council had asked for undeserved payment – but failed to mention the other GRC member, Mr Faisal Manap. He had actually written to the town council on the issue, handing over an appeal letter from hawkers about being made to pay extra. Was he in Parliament? Couldn’t he have shed light on the matter? Or was he merely acting as a post box for hawkers when he handed over the appeal?
The WP has to realise that the clean ceiling saga is coming after another “attack” on WP, that it was putting party members into town council positions which they might not be suited for or which might give members a pecuniary gain that is not in residents’ interest. This is like slow dripping poison, tarnishing the image of the town council.
Critics of WP will surmise that it has something to hide. That it condones having “shady people” people in its ranks. Supporters will say the WP was merely trying to defend its staff from attacks. People in the middle might well say that the WP thought it was right to defend its staff, kneejerk and is now embarrassed to be caught short. An investigation might well open up another can of worms for the PAP to, errrm, feast on.
What would be WP’s motivation for launching an investigation? Well, clearly, hawkers in its ward seem angry; they are a huge constituency and probably influential voters at the grassroot. Placating voters with a clear explanation, and even an apology if needed, is good politics. Sure, the PAP would be laughing away but even the PAP knows that a “sorry” can go a long way in making people happy.
More importantly, the WP should come up with its code of conduct for the running of town councils, whether it be on separation of political duties and paying jobs. This would avoid the perception that jobs are being parcelled out to cronies, rather than people of merit. (Unless of course, the residents are perfectly okay with party members being rewarded with paying posts, especially if other people with better qualifications for the posts balk at being associated with an opposition party).
As for the kerfuffle over whose job is it to do spring cleaning, annual cleaning, low and high places… Sigh. Isn’t this spelt out somewhere for all to see, including residents? Like “regulations”? That’s something the review committee led by Minister of State Lee Yi Shyan might want to think about. Because frankly, this ding dong between the PAP and WP is so convoluted, its going over our heads.
PM Lee Hsien Loong has used a heavy word to try and distil the bottomline in this saga: Integrity.
Let’s make it simple: Mr Low, just investigate lah. If wrong, say sorry and sack some people. If right, sue the PAP.
I'm sorry? Can you elaborate?
Sorry to disappoint you. Alex did not take the same position as you and PM Lee. Bertha, yes. What is not expected from her?
Last edited:
Bertha agrees with the Whites, LTK has to do a proper investigation and clear his party's name. Period.
Alex Au? Read his latest change of position from his past.... and now, keep away from the issue...
On market cleaning, NEA’s dossier makes WP look bad
Published 10 July 2013 politics and government 31 Comments
Parliamentary debate, 9 July 2013.
When, sometime in mid-June 2013, in relation to the saga about cleaning market centres, Low Thia Khiang said we should move on, I allowed myself a great big “Hmmm…”
The release of a “dossier” by the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources detailing the communications between the National Environment Agency (NEA), hawkers and the the managing agent of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPeTC) confirms my suspicions that we have not seen all that there is to see.
I won’t repeat the background to this story, since readers can get the gist of it from an earlier article, Cleaning market 538 — as clear as m&d, published on 13 June 2013.
Piecing together various statements by the Workers’ Party over the last few months, their stand seems to be:
They don’t deny that town councils are responsible for one major spring cleaning (i.e. including high areas) a year;
AHPeTC’s contract with their cleaning contractor in fact provides for it;
Since the town council pays, it shouldn’t be for hawkers to decide when to have a major spring cleaning;
There was confusion whether the March spring cleaning of Market 538 and the June spring cleaning of Market 511 were major or minor spring cleanings;
Even if major, there was confusion whether the hawkers of Market 538 volunteered to pay for “scaffolding”;
AHPeTC never asked hawkers to pay extra to the town council for cleaning high areas.
There are things in the dossier, which refers to Markets 538 and 511, that undermine this position. Some documents we have seen before, but one important thing is new. It is that Tai Vie Shun, the Property Manager, and employee of the managing agent FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (see media release dated 5 August 2011), kept repeating all the way into May 2013 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.”
It is quite hard to understand this statement and harder to reconcile it with the Workers’ Party’s stand. First of all, what is meant by “Spring Cleaning”? As discussed in the earlier article, there are two kinds: major spring cleaning, which includes high ducts, fans and other ceiling fixtures, and which typically takes five days to complete, and minor spring cleaning, which covers areas up to 2.5 metres from the ground. For the latter, the market does not need to be closed for more than two days.
