Vivian’s air tight case on honesty and integrity

The hawker centre cleaning issue just refuses to go away. It is quite bizarre that a small administrative misunderstanding could end up as an issue of honesty and integrity in Parliament. With all the information now on the table, I believe the issue is now pretty clear to even the Ah Peks and Ah Mahs in the market place. Let me try to summarise the case and where it is at the moment.

5 parties were involved, the NEA, Town Council and the non existent Hawker’s Association. I hope I got it right that there was no hawker association in the first place or just an informal one. Correct me if I am wrong. The hawkers in the market are not new. They have been operating there for many years and know exactly whether they should or should not pay for the scaffolding. The Town Council may be a bit new and could be expected to be raw or unfamiliar with some of the administrative stuff. But they are expected to know what they can make the hawkers pay and what they cannot. They would not dare to ask the hawkers for payment if they are not supposed to do so. This is a public matter and not something that can be hidden away. They can’t cheat the hawkers. The hawkers and the staff in the Town Council know what is happening. If they are asking for payment, it is likely be an honest mistake. There are things called honest mistakes right? The WP is denying that they did.

As for the NEA, lagi simple. They are the authority and administrator of market maintenance and Town Council matters. They must be very clear as to what the Town Council can collect and what cannot. A young executive from NEA could tell the parties in disagreement clearly who should pay for what. NEA could easily nip this misunderstanding in the bud.

It is strange and highly unsatisfactory that this little administrative misunderstanding could end up in Parliament and becomes an issue of honesty and integrity. And I believe Vivian Balakrishnan must have been convinced that he had an air tight case to prove that the WP MPs had to answer on issues of honesty and integrity. In the Parliamentary debate you could see how confident and assured he was in lecturing the WP MPs and in patronizing Low Thia Khiang to investigate his party members. And for Hsien Loong to openly state that he and his cabinet supported Vivian’s stand, it must mean that he and his cabinet too were convinced that it was a good and unquestionable case to push in Parliament. In a way Hsien Loong is putting his credibility behind Vivian’s charge.

The latest development is the revelation that two key personnel in the dispute are PAP members. This disclosure would create some doubts as to whether this is strictly an issue involving the hawkers and the Town Council or between the WP and PAP. The lawyers will use this to cast doubts into the case.

The next unfortunate things are the notes of the NEA officer and the dossier of Vivian. Apparently the NEA notes were referring to Spring cleaning and Vivian’s dossier was referring to Annual cleaning. Low Thia Khiang’s final statement in Parliament was about a misunderstanding between these two events. The Town Council thinks that it was Spring cleaning and the hawkers would have to pay for the additional scaffolding. They will not charge for Annual cleaning which they have planned for the year end.

Now, is the NEA officer clear that this is an issue of Spring cleaning? If so, why is the dossier of Vivian saying that it is Annual Cleaning? How did the word ‘Annual’ gets into Vivian’s dossier but not in NEA’s notes?

Would Low Thia Khiang stick to his position and regard this little discrepancy also as a misunderstanding and say move on, let the people be the judge? Or would he now go to Parliament with another air tight case that Vivian now has a case to answer on honesty and integrity when the NEA notes and his dossier are concerned? Would Low patronize Vivian and ask him to do an investigation into the matter to clear himself of the same accusation hurled at him?

Whose honesty and integrity are now in question?