Agree. Sorry cannot up your points atm
-
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 II
- Thread starter Goh Meng Seng
- Start date
Agree. Sorry cannot up your points atm
The email started with NEA saying the 'hawker will make necessary arrangement on scaffold erection/dismantling'. There is no reason to think that it was meant for other purposes other than for the part of cleaning the ceiling.
If the hawker don't think they should be paying for erection/dismantling of scaffolding, why the need to approach the contractor for a quotation in the first place?
And why the need to bypass TC to get quote from the contractor?
And any mention that this was the arrangement for previous cleaning exercise in 2012? Why only make noise now?
If NEA said that TC needs to pay for the cost, kindly show us the clause in the contract rather than to make a motherhood statement.
I have already mentioned in my article.
First, the structure for hawkers to cover their stalls are also called "metal scaffolding" in their/NEA technical document.
Secondly, since AHTC is supposed to take care of the ceiling cleaning part, naturally for NEA's side, would only think of hawkers' responsibility as putting up their own scaffolding for cover.
Goh Meng Seng
First, the structure for hawkers to cover their stalls are also called "metal scaffolding" in their/NEA technical document.
Secondly, since AHTC is supposed to take care of the ceiling cleaning part, naturally for NEA's side, would only think of hawkers' responsibility as putting up their own scaffolding for cover.
Goh Meng Seng
ATL and AHPETC are different entities and I don't see why should TC be responsible for the back-end affairs of their sub contractors? They only need to be responsible for the quality of work under scope of contract. Why should TC attempts to control who the contractor deals with outside this? If the TC needs to poke their nose into every back-end affair of the contractor and get themselves busy, might as well don't sub the job out?
As far as this issue is concern. it between the hawker association and ATL.
I already told u if it meant for covering the stalls, there is no need to tell us what they need to do in order to set up the canvas. Might as well tell us about who is going arrange the transport of scaffolds? Just said when the hawker will get the canvas ready. What so difficult?
Since this is the case, the email must be directly related to cleaning of the ceiling. I just only want to know if this is the arrangement for last year cleaning?
Last edited:
1stly) I think only you consider the whole "props-and-metal-scaffoldings-for-the-canvas-covers" as "metal scaffolding" because even NEA thinks of scaffolding as in "scaffolding used to put up canvas sheets over the stalls"
So I could agree with you if NEA and 商联会, for some unknown reason" decided to only setup the scaffolding without the canvas
2ndly) AHPETC schedule clearly stated the >2.5m cleaning was not planned in Mar. So why would NEA assume otherwise and that scaffolding for >2.5m cleaning would be provided by AHPETC?
===EDIT===
After reading your post.10, I have to agree NEA could have continue the confusion after AHPETC. So everything started off because of miscommunications?
Last edited:
hahaha...there are idiots and there are idiots.....
if AHPE TC knows its schedule so well and when they received such an email from NEA, shouldn't TC clarify with NEA on why the need for scaffolds since cleaning for high areas is not scheduled...this is a logical question putting politicking aside....
Better still smart alecs immediately jump to the conclusion that this was because the First World hawkers requested for additional cleaning because they care so much for public hygiene....lol.
Afternote.....after reading post10, it is clear that the confusion originated from AHPETC.....annual spring cleaning, dismantling/erection of scaffolds....lol.
i wonder what the smart alecs/idiotic scums will say now......
if AHPE TC knows its schedule so well and when they received such an email from NEA, shouldn't TC clarify with NEA on why the need for scaffolds since cleaning for high areas is not scheduled...this is a logical question putting politicking aside....
Better still smart alecs immediately jump to the conclusion that this was because the First World hawkers requested for additional cleaning because they care so much for public hygiene....lol.
Afternote.....after reading post10, it is clear that the confusion originated from AHPETC.....annual spring cleaning, dismantling/erection of scaffolds....lol.
i wonder what the smart alecs/idiotic scums will say now......
