SDP now wants Dr Teo Ho Pin to oppose sale of Fajar market to Sheng Siong
October 28th, 2009 | 
Author: From our Correspondent
The Singapore Democratic Party now wants the PAP MP for Bukit Panjang Dr Teo Ho Pin to oppose the sale of Fajar market to Sheng Siong after its request to meet up with the management of the supermarket chain was rejected!
The SDP had written to Ms Tan Ching Fern, head of Corporate Matters, asking to meet with the company’s representatives. Its request was declined on the grounds that it is “inconvenient” to do so.
SDP claimed that information about Sheng Siong’s plans are sketchy and confusing because it is reported to have said that it will not rule out changing the operations of the wet markets after acquisition, including air-conditioning the facilities and turning them into 24-hour operations.
Now that Sheng Siong has refused to meet, the SDP has reached the conclusion 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.
SDP Chairman Gandhi Ambalam has written a third letter to Dr Teo Ho Pin inviting him to join SDP 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,” Mr Gandhi added.
Dr Teo had earlier called SDP to “do its homework” in response to its support for the Fajar stallholders to petition against the conversion of their wet market into an air-conditioned one.
HDB had announced that the Fajar wet market, together with four others, do not fulfill the criteria for the conversion (as of now). It will decide by January next year whether to give the approval for the Sheng Siong purchase.
SDP’s plan to hold a public forum at Fajar itself to speak to the stallholders and residents directly was scuppered as its application for a permit to do so was rejected by the police. The police did not give any reasons for the rejection.
Unlike previous incidents, SDP has chosen to exercise restraint and not proceed ahead with the forum.
Posted in Headlines
20 Responses to “SDP now wants Dr Teo Ho Pin to oppose sale of Fajar market to Sheng Siong”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Foyce Le Xuan George Yeo GIC highnote5 highnotes5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo press conference Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism Malaysia MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League Sex silviu ionescu Singapore Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Wendy Chong
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Your correspondent for this article sounds like a SDP apologist when he stated that, “SDP’s plan to hold a public forum at Fajar itself to speak to the stallholders and residents directly was scuppered as its application for a permit to do so was rejected by the police.”
SDP has never been bothered by small details such as a lack of permits for its planned activities. In fact, it’s record shows that it treats a rejection by the police as a badge of honour, to be worn to buttress its accusation that its freedoms has been curtailed. Heaven forbid, police decisions DO NOT scuppered SDP plans.
The abortive talk was about the wet-market issue only in name. Based on the article at its website, it was centred on its tireless pursuit of the same old theme – freedom and liberties.
It is interesting to note that SDP did not claim that the talk has been called off BECAUSE of the police’s refusal to grant a permit. Otherwise, it would be BOUND not to hold unauthorised talks/assemblies when permits are not given in future. Wise, and yet revealing.
Wahhh…BryanT not happy attack SDP on their website…now you come here attack….impressive…
Actually SDP has done quite a good job in giving Singapore a low Human Right Report.
They intend to show the world the ugly side of Singapore and I believe they are doing a magnificent job at it.
The SDP’s perennial voices constant fluttering within the political scene has resulted with collateral damage to the ruling party. They are relentless in their pursuit of democracy. They even have a video made to directly address Obama in preparation to his visit to Singapore.
Though they are very outspoken but they garner very little vote during general election. Sad thing is that Dr. Chee battle with Mathias Yeow has shown that he did not command much support. Making the opposition looked bad in the eyes of the public.
I have no comment whether they are doing a good or bad job. Courage wise they ranked high.
If we can forgive MR THARMAN and accept him as a MINISTER,I don’t see why we have to doubt DR Chee’s good intentions further.Come on,the protests,the jailing,the recent video on democracy,his child (?) wailing while he’s being loaded away in apolice van,the other opposition footages;these are real,not staged,anyone of matured understanding can tell easily.
Let us treasure the sacrifices other people make for us.
