In my opinion, NEA and Hawkers Association were playing politics. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The picture I have gathered now about the cleaning disputes of two hawker centres (Block 538 and Block 511) in Aljunied GRC is as follows: Block 538 Market ------------------- On 7th Feb 2013, NEA wrote to WP’s AHPETC to say 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”. The cleaning here refers to Block 538 Market. Apparently, scaffolding had not been arranged during the cleaning period and thus cleaning of high areas was not done – despite market was closed for the five days, thus causing no income to the hawkers. What is the role of Hawker Association? It seemed that the Hawker Association had arranged for the hawkers to close their stalls during the cleaning period, but failed to arrange for the scaffolding to be erected. Never mind NEA and The Straits Times subsequently offered a strange interpretation for the word ‘scaffolding’ – i.e. “putting up canvas to cover the stalls”! What an idiotic interpretation! Block 511 Market ------------------- Block 511 Market was scheduled to have its cleaning from 24 Jun – 28 June 2013. However on 8 May 2013, Mr. Chan Kheng Heng (Secretary of Hawkers Association of Block 511 Market) approached WP MP Faisal for assistance. He alleged to the MP that AHPETC informed him that stallholders had to bear the cost of cleaning areas above 2.5 metres above the ground. MP Faisal then wrote a letter, in his capacity as an MP, to the town council manager, stating the allegation made by Mr. Chan and requesting the town council manager to look into Mr. Chan’s case. No person of a reasonable mind would interpret that such a letter (written by MP Faisal) stating Mr. Chan’s allegation should be taken to mean MP Faisal agreed that the allegation was true. NEA and its minister may well be the exception! You complained to the General Manager of a company that his Finance Manager overcharged you; the General Manager then wrote a note to the Finance Manager, stating your allegation and asked him to look into it. Such a note in no way can be taken to mean the General Manager agreed that you had been overcharged. Isn’t this common sense? Fixing the WP? ---------------- AHPETC challenged NEA to state in public whether any hawker had been told by town council staff or its contractor to make extra payment for the cleaning of hawker centre. Till this day, all that NEA could produce was a price quotation for high areas cleaning made by AHPETC’s contractor to one Mr. Ng Kok Khim of Hawker Association for Block 538 Market. We now know that this Ng Kok Khim is not only a grassroots leader, but also a long time PAP member who used to be a town councilor – prior to that ward being lost to the WP. According to AHPETC, the price quotation was made by its contractor to the Hawker Association of Block 538 Market in response to the latter asking for it. As we all know, AHPETC’s contractor is an independent commercial company that is free to provide quotations to anyone asking for it. It is therefore shocking to learn that NEA could just base on that quotation made to Ng Kok Khim and conclude it “shows that the contractor wanted the hawkers to separately pay them for the scaffording and cleaning of the high areas”! We certainly hope that the Singapore’s court system does not work on such strange logic! Why did Ng Kok Khim, the representative of Hawker Association of Block 538 Market, request for the price quotation of high area cleaning? Was he hoping to embarrass AHPETC and WP if the price quotation turned out to be more costly than the rates charged by contractors of PAP constituencies? Or it might be that he was hoping to use the quotation to squeeze contractors in PAP wards? Or perhaps, this Ng Kok Khim was the only person among them to hold the ‘fantasy’ that so long a hawker centre came under WP’s management, all hawkers would be made to pay for the cleaning of areas above 2.5 metres? Did this Ng Kok Khim spread certain rumours or misinformation among the hawkers? I do not know. It is strange that when NEA suddenly decided to volunteer publishing to the public, documents relating to the AHPETC case, it seemed to have chosen not to release the email (dated 7 Feb 2013) that caused this storm in a teacup. That email which informed AHPETC, “the Hawkers Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on the scaffold erection/dismantling during the spring cleaning period”! As the local media was trying hard to cook up a storm on the case, why didn’t NEA approach AHPETC to listen to its side of the story? In my opinion, the NEA and Hawkers Association have been politically motivated in their dealing with this case. The local media, once again, has proven that it is effectively the ruling party’s propaganda department. WP and the stallholders are the victims here. By Celia Lim
Posted on: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:35:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015