Is this unjust or is this unjust?
-
And all those people keep mentioning, Propaganda, despots, and blah blah blah, show me the proof.
that article, is already mention about, HDB SCREWED UP, what more do you all want, shame the HDB, wtf?
ISN'T HDB DUTY TO RECOVER TAXPAYER MONEY WHICH IS OUR MONEY AS WELL, HUH, AND ANDREWYAP, AKA MORON, PLEASE FOR F U C K SAKE, YOU ARE ONLY SELECTIVE READING, AT LEAST QUOTE THE WHOLE DAMN POST, AND THAT POST, ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU AT ALL, MORON,
QUOTE SOMETHING THAT IS MEANT FOR YOU, MORON, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE ME CALLING YOU A MORON, THEN STOP ACTING LIKE A MORON, AND BE SENSIBLE A BIT, YOU KEEP LOOKING AT THE BAD SIDE OF EVERYTHING, YOU WILL ONLY SUFFER FROM MISERY, AND WHY I SAID THAT, YOU KEEP SAYING, OH THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD, OH THIS IS A Propaganda GOVERNMENT, FOR F U C K SAKE, AT LEAST, YOU CAN STILL VOTE, BUT PEOPLE STILL VOTE FOR THE PAP.
DO I HATE THE PAP, YES I DO, DOES THAT MEAN THAT I HAVE TO CURSE AND SWEAR AT THEM ALL THE TIME, IT WILL ONLY REMIND ME OF, HOW F U C KED UP THEY ARE, BUT IN YOUR CASE, MORON, YOU ARE JUST SLANDERING THEM, F U C KING ONE SIDED POST ABOUT, HOW F U C K ED HDB ARE, BUT FAILS TO UNDERSTAND, THAT BEFORE SIGNING ANYTHING, READ THE DAMN TERMS AND CONDITION
LET ME TELL YOU ONE MORE THING
IF THE BANK MISTAKENLY DEPOSIT 1000 DOLLARS IN YOUR BANK, AND YOU INNOCENT WOOHOO, EARN 1K BACK, AND YOU TAKE IT OUT, THE BANK WILL STILL DEMAND IT BACK
AND WHY! IT IS BECAUSE, IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE, LIKEWISE, SAME GOES TO THIS, THE MONEY IS NOT HERS, SO HDB TRY TO RECOVER IT BACK, THOUGH IT IS THEIR MISTAKE, BUT IT IS IN THEIR F U C K ING DUTY TO RECOVER BACK F U C KING PUBLIC MONEY, ISN'T IT VERY FREAKING SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND, MORON
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY DO I HAVE TO GO ON AND ON AND ON REPEATING MYSELF, THE SAME THING
WAIT, YOU ARE A MORON, WITH A THICK SKULL, AND YET DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY FREAKING THING AT ALL
YOU ARE EITHER F U C KING LIVING SELF DELUSION, OR INCREDIBLE STUPID -
The issues are, in making an offer that they woman could not refuse, 'S$18,000 for the stall' and paying her the money (consideration), did that nullify the original agreement?
If they made a stupid mistake, then honorable people, meaning the head, the minister in charge should honorably take the responsibility. The despots as we know are not honorable people. -
They must do the honorable thing and since they made an agreement with the woman (and there is consideration) they should honor it. You still have no idea what 'consideration is', do you?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:And all those people keep mentioning, Propaganda, despots, and blah blah blah, show me the proof.
that article, is already mention about, HDB SCREWED UP, what more do you all want, shame the HDB, wtf?
ISN'T HDB DUTY TO RECOVER TAXPAYER MONEY WHICH IS OUR MONEY AS WELL, HUH, AND ANDREWYAP, AKA MORON, PLEASE FOR F U C K SAKE, YOU ARE ONLY SELECTIVE READING, AT LEAST QUOTE THE WHOLE DAMN POST, AND THAT POST, ISN'T MEANT FOR YOU AT ALL, MORON,
Stop making a fool of yourself. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I AM TRYING TO PUT MYSELF INTO YOUR SHOE, BECAUSE YOU KEEP INSISTING ON A 2004 AGREEMENT, YET YOU CAN'T SHOW IT AT ALL, IN THIS, AND F U C K, THANK YOU FOR ANSWER A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION MORON, FOR A VERY LONG TIME, AND IT IS HDB DUTY TO RECOVER THE MONEY BACK, THIS CASE CAN'T BE ARGUE IN COURT!!!