Just as I lend my support to THARMAN for his capabilities and sincerity,I think Dr Chee deserves to be accorded the same sentiments.
Courage,there is, no doubt about it.
A good job done by standing up for us …DEFINITELY!!!
Amazing. BryanT sees fit to come here and attack SDP also.
Congrats to Temasek Review. This shows that it is fast being taken very seriously, even to unabashed govt supporter such as BryanT.
I’m Mr Teo Ho Pin, I cannot oppose the wet market sales.
I’m working for my “Big Boss” (LKY) U people understand!
Salary paid by my Big Boss, not U people Understand!
I must consult my Big Boss first Understand!
Or not I will lose my Big Fat Salary Understand!
U people can’t employed me with a big fat salary Understand!
If not next Election don’t vote for PAP Understand!
Stupid, Goodu, Senile, Essentric, Tiga Suku Singapore Orang !
the problem of whether the wet markets should go lies on the fact of whether there is sufficient competition to keep sheng siong on the toes after it take over.
if the answer is no, then the abti-cartel board should take charge and prevent the sale.
if answer is yes, then i see no problem in allowing market dynamics to take place provided that the original stall holders are well compensated.
Just look at JTC Industrial Estate, take over by Mapletree.
PAP govering board spent no time into doing such job now.They push eveything to private. sit there to collect money,CBF (Cheaper, Faster, Better) that all.Easier to top full their pocket with fat bonuses.No headage.Now to Wet Market is the same things going to happen.
@Anonymous on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 10:56 am
@Watcher on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 2:14 pm
To be fair (to me), I do offer my occasional compliments to SDP on their websites when the rare but rightful occasions call for the odd praise.
But I must admit that the party supporters there even treat my compliments as an affront to their mission (and senses). Perhaps they consider it an insult for the party to be praised by someone not in tune with their thinking. Very odd, them.
I’ve been trying to tell them to free themselves from the ad hominem trap. But they were still last reported to be still well entrenched there.
@BryanT on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 10:07 am
Wise, and yet revealing??? Of course, your last 4 words say it all. It evident oppression of legitimate grievances of those adversely affected.
Need I say any more to inform your niave simplistic ad hominen mind?
@citizenofSG on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 12:15 pm
I agree with you that “SDP has done quite a good job in giving Singapore a low Human Right Report.”
My hypothesis is this : One of the main stumbling block to SDP’s electoral plans is the people’s apathy. SDP calls it more diplomatically : indifference.
Via a video, SDP went to the extent of quoting Elie Wiesel that “the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference” to try to nudge Singaporeans out of their political slumber (read “apathy”). Of course, the scare-tactic of associating death with indifference made little headway on Singaporeans’ materialistic heads. The problem is that not a few Singaporeans mistakenly believe that the most expeditious way to a premature demise is to get involved in politics, especially the opposition’s.
Hence the only willing and sympathetic ears to SDP’s outcries against political iniquities it perceives done unto it are mainly foreigners — not so much the foreign governments, but the NGOs whose raison d’être are all matters freedom and liberty. We must not forget that these NGOs need to show vehemence in fighting for such causes, for it brings in the necessary doe (ie. donations). Also, SDP would avail itself to the odd newspapers and magazines who can sell stories of paradoxical nations such as Singapore – - an enigmatic mix of success and suppression.
SDP’s tactic is that if the government won’t listen to it, at least it (the government) would be concerned about the nation’s international reputation. Incidentally, the Law minister had something to say about it yesterday.
So SDP resorts to its repetitive spiel- – it pretends to apply for permits for its outdoor talks/assemblies/processions; waits for the police to deny it the permits; reminds all and sundry that its constitutional rights are violated; proceeds with “unpermitted” talks/assemblies/processions; gets arrested and even man-handled into police vans for dramatic effect; goes to court and proves its kangarooness; and repeats the wearisome sermon on constitution-deprivation all over again in its closing statement to the judge.
