Jump to content

Politicians Talk About Integrity

Kyrios

By Kyrios,
in Lite & EZ

 Share

Recommended Posts

Perseus76

Perseus76

2nd Gear

very soon, all our char kuay tiao will cost $10/plate, because rental will become super high, all due to million dollar ministers spending so much time talking about how to do spring cleaning properly for the hawker center.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Watwheels

Watwheels

Supersonic

Now they play the game of denial and tai chi. But they cannot run away as they are seen as the hawker representative and the fact that they are not even hawkers. Best thing is quotation is addressed to their names. Let's see what their pay master have to say now that the cat is out of the bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fcw75

Fcw75

Hypersonic

Everyone do your part - Boycott Etronin Electromart. Bloody snitch.

 

Anyway, I never buy from there. And probably never will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Djim

Djim

1st Gear

FROM IRS website: Winnings from betting such as 4D, toto, football, Singapore sweep, horse racing, fruit machine (jackpot) winnings and etc. in Singapore, are not taxable as they are windfalls and not of an income nature., why our authorities love to deal in the woolly woolly, they always have open ended conditions that nobody seems to know when one runs foul with the law

Link to post
Share on other sites
Acemundo

Acemundo

Supercharged

Double chop confirm nobody except for IB and hardcore MIW supporter will believe liao. [cool]

 

can't imagine reading ST Forum articles from contributors who still sided with PAP and asked for WP to come clean.

 

my respect for you know who fell to new low after he joined in the fracas with poorly thought out pointers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Playtime

Playtime

Twincharged
(edited)

It's seems very clear now.

The WP after AIM was very cautious.

After knowing the identity of those representatives, they must have worried about possible fixing. So they prefer to deal through NEA to keep things on record.

 

But it seems things on the ground still got out of control.

The question now is whether some people on the ground deliberately stirred things up?

And did the minister know or was the tail wagging the dog?

 

But adding "annual" in the dossier when the emails show none existed is a breach of integrity if proven true.

Edited by Playtime
Link to post
Share on other sites
Darryn

Darryn

Turbocharged

It's seems very clear now.

The WP after AIM was very cautious.

After knowing the identity of those representatives, they must have worried about possible fixing. So they prefer to deal through NEA to keep things on record.

 

But it seems things on the ground still got out of control.

The question now is whether some people on the ground deliberately stirred things up?

And did the minister know or was the tail wagging the dog?

 

But adding "annual" in the dossier when the emails show none existed is a breach of integrity if proven true.

The opinion of laywers would be interesting as to whether this then constitutes defamation.

 

And I also wonder, if the Ministers statement that he is withdrawing parliamentary privilege is legally binding.

 

I wonder also if there he has legally played with the difference between "asked for extra money for things the town council has to do" and "asked the Hawkers to pay extra for extra services they requested"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ender

Ender

Hypersonic
(edited)

can't imagine reading ST Forum articles from contributors who still sided with PAP and asked for WP to come clean.

 

my respect for you know who fell to new low after he joined in the fracas with poorly thought out pointers.

 

I agreed Mr Low said, one huge miscommunication. Vivi assumption is when Ms Chen wrote to Pradeep that the closure was 4 days (from 4 to 8 march) it is understood to be a annual cleaning as quarterly spring cleaning is close for one day only. His other assumption is this is not the 1st time AHPETC do annual cleaning, thus they should be aware a 4 days closure means annual, and one day closure means spring.

 

Pradeep point is they already plan a annual cleaning is oct and nov, thus the march cleaning will be designated a spring cleaning as NEA didn't use the word annual in the email. Now the poor thing here is the hawkers are the ones who suffer. As the hawker has a impression of the annual cleaning, since it's 4 days closure, so some of them even book holiday together. They lost 4 days earning thinking their ceiling will be cleaned..

 

This is what I gather so far. Too much assumption on both side. Everyone should take a breather and move on..

Edited by Ender
Link to post
Share on other sites
Johorat

Johorat

1st Gear
(edited)

I agreed Mr Low said, one huge miscommunication. Vivi assumption is when Ms Chen wrote to Pradeep that the closure was 4 days (from 4 to 8 march) it is understood to be a annual cleaning as quarterly spring cleaning is close for one day only. His other assumption is this is not the 1st time AHPETC do annual cleaning, thus they should be aware a 4 days closure means annual, and one day closure means spring.

 

Pradeep point is they already plan a annual cleaning is oct and nov, thus the march cleaning will be designated a spring cleaning as NEA didn't use the word annual in the email. Now the poor thing here is the hawkers are the ones who suffer. As the hawker has a impression of the annual cleaning, since it's 4 days closure, so some of them even book holiday together. They lost 4 days earning thinking their ceiling will be cleaned..

 

This is what I gather so far. Too much assumption on both side. Everyone should take a breather and move on..

 

 

Cleaning of ceiling was assumed to be the extra item the hawkers wanted since it clearly stated that the annual cleaning is in Oct. No one requested the annual cleaning be pushed forward. Unlike annual cleaning where TC will arrange everything other than the tentage, arrangement for the march spring cleaning was different since it was assumed that extra works were provided.

 

Plus the fact that NEA shouldn't said hawker will arrange for "scaffolding" if they really mean setting up of 'tentage'(which I find it hard to believe) to cover the stall.

Edited by Johorat
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yewheng

Yewheng

Twincharged
(edited)

Actually come to think of it, if they notice the differences, they could have solve it internally and not publish on newspaper, that makes both parties looks equally bad. What is worst is Singapore to discuss this kind of topic in parliament?? What will overseas people look at us as singapore political system?? [knife] [knife]

 

If it happen within own parties, will they make it public in newspaper? If no, than there is no reason for them to do that and degrade SG politics. Sigh.

Edited by Yewheng
↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...