Stallholders in row with Workers Party town council

[Seee3]

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..

Even when the stalls are closed, dirt and dust will drop on to the canvas and then onto the stall when the canvas is being removed. I have experienced stools covered by greasy dirt after spring cleaning. Cleaning can be done after midnight without having to close the stall. Important thing is to use proper cleaning method and machine that can suck and store the dust and dirt so as to minimize dust Flying and dropping onto the ground.

 

[tanwahp]

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.

I can very safely tell you that the only person in the world who holds your view on this saga is yourself. You can forget about describing some middle ground - if you can find one person who shares the same view as you, I'll bet anything in my possession before you find him. And I can safely say even the hawkers who do not support WP will not think of WP in the same way as you. Even pro oppositionists who tend to cut WP less slack than others, like yellowarse, methinks and Char Azn, will not associate with or venture anywhere near the arguments you go to.

Whatever ounce of bitterness you can exert on the WPverlast punching bag, remember, punching bags don't talk back and will ignore you but still stand straight and undefeated.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Sorry dude. Facts are facts, nothing else.

WP has screwed up big time.

Quotation provided including scaffolding to AHTC. Either they accept all or exclude the ceiling cleaning aka scaffolding. Either their contractor has breached their contract and should be taken to task or WP AHTC has screwed up by trying to save cost and push the cost to hawkers.

WP has failed to list AT LEAST ONCE that they have paid for the scaffolding in the past cleaning. They just play with words, throw smokescreen and play taichi... That's strictly integrity problem. Middle ground people are not like fanatics like you. They will see through all these once all facts are put up for exhibit.

Goh Meng Seng

I can very safely tell you that the only person in the world who holds your view on this saga is yourself. You can forget about describing some middle ground - if you can find one person who shares the same view as you, I'll bet anything in my possession before you find him. And I can safely say even the hawkers who do not support WP will not think of WP in the same way as you. Even pro oppositionists who tend to cut WP less slack than others, like yellowarse, methinks and Char Azn, will not associate with or venture anywhere near the arguments you go to.

Whatever ounce of bitterness you can exert on the WPverlast punching bag, remember, punching bags don't talk back and will ignore you but still stand straight and undefeated.

 

[tanwahp]

Sorry dude. Facts are facts, nothing else.

Yes facts are not defined by a majority, but if not one person in the world agrees with you, the whole world is not factually-sound or these are not facts.

Middle ground people are not like fanatics like you. They will see through all these once all facts are put up for exhibit.

I can safely say that I represent the middle ground better than you and can find more than 10 people on the street who shares my view.

True, middle ground are not fanatics that WP is right on everything, they are also not fanatics to think WP is wrong on everything. A fanatic will not say that all 3 parties including AHPE contributed to the miscommunication. But a fanatic will take WP as a punching bag due to past grudges.

 

[tanwahp]

To further prove my conclusions, let me refer to some of the conclusions you made:

- WP lost quite badly

- AHTC is dead meat

- AHTC that has screwed up badly

- AHTC pushed cost to hawkers

- Contractor is despicable

- WP & AHTC have bad judgement

- WP tried to bent backward to protect contractor

- WP MP Pritam fabricated a lie that NEA has sent an email

- WP alone should apologize

- WP's credibility and integrity is severely dented

Can any critic of WP raise their hands here and say that they agree with all the above? Bear in mind that whoever raises their hands need to justify how much descriptions come about.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I have said, it is pretty easy to clear all the mess in simple statement, no need to throw smokescreen, play with words etc.

Just list out for the last two years, AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR, the hawkers do not need to pay for scaffolding or anything extra, case close. Why didn't WP do just that? Talk so much for what?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

AHPETC: NEA is Politically Motivated to Tarnish the Image of AHPETC


I find the conclusion of the NEA on 6 June 2013 that “AHPETC tried to get hawkers to pay extra cleaning costs, and when that failed it deflected the blame” puzzling and unprofessional as a government agency.