Another stupid post, looks like you did not learn your lesson.
What did you say?
[b]'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. [/b]
AND PARDON MY LACK OF LAW KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LAW BUT AT LEAST I CAN UNDERSTAND A VERY FREAKING SIMPLE ARTICLE ABOUT, HDB SCREWED UP AND THE WOMAN DIDN'T READ THE TERMS AND CONDITION IN THAT 1993 CONTRACT THAT SHE IS NOT ENTITLE TO ANY COMPENSATION AT ALL
OH WOW, THEN THERE IS A PHANTOM 2004 AGREEMENT THAT YOU KEEP ON MENTIONING ABOUT, AND YOU KEEP SAYING THE WORD - CONSIDERATION
WHEN THE WOMAN MENTION THAT, SHE CAN PAY BACK THE MONEY AND STILL WANT A NEW STALL, OH WOW, YOU STILL KEEP INSISTING ON YOUR OWN POINT, AND WOW, THEIR ONLY QUERY IS ABOUT, WHY DID THE AUTHORITY TOOK SO LONG TO CONTACT THEM
OH WOW, YOU STILL ARGUE WHETHER ANY INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE AT ALL
IT IS NOT ABOUT INJUSTICE ANYMORE, BOTH, HDB, AND THE WOMAN, ALREADY ADMIT TO THE FACT, YES WE SCREWED UP!
IT IS NOT AS IF, THE PAPER IS SAYING, HDB IS NOT MAKING ANY DAMN MISTAKE AT ALL, THE WOMAN ALREADY MENTIONED, SHE WANTS A NEW STALL, AND COULD PAY BACK AND SHE IS LIVING IN A SEMI DETACHED HOUSE
SO I ASK YOU WHAT ARE YOU FIGHTING ABOUT? WHICH FELLOW SCREWED UP THE MOST, I CAN TELL YOU STRAIGHT AWAY - HDB -
So you call mindlessly calling people names in ALL CAPS is what you talked about in that post on 11 January 2008 · 11:20 AM as threatening to flame people? Is that the best that you can do? That is not flaming, that is making a fool of yourself. The sooner you learn that, the less of a fool you make yourself.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01: 11 January 2008 · 11:20 AMwhat, 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! -
AT LEAST TELL ME WHICH PART OF THE FREAKING ARTICLE, HAS MENTION ABOUT AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS IN 2004Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:They must do the honorable thing and since they made an agreement with the woman (and there is consideration) they should honor it. You still have no idea what 'consideration is', do you? Stop making a fool of yourself.
IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO POINT IT OUT TO ME,
I KEEP MENTIONING TO YOU ABOUT THE 1993 AGREEMENT WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PAPER, BECAUSE IT IS THERE, ABOUT SHE IS NOT ENTITLE TO ANY COMPENSATION AT ALL
BUT YOU ARE INSISTING ON A 2004 AGREEMENT WHICH IS NOT THERE MENTION IN THE PAPER AT ALL
SO POINT IT OUT TO ME WHICH PART OF THE ARTICLE HAS MENTIONED IT? -
'consideration'... google is your friend...Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:AT LEAST TELL ME WHICH PART OF THE FREAKING ARTICLE, HAS MENTION ABOUT AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS IN 2004
IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO POINT IT OUT TO ME,
I KEEP MENTIONING TO YOU ABOUT THE 1993 AGREEMENT WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PAPER, BECAUSE IT IS THERE, ABOUT SHE IS NOT ENTITLE TO ANY COMPENSATION AT ALL
BUT YOU ARE INSISTING ON A 2004 AGREEMENT WHICH IS NOT THERE MENTION IN THE PAPER AT ALL
SO POINT IT OUT TO ME WHICH PART OF THE ARTICLE HAS MENTIONED IT? -
RIGHT, THE MORE, YOU MORON, STOP SENSELESS SELECTIVE READING, THE LESS I WILL STOP CALLING YOU NAMESOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:So you call mindlessly calling people names in ALL CAPS is what you talked about in that post on 11 January 2008 · 11:20 AM as threatening to flame people? Is that the best that you can do? That is not flaming, that is making a fool of yourself. The sooner you learn that, the less of a fool you make yourself.
