Is this unjust or is this unjust?

• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 11:26

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  ... 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*

  Right, now you have to drag the minister involve into this, omfg, how f u c king stupid, can you be?
  
  the HDB is recovering back, TAXPAYER MONEY WHICH IS YOUR MONEY, not putting into your own pocket again
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 11:28

  It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  
  Read this, it is black and white, since the HDB learn about their mistake, so they are obliged to recover back the money!
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 11:34

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  .. 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...)

  and now, you have to drag the whole salary increment, the gst increase into this small matter, can you for once in your freaking life, make any sense at all,
  
  If you can't open up your eyes and see, how about this?
  
  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.
  .
  Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre. Upgrading works were in the pipeline, and stallholders had three options: They could give up their stalls, move to a temporary market across the road or set up shop at another location.
  .
  At her daughter's urging, Mdm Lee surrendered her stall in October 2003, in return for $18,000 in compensation from the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
  .
  Then, last September, an officer from the National Environment Agency (NEA) came knocking.
  .
  The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned. According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since 2004 had failed.
  .
  Earlier this week, the letter of demand from the HDB arrived.
  .
  It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  .
  The letter, dated Monday, also stated that payment had to be made within 21 days, "failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference".
  .
  Ms Gina Lau regrets the advice she gave to her mother, who would have preferred to continue working to keep herself busy. "If HDB had told us earlier, I wouldn't have asked her to give up the stall," said the 46-year-old insurance agent.
  .
  "We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of just the letter of demand."
  .
  In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since 2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
  .
  The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September last year.
  .
  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. 4 years later, ex-stallholder learns she must return sum
  
  Neo Chai Chin
  [email protected]
  
  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.
  .
  Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre. Upgrading works were in the pipeline, and stallholders had three options: They could give up their stalls, move to a temporary market across the road or set up shop at another location.
  .
  At her daughter's urging, Mdm Lee surrendered her stall in October 2003, in return for $18,000 in compensation from the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
  .
  Then, last September, an officer from the National Environment Agency (NEA) came knocking.
  .
  The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned. According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since 2004 had failed.
  .
  Earlier this week, the letter of demand from the HDB arrived.
  .
  It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  .
  The letter, dated Monday, also stated that payment had to be made within 21 days, "failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference".
  .
  Ms Gina Lau regrets the advice she gave to her mother, who would have preferred to continue working to keep herself busy. "If HDB had told us earlier, I wouldn't have asked her to give up the stall," said the 46-year-old insurance agent.
  .
  "We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of just the letter of demand."
  .
  In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since 2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
  .
  The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September last year.
  .
  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. 4 years later, ex-stallholder learns she must return sum
  
  Neo Chai Chin
  [email protected]
  
  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.
  .
  Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre. Upgrading works were in the pipeline, and stallholders had three options: They could give up their stalls, move to a temporary market across the road or set up shop at another location.
  .
  At her daughter's urging, Mdm Lee surrendered her stall in October 2003, in return for $18,000 in compensation from the Housing and Development Board (HDB).
  .
  Then, last September, an officer from the National Environment Agency (NEA) came knocking.
  .
  The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned. According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since 2004 had failed.
  .
  Earlier this week, the letter of demand from the HDB arrived.
  .
  It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  .
  The letter, dated Monday, also stated that payment had to be made within 21 days, "failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference".
  .
  Ms Gina Lau regrets the advice she gave to her mother, who would have preferred to continue working to keep herself busy. "If HDB had told us earlier, I wouldn't have asked her to give up the stall," said the 46-year-old insurance agent.
  .
  "We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of just the letter of demand."
  .
  In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since 2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
  .
  The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September last year.
  .
  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.
  
  
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 11:36

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  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
  
  

  ... and your point is? That she should be 'cheated into giving up her stall' because she can afford to be 'cheated' like Singaporeans should pay more GST because Singaporeans can afford to pay more GST? *sheesh*
  
  ... Singaporeans should bless the despots for the mistakes they make?
  
  You now think it is a mistake? Your first post certainly made it sound like they were right.
  
