Stallholders in row with Workers Party town council

[Thick Face Black Heart]

There you have it. NEA cannot even distinguish between Block 511 and Block 538. MP Faisal's letter of appeal and the complaint about refusing to clean high places was about Block 511. That was an issue that cropped up halfway, unrelated to 538

Block 538 was the origin to the saga surrounding the missing scaffolding on the day of the cleaning, and ATL's quotation to the Market Association giving breakdown of cleaning cost including cost of scaffolding for cleaning high places.

Two different blocks. Two different matters.

And all throughout the 2-week long saga, NEA has:

(a) Never clarified about its misleading email about providing scaffolding at Block 538.

(b) Never bothered to distinguish between Blk 511 and 538, instead lumping the two together and treating them as essentially the same incident

(c) Could never state whether WP has fulfilled its obligation under TC Act and whether it breached any of its guidelines with regard to HC cleaning

(d) Could never provide proof that hawkers were unfairly asked to pay something they shouldn't be paying


511 and 538. How difficult can it be. If you can confuse two blocks, can you confuse your role as a statutory board, or as a partisan player? Yes you can, and you have.

FOOL ON YOU.

 

[winnipegjets]

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".

You are clueless about ministerial responsibility. It is a political matter. The NEA is under fire and the minister and the CEO take cover. The NEA doesn't even dare to have an individual to front this attack on WP.

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.

Taxpayers are out $68 million bucks paying for this scholar, from university to death! We deserve better than a take-cover minister or a dodge the bullet scholar. If that is the accountability standard you adhere to, please move to Malaysia now. I will pay your bus fare.

 

[winnipegjets]

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?

You know nuts about crisis management. And I am not going to teach you about it.

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!

Change of tune here ...malu already ah?

 

[winnipegjets]

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.

He got it right ...it is an unnecessary distraction stirred up by the NEA. NEA sent an e-mail advising WP TC"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." The cleaning didn't happen because there were no scaffolding. Then PAP grassroot organization in cahoots with the PAP-influenced hawkers association make public complaints that the WP TC wants to charge them extra for scaffolding.

If this minister can't control its division, then it should quit now. He screwed up on the Youth Olympics budget costing the country a few billions. He was not punished for that. And then this. Is LHL dumb to tolerate such gross incompetence?

Why is the minister and the NEA bullying elected MPs? If he has a problem with the way WP TC is running the ward, let him debate this in Parliament and pass laws to punish WP then?

"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"

If the safety of the public was his concern, then he would focus on getting rid of the mosquito problem AND stop making it almost impossible for hawkers to make a decent living with the incessant increase in fees.



"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".[/QUOTE]

 

[fanta]

It looks like NEA did not explain Block 511 and Block 538 properly, taking the opportunity to whack the opposition.

 

[winnipegjets]

It looks like NEA did not explain Block 511 and Block 538 properly, taking the opportunity to whack the opposition.

The Minister in Charge, Vivian, comes out swinging as well but punching air because he doesn't know his facts at all. The CEO of NEA is lying low as he doesn't know he got himself into this mess. Two $68-million men shows that they are an utter waste of taxpayer's money.
Taxpayer should cut their losses now by firing these two men ...they don't deserve more million-dollar salaries and a generous pension. Fire them, fire them, fire them.

 

[DuYunQi]

I am curious to ask this... can a govt agency which is supposed to be about the environment, be getting involved in such a public tussle with politics seemingly being infused into every detail that is coming out in the open?

I agree with posts here that call on NEA to focus on containing the dengue problem, and even coming up with a solution.. instead of wasting our money.. taxpayers' money, on this fiasco with WP. Isn't there some rules or guidelines or law indicating that govt agencies, ministries.. not be involved in politics or politically motivated issues? They are supposed to work for Singapore, for Singaporeans.. not to get involved in politics.. NO???

 

[mei mei]

The stakes are up now; Vivian say Sylvia Lim is arrogant and wrong and Pritam Singh is telling a lie.

Boss Low should come and whack Vivian?


Vivian charges WP with lying over hawker centre row

Dispute is a completely unnecessary distraction, says Dr Balakrishnan

By Sumita Sreedharan

SINGAPORE — The spat over the cleaning of two food centres escalated yesterday with Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan accusing the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) of lying in giving its version of the dispute.

He also charged that Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim was “arrogant and wrong” to make a “political attack” on National Environment Agency (NEA) officers.

His comments came after the NEA and the WP-run town council both released documents yesterday which they said supported their respective accounts of the dispute.

The saga began last month when stall owners complained that they had to bear the cost of putting up scaffolding to clean high areas in the food centres, which sparked off a chain of accusations and rebuttals between the hawkers, the NEA and the town council.

Yesterday, Dr Balakrishnan said in a statement: “This is a completely unnecessary distraction caused by the AHPETC and its managing agent FMSS. All town councils have always done routine spring-cleaning of hawker centres. There is no excuse for the AHPETC to delay the current cleaning programme.”

