AHPETC questions NEA on need for “mini-fairs” permit

<figure id="attachment_64681" style="width: 650px;" class="wp-caption alignnone"><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">AHPETC Chairperson, Ms Sylvia Lim and lawyer, Mr Peter Low. (Photo – Terry Xu)
</figcaption>
<figcaption class="wp-caption-text">By Terry Xu

The first day of court on the summons issued by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) started on Tuesday, 14 October, which saw questions on the strict liability of AHPETC in conducting a trade fair, and if such a permit was necessary to begin with.

The town council run by the Workers’ Party is accused of organising a Lunar New Year Fair on January this year without a valid permit from NEA. The fair was held from 10 January to 30 January at Aljunied GRC.

A total of six stall holders involved in the fair were issued notices of offences for illegal hawking, which was later compounded. The town council was given the same offer to have the offence compounded, but decided to claim trial.

If found guilty, AHPETC can be fined up to $1,000.

AHPETC did not have a permit: Prosecution

NEA’s prosecutor, Isaac Tan said that the fair, named “Lunar New year Flora and Community Fair 2014” which consisted of five stalls selling festive decorations, cookies and sweets, fruits such as pomelo, flowers and assorted potted plants, amounted to a “temporary fair”. As such, it required a licence under Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA).

The first prosecution witness, Mr Tai Ji Choong, director of the Environmental Health Department, said the town council event constituted a breach of Section 35 of the EPHA.
Mr Tai stated that the reason for requiring permits to hold temporary events such as trade fairs is to prevent disamenities to the community, including shopkeepers operating in that community. He said the disamenities include noise nuisance, pest infestation, food hygiene issues and disruption to pedestrian flow.

The court heard that the town council had written to the NEA on 20 December 2013 to ask if a permit was required, and if so, for a copy of relevant application forms to be forwarded.
NEA had replied to the town council that a permit was required, and sent the forms to the town council. In a total of nine corresponding emails with NEA, AHPETC had indicated that the forms were unsuitable, to which NEA insisted otherwise.

The town council struck off the words “Trade Fair” from the forms titled “Application for Trade Fair Permit” and “Application for Trade Fair Foodstall Licence”, and added the word “Event” instead, on grounds that there were no other forms to be used.

NEA did not approve the town council’s application for a permit as it was deemed incomplete. NEA then requested on 9 January that the town council send the completed application forms as soon as possible.

The town council went ahead with the fair, even after a warning from the NEA to stop until a permit was issued.

Intention to commit offence irrelevant: Prosecution

Defence lawyer for the town council, Peter Low raised issues about the “strict liability” of AHPETC in obtaining the permit. He attempted to clarify with Mr Tai on specific sections in NEA’s form, such as those pertaining to the quota for such fairs and the need seek a letter of support from the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC).

In response to questions by District Judge Victor Yeo on the purpose of his questions, he noted that it is necessity to establish such facts so it can be shown whether or not, the town council commit the “offence” deliberately. He also said that no permit was actually needed, as this was a social and communal function.

However, the prosecution argued that it is immaterial on the conditions which the permits are being issued and whether or not AHPETC had deliberately committed the offense as it is a strict liability under the section 35 of the EPHA. Mr Isaac Tan pointed out that questions posed by Mr Low are concepts to be determined through means of Judiciary review and added that the hearing is not an appropriate forum or avenue to seek the answers which the defense is asking for.

The presiding judge agreed with the prosecution that the court does not have the power to judge whether or not the conditions for the permit is justifiable and questions surrounding the conditions of how the permit is issued and why permits are issued are irrelevant to the ruling of the case.

Relevance of permit to town councils: Defence

Changing his line of questions, Mr Low attempted to establish if it was even necessary for town councils to have a permit for the fair.

He pointed out the difference between a 2008 version of the “trade fair” application form, and the version NEA sent to AHPETC to be completed. the 2008 version states that “only grassroots organisations and town councils are allowed to hold fairs”, while the version NEA sent to AHPETC indicated that “Only grassroots organisations and charitable, civic, educational, religious or social institutions are allowed to hold fairs.”

