ELECTRIC NEWS
'If I leave my job, it means I'm guilty'
Fired in December over 'minor' incident, Jurong toilet cleaner still turns up for work daily
By Lediati Tan
March 13, 2009
THREE months ago, she was told to go. But this little old lady of the loo doesn't believe that when you've got to go, you've got to go.
NOT LEAVING: Madam Wong continues to report for work at 7am, leaving at 9.30pm. TNP PICTURE: MOHD ISHAK
Madam Wong Pit Wan, 68, refuses to budge, refuses to buckle under pressure to leave. Sacked over a minor incident, she continued to turn up for work every day.
'I didn't do anything wrong, so why should I leave?' she said in Mandarin.
At a time of widespread job insecurity, hers is a notable story of someone who fought for her job - and won - never mind that cleaning a toilet is considered dirty work.
Never mind that it pays only $800, barely enough to support her after deducting her monthly room rental of close to $300.
Since a fall in 2005, the divorcee lives in a rented room, which she shares with a friend, near the Jurong market. This means she doesn't have to walk so much because the fall has made walking difficult.
Earlier, she was living in Clementi.
Although she has three grown-up children, she prefers to be self-reliant rather than burden them.
Madam Wong, a toilet caretaker at Yuhua Place food centre and wet market in Block347, Jurong East Avenue 1, was first told that she had to leave by last December.
She refused.
So the deadline was extended to 28 Feb.
The deadline came and went. Still, she continued to report for work at 7am every day, leaving only at 9.30pm.
Finally, the committee making decisions for the shop proprietors and hawkers' association at Yuhua Place relented - she can stay until the end of May.
End of story? No.
The gutsy toilet caretaker insisted that she will not be leaving Yuhua Place, where she has been the toilets' guardian for the past 24years.
'If I leave, it will mean that I have done something wrong,' she said.
She told The New Paper that her troubles began on 2 Dec when an old lady took her grandson to use the toilet but did not have the 10-cent entry fee.
She claimed that she allowed the boy to use the toilet and she even went into the male toilet to pass some toilet paper to the boy at the request of the old lady.
Said Madam Wong: 'When I came out of the toilet, I saw the treasurer of the committee putting a $10 note on my table. He said he wanted to pay for the old lady.
'He then demanded the change for the $10 but I told him I did not have enough change.'
An argument ensued, and the treasurer, a stallholder at the centre, allegedly scolded her, using vulgarities. The New Paper was unable to contact the treasurer.
He later allegedly asked for her to be replaced.
His wife spoke to us and disputed Madam Wong's version of events. She claimed that Madam Wong was rude and unkind to the old lady, and refused to give her any toilet paper because the customer did not have the money to pay for it.
She said in Mandarin: 'The old lady did not have the money. My husband felt sorry for her and offered to pay on her behalf. As he did not have any spare change, he gave Madam Wong a $10 note.'
They had an argument when Madam Wong said that she did not have change for the $10 note. The treasurer's wife claimed: '(Madam Wong) scolded my husband and said rudely, 'I know you have money'.
'My husband felt that she was rude and lacked compassion towards the old lady, and wanted another person who was more compassionate for the job.'
Madam Wong believes that it was this argument that led to her sacking. She claimed that the cleaning contractor for the food centre, ATL Maintenance, verbally informed her in December that they were terminating her services by 31 Dec.
But the deadline was extended to 28 Feb after some members of the association opposed the move, said Madam Wong.
One faction within the committee wanted her to be fired, but the opposing side argued that there were no valid reasons for dismissal.
Madam Wong was caught in the middle.
To decide her fate, the committee held two meetings - first in early January and then early last month. The matter was then put to a vote.
Both times, a majority voted for her dismissal. But Madam Wong stressed that it was not the committee she was against.
She said: 'A lot of other people became involved in this. It started as an argument between me and the treasurer which had nothing to do with the committee.
'But now, even the committee is split into two because of this.'
When contacted, the chairman of the committee, Mr Chia Cher Eng, 67, said in Mandarin: '(Some members of the committee) said her conduct was poor and she was rude to people. I think these are not sufficient reasons to fire her.'
He added that the committee also sought advice from grassroot leaders and an MP. But there is little that can be done as the association's committee has already voted on the matter twice.
Beyond our control
Said Mr Chia: 'We've tried our best to protect her rice bowl and make sure she is not fired. But she might be transferred to another place. That is beyond our control.'
But Madam Wong has declined the offer of a transfer. She said: 'I don't want to go. If I go, it'll mean I'm guilty. How would other people look at me if I went elsewhere to work?
'People will think that I've been fired from my previous job because I was a bad person.'
The New Paper also spoke to stallholders in the wet market.
While most agreed that Madam Wong would occasionally lose her temper and tell people off for dirtying the toilets and for not paying, some also spoke up for her.
They argued that she should not be fired as she has performed her job dutifully for the past 24years.
Said Mr Lim, a fishmonger at the wet market, in Mandarin: 'She can be grumpy sometimes, but her temper has improved over the years. If she was so bad, she wouldn't have been able to continue working here for 24years. It's a big question mark why they want to fire her now.
'It's not fair (to do so). They should just let it pass. She's already so old, how can she take care of herself if she's fired?'
Mr Ng, another shop owner at the market, who is in his 50s, said in Mandarin: 'It was a small matter that has been blown out of proportion.'