This entire routine is to show proof to the international audience that Singaporeans are a suppressed people, forgetting that his seems to be only lot always ending up on the wrong end of the legal bench for such offences.
I’d also agree with citizenofSG that courage-wise they might rank high; but imaginativeness-wise, pretty stunted.
It is unfair to say that the SDP always end up on the wrong bench for showing to international audience that Singaporeans are a suppressed people.
I think not only SDP feels that way.Most,if not all opposition
parties,their members and wiser Sinagporeans feel that way too.
Classic cases included some very prominent members of the original PAP leadership.BTW JBJ voiced out on such suppression
much earlier than Chee or even CST AND LTK.
In previous elections,I am admit that Dr CHEE failed on a few-a few,ie- occasions to maintain his cool-mindedness.
Now that he is more mellowed and a more matured oppostion
member,let’s forgive him like we forgive Mr THARMAN-AS EVERYONE ERRS one time or another-and see how he perform.
BTW,I believe I read in another forum on TR whereby CitizenOfSG
voiced against REPRESSION by the ruling party…BRYANT,you may wanna check with CitizenofSG.
PARDON ME,IF I UNDERSTAND WRONGLY.
BTW,when you portrayed SDP as showing the SINGAPOREAN SUPPRESSION,you imply untruth!Ithink a fair word to use should be point to the international audience..for point indicates TRUTHFULNESS and you and I,aNONYMOUUS and majority OF THE BLOGGERS seem to agree.
No offence to you,but I guess perhaps such suppression either
do not affect you or you are immuned to it or totally ignorant.
PLEASE GO AND ASK MY FELLOW sinagporeans on the streets of SIANGPORE.
just FYI,THEY HAVE AGAIN RAISE THE ERP without public consultation!!!
@fair and square on Wed, 28th Oct 2009 11:58 pm
Thank you for your comments; they gave me further food for thought (or rather, opportunity to blah-blah-blah some more).
Firstly, I agree that it is probably true that CSJ has mellowed and matured with age. Most of us do, and hopefully it applies to you and I as well. Also, I agree with you absolutely that society must be forgiving to those who had made mistakes, but they must seize the opportunity offered and move on.
The challenge is to ensure that the mellowness and maturity is brought to fruition on the ground. The latest article on SDP’s website about the question of police officers offers an excellent counter-example to this hope. Have a look.
The larger issue is this – what form of politics does SDP bring to the table? Is SDP trying to get into parliament to fight for democracy (for the benefit of all of us), or is the converse closer to the truth?
A quote from one of its earlier articles is revealing: “For some, …democracy is an airy-fairy word used in esoteric arguments, far removed from the people’s main concerns of daily-bread issues as well as the ground realities of campaigning for office. Nothing could be further from the truth…. It will be the tool that we in Singapore will need to get more opposition MPs into Parliament.”
I had posed the rhetorical question previously : In SDP’s viewpoint, is democracy the means or the ends of its body politics? Based on the above statement, it can only be inferred that its “ends” is to get inside into parliament. Democracy is just the tool. The exploitation of democratic precepts for its own party intents must be a dismay to many of us.
As to your postulation that I may perhaps be unaffected, immune or ignorant of suppression, let me say this : There are social and legal restrictions imposed on citizens around the world. They are a necessary evil to a civilised society. I am aware and agree that some restrictions here are overdone and should be scaled back based on the evolution of our society. We may have different opinions on the reasonableness of these restrictions, but we do not write the whole system off and ridicule it (and its people) as some opposition parties do.
Also, I have (rather mischievously) attributed some of these restrictive laws to those who deliberately flout them through their so-called “civic actions”. Laws pertaining to outdoor talks and assemblies were amended recently and further tightened following the opportionists’ attempts to exploit loopholes in the legal restrictions.
Just my five-pence worth.
Bryan T,
I do agree with you on the grounds that in the past when people were not suffering, SDP’s popularity and acheivements were at an all-time low and their demostrations received little support, especially after the debacle with Chiam.
