PAP Grassroots Advisor Hits Back At WP Chief Pritam Singh’s ‘Double Standards’ Claim

Yes, there’s PAP and WP in the headline, and you know what that means:

On Saturday (Oct. 19), PAP grassroots adviser, Chua Eng Leong, hit back at Worker’s Party Chief Pritam Singh’s “double standards” claim with regard to delay of the completion of a barrier-free access ramp in Bedok.

Chua called the claims “unsubstantiated” and “politically divisive” in a lengthy Facebook post.

Pritam Singh has since responded, saying that despite Chua’s detailed reply, he could find no explanation for the delay.

So, what exactly happened?

As with many feuds in the 21st century, it all started with a Facebook post.

Singh’s allegation

On Tuesday (Oct 15), Pritam Singh, Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party (WP), shared photos in a Facebook post of a Barrier-Free-Access ramp at Block 108 Bedok Reservoir Road.

The ramp, located in Singh’s estate, opened on Thursday (Oct 16).

The only problem, in Singh’s eyes, was that it took seven years to build. He said that the ramp had been a “long time coming”, as the suggestion for the ramp was first raised in 2012.

Singh pointed out that the ramp was mooted by the opposition party and questioned if the delay was deliberate.

“Each year, the Government makes available about $40m to all Town Councils for community improvement upgrading projects. But all MPs must go through their Grassroots Advisers to raise projects for consideration. In opposition wards like Aljunied and Hougang, the losing PAP candidates are the Grassroots Advisers”, Singh said.

The WP chief said that while the suggestion for the ramp was first raised by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, it was “finally” handed over to the Town Council by the People’s Association on Oct 15, a day before it was opened.

The implication being that the completion of the ramp may have deliberately been delayed.

To further emphasize his point, Singh referred to a 2015 rally speech of his where he spoke about what he viewed as “political double standards” on PAP’s part.

So what did PAP have to say about this?

Chua’s response

PAP grassroots adviser, Chua Eng Leong, wasn’t having any of it and responded with a long Facebook post of his own.

Chua called Singh’s claims “unsubstantiated”, “politically divisive”, and “factually inaccurate”.

Dayum, that’s a lot of adjectives. 

He then proceeded to address each of Singh’s allegations with an explanation, pointing out what he perceived as falsehoods in Singh’s post:

1. Chua said that the aforementioned ramp was one of many projects undertaken by the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCC). He urged residents to look at the number of projects undertaken and completed by the CCCsin recent years.

2. In response to Singh’s claim that the ramp was delayed because it was mooted by Aljunied Hougang Town Council, Chua said that it was concurrently proposed by the Eunos CCC. So, if there was a delay, Singh would have to explain why Eunos CCC would choose to delay the project.

3. He also added that funding for the ramp was secured only in September 2016, and that though contractors in charge of the projects asked for extensions of time, he believed the ramp was completed “within a reasonable period of time”.

Armed with these rebuttals, the PAP grassroots adviser concluded that Singh’s insinuation of a deliberate delay in the completion of the ramp was “unjustifiable”.

But that’s not all.

Chua also took a dig at Singh by referring to the High Court findings on the AHTC case, where Pritam Singh, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim had all been found liable for damages to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

Thus, the PAP’s grassroots advisor saw the ramp issue as a “red herring”, and brought up the need for accountability by those found to be in breach of their fiduciary duties.

The response to the response

Singh wasn’t going to let this one slide, though. He responded to Chua’s elaborate response with another Facebook post.

In it, he said he was “delighted to see the CCC finally engage this issue, albeit only after things have to go public”.

This comment clearly carries a hint of sarcasm. It’s like when your partner says I’m delighted that you finally learned how to answer your phone after 26 missed calls. Congratulations.

Indeed, Singh said he only got a response after going public, despite repeated “emails” and “requests for answers” being ignored for many years.

He added that even if the ramp was concurrently proposed with the Eunos CCC, it did not explain why it took 7 years to complete the project.

The WP chief also found it “odd” that it took 3 to 4 years to secure funding, “especially since the Ministry of National Development (MND) allocates about $40m each year for CIPC projects”.

“I cannot find a substantive reason for the delay in Mr Chua’s long post” he wrote.

Basically, Singh was like Cool story, bro.

Singh also clarified that the issue was “a systemic problem”, not one targeted at grassroots advisers like Chua.

“As far as possible, I have sought to avoid naming the relevant Grassroots Advisers in person because this is not a personal issue.”

He also resented the fact that Chua called this a “red herring” amidst his court case, saying that the ramp issue was a “very powerful metaphor for the double standards when it comes to CIPC funding in opposition wards”.

Singh ended his post proposing that “Aljunied and Hougang CCCs and elected opposition MPs in the ward sit down together to develop a protocol on how CIPC proposals should be handled” in the future.

“I will be happy to be a part of the solution”, he said.

While this Goody Feed writer hopes that the leaders of our country can come together to rationally discuss such issues over a cup of coffee, he very much doubts that will happen and expects many more Facebook posts in the future.