Stallholders in row with Workers Party town council

[Goh Meng Seng]

I am sorry, to me, you are traitor to TRUTH and Justice. Nothing less.

WP has made terrible error. It is lucky that I am not the reporter else I will ask them straight to the point, how many times have AHTC and its contractor paid for scaffolding in their past cleaning after GE2011?

NEA has already responded to WP's statement. It only mentions about arrangement, not payment for the scaffolding. If it is basic understanding that AHTC is to pay for everything, then why does it expect the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding?

Goh Meng Seng

Where the NEA's response to WP TC public statement?



Traitors like you would love to see WP enmesh in controversy. Some battles are not worth fighting. WP is focus on the war, not battles.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

Mr Got More Shit,,how can you not be the traitor to the Singapore people when you are doing nothing but promoting PAP tyranny? Can you please explain how u fucked up on the 2011 election? How come u not elected?

I think in all in all,,its good that you did not win the election, if not the people have to put up with more of your shit,,,NEA has dont nothing but tried to disrupt the lives of those living in opposition wards...it is nothing but a department running for the PAPPIES.

I am sorry, to me, you are traitor to TRUTH and Justice. Nothing less.

WP has made terrible error. It is lucky that I am not the reporter else I will ask them straight to the point, how many times have AHTC and its contractor paid for scaffolding in their past cleaning after GE2011?

NEA has already responded to WP's statement. It only mentions about arrangement, not payment for the scaffolding. If it is basic understanding that AHTC is to pay for everything, then why does it expect the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[tanwahp]

Let us see what strong words like "traitor", "truth" and "terrible" really mean.

It is lucky that I am not the reporter else I will ask them straight to the point

That's a good question. When the pro PAP press will be more eager than you to chew WP to bits, why not? That because the furthest they can go is to trumpet mistakes daily and exaggerate a small oversight, but it's hard to enough people in one organization who will develop a skin thick enough to expound non-existent things - and stick by it.

how many times have AHTC and its contractor paid for scaffolding in their past cleaning after GE2011?

The reason for the hawkers anger was because they thought they had to pay for the scaffolding which they did not have to in the past. If they had been paying for the scaffolding in the past, why would they be angry over this. Obviously this sentence is senseless.

NEA has already responded to WP's statement. It only mentions about arrangement, not payment for the scaffolding.

Why did NEA not clearly deny that AHTC's claim that NEA told them to pay for the scaffolding is false. The same clearness that you expected Pritam to show.

 

[mei mei]

Good thing this is resolved now, every body happy, on the surface at least.

 

[winnipegjets]

WP has made terrible error. It is lucky that I am not the reporter else I will ask them straight to the point, how many times have AHTC and its contractor paid for scaffolding in their past cleaning after GE2011?

Goh Meng Seng

I am sure that the PAP-Press will be glad to hire you as their political reporter so that you can continue to hound the WP publicly.

NEA has already responded to WP's statement. It only mentions about arrangement, not payment for the scaffolding. If it is basic understanding that AHTC is to pay for everything, then why does it expect the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding?

If NEA is not going to pay, why is it getting involved in a matter that is between the hawkers and TC? Is NEA confused of its role? At that time, the hawkers group had not made any complaints yet. Is this a case where the NEA was stirring up trouble?

 

[mei mei]

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130606-428059.html

But the National Environment Agency rejected the proposal on hygiene grounds and called for cleaning for Block 511 to take place in June as originally scheduled.

NEA is there to make sure the town councils do their job in the right manner, such as safety and hygiene, per the quote above.

 

[SgParent]

hahaha...i am quite sure u are talking thru your arse if u think that the hawkers requested additional cleaning...

Disagree. Read post.186 1st then come back, repeat your above comment with a straight face

i say this from personal experience as I am a merchant mixing with hawkers everyday in real life.....

Not sure why you mentioned that but obviously your "personal experience" dun stop you from "talking thru your arse"

 

[SgParent]

WP has made terrible error. It is lucky that I am not the reporter else I will ask them straight to the point, how many times have AHTC and its contractor paid for scaffolding in their past cleaning after GE2011?

Go read post.186

Unless NEA specifically said TC must use scaffolding, your above comment is embarrassingly lame.

 

[SgParent]

I am sure that the PAP-Press will be glad to hire you as their political reporter so that you can continue to hound the WP publicly

The Braddell Road Brothel? No lah. It's a waste of his talents.

Any chance the White Scums would invite Rabid GohMS to teaparty?

