Stallholders in row with Workers Party town council

[Goh Meng Seng]

I would say that PAP has done it right this time round. If VV is to reply, it would make it seen as "real politicking" because this is neither a policy issue nor a national issue. Just operational issue which is supposedly managed by his ministry's department, NEA.

From another perspective, even a division like NEA can pin WP down so badly, there is no necessity of "higher order".

WP MPs have to answer because this issue has everything to do with their constituencies and their votes depend on the good operations on the ground.

There is no good comparisons between the minister and WP MPs. To the minister, this is only a department or just a division of his own ministry portfolio while for WP MPs, the TC is ALL THEY HAVE as a machinery to win or lose votes.

Whether we like it or not, that's the reality.

Goh Meng Seng

Both Pritam and Sylia Lim who are elected MPs have been responsible and have clarified the matters a few times and in writing via media releases.

Viv Balakrishnan who is an MP and Minister in charge have avoided all this. Even the CEO has avoided the issue. NEA has been making statments with the actual author hiding.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Anyone who has been following the news will definitely know that the ATL letter was for additional cleaning over and above routine cleaning as stipulated by NEA guidelines. I believe that much is clear.

The confusion I believe has its root cause in deciding whether this is routine cleanings or extra work. Thus the confusion over who should pay and how much. NEA sent the letter clearly stating hawkers provide scaffolding. Why would NEA say that if this was mandatory cleaning.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It would be fine if this is so BUT NO. WP and AHTC have kept repeating that hawkers do not need to pay extra for the cleaning! They even state that their contract with the contractor ATL includes the cleaning of ceiling and everything. They even disputed that they have asked hawkers to pay extra in the three hawker centres. So, are you just putting up your speculation or what?

As I have said earlier, WP may not technically breach their statutory obligation now but NEA has already hinted that if they were to schedule their "free cleaning" till NOV or OCT, they would have breached that rule. In fact, I would think that if NEA really want to play them out, NEA does not need to keep reminding them about that, just let these smart alec to drag it and then summon them lor!

Goh Meng Seng

Anyone who has been following the news will definitely know that the ATL letter was for additional cleaning over and above routine cleaning as stipulated by NEA guidelines. I believe that much is clear.

The confusion I believe has its root cause in deciding whether this is routine cleanings or extra work. Thus the confusion over who should pay and how much. NEA sent the letter clearly stating hawkers provide scaffolding. Why would NEA say that if this was mandatory cleaning.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

From this complaint letter written by hawkers to WP MP, it is apparently that there are two major spring cleaning plus 2 minor ones as planned in the past. So this is the fundamental question, does WP and AHPeTC view it as their obligation to provide two major spring cleaning FOC or they are just taking the minimum responsibility such as "Cleaning at least once" as "Cleaning only once" for the ceiling?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[winnipegjets]

View attachment 10595

From this complaint letter written by hawkers to WP MP, it is apparently that there are two major spring cleaning plus 2 minor ones as planned in the past. So this is the fundamental question, does WP and AHPeTC view it as their obligation to provide two major spring cleaning FOC or they are just taking the minimum responsibility such as "Cleaning at least once" as "Cleaning only once" for the ceiling?

Goh Meng Seng

The hawker association is a PAP front to stir up troubles. That's the new PAP attack strategy to portray the WP TC as incompetent. It is time you cut the WP some slack ...WP does not have tons of dough like the PAP. WP operates with principles and put the welfare of the residents before the money, that's why it does not serve legal notice to residents who are in arrears but work with them. It is always going to face higher cost because no contractors would want to do business with the WP for fear of infuriating the PAP.
If you think by bashing WP at every instance will make you successful in the polls, you are blind-sided by realities. Even if you succeed, you will be steam-rolled over quickly by the mammoth PAP monster.
Please Goh, be a patriot and fight the monster.

 

[scroobal]

Can clearly see that you are drowning.

All NEA has do is confirm is WP breached any of its directive or failed to carry out mandatory cleaning. That is not the case or else AHPETC would have been fined by now.

