Is this unjust or is this unjust?
-
it's a well written article, even giving space to the woman's family to make their remarks and demands... they ain't even saying that the woman is at fault... they ain't even covering up HDB's mistake.... they even got a lawyer to comment on this issue...Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Propaganda is propaganda.
You can't hide it.
what more do you want?? do you just want an article slamming HDB as a poorly run organization, they cheat our citizens of their money... stating age-old stories about how inefficient they are...
give credit where it's due.... -
Stick to TNP and Lianhe Wanbao thenOriginally posted by Poh Ah Pak:This type of spineless media.
Completely worthless.
-
Why no space for criticising HDB's error?
Come mon lah, don't play dumb with me. -
it's a well written article, even giving space to the woman's family to make their remarks and demands... they
Don't delude yourself about our mainstream media.
you can say whatever you want, just don't lie to yourself.
You know, I know, PAP knows, the reporter knows, the hawker knows, the dog under my building knows. -
I don't know. I see that HDB made a mistake, you don't need to be a very smart person to see that. I like to read the facts and decide for myself, if you prefer a page long article full of expletives to tell a story that can be summarized in one paragraph.....that HDB made a mistake...then to each his own.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Don't delude yourself about our mainstream media.
you can say whatever you want, just don't lie to yourself.
You know, I know, PAP knows, the reporter knows, the hawker knows, the dog under my building knows. -
if you prefer a page long article full of expletives
Which newspaper dare to carry this type of critical reporting?
Pray tell me. I will rush down quickly to grab a copy.
Where is it.
You have your spineless TODAY.
you are satisfied with TODAY.
But where is MINE?
I am not satisfied.
Where is that critical article about HDB?
Where? -
Don't have, The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao is the closest you can get for sensationalism. That said, i'm not a fan so to each his own.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Which newspaper dare to carry this type of critical reporting?
Pray tell me. I will rush down quickly to grab a copy.
Where is it.
You have your spineless TODAY.
you are satisfied with TODAY.
But where is MINE?
I am not satisfied.
Where is that critical article about HDB?
Where? -
The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao is the closest you can get for sensationalism
Pleasse, don't confuse sensationlism with critical journalism and spineless journalism.
Or are you trying to delude yourself too?
The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao critical of regime policies?
Since when? -
This article, it is shown HDB made a mistake on a one-to-one basis with that hawker alright ? What critical analysis do you want on that ? Other than sensationalizing this story, i think what was reported is adequate. You may have your gripes about the mainstream media but it is on this article we are talking about. This is not on regime policies but a mistake HDB made.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Pleasse, don't confuse sensationlism with critical journalism and spineless journalism.
Or are you trying to delude yourself too?
The New Paper and Lianhe Wanbao critical of regime policies?
Since when? -
If you like Singapore mainstream propaganda media, then I also cannot force you.
So be it. -
If you like to read state propaganda, I also cannot force.
But there should be a choice for those who have no interest in reading state propaganda.
That choice does not exist in Singapore. -
I read them but i wouldn't go as far as to say that i absolutely like them alright ? I do notice that they omit certain things to put some policies in good light and neglect the possible bads.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:If you like Singapore mainstream propaganda media, then I also cannot force you.
So be it.
However the focus is on this article alright ? In that HDB made a mistake and to a certain extent so did the hawker. Simple as that. Nobody is absolving HDB of blame ok ? Maybe this article also reported that the hawker and family are fine with paying back and they had made a mistake as well etc etc and to the disappointment of certain quarters here they can't launch an full assault on the government...and its the fault of media..etc etc..I don't think so..facts are facts..no matter what how they criticize HDB the facts are there. -
Wow this thread has mushroomed into 4 pages in just a few hours...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.
The article is clear in its entirety - HDB goofed. While they can feel protected by their contract, issuing a new deal is tantamount to revising a contract. Any lawyer will likewise advise you.
If HDB offered this pay-out compensation, without realising that it conflicted with the original contract terms, then at best it's a screw-up; at worst, it's misrepresentation. And that itself has legal implications.
Furthermore, processing this 5-figure sum would have to cross several gates -legal office, finance and rental departments - for approval. The fact that NONE of these gates caught this mistake, seems to paint HDB in worse light.
If it was illegal to allow the pay-out, why didn't anyone flag it out? Does this imply a bigger screw-up and the true purpose of recovering the cash is to cover up this mistake and save someone's job? -
Fark up...
-
... correctly so...Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:If you like to read state propaganda, I also cannot force.
But there should be a choice for those who have no interest in reading state propaganda.
That choice does not exist in Singapore.
... is very much like in a Chicken Coop; you only get to eat what's given to you, and are expected to produce more eggs... -
... Law & Justice, has a strange taste here... -
I think the crux of the whole issue can be summarized as below:
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I don't think the lady who signed the agreement deserve the blame for the mistake made by HDB. When she was signing the agreement, the HDB officer-in-charge would probably had told her at that point in time she would receive a compensation of $18,000 for the closure of her stall. I'm sure anyone who is told the same thing wouldn't look out for a clause in the agreement stating the contrary. Because the government will never lie to us.
...
I repeat, the mistake was made by HDB.
...
The hawker would never had given up the stall in 2003 if HDB said there was no money payout for that.
...
Yes, it's our taxpayers' money and it should be "returned" to us. But on the other hand, do you think the lady on the other side deserve a loss of what she could have earned in 4 years with a stall in exchange for zero compensation? If you really think that money should be returned, I think it should come out from the pocket of the entity responsible for the mistake, not from those who are innocent. -
Originally posted by LatecomerX:I think the crux of the whole issue can be summarized as below:
Because the government will never lie to us. hahahaha......
Joke of the Day! -
I know how you feel, sorry. Despots and their propaganda.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak: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 BillyBong:
Somebody that has at least basic understanding of the law.
The article is clear in its entirety - HDB goofed. While they can feel protected by their contract, issuing a new deal is tantamount to revising a contract. Any lawyer will likewise advise you.
Did you read the lawyer the newspaper quoted make this point?
Propaganda, despots... sounds just right... -
It is an extremely lop-sided article... quoting a lawyer giving only one side of the story with an insinuation like, 'particularly if the "innocent receiving party did not exercise any criminal intent in acquiring the monies in the first place", he added.'Originally posted by Father Lim:it's a well written article, even giving space to the woman's family to make their remarks and demands... they ain't even saying that the woman is at fault... they ain't even covering up HDB's mistake.... they even got a lawyer to comment on this issue...
what more do you want?? do you just want an article slamming HDB as a poorly run organization, they cheat our citizens of their money... stating age-old stories about how inefficient they are...
give credit where it's due....
That's just lame, in this day and age of the internet, not printing it would be worse than trying to put a propagandist spin on it.Originally posted by Father Lim: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...
Propaganda, despots, sounds just right. -
I hope you learnt your lesson. Don't try to act smart when you are stupid and do not even know many basic things like 'the buck stops here, concept' and 'considerations' in contract law. You only make yourself look like a fool.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:thank you for reading the article, instead of blindly debate on it, don't follow the footsteps of that andrewyap -
Nope you are the one who is making yourself look like a fool, look at all the post that have been created and see who is talking sense, the reason why i refused to talk to you in a sensible manner, because you are a moronic fellow who chose not to look at the whole damn article, and please for the love of god, the reply is not meant for you, and furthermore, stop trying to save any face, because you have none left, and please be more freaking sensible enough to look at the damn article before commenting, you are a jokeOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I hope you learnt your lesson. Don't try to act smart when you are stupid and do not even know many basic things like 'the buck stops here, concept' and 'considerations' in contract law. You only make yourself look like a fool.
and seriously, considerations? wtf? the family already admit there is a fault, didn't you even read the bold words that i posted, huh? seriously, omfg, let me explain to you the last and final time.
They admit there is a mistake on their part, read the damn terms and condition before signing anything, that 1993 agreement already indicted that they are not entitle to any compensation and what the f u c k is wrong with you
just because they sign an 'agreement' in 2004, and still you have not shown me what is that agreement about, and seriously, the newspaper never even mention any of the such 2004 agreement at all,
there are no consideration to consider at all, simply because there is none, and for god sake, even there is, that agreement is about, giving up your stall, for 18k, and stop crying over spoil milk, you lose the flame war, MORON,
and simply to put it this way, you can't answer a simple question which is, if that 18k tax money, don't you want to recover it back? that is what HDB is doing, it is you who fail to understand what HDB is doing and starting behaving like a moron who just want to bark at any single mistake that the government has make, and furthermore, in this thread, no one agree with you at all, you are not talking sense,
the 1993 agreement already stated very clearly, that she can't be entitle to any compensation, she didn't read that, and she accepted the money, and when HDB realise their mistake, they are trying to recover it back, YOU MORON,
and furthermore, that family, can still dispute it in court, not as if, they are LLPL have to return it back, you MORON
and you can't even type basic argument and yet, you want to win, oh please, next time, if you want to learn to debate, at least, come up with a 100 words or 200 words to convince me that you are right, but no, you can't, because you brain can't process enough words to type all the things out at all,
i stop typing, because you chicken S H IT out, you moron, thats all, i stop typing, when did i target you only, because you don't make any single sense at all,
Answer the following question, IF YOUR TAX MONEY IS IN THAT 18K compensation, DON'T ANYONE WANTS TO RECOVER IT BACK, YOU MORON!
SHOW ME, THAT 2004 AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN KEEPING TALKING ABOUT?
LISTEN, WHEN YOU LOST, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, OR I WILL MAKE YOU LOOK EVEN MORE BAD THAN EVER
and if you still want to argue about this, COME UP WITH AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF WORDS, TO COUNTER ME BACK, BECAUSE I AM SICK AND TIRED OF DEALING WITH MORONS WHICH IS YOU! SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TYPE ANY S H I T, STILL WANT TO ARGUE. YOU SUCK, THEN STOP WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING, MORON! YOU EARN THIS TITLE! -
Lastly, HDB make a damn mistake, and every single one knows that, but you fail to understand, it is public duty to recover back the taxpayer money, and because you fail to understand the simple LOGIC AT ALL
OH GOD, READ THE DAMN ARTICLE AGAIN AND AGAIN TILL YOU UNDERSTAND, time after time, i ask you a simple question, you keeping avoiding my question, WHY!, SHOULD I CREATE A THREAD AND ASK YOU THAT QUESTION AGAIN? HUH
Show me that damn agreement, i will tell you again, that 1993 agreement already shows that they are not entitle to any compensation which is why, HDB is trying to recover back the money, and she can pay back the money as well, but she wants a new stall as well,
which part of the article, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, THAT LINE IS ALREADY SELF DEFEATING, YOU ARE BARKING AT THE WRONG TREE!
Tell me something, have you forgotten to use your brains before typing anything, oh god, i am struggling to talk to a moron
LOOK, even there is an AGREEMENT, THAT IS ABOUT, SURRENDERING YOUR STALL FOR 18K BUT IT IS NOT MENTION IN THE NEWSPAPER AT ALL, WHICH PART OF THE STATEMENT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHERE IS IT, ANSWER THIS AS WELL, MORON
IF YOUR 18K IS THE TAXPAYER MONEY, DON'T YOU WANT TO RECOVER IT BACK!
ANSWER, BEFORE EVEN BOTHER TO TRY AND COUNTER ME BACK AT ALL. -
Another stupid post, looks like you did not learn your lesson.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:Nope you are the one who is making yourself look like a fool, look at all the post that have been created and see who is talking sense, the reason why i refused to talk to you in a sensible manner, because you are a moronic fellow who chose not to look at the whole damn article, and please for the love of god, the reply is not meant for you, and furthermore, stop trying to save any face, because you have none left, and please be more freaking sensible enough to look at the damn article before commenting, you are a joke
and seriously, considerations? wtf? the family already admit there is a fault, didn't you even read the bold words that i posted, huh? seriously, omfg, let me explain to you the last and final time.
They admit there is a mistake on their part, read the damn terms and condition before signing anything, that 1993 agreement already indicted that they are not entitle to any compensation and what the f u c k is wrong with you
just because they sign an 'agreement' in 2004, and still you have not shown me what is that agreement about, and seriously, the newspaper never even mention any of the such 2004 agreement at all,
there are no consideration to consider at all, simply because there is none, and for god sake, even there is, that agreement is about, giving up your stall, for 18k, and stop crying over spoil milk, you lose the flame war, MORON,
and simply to put it this way, you can't answer a simple question which is, if that 18k tax money, don't you want to recover it back? that is what HDB is doing, it is you who fail to understand what HDB is doing and starting behaving like a moron who just want to bark at any single mistake that the government has make, and furthermore, in this thread, no one agree with you at all, you are not talking sense,
the 1993 agreement already stated very clearly, that she can't be entitle to any compensation, she didn't read that, and she accepted the money, and when HDB realise their mistake, they are trying to recover it back, YOU MORON,
and furthermore, that family, can still dispute it in court, not as if, they are LLPL have to return it back, you MORON
and you can't even type basic argument and yet, you want to win, oh please, next time, if you want to learn to debate, at least, come up with a 100 words or 200 words to convince me that you are right, but no, you can't, because you brain can't process enough words to type all the things out at all,
i stop typing, because you chicken S H IT out, you moron, thats all, i stop typing, when did i target you only, because you don't make any single sense at all,
Answer the following question, IF YOUR TAX MONEY IS IN THAT 18K compensation, DON'T ANYONE WANTS TO RECOVER IT BACK, YOU MORON!
SHOW ME, THAT 2004 AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN KEEPING TALKING ABOUT?
LISTEN, WHEN YOU LOST, KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT, OR I WILL MAKE YOU LOOK EVEN MORE BAD THAN EVER
and if you still want to argue about this, COME UP WITH AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF WORDS, TO COUNTER ME BACK, BECAUSE I AM SICK AND TIRED OF DEALING WITH MORONS WHICH IS YOU! SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T TYPE ANY S H I T, STILL WANT TO ARGUE. YOU SUCK, THEN STOP WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING, MORON! YOU EARN THIS TITLE!
What did you say?
'and seriously, considerations? wtf? ' See you have no idea what 'considerations' is and yet you try to be smart and in so doing, make a fool of yourself.
and you contradicted yourself...
'there are no consideration to consider at all, simply because there is none, and for god sake, even there is,' so was there consideration or no? What is no but even if there is? If there is, it shows that there was a contract.
I only want the money back if there is no injustice done. If it were your mother, would you want injustice done on her? The next time it could be you.
Start reading up law basics before you continue to make an even bigger fool of yourself (if it is possible to make a bigger fool of yourself).
So many have tried to do what you are doing, try to look smart and make a fool of themselves until they start to make cowardly insane threats against me. I thought you might have learned from their negative example not to do the same, but apparently, you have not. -
so... go and read up on some law basics and stop making a fool of yourself hor...