Beyond the Smokescreen II

[aurvandil]

I don't think Ng Kok Khim has much power or influence. Going by their reaction, I am not even convinced that this had the sanction much less support of many of the PAP elders. It looks more like the case of a small group within the PAP hoping to make a name for themselves. Along the way, they were encouraged by VB who was hoping to reignite his almost extinguished star (YOG and now the huge dengeue outbreak).

As the incident spiraled out of control, everyone kept their distance. VB who encouraged this, was FORCED to make the statement. If he was not FORCED, his style would have been to push it to outgoing NEA CEO Andrew Tan who was the other person encouraging this because of personal political ambition.

For VB, he now looks almost certain to join MBT and Raymond Lim. ex-NEA CEO Andrew Tan's PAP tea invite has been cancelled and he looks set to join PS cum French cook once he comes back from his Advanced Management Diploma.

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.

 

[3_M]

I know WP people can hardly read properly and that is why they keep tripping all over the place. Just click on the NEA link to the specification file lah..

Goh Meng Seng

u must be reading the scaffolder for cleaning the ceiling as 'plastic scaffolder' and not 'metal scaffolder' , I don't see much validity in your argument.

U are just a victim of your own selective perception.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

You are out of the capacity of reasoning. Just too bad.

Goh Meng Seng

u must be reading the scaffolder for cleaning the ceiling as 'plastic scaffolder' and not 'metal scaffolder' , I don't see much validity in your argument.

U are just a victim of your own selective perception.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

SINGAPORE - Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang has called for all parties involved in the long-running dispute over hawker centre cleaning in Aljunied GRC to move on and give the hawkers peace to do their business.
RELATED STORIES

• NEA e-mail caused hawker centre dispute: WP chairman Sylvia Lim
• Workers' Party town council invites minister to settle issues at dialogue
• 6NEA rejects charge of being "politically motivated" in hawker centre dispute

<!-- End Related Links -->
Commenting for the first time on the saga, Mr Low said the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) will continue to work with the National Environment Agency (NEA) "to solve problems on the ground and to address the issues".


"We should move on from the current issue," he told The Straits Times on Wednesday night. "I would expect the town council to continue to work with NEA for environmental issues on the ground, be it market hygiene, cleanliness, be it littering, be it the dengue fever issue, be it midges - Bedok Reservoir issues," added Mr Low, the MP for Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division in Aljunied GRC.


Mr Low's comments came a day after Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan asked WP to clean up the hawker centres under its charge and apologise to the hawkers involved in the dispute. Only after the hawker centres are clean and inspected would he meet Mr Low, together with the hawkers.


Asked for his response to Dr Balakrishnan on Wednesday, Mr Low said: "I would like to move on. So let's move on. And I think the hawkers need, very much, peace to do their business."


At the centre of the dispute is the question of whether hawkers from two markets in Aljunied GRC were asked to pay extra charges for the cleaning of high areas. Hawkers and NEA have said that this was so, while AHPETC has denied that the hawkers were asked to pay more. Asked if he would go down to speak to the hawkers, Mr Low reiterated his wish to move on and said: "Whatever it is, the town council will have to do what is necessary."

 

[zhihau]

Asked if he would go down to speak to the hawkers, Mr Low reiterated his wish to move on and said: "Whatever it is, the town council will have to do what is necessary."

glad that Low had noted that the electorate wants deliverable, then why waste a chance to give the perpetrators a black eye? hmm...

 

[cBMouTh]

You are out of the capacity of reasoning. Just too bad.

Goh Meng Seng

GMS Cheebyemouth

You working very hard for your PAP masters. Good dog.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

I don't think Ng Kok Khim has much power or influence. Going by their reaction, I am not even convinced that this had the sanction much less support of many of the PAP elders. It looks more like the case of a small group within the PAP hoping to make a name for themselves. Along the way, they were encouraged by VB who was hoping to reignite his almost extinguished star (YOG and now the huge dengeue outbreak).

As the incident spiraled out of control, everyone kept their distance. VB who encouraged this, was FORCED to make the statement. If he was not FORCED, his style would have been to push it to outgoing NEA CEO Andrew Tan who was the other person encouraging this because of personal political ambition.