Last edited:
Disagree.
Even if the "free" >2.5m cleaning was not in Mar, that dun mean there could not be other "not-free" >2.5m cleaning.
Anyway the thing I still dun understand is, why 商联会 happily asked ATL for a quotation for the full cleaning job of >2.5m and more? I supposed it is not uncommon for a contractor to misunderstand the requirement and give the wrong quotation. If so, and if 商联会 was really misled to believe it was supposed to pay for the scaffolding for >2.5m cleaning then why 商联会 never asked for a new quotation?
So with the information available so far, I have to conclude that 商联会, for unknown reason, was indeed asking for a quotation for the full cleaning job of >2.5m and more.
hahaha.... don't twist and turn lah....
the situation exploded because AHPE TC told the hawkers that they had to pay for the scaffolds...that is why the quotation (of course u can say this is bullshit but if there is no quotation, then u will turn around and say the hawkers were lying that they had been asked to pay) but after reading the email chain, it is clear AHPETC started the confusion and tried exploiting the situation....
WP is mischievious to only quote the last mail without showing the whole email chain in context.....
this will also be my last post to you.....period.
Last edited:
Disagree. I've already commented on that.
It dun explain why ATL happily quoted the full cleaning job of >2.5m and more, and 商联会 happily accepted the quotation for full cleaning job of >2.5m and more.
You missing or ignoring this dun change it a bit.
[h=1]EXPOSED: PAP GRASSROOTS' LEADER CAUSED THE ATTACK ON AHPETC[/h]
Post date:
12 Jun 2013 - 2:05am
**TRS Editorial Piece**
The dispute between the AHPETC and NEA over the cleaning of Hawker Centres has been a huge exercise of political m&d-slinging. Details which have just recently surfaced, however, indicate that the whole attack may have been initiated from the PAP side, at the grassroots level.
Workers' Party claims that it is the victim of politicking (AHPETC: NEA Is Politically Motivated To Tarnish the Image of AHPETC), while NEA, backed by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, insist that WP is wrongly pushing the blame over the issue. (See NEA Blames WP for Not Paying Contractors to Clean Hawker Centres and Dr Balakrishnan: WP is Lying over the Hawker Centre Issue).
Is WP the victim of politicking or is WP just avoiding the blame for their mismanagement of cleaning costs?
In an attempt to provide clarification and 'clear the air', NEA released several documents related to the case (NEA Releases Doncuments in AHPETC Case) on June 9.
One of the documents released were 'Petition letters submitted to the media on 3 June 2013 by the hawkers of Blocks 511 and 538 reflecting the consistent position taken by the hawkers throughout this incident.'
But how does this serve any proof? Why are there no names and signatures in both "petitions"? If you present such evidence in the Court of Law it will be thrown out right away!
The other interesting document was the quotation: It was seen that ATL, the maintenance contractor, had provided a quotation to the Market Association for both the scaffolding and cleaning of ceilings:
This quotation was used by the NEA to 'prove' that the AHPETC had charged the hawkers for the cleaning costs even though there was no proof that the towncouncil had ordered the quotation. Upon closer inspection, its seen that the quotation was addressed to a Mr Ng Kok Khim and indicated that Mr Ng had ordered the quotation.
This fact was also highlighted by AHPETC (AHPETC Refutes NEA Allegations): “NEA should know that ATL is an independent commercial company free to provide quotations to any party that requests it. 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.”
Despite WP clarifying the issue on many occasions, the quotation ordered by Mr Ng Kok Khim has continually been used by NEA to 'prove' that the towncouncil had attempted to charge the hawkers for the cleaning.
So who is this Mr Ng Kok Khim?
