Sheng Siong: “Inconvenient to meet”

Home

News

Singapore

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Singapore Democrats

Supermarket chain Sheng Siong has declined an invitation to meet with the Singapore Democrats, citing the reason that it is “inconvenient” to do so. The SDP had written to the company to meet with its representatives over its takeover of wet markets in Singapore.

The SDP had written to Ms Tan Ching Fern, head of Corporate Matters, asking to meet with the company's representatives. (See here) The party wants to hear from Sheng Siong what its plans are for the markets.

Information about Sheng Siong's plans are sketchy and confusing. The supermarket chain is reported to have said that it will not rule out changing the operations of the wet markets after acquisition, including airconditioning the facilities and turning them into 24-hour operations.

Other reports cite that the chain has promised that it will not turn the markets into airconditioned ones.

Given such contradictory reports the Singapore Democrats wanted to hear from the company itself what the real situation is.

But Ms Tan did not reply even after a follow-up email from SDP's Chairman Gandhi Ambalam. She only indicated that the company did not want to meet after Mr Ambalam called her on the telephone.

Mr Ambalam had indicated in his email to Ms Tan that the SDP wanted to be sure that the takeover would not affect the stallholders' livelihoods and that consumers would not be further burdened financially.

“If I do not get a response...I will conclude that Sheng Siong will not respond and does not want to engage the SDP, and by extension the shoppers. We will then proceed with our own plans accordingly.”

Now that Sheng Siong has refused to meet, the SDP can and will conclude that the company cannot give the assurance that its acquisition of the wet markets will not lead to higher costs of food items and that it also cannot assure stallholders that their livelihoods will not be affected.

For these reasons, the SDP opposes the sale of the wet markets to Sheng Siong and we will write to the Housing Board (HDB) to halt the takeover. The Straits Times reported on 22 Oct 09 that the HDB will decide in January next year whether to let the purchases go ahead.

We also call on Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Bukit Panjang, to do the same for the wet market at Fajar Road:

Dear Dr Teo Ho Pin,

I write to let you know that the SDP opposes the sale of the Fajar wet market to Sheng Siong. This is because the company cannot give assurances that the stallholders will not be adversely affected by the sale.

In addition, there is a very high likelihood that residents at Bukit Panjang will have to bear the increase in prices of food items after the takeover by Sheng Siong.

In view of this, the SDP opposes the sale of the Fajar market to Sheng Siong. We ask you to join us in opposing the sale. We will be writing to the HDB to not approve the transaction and call on you to do the same.

We hope that you will not equivocate on this matter, and state plainly and publicly that you oppose the takeover by Sheng Siong and will do all you can to stop the sale.

I look forward to your reply.

Gandhi Ambalam
Chairman
SDP

Share this article:

Comments (9)

Tue 27 Oct 2009 5:15 PM | | ngejay - inconvenient??

Inconvenient to meet?

Why can't Sheng Siong be man enough to admit they are AFRAID to meet?

This case is another example of how Big Business is allowed to crowd out the small guys (individual consumers and SMEs) because the Govt colludes with them and neglects the interests of citizens.

So many times we hear people complain that the SG economy is too regulated. It is not that it is too regulated for all, but most of the regulation is directed at the small guys while the big guys are allowed to slip under the radar and gain an unfair advantage.

Heartland business form the backbone of any well-diversified economy, but not for Singapore. We are an unsustainable economy.

In this case, the Govt is responsible for looking out for the interest of stall owners and consumers in the heartlands, but it has shirked its responsibility and instead allowed Sheng Siong to crowd out the little guys and have the ability to raise prices at will.

The only ones who appear to be speaking out for consumers is the SDP.

Tue 27 Oct 2009 8:07 PM | BryanT - Price Control or Freedom to Decide?

SDP should recognise that stating that it is “inconvenient” is merely SS’s way being courteous. There no need to be derogatory about it. It’s the Asian way of saying “mañana”, so that no bridges are burnt. Who knows, one day SS’s wet-market could be in a constituency run by SDP.

Provided it stays within the contractual obligation of the purchase, SS is not legally obliged to reveal its plans to anyone – HDB, SDP or PAP MP. As I said, it definitely is not morally obliged to provide it to any political party, and be constrained by the latter.

If it buys over the wet-market, SS manages the property and if it is obliged to retain the current business model, it will continue to rent out the stalls. Obviously it will decide on the rent to charge stall-holders.

However, [b]it probably CANNOT give any assurances about higher costs of food items because it DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT fix the prices at which stall-holders sell.[/b] I hope nobody is about to suggest the notorious idea called "price-control".

I really don’t see the point of SDP barking up this feckless tree.

Tue 27 Oct 2009 9:13 PM | | seebeng - Stop colluding with big businesses

The wet market saga has clearly exposed the collusion between the autocratic, neo-con, neo-liberal PAP, and big businesses that thrive on patronage.

The greedy PAP is sacrificing people's interests so that its minions could continue to get millions of dollars in what they call salary while the workers, small-and-medium-sized businesses are oppressed and exploited.

From this saga, is it not clear as day light that PAP ministers and MPs are not serving the needs of the electorate but they are just errand boys for foreign MNCs, the rich and powerful?

The PAP is sucking up to western moribund capitalists big time.

Tue 27 Oct 2009 9:46 PM | BryanT - Less Regulation or Price Control???

I’ve covered the “inconvenient” part in my above posting; so I shan’t belabour this point further except to express my doubt that SS is AFRAID to meet. Mr Ambalan was quote as having said, “If I do not get a response... We will then proceed with our own plans accordingly.” [b]One wonders who is afraid and who is intimidating.[/b]

Perhaps it’s true that many “people complain that the SG economy is too regulated” and it’s convenient to blame the big guys. There is obviously no need for us to try to defend the business mammoths, but I contend that the free market economy gets convoluted (or unduly regulated) when politicians get involved.