Your entire case is predicated on a letter from an inconsequential prick who certainly did not write the letter.

Get some proper evidence. Its like a recruit who brings an "MC" from a Chinese Physician and hope to keng.

View attachment 10595

From this complaint letter written by hawkers to WP MP, it is apparently that there are two major spring cleaning plus 2 minor ones as planned in the past. So this is the fundamental question, does WP and AHPeTC view it as their obligation to provide two major spring cleaning FOC or they are just taking the minimum responsibility such as "Cleaning at least once" as "Cleaning only once" for the ceiling?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[winnipegjets]

The blind WP supporters here will never admit their idols lied. It appears that Aljunied did not benefit from Goh Meng Seng being replaced with Pritam Singh. But for a lawyer, he is quite stupid not to check his paper trail before making press statements.

Alamak, it is Goh Meng Seng that is blind. He is grasping at straws. I wonder how much money is he getting from the PAP? He must be the father of the PAP IB (although that must not be revealed as he is compensated much higher than the peng kia).

We all know the new PAP strategy - stir up troubles in the opposition wards to create an impression that the WP TC is short-changing the residents and mismanaging - first was the accusation the WP TC overpaid for estate management to a firm associated with the party, now this is hawker centre incident.

I think it is time the WP point this up to the public. If PAP wants to play politics outside the election period, WP should engage them and launch guerilla warfare as well. Time for the WP ground troops to stir up troubles in PAP wards. Damn the PAP in the most heinous ways.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Scroobal,

I have already written in response to you, that NEA actually hinted that if WP is to drag its schedule to clean the ceiling in Nov or Oct, it would have breached their statutory obligation.

What this letter says is simple, someone from AHPeTC approached the hawkers to ask them to pay extra. There are only TWO planned major spring cleaning within a work year. Apparently, they are not asking for any "additional cleaning" other than the usual two major spring cleaning which includes the ceiling. Along with the quotation, it means that it was true that the hawkers were told that the contractor will not clean beyond 2.5m if they are not paid extra. Thus, the quotation from the contractor to the hawkers for high rise cleaning...note, not just scaffolding but charges include cleaning services.

Well, I think NEA will be stuck if it doesn't remind WP that it would breach their statutory obligations if they were to drag to Nov/Oct and forced to summon them by then. WP people will turn around and say that is politically motivated as well, because NEA didn't make noise about it now when WP put up the schedule! Head you win, tail I lose kind of situation.

Goh Meng Seng

Can clearly see that you are drowning.

All NEA has do is confirm is WP breached any of its directive or failed to carry out mandatory cleaning. That is not the case or else AHPETC would have been fined by now.

Your entire case is predicated on a letter from an inconsequential prick who certainly did not write the letter.

Get some proper evidence. Its like a recruit who brings an "MC" from a Chinese Physician and hope to keng.

 

[winnipegjets]

By the documented proof, it is clear that the hawkers are not telling lies. The quotation given by AHPeTC's contractor ATL is about the whole HIGH RISE CLEANING, not just scaffolding. It means that hawkers are telling the truth that the contractor didn't want to clean anything above 2.5m without additional charges.

If this is included in AHPeTC's contract to ATL, why did ATL put up such quotation to hawkers for extra cost? The mystery reveals itself....

Goh Meng Seng

Are you stupid or what? The hawker association asked for a quote for reasons only known to itself and the PAP and you use that as proof of your accusation? Someone in the PAP hatch this whole episode ...thanks for providing the proof.

Facts that we know ...
1. The hawker association is linked to the grassroot organization which is tied to the PAP. I wonder whether this hawker association existed prior to the WP taking over. Let's have some transparency on this hawker association. How much does each hawker have to pay? Is participation mandatory? What kind of benefits do the hawkers get from this association that is supposed to represent their interests?
2. The NEA has been lying and deflecting blame. That's why it had to quickly resolve the issue of cleaning, claiming credit for nothing.
3. WP has released letters to support their statement. Can't say that about the NEA.
4. Goh Meng Seng seems to have access to privileged information.