The version sent by NEA has no mention that town councils are allowed to conduct trade fairs as regulated by the conditions of the permit required.

Mr Low proceeded to question Mr Tai on when was the revision made to the application form to exclude “town councils” by NEA.

The prosecution questioned Mr Low on the rationale of his question to Mr Tai, to which MR Low responded by presenting three documents to support his case.

The first was an email sent by the Ministry of National Development (MND) to AHPETC on 14 January 2014, 5 days after NEA informed the town council that they have committed an offense, saying that town councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs, “as these are not related to their statutory function of management and maintenance of common property”.

Mr Low asked whether the town council should have applied for a permit from NEA in the first place, since MND is saying that the town council is not allowed to hold such events.
Next, Mr Low referred to Section 18 of the Town Council Act 329A, Section 18, which indicated that the functions of a town council are to “control, manage, maintain and improve the common property of the residential and commercial property in the housing estates of the Board within the town and to to exercise such powers and perform such duties.”

Mr Low argued with this point, again, that there should be no requirement for the town council to apply for a permit from NEA.

Lastly, Mr Low referred to the Town councils (use of common property) rules 2005 of the Town Council Act, which stated that the town council may impose charges for “social and communal functions” conducted in “common property in its town”, such as “variety shows, mini fairs, carnivals and book fairs in void decks, open spaces and precinct pavilions”, with no mention of trade fairs.

The prosecution once again objected to the points raised by Mr Low, saying that the documents Mr Low referred to does not dispute the fact that the event held at the town council is a temporary fair and the fair was held without a permit.

The judge reserved his judgement on whether Mr Low’s question is relevant to the case and adjourned the hearing due to time constraint. The next hearing will be held in the state court on Wednesday.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/ahpetc-questions-nea-on-need-for-mini-fairs-permit/

</figcaption></figure>

[h=1]Why was “town councils” removed from application form?: WP lawyer[/h] <time class="entry-date published" datetime="2014-10-15T10:02:59+00:00" itemprop="datePublished">October 15, 2014</time> by Andrew Loh in Main story · 2 Comments

<figure id="attachment_64685" style="width: 615px;" class="wp-caption aligncenter"> <figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Peter Low & Sylvia Lim [Photo: Straits Times]</figcaption></figure>By Andrew Loh

The court battle between the Workers’ Party’s Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) got under way on Tuesday.


[You can read The Online Citizen's report here: "AHPETC questions NEA on need for “mini-fairs” permit".]
One of the questions raised during Tuesday’s hearing was why the WP Town Council needed to seek a “letter of support” from the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC)’s in applying for a permit to hold a trade fair.


In the application form to hold a fair, it says:

Incidentally, it seems that the form has wrongly described the “CCC” as the “Citizens’ Constituency Committee”.
CCC, in fact, stands for “Citizens’ Consultative Committee”.
<figure id="attachment_64686" style="width: 150px;" class="wp-caption alignright"> <figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Victor Lye</figcaption></figure> In any case, the CCC in question in this particular case was the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol CCC.


Mr Peter Low, lawyer representing the WP, told the court that this CCC was chaired by a People’s Action Party (PAP) grassroots leader, Victor Lye.


Mr Lye is also the PAP branch chairman in the area.


Mr Low had wanted to know from Mr Tai Ji Choong, the NEA director of environmental health who was in the stand on Tuesday, to explain why it was necessary to get the CCC’s approval as a condition for the permit.


The judge, however, ruled that “the issue surrounding the conditions for a permit should not be argued in the present trial but at a judicial review”, according to news reports.
However, he also reserved judgement on whether the NEA should explain why TCs in general require a “letter of support” from the CCCs when applying for a permit to hold trade fairs.


What is curious, which Mr Low also raised in court, was why the term “town councils” was removed from being mentioned in the application form among those organisations which are allowed to hold trade fairs.


