Sammyboy RSS Feed
11-07-2013, 09:30 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Indeed, the resulting impression that both reports gave – that WP was beaten, speechless, unprepared and retreated in haste – was far from complete. Essentially, WP stood their ground, rightly or wrongly, and sought clarification at least twice in Parliament from the Minister on the context of the dossier about the understanding by all parties on the scope of work required in cleaning the hawker centres. To which the Minister gave none, brushed it off as irrelevant and continued his charge.
Was there something amiss? Is there something important in having to ask the Minister twice to clarify a point, to which he flatly refused? Why did our traditional media not pick it up? I cannot be that WP MPs are worth less airtime than a full Minister – this is Parliament, and any question asked by an MP surely deserves an appropriate response.
The comment that “The WP seemed totally taken by surprise by that ‘Matlock’ moment when the minister distributed a dossier containing evidence contradicting Lim” was spurious. The Minister produced his “dossier of evidence” only two-thirds down the debate. If anyone was caught off-guard, it was the whole of Parliament. There were also many other barbs traded, why focus on this “Matlock moment”?
Also, none of the reports indicated the apparent telling point, when other MPs were able to reference highlighted components of the dossier. Why were specific instances of correspondences with AHPETC’s property manager highlighted before hand? Was Dr Vivian’s role in Parliament that day to clarify on the workings between town councils and the government on cleaning hawker centres, or to launch a substantiated attack on the integrity on AHPETC? If the Minister has indeed took pains to assure that he did not want to belabour Parliament on such nitty-gritty details, why then the interest to highlight these comments beforehand?
Was Parliament satisfied that the interest of the hawkers was served through this debate? The entire exchange seems to be more about politics than public service, which even the Minister did not deny – “he framed the issue as one of integrity and clean politics, and not the cleanliness of hawker centres”, reported the Straits Times. Would Parliament not be better satisfied to know that any misunderstanding has been cleared up, and cleaning works are under way, rather than hear MPs slug it out over a case of you-say-I-say-who-confirm? Why dredge it up again? Who dredged it up to begin with?
All these and more are far more pertinent in the debate, hidden in the details. Why did our media choose to pick on the Minister’s chastisement of WP, and ignore all these other issues? Is it because it makes for sensational news?
I have personally maintained that the entire hawker centre cleaning saga was a massive misunderstanding blown out of proportion, of which arose many heated accusations. Out of it also came questions on whether WP needs to be more diligent in reaching out to their constituents. (TOC’s report) But even so, it was totally unnecessary for this matter to be surfaced again in Parliament. It was also totally inexcusable for our media focus on the sensational muck-a-ruckus thrown up by the debate, forgetting some other core issues like the role of Parliament, and blindly stirring the fire under an issue that benefits no one, much less their readers.
- http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...r-centre-saga/ (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/07/politicising-it-again-media-sense-knocking-needed-on-hawker-centre-saga/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?156751-Even-a-prostitute-would-be-embarassed-by-the-way-Shitty-Times-covered-the-debate&goto=newpost).
Indeed, the resulting impression that both reports gave – that WP was beaten, speechless, unprepared and retreated in haste – was far from complete. Essentially, WP stood their ground, rightly or wrongly, and sought clarification at least twice in Parliament from the Minister on the context of the dossier about the understanding by all parties on the scope of work required in cleaning the hawker centres. To which the Minister gave none, brushed it off as irrelevant and continued his charge.
Was there something amiss? Is there something important in having to ask the Minister twice to clarify a point, to which he flatly refused? Why did our traditional media not pick it up? I cannot be that WP MPs are worth less airtime than a full Minister – this is Parliament, and any question asked by an MP surely deserves an appropriate response.
The comment that “The WP seemed totally taken by surprise by that ‘Matlock’ moment when the minister distributed a dossier containing evidence contradicting Lim” was spurious. The Minister produced his “dossier of evidence” only two-thirds down the debate. If anyone was caught off-guard, it was the whole of Parliament. There were also many other barbs traded, why focus on this “Matlock moment”?
Also, none of the reports indicated the apparent telling point, when other MPs were able to reference highlighted components of the dossier. Why were specific instances of correspondences with AHPETC’s property manager highlighted before hand? Was Dr Vivian’s role in Parliament that day to clarify on the workings between town councils and the government on cleaning hawker centres, or to launch a substantiated attack on the integrity on AHPETC? If the Minister has indeed took pains to assure that he did not want to belabour Parliament on such nitty-gritty details, why then the interest to highlight these comments beforehand?
Was Parliament satisfied that the interest of the hawkers was served through this debate? The entire exchange seems to be more about politics than public service, which even the Minister did not deny – “he framed the issue as one of integrity and clean politics, and not the cleanliness of hawker centres”, reported the Straits Times. Would Parliament not be better satisfied to know that any misunderstanding has been cleared up, and cleaning works are under way, rather than hear MPs slug it out over a case of you-say-I-say-who-confirm? Why dredge it up again? Who dredged it up to begin with?
All these and more are far more pertinent in the debate, hidden in the details. Why did our media choose to pick on the Minister’s chastisement of WP, and ignore all these other issues? Is it because it makes for sensational news?
I have personally maintained that the entire hawker centre cleaning saga was a massive misunderstanding blown out of proportion, of which arose many heated accusations. Out of it also came questions on whether WP needs to be more diligent in reaching out to their constituents. (TOC’s report) But even so, it was totally unnecessary for this matter to be surfaced again in Parliament. It was also totally inexcusable for our media focus on the sensational muck-a-ruckus thrown up by the debate, forgetting some other core issues like the role of Parliament, and blindly stirring the fire under an issue that benefits no one, much less their readers.
- http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013...r-centre-saga/ (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/07/politicising-it-again-media-sense-knocking-needed-on-hawker-centre-saga/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://singsupplies.com/showthread.php?156751-Even-a-prostitute-would-be-embarassed-by-the-way-Shitty-Times-covered-the-debate&goto=newpost).