Stallholders in row with Workers Party town council

[tanwahp]

He is the one trying to defend his own AHTC as Vice Chairman... if he doesn't provide proof then who else?

Did I say Pritam doesn't need to provide proof? I am saying how you tend not to prove things but expect others to.

both AHTC and ATL contractor knew ATL was contractually obliged to provide the scaffolding

Huh? What new theory is this now?

Even provide quotation to them! This is basic integrity problem... can makan you sure makan you kind of attitude.

This is new ground we haven't talked about. There are 2 sets of scaffoldings. One is for covering of stalls and one is for cleaning. NEA has confirmed that by saying "on Thursday reiterated that its email referred to the individual stall scaffolding and not the main scaffold for cleaning of high areas". You have neither made any attempts to separate the 2 sets of scaffoldings nor aware if the quotation was for the scaffolding for stalls or scaffolding for cleaning.

 

[tanwahp]

I don't speculate. All are done with logical reasoning and deductions.

As I have said, you can't get away from being greedy conclusion when you just put the statement together with the facts known. Just too bad, all point to bad contradictions of WP AHTC. Their inconsistency and contradictions are just too glaring. That is why they eventually end up using political rhetoric and smokescreen.

Goh Meng Seng

I still maintain that you are the only one in the world who holds those views and no one, not even within the PAP, comes close.

Conclusion: hawkers having to pay for scaffolding for cleaning in the past is unproven to exist.

Welcome to the gym.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

There is no new theory. AHTC has admitted that the contractor is supposed to clean everything and provide all necessary equipment as Sylvia Lim has said. This is from the horse mouth.

When we established this fact, it is not difficult to see who has integrity problem. When hawkers rejected the quotation from ATL and refer this to AHTC, they already knew hawkers aren't going to put up the scaffolding. Now, if there is contractual obligation for ATL to do everything, why did it just refuse to do it? Leaving the ceiling uncleaned? Is it breaching its contractual obligation? If so, why didn't AHTC take action against it?

Simple contradictions and inconsistencies spilling all over the place.

Goh Meng Seng

Did I say Pritam doesn't need to provide proof? I am saying how you tend not to prove things but expect others to.



Huh? What new theory is this now?



This is new ground we haven't talked about. There are 2 sets of scaffoldings. One is for covering of stalls and one is for cleaning. NEA has confirmed that by saying "on Thursday reiterated that its email referred to the individual stall scaffolding and not the main scaffold for cleaning of high areas". You have neither made any attempts to separate the 2 sets of scaffoldings nor aware if the quotation was for the scaffolding for stalls or scaffolding for cleaning.

 

[scroobal]

Your interpretation and speculation does not automatically convert to facts. So lets get the basics right.

1. The obligatory annual cleaning of the hawker centre under NEA directive had been done with no costs to hawkers with everything including scaffolding provided and ceilings and ducts cleaned.

2. In addition to the obligatory/mandatory cleaning the hawker association wanted the ceilings and ducts cleaned and due to a breakdown in communication both sides assumed that the other side will pay. NEA further added to the confusion by sending an email that a normal person can only interpret in one way.

3. The quotation from contractor was rejected by the hawkers and AHPETC did their part in accordance with
NEA email and assumed that hawkers will provide their own scaffoldings.

4. NEA failed miserably when they have been part of the negotiation from day 1.

Your article in your blog is clear as m&d. How to represent the people of Singapore if you can't even articulate yourself in a succinct and cogent manner. Its really embarrassing. Your article does not even cross the threshold of marshalling the facts necessary to put across your arguments.

There is no new theory. AHTC has admitted that the contractor is supposed to clean everything and provide all necessary equipment as Sylvia Lim has said. This is from the horse mouth.

Simple contradictions and inconsistencies spilling all over the place.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Scroobal, that is AT BEST, intellectually dishonest.

Hawkers reject the quotation from the contractor stating very clearly the context that they will not pay for the scaffolding. The reason why they "refer" this to the AHTC is that they made it clear it is for the Town Council to pay for this scaffolding. Thus, apparently, someone is lying here.

As I have said, if it is there is a BASIC UNDERSTANDING that AHTC and its contractor is to PROVIDE EVERYTHING, why would AHTC assumed that hawkers will pay for the scaffolding? That's no logic in this at all. In view of all these, AHTC's integrity is really questionable.

Goh Meng Seng

Your interpretation and speculation does not automatically convert to facts. So lets get the basics right.