RIGHT, IN THE BLOODY THREAD, HOW MANY OF THEM ARE SUPPORTING YOU -
huh? fallacy... err you know what a 'fallacy' is, right?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:RIGHT, THE MORE, YOU MORON, STOP SENSELESS SELECTIVE READING, THE LESS I WILL STOP CALLING YOU NAMES
RIGHT, IN THE BLOODY THREAD, HOW MANY OF THEM ARE SUPPORTING YOU -
GREAT, MORON, I ALREADY MENTION, TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THE 1993 AGREEMENT ALREADY MENTIONED BEFORE, SHE IS NOT ENTITLE TO ANY COMPENSATION, IF SHE HAS READ THAT AGREEMENT, SHE WOULDN'T HAVE ACCEPT THE CHEQUE ALREADY, IS IT SO HARD THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND AT ALLOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:'consideration'... google is your friend...
IS IT SO HARD, IF IT IS, THEN TRULY YOU ARE A MORON
AND YES I WIKI THAT WORD - CONSIDERATION
HOW ABOUT IT, TAKE A BLOODY 10 SEC TO LOOK AT MY STATEMENT BEFORE MAKING A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF FURTHER
HOW ABOUT I PUT IT THIS WAY, HUH?
THE 1993 AGREEMENT STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT SHE IS NOT ENTITLE ANY COMPENSATION AT ALL BUT YET THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN 2004, STATED HDB WILL COMPENSATE HER 18K FOR HER STALL.
THIS I DO, UNDERSTAND, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE WORD - CONSIDERATION, BUT IT IS YOU WHO CHOOSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND FROM ANY BODY POINT OF VIEW, KEEP MENTIONING DESPOT AND BLAH BLAH BLAH -
Ya, i make a mistake in my argument, but you are too blinded in your own delusion and keep insisting on your own point, refuses to listen to what other people has to said, which an end result, i keep name calling you a moron, and there is nothing you can do about it, simple because you fail to understand the rational behind what HDB is doing,
HDB screwed up, but it is their duty to recover back the money, and on that mdm lee part, she fails to read what is the terms and condition, but still accept the cheque, this is what you don't understand, and you keep, mentioning, there is consideration, f u c k it! the family already mentioned in the article, that they can repay back the money but the mother wants a new stall, as she is bored, and she want to continue on selling items because her friends are still THERE
and this case can still be argue in court also
I tried a lot of time, trying to tell you, to read the damn article before commenting but still you refuses to understand at allAccording 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. -
for those happily talking about law and consideration, let me ask how many of you have actually read up on law before.
if not, how many of you have actually googled to support your discussion on the legal aspects of the case.
if not, allow me to enlighten you by showing you the portion i uplifted from google on common law:
A common mistake is where both parties hold the same mistaken belief of the facts.
The House of Lords case of Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. established that common mistake can void a contract only if the mistake of the subject-matter was sufficiently fundamental to render its identity different from what was contracted, making the performance of the contract impossible.
i hope i dun have to explain to you guys what this paragraph means...
i'm not a lawyer, but i did study contract law in school...
i may be wrong... any lawyers here that can verify this? -
If you are going to keep on and on, mentioning to me, the word - consideration, and fails to read what i have typed out, do you not understand, whatever you are saying is, self defeating your own post
If you don't bother to put some effort in typing a long post, which i doubt you could because all this while i have to bear with your short post, wait i doubt you can do so at all, please stop posting or you will further embarrasses yourself -
Well, the only thing, he has said is, consideration, which is the mistake that i have overlooked in my post, and which he only able to emphasis on it, and there is nothing else, he could said anymore, i tried my best, to explain to him about the whole damn article, but my patience ran out, simply because that andrewyap is not a girl, why should i have patience with himOriginally posted by Father Lim:for those happily talking about law and consideration, let me ask how many of you have actually read up on law before.
if not, how many of you have actually googled to support your discussion on the legal aspects of the case.
if not, allow me to enlighten you by showing you the portion i uplifted from google on common law:
A common mistake is where both parties hold the same mistaken belief of the facts.