 

[aurvandil]

This is how I see things have ended.

1) The msm have tried their best to portray WP as the loser and party at fault.

2) Knowing that the msm will twist whatever they say, WP have given strict instructions for no comments to be made. As always, this silence has been played up by the msm to imply guilt.

3) The actual outcome appears to be a win-win for all. AHPE TC have proposed a superior method of cleaning. This method does away with the expensive scaffolding. It meets the health and hygiene requirements of NEA. At the same time, the hawker centres do not have to be closed, meaning that there will be no loss of income for the hawkers.

4) Given the method appears to be superior and cheaper, it naturally begs the question of why the previous PAP run TC did not deploy it. Because the PAP TC used an inferior method, the S&C charges had to be higher and the hawkers had to suffer loss of income.

5)If this new method can be deployed to other NEA run hawker centres, then AHPE TC deserves credit for the the benefits that this method brings. It shows that instead of doing a bad job, WP is actually more efficient and effective. As a result of this, their S&C charges are lower than the PAP TCs who use expensive, inferior methods to get things done.

 

[zhihau]

let's await the PAP-run TC to employ the methods used by WP-run TC.

 

[SgParent]

This is how I see things have ended.

1) The msm have tried their best to portray WP as the loser and party at fault.

2) Knowing that the msm will twist whatever they say, WP have given strict instructions for no comments to be made. As always, this silence has been played up by the msm to imply guilt......

Dun forget the spineless, shameless fake 40% who would not hesitate to act cute act innocent just to win a point, have also been busy making baseless smear and malicious stir

3) The actual outcome appears to be a win-win for all. AHPE TC have proposed a superior method of cleaning. This method does away with the expensive scaffolding. It meets the health and hygiene requirements of NEA. At the same time, the hawker centres do not have to be closed, meaning that there will be no loss of income for the hawkers.

4) Given the method appears to be superior and cheaper, it naturally begs the question of why the previous PAP run TC did not deploy it. Because the PAP TC used an inferior method, the S&C charges had to be higher and the hawkers had to suffer loss of income.

5)If this new method can be deployed to other NEA run hawker centres, then AHPE TC deserves credit for the the benefits that this method brings. It shows that instead of doing a bad job, WP is actually more efficient and effective. As a result of this, their S&C charges are lower than the PAP TCs who use expensive, inferior methods to get things done.

I must have missed the detail on this new method? I've only read about it not needing scaffolding and probably very simple, effective such that hawkers dun need to close shop for a few days..... Can you point me to it?

 

[aurvandil]

I must have missed the detail on this new method? I've only read about it not needing scaffolding and probably very simple, effective such that hawkers dun need to close shop for a few days..... Can you point me to it?

The method is the one being deployed by AHPE TC to clean the hawker centre at Kovan.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...re-complains-about-extra-charges-nea-20130603

The msm chose not to report it and instead made this cryptic statement in their report.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hawker-centres-spring-cleaning-dispute-r/700140.html

Chan Kheng Heng, Secretary for the Block 511 Hawkers Association told reporters that the town council has proposed a new cleaning method that will not require the closure of the food centre.

 

[tanwahp]

This is how I see things have ended.

1) The msm have tried their best to portray WP as the loser and party at fault.

2) Knowing that the msm will twist whatever they say, WP have given strict instructions for no comments to be made. As always, this silence has been played up by the msm to imply guilt.

3) The actual outcome appears to be a win-win for all. AHPE TC have proposed a superior method of cleaning. This method does away with the expensive scaffolding. It meets the health and hygiene requirements of NEA. At the same time, the hawker centres do not have to be closed, meaning that there will be no loss of income for the hawkers.

4) Given the method appears to be superior and cheaper, it naturally begs the question of why the previous PAP run TC did not deploy it. Because the PAP TC used an inferior method, the S&C charges had to be higher and the hawkers had to suffer loss of income.

5)If this new method can be deployed to other NEA run hawker centres, then AHPE TC deserves credit for the the benefits that this method brings. It shows that instead of doing a bad job, WP is actually more efficient and effective. As a result of this, their S&C charges are lower than the PAP TCs who use expensive, inferior methods to get things done.

Now that everything is close to end and we get a clearer picture, I believe it began from a big miscommunication causing a big misunderstanding which all 3 parties (NEA, AHPETC and Hawkers Association) contributed to. All 3 parties should admit this, although I can understand why they do not. If only 1 of them admit and the other 2 do not, it will be seen as the culprit.

NEA is of course the biggest culprit as the very first email started this whole thing was from them.

