More Evidence Hawker Ctr Cleaning Saga The Work of FAP Traitors Stirring SHIT

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

Tale of 2 petition letters from hawkers


June 15th, 2013 | Author: Editorial



During the recent NEA/Market Association/Minister Vivian vs AHPETC hawker
centre cleaning saga, it was revealed by NEA that petition letters were written
on 3 Jun, by the hawkers of Block 511 and Block 538 of Bedok North Street 3 to
inform the media of their plight.

NEA said the documents show that the hawkers had expected the hawker centre
to be cleaned as per normal during the spring-cleaning exercise in March.

NEA even published the hawkers’ petition letters supposedly addressed to the
media on NEA’s own website [Link]:

Block 511 Hawkers Petition
Letter to Press sent on 3 June 2013



.

Block 538 Hawkers Petition
Letter to Press sent on 3 June 2013



The release of the 2 petition letters from hawkers has generated even more
controversies on the Net. Many netizens who scrutinized the 2 petition letters
closely have asked about the “authenticity” of the letters.

The language and style of the 2 letters appear to be very similar. Many are
wondering if it was written by the same person. In fact, the first sentences of
both letters are the same, except for the block numbers:


Dear Editor

We are hawkers from the Kaki Bukit block 5xx hawker centre in Aljunied
GRC.
Some netizens commented:


hansel00: Different people has different
way(tone/speech) to express themselves. Both letters sentence structure is
almost identical. I am inclined to believe both letters came under the same
hand.

dqwong: And how come ah… both letters got the same type
of ink smudges one ah? using the same printer print one ah?

carey: Wording and grammar are so similar too.

greenbubble: The paper, font and even the addressee in
both petition letters are the same. Someone is using the issue to do WP
in.
Netizen dqwong, said, “The best part about both of the letters –
both used “Dear Editor” as their initial wording… how come different hawkers
will use the same type of wording to begin?”

“Secondly both used “hawker centre in Aljunied GRC” in the same first
sentence. Which hawker would care so much so that they have to include ‘Aljunied
GRC’ in their petition? Smells fishy to me.”

Another netizen, cowbelljar, added, “Don’t say hawker, do u know of
any Singaporeans giving descriptions using GRCs, outside the political context?
Given the way GRC boundaries change, if your address is based on GRC, then
Singpost siao liao lo!”

“Usually we say, ‘I’m in Serangoon’, not ‘I’m in Marine Parade GRC’. Or ‘my
shop is in Queenstown’, not ‘my shop is in Tanjong Pagar GRC’ or ‘hawker centre
at Bedok North Blk XXX’, not ‘hawker centre in Aljunied GRC’!”

And to make things worse, the 2 letters described that the hawker centres are
in “Kaki Bukit”. Since 1988, Kaki Bukit constituency has already been subsumed
into various GRCs in the many subsequent general elections. These days,
residents will say they live in Bedok or Bedok North. It is anachronistic to say
one is living in “Kaki Bukit”.

In fact, the only people who retain the use of the name “Kaki Bukit” are the
PAP people, because they still retain their old divisions which take charge of
areas within the GRC. For example, the Market Association patron, Mr Ng Kok Khim
is a long-time PAP member who won the Long Service Medal (Silver) for his work
in the “Kaki Bukit division” of Aljunied GRC [Link].

Netizen cowbelljar opined, “The letter 100% chop written by the same
person, and most probably a political partisan, given the GRC descriptor that no
common-sense Singaporean will use. Stop hiding behind the so-called ‘hawkers’,
and admit that this was a hatchet job against the WP!”

“If the PAP really has the hawkers’ interest at heart, if they really worry
about unnecessary cost being passed on to them, then perhaps they should look at
rents, inflation, transportation costs instead. Don’t bedek!”

Then there are those who felt that the English used in the letters is too
“powerful”:


dark_aLLeY: Moi no understand, why hawkers’ english as
tok kong as the IBs? If their engrish so tok kong, they won’t be there to char
bee hoon riao….

tianyun07: hawker angmoh so zai.. all the grammars so
power.. even i also lose..
Of course, the most glaring part is that there are no signatures on any of
the 2 letters shown. Some of the netizens asked:


dqwong: How come NEA release hawkers petition letter to
press got no name of signatory one? Then is it written by some ku Ching ku rac
or not? How to tell ah?

waiken: phantom hawkers?

sleepyhealer: Knn sinkie land has invisible
hawker

Vulpix: So where are the signatures? How is this a
petition without signatures? They think we’re idiots is it?

AngeLx: weird ‘petition’ with no sign offs and
nothing..just like a random pamphlet that was been picked up from the
floor.

Techadd: petition letter with no names and
signatory…FIRST IN THE WORLD AGAIN!!

jtv_tm: No head, no tail, nobody dare to sign for it.
TMD machiam asking a kid during school holidays suka suka type out one
letter.

Jwee85: No heading, no title, no signature. We we
we….who are we?
Finally, one netizen, Baygon, best summed up the feelings of
netizens reading the 2 so-called petition letters from the hawkers, “Really
wondering if the scholars at NEA are really so stupid to think any ordinary
people with a slightest bit of intelligence would believe the credibility of
that dubious ‘petition’?”

.

Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.