He said it was also “arrogant and wrong” of Ms Lim to “make a political attack on NEA officers for simply doing their duty and for protecting the hawkers”.

Among the documents the NEA released yesterday was a quotation from AHPETC’s contractor ATL Maintenance to the hawkers of Block 538, which included separate payment for both the scaffolding and cleaning of the high areas.

This shows that the work “clearly falls within the responsibility of the town council itself”, the NEA said.

This was disputed by Ms Lim, who said the NEA’s assertion “flies in the face of logic” and the agency was “contradicting itself”.

The NEA also released letters between WP Member of Parliament Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, the Block 511 Hawkers’ Association and AHPETC, appealing for the town council to assist with the complete cleaning of the hawker centre.

It said that these letters “prove the seriousness and validity with which the MP treated the hawkers’ appeal”.

But Ms Lim said the letters “evidently show 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”.

She also maintained that the ATL quotation was given at the request of the hawkers, and pointed out that the NEA has not clarified whether the hawkers from both food centres were indeed asked by the AHPETC to pay extra for any cleaning.

“Attributing the quotation to AHPETC is misleading and politically motivated to tarnish the reputation of AHPETC,” she said.

The AHPETC also released a copy of an email from the NEA dated Feb 7, which the town council said it took “in good faith” to mean that the hawker association would make the necessary arrangements on the scaffolding for spring cleaning.

“I welcome the release of the documents by NEA so that the public can make their own judgment,” Ms Lim said.

In his statement, Dr Balakrishnan described the hawkers as “honest, hardworking people just trying to make a living” and that there was “no reason” to charge them more for cleaning the ceiling and disrupt their business.

“The hawkers have been consistent and truthful throughout this entire episode. Either Pritam Singh or the hawkers are telling the truth. It is obvious that the hawkers are speaking the truth,” he said.

Mr Singh, the AHPETC’s Vice-Chairman, had disputed the hawkers’ claim that they were asked to pay for the cost of putting up the scaffolding, maintaining that none of the town council staff told the stall owners to pay extra.

The AHPETC then said it would bear these costs, but referred to an NEA email dated Feb 7, which the town council said it took “in good faith” to mean that the hawker association would make the necessary arrangements on the scaffolding for spring cleaning.

Both parties appeared to have reached an agreement on the issue after a meeting last Thursday, but the NEA issued a statement later on the same day saying the AHPETC had tried to get hawkers to pay extra cleaning costs, and then tried to “deflect blame” when that failed.

This prompted Ms Lim to say on Friday that the NEA’s comments were “puzzling and unprofessional as a government agency”, and that it was “politically motivated to tarnish the town council’s image”.

 

[Leongsam]

Dr Balakrishnan is absolutely right.

If the WP actually cared about the welfare of Singaporeans, it would not be trying to divert the NEA's efforts from fight against Dengue which is a far more serious matter compared to a dirty ceiling.

Instead, it continues to drag this issue out at the expense of the health of ordinary Singaporeans in an attempt to gain some political capital.

Any respect I had for the WP is now gone. Thank goodness they will never govern Singapore. It would be a disaster.

 

[aurvandil]

The following is the url link to the released documents:

http://www.ahpetc.sg/wp-content/upl...ail-Correspondence-between-NEA-and-AHPETC.pdf

The email was written by Peiyun Chin from NEA. It reads:

Hi Mr Predeep

Sorry for the delay was I was on course for the past few days, 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 4-8 March 2013 for the above food centre.

Thank you.
Regards

 

[IamTiong]

You look at current CEO and you will have your answer

I am curious to ask this... can a govt agency which is supposed to be about the environment, be getting involved in such a public tussle with politics seemingly being infused into every detail that is coming out in the open?

I agree with posts here that call on NEA to focus on containing the dengue problem, and even coming up with a solution.. instead of wasting our money.. taxpayers' money, on this fiasco with WP. Isn't there some rules or guidelines or law indicating that govt agencies, ministries.. not be involved in politics or politically motivated issues? They are supposed to work for Singapore, for Singaporeans.. not to get involved in politics.. NO???

 

[cass888]

You're the one who's clueless. In Parliament, Ministerial responsibility applies. Outside of Parliament, and when Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh are communicating in their capacity as Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the TCs and not as Members of Parliament, there is no need for the Minister to get involved.

You are clueless about ministerial responsibility. It is a political matter. The NEA is under fire and the minister and the CEO take cover. The NEA doesn't even dare to have an individual to front this attack on WP.




Taxpayers are out $68 million bucks paying for this scholar, from university to death! We deserve better than a take-cover minister or a dodge the bullet scholar. If that is the accountability standard you adhere to, please move to Malaysia now. I will pay your bus fare.

 

[winnipegjets]

You're the one who's clueless. In Parliament, Ministerial responsibility applies. Outside of Parliament, and when Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh are communicating in their capacity as Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the TCs and not as Members of Parliament, there is no need for the Minister to get involved.