  Do you bless people when they make a mistake and you curse them when they are right? Is your brain below you kidney?
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 11:38

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:
  [b]It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  
  Read this, it is black and white, since the HDB learn about their mistake, so they are obliged to recover back the money![/b]

  ... and she was made a new offer... to get $18000 to give up her stall.... if you make two wills one in 1993 and one in 2004, you expect people to go with your 1993 will? The way you think, it is like your ass-hole is in your face and your mouth is in-between your legs... upside down.
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 11:43

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  Right, now you have to drag the minister involve into this, omfg, how f u c king stupid, can you be?
  
  the HDB is recovering back, TAXPAYER MONEY WHICH IS YOUR MONEY, not putting into your own pocket again

  Not the minister than who? You? You are paid millions to be responsible? The minister take millions in public money for their own pocket and you keep quiet and you make a big hoo-hah about recovering $18,000 in 'TAXPAYER MONEY'?
  
  The millions that the despots put into their own pocket is not 'TAXPAYER MONEY'?
  
  Is you brain where you ass-hole is?
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 11:47

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  ... and your point is? That she should be 'cheated into giving up her stall' because she can afford to be 'cheated' like Singaporeans should pay more GST because Singaporeans can afford to pay more GST? *sheesh*
  
  ... Singaporeans should bless the despots for the mistakes they make?
  
  You now think it is a mistake? Your first post certainly made it sound like they were right.
  
  Do you bless people when they make a mistake and you curse them when they are right? Is your brain below you kidney?

  No, i never indicted that they are right, and you are keep pushing the fault to them, the HDB found out about the mistake, then they tried to recover back the money, is there anything wrong with it, how in the world, is she cheated into giving up her stall? At that point of time, she can choose either to take the money or wait for the new stall, but she choose to take the new stall,
  
  it is not as if, she can't contest this in court, it is your distorted one sided story that is annoying me off, at least, hyperfocal, only copy and paste article, you distort the whole damn thing, and push the blame to the HDB,
  
  it is in your freaking duty and obligation to recover BACK TAXPAYER MONEY, and i already ask you a very simple question, yet you are avoiding my question, if your tax money is in the 18k, don't you want to recover the money back? huh?
  
  why is it, a simple article, and nobody seems to understand at all, either all of you freaking stupid, or just simply living in self delusion
  
  I am talking all this at a very neutral point of view, till this very moment, neither do i support what the HDB has done, or what that woman has commited
  
  It is all in the black and white, in the 1993 agreement that she HAS SIGNED, that she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  
  THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE, HDB has to freaking hell, attempt to recover back your TAXPAYER MONEY, or how would the public view this matter?
  
  HUH? and even she stated in the article that she wanted a new stall, and don't mind, returning back the money also, and now you are telling me, you READ THE ARTICLE, CAN YOU U N D E R S T A N D simple english, or do i have to send you a copy of my dictionary or before anyone attempt or try to tackle my post, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT, OR i will flame!
• Poh Ah Pak

  11 Jan 08, 11:53

  At that point of time, she can choose either to take the money or wait for the new stall, but she choose to take the new stall

  Okay, that is a good point you made.
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 11:54

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  ... and she was made a new offer... to get $18000 to give up her stall.... if you make two wills one in 1993 and one in 2004, you expect people to go with your 1993 will? The way you think, it is like your ass-hole is in your face and your mouth is in-between your legs... upside down.

  Please don't make a MORONIC COMMENT AGAIN, and try to recover back your own ASS, Everything is back dated to what she has signed, and nobody sign 1 year contract or 2 year contract only, at least she must have signed a 10 year contract, pea brain, dick head, and really needed an english lesson 101 who is suffering from, disability to understand any simple english
  
  The authority already attempt to contact HER, but it was useless, until now, get it, omfg, what a moron, if you don't read the whole article, you will not understand at all, please read the whole article and understand before you try your desperate attempt to make a mockery out of yourself again, i have never lose a flame war before, and right now, i am stating facts, if there is an agreement that indicted any freaking thing, don't you think, today, wouldn't report it at all,
  
  WILL =/= AGREEMENT
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 11:57

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  No, i never indicted that they are right, and you are keep pushing the fault to them,

  huh? another brain in ass-hole comment. You never indicated that they were right and I am wrong to push the fault to them? If they are wrong, I cannot hold them responsible?
  
  

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  the HDB found out about the mistake, then they tried to recover back the money, is there anything wrong with it, how in the world, is she cheated into giving up her stall? At that point of time, she can choose either to take the money or wait for the new stall, but she choose to take the new stall,

  What she choose to take the new stall? Are you an idiot? She choose to take the money, as offered to her, not for nothing, to give up her stall. Since she was offered money for the stall, how can they now say that she cannot keep the money? Did she or did she not give up the stall? If she gave up her stall, then she is entitled to the money.
  
