Sammyboy RSS Feed
08-06-2013, 06:40 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
If the government has a problem with the opposition wards, have it debated in parliament.
The NEA tried to create troubles in the opposition wards by meddling with the cleaning operations. Why? Did the WP TC failed to comply with existing regulations? No. So, why was the NEA negotiating with the hawkers?
Quote:
Clean food centre this month, NEA orders
Singapore, June 7, 2013
A long-drawn-out dispute between a Workers' Party-run town council and the National Environment Agency (NEA) over the cleaning of hawker centres continued on Tuesday, with the debate moving from who should pay for cleaning to when the cleaning should take place.
The shift follows a morning visit made by Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan to two Bedok hawker centres at the heart of the row to listen to the food sellers' concerns.
They are in blocks 511 and 538 in Bedok North Street 3.
Shortly after the visit, the NEA issued a statement calling on Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) not to delay an annual spring cleaning of the hawker centre in Block 511.
The AHPETC had said on Monday the cleaning would be done in the last week of November.
But the NEA, in its statement, notes that the major clean-up, including the centre's high areas and ceiling, is due on June 24 and "this cannot be postponed".
Citing hygiene reasons, it said: "As a public service agency, NEA's main priority is to ensure that the standards of public hygiene are not compromised and the hawker centres well maintained. NEA imposes the same standards on all town councils and expects all stakeholders to act in good faith."
The NEA added that it would meet AHPETC and affected hawkers on Thursday "to ensure a fair and safe outcome for the hawkers and members of the public".
Responding to the NEA laon Tueday night, AHPETC vice-chairman Pritam Singh said "all outstanding issues will be discussed at that meeting". He did not comment, however, on the call not to postpone the cleaning.
The controversy over who should pay for the annual spring cleaning has been on the boil since March.
It came to light last month, when The Sunday Times reported that hawkers in blocks 511 and 538 were unhappy that they had been asked to pay for scaffolding needed to clean the ceilings of their hawker centres.
A war of words ensued between NEA and AHPETC, which claims an NEA e-mail dated Feb7 suggested the hawkers would set up the scaffolding.
In his statement on Tuesday night, Mr Singh noted that the NEA did not dispute AHPETC's point that its Feb7 e-mail had led to the confusion.
On Tuesday, the NEA reiterated its position that all town councils are obligated to do the major clean-up without imposing extra fees on hawkers.
The practice has been in place for more than a decade, it said.
But it is "gratified the AHPETC has belatedly acknowledged its responsibilities to bear all costs".
"This is precisely the point NEA has been trying to convey to AHPETC all along," it added.
Meanwhile, 32 hawkers of Block 511 have sent a petition to AHPETC asking for the cleaning to be done as planned, in June.
Similarly, 36 hawkers at Block 538 have sent AHPETC a petition asking for compensation for loss of income from a cleaning exercise in
March, during which the ceiling was supposed to be cleaned but was not. They, however, did not stipulate the amount.
Said carrot-cake seller Yong Heng Ran, 54: "We still had to pay our workers when the centre was closed (in March). A day's closure can easily cost us up to $1,000. Now, we are told we need to close for another five days in October.
"Have they spared a thought for the livelihood of hawkers?"
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?153947-What-right-does-NEA-have-to-bully-elected-MPs&goto=newpost).
If the government has a problem with the opposition wards, have it debated in parliament.
The NEA tried to create troubles in the opposition wards by meddling with the cleaning operations. Why? Did the WP TC failed to comply with existing regulations? No. So, why was the NEA negotiating with the hawkers?
Quote:
Clean food centre this month, NEA orders
Singapore, June 7, 2013
A long-drawn-out dispute between a Workers' Party-run town council and the National Environment Agency (NEA) over the cleaning of hawker centres continued on Tuesday, with the debate moving from who should pay for cleaning to when the cleaning should take place.
The shift follows a morning visit made by Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan to two Bedok hawker centres at the heart of the row to listen to the food sellers' concerns.
They are in blocks 511 and 538 in Bedok North Street 3.
Shortly after the visit, the NEA issued a statement calling on Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) not to delay an annual spring cleaning of the hawker centre in Block 511.
The AHPETC had said on Monday the cleaning would be done in the last week of November.
But the NEA, in its statement, notes that the major clean-up, including the centre's high areas and ceiling, is due on June 24 and "this cannot be postponed".
Citing hygiene reasons, it said: "As a public service agency, NEA's main priority is to ensure that the standards of public hygiene are not compromised and the hawker centres well maintained. NEA imposes the same standards on all town councils and expects all stakeholders to act in good faith."
The NEA added that it would meet AHPETC and affected hawkers on Thursday "to ensure a fair and safe outcome for the hawkers and members of the public".
Responding to the NEA laon Tueday night, AHPETC vice-chairman Pritam Singh said "all outstanding issues will be discussed at that meeting". He did not comment, however, on the call not to postpone the cleaning.
The controversy over who should pay for the annual spring cleaning has been on the boil since March.
It came to light last month, when The Sunday Times reported that hawkers in blocks 511 and 538 were unhappy that they had been asked to pay for scaffolding needed to clean the ceilings of their hawker centres.
A war of words ensued between NEA and AHPETC, which claims an NEA e-mail dated Feb7 suggested the hawkers would set up the scaffolding.
In his statement on Tuesday night, Mr Singh noted that the NEA did not dispute AHPETC's point that its Feb7 e-mail had led to the confusion.
On Tuesday, the NEA reiterated its position that all town councils are obligated to do the major clean-up without imposing extra fees on hawkers.
The practice has been in place for more than a decade, it said.
But it is "gratified the AHPETC has belatedly acknowledged its responsibilities to bear all costs".
"This is precisely the point NEA has been trying to convey to AHPETC all along," it added.
Meanwhile, 32 hawkers of Block 511 have sent a petition to AHPETC asking for the cleaning to be done as planned, in June.
Similarly, 36 hawkers at Block 538 have sent AHPETC a petition asking for compensation for loss of income from a cleaning exercise in
March, during which the ceiling was supposed to be cleaned but was not. They, however, did not stipulate the amount.
Said carrot-cake seller Yong Heng Ran, 54: "We still had to pay our workers when the centre was closed (in March). A day's closure can easily cost us up to $1,000. Now, we are told we need to close for another five days in October.
"Have they spared a thought for the livelihood of hawkers?"
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?153947-What-right-does-NEA-have-to-bully-elected-MPs&goto=newpost).