Secondly, it sounds as if Tai was pushing away responsibility for a matter which is primarily the town council’s. Even the Workers’ Party, which runs AHPeTC, does not deny this responsibility. See video above at 10 minutes, 20 seconds. At the very least, Tai was being extremely unhelpful to the hawkers who were trying to find out what the cleaning plans were.
Vivian Balakrishnan, the minister in charge, is alleging that AHPeTC and/or its managing agent, was intent on disclaiming responsibility for cleaning the high areas once a year. In this, the internal meeting notes of the NEA dated 26 April 2013 — discussing the upcoming cleaning of Block 511 market — backs him up. It records:
On the scope for the fore coming spring cleaning Mr Tai informed the meeting that they will carry out cleaning only up to areas reachable by the cleaners, i.e. similar or equal to the wall fans height or 2.5m. NEA then informed the TC that for the major spring cleaning they are required to clean areas beyond 2.5m and up to the ceiling area. Mr Tai however disagreed and replied that it is MOM’s rule that no works beyond height of 2.5m be carried out without scaffoldings.
The HA reps commented that the ceiling and beams were dirty, and were covered with bird droppings. However, TC commented that they will not be bearing any costs for the erecting of staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond height of 2.5m. Mr Tai mentioned that the costs of erecting the staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond 2.5m shall be borne by HA instead of Town Council. Following queries from the HA, Mr Tai said that he is following their SOP for all their works to be carried out.
Here, ‘TC’ stands for Town Council, and presumably it was Tai who was speaking on behalf of the Town Council, since he was listed under ‘AHPeTC’ in the header of the same notes. ‘HA’ stands for Hawkers Association.
One needs to bear in mind however that these are internal meeting notes, not minutes. Minutes are usually shared with all parties seeking their agreement that the record correctly represents what they each said. Internal meeting notes are unilateral, for the internal use of one side only. In other words, if Tai had been misquoted in these notes, he would not have had an opportunity to correct them. This is provided I am correct in assuming that these were NOT minutes and had not been circulated to non-NEA participants.
With that proviso in mind, you see in these notes NEA speaking about “major spring cleaning” and Tai disagreeing that his side was responsible for cleaning walls and fixtures above 2.5 metres.
I believe the Workers’ Party’s stand is that there was confusion about what kind of cleaning was being scheduled (and by whom), and anyway, it is not for hawkers to dictate to the town council when and how often major spring cleaning should be carried out. This may be credible if we are discussing the events up till March 2013 relating to the cleaning of Block 538 market. But after the hawkers shut their stalls for five days in March, paid a contractor to cover their premises only to discover that high-level cleaning was never carried out, and complained about the loss they suffered, it is hard to keep denying that the town council and its managing agent were still confused what the issue was about. They must surely know that the hawkers were concerned about whether or not high areas would be cleaned, and thus, whether they should close for two days or five.
So, when the hawkers of Market 511 raised similar concerns at that 26 April meeting, it cannot withstand scrutiny to now say there was confusion and miscommunication regarding major or minor spring cleaning.
Another possibility is that the town council did not plan to do major spring cleaning of Market 511 in June, but later in the year, and that is why in the internal meeting notes (which was about the June cleaning), Tai was recorded to have disagreed that AHPeTC was responsible. But if the town council had a different schedule for major spring cleaning later in the year, why was the meeting not so advised? This omission allows a presumption that Tai and AHPeTC had no plan to do any high-area cleaning at their cost at any time.
* * * * *
In previous media statements and again in the parliamentary debate of 9 July 2013, Sylvia Lim (Workers’ Party) said that at no time did AHPeTC say they were imposing additional charges on hawkers. In the video above, at 15 minutes 03 seconds, Sylvia Lim says: “Mr Tai at no point in time asked for extra money to be paid to the town council for high area cleaning.” (My emphasis)
Technically, she is probably correct. Mr Tai seems to have asked hawkers to find and pay a contractor directly, not pay the town council, but even so, the Workers’ Party’s reply smacks of sophistry.
Then again, the NEA could have helped create the mess. At 12 minutes 33 seconds of the video you will see Sylvia Lim pointing out that “. . . and the reply that came back [from the NEA] was that the Hawkers’ Association would be making arrangements with their own contractor for the scaffold erection and dismantling.”
The failure to state clearly whether the scaffolding was for cleaning the high areas or to lay canvas over the stalls seems to be crucial. That said, why didn’t anybody make an effort to clarify?
* * * * *
And still, a big question remains. I have long wondered why, after having run Hougang Town Council for decades, this issue of major and minor spring cleaning, who should be scheduling them and who should pay, should crop up now. The Workers’ Party is not new to running town councils, and this has never been an issue before. Why now?