1. The obligatory annual cleaning of the hawker centre under NEA directive had been done with no costs to hawkers with everything including scaffolding provided and ceilings and ducts cleaned.

2. In addition to the obligatory/mandatory cleaning the hawker association wanted the ceilings and ducts cleaned and due to a breakdown in communication both sides assumed that the other side will pay. NEA further added to the confusion by sending an email that a normal person can only interpret in one way.

3. The quotation from contractor was rejected by the hawkers and AHPETC did their part in accordance with
NEA email and assumed that hawkers will provide their own scaffoldings.

4. NEA failed miserably when they have been part of the negotiation from day 1.

Your article in your blog is clear as m&d. How to represent the people of Singapore if you can't even articulate yourself in a succinct and cogent manner. Its really embarrassing. Your article does not even cross the threshold of marshalling the facts necessary to put across your arguments.

 

[scroobal]

The hawkers want additional service over and above what NEA has stipulated and they want it for free. The Town Council cannot simply misappropriate residents conservancy charges to look good politically or cave into to political extortion.

I have checked - the majority of PAP operated TCs don't offer these additional services to hawkers for free. The hawkers already enjoy subsidised fees.

Once again, it would be irresponsible for TC to cave in to a small group of arseholes.

Scroobal, that is AT BEST, intellectually dishonest.

Hawkers reject the quotation from the contractor stating very clearly the context that they will not pay for the scaffolding. The reason why they "refer" this to the AHTC is that they made it clear it is for the Town Council to pay for this scaffolding. Thus, apparently, someone is lying here.

As I have said, if it is there is a BASIC UNDERSTANDING that AHTC and its contractor is to PROVIDE EVERYTHING, why would AHTC assumed that hawkers will pay for the scaffolding? That's no logic in this at all. In view of all these, AHTC's integrity is really questionable.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

This is NOT AHTC and WP MPs are saying. That is why in my blog article, I have asked, do WP and AHTC take the regulation of "CLEAN AT LEAST ONCE" as " CLEAN ONLY ONCE" and wanted hawkers to pay for scaffolding of ALL except one cleaning session?

AHTC has not said this is so. But even for that, NEA has pointed out that for last year's cleaning, AHTC & its contractor didn't foot the bill for the scaffolding! For this, AHTC & WP MPs have kept silent.

Thus, even if it is following strictly to ONLY ONCE (instead of AT LEAST ONCE), AHTC has failed to make sure its contractor does as its contractual obligation. And I have already put up the possibility that this might be the case and why the hawkers rebelled because they were made to pay for ALL cleaning for the whole work year.

No matter how you look at it, WP cannot be excused of its faults.


Goh Meng Seng

The hawkers want additional service over and above what NEA has stipulated and they want it for free. The Town Council cannot simply misappropriate residents conservancy charges to look good politically or cave into to politically extortion.

I have checked - the majority of PAP operated TCs don't offer these additional services to hawkers for free. The hawkers already enjoy subsidised fees.

Once again, it would be irresponsible for TC to cave in to a small group of arseholes.

 

[scroobal]

All NEA has to publicly state in a single sentence is whether AHPETC has met the obligatory annual cleaning in accordance with their directive and who bore the costs and when is the next annual cleaning before they breach the directive.

We all know that despite given numerous opportunities NEA despite being in the role of a facilitator / arbitrator either avoided it, omitted material facts or played with semantics.

The NEA email carries only one meaning.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Actually NEA did give a clue here.

It stated that cleaning started in last June and thus, AHTC cannot wait until NOV to pay for and clean everything; i.e. it means that if AHTC is to follow that schedule , it would mean that AHTC would have breached the obligatory annual cleaning of Ceiling without hawkers paying for the scaffolding.

Technically speaking, AHTC may not have breached that obligation JUST YET but if it is to drag to Oct or Nov, it might have breached the obligation. This is why NEA insisted for AHTC to clean it by end of June. Pritam tried to play semantic and twisted logic by saying it was cleaned last year, but that is no count as far as the obligation is concerned because the scaffolding was paid by hawkers, not AHTC nor its contractor.

Apparently, as I have said, someone just too greedy and wanted to shift all cost to hawkers. This is rightly pointed out by NEA.

This is my interpretation and it should be closest to the truth.

The NEA email didn't commit the payment part; it was assumed by AHTC in spite of its understanding that its contractor is supposed to pay for the scaffolding. I don't fault them for that.