 

[scroobal]

This thing started in Feb and now its is June not Nov. WP did no wrong.

Dear Scroobal,

I have already written in response to you, that NEA actually hinted that if WP is to drag its schedule to clean the ceiling in Nov or Oct, it would have breached their statutory obligation.

What this letter says is simple, someone from AHPeTC approached the hawkers to ask them to pay extra. There are only TWO planned major spring cleaning within a work year. Apparently, they are not asking for any "additional cleaning" other than the usual two major spring cleaning which includes the ceiling. Along with the quotation, it means that it was true that the hawkers were told that the contractor will not clean beyond 2.5m if they are not paid extra. Thus, the quotation from the contractor to the hawkers for high rise cleaning...note, not just scaffolding but charges include cleaning services.

Well, I think NEA will be stuck if it doesn't remind WP that it would breach their statutory obligations if they were to drag to Nov/Oct and forced to summon them by then. WP people will turn around and say that is politically motivated as well, because NEA didn't make noise about it now when WP put up the schedule! Head you win, tail I lose kind of situation.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[tanwahp]

Dear Scroobal,

I have already written in response to you, that NEA actually hinted that if WP is to drag its schedule to clean the ceiling in Nov or Oct, it would have breached their statutory obligation.

What this letter says is simple, someone from AHPeTC approached the hawkers to ask them to pay extra. There are only TWO planned major spring cleaning within a work year. Apparently, they are not asking for any "additional cleaning" other than the usual two major spring cleaning which includes the ceiling. Along with the quotation, it means that it was true that the hawkers were told that the contractor will not clean beyond 2.5m if they are not paid extra. Thus, the quotation from the contractor to the hawkers for high rise cleaning...note, not just scaffolding but charges include cleaning services.

Well, I think NEA will be stuck if it doesn't remind WP that it would breach their statutory obligations if they were to drag to Nov/Oct and forced to summon them by then. WP people will turn around and say that is politically motivated as well, because NEA didn't make noise about it now when WP put up the schedule! Head you win, tail I lose kind of situation.

Goh Meng Seng

The way you made the issue, it became a non-issue because you muddled it. No one other than you is going to sit down whole day on a coffee chair pondering and mining for "mistakes" WP made and the more you mine the more people are lost on what your issue is. If you have to work so hard to point out what mistake WP made and people had to take so long to get your point (and many still do not) that will not look like a mistake but something people expect to you to be - finding fault.

Political parties fall out of favour from mistakes like unpopular policies, poor economy or abuse and corruption. How is a political mistake deserving of punishment is something about one of their contractors providing a food supplier a quotation, that becomes your talking point for the last 2 weeks. Even for people watching NEA, they remember it as part of a series of abuses and opposition bullying rather than the specific deed of elbowing the TC to do extra washing.

WP supporters generally understand that with so many stages, there are some stages where the TC can handle the matter better. You need not remind them not to be "blind" because they were looking at all 3 parties collectively. Only you would say that the PAP and NEA which sent a sabotaging email had done excellently. No WP supporter had said WP handled this with NEA excellently. I know you are not pro PAP, just that the other party happens to be the same WP that you bore a great grudge against. (I am sure you did not think NEA did well when NSP under you was fined for selling papers back then.)

When you told others not to "talk too much", were you the one? In 2011, to you WP was already "finished", after that with the Yawgate and "plagiarism" WP was again "finished", why do you talk so much if WP was already finished, or unless WP can be finished so many times.

 

[beetoo]

By the documented proof, it is clear that the hawkers are not telling lies. The quotation given by AHPeTC's contractor ATL is about the whole HIGH RISE CLEANING, not just scaffolding. It means that hawkers are telling the truth that the contractor didn't want to clean anything above 2.5m without additional charges.

If this is included in AHPeTC's contract to ATL, why did ATL put up such quotation to hawkers for extra cost? The mystery reveals itself....

Goh Meng Seng

Who is Ng kok Khim? Why did he ask for a quotation?

