Stallholders in row with Workers Party town council

[Goh Meng Seng]

People can call whatever it is but the context if pretty clear here. AHTC knew they were supposed to clean the ceilings and there is no need for hawkers to pay for it as they have repeatedly said that. No confusion whatsoever, period.

What AHTC, WP MPs including LTK tried to do is to act blur about their contractor attempted to charge hawkers for high rise cleaning when they are not supposed to. LTK said, he is puzzled who asked for the quotation, not straight away to claim that the contractor is right to make that quotation. Period.

Stop going round and round beating the bushes for reasoning to justify WP's stance. WP has lost quite a bit of respect from the middle ground with such wishy washy dealings and I guess you guys are doing a great disservice to WP by further showing how intellectually dishonest WP people are by trying too hardly to disprove the indisputable facts. Even LTK didn't dare to investigate and prove otherwise, who do you think you are? You know better than LTK? For goodness sake, heed LTK's advice, give it up, leave it to the muddy water of letting voters to decide lah...

I know WP is now a famous University of Smart Alec and you guys might have graduated from it but you got to look around and hear properly what the boss says... Retreat! You got to do just that!

Goh Meng Seng

 

[aurvandil]

The biggest damage was to the PAP when it was revealed that Jonathan Oh Swee Yang (Blk 511 Hawker Association Chariman) and Ng Kok Khim (Blk 538 Hawker Association Chairman) are both long standing PAP members.

WP has lost quite a bit of respect from the middle ground ...

 

[tanwahp]

People can call whatever it is but the context if pretty clear here. AHTC knew they were supposed to clean the ceilings and there is no need for hawkers to pay for it as they have repeatedly said that. No confusion whatsoever, period.

What AHTC, WP MPs including LTK tried to do is to act blur about their contractor attempted to charge hawkers for high rise cleaning when they are not supposed to. LTK said, he is puzzled who asked for the quotation, not straight away to claim that the contractor is right to make that quotation. Period.

Stop going round and round beating the bushes for reasoning to justify WP's stance. WP has lost quite a bit of respect from the middle ground with such wishy washy dealings and I guess you guys are doing a great disservice to WP by further showing how intellectually dishonest WP people are by trying too hardly to disprove the indisputable facts. Even LTK didn't dare to investigate and prove otherwise, who do you think you are? You know better than LTK? For goodness sake, heed LTK's advice, give it up, leave it to the muddy water of letting voters to decide lah...

I know WP is now a famous University of Smart Alec and you guys might have graduated from it but you got to look around and hear properly what the boss says... Retreat! You got to do just that!

Goh Meng Seng

It's just more motherhood statements and repeating of same accusations. There seemed to be a new point but just a rehashed version of the old one. LTK being puzzled by who asked for quotation = LTK thinks the quotation is right/wrong. Nothing else to rebut.

I guess based on your logic, anyone can get away with false accusations. If I raise a false accusation, the person who tries to clear his name is "beating around the bush". In your own words, QED.

 

[tanwahp]

The biggest damage was to the PAP when it was revealed that Jonathan Oh Swee Yang (Blk 511 Hawker Association Chariman) and Ng Kok Khim (Blk 538 Hawker Association Chairman) are both long standing PAP members.

Block 511 did not have any hawker association. Yet Jonathan Oh had the audacity to sign off emails as "Chairman". That's one more blow to the face. The PAP's spokesperson here in this case will ignore this.

 

[cass888]

So as long as the hawkers are PAP members, can tekan them and make them pay ah? Now we understand WP style.

The biggest damage was to the PAP when it was revealed that Jonathan Oh Swee Yang (Blk 511 Hawker Association Chariman) and Ng Kok Khim (Blk 538 Hawker Association Chairman) are both long standing PAP members.

 

[aurvandil]

Aside from being PAP members, it was also revealed that both chairmen are not in fact hawkers. The petition which they organized on behalf of the hawkers also did not appear to have any actual hawker signatures.

So as long as the hawkers are PAP members, can tekan them and make them pay ah? Now we understand WP style.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Aside from being PAP members, it was also revealed that both chairmen are not in fact hawkers. The petition which they organized on behalf of the hawkers also did not appear to have any actual hawker signatures.