Goh Meng Seng

All NEA has to publicly state in a single sentence is whether AHPETC has met the obligatory annual cleaning in accordance with their directive and who bore the costs and when is the next annual cleaning before they breach the directive.

We all know that despite given numerous opportunities NEA despite being in the role of a facilitator / arbitrator either avoided it, omitted material facts or played with semantics.

The NEA email carries only one meaning.

 

[Debonerman]

.

This is my interpretation and it should be closest to the truth.


Goh Meng Seng

Kan Ni Na Bu Puah Cheebye!

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

While we may suspect NEA is playing politics here but I do not think they dare to do things or make statements without good reasons to back them up.

The fact that WP AHPeTC finally agreed to clean the ceiling by end of June shows that WP has lost the reasoning, be it moral high ground or on the legal front of basic obligation.

Sylvia Lim's latest statement is just a face saving political rhetoric that divert attention from her incompetent Town Council management. From all the analysis of facts provided so far, NEA has rightly stated that AHTC's contractor has tried to deflect costs of scaffolding to the hawkers. They were basically caught red handed in this case.

Instead of throwing bombastic political rhetoric against NEA, I guess it is only good that Sylvia Lim works harder to get her own backyard in order. Apparently, all are not right in her backyard. You just can't believe and trust everybody with vested interests completely 100% in your rank and file. There will be people who are dishonest and untrustworthy who may just sabotage the whole party.

The biggest enemy of WP is definitely not from outside but within.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[cleareyes]

The fact that WP AHPeTC finally agreed to clean the ceiling by end of June shows that WP has lost the reasoning, be it moral high ground or on the legal front of basic obligation.

WahLau . Meng Seng, Even I cannot tahan you.

Just because AHPETC will go ahead with the cleaning and that meant they lost their moral high ground? what are you talking about???

This is not ego play here. We are talking about a hawker centre in the middle of Aljuinied that serve thousands of residents eventday. so to keep the high ground AHPETC should not clean at all? then what about the stal holders? how are they suppose to be able to cook their food in a reasonable clean enviroment? what about the residents? where would tehy go if they wnat to get a decent meal nearby?

So what if NEA is playing politics? who is more important to look after, the resident's interest, the stall holder's interest, NEA or WP-AHPETC themselves?

I been trying to keep quiet on this matter but watching you fall deeper and deeper into your moral high ground bullshit but you really pushed the the linmits.

Take this from a friend: stop talking about the matter or else you wont have a GE2016 to think about anymore.

 

[Seee3]

....Now, if there is contractual obligation for ATL to do everything, why did it just refuse to do it? Leaving the ceiling uncleaned? Is it breaching its contractual obligation? If so, why didn't AHTC take action against it?

Simple contradictions and inconsistencies spilling all over the place.

Goh Meng Seng

You have alleged that there was breached of contractual obligation by contractor but no action was taken. Isn't this corruption and why was cpib not taking action? No there was no breach of contractual obligation nor corruption. The only problem is you may have wrong idea of how a maintenance contract is structured. I hope it is real ignorance and not acting blur for your other motive. I am sure you have heard of Term Contract and Schedule of rates.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

1) Hawkers claim they were asked to pay for the scaffolding during the March cleaning.

2) When they refused to pay, the contractor just did general cleaning without cleaning the ceiling. Instead of cleaning for the scheduled 5 days, they only cleaned for 1 day.

3) NEA stepped in and reminded that it is the responsibility of TC to clean the ceiling AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR without additional cost to hawkers.

4) AHPeTC claimed that they did not ask for extra cost and it was NEA which sent them an email to state that hawkers would arrange for the erection and dismantle of scaffolding

5) Hawkers disputed and said that Mr Tai, the property manager from AHPeTC has approached them to pay extra for the scaffolding.

6) NEA put up a statement to say that the hawkers have actually sent a letter to their WP MP to complain about the extra charges on 8 May.

7) WP Pritam put up statements to reiterate that they have followed the regulation and had cleaned the ceiling back in 2012. However, he made an error because what NEA said was that the AHPeTC did not pay for the scaffolding in its cleaning in 2012, not that they did not clean the ceiling.

8) It was further revealed that the contractor ATL has put up a quotation for scaffolding to the hawkers which they rejected and referred it to AHPeTC.

9) AHPeTC rebutted that it was the hawkers who ask for the quotation for the scaffoldng from ATL.

