Town Councils' Role in Cleanliness of Hawker Centres

Mdm Speaker, let me begin by reading section 18(1) of the Town Councils Act since it applies to all of us. This section states that the

Page: 22

functions of a Town Council are (a) to control, manage, maintain and improve the common property of the residential and commercial property in the housing estates of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) within the Town and to keep them in a state of good and serviceable repair and in a proper and clean condition; and (b) to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may from time to time be conferred or imposed on the Town Council by or under any written law. Commercial property includes any market or food centre developed by the HDB.

For more than a decade, this, in fact, goes back to the 2003 SARS epidemic, NEA has directed all Town Councils to conduct quarterly spring cleaning of all markets and food centres under their charge. The quarterly spring cleaning includes all common areas, including drains, columns, floors, fans, roof gutters and the elimination of potential mosquito breeding sites.

The ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts are to be cleaned at least once a year and the costs of such cleaning, including the erection of scaffoldings in order to access the high areas, are to be fully borne by the Town Council, without any additional charges levied on hawkers, since the Town Council already collects monthly service and conservancy charges from all the hawkers. The hawkers are only responsible for the erection of scaffoldings for the protective canvas to cover their own individual stalls when the high areas are being cleaned.

NEA monitors the outcome of the cleaning exercise in order to ensure that public health and hygiene are safeguarded, pursuant to section 60 of the Environmental Public Health Act.

Mdm Speaker, the Minister said that the Town Council is responsible for cleaning the hawker centres, with no extra charges to the hawkers. In that case, what went wrong at the hawker centres in Bedok North?

Mdm Speaker, as I have explained, the spring cleaning of hawker centres, including the cleaning of high areas, has always been the responsibility of the Town Councils and the costs fully borne by the Town Councils. This is a well-established precedent. Mr Low, in a short discussion with me yesterday, agreed with this principle.

Unfortunately, the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council − it is a very long name, can we just call it Aljunied Town Council for short − the

Page: 23

Aljunied Town Council saga has been a very long story and, quite honestly, I do not want to impose further details of the dispute on the Members of this House or on members of the public.

However, in the minutiae of the to-and-fro, I am afraid the key issue of integrity has been obscured. The problems arose in Blocks 538 and 511 in Bedok North, because the Aljunied Town Council (a) denied its responsibility to clean the high areas of the hawker centres and markets; (b) tried to levy additional charges on the hawkers for doing so; (c) failed to clean Block 538 properly; and (d) prevaricated and made untrue statements to conceal this.

Mr Tai Vie Shun – I believe he is the Property Manager of Aljunied Town Council – tried to impose additional charges for the cleaning of high areas on the hawkers on three occasions. Not once, not twice – three occasions. The first occasion was on 8 March 2013 at a meeting attended by representatives from the NEA, the hawkers and the Town Council. The second occasion where this claim was made was on 26 April 2013 at a meeting attended by representatives from NEA, the Town Council and, this time, the Block 511 Hawker Association. The third occasion was on 28 April 2013 in a meeting with the Chairman of the Block 511 Hawker Association. We have notes of these meetings and we have a list of witnesses who can attest to what was said at these meetings.

Subsequently, the hawkers repeatedly asked Aljunied Town Council by email to confirm whether they would clean the high areas. Mr Tai Vie Shun refused to give the hawkers a direct answer. Instead, he responded three times. Three times by email with a stock answer. Let me quote his answer: "Spring cleaning is a practice set by the NEA, not the Town Council. As such, we advise the Merchant Association to liaise with the NEA directly on the requirement." Despite repeated entreaties by the hawkers and subsequently by the NEA, this was the cut-and-paste stock answer that was issued on three occasions. In other words, he was telling the poor hawkers that "This is not the Town Council's responsibility. It is NEA that imposed this requirement, go and ask them." These emails would be made available for public viewing.

Despite these facts, Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of the Town Council and Mr Pritam Singh, Vice-Chairman of the Aljunied Town Council, denied that the Aljunied Town Council ever tried to get the hawkers to pay more. These two denials were issued on 1 and 7 June 2013.