Alas, on this, I am no more informed than before.
Alex Au? Read his latest change of position from his past.... and now, keep away from the issue...
On market cleaning, NEA’s dossier makes WP look bad
Published 10 July 2013 politics and government 31 Comments
Parliamentary debate, 9 July 2013.
When, sometime in mid-June 2013, in relation to the saga about cleaning market centres, Low Thia Khiang said we should move on, I allowed myself a great big “Hmmm…”
The release of a “dossier” by the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources detailing the communications between the National Environment Agency (NEA), hawkers and the the managing agent of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPeTC) confirms my suspicions that we have not seen all that there is to see.
I won’t repeat the background to this story, since readers can get the gist of it from an earlier article, Cleaning market 538 — as clear as m&d, published on 13 June 2013.
Piecing together various statements by the Workers’ Party over the last few months, their stand seems to be:
They don’t deny that town councils are responsible for one major spring cleaning (i.e. including high areas) a year;
AHPeTC’s contract with their cleaning contractor in fact provides for it;
Since the town council pays, it shouldn’t be for hawkers to decide when to have a major spring cleaning;
There was confusion whether the March spring cleaning of Market 538 and the June spring cleaning of Market 511 were major or minor spring cleanings;
Even if major, there was confusion whether the hawkers of Market 538 volunteered to pay for “scaffolding”;
AHPeTC never asked hawkers to pay extra to the town council for cleaning high areas.
There are things in the dossier, which refers to Markets 538 and 511, that undermine this position. Some documents we have seen before, but one important thing is new. It is that Tai Vie Shun, the Property Manager, and employee of the managing agent FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (see media release dated 5 August 2011), kept repeating all the way into May 2013 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.”
It is quite hard to understand this statement and harder to reconcile it with the Workers’ Party’s stand. First of all, what is meant by “Spring Cleaning”? As discussed in the earlier article, there are two kinds: major spring cleaning, which includes high ducts, fans and other ceiling fixtures, and which typically takes five days to complete, and minor spring cleaning, which covers areas up to 2.5 metres from the ground. For the latter, the market does not need to be closed for more than two days.
Secondly, it sounds as if Tai was pushing away responsibility for a matter which is primarily the town council’s. Even the Workers’ Party, which runs AHPeTC, does not deny this responsibility. See video above at 10 minutes, 20 seconds. At the very least, Tai was being extremely unhelpful to the hawkers who were trying to find out what the cleaning plans were.
Vivian Balakrishnan, the minister in charge, is alleging that AHPeTC and/or its managing agent, was intent on disclaiming responsibility for cleaning the high areas once a year. In this, the internal meeting notes of the NEA dated 26 April 2013 — discussing the upcoming cleaning of Block 511 market — backs him up. It records:
On the scope for the fore coming spring cleaning Mr Tai informed the meeting that they will carry out cleaning only up to areas reachable by the cleaners, i.e. similar or equal to the wall fans height or 2.5m. NEA then informed the TC that for the major spring cleaning they are required to clean areas beyond 2.5m and up to the ceiling area. Mr Tai however disagreed and replied that it is MOM’s rule that no works beyond height of 2.5m be carried out without scaffoldings.
The HA reps commented that the ceiling and beams were dirty, and were covered with bird droppings. However, TC commented that they will not be bearing any costs for the erecting of staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond height of 2.5m. Mr Tai mentioned that the costs of erecting the staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond 2.5m shall be borne by HA instead of Town Council. Following queries from the HA, Mr Tai said that he is following their SOP for all their works to be carried out.
Here, ‘TC’ stands for Town Council, and presumably it was Tai who was speaking on behalf of the Town Council, since he was listed under ‘AHPeTC’ in the header of the same notes. ‘HA’ stands for Hawkers Association.
One needs to bear in mind however that these are internal meeting notes, not minutes. Minutes are usually shared with all parties seeking their agreement that the record correctly represents what they each said. Internal meeting notes are unilateral, for the internal use of one side only. In other words, if Tai had been misquoted in these notes, he would not have had an opportunity to correct them. This is provided I am correct in assuming that these were NOT minutes and had not been circulated to non-NEA participants.
With that proviso in mind, you see in these notes NEA speaking about “major spring cleaning” and Tai disagreeing that his side was responsible for cleaning walls and fixtures above 2.5 metres.