  

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  it is not as if, she can't contest this in court, it is your distorted one sided story that is annoying me off, at least, hyperfocal, only copy and paste article, you distort the whole damn thing, and push the blame to the HDB,
  
  it is in your freaking duty and obligation to recover BACK TAXPAYER MONEY, and i already ask you a very simple question, yet you are avoiding my question, if your tax money is in the 18k, don't you want to recover the money back? huh?
  
  why is it, a simple article, and nobody seems to understand at all, either all of you freaking stupid, or just simply living in self delusion
  
  I am talking all this at a very neutral point of view, till this very moment, neither do i support what the HDB has done, or what that woman has commited
  
  It is all in the black and white, in the 1993 agreement that she HAS SIGNED, that she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall.
  
  THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE, HDB has to freaking hell, attempt to recover back your TAXPAYER MONEY, or how would the public view this matter?
  
  HUH? and even she stated in the article that she wanted a new stall, and don't mind, returning back the money also, and now you are telling me, you READ THE ARTICLE, CAN YOU U N D E R S T A N D simple english, or do i have to send you a copy of my dictionary or before anyone attempt or try to tackle my post, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT, OR i will flame!

  Take the despots to court? Are you freaking insane? Do you know how much it would cost? How the public is supposed to view this matter?
  
  The minister in charge should be held responsible for the freaking mistake, squandering tax payer's money... and only you with your ass-hole in your face would think that the public thinks she should suffer for other people's mistake.
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 12:00

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  Please don't make a MORONIC COMMENT AGAIN, and try to recover back your own ASS, Everything is back dated to what she has signed, and nobody sign 1 year contract or 2 year contract only, at least she must have signed a 10 year contract, pea brain, dick head, and really needed an english lesson 101 who is suffering from, disability to understand any simple english
  
  The authority already attempt to contact HER, but it was useless, until now, get it, omfg, what a moron, if you don't read the whole article, you will not understand at all, please read the whole article and understand before you try your desperate attempt to make a mockery out of yourself again, i have never lose a flame war before, and right now, i am stating facts, if there is an agreement that indicted any freaking thing, don't you think, today, wouldn't report it at all,
  
  WILL =/= AGREEMENT

  There was no agreement to get give back her stall for $18000? They did not offer to give her $18,000 for her to give up her stall? You ask people to read the whole article and you read it but do not get it? Do you read and hallucinate instead of read and understand? Is your brain where you ass-hole is?
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:01

  If she choose to wait for the new stall, this will not happen at all, but this matter is not her fault, she make a choice, and she lives with it.
  
  And now, the HDB has to recover back the money to display fairness, is there any thing wrong with that as well?
  
  HDB is f u c ked up, and EVERY SINGLE one of us knows that, but you push all the fault to HDB only, she also have to bear some of the responsibility, and you want to know why? huh?
  
  READ THE FREAKING CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING ANYTHING, ISN'T THAT COMMON SENSE,
  
  SHE CAN STILL CONTEST IT IN COURT AND SHE CAN WIN THIS,
  
  But it is your selective reading that i am pissed at, Mr andrewyap, and because i have had enough of your cursing and swearing at the government for no apparent reasons, and all you can do is curse and swear, and your lack of constructive suggestions, that lead to my action
  
  Do i hate the PAP, hell yea! But i use my common sense before running my mouth at the government all the freaking time,
  
  and you know what is the funniest thing to all this, SHE WANTS A NEW STALL!
  
  oh wow, because she is bored at home, but i can understand her position,
  
  unless you can make any sense in your freaking post, do you think i would even being able to flame you at all? huh!
  
  
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 12:07

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  If she choose to wait for the new stall, this will not happen at all, but this matter is not her fault, she make a choice, and she lives with it.

  She is wrong to accept the offer? She should know that the offer was a scam? She should have guessed that they were not sincerely making her an offer to give up her stall in exchange for the money?
  
  You think people when they deal with the despots, cannot take their offers at face value? Are you high on illicit substances?
  
  

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  And now, the HDB has to recover back the money to display fairness, is there any thing wrong with that as well?
  
  HDB is f u c ked up, and EVERY SINGLE one of us knows that, but you push all the fault to HDB only, she also have to bear some of the responsibility, and you want to know why? huh?
  