On 1 June 2013, Mr Pritam Singh issued a statement which stated and I quote, "We reiterate that no authorised Town Council staff told any hawker or anyone of

Page: 24

any additional charges to be imposed for the cleaning." On 7 June 2013, Ms Sylvia Lim issued the statement. I quote the statement, "The whole episode started with a Sunday Times report alluding that the AHPETC is collecting money from stallholders for the cleaning of the market and the hawker centre". Ms Sylvia Lim then goes on to ask, "Has any stallholder been approached by the AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless".

In the light of the evidence, the meetings, the witnesses, the emails, the consistent account by the hawkers throughout this entire sorry episode, I am afraid it leads to the conclusion that these two public denials by Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim were therefore false and untruthful.

Madam, I would like to make some clarifications and also ask some supplementary questions of the Minister since he has made very serious allegations against myself and Mr Pritam Singh's integrity. First of all, as far as obligations of the Town Council are concerned, I think the Minister would be aware that all conservancy contracts of Town Councils typically contain a clause requiring our conservancy contractors to conduct cleaning of high areas of hawker centres at least once a year. And he would also know that this is the case with the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council as well. So, would he not agree, first of all, that there is no incentive for the Town Council to get hawkers to pay extra because our contractors are obliged to provide this service in the first place?

Secondly, the Minister makes a lot of substance over certain emails that our Property Manager, Mr Tai, may have sent to the hawkers about spring cleaning. Does he not agree that spring cleaning and annual cleaning of high areas are not the same thing? His emails, as far as I recall the Minister talking, were referring to spring cleaning as such, and not the annual cleaning of high areas.

The third point is that the annual obligation of the Town Council to clean the high areas of hawker centres, I do not think NEA goes as far as to dictate the dates of these annual cleanings. There is no law requiring the annual cleanings to coincide with the spring cleanings as such. And during our Town Council's discussion with NEA, we are given to understand that NEA is open to us having alternative dates for the cleaning of the high areas. So, does he not agree that really annual cleaning and spring cleaning need not coincide?

Page: 25

The next point is he mentioned the incidents concerning Block 538 in Bedok North, saying that we have not fulfilled our responsibilities, we have tried to deny our role and also lie about it. But does he not remember that this whole confusion started because of an email from an NEA official on 7 February? In fact, if he looks at that chain of correspondence, he will see that the Town Council staff were asking NEA to confirm the dates for the scaffold erection and dismantling, and the reply that came back was, that the Hawkers' Association would be making arrangements with their own contractors for the scaffold erection and dismantling. So, how is the Town Council supposed to read that? Is that something that the Town Council is supposed to be blamed for? Madam, I will just make these clarifications from now and respond later.

Madam, the key issue is integrity. I have put forth to this House that Mr Tai Vie Shun, whom you do not deny is your Property Manager, whom I believe is an employee of FM Solutions & Services (FMSS), had on three occasions asked the hawkers to pay more. That is the crux of the issue. We can discuss all the other peripheral issues but this is what Mr Tai had said and done. You have denied that publicly. What is your version today?

Madam, I do not think the Minister has cited any correspondence from Mr Tai which says that the Town Council is asking the hawkers to pay extra. What the Minister mentioned in the email just now was that Mr Tai was saying that arrangements with spring cleaning, those details should be discussed with NEA. I do not think Mr Tai asked for any extra charges to be paid.

Mdm Speaker, I really did not want to go into details. But I think since Ms Lim is asking for it, I hope the Clerk of Parliament would be able to distribute the dossier of documents which will provide the details needed [Handouts were distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1].

I am going to ask one more time. Did Mr Tai Vie Shun ask the hawkers for extra money and did he deny the responsibility of the Town Council to clean the high areas? I just want a "yes" or "no" answer.

Madam, as far as our investigations go, Mr Tai at no point in time asked for extra money to be paid to the Town Council for high area cleaning.

Page: 26

Madam, the Minister has just given us a stack of documents. I would like him to point out where it is quoted that Mr Tai has asked the hawkers to pay extra for the high area cleaning under our annual obligation.

Let me take Members through the dossier. The first thing to notice in the dossier on page 7 is a quotation from ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd. ATL Maintenance Pte Ltd is not just another independent maintenance company. It is the contractor of Aljunied Town Council, and according to Ms Sylvia Lim, has within its contract an obligation to clean all areas, including the high areas.

The first irregular event is ATL's quotation delivered by hand on 19 February 2013. Now, there are three critical irregularities to this quotation.