Has AHPETC Tried to Get Hawkers to Pay Extra?


The whole episode started with a Sunday Times report dated 26 May 2013 alluding that Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) is collecting money from stallholders for the cleaning of the market & hawker centre.

Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.


The latest attempt to substantiate this baseless claim was to show a quotation by the cleaning contractor ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd, who has clarified that it was in response to a separate request by the hawker association and not pursuant to its contractual obligation with the Town Council to do annual cleaning of the high areas at markets / hawker centres.


All cleaning contractors employed by AHPETC are well aware of its obligation under the contract to clean the high areas of all the markets under AHPETC management at least once a year. Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts.


Why Town Council cleaning contactor did not clean the high areas of the market at Blk 538 Bedok North Street 3 in March 2013


NEA in its email dated 7 February 2013 categorically stated that “the Hawker Association will make the necessary arrangements with its contractors on the scaffold erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning from 4 – 8 March 2013”. It is ludicrous that a government agency would claim that its statement means anything else than what it says, and to change its position repeatedly.


AHPETC took the statement in good faith that NEA had arranged with the hawker association for the same. The scaffolding was not provided as indicated; hence the AHPETC cleaners were unable to carry out the work of the high areas.


AHPETC did not ask or impose any additional charges for cleaning.
The Scheduled Dates of Market Annual Cleaning


Based on the past experience of staff of our Managing Agent in managing the market in Hougang Constituency, annual cleaning of the market including ceiling and the high areas could be done without additional closure of the market and disruption of business to hawkers and customers. This can be done by taking advantage of the weekly one-day closures for markets and the hours when hawker stalls are closed.


AHPETC will set the date of annual cleaning and will inform stallholders nearer to the scheduled date and coordinate with the stallholders. AHPETC is prepared to consider any stallholders’ request on cleaning arrangements to ensure smooth operations and to minimize disruption to their business and inconvenience to customers.


Is NEA Playing Politics?


Being a responsible Town Council with the interest of residents and stallholders at heart, AHPETC is always prepared to work with the relevant government agencies for the benefit of the residents it serves. Even in cases where we may have disagreed with the approach of the agency, we are always prepared to compromise and to work together for common good, so long as the interest of residents is not jeopardised.


AHPETC positively responded to NEA’s advisory dated 31 May 2013 which was published by the press on 1 June 2013. AHPETC welcomed NEA’s clarification on the issue of hawker centre cleaning, and stated that “AHPETC is mindful of its responsibilities for the maintenance and cleanliness of common properties, including HDB-owned markets and hawker centres to safeguard public hygiene and safety. We will use our best endeavors to work with all stakeholders to bring any outstanding issues to an amicable resolution.”


NEA’s stance regrettable


Therefore, it is regrettable that our attempts to resolve the issue amicably have not been reciprocated, with the government taking the opportunity to point fingers at AHPETC, alleging that it was AHPETC which was “deflecting blame”. Who is really the party deflecting blame? I set out the facts above and I believe that the public can judge for itself.


SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL
7 June 2013

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Don't need to talk so much lah! Just state at which cleaning session in the past 2 years, hawkers didn't need to pay for scaffolding... case close.

Goh Meng Seng

AHPETC: NEA is Politically Motivated to Tarnish the Image of AHPETC


I find the conclusion of the NEA on 6 June 2013 that “AHPETC tried to get hawkers to pay extra cleaning costs, and when that failed it deflected the blame” puzzling and unprofessional as a government agency.


Has AHPETC Tried to Get Hawkers to Pay Extra?


The whole episode started with a Sunday Times report dated 26 May 2013 alluding that Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) is collecting money from stallholders for the cleaning of the market & hawker centre.

Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.


The latest attempt to substantiate this baseless claim was to show a quotation by the cleaning contractor ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd, who has clarified that it was in response to a separate request by the hawker association and not pursuant to its contractual obligation with the Town Council to do annual cleaning of the high areas at markets / hawker centres.