  READ THE FREAKING CONTRACT BEFORE SIGNING ANYTHING, ISN'T THAT COMMON SENSE,
  
  SHE CAN STILL CONTEST IT IN COURT AND SHE CAN WIN THIS,
  
  But it is your selective reading that i am pissed at, Mr andrewyap, and because i have had enough of your cursing and swearing at the government for no apparent reasons, and all you can do is curse and swear, and your lack of constructive suggestions, that lead to my action
  
  Do i hate the PAP, hell yea! But i use my common sense before running my mouth at the government all the freaking time,
  
  and you know what is the funniest thing to all this, SHE WANTS A NEW STALL!
  
  oh wow, because she is bored at home, but i can understand her position,
  
  unless you can make any sense in your freaking post, do you think i would even being able to flame you at all? huh!
  
  

  Bear what responsibility? She was made an offer, she accepted the offer? Where was her mistake? Not everyone has their ass-hole on their face like you.
• Poh Ah Pak

  11 Jan 08, 12:08

  Do i hate the PAP, hell yea!

  You should had made your position clear earlier allentyb_v2.01.
  
  We are all in the same boat.
  
  No point fighting among ourselves.
  
  Only the regime will benefit.
  
  Kudos to you allentyb_v2.01.
  
  
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:10

  I have to read your repeating sentence all over again, it is getting really boring, you are only selective reading, moronic fellow.
  
  The freaking agreement is dated back 1993, is the latest one, ass wipe, can you please think of something originality, if you want to insult me back, and if you truly wanted justice, you would fight in court, that is what singtel did, you piece of s h i t, the law is not on anybody side, if you give up on it, then truly you are living in self delusion
  
  And again, you never even bother answering my question, but i already knew, and you know the answer, yourself,
  
  Of course, you will freaking care about, recovering back your tax money, you piece of s h i t, and frankly speaking, you really can't think of anything to say, do you
  
  you have to drag the whole world into it, from the minister to the government, when it is suppose to be her duty, to read the terms and condition in any agreement, if she had read, this would not have happen. and yea, of course the HDB make a mistake
  
  and now you are arguing that tax payer dollars shouldn't be recover back at all, deduct it from the salary of the minister
  
  AND FOR F U C K SAKE, DID THE MINISTER MAKE THE BLOODY MISTAKE? HUH?
  
  
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:11

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  Bear what responsibility? She was made an offer, she accepted the offer? Where was her mistake? Not everyone has their ass-hole on their face like you.

  the money is not HERS, ITS BELONG TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MORONIC PIECE OF S H I T,
  
  not hers, so HDB has to recover it back, simple as that, you can't understand, huh?
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:14

  Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

  You should had made your position clear earlier allentyb_v2.01.
  
  We are all in the same boat.
  
  No point fighting among ourselves.
  
  Only the regime will benefit.
  
  Kudos to you allentyb_v2.01.
  
  

  Seriously, you should also ignore this fellow, he is just not making sense at all, i tried to explain to him, like all others that i flamed before, he is focusing on the word, MORON, ASS WIPE, only
  
  do you know, it is my joy, insult this type of moron, that it gives me the best cure to boredom
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 12:18

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  I have to read your repeating sentence all over again, it is getting really boring, you are only selective reading, moronic fellow.
  
  The freaking agreement is dated back 1993, is the latest one, ass wipe, can you please think of something originality, if you want to insult me back, and if you truly wanted justice, you would fight in court, that is what singtel did, you piece of s h i t, the law is not on anybody side, if you give up on it, then truly you are living in self delusion
  
  And again, you never even bother answering my question, but i already knew, and you know the answer, yourself,
  
  Of course, you will freaking care about, recovering back your tax money, you piece of s h i t, and frankly speaking, you really can't think of anything to say, do you
  
  you have to drag the whole world into it, from the minister to the government, when it is suppose to be her duty, to read the terms and condition in any agreement, if she had read, this would not have happen. and yea, of course the HDB make a mistake
  
  and now you are arguing that tax payer dollars shouldn't be recover back at all, deduct it from the salary of the minister
  
  AND FOR F U C K SAKE, DID THE MINISTER MAKE THE BLOODY MISTAKE? HUH?
  
  

  Are you too stupid to know that it is the latest agreement that counts and not some ancient agreement? She was made an offer to give up her store for money... when? 1992? It was 2004, idiot. 2004 get it? Look at a calender and see whether 1993 or 2004 is later.
  
  ... as for the minister, have you heard of the phrase, 'the buck stops here'? Do you know what that means? I think it is pointless to tell you because you are too stupid to understand.
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:19

  So now you are trying to say that, the HDB should just slip this by, and taxpayer money shouldn't even attempt to recover back at all?
  
