from TODAY

HDB gave woman $18,000 in error ...
FORMER hawker Mdm Lee Ah Muey, 75, wishes she could turn back time and perhaps reverse a decision that has led to an $18,000 headache.

She was asked to make a decision, "Give up your stall and get $18,000/- or don't give up your store and continue".

So she gave up her store. 4 years ago. Her income for 4 years she could have made from her store gone.

Now they want the money back. They said they made a mistake.

What mistake? "Give up your stall and get $18,000/- or don't give up your store and continue".

If they are not supposed to make her the offer, that is their problem. They made her an offer and she accepted it in good faith. If they did not make her an offer, she would not have given up her stall. An agreement is an agreement. Deduct the money from the minister's salary for the mistake. Despots.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231596.asp

Usual drivel from the regime.

poor thing

tats sad

She was happily working there and all her friends are there… she had no intention of stopping and they come and make her an offer. Now that she had given up everything because of their offer, they want their money back. Despots!

.. you mean you are surprised???

... I'm not...

... they made the Law, they can bend it any time, any way, they so please...

I am surprised at the audacity of the HDB.

Someone's head should row, and it should be the ku-ku who sanctioned the deal. Were the deal done with an MNC, good luck to HDB recovering their money. The fact that it's a stall owner does not change the fact that their own goofing caused the current predicament.

Why should the lady pay back the 18k? It doesn't matter what's stated in her original contract because the 18K give-up-and-compensate letter of offer must surely come with it's own fine print. The lady can counter sue HDB for alternative forms of compensation.

HDB's other excuses that they tried to inform her earlier are also invalid. Why was an officer only sent knocking after 3 years? Letters of intent filed usually have a livespan of 2 weeks, at which time the compulsory deadline will elapse.

There's clearly a lack of common sense in our govt bodies. Ineptitude seems to be a common trait of our civil servants.

... and those lawyers they quoted seem bent of supporting the despots...

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

from TODAY

She was asked to make a decision, "Give up your stall and get $18,000/- or don't give up your store and continue".

So she gave up her store. 4 years ago. Her income for 4 years she could have made from her store gone.

Now they want the money back. They said they made a mistake.

What mistake? "Give up your stall and get $18,000/- or don't give up your store and continue".

If they are not supposed to make her the offer, that is their problem. They made her an offer and she accepted it in good faith. If they did not make her an offer, she would not have given up her stall. An agreement is an agreement. Deduct the money from the minister's salary for the mistake. Despots.

HDB should apologise to her and pay her more money ... since they caused her distress ...

What kind of society we are in now ... ?

Chinese said: "Mei(2) Tian(1) Li(3)"

Not sure how true is this ... but if this is full truth .. then let curse HDB and their managment together !! curse curse curse !!!

Originally posted by happieman:

HDB should apologise to her and pay her more money ... since they caused her distress ...

What kind of society we are in now ... ?

Chinese said: "Mei(2) Tian(1) Li(3)"

Not sure how true is this ... but if this is full truth .. then let curse HDB and their managment together !! curse curse curse !!!

"Mei(2) Tian(1) Li(3)" is correct. What if it were your mother or aunt? We the people must condemn this type of injustice.

The PAP regime feels that its rule is secure in Singapore. Winning elections for 50 years. All opposition weak. People are docile, apathetic.

That is why they take the people for granted.

I think you never even freaking read the whole article at all, that woman is living in a semi detached house, with her kids to support her, and freaking hell, she has actually contest this case in court if she hired a lawyer and furthermore, this issue, is not about justice, its about fairness, if the authority let this be, and the rest of the people out there, will think, its ok

god damn it, at least you people, out there, read the damn new paper, before bloody hell, comment on it, and she did mention in the newspaper that she actually could pay back, and the authority had tried to contact her, but couldn't, until now, it is as if, she is LLPL has to return back the money.

On the face of it, there is a vallid and binding agreement between HDB and the hawker so that she can enforce it. But under the law of contract, notwithstanding that contract, the contract can be nullified if one party to it can raise the issue of "Mistake". This will then be a question of evidence for the court to determine.

While true that the law does not always guarantee justice and fairness as in this case, no one is above the law.......

I think you never even freaking read the whole article at all, that woman is living in a semi detached house, with her kids to support her, and freaking hell, she has actually contest this case in court if she hired a lawyer and furthermore, this issue, is not about justice, its about fairness, if the authority let this be, and the rest of the people out there, will think, its ok

So what is your point?

Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

I think you never even freaking read the whole article at all, that woman is living in a semi detached house, with her kids to support her, and freaking hell, she has actually contest this case in court if she hired a lawyer and furthermore, this issue, is not about justice, its about fairness, if the authority let this be, and the rest of the people out there, will think, its ok

god damn it, at least you people, out there, read the damn new paper, before bloody hell, comment on it, and she did mention in the newspaper that she actually could pay back, and the authority had tried to contact her, but couldn't, until now, it is as if, she is LLPL has to return back the money.