Edit: Nvm .found his name in here : http://maintmp.pap.org.sg/uploads/ap/987/documents/pap_awards_2011_recipients_list.pdf

 

[Seee3]

Who is Ng kok Khim? Why did he ask for a quotation?

Edit: Nvm .found his name in here : http://maintmp.pap.org.sg/uploads/ap/987/documents/pap_awards_2011_recipients_list.pdf

You have helped open a new big can of worms. Now more will believe that it may be part of the "fixing programme". However, it is poorly planned and executed. Could be the work of someone here which is why defending it so desperately.

 

[beetoo]

You have helped open a new big can of worms. Now more will believe that it may be part of the "fixing programme". However, it is poorly planned and executed. Could be the work of someone here which is why defending it so desperately.

Got a feeling it may not be the same person and just coincidence.

Sry but do you or anyone else feel that nea releasing these letters is as gd as self-pwn?

Someone pls tell me how does the letter show that the hawkers were asked for extra money by ahpetc staffs to do the cleaning of the ceiling? In fact, these two letter seems like the Hawkers' Association wanted to arrange things privately with the contractor themselves, which is consistent with ahpetc’s previous claims in their press release dated 3rd June.

 

[fanta]

NEA e-mail caused hawker centre dispute: WP chairman Sylvia Lim

Published on Jun 09, 2013

The dispute over the cleaning of the Bedok hawker centre was caused by an e-mail sent by the National Environment Agency (NEA), Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim said on Sunday, June 9, 2013. -- ST FILE PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONG

By Andrea Ong

The dispute over the cleaning of a Bedok hawker centre was caused by an e-mail sent by the National Environment Agency (NEA), Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim said on Sunday.

In a media statement, she also made public the contents of the correspondence which triggered the saga.

In it, an NEA staff member had written to the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) on Feb 7 regarding the cleaning of Block 538 in Bedok.

She wrote: "Pl note that the Hawkers Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on the scaffold erection/dismantling during the spring cleaning period from March 4-8."




Hawker centre cleaning issue a "completely unnecessary distraction": Dr Balakrishnan

Published on Jun 09, 2013

A cleaner employed by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council cleans the wet market area of Pasar Makan @ Reservoir located at 630 Bedok Reservoir Road in the afternoon on June 3, 2013. The ongoing dispute over hawker centre cleaning is a "completely unnecessary distraction" caused by a Workers' Party-run town council and its managing agent, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said on Sunday, June 9, 2013. -- ST FILE PHOTO: NEO XIAOBIN

The ongoing dispute over hawker centre cleaning is a "completely unnecessary distraction" caused by a Workers' Party-run town council and its managing agent, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said on Sunday.

"All town councils have always done routine spring-cleaning of hawker centres. There is no excuse for the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council to delay the current cleaning programme," he said in a strongly-worded media statement.

"The safety of the public must remain our paramount concern."

The National Environment Agency's (NEA) civil servants, he added, are "duty bound to protect public hygiene and to ensure that hawkers are treated fairly".



NEA rejects charge of being "politically motivated" in hawker centre dispute


Published on Jun 09, 2013

Hawkers at food centre at blk 538 Bedok North Street 3 hawker center. The National Environment Agency (NEA) has refuted a charge by Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim that the government agency was "politically motivated" to tarnish the town council's image, in an ongoing dispute over the cleaning of hawker centres. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

By Andrea Ong

The National Environment Agency (NEA) has refuted a charge by Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim that the government agency was "politically motivated" to tarnish the town council's image, in an ongoing dispute over the cleaning of hawker centres.

"NEA and its officers are civil servants who are duty bound to protect the safety of the public through ensuring high standards of hygiene. It therefore rejects allegations that any of its actions have been politically motivated," said the NEA in a statement on Sunday.

It came two days after Ms Lim, who chairs the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), issued a statement asking if the NEA was "playing politics".

On Sunday, NEA also released three documents "in response to calls by the public for more information".