'If I leave my job, it means I'm guilty'
Fired in December over 'minor' incident, Jurong toilet cleaner still turns up for work daily
By Lediati Tan
March 13, 2009
THREE months ago, she was told to go. But this little old lady of the loo doesn't believe that when you've got to go, you've got to go.
NOT LEAVING: Madam Wong continues to report for work at 7am, leaving at 9.30pm. TNP PICTURE: MOHD ISHAK
Madam Wong Pit Wan, 68, refuses to budge, refuses to buckle under pressure to leave. Sacked over a minor incident, she continued to turn up for work every day.
'I didn't do anything wrong, so why should I leave?' she said in Mandarin.
At a time of widespread job insecurity, hers is a notable story of someone who fought for her job - and won - never mind that cleaning a toilet is considered dirty work.
Never mind that it pays only $800, barely enough to support her after deducting her monthly room rental of close to $300.
Since a fall in 2005, the divorcee lives in a rented room, which she shares with a friend, near the Jurong market. This means she doesn't have to walk so much because the fall has made walking difficult.
Earlier, she was living in Clementi.
Although she has three grown-up children, she prefers to be self-reliant rather than burden them.
Madam Wong, a toilet caretaker at Yuhua Place food centre and wet market in Block347, Jurong East Avenue 1, was first told that she had to leave by last December.
She refused.
So the deadline was extended to 28 Feb.
The deadline came and went. Still, she continued to report for work at 7am every day, leaving only at 9.30pm.
Finally, the committee making decisions for the shop proprietors and hawkers' association at Yuhua Place relented - she can stay until the end of May.
End of story? No.
The gutsy toilet caretaker insisted that she will not be leaving Yuhua Place, where she has been the toilets' guardian for the past 24years.
'If I leave, it will mean that I have done something wrong,' she said.
She told The New Paper that her troubles began on 2 Dec when an old lady took her grandson to use the toilet but did not have the 10-cent entry fee.
She claimed that she allowed the boy to use the toilet and she even went into the male toilet to pass some toilet paper to the boy at the request of the old lady.
Said Madam Wong: 'When I came out of the toilet, I saw the treasurer of the committee putting a $10 note on my table. He said he wanted to pay for the old lady.
'He then demanded the change for the $10 but I told him I did not have enough change.'
An argument ensued, and the treasurer, a stallholder at the centre, allegedly scolded her, using vulgarities. The New Paper was unable to contact the treasurer.
He later allegedly asked for her to be replaced.
His wife spoke to us and disputed Madam Wong's version of events. She claimed that Madam Wong was rude and unkind to the old lady, and refused to give her any toilet paper because the customer did not have the money to pay for it.
She said in Mandarin: 'The old lady did not have the money. My husband felt sorry for her and offered to pay on her behalf. As he did not have any spare change, he gave Madam Wong a $10 note.'
They had an argument when Madam Wong said that she did not have change for the $10 note. The treasurer's wife claimed: '(Madam Wong) scolded my husband and said rudely, 'I know you have money'.
'My husband felt that she was rude and lacked compassion towards the old lady, and wanted another person who was more compassionate for the job.'
Madam Wong believes that it was this argument that led to her sacking. She claimed that the cleaning contractor for the food centre, ATL Maintenance, verbally informed her in December that they were terminating her services by 31 Dec.
But the deadline was extended to 28 Feb after some members of the association opposed the move, said Madam Wong.
One faction within the committee wanted her to be fired, but the opposing side argued that there were no valid reasons for dismissal.
Madam Wong was caught in the middle.
To decide her fate, the committee held two meetings - first in early January and then early last month. The matter was then put to a vote.
Both times, a majority voted for her dismissal. But Madam Wong stressed that it was not the committee she was against.
She said: 'A lot of other people became involved in this. It started as an argument between me and the treasurer which had nothing to do with the committee.
'But now, even the committee is split into two because of this.'
When contacted, the chairman of the committee, Mr Chia Cher Eng, 67, said in Mandarin: '(Some members of the committee) said her conduct was poor and she was rude to people. I think these are not sufficient reasons to fire her.'
He added that the committee also sought advice from grassroot leaders and an MP. But there is little that can be done as the association's committee has already voted on the matter twice.
Beyond our control
Said Mr Chia: 'We've tried our best to protect her rice bowl and make sure she is not fired. But she might be transferred to another place. That is beyond our control.'
But Madam Wong has declined the offer of a transfer. She said: 'I don't want to go. If I go, it'll mean I'm guilty. How would other people look at me if I went elsewhere to work?
'People will think that I've been fired from my previous job because I was a bad person.'
The New Paper also spoke to stallholders in the wet market.
While most agreed that Madam Wong would occasionally lose her temper and tell people off for dirtying the toilets and for not paying, some also spoke up for her.
They argued that she should not be fired as she has performed her job dutifully for the past 24years.
Said Mr Lim, a fishmonger at the wet market, in Mandarin: 'She can be grumpy sometimes, but her temper has improved over the years. If she was so bad, she wouldn't have been able to continue working here for 24years. It's a big question mark why they want to fire her now.
'It's not fair (to do so). They should just let it pass. She's already so old, how can she take care of herself if she's fired?'
Mr Ng, another shop owner at the market, who is in his 50s, said in Mandarin: 'It was a small matter that has been blown out of proportion.'