Minister responsibility only in Parliament? Gosh, you sure knows nothing about democracy. Is Vivian a minister only in Parliament?
Sylvia and Pritam are MPs 24/7, not only when in Parliament.
NEA create this mess. Who is responsible for the NEA? If Vivian doesn't want to be accountable for a division of his ministry, then he should ask LHL to relieve him of his ministerial post.

 

[IamTiong]

Who is pradeep? How come no full name?

The following is the url link to the released documents:

http://www.ahpetc.sg/wp-content/upl...ail-Correspondence-between-NEA-and-AHPETC.pdf

The email was written by Peiyun Chin from NEA. It reads:

 

[winnipegjets]

Dr Balakrishnan is absolutely right.

If the WP actually cared about the welfare of Singaporeans, it would not be trying to divert the NEA's efforts from fight against Dengue which is a far more serious matter compared to a dirty ceiling.

Instead, it continues to drag this issue out at the expense of the health of ordinary Singaporeans in an attempt to gain some political capital.

Any respect I had for the WP is now gone. Thank goodness they will never govern Singapore. It would be a disaster.

That explains why the NEA CEO has been in hiding and the emergence of Ms Vivian who, unfortunately, does not know his facts.

Why are we wasting $136 million of our tax dollars on these two imbeciles?

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Vivian charges WP with lying over hawker centre row

Dispute is a completely unnecessary distraction, says Dr Balakrishnan

By Sumita Sreedharan

Among the documents the NEA released yesterday was a quotation from AHPETC’s contractor ATL Maintenance to the hawkers of Block 538, which included separate payment for both the scaffolding and cleaning of the high areas.

This shows that the work “clearly falls within the responsibility of the town council itself”, the NEA said.

Look at how the SCM reports. A total and utter flip flop. Mixing up details in an attempt to make erroneous arguments. They can't even report correctly:

(a) The quotation only shows that someone requested for it. It does not prove WP attempted to charge the hawkers for something they shouldn't pay.

(b) WP has already said they would resolve the issue, and hawker's don't need to pay.

(c) Blk 511 and Blk 538 continue to be mixed up and treated as the same incident.

Come on, this is so obvious and blatant.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Mr Singh, the AHPETC’s Vice-Chairman, had disputed the hawkers’ claim that they were asked to pay for the cost of putting up the scaffolding, maintaining that none of the town council staff told the stall owners to pay extra.

The AHPETC then said it would bear these costs, but referred to an NEA email dated Feb 7, which the town council said it took “in good faith” to mean that the hawker association would make the necessary arrangements on the scaffolding for spring cleaning.

Again, totally confused and deliberately misleading reporting by the SCM. They cannot even get the facts straight:

(a) WP made its stand clear long ago that it has always abided by the regulations on having to foot the cost of the whole bill. No one has disproven that. No evidence apart from scattered and incoherent evidence.

(b) The scaffolding confusion arising from NEA's confusing email was raised earlier, at the first instance. WP is not trying to use the NEA email's as excuse for not paying. The fucking SCM is just repeating NEA's allegations without even bothering to sound coherent.

 

[beetoo]

Look at how the SCM reports. A total and utter flip flop. Mixing up details in an attempt to make erroneous arguments. They can't even report correctly:

(a) The quotation only shows that someone requested for it. It does not prove WP attempted to charge the hawkers for something they shouldn't pay.

(b) WP has already said they would resolve the issue, and hawker's don't need to pay.

(c) Blk 511 and Blk 538 continue to be mixed up and treated as the same incident.

Come on, this is so obvious and blatant.

Ah.. yes. I see in NEA's press release dated 9th june saying that block 511 and block 538 hawkers signed petition letters. But if you read click and read the petition, only Block 511 was mentioned. No mention of block 538 throughout the petition. On the NEA website, they even conveniently titled this petition document as 'block-511-and-block-538-hawkers-petition-letters-to-press'. This goes to show that they are really confused or they know it but somehow just want to be confusing for god knows what reason. (you know i know?)

http://app2.nea.gov.sg/docs/default...awkers-petition-letters-to-press.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

[aurvandil]

The hawker petition to the press is strange as it does not contain a single signature.

Ah.. yes. I see in NEA's press release dated 9th june saying that block 511 and block 538 hawkers signed petition letters. But if you read click and read the petition, only Block 511 was mentioned. No mention of block 538 throughout the petition. On the NEA website, they even conveniently titled this petition document as 'block-511-and-block-538-hawkers-petition-letters-to-press'. This goes to show that they are really confused or they know it but somehow just want to be confusing for god knows what reason. (you know i know?)

http://app2.nea.gov.sg/docs/default...awkers-petition-letters-to-press.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

According to news report, it did contain signatures of all but 4 hawkers.

Goh Meng Seng

The hawker petition to the press is strange as it does not contain a single signature.