 

[SgParent]

As I have said earlier, WP may not technically breach their statutory obligation now but NEA has already hinted that if they were to schedule their "free cleaning" till NOV or OCT, they would have breached that rule. In fact, I would think that if NEA really want to play them out, NEA does not need to keep reminding them about that, just let these smart alec to drag it and then summon them lor!

I can see that great minds think alike, yours and kukubird.

So to enlighten this "stubborn empty vessel", "Idiot", how does "annual >2.5m cleaning is due by Jun" makes a ">2.5m cleaning in Mar" any less "additional", any less "extra"?

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

[h=1]NEA is Contradicting Itself[/h]I welcome the release of the documents by National Environment Agency (“NEA”) so that the public can make their own judgment.


In response, we are also releasing, at Annex A, the email thread from NEA to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (“AHPETC”) stating that “the Hawkers Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on the scaffold erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4 – 8 March 2013”.


Regrettably, NEA has not clarified whether the hawkers at Blk 511 Bedok North Street 3 (“Blk 511 Market”) and Blk 538 Bedok North Street 3 (“Blk 538 Market”) were asked by AHPETC to pay any additional charges for any cleaning. All NEA has is a quotation from the cleaning contractor ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd (“ATL”) addressed to the Market Association of Blk 538.


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.


I also urge NEA not to confuse the public on the events relating to Blk 538 and Blk 511, which are two separate matters.


The Blk 538 market incident was caused by NEA’s email of 7 Feb 2013. NEA had confirmed that the hawkers’ association would be providing the scaffolding which was not done for reasons unknown to us. In addition, any decision for market closure came from the hawkers’ association and not from the town council, as it was not needed by us.


The appeal letter by MP Faisal released by NEA pertained to Blk 511 Market, which is scheduled for cleaning at the end of June 2013 by the Market Association. Contrary to NEA’s portrayal, the letter evidently shows MP Faisal’s awareness that it was not the policy of AHPETC not to clean the high areas of the market during annual cleaning, nor to collect any additional charges from the hawkers; otherwise, MP Faisal would not have written to AHPETC to look into Mr Chan Kheng Heng’s claim.


NEA’s assertion in its statement flies in the face of logic. NEA is contradicting itself.


SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL


9 June 2013


Annex A – Email Correspondence between NEA and AHPETC

 

[SgParent]

View attachment 10595

From this complaint letter written by hawkers to WP MP, it is apparently that there are two major spring cleaning plus 2 minor ones as planned in the past. So this is the fundamental question, does WP and AHPeTC view it as their obligation to provide two major spring cleaning FOC or they are just taking the minimum responsibility such as "Cleaning at least once" as "Cleaning only once" for the ceiling?

Goh Meng Seng

Thank you for that letter.

It looks like the 商联会 was still dreaming it is operating under the great leadership of the White Scums/Casino George Yeo, where they got 2 annual >2.5m cleanings + 2 general cleanings.

If that's the case then 商联会 should have gone after NEA for not explaining to it in a language it could understand that the regulation calls for 1 annual >2.5m cleaning only. Anything "additional", "extra" would then really be "additional", "extra"

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

So there you have it. Plain and simple.

(a) NEA has deliberately mixed up the issues surround Block 511 and 538 in an attempt to mislead. This is highly mischievous to say the least.

(b) Email from NEA clearly shows its staff who went on course for 4 days (Jiak Liao Bee) made statement that could only mean that hawkers would arrange for the scaffolding to be present and available on the day of the cleaning.

(c) WP detractors have all along been using Blk 511's issue to support their case on Blk 538, and vice-versa. Highly regrettable. Shows inability to distinguish between two different cases.

(d) Blk 538 was the origin of NEA's misleading email and also the issue about ATL's invoice.

(e) Blk 511 is separate matter that cropped up halfway and became mixed up with Blk 538. MP Faisal's appeal letter was about 511, not 538.

(f) The Fool on you.

 

[I_Hate_Pappies]

The lightning speed of NEA involvement doesn't make sense. Since when they became so efficient?