AGree. The whole episode has become very shameful on the part of the PAP. The dossier for one contains inconsistency and misrepresentation. Insertion of the word annual where none was in fact present.

During parliament vb was grasping at straws and finally resorted to using the same kind of motherhood statements GMS is now using. One quotation addreseed to some chairman and a couple of unsigned meeting footnotes and unsigned petitions is essentially all they have.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

 

[kingrant]

Since you already got the very first part wrong, you are on a non-starter.

No, AHPETC did not know and did not assume that ceilings have to be cleaned for the mentioned dates in March because that was not scheduled till October. Presumably that was why the TC warned that if the hA wanted it in March instead of Oct, it had to pay the extra for setting up scaffolding etc. I thought this is rather reasonable. Do you ever read or too impatient trying to tar the WP?

If the hawkers assoc wanted it cleaned in March, then why didnt they clarify with the TC instead of writing to NEA? And why didnt NEA refer the HA back to AHPETC for the answers? I know the answer why. It was because the two of them were trying to set the AHPETC up for a fall. VB looked the fool for trying to pin it on WP and now you want to upstage him. The October schedule was already made clear by WP.

So if you go on rambling and tilting at windmills, try to stop looking like a fool besides coming across as the proverbial fox which missed the grapes and called them sour.

AHTC knew they were supposed to clean the ceilings and there is no need for hawkers to pay for it as they have repeatedly said that. No confusion whatsoever, period.

 

[Seee3]

Story don't make sense... 3rd servicing - Ah Kow provide parts, workshop will provide labour foc. What about 4th servicing? Is workshop providing parts again with labour foc for 4th servicing or is it a short 2hr servicing?

A more likely alternative is Ah Kow and the Workshop bring forward the 4th servicing to 3rd and make the 4th servicing a short 2 hr servicing. No customer in his right mind would provide the parts when the package has included it.

Yes the story doesn't make sense. Perhaps it is because ah kow's original real intention was to get an additional 4th servicing from the workshop.

Your logical suggestion of bring forward the 4th servicing to replace the 3rd was exactly what had happened after the big quarrel. As to why the workshop didn't come to this proposal at the very start, I can only guess that ah Kow wanted two 4th servicing all along.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Since you already got the very first part wrong, you are on a non-starter.

No, AHPETC did not know and did not assume that ceilings have to be cleaned for the mentioned dates in March because that was not scheduled till October. Presumably that was why the TC warned that if the hA wanted it in March instead of Oct, it had to pay the extra for setting up scaffolding etc. I thought this is rather reasonable. Do you ever read or too impatient trying to tar the WP?

If the hawkers assoc wanted it cleaned in March, then why didnt they clarify with the TC instead of writing to NEA? And why didnt NEA refer the HA back to AHPETC for the answers? I know the answer why. It was because the two of them were trying to set the AHPETC up for a fall. VB looked the fool for trying to pin it on WP and now you want to upstage him. The October schedule was already made clear by WP.

So if you go on rambling and tilting at windmills, try to stop looking like a fool besides coming across as the proverbial fox which missed the grapes and called them sour.

VB and gms will conveniently ignore all the facts and focus on a dubious quotation and unsigned meeting footnotes. Have been holding my cock for a month now waiting for something substantial.

 

[SgParent]

It is an indisputable fact that AHTC has written to ask for erection and dismantling of the scaffolding. If there is no basic understanding between the three sides that this 5 day cleaning exercise also include the high rise cleaning, why would AHTC ask about scaffolding?

And it is also clear that there isn't a single confusion about AHTC is supposed to do the high rise cleaning, unlike what is claimed in parliament about "confusion". It is just a plain refuse to clean for whatever reasons, most likely the failure of WP's contractor ATL in getting extra payment from hawkers. Pretty straight forward here. i.e. while initially AHTC knew of its responsibility of cleaning the ceilings but its contractors refused to clean after failure of double charging the hawkers. QED.


