Even though the Sheng Siong controversy has quietened down, the Singapore Democrats are still very much alive to the concerns of the residents and stallholders affected by the sales of wet markets to private companies.
This is because the conversion of the wet markets will in all likelihood raise the cost of operations which will in turn raise prices for shoppers. This being the case the SDP is opposed to the sale of the properties.
According to reports the sale will have to be approved by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) sometime in January 2010. Such as it is, the Singapore Democrats call on the HDB not to approve the sale:
25 November 2009
Mr Lim Huat Eng Deputy Director Commercial Properties Management Section Housing and Development Board
Dear Sir,
Re: Sale of wet markets to Sheng Siong Pte Ltd
I read from news reports that Sheng Siong is set to acquire various wet markets around Singapore. I also note that the HDB would have to approve the transaction before the sale can go through and that the HDB will decide on this in January next year.
I would like to ascertain if indeed these reports are true.
If they are, the Singapore Democratic Party clearly and unequivocally call on the authority not to approve the sale. The reason is that Singaporeans, both the consumers and stallholders, will not be well served by the privatisation of the wet markets.
Sheng Siong has refused to make clear its plans for the markets after the acquisition which could include air-conditioning the premises and making them 24-hour operations. This will increase costs which will inevitably be passed on to consumers.
As many, if not most, of the residents using wet markets are the older generation as well as lower income consumers, the privatisation of these markets will affect them the most.
In addition there is a high chance that stallholders will lose their livelihoods and independence, and become employees of the new landlord. Rents for the stalls may increase which will add to the hardships of the vendors.
Given these scenarios it is unwise for the wet markets to be sold to private owners and HDB must not allow their sale to go through.
I would like to meet with officials from your office to hear first hand the status of the proposed takeover and to present the concerns of those affected by such a takeover.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Gandhi Ambalam Chairman Singapore Democratic Party
Wed 25 Nov 2009 10:13 PM
|
NemoAlaska - Any Plan or Solution?
I am puzzled why no solution offered but objection.
Thu 26 Nov 2009 9:29 AM
|
BryanT - Privatisation of existing markets?
[color=red]“.....the Singapore Democratic Party clearly and unequivocally call on the authority not to approve the sale. The reason is that Singaporeans, both the consumers and stallholders, will not be well served by the privatisation of the wet markets..... Given these scenarios it is unwise for the wet markets to be sold to private owners and HDB must not allow their sale to go through..”[/color]
I am also puzzled.
The markets concerned are already leased to private companies, as far back as 1994. Sheng Siong is merely buying over the leases from Heeton. [b]The issue for these markets is NO LONGER privatisation [/b]but whether HDB will allow Sheng Siong to “remodel” the markets.
SDP (and specifically Ambalam) must get its basic facts right before it even attempts to engage HDB. It would be useful if it had read the statements released by HDB up to now on this issue.
Of course, it could also be that SDP is deliberately (and maliciously) trying to portray it as a NEW round of privatisation. SDP seems to be deliberately ignoring HDB's statement that this “sale of the wet markets is a property transaction between two private parties.” [b]I am hypothesizing, but only with perhaps such a false portrayal can SDP find some grounds to be seen to be fighting for the residents (in view of the impending elections).[/b]
But at the expense of being seen to be barking up the wrong tree or getting the facts wrong?
Thu 26 Nov 2009 10:08 AM
|
betrayed
Bryan T, wah so clever. Your knowledge is so powerful. As someone who is armed with so much knowledge, what are you doing to help the residents and to ensure that these private enterprises are taken to task in terms of corporate responsibility to Singapore citizens. Better still, take the ruling party or MP to task about this issue. What have you done with your knowledge?
Thu 26 Nov 2009 12:12 PM|
|
seebeng - Are they really private? Why abolish wet markets?
BryanT,
Why don't you check who are the directors of Heeton, before you talk about "sale of the wet markets is a property transaction between two private parties"?
Also, is Sheng Siong involved in sponsoring, among others, PAP activities?
In the name of privatization, why abolish wet markets that are favored by both consumers and stallholders?
The PAP should stop giving concessions to big businesses at the expense of people's needs. Of course, since the dictatorial PAP doesn't depend on the electorate for its mandate, it can do anything it wants to appease the MNCs, the super rich and the powerful.
No wonder, Teo Ho Pin is busy playing golf instead of showing concern for Bukit Panjang residents. Teo doesn't depend on votes but only on the approval of the greedy, corrupt, nepotistic PAP bigwigs to continue his position as "member of parliament".
Thu 26 Nov 2009 4:50 PM
|
BryanT
In fact, I made a check on who the Heeton directors are when it was first mentioned here quite a while back. I don’t think there is any law against ex-MPs being directors of private companies.
If there are any suspected impropriety involving Sheng Siong and the ruling party, anyone is free to raise the facts or allegation here. Better still, anyone with info on any wrongdoing should make a police report.
At the risk of being accused as parrot-like, let me do readers here a favour by “regurgitating” what HDB has already stated (since SDP is either too lazy or finds it factually too inconvenient to do so)
- “the existing owner, Heeton, bought four of the five wet markets through separate tenders called by HDB in 1994 and 1996 and one wet market through a resale.” - in other words, Heeton won the open and public tender for the lease of the markets. With a good price, any company can approach Heeton to buy over the lease. There is no question of anyone “giving concessions to big businesses” in this case.
- “The wet markets will have to stay because they do not meet the criteria for conversion into supermarkets” - self-explanatory. But I should add that there are newcomers who might be interested to become market stall-holders. In this free-market, why should we favour existing stall-holders over new-comers who might need the jobs (and business) more?
Even though the Sheng Siong controversy has quietened down, the Singapore Democrats are still very much alive to the concerns of the residents and stallholders affected by the sales of wet markets to private companies. 
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