Mr Low said that in the current application form, it says:
However, in a July 2008 version of the trade fair application form, it stated “town councils” as one of the entities allowed to hold trade fairs.


Mr Low showed the court the 2008 form which said [emphasis added]:
Mr Low wanted to know when the decision to remove or omit the term “town councils” was made.


Lawyer for the NEA, Mr Isaac Tan, objected to Mr Low’s question and said it was “irrelevant” as the issue before the court is whether the event needed a permit.


Based on the materials Mr Low produced in court, it would seem that because town councils are no longer allowed to hold trade fairs, they would need the support of the CCCs if they wish to do so.


But when were town councils removed from the list of entities which are authorised to hold trade fairs, and why?

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...cils-removed-from-application-form-wp-lawyer/

As usual...PAP using NEA to prosecute opposition.

What's new...nothing.

<object classid="clsid

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore




<embed src="http://static.movideo.com/flash/movideo_player.swf" quality="high" bgcolor="#000000" name="player-element" play="true" loop="false" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="apiKey=movideoSingPressHold&alias=ST_v1_Desktop&playerId=movideoSingPressHold_ST_v1_Desktop_1413352209821&mediaId=996743" align="middle" height="288" width="512"></object>

Useless WP abusing their position as MP to profit from the poor resident of AHPE needs to be taught a lesson

Hougang shopkeepers petition against trade fairs

NEA-AHPETC trial update:


District Judge Victor Yeo has ruled as irrelevant the questions asked by AHPETC's lawyer Mr Peter Low at the close of yesterday's hearing.


The questions were whether town councils need to apply for the permit with NEA, and when NEA removed mention of "town councils" in the forms as a party that need a permit for the conduct of trade fairs. Mr Low may not proceed with questions of this nature.


TOC's report on these earlier questions: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/ahpetc-questions-nea-on-…/
The court will reconvene in the afternoon. TOC's will be reporting on today's hearing in full.

[h=1]Nub of the issue – terms used and questionable conditions[/h] <time class="entry-date published" datetime="2014-10-16T11:06:39+00:00" itemprop="datePublished">October 16, 2014</time> by Andrew Loh in Main story · 3 Comments

<figure id="attachment_64685" style="width: 615px;" class="wp-caption aligncenter"> <figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Peter Low & Sylvia Lim [Photo: Straits Times]</figcaption></figure>By Andrew Loh – The dispute between the opposition Workers’ Party Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) seems to all boil down to two issues – what constitutes a “trade fair”, and the need for a “letter of support” from a grassroots chairman.


The meaning or understanding of the term “trade fair” would determine whether the application forms and the information it requires are suitable; and clarity on why elected members of parliament must seek “support” from unelected and volunteer grassroots leaders will go a long way to shed light on the current case.


These seems to be the nub of the issue in the court case which has arisen from the WP town council (TC) going ahead in holding what it calls a “mini-fair” in Hougang central during the Chinese Lunar New Year period this year.


The NEA is accusing the town council of contravening Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act which states that a permit is required for “any temporary fair, stage show or other such function or activity”.


Sylvia Lim, chairman of the WP town council, told the court on Wednesday that she viewed the term “trade fair” as referring to a “pasar malam”, the colloquial term for night market.


These, she said, were usually organised by the Citizens’ Consultative Committees, which are grassroots organisations.
The WP event, on the other hand, was a “community event held in a common area managed by the town council”, Ms Lim said.


The WP community event consisted of five stalls which sold the following items:

• Chinese New Year (CNY) decorative items
• Prepacked CNY sweets and candies
• Mandarin oranges
• Prepacked CNY cookies and goodies (2 stalls)

In addition there would also be several benches for CNY flowers and potted plants at the event.


However, the NEA application forms sent to the town council upon the latter’s request in December last year were for a “trade fair permit” and a “trade fair foodstall licence”, Ms Lim said.