  Huh, didn't the HDB attempt to look for her, huh?
  
  or wait, in your theory, HDB is wrong, and they overlook the matter and offer the money to her, and she accept it, and the money BELONG TO US
  
  oh wow, what is going through your mind. huh?
  
  Oh GOD, then do tell me, which minister make the mistake, u keep saying, minister here, minister there, but yet, you can't even answer a simple question
  
  IF YOUR TAX MONEY IS IN THE 18K, DO YOU NOT WANT TO RECOVER IT BACK AT ALL, HUH?
  
  And thank god, you are not a minister.
  
• Father Lim

  11 Jan 08, 12:20

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  She is wrong to accept the offer? She should know that the offer was a scam? She should have guessed that they were not sincerely making her an offer to give up her stall in exchange for the money?
  
  You think people when they deal with the despots, cannot take their offers at face value? Are you high on illicit substances?
  Bear what responsibility? She was made an offer, she accepted the offer? Where was her mistake? Not everyone has their ass-hole on their face like you.

  she was not wrong in accepting the offer... neither was the HDB wrong in offering her the money... the only mistake made in this case was that neither party made reference to the previous contract signed which was still in effect...
  so in this case, both parties had the responsibility to ensure that the new terms did not violate the contract signed in 1993.
  
  Just a query: What if HDB took back the $18,000 and gave her a new stall alongside her friends? Will u still argue that HDB has cheated her money? esp since we are ignoring the time value of money...
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 12:22

  Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:

  the money is not HERS, ITS BELONG TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MORONIC PIECE OF S H I T,
  
  not hers, so HDB has to recover it back, simple as that, you can't understand, huh?

  She accepted an offer, to give up her stall for the money. Did she give up her stall? Do you understand anything you read?
  
  You agree to sell your backside for $20 dollars and after you sold it, the one that screwed you can ask for the money back? The agreement doesn't count?
• AndrewPKYap

  11 Jan 08, 12:23

  Originally posted by Father Lim:

  she was not wrong in accepting the offer... neither was the HDB wrong in offering her the money... the only mistake made in this case was that neither party made reference to the previous contract signed which was still in effect...
  so in this case, both parties had the responsibility to ensure that the new terms did not violate the contract signed in 1993.
  
  Just a query: What if HDB took back the $18,000 and gave her a new stall alongside her friends? Will u still argue that HDB has cheated her money? esp since we are ignoring the time value of money...

  ... and how much should they compensate her for the lost four years?
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:24

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  Are you too stupid to know that it is the latest agreement that counts and not some ancient agreement? She was made an offer to give up her store for money... when? 1992? It was 2004, idiot. 2004 get it? Look at a calender and see whether 1993 or 2004 is later.
  
  ... as for the minister, have you heard of the phrase, 'the buck stops here'? Do you know what that means? I think it is pointless to tell you because you are too stupid to understand.

  that freaking agreement is the LAST SIGNED WITH HDB, you MORON, that is what they refer to, if there is a 2004 agreement, they would have use it, HUH?
  
  IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, AND WHEN I SAID LATEST, IT MEANS, 1993 IS THE LATEST, IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, IF THERE IS A 2004 AGREEMENT, WOULDN'T THE HDB USE IT AGAINST HER, HUH
  
  AND WHY DO THEY WANT TO MENTION 1993, IT IS BECAUSE THAT IS THE LAST SIGNED AGREEMENT, WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN SUCH A SIMPLE THING
  
  OH WAIT A SEC, YOU ARE A MORON
• Father Lim

  11 Jan 08, 12:25

  Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:

  Are you too stupid to know that it is the latest agreement that counts and not some ancient agreement? She was made an offer to give up her store for money... when? 1992? It was 2004, idiot. 2004 get it? Look at a calender and see whether 1993 or 2004 is later.
  
  ... as for the minister, have you heard of the phrase, 'the buck stops here'? Do you know what that means? I think it is pointless to tell you because you are too stupid to understand.

  You are referring to a contract, unless there is a time period on a contract, the contract still stands valid. You might want to consult a lawyer on whether the clause on the 1993 contract can be superseded by the 2004 offer, which actually cannot be offered based on the 1993 contract.
• allentyb_v2.01

  11 Jan 08, 12:26

  We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of just the letter of demand."
  .
  In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since 2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
  .
  The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September last year.
  .
  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.
  .