- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
By Bertha Henson and Wan Ting Koh
THE Town Council Act is a piece of unfinished/unpolished work.
That’s the conclusion anyone listening to today’s four-hour hearing on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) case will draw. The legislation is so vague that there is trouble discerning who can go to court to take action against a town council – HDB? National Development Minister? Residents? All three?
But what sort of issues should they go to court over? Surely, a resident isn’t about to go to court to get his ceiling fixed? And why does the Ministry of National Development (MND) need to go to court when the Minister can issue regulations and impose conditions on a town council? As for the HDB, does it have a say because it is responsible for unoccupied or unsold flats?
Besides these questions, there is this big one: What sort of power does the judiciary have to compel a town council to do anything? What is the definition of “compel”? And isn’t the workings of a town council a “quasi-political” issue?
Chief Justice (CJ) Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Chao Hick Tin were supremely patient in trying to elicit answers from MND’s lawyer, Ms Aurill Kam, the Deputy Chief Counsel for litigation from the Attorney-General’s Chambers and Mr Peter Low representing the Workers’ Party.
They needed to know because they were being asked to give the G (MND and/or HDB) the right to send independent accountants into the AHPETC to look over its books. The G has said that only when this happens, will it hand over $14 million in grants to the town council. In the High Court earlier this year, the G (in the form of MND) was told that the application should have been made by the HDB or by residents. Which was why this time around, the HDB is on board as a co-complainant.
To recap a bit of history: http://themiddleground.sg/2015/08/03/power-judges-town-councils/
THE Town Council Act is a piece of unfinished/unpolished work.
That’s the conclusion anyone listening to today’s four-hour hearing on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) case will draw. The legislation is so vague that there is trouble discerning who can go to court to take action against a town council – HDB? National Development Minister? Residents? All three?
But what sort of issues should they go to court over? Surely, a resident isn’t about to go to court to get his ceiling fixed? And why does the Ministry of National Development (MND) need to go to court when the Minister can issue regulations and impose conditions on a town council? As for the HDB, does it have a say because it is responsible for unoccupied or unsold flats?
Besides these questions, there is this big one: What sort of power does the judiciary have to compel a town council to do anything? What is the definition of “compel”? And isn’t the workings of a town council a “quasi-political” issue?
Chief Justice (CJ) Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Chao Hick Tin were supremely patient in trying to elicit answers from MND’s lawyer, Ms Aurill Kam, the Deputy Chief Counsel for litigation from the Attorney-General’s Chambers and Mr Peter Low representing the Workers’ Party.
They needed to know because they were being asked to give the G (MND and/or HDB) the right to send independent accountants into the AHPETC to look over its books. The G has said that only when this happens, will it hand over $14 million in grants to the town council. In the High Court earlier this year, the G (in the form of MND) was told that the application should have been made by the HDB or by residents. Which was why this time around, the HDB is on board as a co-complainant.
To recap a bit of history: http://themiddleground.sg/2015/08/03/power-judges-town-councils/