As such, the WP town council found the forms sent to it by the NEA “unsuitable’, given that it was a community event, and not a trade fair, and that there were no “foodstall” at the fair it was organising.


After the town council asked the NEA for the relevant forms, the NEA sent it the same forms again.


Nonetheless, the WP town council proceeded to submit the form but not before striking out the words “trade fair” on the form and replacing it with “event”.


As for the requirement to also submit a “letter of support” from the area’s CCC chairman, Ms Lim questioned why this was necessary.


She said that firstly, the town council is empowered under the Town Councils Act to manage common areas, where the mini-fair would take place.


Secondly, she said she did not see why the town council, which is run by elected members of parliament, should seek the support of the chairman of a grassroots organisation.


The chairman of the CCC concerned in this case is Victor Lye, who is also a People’s Action Party branch chairman in the area.


“Since my colleagues and I were elected to manage the town council under the Town Councils Act, we do not see how the town council should be required to get a supporting letter from the CCC for something held in the common area under our charge,” Ms Lim said.


Mr Tan objected to Mr Low raising the question on Tuesday, which the judge also deemed to be irrelevant and said that “the issue surrounding the conditions for a permit should not be argued in the present trial but at a judicial review.”


Also on Tuesday, during the hearing, Mr Low had sought to question the executive director of environmental health, Tai Ji Choong, on why the term “town councils” was removed from the application form.


Mr Low showed the court a copy of the same form from 2008.


It had included the “town councils” as organisations authorised to conduct fairs.


However, in the set of forms sent to it by the NEA in December last year, the term “town councils” was no longer included.
The judge decided on Wednesday that the question was irrelevant and ordered Mr Low not to proceed along that line of questioning.


Also at the heart of the issue is why exactly did the NEA not grant the permit, and why it told the WP town council that the forms were “incomplete”.


Mr Tan, when commenting on this on Tuesday, said “since AHPETC did not appeal against its rejected application, it should not use the court to find out why it was not given the permit.”


Another issue which has come to light is whether town councils are in fact permitted to hold such events at all.
In its letter to AHPETC last year, the Ministry of National Development (MND) had said that town councils are prohibited from engaging in “commercial activities’.


However, the fact that the NEA had asked the WP town council to submit an application to hold such an event seems to contradict what the MND said, and that town councils are in fact allowed to hold such events as long as it fulfilled the requirements or conditions, one of which is to get the “letter of support” from the chairman of the CCC.


It would thus seem that the case is one of unclear rules, regulations, terms used and questionable conditions. And it does not seem that the fault, if any, would lie entirely with the WP town council alone.


But the main issue here is what are the reasons for the NEA to reject AHPETC’s application, besides the forms being “incomplete”.


Why, exactly, were they “incomplete”?
Perhaps Thursday’s hearing will shed light on this.

[h=1]Applying for NEA permit means AHPETC accepts permit was needed?[/h] <time class="entry-date published" datetime="2014-10-16T16:24:25+00:00" itemprop="datePublished">October 16, 2014</time> by Howard Lee in Main story, News · 5 Comments



By Howard Lee


The third day of the trial between the National Environment Agency (NEA) and Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) saw the town council’s chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim take the stand to answer queries on whether AHPETC did indeed believe that a permit was required to run its Lunar New Year event in January this year.


In the course of the first two hours, DPP Isaac Tan repeatedly questioned Ms Lim based on the correspondence between AHPETC and NEA, saying that because AHPETC did not explicitly indicate to NEA that a permit was not needed, AHPETC did not exercise due care to avoid contravening the law as stipulated in the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA).


Not saying “no” means “yes”: Prosecution


Referring to the exchanges in emails and letters, Mr Tan said that AHPETC did not indicate specifically to NEA that the event in question was not a “trade fair” or “temporary fair”, nor did they indicate specifically to NEA that it was a “mini-fair” or “community event” as AHPETC has claimed.


