NEA sends Angpows to WP Town Council on LNY eve

[DollarsNoSense]

NEA applies for court summons against Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/nea-applies-for-court/973280.html

SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has applied for a court summons against the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council for an unlicensed trade fair at the Hougang Central Hub.

In a statement on Wednesday, NEA said four stall holders have also been served with notices to attend court for hawking without a licence.

NEA said 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.

NEA said that the town council was reminded of this by the Ministry of National Development on 14 January 2014.

NEA added that the town council had continued to blatantly break the law, and wilfully exposed their tenants to legal action.

Between 2011 and January 2014, NEA had taken operators to court for operating a fair without a valid licence on 15 occasions.

Eleven operators have since been fined with amounts up to S$800, with the remaining four pending court mentions.

The fairs were located at Tampines, Toa Payoh, Simei, Clementi, Kovan City, Bukit Merah, Kampong Glam, Chinatown and Tanglin Halt.

There are currently 28 approved fairs in operation islandwide, three of which are located in the Aljunied/Hougang area.

Separately, the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council has issued the People's Association (PA) with three notices of offences regarding an ongoing Lunar New Year fair in Kovan.

Channel NewsAsia understands that the fair extended to about a metre into "common property".

The Kovan City Merchants Association, which organised the fair beside Heartland Mall, told Channel NewsAsia that it had set up the fair in the area leased by the PA.

But on January 7, it was informed by the town council that the tentages, which had been set up since December 31 last year, were beyond a metre of the allocated area.

Secretary of the Kovan City Merchants Association, Poon Cher Hock, said the merchants association was informed at a meeting with a town council officer that it might be fined S$1,000 a day, backdated to the day the tentages were put up.

Mr Poon said arrangements were made on January 7 to move the tentage into the allocated area.

But he said he was informed by the PA on the same night that it had received three notices of infringements.

- CNA/gn

 

[mei mei]

I thought real ang pow, so they begun this even before the new year :(

 

[tanwahp]

I am amazed because nothing in the Town Councils Act state that a town council cannot engage in commercial activities. Even if it is, operating fairs and renting out common property to fairs are 2 different things.

This is likely to be AHPETC's defence. Since MND and NEA don't mind looking bad by filing the case, the judge might as well let them win it so that we can see what happens in 2016.

Encroachment on common property on the other hand is a straightforward offence against SCDF fire safety regulations.

 

[Leongsam]

I am amazed because nothing in the Town Councils Act state that a town council cannot engage in commercial activities.

Town councils cannot operate trade fairs but are allowed to lose money which does not belong to them in dodgy mini bond speculation.

http://singaporemind.blogspot.co.nz/2008/10/pap-town-councils-bought-minibonds.html

 

[Bigfuck]

I propose a fine of 1 billion SGD on the Town Council, jailing all opposition MPs and returning Hougang to the PAP. See what kind of reaction the people dare muster.

 

[winnipegjets]

Town councils cannot operate trade fairs but are allowed to lose money which does not belong to them in dodgy mini bond speculation.

http://singaporemind.blogspot.co.nz/2008/10/pap-town-councils-bought-minibonds.html

Lucky Tan no longer blogs ...got rid off by the PAP?

 

[steffychun]

one rule for PAP Town councils one for WP owned

 

[3_M]

I am amazed because nothing in the Town Councils Act state that a town council cannot engage in commercial activities. Even if it is, operating fairs and renting out common property to fairs are 2 different things.

This is likely to be AHPETC's defence. Since MND and NEA don't mind looking bad by filing the case, the judge might as well let them win it so that we can see what happens in 2016.

Encroachment on common property on the other hand is a straightforward offence against SCDF fire safety regulations.

PAP TC rent the space out to PA who in turn organise Pasar Malam. WP TC skip the step and organise directly. NEA may argue that TC are not allow to engage in commercial activities but none of this is stated in Town Council Act. What not stated in the Act is also whether TC can rent out the space to external entity.

In addition the People's Association Act also didn't state if PA are allow to engage in commercial activities. If it argue that what PA is doing is not commercial in nature but part of community bonding, then what difference is it from what WP is doing? I think WP got a case here.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...3fc3428" Status:inforce Depth:0;rec=0#pr8-he-.
8. The objects of the Association are —
(a)
the organisation and the promotion of group participation in social, cultural, educational and athletic activities for the people of Singapore in order that they may realise that they belong to a multiracial community, the interests of which transcend sectional loyalties;
(b)
the establishment of such institutions as may be necessary for the purpose of leadership training in order to instil in leaders a sense of national identity and a spirit of dedicated service to a multiracial community;
(c)
the fostering of community bonding and strengthening of social cohesion amongst the people of Singapore;
(d)
the performance of such other functions as may be conferred upon the Association by any written law; and
(e)
the carrying out of such activities as appear to the Board to be advantageous towards, or necessary or convenient for, the furtherance of the objects of the Association as set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).

 

[freedalas]

Town councils cannot operate trade fairs but are allowed to lose money which does not belong to them in dodgy mini bond speculation.

http://singaporemind.blogspot.co.nz/2008/10/pap-town-councils-bought-minibonds.html

Extremely good point! One of your bipolar episode I supposed, where you swung to the correct side. Let's hope more of such bipolar moments from you.

 

[Leongsam]

Extremely good point! One of your bipolar episode I supposed, where you swung to the correct side. Let's hope more of such bipolar moments from you.