All cleaning contractors employed by AHPETC are well aware of its obligation under the contract to clean the high areas of all the markets under AHPETC management at least once a year. Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts.


Why Town Council cleaning contactor did not clean the high areas of the market at Blk 538 Bedok North Street 3 in March 2013


NEA in its email dated 7 February 2013 categorically stated that “the Hawker Association will make the necessary arrangements with its contractors on the scaffold erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning from 4 – 8 March 2013”. It is ludicrous that a government agency would claim that its statement means anything else than what it says, and to change its position repeatedly.


AHPETC took the statement in good faith that NEA had arranged with the hawker association for the same. The scaffolding was not provided as indicated; hence the AHPETC cleaners were unable to carry out the work of the high areas.


AHPETC did not ask or impose any additional charges for cleaning.
The Scheduled Dates of Market Annual Cleaning


Based on the past experience of staff of our Managing Agent in managing the market in Hougang Constituency, annual cleaning of the market including ceiling and the high areas could be done without additional closure of the market and disruption of business to hawkers and customers. This can be done by taking advantage of the weekly one-day closures for markets and the hours when hawker stalls are closed.


AHPETC will set the date of annual cleaning and will inform stallholders nearer to the scheduled date and coordinate with the stallholders. AHPETC is prepared to consider any stallholders’ request on cleaning arrangements to ensure smooth operations and to minimize disruption to their business and inconvenience to customers.


Is NEA Playing Politics?


Being a responsible Town Council with the interest of residents and stallholders at heart, AHPETC is always prepared to work with the relevant government agencies for the benefit of the residents it serves. Even in cases where we may have disagreed with the approach of the agency, we are always prepared to compromise and to work together for common good, so long as the interest of residents is not jeopardised.


AHPETC positively responded to NEA’s advisory dated 31 May 2013 which was published by the press on 1 June 2013. AHPETC welcomed NEA’s clarification on the issue of hawker centre cleaning, and stated that “AHPETC is mindful of its responsibilities for the maintenance and cleanliness of common properties, including HDB-owned markets and hawker centres to safeguard public hygiene and safety. We will use our best endeavors to work with all stakeholders to bring any outstanding issues to an amicable resolution.”


NEA’s stance regrettable


Therefore, it is regrettable that our attempts to resolve the issue amicably have not been reciprocated, with the government taking the opportunity to point fingers at AHPETC, alleging that it was AHPETC which was “deflecting blame”. Who is really the party deflecting blame? I set out the facts above and I believe that the public can judge for itself.


SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL
7 June 2013

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

GMS Read This Very Carefully:

Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.

 

[tanwahp]

GMS Read This Very Carefully:

Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.

You don't even need that. The hawkers themselves said they were not asked to pay for the scaffolding previously.

Sorry but GMS really doesn't know how embarrassing he looks.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It has already made public lah... letter even written to their WP MP! Throwing smokescreen like that will not do them good!


I would say, WP should stop playing victim now. If it has proof to say hawkers didn't need to pay for scaffolding last year, just state it. Case close. This is what NEA has attacked them. Don't need to snake in and out. Very straight forward.

Goh Meng Seng

GMS Read This Very Carefully:

Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.

 

[fanta]

Alamak, I thought case closed with NEA sorted out the issue with AHPETC..

 

[fanta]

[h=1]Sylvia Lim strikes back :o

NEA "politically motivated" to tarnish WP town council image: Sylvia Lim[/h]
By Tessa Wong

The chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) Sylvia Lim has accused the National Environment Council (NEA) of being "politically motivated to tarnish the image" of her council.

In the latest salvo fired in the long-running dispute between the Workers' Party-run council and the NEA over the cleaning of hawker centres in Bedok, Ms Lim said she found the agency's latest claims "puzzling and unprofessional as a government agency".

The NEA on Thursday accused the council of trying to get hawkers to pay extra for cleaning, and attempting to "deflect blame" when that failed.

