Nea in court to ‘fix’ workers’ party town council for holding 'unlicensed fair'

[h=1]NEA IN COURT TO ‘FIX’ WORKERS’ PARTY TOWN COUNCIL FOR HOLDING 'UNLICENSED FAIR'[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
15 Oct 2014 - 12:07pm





<iframe src="http://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-0/html/container.html" style="display: none; visibility: hidden;"></iframe><ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


The court hearing into the case between the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) began on Tuesday in relation to an ‘unlicensed’ fair which was held during the lunar new year festival.

The temporary fair saw five different stalls selling festive cookies, decorations and flowers for residents for about three weeks during the lunar new year period.
NEA had summoned the AHPETC saying that it had not abided by the permit requirements despite numerous reminders. They explained that the town council had submitted an incomplete application form.

NEA argued that the fair had been a temporary fair which required a permit under section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act. However, the AHPETC is arguing that the fair was actually a mini-fair and therefore it did not fall under section 35 of the environmental public health act and didn’t need a permit.
The town council’s chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, was also in court with her lawyer Mr Peter Low.​




<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


Mr Low argued that the fair was a social and communal function and not a commercial affair.

Nevertheless, AHPETC also lodged permit application forms with NEA as requested but again highlighted that it was an “event” and not a “trade fair” in the application forms.

However, NEA at that point did not approve the town council’s application as they felt it was an incomplete application and they asked for the completed details to be sent to them.

However, as the date for the fair had already come, AHPETC went ahead with the plans and held the fair.
The court case will continue next week.

What? Can speak louder? Can't hear you WP MPs speak up about CPF and immigration in parliament, so don't expect me to follow if you can hold a pasar malam or not.

Vivian knows how to waste our tax dollars.

How many man-hours were spent on the high-ceiling cleaning issue? - I reckon at least $1 million was spent.
Now this court case ...another $1 million gone?

makapaaa said:

It may be time for WP to relook at its 'stay low, play safe, I donch karcheow you, you donch karcheow me' strategy. If it is happy with its status quo, it is not the party to replace the FAP to take SG forward.

Click to expand...

If WP had believed in that, they would have paid the composition fine instead of going to court over merely $1000.

WP also believes don't court trouble if trouble is not looking for anyone.

Ah loong! Mr. Oppositions fixit!