For some reason, NEA decided one fine sunny day to email AHPETC to clean the hawkers centre ceilings that is outside their annual schedule. The email meant that hawkers will provide scaffolding to cover the stalls but was penned in a way that "cover the stalls" was not mentioned.

AHPETC understood that all scaffoldings will be set up, since the hawkers wanted extra cleaning, this was the goodwill they will provide. AHPETC should have replied in a way of repeating what NEA said but probably did not do so. In work, it's important to seek more clarifications even if you are clear.

On that day the scaffolding did not turn up. The property manager told the hawkers that the scaffoldings were not arranged because he was informed that the hawkers will do it. The hawker leaders misunderstood that TC wanted and insisted they pay for scaffoldings, so they went to NEA to complain. NEA said that TC should pay for it and further distorted that TC was not fulfilling its schedule, forgetting that the cleaning was a specially arranged one.

At the end of the day I think NEA has abused its power to some extent. If I were an Aljunied resident, I will be unhappy that NEA elbowed my TC to extra wash my hawker centre at a cost from my maintenance fee.

 

[fanta]

The method is the one being deployed by AHPE TC to clean the hawker centre at Kovan.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...re-complains-about-extra-charges-nea-20130603

The msm chose not to report it and instead made this cryptic statement in their report.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hawker-centres-spring-cleaning-dispute-r/700140.html

The method was rejected by NEA on hygiene grounds.. see this report:

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130606-428059.html

Can see where NEA is coming from, the method involves cleaning of high areas without closing the stalls, the dirt, dust, germs will surely fall below, right to the food stalls..

 

[po2wq]

let's await the PAP-run TC to employ the methods used by WP-run TC.

dey wil modify it a li'l bit here n there ... n den dey wil boast iz their brainchild n world crass invention ... n dat 154th wil boast about it islanwide ...

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

WP has lost quite badly in this NEA-HAWKERS-WP AHTC saga.

The first thing I have raised when the saga begins is whether AHTC has put up terms to require its contractor ATL to put up with the necessary equipment for the cleaning, including scaffolding. Either way, AHTC is dead meat. If the contract didn't include these terms, then it is AHTC that has screwed up badly of not putting up proper contractual terms. If these terms are included in the contract, it would be apparent that the contractor was just trying to save cost by trying to push cost to hawkers. It is despicable for the contractor to do that and eventually, breach its contractual terms by leaving the hawker centre's ceiling unclean. Why didn't AHTC take action against its cnotractor? Why did AHTC keep saying it doesn't ask hawkers to pay extra when hawkers complained that its own property manager Tai has done so? WP & AHTC have bad judgement and bent backward to protect its contractor ATL... the BIG QUESTION is WHY?

WP MP Pritam used the excuse that NEA has sent an email to say hawkers will make arrangement for the erection and dismantle of scaffolding. But if the basic understanding and in fact, the contractual terms to its contractor has stated very clear that it is ATL's responsibility, then there should not be any confusion on who will pay for it. Why would ATL quote the hawkers on the scaffolding when apparently, it knew it was its responsibility to provide it?

That is why even at the early stage, I would say the best step to take is for WP to apologize and promise to investigate the matter. Instead, it tried to bend backwards to protect its contractor ATL and in the process, has its credibility and integrity severely dented.


In a statement issued later Thursday, the NEA maintained that the sequence of events and documentation show that AHPETC was trying to get the hawkers to pay additional fees for cleaning.

An NEA spokesperson said: "When the hawkers refused to pay, an incomplete job was done, leaving the hawkers suffering business losses due to unnecessary closure. It then tried to deflect blame by claiming that the NEA email had confused the Town Council and everyone else."

In an earlier response, AHPETC Vice-Chairman Pritam Singh had referred to an email from the NEA dated February 7 this year which the agency had said that "the Hawkers' Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on scaffolding erection/dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4-8 March 2013".

Mr Pritam had said that the town council took NEA's email in good faith and left the arrangement of the scaffolding in the hands of the NEA and the hawkers' association.

The NEA on Thursday reiterated that its email referred to the individual stall scaffolding and not the main scaffold for cleaning of high areas.

The individual stall scaffolding is paid for by the hawkers while the main scaffold for cleaning of high areas should be paid for by the town council.

The NEA spokesperson said: "This is a long standing practice that AHPETC and its contractors should have understood perfectly. It is now clear that AHPETC's contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd, prepared a quotation dated 19 February, 2013 for the cleaning of the entire premises, including scaffolding, machinery and chemicals.