For VB, he now looks almost certain to join MBT and Raymond Lim. ex-NEA CEO Andrew Tan's PAP tea invite has been cancelled and he looks set to join PS cum French cook once he comes back from his Advanced Management Diploma.

The misleading press releases sent out by NEA suggest that no one on the civil service and PAP side was even clear about what happened. Note the conflagration of block 511 and 538. Till date they haven't bothered to straighten it out, essentially regarding them as the same incident when they are not. Plus, the misleading email from NEA staff about hawkers arranging for the scaffolding, which has been conveniently swept away.

VB was roped in when NEA lost its footing. He chose to politicize the whole matter, but he did it clumsily. He only made the matter worse.

And now, Ng Kok Khim has been dragged into the open, and he is forced to make such illogical comments to the press like:

Mr Ng Kok Khim, 60, who had been the target of online speculation in recent days since it emerged that he was a PAP member, told Singapolitics that he had no political motives in his handling of the cleaning issue and stressed that he had never asked the cleaning contractor engaged by the town council for a quotation.

[....SNIP....]

Mr Ng said that he thinks the quotation was mailed to him because his shop address is the mailing address of the Block 538 market association in Bedok North. He was chairman of the association until he stepped down a couple of years back and became its patron.

"My shop address is used by the town council and government agencies like the Housing Board when they correspond with the market association..."

http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/gr...-cleaning-dispute-i-have-no-political-motives​

The current market association chairman Tan Gin Xiong is a full-fledged PAP member, and he would have every incentive to escalate or politicize any miscommunication between AHPETC/ATL and the hawkers to their own advantage.

 

[aurvandil]

It was more like he was FORCED to make a statement by those aware that he was one encouraging this from behind. He made his first statement on the assumption that WP would back down. He did not expect WP to rebut him so strongly. Pritam's last statement in particular was a total shocker to him.

VB was roped in when NEA lost its footing. He chose to politicize the whole matter, but he did it clumsily. He only made the matter worse.

 

[zhihau]

He made his first statement on the assumption that WP would back down.

then why ah Low now say "let's move on?"

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

From Yawning Bread:

After the controversy broke, I recall seeing a story in the press saying that the hawkers had requested for a quotation to provide only canvas covering. This was before the quotation letter was made public. Once it became public, it became obvious that whoever told the press (NEA? Hawkers?) that they only wanted a quote for canvas covering was engaging in disinformation. Worse, NEA tried to back up this claim, in its media statement of 9 June 2013:​

. . . the documents show that the hawkers of Block 538 of Bedok North Street 3 had expected the hawker centre to be cleaned as per normal during the spring cleaning exercise in March 2013. This was why they had made arrangements for the period including putting up canvas as indicated in the email our officer sent on 7 February 2013 to AHPETC.


​

What on earth is “as per normal”? What sloppy writing! And most certainly the email of 7 February (quoted above) said nothing about putting up canvas, nor did the quotation that ATL sent to the hawkers association. It isn’t hard for a reasonable person to conclude that the NEA either didn’t know what it was talking about or was trying to mislead.​

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/cleaning-market-538-as-clear-as-m&d/

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

then why ah Low now say "let's move on?"

Correct move in my opinion. Both sides would benefit from closure.

WP started off trying to reconcile amicably. LTK ends off doing the same. Hence, WP is the one that has been consistent in being reconciliatory in its approach, whilst NEA/VB/PAP has been shown to be consistently provocative. Since NEA/VB/PAP has been shown to be playing politics to the point of obfuscating issues and issuing misleading statements, they will be the ones walking away looking bad. WP/LTK walk away looking like gentlemen.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Most likely, PAP side thought they found a big lobang when they found out WP's contractor actually attempted to double charge or extract extra charges from the hawkers. They tried to capitalize on this and link this to WP AHTC trying to charge extra.

However, they failed quite miserably in public communication and how to put up a strong punch.

