20160629 Why credit SPF for our consumer watchdog/pussy, CASE’s failure?

I refer to “Police officers who took down Mobile Air crew recognised”.

A more appropriate headline would be “8 police officers recognised for the arrest 4 chronic cheaters”.

Credit should be given where it is due but weren’t the police officers simply doing their job? Just how hard is it to bring 4 cheats to justice?

For a start, fleecing of tourists by Sim Lim Square (SLS) retailers has been an open secret for decades and therefore must have been condoned by the government. The reason to involve the SPF was the negative publicity generated overseas by the video of a Vietnamese tourist begging on his knees

News of a Vietnamese tourist cheated at SLS had tarnished Singapore’s reputation

The problem in Singapore is we only have a pseudo consumer watchdog, similar to our pseudo workers’ unions. Institutions in Singapore exist to serve PAP’s interests, ie CASE is helmed by PAP MP, Lim Biow Chuan and PAP approved key management..

If CASE had more bite in the past, the services of SPF would not have been required. But of course this is understandable: CASE’s part time president, a part time MP wearing numerous hats with zero experience, was parachuted into the organisation to protect PAP’s business interests. A look at its statistics confirm just how little it has done for consumers.

In 2015, there were 22319 complaints but only 2006, or less than 10%, received its attention. So does that mean 20313 cases got NO case, had to be referred to the police or small claims tribunal? Consumers got protection or not?


As a politically-affiliated organisation, CASE should not be Singapore’s consumer watchdog. Besides part time MP Lim as president in the central committee, we have:

Prof. Ang Peng Hwa (Vice-President)
Mr Toh Yong Chuan (Vice-President)
Mr Lim Teong Seng Richard (Treasurer)
Dr Toh Mun Heng (Assistant Treasurer)
Mr Seah Seng Choon (Secretary)

Which one of you in the above list is not affiliated to PAP/its supporter, keechiu! As expected, nobody.

Ang Peng Hwa needs special mention as he had won an online ‘award’, “Dumbass Remark of the Week” from Mr Brown for saying stupid things.

Populated by PAP ka ki lang, there is no reason for CASE to prioritise consumers’ interests over PAP’s business interests.

Jover Chew and his ilk should have been brought to justice last century, not 2015. As a consumer watchdog, CASE’s abject failure and acting like a pussy should not be masked by crediting SPF for doing its job.

This entry was posted in POLITICS. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to 20160629 Why credit SPF for our consumer watchdog/pussy, CASE’s failure?

  1. The says:

    Exactly. For years and years, the consumer public had been complaining to CASE, the police, etc. and no action was taken. Now, after the public outcry because of that video, the police finally acted and for this they are commended?

  2. Phillip Ang says:

    And the SPF was not commended by the public for a job which it belatedly performed. Guess who commended them in our own self check own self government?
    As for lift failure, the heat has been taken off MPs managing town councils. Expect the government to praise BCA for stepping in to help cover up TCs estate mismanagement soon. 😦

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s