Goh Meng Seng

informed you spring cleaning you still assume it's annual cleaning? 5days/5weeks/5months, scaffolding are irrelevant.

go and read the emails provided by girl girl. nea-chin/lackey ngkk/ahpetc brought up about spring cleaning in mar. not some mysterious annual cleaning as you claimed. there was no sign of objection in the emails stating that nea-chin or lackey ngkk wanted it to be a annual cleaning. whole thing is girl girl's screw up. not the imaginary story as you've claimed

 

[SgParent]

People can call whatever it is but the context if pretty clear here. AHTC knew they were supposed to clean the ceilings and there is no need for hawkers to pay for it as they have repeatedly said that. No confusion whatsoever, period.

What AHTC, WP MPs including LTK tried to do is to act blur about their contractor attempted to charge hawkers for high rise cleaning when they are not supposed to. LTK said, he is puzzled who asked for the quotation, not straight away to claim that the contractor is right to make that quotation. Period.

Stop going round and round beating the bushes for reasoning to justify WP's stance. WP has lost quite a bit of respect from the middle ground with such wishy washy dealings and I guess you guys are doing a great disservice to WP by further showing how intellectually dishonest WP people are by trying too hardly to disprove the indisputable facts. Even LTK didn't dare to investigate and prove otherwise, who do you think you are? You know better than LTK? For goodness sake, heed LTK's advice, give it up, leave it to the muddy water of letting voters to decide lah...

I know WP is now a famous University of Smart Alec and you guys might have graduated from it but you got to look around and hear properly what the boss says... Retreat! You got to do just that!

Goh Meng Seng

informed you spring cleaning you still assume it's annual cleaning? 5days/5weeks/5months, scaffolding, a.t.l gave quotation are irrelevant.

go and read the emails provided by girl girl. nea-chin/lackey ngkk/ahpetc brought up about spring cleaning in mar. not some mysterious annual cleaning as you claimed. there was no sign of objection in the emails stating that nea-chin or lackey ngkk wanted it to be a annual cleaning. whole thing is girl girl's screw up. not the imaginary story as you've claimed

 

[SgParent]

Story don't make sense... 3rd servicing - Ah Kow provide parts, workshop will provide labour foc. What about 4th servicing? Is workshop providing parts again with labour foc for 4th servicing or is it a short 2hr servicing?

ah kow backside itchy wanted to change contract terms so workshop has every rights not to relent.

the compromise to provide labour foc is after ah kow kpkb, drag in his 3rd aunt's husband's cousin's son in-law's friend's neighbour who happens to be some big shot in the singapore motor workshop association

A more likely alternative is Ah Kow and the Workshop bring forward the 4th servicing to 3rd and make the 4th servicing a short 2 hr servicing. No customer in his right mind would provide the parts when the package has included it.

no workshop in the right mind would want to bring forward the extensive, 8hrs servicing because then what about the next servicing contract? will the extensive, 8hrs servicing be on the 3rd servicing now (12mths lapse) or 4th as standard contract?

 

[SgParent]

Have been holding my cock for a month now waiting for something substantial.

i think you better release your grip soon. if it looks blue and swollen, that's probably a clear symptom of lack of oxygen

 

[leetahbah]

The biggest damage was to the PAP when it was revealed that Jonathan Oh Swee Yang (Blk 511 Hawker Association Chariman) and Ng Kok Khim (Blk 538 Hawker Association Chairman) are both long standing PAP members.

It is interesting that Blk 511 and Blk 538 involves PAP members. It gives rise to the following:

1) Did AHPETC impose additional charge to Blk 511 and Blk 538 because they were PAP members, not expecting the incident to boomerang back to AHPETC in the form of this NEC-AHPETC saga?

2) If Blk 511 and Blk 538 were WP members instead of PAP, would Blk 511 and Blk 538 quietly accept the additional charge? Or would they complain and would AHPETC waive the additional charge upon the complaint because they were WP?

 

[SgParent]

1) Did AHPETC impose additional charge to Blk 511 and Blk 538 because they were PAP members, not expecting the incident to boomerang back to AHPETC in the form of this NEC-AHPETC saga?

if wp/ahpetc are as embarrassingly stupid as the white scums, to sell the t.c. software to a $2 kakilang shell company, thinking oppo will never win another constituency to find out -- a.i.m-gate

if so then yes.