Mr Tan pointed out that instead, on 29 December, AHPETC has opted to submit the forms that NEA sent them two days before, for the application for a permit to organise a trade fair. Mr Tan said that AHPETC’s action indicated that they recognise a permit was needed, because they have tried to apply for one.


Mr Tan also added that in the application form, signed by AHPETC’s representative, the town council did not specifically indicate in the declaration section that the event was not a trade fair, and also provided the documentation as required by NEA to support the application, thus confirm that AHPETC conceded a permit was needed, and recognised NEA as the approving authority for the conduct of the fair.


As such, their decision to proceed with the fair, despite NEA’s notifications to them that they did not have a permit to do so, contravenes Section 35 of the EPHA.


Mr Tan surmised that the town council was aware of the need for a permit, did not specifically object to NEA’s request to submit forms for the permit, did not heed NEA’s advice that no permit was granted, and instead continued with the fair to persistently flout the law.


Prosecution “not being fair”: Sylvia Lim


Ms Lim, while agreeing with many of the yes-no questions asked by Mr Tan, disagreed to the submissions made by the prosecution.


“I disagree with the prosecution’s attempt to paint us (AHPETC) as foolhardy”, she said, to the effect that they were seen as deliberately trying to make trouble in the registration process.


At one point, she even said that Mr Tan was “not being fair” in his cross-examination, presumably because he did not allow her to explain the town council’s action, repeatedly asking for yes-no answers.


She said that AHPETC did not quibble with NEA about whether a permit was needed, because a town council is in no position to judge on that.


“Whether a permit is required should be decided by a court of law, rather than between us and NEA,” she said.
She also said that AHPETC approached NEA asking about the necessity for a permit, because they understood that “NEA has expressed an interest in such fairs”.


While maintaining that the forms from NEA were “not suitable”, Ms Lim said AHPETC continued with the submission process to avoid problems at the event and to prevent any enforcement action NEA might take.


Ms Lim indicated that the town council did not believe NEA would change their minds – presumably, to waive the need for submission – and AHPETC was really “taking the practical approach to resolve the matter”.


She added that AHPETC could have opted not to submit the forms as a matter of principle, which would then lead to accusations that they were not acting in good faith.


As to why AHPETC did not specifically indicate to NEA that they did not think the event was a “trade fair”, Ms Lim said that the nature of the event was already made known to NEA, including in a supporting letter from Workers’ Party secretary-general Mr Low Thia Khiang stating the same.


She also disagreed with Mr Tan that AHPETC has conceded that the event was a trade fair in the declaration part of the form, pointing out that they have identified this by replacing the words “trade fair” at the top of the form with “event”.
“On hindsight, perhaps we should also have amended the (parts of the) declaration (that mentions “trade fair”), since we were not organising a trade fair,” she said.


She also added that the email sent to NEA clearly indicated that the event will be conducted on a space managed by AHPETC, in which they have duties to discharge under the Town Council Act.


Former events “irrelevant”: Prosecution


In re-examination, the defence led by Mr Peter Low wanted to ask Ms Lim to clarify on earlier correspondences between AHPETC and NEA, particularly on the point Ms Lim made about NEA being interested in such events.


This was immediately objected by Mr Tan, who claimed that he “knew this was coming”. He said that the defence did not raise any objections to his questioning and had allowed Ms Lim to “go into irrelevant areas” and then for Mr Low to claim that he is “entitled to expand” on these areas.


He beseeched District Judge Victor Yeo to strictly maintain the “rule of relevancy” in court and disallow “matters that breached the threshold”, citing former cases such as those involving politicians Chee Soon Juan where irrelevant material has been disallowed.


Mr Low then took objection to what he believed was Mr Tan’s attempt to accuse him of hatching a “devilish plan” to open up the case, and Mr Tan clarified that he meant no such thing.


Judge Yeo ruled that the DPP’s objection was sustained, and Mr Low did not continue with his questioning.
The court went for a short recess at 11.30am, and returned to verify the accounts of town council staff, who testified that the writings and signatures on the submitted documents were theirs.