"This implies that AHPETC was aware of the full scope of work that its contractor was supposed to do, but tried to deflect costs of $7,200 to the hawkers instead of paying for the work itself."

- CNA/fa

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hawker-centres-spring-cleaning-dispute-r/700140.html


Goh Meng Seng

 

[presssomemore]

The method was rejected by NEA on hygiene grounds.. see this report:

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130606-428059.html

Can see where NEA is coming from, the method involves cleaning of high areas without closing the stalls, the dirt, dust, germs will surely fall below, right to the food stalls..

Bro, boss Sam is going to f you "you twit".
The nea rejection is actually to reject the proposed spring cleaning at end of year., not the new method of cleaning.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

WP has lost quite badly in this NEA-HAWKERS-WP AHTC saga.

The first thing I have raised when the saga begins is whether AHTC has put up terms to require its contractor ATL to put up with the necessary equipment for the cleaning, including scaffolding. Either way, AHTC is dead meat. If the contract didn't include these terms, then it is AHTC that has screwed up badly of not putting up proper contractual terms. If these terms are included in the contract, it would be apparent that the contractor was just trying to save cost by trying to push cost to hawkers. It is despicable for the contractor to do that and eventually, breach its contractual terms by leaving the hawker centre's ceiling unclean. Why didn't AHTC take action against its cnotractor? Why did AHTC keep saying it doesn't ask hawkers to pay extra when hawkers complained that its own property manager Tai has done so? WP & AHTC have bad judgement and bent backward to protect its contractor ATL... the BIG QUESTION is WHY?

WP MP Pritam used the excuse that NEA has sent an email to say hawkers will make arrangement for the erection and dismantle of scaffolding. But if the basic understanding and in fact, the contractual terms to its contractor has stated very clear that it is ATL's responsibility, then there should not be any confusion on who will pay for it. Why would ATL quote the hawkers on the scaffolding when apparently, it knew it was its responsibility to provide it?

That is why even at the early stage, I would say the best step to take is for WP to apologize and promise to investigate the matter. Instead, it tried to bend backwards to protect its contractor ATL and in the process, has its credibility and integrity severely dented.


In a statement issued later Thursday, the NEA maintained that the sequence of events and documentation show that AHPETC was trying to get the hawkers to pay additional fees for cleaning.

An NEA spokesperson said: "When the hawkers refused to pay, an incomplete job was done, leaving the hawkers suffering business losses due to unnecessary closure. It then tried to deflect blame by claiming that the NEA email had confused the Town Council and everyone else."

In an earlier response, AHPETC Vice-Chairman Pritam Singh had referred to an email from the NEA dated February 7 this year which the agency had said that "the Hawkers' Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on scaffolding erection/dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4-8 March 2013".

Mr Pritam had said that the town council took NEA's email in good faith and left the arrangement of the scaffolding in the hands of the NEA and the hawkers' association.

The NEA on Thursday reiterated that its email referred to the individual stall scaffolding and not the main scaffold for cleaning of high areas.

The individual stall scaffolding is paid for by the hawkers while the main scaffold for cleaning of high areas should be paid for by the town council.

The NEA spokesperson said: "This is a long standing practice that AHPETC and its contractors should have understood perfectly. It is now clear that AHPETC's contractor, ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd, prepared a quotation dated 19 February, 2013 for the cleaning of the entire premises, including scaffolding, machinery and chemicals.

"This implies that AHPETC was aware of the full scope of work that its contractor was supposed to do, but tried to deflect costs of $7,200 to the hawkers instead of paying for the work itself."

- CNA/fa

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hawker-centres-spring-cleaning-dispute-r/700140.html


Goh Meng Seng

 

[kukubird58]

Disagree. Read post.186 1st then come back, repeat your above comment with a straight face

hahaha... i read post 186 and confirmed that u are another stubborn empty vessel...no where does it confirmed that hawkers asked for additional cleaning beyond what are required by NEA.
i repeat my comment with a straight face that u are talking thru your arse with a straight face..

Not sure why you mentioned that but obviously your "personal experience" dun stop you from "talking thru your arse"

hahaha...my personal experience has some value because it is not like u sitting behind the keyboard and living in your own ivory tower like a frog in the well.....with no sense of business costs.

Any party can made mistakes and WP is not infallible.
In this instance, although there are contributing factors and misunderstanding, WP clearly made a booboo because they should know the basic responsibilities of TC....
Now they finally acknowledged after all the m&d slinging.....