I believe the Workers’ Party’s stand is that there was confusion about what kind of cleaning was being scheduled (and by whom), and anyway, it is not for hawkers to dictate to the town council when and how often major spring cleaning should be carried out. This may be credible if we are discussing the events up till March 2013 relating to the cleaning of Block 538 market. But after the hawkers shut their stalls for five days in March, paid a contractor to cover their premises only to discover that high-level cleaning was never carried out, and complained about the loss they suffered, it is hard to keep denying that the town council and its managing agent were still confused what the issue was about. They must surely know that the hawkers were concerned about whether or not high areas would be cleaned, and thus, whether they should close for two days or five.
So, when the hawkers of Market 511 raised similar concerns at that 26 April meeting, it cannot withstand scrutiny to now say there was confusion and miscommunication regarding major or minor spring cleaning.
Another possibility is that the town council did not plan to do major spring cleaning of Market 511 in June, but later in the year, and that is why in the internal meeting notes (which was about the June cleaning), Tai was recorded to have disagreed that AHPeTC was responsible. But if the town council had a different schedule for major spring cleaning later in the year, why was the meeting not so advised? This omission allows a presumption that Tai and AHPeTC had no plan to do any high-area cleaning at their cost at any time.
* * * * *
In previous media statements and again in the parliamentary debate of 9 July 2013, Sylvia Lim (Workers’ Party) said that at no time did AHPeTC say they were imposing additional charges on hawkers. In the video above, at 15 minutes 03 seconds, Sylvia Lim says: “Mr Tai at no point in time asked for extra money to be paid to the town council for high area cleaning.” (My emphasis)
Technically, she is probably correct. Mr Tai seems to have asked hawkers to find and pay a contractor directly, not pay the town council, but even so, the Workers’ Party’s reply smacks of sophistry.
Then again, the NEA could have helped create the mess. At 12 minutes 33 seconds of the video you will see Sylvia Lim pointing out that “. . . and the reply that came back [from the NEA] was that the Hawkers’ Association would be making arrangements with their own contractor for the scaffold erection and dismantling.”
The failure to state clearly whether the scaffolding was for cleaning the high areas or to lay canvas over the stalls seems to be crucial. That said, why didn’t anybody make an effort to clarify?
* * * * *
And still, a big question remains. I have long wondered why, after having run Hougang Town Council for decades, this issue of major and minor spring cleaning, who should be scheduling them and who should pay, should crop up now. The Workers’ Party is not new to running town councils, and this has never been an issue before. Why now?
Alas, on this, I am no more informed than before.
I am afraid, WP people will be utterly disappointed in the end, when slowly and steadily, all opposition sympathizers will abandon them by either keeping quiet or away from this poison.... because any fair minded person would have realize the eminent flaws and dishonesty in WP's part in handling the situation.
Hopefully, it is just NOT too late for WP to do a turnabout now.
Goh Meng Seng
Hopefully, it is just NOT too late for WP to do a turnabout now.
Goh Meng Seng
Last edited:
The crux of Alex's article is the confusion, lack of clarity, sophistry and the conversation with Tai, which the WP did not contribute to address these areas, with PAP committing a smaller fault.
That is in no way similar to PM Lee and GMS, who has already concluded that WP is at total unforgivable fault and PAP has absolutely zero fault.
Last edited:
To tell you the truth, there are also some ardent hardcore opposition supporters who have slammed me in the beginning sending private message to me to apologize and started to regret that they have supported WP in this saga after VV has put up the dossier of evidence in parliament. When even these non-partisan hardcore opposition supporters start to turn their back to WP, it should be clear that red alarm is ringing out loud.
Goh Meng Seng
Goh Meng Seng
Alex is just apologetic supporter of WP but read his title... clear and loud.
Goh Meng Seng
Goh Meng Seng
I feel so sorry for WP and its people to stoop so low in standards, only getting comfort from contesting in who stinks more contest by stating PAP stinks more... but stinking as they are, WP still stinks like shit to many people.
Goh Meng Seng
Goh Meng Seng
I never knew Alex was an "apologetic supporter of WP". At the GE in 2011, he was helping SDP.
It's true his title seems that way, but I went on to read the text and context. Alex still reminded that the mystery NEA email contributed to the confusion and he took this point without sidestepping it.
PM Lee and VB made no mention of the NEA email as if it did not exist, but claims to be comprehensive and above coverup.
GMS (to his credit also did not shirk) expressed absolute sympathy and forgiveness to the NEA officer whom he explained on her behalf was sleepy after coming back from leave - the same benefit we can be sure will not be given even to distant neutral parties linked by a millimetre to anything that says "WP".
Similar threads