This wet-market case is an apt example – the SDP is asking (read “demanding”) that SS give assurance that prices will not increase. Here is a political party interfering with free market enterprise to mandate price changes. And as I was trying to point out, extend this further and we have this anachronism called “price control”.

BTW, wikipedia offers some background into SS’s humble origins : [i]Sheng Siong was founded by Lim Hock Chee, now its Managing Director. After winding up his stall selling pork in 1985, Lim founded Sheng Siong's foremost operation in a single shophouse unit. Sheng Siong has evolved into a chain of 23 supermarkets and hypermarkets, and five food courts in Singapore. Sheng Siong has been awarded top 500 retail enterprises.[/i]

I suppose any of the humble butchers and fish-mongers at Fajar wet-market can also be the next Lim Hock Chee. [b]Or should we suppress the prices of what they sell so that they can be permanently “humble”.[/b]

Tue 27 Oct 2009 10:25 PM | | seebeng - The whole affair smells

Why can't the so-called contractual obligation between HDB, a statutory body, and Sheng Siong, a private supermarket favored by the ruling party, be made known to the public?

Why can't the MSM do some investigative reporting to unearth the ugly truth?

If the newspapers are worth their salt, they should probe into how Sheng Siong came to acquire wet markets that are serving the needs of residents satisfactorily?

Sheng Siong can separately bid for setting up supermarkets in HDB estates through open tender. But why take over well run wet markets that are meeting the needs of residents? What is the motive behind this handing over of wet markets to Sheng Siong? Why can't the HDB let the public know the reasons behind Sheng Siong's takeover?

Why invoke dubious “contractual obligation” when public accountability and transparency are involved?

The PAP government which manages the HDB is duty bound to tell citizens the urgency for such a move, a move that is opposed by residents in the affected areas.

There's something fishy about the whole episode. It doesn't smell good.

I hope BryanT can join me in calling on the MSM to do some investigative journalism.

Tue 27 Oct 2009 10:55 PM | waterfirex

BryanTroll should take his own advice of not barking up the feckless tree. Once again I am brought to my knees, awestruck at Mr T's persistent inability to see the point. His insistence on making inane comments to parade his telescopic myopia. And then his continual attempt to whitewash the uninitiated and shift the blame to SDP. There's this saying that if you know nothing, [i]shut up[/i]. Instead, observe and learn.

SDP has demonstrated true leadership by writing to Sheng Siong on behalf of the residents of Bukit Panjang and everyone concerned with the impact of the wet market takeover. Sheng Shiong in good faith should have been more forthcoming with clear answers to address its consumers' concerns. This is basic courtesy. A good business practice of treating one's customers with respect.

Simple yes and no answers would suffice. No one expects detailed roadmaps.

BryanTroll invokes the law to justfiy Sheng Siong's actions, but fails to realise that the law ought [i]not[/i] to protect businesses such as theirs.

He also fails to realise that, under a capitalist economy, the law is drafted on the premise that private enterprises produce desirable goods at affordable prices, so as to improve the general quality of life of the population. There is no inherent right for any enterprise to exist, no inherent right to profits, except for the benefit of everyone.

It should not come as a surprise that the law typically regulates competition to ensure that unproductive or unbeneficial enterprises are weeded out by market forces. To prevent captive consumers and corporate tyranny.

The natural question to ask is, what economic benefits can Sheng Siong's takeover bring? We have on the one hand, a likely increase in foodstuff prices; on the other, increased profit margins for a big enterprise who has effectively gobbled up all competition. Previously independent stall vendors can be transformed overnight into wage slaves, subject to the will of Sheng Siong's corporate owners.

The second question to ask is, what is the government doing about this and what regulations could it put in place to make sure Sheng Siong does not abuse its market position at the expense of its consumers?

The third question to ask is, how can we make the government do anything at all? We come back to the need for government accountability and responsiveness.

Tue 27 Oct 2009 11:10 PM | seebeng - PAP also had humble origin

Stop parroting Sheng Siong's humble origin. The PAP could also boast about its humble origin in 1954 with lofty ideals like socialism and egalitarian society.

Is the MSM prepared to probe into Sheng Siong’s “generous” donations to PAP-sanctioned activities and events?

Wed 28 Oct 2009 12:21 PM | Seelan Palay - re: PAP also had humble origin

[quote=seebeng]Stop parroting Sheng Siong's humble origin. The PAP could also boast about its humble origin in 1954 with lofty ideals like socialism and egalitarian society.

Is the MSM prepared to probe into Sheng Siong’s “generous” donations to PAP-sanctioned activities and events?[/quote]

Well said.

Thu 29 Oct 2009 12:11 AM | NissanViP - Call to Boycott SS.

It seems that SS is protected by SG Govt, as they are very confident not to response to SDP courtesy call.

If SS really proceed as per their plan to do more damages than good (Humanity), the best is to boycott SS.

I will make sure my friends, neighbours and family to boycott as well.

I hope the rest can help to do the same, after all SS price is also not that cheap compare to Giant.

Please login or register to post your comments.

Joomla components by Compojoom

Act Now

SDP Publictaions

Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here


pdf link


Get a copy

Danny the Democracy Bear


Now available online here!

Singapore Democrats on Facebook

Awesome Words

“History, however, shows us that governments are, in their very essence, a violation of justice; a man or a body of men having at command an army of trained soldiers, deluded creatures who are ready for any violence, and through whose agency they govern the State, will have no keen sense of the obligation of justice. Therefore governments will never consent to diminish the number of those well-trained and submissive servants, who constitute their power and influence.”

Leo Tolstoy

Login

News feeds

Singapore Democrats