The House of Lords case of Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd. established that common mistake can void a contract only if the mistake of the subject-matter was sufficiently fundamental to render its identity different from what was contracted, making the performance of the contract impossible.
i hope i dun have to explain to you guys what this paragraph means...
i'm not a lawyer, but i did study contract law in school...
i may be wrong... any lawyers here that can verify this?
when rational explaining doesn't work on him then i have to flame him, still he doesn't understand, he make a fool out of himself, -
... and like I told you... it is very expensive to argue in court... they made a mistake, they should apologies for their mistake, take the matter before an independent tribunal to have the matter resolved instead of going through the (expensive and thus patently unfair court system, since if she loses, she pays legal fees and if she wins she pays legal fees) courts system and definitely not send her a threatening letter for what is their own stupid mistake.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:Ya, i make a mistake in my argument, but you are too blinded in your own delusion and keep insisting on your own point, refuses to listen to what other people has to said, which an end result, i keep name calling you a moron, and there is nothing you can do about it, simple because you fail to understand the rational behind what HDB is doing,
HDB screwed up, but it is their duty to recover back the money, and on that mdm lee part, she fails to read what is the terms and condition, but still accept the cheque, this is what you don't understand, and you keep, mentioning, there is consideration, f u c k it! the family already mentioned in the article, that they can repay back the money but the mother wants a new stall, as she is bored, and she want to continue on selling items because her friends are still THERE
and this case can still be argue in court also
I tried a lot of time, trying to tell you, to read the damn article before commenting but still you refuses to understand at all
They should consider the fact that they made an agreement with her to give up her stall for the money and she did that. The new agreement supersedes the old agreement. Like the honorable Japanese politicians, the minister should go on TV, kow-tow and apologize. The despots here? hahaha, dream on. A good gracious society? Only after LKY dies, than we might have it.
He should visit Suharto, his fellow despot and see himself on the bed. -
Dude, they are living in a semi detached house, and as of now, nobody can know for sure, they could win or not, and ya, HDB make a freaking mistake, and i agree on that, don't drag suharto into the picture, that damn case has been dragging for years due to his ailing health, do you think, it is possible for him to appear in court? This is the issue with you, you have to drag every single thing that is happening in the whole world, and have to link it togetherOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and like I told you... it is very expensive to argue in court... they made a mistake, they should apologies for their mistake, take the matter before an independent tribunal to have the matter resolved instead of going through the (expensive and thus patently unfair court system, since if she loses, she pays legal fees and if she wins she pays legal fees) courts system and definitely not send her a threatening letter for what is their own stupid mistake.
They should consider the fact that they made an agreement with her to give up her stall for the money and she did that. The new agreement supersedes the old agreement. Like the honorable Japanese politicians, the minister should go on TV, kow-tow and apologize. The despots here? hahaha, dream on. A good gracious society? Only after LKY dies, than we might have it.
He should visit Suharto, his fellow despot and see himself on the bed.
If HDB apologise for it, it will appear that, it is totally their fault, do you really think, they would do that, NO WAY
Every single one of us, knows it is their usual practice, to send out lawyer letter, it is common practice, oh please this is a known thing
If HDB apologise, then they will lose credibility, it is the last thing, they want to do, compare this case with the proposed changes in how power grid is going to sell electricity, is a small thing,
the dumbest thing, they can ever do is, sell electricity at a pay per rate, imagine if the plan goes through, and next time, people have to buy a prepaid card to top up so that they can use the electricity, can they ever possible think of the fact, that what if someone forgotten to buy enough prepaid card, and then what happen next, NO ELECTRICITY, god damn those moron in the government who in the hell, come up with this idea, and still claim, it will be cheaper, YA FOR NOW, BECAUSE IT IS A FREAKING PROMOTION,
WOW, what a freaking promise to privative the power station, and yea, temasek holdings intend to do so long time ago, i cannot imagine this is the best, they can come up with!
