PAP Grassroots Adviser Claims No Double Standard, Pritam Singh Rebutted Him Back

As expected, it did not take long for a PAP lackey, or better known as a PAP Grassroots Adviser in opposition ward, to come out and say there was no double standard in the building of a ramp in Aljunied GRC. In the said case, WP chief Pritam Singh had slammed PAP for taking 7 years to approve a residents ramp in Bedok Reservoir, and questioned why a losing PAP candidate also happens to be a grassroots adviser in opposition ward, and they act as though they are the MP of the ward.

The PAP grassroots adviser, Chua Eng Leong, denied the delay was purposely done, and instead blamed Pritam, whom he said wrote as “unsubstantiated comments”, and criticised him for making “politically divisive and factually inaccurate comments”. Chua lost the 2015 GE to Pritam Singh’s WP, but he is of course appointed grassroots adviser, win or lose. Chua claimed that there was no 7 year waiting time for approval, and even went so far as to claim the idea for the ramp was actually mooted by Eunos CCC, of which he runs and thus becomes a key decision maker in a ward he lost in. Chua also said the funding for the ramp was secure, with his help of course, in September 2016, and construction works started in December 2018. He blamed the delay in the construction works to the constructors themselves.

And of course, being a PAP lackey, Chua did not fail to mention Pritam’s role in the AHTC case, trying his best to remind everyone that Pritam and his WP team had been found guilty. Underhanded tactics, one Singaporeans will have expected from the PAP.

Pritam, for his part, rebutted back, indicating he was glad the CCC finally addressed this issue once they went public, as they had chosen to ignore repeated emails and questions that have gone unanswered for years. He also questioned if the 7 year wait is the norm in PAP wards as well, and suggested that the authorities make transparent how much fund was actually disbursed to WP wards as compared to PAP wards, to see if there was any difference.

As for his court case, Pritam said he will not comment, as the case is still ongoing, unlike the PAP lackeys who see fit to bring up the subject time and time again.