On the other hand, I still say it is totally wrong for WP to disclaim responsibility from its contractor's misconduct... clearly dishonest, unprofessional conduct. It should have taken its contractor to task.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[winnipegjets]

On the other hand, I still say it is totally wrong for WP to disclaim responsibility from its contractor's misconduct... clearly dishonest, unprofessional conduct. It should have taken its contractor to task.

Goh Meng Seng

When the WPTC use WP friendly contractor, you complain. In this case, it used a PAP-friendly contractor, you still complain. Nothing can please you leh.
The contractor dealt directly with the hawkers, nothing to do with WP TC. You think WP TC so free like you ah?

 

[zhihau]

It should have taken its contractor to task.
Goh Meng Seng

TKL got take you to task or not?

 

[chuachinsengjason]

Most likely, PAP side thought they found a big lobang when they found out WP's contractor actually attempted to double charge or extract extra charges from the hawkers. They tried to capitalize on this and link this to WP AHTC trying to charge extra.

However, they failed quite miserably in public communication and how to put up a strong punch.

On the other hand, I still say it is totally wrong for WP to disclaim responsibility from its contractor's misconduct... clearly dishonest, unprofessional conduct. It should have taken its contractor to task.

Goh Meng Seng

hi there

1. ATL is an independent commercial company http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130609-428651.html
2. 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.
3. please substantiate that WP owns ATL with relevant documents
4. a company doing specific contract work for an organization doesn't automatically means that it is owned by the organization
5. if going by your logic ATL would have many owners by now:*:

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Nope. That's lame excuse. ATL is free to quote other people BUT not the clients of AHTC by double charging them for service already paid! This is basic business ethic. For example, you buy aircon from some shop, this shop get its contractor to deliver and install the aircon for you. All cost should be included but when the contractor come to your house, start to say this must pay that must pay... what will you do? You call the shop that you bought the aircon and if the shop doesn't take its contractor to task, it would obviously mean that shop also got integrity problem lah! Such simple logic.

Goh Meng Seng

When the WPTC use WP friendly contractor, you complain. In this case, it used a PAP-friendly contractor, you still complain. Nothing can please you leh.
The contractor dealt directly with the hawkers, nothing to do with WP TC. You think WP TC so free like you ah?

 

[aurvandil]

The problem most people have with this line of arguement is that a quote is just a quote. The quote was not awarded, no work was done and no money was paid. It is a leap of logic to suggest that giving a quote automatically equals an intent to cheat. What is worse is that this quote was requested by Ng Kok Khim, a long standing PAP member. This legitimately raises questions about the intent for asking for the quote.

Nope. That's lame excuse. ATL is free to quote other people BUT not the clients of AHTC by double charging them for service already paid! This is basic business ethic. For example, you buy aircon from some shop, this shop get its contractor to deliver and install the aircon for you. All cost should be included but when the contractor come to your house, start to say this must pay that must pay... what will you do? You call the shop that you bought the aircon and if the shop doesn't take its contractor to task, it would obviously mean that shop also got integrity problem lah! Such simple logic.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Huatchye]

someone sent me this... very funny

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

In business, it is basic understanding for contractors or subcontractors.

Even if there is anything addition to the job or services provided, the contractors should not quote directly to the clients but must refer back to the main contractor. This is widely accepted practice.

Giving quotation is an attempt to get business from hawkers, the clients. In this case, an attempt to double charge the hawkers for services already paid for. That's dishonest and unprofessional act.

AHPeTC and WP cannot just say this has nothing to do with them when their contractor engaged in such dishonest act.

Goh Meng Seng

The problem most people have with this line of arguement is that a quote is just a quote. The quote was not awarded, no work was done and no money was paid. It is a leap of logic to suggest that giving a quote automatically equals an intent to cheat. What is worse is that this quote was requested by Ng Kok Khim, a long standing PAP member. This legitimately raises questions about the intent for asking for the quote.

 

[SgParent]

....... the contractors should not quote directly to the clients but must refer back to the main contractor.

................

AHPeTC and WP cannot just say this has nothing to do with them when their contractor engaged in such dishonest act.

At first you'd said it was not right for contractors to go behind the back of main contractor to quote directly to the clients, the next you said the main contractor cannot said not their problem.......... sounds contradicting to me.