Low shows the usefulness of “non-action

In Political governance on 25/07/2013 at 1:44 pm

My last piece, until new facts emerge, as I’m sure they will.on this Tweedledum and Tweedledee row that Low ended temporarily by saying “Let the people decide”.

Low clearly stated in Parliament that he would find out who had asked the contractor to give a quotation for the Bedok hawker centre cleaning. But a day later, he told reporters there was no need for further investigations (“Low: No need for further probe into hawker centre cleaning row”). Maybe he finally spoke to Tai? Remember, the day before he surprised by saying he had never spoken to Tai. This surprised some (including self) but on reflection he was not the chair, nor vice of the town council. And he ain’t a micro mgr like PM’s dad. More like PM who allowed Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim to continue with their now discredited (now reversed) policies. Or maybe, Auntie and her man threatened to resign as MPs? True WP can rule Aljunied, but looks bad for Low and WP. First Yaw, then Auntie and her man.

Then he went on, after PM’s comments, to say, “Our MPs’ consciences are clear.  Not saying the MPs got integrity in his view. Juz saying their consciences “are clear”. Leaves open the possibility that MPs wrong to asset that Tai didn’t ask for $.

Meanwhile PritamS is so quiet. Lost his voice? Or had his vocal cords cut?

So they traded places, which is the best for WP. If WP is smart, they should lock PritamS in a padded cell, and when the next GE is called, announce that he will not be standing again. He is a liability in a party with men of substance and quiet achievement like Low, Show Mao and JJ.

But non-action has its downside. Take Faisal’s silence: It was interesting how the PAP politicians referred to the silence of Mr Pritam Singh …  denied that the town council had asked for undeserved payment – but failed to mention the other GRC member, Mr Faisal Manap. He had actually written to the town council on the issue, handing over an appeal letter from hawkers about being made to pay extra. Was he in Parliament? Couldn’t he have shed light on the matter? Or was he merely acting as a post box for hawkers when he handed over the appeal?

The above reminded me that it was a convoluted (so painful to read)  remark of Auntie’s that got me analysing the case more closely. She said, “the letter evidently shows MP Faisal’s awareness that it was not the policy of AHPETC not to clean the high areas of the market during annual cleaning, nor to collect any additional charges from the hawkers; otherwise, MP Faisal would not have written to AHPETC to look into Mr Chan Kheng Heng’s claim”.

Before that, I tot most of the noise was the typical PAP bullying, trying to stir the waters in an espresso cup, even if I tot WP had goofed and was silly to muddy the waters and Auntie dumb to accuse a govt agency of being political.

What got me analysing was the convoluted nature of what she said*, and the fact that Faisal didn’t juz pick-up the telephone and call Pritam, “P, waz this nonsense about charging the hawkers for the annual cleaning of the ceilings? Isn’t it our policy to pay for this?”. He didn’t but handed on the petition letter, supporting it.

His continued silence while not damning is strange.

Overall though, non-action has worked to the WP’s advantage here. If only Auntie and her man were followers of Lao Tzu, as Low surely is. Instead, they were people of violence, ala PAP.

So until fresh facts emerge, I’ll say no more on this matter.

*I said here that lawyers use language like this to confuse matters.

  1. Yawnnnnnn …..

  2. WP needs Pritam. Cut him loose and WP will be left with only 1 Indian, Somasundram in their ranks. They will have trouble filling up the Indian/minority quota in 2016.

  3. Read through some of your posts, mainly on WP. You’re very critical, maybe towards cynical and that wouldn’t be too good though. As someone who inclines to WP, I do get demoralised reading your posts. However, it does make me realise that the ground is not simple, much less sweet. Your criticisms do make a point, some of which I have to agree, but a number of the others which I do not (hopefully you respect that everyone is entitled to their own view, and I respect yours though I disagree 🙂 ). Just want to point out that some of your views are formulated based on merely what is known to all, and that frankly speaking, there are some things that are not known to all that serves as the basis for the action, which would be justified and reasonable. Sadly, I cannot tell you all of them but for one, WP passed the budget last year (if I’m not wrong) only because they saw it as an improvement from previous years and do not want to send the wrong message. So to end off, just want to tell you that there are reasonable considerations made for each decision, and that true enough, if you see it in another light, you may find it completely unreasonable. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: