Is this unjust or is this unjust?
-
So there was no agreement in 2004? Are you an idiot? The exchange of money shows that not only was there an agreement there was 'consideration'. But I guess you are too stupid to know what 'consideration' means. Stupid, don't try to show off and make yourself an idiot.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01: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 -
THAT AGREEMENT CAN BE VOIDED BY THE 1993 AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT ALREADY INDICTED THAT HDB DOESN'T NEED TO PAY HER ANY FREAKING COMPENSATION
AND IF THERE IS SUCH AN AGREEMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT TO COUNTER THE CASE, BUT IT ALREADY SHOW ONE THING
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."
THEY ALREADY ADMIT THERE IS A MISTAKE, SO WHATEVER YOU ARE DEBATING, IS USELESS
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AT ALL, YOU ARE JUST B U L L S H I T ING, YOU LACK OF FACT TO BACK YOU UP, AND YOU ARE BARKING AROUND LIKE A DOG
AND WORST OF ALL, A MORON -
4 years of lost earning = investment income from $18,000Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and how much should they compensate her for the lost four years?
fair deal... -
THE WHOLE ENTIRE DAMNED ARTICLE NEVER EVEN SHOW ANY 2004 AGREEMENT AT ALL, YOU ARE JUST GUESSING, HOW ON EARTH, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND
WAIT A SEC, YOU ARE A MORONIC FELLOW -
TIME AFTER TIME, YOU AVOIDED THIS QUESTION!
IF YOUR TAX MONEY IS IN THE 18K, DO YOU NOT WANT TO RECOVER IT BACK AT ALL, HUH?
Don't drag the minister into it, IT IS JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION
YES OR NO -
A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION FOR YOU AGAIN,
IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT, WHY ISN'T IT REPORTED IN THE ARTICLE, EVEN THERE IS AN 2004 AGREEMENT AND YOU KEEP MENTIONING ABOUT A 2004 AGREEMENT, BUT THAT TIME, SHE ALREADY GIVEN UP THE STALL, SHE DOESN'T NEED ANOTHER NEW AGREEMENT -
To add on, HDB wants the $18,000 back and the family doesn't mind paying the money back. The issue isn't so much of the money but getting a stall back where the woman's friends are all located. The money isn't the gist of it all but she just wants to do what she loves to do...Originally posted by Father Lim:4 years of lost earning = investment income from $18,000
fair deal... -
yeah i agree, so we shouldn't really complain until we are clear that the woman has gotten a raw deal... losing the money and not getting a stall back...Originally posted by kramnave:To add on, HDB wants the $18,000 back and the family doesn't mind paying the money back. The issue isn't so much of the money but getting a stall back where the woman's friends are all located. The money isn't the gist of it all but she just wants to do what she loves to do...
until then, i believe we should just let the case rest... -
The article did not specify just what "mistake" did HDB make.
Curious.
What was HDB's mistake? -
to offer the woman $18,000 when the contract signed in 1993 specifically disallowed it...Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:The article did not specify just what "mistake" did HDB make.
Curious.
What was HDB's mistake? -
thank you for reading the article, instead of blindly debate on it, don't follow the footsteps of that andrewyapOriginally posted by kramnave:To add on, HDB wants the $18,000 back and the family doesn't mind paying the money back. The issue isn't so much of the money but getting a stall back where the woman's friends are all located. The money isn't the gist of it all but she just wants to do what she loves to do...
and if she really want justice, and feel she is right, and she doesn't need to pay back, fight the case in court.
In this matter, it is not about who is right or who is wrong, this is very clear cut, both have made mistakes, and HDB has to pay for it, but it is in public duty to recover back taxpayer money, but unfortunately andrewyap aka moron doesn't understand that at all, this is not a case where you can't fight your case in court and argue at all, if this happen, then truly it is unjust
but now HDB has to display fairness, which Mr andrewyap aka moron, don't understand at all, insist on the minister which he fails to mention, whoever make the mistake to cough out the amount, which doesn't make any sense at all. There is enough to anything, even cursing has a limit, clearly, Mr andrewyap aka moron is barking at any article and shift all the blame onto the shoulders of HDB
Does it sounds logical to you? Now you have one organization which is HDB tried to bully Mdm Lee, with letter of demand, which is their usual style, but every single one know how crappy they are, how unreasonable they are, so if anyone truly want fair and just, fight the damn case in court!
So the question is very very simple, if the 18k, and it is your tax money, don't you want to recover it back? -
Fuc*k lah, this bullsh*t article.
Written in such a propagandist way, trying to distract the reader from the real issue.
HDB made the Mistake.
I repeat, the mistake was made by HDB.
But this fuc*king article put the focus on the hawker and the $18,000 instead of talking about HDB's screw up.
It is HDB's fault.
The hawker would never had given up the stall in 2003 if HDB said there was no money payout for that.
FU*CK YOU Singapore mainstream propaganda media.
Divert my attention away from HDB's co*ck up.
Try to confuse me.
FU*CK YOU.
THE ISSUE IS ABOUT HDB's FU*CK UP.
Not hawker, not $18,000.
Not who right, who wrong. -
Read Singapore print media can vomit blood.
Luckily I gave it up years ago.
I was the fool to go and read this dumb charade from TODAY. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
not really... the woman was also a signer to the 1993 contract...
Fuc*k lah, this bullsh*t article.
Written in such a propagandist way, trying to distract the reader from the issue.
[b]HDB made the Mistake.
I repeat, the mistake was made by HDB.
But this fuc*king article put the focus on the hawker and the $18,000 instead of talking about HDB's screw up.
It is HDB's fault.
The hawker would never had given up the stall in 2003 if HDB said there was no money payout for that.
FU*CK YOU Singapore mainstream propaganda media.
Divert my attention away from HDB's co*ck up.
Try to confuse me.
FU*CK YOU.[/b]
one should be aware of the clauses in the contracts we sign, shouldn't we?
i believe u also read all the terms of your employment contract, don't you?
then if u violate any clauses of your contract, are u at fault??
anyway, anybody reading this article can infer that HDB was at fault...
the article also stated that the officer informed the woman that HDB had made a mistake... so how did the article misinform you?? -
I am pissed by the way this report is written.
In a propagandist fashion.
Trying to evade issues.
Typical crap from our mainstream media. -
AndrewPKYap, you ruined my day man.
I haven't touch Singapore print media for long time already.
Now today, this typical crap.
You made me remember why I was so disgusted with Singapore mainstream propaganda media all those years ago. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Nobody is absolving HDB of blame here. HDB made a mistake and so did the hawker as both neglected the contents of the 1993 contract. HDB has the right to pursue the money but at the same time, i feel that they should out of goodwill and in acknowledgment of their mistake try to help the hawker in anyway they can. The hawker made a mistake but nobody really expects an elderly hawker to remember every detail on a contract she signed, especially when a person from HDB tells her she is eligible for compensation.
Fuc*k lah, this bullsh*t article.
Written in such a propagandist way, trying to distract the reader from the real issue.
[b]HDB made the Mistake.
I repeat, the mistake was made by HDB.
But this fuc*king article put the focus on the hawker and the $18,000 instead of talking about HDB's screw up.
It is HDB's fault.
The hawker would never had given up the stall in 2003 if HDB said there was no money payout for that.
FU*CK YOU Singapore mainstream propaganda media.
Divert my attention away from HDB's co*ck up.
Try to confuse me.
FU*CK YOU.
THE ISSUE IS ABOUT HDB's FU*CK UP.
Not hawker, not $18,000.
Not who right, who wrong.[/b]
It'll be fair to say that if not for the mistake, she wouldn't have had forfeited her business. Therefore, HDB should do their best to return her to that original position. -
I am pissed with the way TODAY presented the story in a propagandist fashion.
I despise this type of journalism.
This type of bullsh*it media, how on earth are Singaporeans going to get informed?
Nothing but propaganda crap. -
Whats the issue ? Which part of the article absolves HDB of blame ? It is clear HDB had made a mistake ? No ?Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I am pissed with the way TODAY presented the story in a propagandist fashion.
I despise this type of journalism.
This type of bullsh*it media, how on earth are Singaporeans going to get informed?
Nothing but propaganda crap. -
They didn't focus on HDB's mistake.
They didn't frame the story around that issue.
They could had been more critical.
They could had written ... because of an error made by HDB, the hawker now has to go through unneccessary crap.
I don't blame the reporter.
They know what happened to Mr Brown.
Bullsh*t media, I hate you, you FU*CKER. -
your biasness is showing... if they wanted to protect HDB, then not printing this article would be the best move...
anyway i dun think anyone reading this article would get any wrong impressions... show it to ten people and all ten would say that HDB have made a mistake... -
They didn't dare to criticise HDB.
They didn't dare to blame, to touch.
That is why I despise it.
They know about Mr Brown.
-
U need a tabloid to do that, not a newspaper. If she is very poor and that $18,000 is a matter of life and death to her, maybe TNP would dedicate a few pages to that story and it'll make it to their cover.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:They didn't focus on HDB's mistake.
They didn't frame the story around that issue. -
Propaganda is propaganda.
Don't dare to criticise is don't dare to criticise.
You can't hide it. -
This type of spineless media.
Completely worthless.