She maintained that AHPETC staff never approached stallholders to pay extra charges for cleaning.

http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...-tarnish-wp-town-council-image-sylvia-lim-201

 

[Heshe]

It has already made public lah... letter even written to their WP MP! Throwing smokescreen like that will not do them good!


I would say, WP should stop playing victim now. If it has proof to say hawkers didn't need to pay for scaffolding last year, just state it. Case close. This is what NEA has attacked them. Don't need to snake in and out. Very straight forward.

Goh Meng Seng

Goh Meng Seng - I have been a bystander for long and never wanted to take sides unreasonably, and do NOT wish to talk cock, actually - BUT NOW I have to state that you were and always is damn unreasonable and UNGENTLEMAN. If you do have balls which a gentleman invariably has, take a picture of it, upload it, and publish it as hard evidence to prove everyone that they accused you wrongly and/or have been malicious towards you. Of course I do expect you to parrot what I say here as your reply (perhaps the intelligent you can throw up something else which all predictably knows and, expectantly all wont be surprise) - if you do, then no need you to publish picture of your balls. WE KNEW the conclusion ALL ALONG.

 

[fanta]

AHPETC hawker centres spring-cleaning dispute resolved - 6 Jun 2013

[video=youtube;Yz9LRVICKcU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz9LRVICKcU[/video]

 

[fanta]

Here are the various parties in this episode:

 

[fanta]

The latest on ST has NEA on the attack now :(

http://www.straitstimes.com/breakin...town-council-tried-deflect-blame-nea-20130607

Town council tried to deflect blame: NEA
Published on Jun 07, 2013

By Tessa Wong

THE Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) tried to get hawkers at Block 538, Bedok North Street 3 to pay extra cleaning costs, and when that failed it deflected blame, said the National Environment Agency (NEA) last night.

In a statement issued hours after it reached a resolution with the town council about the cleaning of two other hawker centres, NEA sought to address one last issue - who exactly was to blame for the failure to clean the ceiling of Block 538 in March.

When NEA e-mailed AHPETC on Feb 7 saying the hawkers would make "necessary arrangements" for scaffolding for the cleaning exercise, it said it was referring to scaffolding used to put up canvas sheets over stalls, and not for the cleaning of high areas.

Hawkers are not responsible for the ceiling scaffolding and "this is a longstanding practice that AHPETC and its contractors should have understood perfectly", said the NEA.

The council's contractor ATL Maintenance had also prepared a quotation dated Feb 19 for the cleaning of the entire premises, including scaffolding. "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," NEA added.

When the quotation was rejected by the hawkers, the town council's property manager Tai Vie Shun told ATL that the council would pay for all costs, it said.

But when the hawkers discovered afterwards that their ceiling was not cleaned, Mr Tai then claimed that the hawkers were responsible for the cost of putting up the scaffolding, said NEA.

It added: "The sequence of events and documentation show that AHPETC was trying to get the hawkers to pay additional fees for cleaning. 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 e-mail had confused the town council and everyone else."

The director of NEA's hawker centre division, Mr Richard Tan, also said yesterday that the rumour that the employee who sent the Feb 7 e-mail to AHPETC had been suspended and disciplined was "not true" and the agency was "behind her all the way".

 

[aurvandil]

When you do political favors, you will be quietly rewarded if things go well.

When things spiral out of control like this, you will be dropped just as quietly.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

It has already made public lah... letter even written to their WP MP! Throwing smokescreen like that will not do them good!


I would say, WP should stop playing victim now. If it has proof to say hawkers didn't need to pay for scaffolding last year, just state it. Case close. This is what NEA has attacked them. Don't need to snake in and out. Very straight forward.

Goh Meng Seng

You are asking wp to prove something that you claim exists does not exist.

The onus should be on you to prove your claim. Ask the stall holders to prove they were charged extra for routine work

 

[winnipegjets]

It took NEA so many days before replying because they had to seek legal counsel ...they want to attack but need to make sure that they can defend themselves in court.
Let the legal fight proceed.