However, what SDP does bring to the table and i think its clear to see that they will fight for the little people especially when they are hurting. Whether they sensationalise it or not is a seperate issue. I do see the SDP standing beside the common man and helping him.
This is to me, the most appealing factor. The SDP is finally going in the right direction. If the SDP highlights the plight of the fajar residents, poor foreign construction workers and extremely high liberal policies to the world, then even better.
Seemingly the PAP have forgotten its roots, the elites fail to connect to the people. The LABOUR UNION is a meek and extremely weak one. Go to australia, see how strong union comes down on companies. The PAP have forgotten its own and now serves the corporations, banks, MNCs, SHENGSHIONG. We are poorer for it. Here there is a great divide.
Make no mistake, the SDP does have credible and qualified people, people who have been convicted by unjust laws. UNJUST LAWS whether you gain support or not, deserve to be broken.
Pretend to apply? They have the intention to let the law be fair. However laws interpreted the wrong way or unjust laws deserve to be broken.
Why is it so hard to speak? Why is it so hard to obtain a permit to speak? Bryan T?? You tell me whether this Law deserves to be broken or not? Ghandi did send his applications
Ghandi also did do it anyway.
The apathy for politics here, only goes to show how terrible the state is, in terms of education and social behaviour. Apathy though will not last when people start to run out of money and food on the table.
Sooner or later, the SDP will garner seats. The population is getting more educated by the day. Alot of people are overseas educated and have seen democracy at work. The international free media is now easily accessible.
SDP’s demostrations will gather strength. This country in the end belongs to the people and once the suffering people align themselves with the SDP, they will be a force to be reckoned with.
Of course without the labour unions, the opposition will be slow to organise, but eventually the number of poor but well informed will rise up to the occasion and soundly defeat the minority of rich, well informed and comfortable elites who sit on the throne of what is allegedlly the REPUBLIC of Singapore.
high liberal immigration policies
@ BryanT on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 10:42 am
“Just my five-pence worth.”
Yes, you are right on this one – just …five-pence worth..” of YOUR THOUGHTS landed on this thread. The reason is obvious to all except perhaps you though I hope it won’t be long before you changed your mind to agree with us all here.
By bidding “Dr Teo Ho Pin to oppose sale of Fajar market to Sheng Siong”, Dr Chee is giving Dr Teo every FAIR AND REASONABLE opportunity “to perform” in meeting residences’ complaints and grievances since Dr. Chee has been denied of this opportunity of a permit to champion their cause.
And if Dr Teo fails ( we obviously hope he won’t) would it be fair to ALL including Dr Teo himself as a “caring” elected representative??
@Anonymous on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 12:37 pm
First, thank you for your comments.
Dr Chee was not denied of the opportunity to champion the residents’ cause. In stating in an earlier article that “the Government’s unconstitutional decree of not allowing such activity will mean that the application will probably be turned down”, SDP knew beforehand that the permit would not be granted.
The permit application supported its ulterior motive of hijacking the wet-market issue to champion its other favourite causes (ie. freedoms and liberties) that has nothing to do with things wet or slippery.
Anyway, I had posed the questions to SDP (of which there was not surprisingly no reply) : Is an outdoor talk the only means to communicate with the residents on the issue? Would an indoor environment not be acoustically more conducive for a discussion, besides the fact that no permit would have been required?
I feel that this routine by SDP too facetious and the only saving grace was the climb-down. Any de-escalation is fine by me.
Finally there is the matter of the five-pence. I admit that my views are paltry, and that is why I think they are not worth much. Perhaps with your last posting, you were trying to match my price? (….just jesting, ok?)
tsk tsk tsk BryanT … BryanT …
Don’t be ashamed to admit you are simply biased.
I have not seen any of your comments critical of your masters. The like of Wong Kan Seng that gave us the famous “don’t know what type of apology” like “This should not have happened. I am sorry it did.” to a big boo-boo by his ministry in letting a “dangerous” limping man escape and swim with a “improvised floatation device” to Johore.