Mr Low said that in view of the development of the hearing, the defence has decided against putting Mr Png Eng Huat on the witness stand.


The hearing ended at 12.40pm. The parties will submit their written submission to the court within the next three weeks and judgement is tentatively set to be passed on 25 November.

[h=1]NEA forms “not suitable” for town council event: Sylvia Lim[/h]
Chairman of AHPETC, Ms Sylvia Lim and lawyer, Mr Peter Low

Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), Sylvia Lim, was in the witness stand as the hearing on summons issued by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to the AHPETC moves into the second day.


Ms Lim testified in court on why the town council felt that the application forms which it was required to submit to hold a community event were not applicable for the lunar new year event it held in January.


District Judge Victor Yeo ruled after a day of deliberation that the question on why and when the NEA removed the term “town council” from the 2008 revised application form for trade fairs to be irrelevant to the ruling of the case and disallow Peter Low, lawyer for the WP town council, from asking the question.


The judge ruled that it is not his power to preside over the rationale of the law and said that such questions will be disallowed after Mr Low failed to convince the judge with past judgements that it is any matter of the court to determine whether one has exercised due diligence in violation of public welfare offences such as Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA).


In court on Wednesday, Ms Lim referred to the communication between AHPETC and NEA starting with the email sent by AHPETC’s Public Relation Officer, Ms Chelsea Lu to Mr Tai Ji Choong, the NEA’s director of environmental health.
<figure id="attachment_64712" style="width: 607px;" class="wp-caption aligncenter"> <figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Letter from AHPETC to NEA on 20th December 2013</figcaption></figure> Referring to the email sent on 20th December last year, Ms Lim explained that the town council sent the email to NEA because of concerns on whether the event to be held by the town council required any permit from the authorities and to ask for the forms which the town council had to submit, if any.

In the cover letter accompanying AHPETC’s application submission to the NEA, the town council highlighted that the form was used at the request of the NEA and that AHPETC felt that the form does not represent the town council’s agreement.
<figure id="attachment_64709" style="width: 535px;" class="wp-caption aligncenter"> <figcaption class="wp-caption-text">Paragraph in the cover letter to NEA</figcaption></figure> In reply to Mr Low’s question of why the town council feel that the form was not suitable for the event, Ms Lim replied that there are three main reasons.


It was to Ms Lim’s understanding that trade fairs are normally referred to as “pasar malam” (night market) which are organised by Citizen Consultative Committees (CCCs).


The WP town council event, however, was intended to be held by the town council and was a community event, carried out on common area managed by the town council.


Ms Lim said that under the law, the powers and duties of the town council include the management of the common area.
Ms Lim also referred to the term “town councils” missing from the application forms supplied by the NEA.


In its previous version, the term was included as part of a list of entities which were allowed to conduct fairs.


Instead, one of the conditions specified by the application form, among the documents supposed to be obtained is a “letter of support” from the chairman of the Citizen Consultative Committee (CCC).


Ms Lim pointed out that in the case of the Hougang CCC, the branch leader is from the People’s Action Party.


“Since my colleagues and I were elected to manage the town council under the Town Councils Act, we do not see how the town council should be required to get a supporting letter from the CCC for something held in the common area under our charge,” Ms Lim told the court.

<figure id="attachment_64714" style="width: 402px;" class="wp-caption aligncenter"> <figcaption class="wp-caption-text">“Trade Fair” replaced with “Event”</figcaption></figure> In the application form submitted to NEA, the wordings of “Trade Fair” is struck off and replaced with the word, “Event”. Ms Lim said that she approved the replacement of the words because it was constant with what they wrote in the cover letter that they do not believe they were organising a trade fair.


She also did not agree that the town council was holding a commercial activity as stated in the letter by the Ministry of National Development sent on 14th January 2014.


Frustration by defense lawyers


Mr Low showed signs of frustration after being blocked for “no less than 10 questions” in the past two days by Isaac Tan, the NEA prosecutor, saying that it is a waste of time.