First, the hawkers never asked for a quotation. Mr Low has met the hawkers. They have told him the same thing. They never asked for the quotation because they never expected to be stuck with this bill.

Secondly, ATL Maintenance Ltd is your own contractor. When your own contractor issues a quotation for $7,200 to the hawkers, asking for payment for work which you say is already covered by your contract, that amounts to a demand for double payment for the same quantity of work.

The third point that is irregular with this quotation is that – do not be taken in by this claim that the Town Council was confused. If the Town Council was confused, read this quotation carefully, it says: "Scope of work: provision of manpower, equipment, materials, chemicals, insurance and supervision for the cleaning of entire premises, consisting of 40 market stalls." If the Town Council was merely confused, this quotation would have said "erection of scaffolding

Page: 27

for access to the ceiling". It would not be for the entire scope of work.

So, this mysterious quotation shows that something was not quite right in the Town Council and the way it was handling its contractor and the relations, the engagement between the contractor and the poor hawkers.

Next, Ms Lim asked for the statements of Mr Tai.

Turn to page 9 and page 11. These are contemporaneous file notes of meetings that occurred on 8 March 2013 when the hawkers discovered that Block 538 had not been properly cleaned and on 26 April 2013, when the hawkers of Block 511, having seen what happened to their brothers in Block 538, got very worried. Now, both Ms Lim and Mr Pritam Singh are lawyers. You will know that a contemporaneous filenote has significance. Now, let me highlight the portions highlighted in yellow.

Page 9, under "Actions taken", the paragraph reads, "An urgent meeting was called by Chin Peiyun". Now, move down to the next sentence. I will read it out for avoidance of doubt, "The scope of spring cleaning was highlighted by Property Manager, Mr Tai, during the site meeting. AHTC is to provide conservancy workers during the spring cleaning which includes manhole flushing, wall fans, toilets, tables, chairs, lighting, exhaust, oil trap and dusting of exhaust ducting in the centre".

The next paragraph is the important one: "Those unreachable area (sic) which is more than 2.5 metres which needed scaffolding does not come under AHTC's responsibilities. Those considered skilled workers were (sic) not provided by AHTC. Property Manager Mr Tai mentioned under the workplace safety regulations under MOM, area where scaffolding (sic) are provided, safety supervisors and safety officers must be around to supervise the high level cleaning works. This (sic) additional costs should be bear (sic)" – I am repeating all these grammatical mistakes – "by either NEA or the Hawker Association (HA) of Block 538 Bedok North Street 3 Food Centre."

Now, turn with me to page 12. This is the meeting with the hawkers of Block 511 on 26 April, third paragraph: "The HA (Hawker Association) reps commented that the ceilings and beams were dirty, and were covered with bird droppings. However, the TC (Town Council) commented that they will not be bearing any costs for the erecting of staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond the height of 2.5 m. Mr Tai mentioned that the cost of erecting the staging/machinery for cleaning of areas beyond 2.5 m shall be borne by the HA

Page: 28

instead of the Town Council."

I do not think we need to go on and on. The point is: on three occasions, Mr Tai made these claims. There were meetings, there were witnesses present. They will attest to the veracity of this. So, I ask you again: did Mr Tai deny responsibility for cleaning the high areas? And did he ask the hawkers to pay extra? A simple "yes" or "no".

Thank you, Madam. The documents of minutes that Minister showed us clearly took place in the context of the discussion on spring cleaning. And he has not answered my earlier question as to whether he agrees that there is a difference between the quarterly spring cleaning and the annual cleaning of the high areas. That is, the first question.

Secondly, does he not accept that NEA was open to the Town Council conducting high area cleaning on dates which did not coincide with the spring cleaning?

Third, if we look at the quotation that he mentioned on page 7 of the bundle – he mentioned some discussions which some hawkers may have had with Mr Low. I will leave it to Mr Low to talk about that [Interruption].

Looking at this quotation, this is a quotation from ATL, the cleaning contractor, addressed to the Market Association. They issued a separate press release, I think round about early June, to state that this quotation was requested by the Market Association and does not coincide with their annual obligation to clean the high areas under the Town Council contract. Does Minister not agree that nowhere is the Town Council implicated in this quotation? It is a quotation by a commercial company.