The like of Teo Ho Pin, that gaves us the famous “citizens should be greatful that we have invested and made money in previous years”, to explain the investment losses of town council funds.
The like of Lee Bee Wah, that gave the famous boo-boo of tarnishing the reputation of the coach that gaves Singapore the Olympics Silver medal, and then hide like an ostrich and dare not even meet the coach Li GuoDong.
There are more, even your dearest leader’s “Golden Period” that turns out to be “Charcoal Period” for Singapore, and the infamous “fix the opposition and buy more votes”.
Comments? None? So expected. Ha!
@ BryanT on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 10:38 pm
Your jesting is just self-entertainment. Mine, I professed, has stronger compelling argument which you implicitly agreed in comparison to your “paltry” views. Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I have higher regards for postings here of serious debate.
All said, there is no uncertainty in my mind that SDP latched on a serious topic of public interest of wet market. You are, perhaps, too superficial of thoughts to comprehend, often too busy preoccupied and weighed down with your reurrent usual (deliberate????) irrelevant ad hominen ranting i.e. this time the indoor accoustic when the preferred political reach of outdoor speech would have maximum impact is obvious to all.
Hypocrisy in your post is easy to see through when the dancing words you expressed thus is so superficial of substance.
It is NOT you but your thoughts and expression of thoughts that you betrayed of distorted vision and mind thoughts.
BryanT on Thu, 29th Oct 2009 10:38 pm
There is nothing facetious about SDP stance on wet market issue – all the facetious mournings are in your post. Where is the proof.
Today MSM still has publishing chanting “prayers” on the alleged superiority of supermarket carrying 1000 lines of fresh food item. Living both outside and inside Singapore and different continents, I have never seen 1000 lines of fresh food items in any supermarket anywhere. Forgive my ignorance, somewhat narrowed dietary preference and attention to fresh food items, I don’t believe this. But you can please yourself by checking the truth or these funny journalistic claims. I certainly prefer the wet market – hands down.
If wet market issue is truly facetious of political attention by SDP as you claimed above, I am sure the incumbent and its mouthpiece MSM won’t be giving SDP such loving-to-no-ending strong accredition of star-struck respectability by this continuing its “prayer-like” almost daily mourning of public attention on this subject. It would have, in my best judgment, let a “facetious” subject-matter died off quietly and rest in peace.
CSJ and SDP are no longer so hot on the tails of those opposing their stances but I am thoroughly IMPRESSED that MSM is still worshipping public opinion to encourage a change of sentiment – mourning that wet market will have to go as if this is a dead door nail of certainty of what it called a “matter of time.” and one allegedly appertaining to “older folks”. I am a little bit ticklish of “funnying” up maybe they get younger by the day and some day disappear from todler back to where they came from.
Btw, I was incidentally passing by at a new supermarket opening recently near a MTR station. Attendance was quite good but I WAS NOT SURPRISINGLY entertained that nobody standing around me and indeed most of those present were NOT clapping or applauding the official opening “unvieling” of board on stage signalling that. A lot of enthusiasm was among those on the stage attended by GRC member and supporters. I don’t get the impression that the crowd present as happy to replace their shopping habits of wet market as MSM would like us all to believe in their media print read. I walked away straight after the members on the stage congratulated themselves.
I get the impression that people would really like clean well-organised wet markets with sufficient variety in every neighbourhood within EASY CLOSE PROXIMITY – not fancy supermarkets miles and miles away. People get old and INCREASING IMMOBILE OF TRAVEL as they are aging. And in this country of aging population, WET MARKET WILL BE IN POPULAR DEMAND AND DEMAND TO STAY.
Any pretense to the contrary is living in denial. There are fewer and fewer younger physical hands to help older folks – THIS IS REALITY. It will show up in votes if those in Government force their way against popular sentiments.