Did they make her an offer? Yes

Was the offer to give up and get the money? Yes

Did she give up her stall to get the money? Yes

Did she do anything wrong? No

Was she cheated (they said it was not cheating, it was a mistake) into giving up the stall? Yes

So if your mother gets cheated and you can afford to pay for her than it is acceptable? *sheesh*

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

So what is your point?

And you have no freaking constructive comment to make about, what i have typed out, it shows you never even bother read the damn article

my POINT IS VERY SIMPLE TO YOU, READ THE DAMN ARTICLE before even bother to comment about this, i already make it perfectly clear, and please don't ask me anymore, stupid question, because you merely quote half of what i have typed

... and the minister in charge, taking millions in public money cannot afford to compensate her out of his own pocket? His millions is money and other people’s money is not money? sheesh

my POINT IS VERY SIMPLE TO YOU, READ THE DAMN ARTICLE before even bother to comment about this,

I still don't understand what point you are driving at.

Maybe I am a bit slow.

Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

And you have no freaking constructive comment to make about, what i have typed out, it shows you never even bother read the damn article

my POINT IS VERY SIMPLE TO YOU, READ THE DAMN ARTICLE before even bother to comment about this, i already make it perfectly clear, and please don't ask me anymore, stupid question, because you merely quote half of what i have typed

Who said we never read the article? and if we read the whole article than it would be clear that she was not 'cheated' into giving up her stall? Just because her children are supporting her she was not 'cheated' into giving up her stall? *sheesh*

I am sure you read the whole article, but use your brains a little can?

allentyb_v2.01, I am not too sure what point you are trying to make, but I will make an attempt here.

Are you saying that it is okay for government to mistreat rich people?

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

allentyb_v2.01, I am not too sure what point you are trying to make, but I will make an attempt here.

Are you saying that it is okay for government to mistreat rich people?

what, recovering back taxpayer money is consider a mistreat, are you freaking, making any sense at all, if some of your tax money is in it, don't you want to recover it back? huh? are you even making any sense at all, just because i have not been flaming people, doesn't mean that i have stop, just search my old nick allentyb and you can have the freaking idea, what i am capable of!

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

allentyb_v2.01, I am not too sure what point you are trying to make, but I will make an attempt here.

Are you saying that it is okay for government to mistreat rich people?

.. and the worse part is, the despots behave like everyone is 'the rich' (raise GST, raise ERP, sell HDB at exorbitant prices...) and they are the poor (need to raise their million dollars salaries by double digits percentage points...)

are you even making any sense at all, just because i have not been flaming people, doesn't mean that i have stop, just search my old nick allentyb and you can have the freaking idea, what i am capable of!

I would like to direct your flaming attacks against the PAP regime.

I want to set you against the PAP.

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

Who said we never read the article? and if we read the whole article than it would be clear that she was not 'cheated' into giving up her stall? Just because her children are supporting her she was not 'cheated' into giving up her stall? *sheesh*

I am sure you read the whole article, but use your brains a little can?

And you are trying to be an A S S WIPE and start cursing at the government for every single mistake, they make

since your brain is on the verge of malfunction, ok i shall copy and paste the main point of the freaking article and explain to you, since you are only selective reading!

This is the second half of the article, you failed to understand, so stop embarrassing yourself and stick to your usual update on the stock market

The board also said Mdm Lee had not indicated any difficulty in returning the money when its officers visited her.
"She can contact us for assistance if she has difficulties in returning the money," it added.
Ms Lau said she and her siblings can put together the $18,000 and they "don't mind paying" — but there is a twist.

She hopes that the NEA, at the same time, can help secure a new stall for her mother at the refurbished hawker centre, "as my mother's friends are all there".
.
The reason? Mdm Lee still enjoys "selling things", even though she does not need to work. Her five children earn enough to support her and home is a semi-detached house near Bartley Road paid for by a relative years ago.
.
"I don't like to stay at home. I didn't want to give up the stall in the first place," said the widow.
.
According to lawyers whom Today interviewed, money paid out by mistake is claimable by law.

In cases where an innocent mistake is made and "there is an unexpected beneficiary to the mistake, the usual process is for the paying party to explain the situation and to make a claim", said lawyer Kirpal Singh. But a discount or a longer period for payment may be given, particularly if the "innocent receiving party did not exercise any criminal intent in acquiring the monies in the first place", he added.

A recent high-profile case of mistaken compensation was the court battle between the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and SingTel in 2002, when IDA sued SingTel for the return of $388 million. The money was part of a $1.5 billion compensation sum for the early opening of the telco market to competition, and was for a tax that SingTel never had to pay.

The judge ruled that SingTel was entitled to keep the entire sum of IDA's compensation.

In a case like Mdm Lee's, Mr Singh said that one possible defence in court is change-of-position.

"If the woman can show she is no longer in possession of the monies or is no longer in a position to return the monies — for example, if she is bankrupt — then the claim would be defeated," he said