Some cyber CSI revealed that he is actually a PAP member and Grassroots Leader. He is a long-time PAP member who was commended in 2011 with a 'Long Service Medal (Silver)' [Link]:
Mr Ng Kok Khim is also a representative of the Market Association, which explains why he would be in a position to ask for a quotation from ATL. It is also odd that the address the quotation was sent to, Unit #01-651, is actually in the next block; Block 539. The unit is a shop called “B G Garment Department Store” which some of the local hawkers have indicated is linked to Mr Ng Kok Khim.
So why is the quotation ordered by Mr Ng, a PAP Grassroots member not associated in anyway with the WP towncouncil, being used to 'prove' that AHPETC was the one that had billed Hawkers for the cleaning process?
It is still unknown who exactly had told the Hawkers that they would have to pay for the cleaning services, but it is possible that Mr Ng may have used this quotation to mislead hawkers in an attempt to make them unsatisfied with the WP towncouncil. An attempt that clearly worked as evident from an e-mail TRS received from one of the Hawkers in the affected blocks a few weeks ago:
http://therealsingapore.com/content/exposed-pap-grassroots-leader-caused-attack-ahpetc
Post date:
12 Jun 2013 - 2:05am
**TRS Editorial Piece**
The dispute between the AHPETC and NEA over the cleaning of Hawker Centres has been a huge exercise of political m&d-slinging. Details which have just recently surfaced, however, indicate that the whole attack may have been initiated from the PAP side, at the grassroots level.
Workers' Party claims that it is the victim of politicking (AHPETC: NEA Is Politically Motivated To Tarnish the Image of AHPETC), while NEA, backed by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, insist that WP is wrongly pushing the blame over the issue. (See NEA Blames WP for Not Paying Contractors to Clean Hawker Centres and Dr Balakrishnan: WP is Lying over the Hawker Centre Issue).
Is WP the victim of politicking or is WP just avoiding the blame for their mismanagement of cleaning costs?
In an attempt to provide clarification and 'clear the air', NEA released several documents related to the case (NEA Releases Doncuments in AHPETC Case) on June 9.
One of the documents released were 'Petition letters submitted to the media on 3 June 2013 by the hawkers of Blocks 511 and 538 reflecting the consistent position taken by the hawkers throughout this incident.'
But how does this serve any proof? Why are there no names and signatures in both "petitions"? If you present such evidence in the Court of Law it will be thrown out right away!
The other interesting document was the quotation: It was seen that ATL, the maintenance contractor, had provided a quotation to the Market Association for both the scaffolding and cleaning of ceilings:
This quotation was used by the NEA to 'prove' that the AHPETC had charged the hawkers for the cleaning costs even though there was no proof that the towncouncil had ordered the quotation. Upon closer inspection, its seen that the quotation was addressed to a Mr Ng Kok Khim and indicated that Mr Ng had ordered the quotation.
This fact was also highlighted by AHPETC (AHPETC Refutes NEA Allegations): “NEA should know that ATL is an independent commercial company free to provide quotations to any party that requests it. 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.”
Despite WP clarifying the issue on many occasions, the quotation ordered by Mr Ng Kok Khim has continually been used by NEA to 'prove' that the towncouncil had attempted to charge the hawkers for the cleaning.
So who is this Mr Ng Kok Khim?
Some cyber CSI revealed that he is actually a PAP member and Grassroots Leader. He is a long-time PAP member who was commended in 2011 with a 'Long Service Medal (Silver)' [Link]:
Mr Ng Kok Khim is also a representative of the Market Association, which explains why he would be in a position to ask for a quotation from ATL. It is also odd that the address the quotation was sent to, Unit #01-651, is actually in the next block; Block 539. The unit is a shop called “B G Garment Department Store” which some of the local hawkers have indicated is linked to Mr Ng Kok Khim.
So why is the quotation ordered by Mr Ng, a PAP Grassroots member not associated in anyway with the WP towncouncil, being used to 'prove' that AHPETC was the one that had billed Hawkers for the cleaning process?