You know, this is very painful, and Ms Lim, you are a lawyer. Let us not beat around the bush, arguing about annual and quarterly spring cleaning.

Read the context of those meetings. The hawker centres were closed – Block 538 hawker centre was closed for five days. Five days. Why? Do hawker centres close for five days, four times a year? The answer is "no". Look at what you yourself did in Block 511 after, fortunately, Mr

Page: 29

Low intervened. Right? Let us not beat around the bush. I just want to come back with a simple yes-no question. Did Mr Tai deny responsibility for cleaning areas above 2.5 metres and did he demand extra money for that work to be done?

I want to emphasise that at all these meetings, NEA began a meeting by sharing with everyone, with the agreement of the hawkers, that this is about cleanliness and hygiene within the hawker centres. For spring cleaning exercises, there are four – they are quarterly, right? On three of those occasions when the high areas are not involved, it is only a one-day affair. On a major cleaning, which involves the roof, you close for five days. Why were the hawkers in Block 538 so angry? I will tell you why they were angry with you. They closed for five days. They lost income for five days. And when they came back, they discovered they had paid $140 each to cover the individual stalls – and they came back, and the covers were pristine. Clean. Why? The ceiling was not cleaned.

And then, when they enquired, they found out that your workers spent maybe half a day or a day, not five days. So they closed five days for a completely unnecessary reason. They lost income. This is why they were so upset.

Let us not get side tracked. My point to you – which you have still not yet clarified – did Mr Tai Vie Shun tell the hawkers that the Town Council is not responsible for areas above 2.5 metres and that if they wanted that to be cleaned, the hawkers would have to pay extra? That is my question to you. That is the central issue here. Because we believe, based on consistent testimony of all the hawkers, filenotes and emails, that this is what really happened. You have denied it. Because you have denied it and your denials are not consistent with the facts, I put to you that you have been untruthful and that your statements are false. The debate, if you want to continue, should fall on this point.

Thank you, Madam. Minister, it is still the consistent position of our Town Council that Mr Tai, at no time, said that the hawkers had to pay extra to fulfil the Town Council's annual obligation to clean the high areas. At no time was this said. I do not think that these documents showed it either.

Mr Low, that is precisely the point. There are four cleanings a year. One of those four will be a full comprehensive cleaning, including the high areas. This is not something new. This has been going on for 10 years. Even in Block 511, your Town Council did it last year. Of course, I think it was a different contractor, but you did it last year. So, you cannot say that your staff are confused or did not know, or that Ms Sylvia did not supervise,

Page: 31

and all these were a misunderstanding. I am afraid it is not, you see. The evidence is incontrovertible that Mr Tai said, "Not my problem, anything above 2.5 metres." It is clear. And he also said – and not once, you see, on three separate occasions, with witnesses – "You want it clean? Pay me extra". That is the crux of the whole matter, you see. Unless you say Mr Tai is not your officer, not your authorised one. But by my understanding, and when I checked, I understand that he is an employee of FMSS, your Managing Agent; he is the Property Manager of Aljunied Town Council. So, what he says, those words have to be taken seriously. What he says is the position of the Town Council and you have asked for money, you have denied responsibility. I have tried to show you in my answer. We are not inventing new rules here. It has been around for 10 years. Everyone, including you, when you were personally supervising Hougang Town Council, had no problem. We had no problem working with you. But now – I do not know whether it is lack of supervision or people somewhere in your organisation, someone is trying to cover up – we have this unnecessary distraction. That is basically why I said we can discuss all the minutiae that Ms Sylvia Lim wants to, but the simple crux of this matter is what did Mr Tai say and what did he fail to do? To me, that is very clear. And because that is very clear and backed up by evidence, I find the denials – the public denials by Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh – very, very troubling.

You know, let me make this further point. Politics is a contest for power. But you know the key principle when you have power is – do not take advantage of people under your charge. And always be honest and upfront with your people. All of us will make mistakes. But when a mistake is made, just come clean and say so. But do not cover up.

That is why I have not let this go. Because it is not about cleanliness of the ceiling, it is about clean politics. And I appeal to you – because I know you to be an honourable man – I appeal to you; go back and do a thorough investigation of what has gone on and what has gone wrong in your Town Council and put it right. Set it right. I have confidence that you will do so, Mr Low.