running Singapore like a company.....
"If you had a mother who's been working all her life, would you
still want her to work at such an advanced age?", Ms Gina Lau asked
when explaining why she had advised her mother to give up the stall
at the Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre in 2003.
In return for giving up her business, Mdm Lee was given $18,000 by
the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under its Hawker Centres
Upgrading Programme.
(The Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) was launched in Feb
2001 at an estimated cost of $420m to upgrade markets/hawker
centres over a period of 10 years. - NEA)
4 years later, her good intentions have resulted in a controversial
decision by the HDB demanding that her mother, Mdm Lee Ah Muay,
return the $18,000 compensation given to her in 2003.
Ms Lau told theonlinecitizen (TOC) that business was poor in 2003
and that was another reason why she advised her mother to give up
the stall. Mdm Lee made an average of $500 per month from her
business of selling clothes then.
Letter of demand
The HDB, according to a TODAY report, said that "its earlier
attempts to contact her since 2004 had failed". However Ms Lau
questioned how this could be so. "Why didn't they leave any notes
at my door at least?", she asked. We also understand that no phone
calls were made to Mdm Lee.
In September last year, an officer from the NEA visited Mdm Lee and
informed her that "HDB had made a mistake with the payout and the
money had to be returned". Ms Lau questions why it took the
authorities so long to find out about the mistake.
In Jan 2008, a letter of demand from the NEA was sent to Mdm Lee,
giving her 21 days to return the $18,000.
Ms Lau had earlier said, according to the TODAY report, that she
"regrets the advice she gave her mother" and she hopes the NEA "can
help secure a new stall for her mother at the refurbished hawker
centre" as her mother prefers to keep working and also that her
mother's friends were all there.
Compromise by the HDB?
After the media broke the news, Mdm Lee and Ms Lau visited HDB
officials on Friday afternoon and was told that the HDB would "put
them on a priority list" for a new stall. The HDB, according to Ms
Lau, has also offered them an installment plan to return the
$18,000 within a period of 3 to 6 months.
TOC understands that NEA officers will visit her again on Monday
(14 Jan) to discuss the issue of providing her with a new
stall.
Questions raised
The obvious question one would have to ask is: Why was the HDB and
then the NEA so ineffective in getting in touch with Mdm Lau since
2004? It is quite unfathomable that Mdm Lau would not be
contactable for 4 years.
Was someone dragging his feet at the HDB or NEA?
If the mistake by the HDB was discovered, as can be inferred from
the TODAY report, and dealt with earlier, the whole saga would have
been avoided. Mdm Lau was still operating a stall at the temporary
hawker centre from 2004 to 2005 when the original one was being
refurbished.
As such, how did the HDB and then the NEA fail in their attempts to
contact her?
Ms Lau told TOC that the NEA even asked her mother, in 2006, to pay
her hawker licence fee.
Who is in charge?
As far as TOC understands, there is no such "priority list' for
application of hawker stalls under the HUP. Is the HDB going to
install one now? Also, why is it that it is the HDB and not the
NEA which gave Mdm Lee the assurance that it will put them on a
"priority list"?
It was the NEA which informed Mdm Lee that HDB had made a mistake
in giving her the $18,000 payout. But it was the HDB which issued
the letter of demand to Mdm Lee and has given her the assurance of
a new stall today.
Who, therefore, is in charge of the case now HDB or NEA?
Legal view
Leong Sze Hian, who first heard of Mdm Lee's predicament and
brought her case to the attention of the local media, says:
After sending my letter to the newspapers' forum pages, I spoke to
4 lawyers, who were of the opinion that the HDB may be estopped
from claiming the return of the $18,000, because she gave up her
hawker stall and livelihood as a hawker by accepting HDB's offer of
$18,000.
Wikipedia:-
Estoppel is a legal doctrine recognised both at common law and in
equity in various forms. It is meant to complement the requirement
of consideration in contract law. In general it protects a party
who would suffer detriment if:
* The defendant has done or said something to induce an
expectation
* The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation
*
and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm
of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart
in public law, although subtle but important differences
exist.
Perhaps the obstacle for Mdm Lee in bringing her case to the courts
would be her signing of a Letter of Undertaking when she first took
ownership of her stall in 1993. In the undertaking, she agreed that
she will not seek any compensation in the event of any upgrading of
her stall.
This, however, throws up the question of whether it was fair for
the HDB to have hawkers sign such a document in the first
place.
Perhaps those who are well-versed in the law can provide
clarification.
Pressured to give up stall?
TOC understands that Mdm Lee was given 3 weeks to decide if she
wanted to give up her stall in 2003. Officers from the HDB were
also sent to advise her to do so. As the documents were in English,
the question of proper translation and detailed explanation by the
officers is important.
Perhaps the HDB (or NEA) should explain whether officers are sent
to induce hawkers to give up their stalls and how such "persuasion"
is done.
HDB should be penalised as well
Lastly, since it was HDB's mistake by its own admission
shouldn't the HDB be penalised for sloppy work? Why is the burden
of the mistake being squarely and totally shouldered by a 75 year
old woman?
HDB's manner of recovering the $18,000 through a Letter Of Demand
smacks of intimidation and highhandedness. This is especially
unbecoming of a government agency which obviously (for reasons
stated above) failed miserably in trying to contact Mdm Lee.
Perhaps the HDB should offer Mdm Lee a discount on the $18,000 to
be repaid, and thus accepts its part of the mistake.
It would be in line with MM Lee's recent comments about being a
gracious society.
Mdm Lee
Mdm Lee, who has 2 sons and 3 daughters, suffers from diabetes, and
has had to purchase a "medical chair" for $10,000, according to her
daughter. She has also used the money from the payout on her
medical fees the last 4 years or so. In addition, she also paid
$7,000 to the HDB in 2004 for her stall at the temporary
market.
But what she misses most is being active in running her business.
She also misses being with her friends. When asked if she visits
the refurbished hawker centre to chit chat with her friends, she
said that she no longer does, except when she needs to buy some
things.