It is still unknown who exactly had told the Hawkers that they would have to pay for the cleaning services, but it is possible that Mr Ng may have used this quotation to mislead hawkers in an attempt to make them unsatisfied with the WP towncouncil. An attempt that clearly worked as evident from an e-mail TRS received from one of the Hawkers in the affected blocks a few weeks ago:
"I am angry and we will do petition tomorrow. I angry last time with everything going up and want to change MP but now have to pay more. All is the same, we citizen will suffer."
It appears that political attacks can be mounted, successfully too, from the ground. This just goes to show how far reaching the PAP control really is. Even members of your community could be working indirectly for the PAP to ensure that support for the opposition is squashed.
http://therealsingapore.com/content/exposed-pap-grassroots-leader-caused-attack-ahpetc
[h=1]EXPOSED: PAP GRASSROOTS' LEADER CAUSED THE ATTACK ON AHPETC[/h]
Post date:
12 Jun 2013 - 2:05am
**TRS Editorial Piece**
The dispute between the AHPETC and NEA over the cleaning of Hawker Centres has been a huge exercise of political m&d-slinging. Details which have just recently surfaced, however, indicate that the whole attack may have been initiated from the PAP side, at the grassroots level.......
This is a much more worthy piece of analysis
http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.sg/2006/11/my-resignation-from-workers-party.html
1) I resigned from Workers' Party on the day when the misinformation of I threatening to sue an internet forummer was reported in Today. This is due to my private assessment on the damage done to WP's public image despite the fact that I have clarified the facts on the matter to the Today's reporter. I guess Today will never make any reports on misinformation about any PAP MPs or ministers with their clarifications put side by side. Well, this is life in Singapore.
2) For some reasons, ST chose not to report the specific reason I gave them about the damage done by the Today's report on the misinformation (though with my clarifications by the side).
4) This is the reason that I resigned. The speculation proposed by the ST reporter that I quit because I am unhappy about the rules which are going to be implemented (over internet engagement) is totally unfounded. It is only healthy that people have diverse views about anything in a political party. The most important thing is that, at the end of the day, we will come to a consensus and move on from there. It would be a total disaster for a political party to have members agreeing 100% on everything everytime.
You are saying we should trust the papers?
Did you just arrive in sinkapore?
You give too much credit to the PAP. They are stupid. They have not had to deal with capable opposition and this is a new learning curve for them. So far, they are failing big time. Thus, their resort to dirty tricks. Only a dumber can't see the PAP's new plot.
You have made an important observation. So far there was no mention of wasted money to put up the canvas. Now that you have highlighted it they may find ways to accommodate this discrepancy in the episode that will be broadcast next week. You should have pm their rep here.
Last edited:
Ng Kok Khim was the chairman of the 538 Market for many years and is now its patron. The fact that he was rewarded with a PBM and he being the town counciller of Kaki Bukit (part of Marine Parade before GE 2011), shows that he is a PAP man and a person with influence. I am sure these facts are not loss amongst the hawkers.
He appeared to be the person (at least one of the leaders) liaising with ATL / AHPETC. The other hawkers have no first hand knowledge of what transpired between Ng and ATL / APHETC since they were not involved in the negotiation. So if Ng told the hawkers that AHPETC is charging them for the cleaning and that he will be petitioning to the press / NEA, and required the hawkers to sign the petition, would they not agree?
Further, it has just been revealed today that Ng has step down as Chairman of the 538 market for several years now. So why is he the one asking for the quotation / dealing with ATL / APHETC?
He appeared to be the person (at least one of the leaders) liaising with ATL / AHPETC. The other hawkers have no first hand knowledge of what transpired between Ng and ATL / APHETC since they were not involved in the negotiation. So if Ng told the hawkers that AHPETC is charging them for the cleaning and that he will be petitioning to the press / NEA, and required the hawkers to sign the petition, would they not agree?
Further, it has just been revealed today that Ng has step down as Chairman of the 538 market for several years now. So why is he the one asking for the quotation / dealing with ATL / APHETC?
Similar threads