2) If Blk 511 and Blk 538 were WP members instead of PAP, would Blk 511 and Blk 538 quietly accept the additional charge? Or would they complain and would AHPETC waive the additional charge upon the complaint because they were WP?

if all hawkers are also wp members. not just those 2 hawker association lackeys

if so then yes. but then hor why would wp members want to pay extra after paying their membership fee/subscription already? membership should have its privilege what?

 

[aurvandil]

The more interesting question is if Kaki Bukit was still under the PAP. Things to wonder:

1)Would Jonathan Oh and Ng Kok Khim have gone to the media and organized a signature less petition over what appears to be a minor misunderstanding?

2)Would the msm have given such extensive coverage to the story if it involved PAP MPs?

3)Would VB and later LHL be raising questions of honesty and integrity if PAP MPs were involved?

Of great significance is that LHL came out with guns blazing after LTK asked whether this was VB's initiative or if this had the support of the entire PAP leadership. The msm which had been nursing this for months carried his comments in full and appeared all geared up for a national debate. Then the identity of Johnathan Oh was revealed and the identity of Ng Kok Khim resurfaced. The msm appear dumbstruck. They did a quick piece on Johnathan Oh, pretended not to remember Ng Kok Khim and went completely silent.

It is interesting that Blk 511 and Blk 538 involves PAP members. It gives rise to the following:

1) Did AHPETC impose additional charge to Blk 511 and Blk 538 because they were PAP members, not expecting the incident to boomerang back to AHPETC in the form of this NEC-AHPETC saga?

2) If Blk 511 and Blk 538 were WP members instead of PAP, would Blk 511 and Blk 538 quietly accept the additional charge? Or would they complain and would AHPETC waive the additional charge upon the complaint because they were WP?

 

[tanwahp]

It is interesting that Blk 511 and Blk 538 involves PAP members. It gives rise to the following:

1) Did AHPETC impose additional charge to Blk 511 and Blk 538 because they were PAP members, not expecting the incident to boomerang back to AHPETC in the form of this NEC-AHPETC saga?

2) If Blk 511 and Blk 538 were WP members instead of PAP, would Blk 511 and Blk 538 quietly accept the additional charge? Or would they complain and would AHPETC waive the additional charge upon the complaint because they were WP?

We have to ask first if AHPETC knew they were PAP members, because they were rather obscure about their identities.

Whether the heads are PAP or WP members, the cost of the scaffoldings are for all hawkers and the whole hawker centre and that needs to be considered. No one will know if the majority of the hawkers are PAP or WP supporters. Even when PAP used the lift upgrading strategy they counted the support level by votes and not how many PBM holders they had in the wards.

 

[leetahbah]

if wp/ahpetc are as embarrassingly stupid as the white scums, to sell the t.c. software to a $2 kakilang shell company, thinking oppo will never win another constituency to find out -- a.i.m-gate

Think the PAP expected to lose another constituency, because of that possibility, they decide to sell off the TC software to prevent opposition from getting their hands on the software. If PAP think opposition will never win another constituency, then they would not be bothered to sell the TC software.

if all hawkers are also wp members. not just those 2 hawker association lackeys
if so then yes. but then hor why would wp members want to pay extra after paying their membership fee/subscription already? membership should have its privilege what?

Now it did make me wonder if other hawker centres other than Blk 511 and Blk 538 were charged an additional $7200 in the above 2.5m cleaning. If the other hawker centres were not charged, then this confirms the PAP affiliated hawkers centres were targeted. But then you are right, membership has its privileges, the WP affiliated hawkers centres shouldn't be expecting to be charged after paying membership fee/subscription..

 

[tanwahp]

2)Would the msm have given such extensive coverage to the story if it involved PAP MPs?

They covered some fine story of Nee Soon Town Council over some mosquito breeding during that period to sound nice.

Of great significance is that LHL came out with guns blazing after LTK asked whether this was VB's initiative or if this had the support of the entire PAP leadership.

I don't recall LTK having asked that question. LHL took up this point on his own initiative, maybe in response to netizens who said that other PAP MPs were embarrassed by VB.