I not understand why nobody seems to be able to grasp the idea that every government has a range of policies some of which are considered good and some of which could be really bad.

I agree with about 65% of what the PAP does, disagree with 30% and think that the remaining 5% really suck.

When it comes to the opposition, I do not like 70% of what I see but agree with the other 30%.

Do not allow emotion to rule when judging political parties. Your mistake is that you are allowing your hatred to cloud your judgement.

 

[tanwahp]

I not understand why nobody seems to be able to grasp the idea that every government has a range of policies some of which are considered good and some of which could be really bad.

I agree with about 65% of what the PAP does, disagree with 30% and think that the remaining 5% really suck.

When it comes to the opposition, I do not like 70% of what I see but agree with the other 30%.

Do not allow emotion to rule when judging political parties. Your mistake is that you are allowing your hatred to cloud your judgement.

We understand that you often write tongue-in-cheek or you really want to balance the partisanship of this forum.

But to make absolute statements of "PAP is very XXX" and describing opposition as a total hell does not sound like 65% or 30% for either side. It sounds more like 95% for PAP.

 

[Leongsam]

We understand that you often write tongue-in-cheek or you really want to balance the partisanship of this forum.

But to make absolute statements of "PAP is very XXX" and describing opposition as a total hell does not sound like 65% or 30% for either side. It sounds more like 95% for PAP.

Because the PAP rates 65% good whereas the opposition rates only 30% positive, that is the general impression I have overall.

However, on certain issues I hate the way the PAP operates.

 

[freedalas]

I not understand why nobody seems to be able to grasp the idea that every government has a range of policies some of which are considered good and some of which could be really bad.

I agree with about 65% of what the PAP does, disagree with 30% and think that the remaining 5% really suck.

When it comes to the opposition, I do not like 70% of what I see but agree with the other 30%.

Do not allow emotion to rule when judging political parties. Your mistake is that you are allowing your hatred to cloud your judgement.

It's alright, Leongsam, it's really alright, no need to get all flustered up. We perfectly understand your bipolar condition and you have our sympathies. But cruel as it seems, we really hope to see you swinging more often to the correct side in one of your bipolar moments, By the correct side, we mean pointing out the wrongs of the PAP. And by the incorrect side (or the dark side), we mean the times you so desperately try to defend the indefensible positions of the PAP.

 

[Leongsam]

It's alright, Leongsam, it's really alright, no need to get all flustered up. We perfectly understand your bipolar condition and you have our sympathies. But cruel as it seems, we really hope to see you swinging more often to the correct side in one of your bipolar moments, By the correct side, we mean pointing out the wrongs of the PAP. And by the incorrect side (or the dark side), we mean the times you so desperately try to defend the indefensible positions of the PAP.

The PAP is seldom wrong but if they do make an error, I would be the first to point it out.

 

[freedalas]

The PAP is seldom wrong but if they do make an error, I would be the first to point it out.

Even granting that you're right now in a bipolar moment where you are on the dark side, your above statements are still totally ridiculous. The PAP is seldom wrong??? The brothers and sisters in this forum are posting every day of the wrong doings of the PAP and at times, many wrong doings in a single day.

 

[Leongsam]

Even granting that you're right now in a bipolar moment where you are on the dark side, your above statements are still totally ridiculous. The PAP is seldom wrong??? The brothers and sisters in this forum are posting every day of the wrong doings of the PAP and at times, many wrong doings in a single day.

What they claim are the "wrong doings" of the PAP are in fact the sound policies of a pragmatic government.

For example the PAP makes it very difficult for lazy good-for-nothing Singaporeans to get any form of assistance. This is deemed as "wrong" by people in this forum who do not understand the harm that is done by a welfare system that doles out free money to whoever asks for it. However, it is actually a very good policy and I commend the PAP for adopting it.

 

[freedalas]

What they claim are the "wrong doings" of the PAP are in fact the sound policies of a pragmatic government.

For example the PAP makes it very difficult for lazy good-for-nothing Singaporeans to get any form of assistance. This is deemed as "wrong" by people in this forum who do not understand the harm that is done by a welfare system that doles out free money to whoever asks for it. However, it is actually a very good policy and I commend the PAP for adopting it.

If it's only the lazy good-for-nothing Singaporeans that the PAP has denied any assistance, then surely the forummers would not raise a whimper. The whole trouble is that the PAP in not wanting to spend even a single cent to help hard-working Singaporeans who for various reasons are unable to find a job or ways to make a living, had branded them as such as well. This is a lie that the PAP has been perpetuating and tragically people like yourself has been helping them to do so. If you have personally encountered people who has applying for assistance from the government, you would not be making such a comment.

 

[cass888]

These are the biggest losers who think too highly of themselves a are therefore unable to find a job. Do not equate "don't want" with "cannot". Even the lesser educated know how to make a goo living cooking zi char for the stall owner. Problem is, no air con, too uncomfortable, don't want job.

The whole trouble is that the PAP in not wanting to spend even a single cent to help hard-working Singaporeans who for various reasons are unable to find a job or ways to make a living, had branded them as such as well.

 

[coldbutt]

The question that comes immediately to my mind.

About these 3 approved fairs currently running in Aljunied/Hougang area.

- Are they organized by PA/CCC/RC or the town council?

- Has the Aljunied/Hougang town council ever been allowed to organized pasar malam ever since the opposition took over?

The journalist for this Channel New Asia report did a sloppy job, by not going beneath the surface facts.