Mr Low had not been able to ask any question from Mr Tai due to Mr Tan’s objections.


This came after Mr Tan’s prompt objection to Ms Lim’s statement of why the initial letter to NEA was sent.


Ms Lim was bringing up the point that she had been told by industry players in organising events that NEA “is not interested in events, unless open food stalls are involved or small events with less than 15 stalls.”


Before she could continue, the prosecution asked if the sources cited by Ms Lim would be questioned as witnesses. If the sources will not be questioned, then what Ms Lim said would be hearsay evidence.


Ms Lim said that she has not obtained permission from the people whom she spoke to, as their businesses could be affected.


Mr Low said that if Mr Tan has any objections on the hearsay evidence, he could address that in his cross-examination of the witness and asked for the judge to allow Ms Low to allowed to continue her statement as it would provide the background of why the initial contact was made with NEA.


The judge noted the prosector’s objection but allowed Ms Lim to continue.


Other than Ms Lim, three more witnesses from the defense will be called up, Ms Chelsea Lu , Deputy General Manager of AHPETC, Mr Yeo Soon Fei and MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat.


The prosecution will be cross examining Ms Lim today (Thursday)

Application form submitted by AHPETC to NEA


NEA v AHPETC application form

Instead, one of the conditions specified by the application form, among the documents supposed to be obtained is a “letter of support” from the chairman of the Citizen Consultative Committee (CCC).

Click to expand...

LOL... is it any more obvious that this is yet another PAP attempt to fix the opposition?

What is this? Getting a testimonial from your employer?

wMulew said:

Useless WP abusing their position as MP to profit from the poor resident of AHPE needs to be taught a lesson

Hougang shopkeepers petition against trade fairs

Click to expand...

Maybe you should go there & find out the two shopkeepers that complained......

why they are so many FT allow to operate “pasar malam” along geylang road?
NEA, no take action one har? WTF!

It's a matter of principles. WP. Fight for the rights. huat ah!

NEA got time to play politic... no time to inspect the longkang ( Mosquito Breeding ) WTF.

Dear Voters, please issued them summoned in 2016 regardless of which constituency
you stay. huat ah!

We the people of Singapore want our leaders and political parties to serve us, whenever possible.... as best as they could.

Holding a CNY fair IS one the ways to help those of us who have to work hard...who have no free time to make 'CNY goodies' for our selves.

We usually buy 'home-made' cakes, pineapple tarts and love letters... from housewives who sell them at CNY fairs.

It seem, NEA is making it very difficult for a town council to hold a mini fair in order to serve us.
The junior official in NEA acted like a little emperors... abusing the little power granted to them to approve permit for CNY fair.

Firstly, they failed to issue a permit for the Town council to hold the CNY fair... despite given a month's notice.
According to News paper reports, the application was filed with NEA in Dec 2013,... After a month, NEA failed to issue a permit for the fair in Jan 2014 (the date the CNY fair was scheduled to start)

In this day and age...a Permit should not take more than a few days. (I got a work permit for my maid within a week)

The town council had no choice, but slashed the size to only a few stalls...and held the CNY fair as a mini fair.(for which No permit from NEA is required)

Now, NEA sue the town council.

Is it a law under NEA that a town council MUST inform the NEA if it decide to hold a mini fair to help Singaporeans celebrate the CNY ?

The junior official in NEA is paid by tax payer to serve the people of Singapore...not to engage in petty politics. They should leave the political game...to PM Lee and PAP.

wMulew said:

Useless WP abusing their position as MP to profit from the poor resident of AHPE needs to be taught a lesson

Hougang shopkeepers petition against trade fairs

Click to expand...

Those 'shopkeepers' are paid PAP agents lah!

winnipegjets said:

Those 'shopkeepers' are paid PAP agents lah!

Click to expand...

Wmlewd is a papzi dog.

if the same had happen in the pap wards, I wonder if NEA will take action and bring them to courts?