10) NEA further claimed that the quotation to WP AHPeTC by ATL include all equipment and scaffolding for the cleaning.

11) WP AHPeTC has insisted that it will only meet up with NEA officials instead with hawkers and that is why NEA didn't want to attend the first meeting.

You are just repeating what NEA has claimed over and over again. Nothing new. You totally left out what WP has said. WP has rebutted all your 11 points with their latest press release on Friday. Yet you keep repeating and repeating the same points.

Why don't you ask NEA to explain their weird and ambiguous email about who should be the one in charge of setting up the scaffolding. Why don't you ask NEA to list down precisely which people were made to pay for scaffolding or other cleaning facilities. NEA has been asked so many times to come clean but they have repeatedly, like you, obfuscated the issue further by going into irrelevant details and twisting their words around.

Just answer these two questions straight upfront.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Ms Lim maintained the town council’s account of events and reiterated that neither its staff nor its contractors had approached any stallholders for extra charges.


“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,” she said. Ms Lim also said it had investigated the claim that hawkers were told to pay more for cleaning, and found it to be “baseless”.


http://www.todayonline.com/singapor...d-tarnish-town-councils-image-says-sylvia-lim

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Did hawkers confirm that they paid for the scaffolding in the past? I asked you a few times and you did not answer until now when I asked you to cite references. You should choose the hawkers quotes which you claimed they "confirmed" but you started with NEA's response which I wonder why. (When you were caught by the fact that NEA did not say that, you called and labelled other people names.)

You're not going to get any straight answer from NEA or GMS on this. Once YES/NO binary replies are given, the whole scaffolding collapses (pun intended).

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Kan Ni Na Bu Cheebye.

Well said.

 

[kukubird58]

The hawkers want additional service over and above what NEA has stipulated and they want it for free. The Town Council cannot simply misappropriate residents conservancy charges to look good politically or cave into to political extortion.

I have checked - the majority of PAP operated TCs don't offer these additional services to hawkers for free. The hawkers already enjoy subsidised fees.

Once again, it would be irresponsible for TC to cave in to a small group of arseholes.

hahaha...scroobal, u again talking thru your arse.....
WP/AHPETC has never said that the hawkers were asking for additional service.....
you have checked....checked with who ??? Teo HP or LHL????
bloody thick skin idiot....phui!!!

 

[kukubird58]

Nope. They did not address the most important... did they allow hawkers to foot the bill of scaffolding last year? Very straight forward question but snake dance in return.

Goh Meng Seng

hahaha...GMS, don't be blinded by love for WP lah....
It was mentioned that hawkers did not pay for the scaffolds before...that means they did not pay for the scaffolds last year.
you are asking the question in sbf and u expect WP to respond to u...truely retarded.

 

[SgParent]

hahaha....u are a joke...how does the Annex A proved that the hawkers requested additional cleaning above 2.5m???

The Annex clearly indicated the planned time frame for the >2.5m annual cleaning, which is definitely not Mar. So what do you called the Mar >2.5m cleaning? Not "additional", not "extra" then called what, Genius?

1. NEA sends email to TC in Feb 2013 containing so called ambiquities about the erection/dismantling of scaffolds.
2. TC conveniently exploited the situation and wanted to pass the costs to hawkers knowing fully that such costs are always borned by TC.
Proof....TC trying to push the blame to NEA based on the email although they know fully that they (TC) are responsible.
TC has never said that such confusion arose because hawlkers requested additional cleaning above 2.5m.
(now idiots comes up with own interpretation that the scaffolds were needed because hawkers asked for additional cleaning)
3. TC schedule is also wrong in the sense that such cleaning had to be done by June 2013 and not Oct 2013....another classic example of TC not knowing their basic responsibilities.
4. Fact is also that hawkers are begging no more unnecessary closure as it affects their livelihoods.

1. ambiguous? So how would you interpret that email, Genius?
2. let's hear how you would interpret that email 1st before deciding if there is anything for AHPETC to exploit
AHPETC never said something does not mean that something is not the case. AHPETC also never said Sgparent is the "stubborn empty vessel" or Sgparent is the "Idiot".
3. I think NEA was saying the >2.5m cleaning is due by Jun so yes AHPETC is wrong to delay it. But that does not make a >2.5m cleaning in Mar any less "additional", any less "extra".
4. this you will need to use your "personal experience" or just ask the mysterious Hawker Association/individual hawkers why they requested for an "additional", "extra" >2.5m cleaning in Mar