If today, you are blasting that THE BEAR, i will stay out of it, because he IS TRULY THE BLINDED MAN SUPPORTING THE PAP, BUT I AM NOT A FREAKING PAP SUPPORTER.
Oh god -
everyone knows it is very expensive to fight in courts...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and like I told you... it is very expensive to argue in court... they made a mistake, they should apologies for their mistake, take the matter before an independent tribunal to have the matter resolved instead of going through the (expensive and thus patently unfair court system, since if she loses, she pays legal fees and if she wins she pays legal fees) courts system and definitely not send her a threatening letter for what is their own stupid mistake.
They should consider the fact that they made an agreement with her to give up her stall for the money and she did that. The new agreement supersedes the old agreement. Like the honorable Japanese politicians, the minister should go on TV, kow-tow and apologize. The despots here? hahaha, dream on. A good gracious society? Only after LKY dies, than we might have it.
He should visit Suharto, his fellow despot and see himself on the bed.
but if you have read the article, you would have realised that they have not gone to the courts yet... and they are still in the midst of discussion on how to settle this issue... at this point of time, legal action has not been taken nor has it been shown that legal action is a forgone conclusion...
you might want to read my previous post because the agreement to pay her for her stall is void ....
maybe you should kow-tow and apologise to us for not making your facts right and misleading the readers.... you?? hahaha, dream on. A gracious loser? maybe after you die, then we might have it. -
... and where did I say that they were already fighting in court?Originally posted by Father Lim:everyone knows it is very expensive to fight in courts...
but if you have read the article, you would have realised that they have not gone to the courts yet... and they are still in the midst of discussion on how to settle this issue... at this point of time, legal action has not been taken nor has it been shown that legal action is a forgone conclusion...
you might want to read my previous post because the agreement to pay her for her stall is void ....
maybe you should kow-tow and apologise to us for not making your facts right and misleading the readers.... you?? hahaha, dream on. A gracious loser? maybe after you die, then we might have it. Idiot. -
There are a lot of dumb thing has happen in singapore, moronic policy implemented, but to be remind of, the freaking fact that i am still a singaporean that is still living in singapore, is like tasting a s h i tting fruit that is rotten, and still leave a f u c king aftertaste in my mouth all the time, i can tell you all the stupidest thing that the government has tried to implement
From the FREAKING HEALTH POLICY, WTF!!! A FAMILY WHO IS LIVING IN A SEMI DETACHED HOUSE, send their mother into a C ward, WTF, saving up costs, WTF! we commoners need to save more cost than those freaking elite.... FOR F U C K SAKE
Then that freaking reporter has to mention about, assert rich, cash poor singaporean, for F U C K SAKE, IF THEY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN A SEMI DETACHED HOUSE, OF COURSE THEY CAN AFFORD THIS SORT OF LIFE STYLE, THOSE F U C K ING DICKHEAD WHO CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER LINE AND HAVE TO RIP OFF FROM THE Robert Kiyosaki BOOK TITLE
I CANNOT BELIEVE ANY FREAKING THING THAT THE FREAKING THING THAT THAT STUPID PRESS HOLDING HAS TO REPORT, HALF OF THE TIME, I AM CURSING AT EVERY SINGLE S H I T POLICY, THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT
WTF, MORE SAVINGS FOR THE RICH, GO F U C K THEMSELVES IN THE ASS, If i continue on and on and one, i afraid by the time, i reach 30, i would have died of heart attack -
Originally posted by Father Lim:everyone knows it is very expensive to fight in courts...
but if you have read the article, you would have realised that they have not gone to the courts yet... and they are still in the midst of discussion on how to settle this issue... at this point of time, legal action has not been taken nor has it been shown that legal action is a forgone conclusion...
please read carefully, i have never insinuated that you have said that they were already fighting in court... i was referring to your conclusion that this case would end up in the courts....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:... and like I told you... it is very expensive to argue in court... they made a mistake, they should apologies for their mistake, take the matter before an independent tribunal to have the matter resolved instead of going through the (expensive and thus patently unfair court system, since if she loses, she pays legal fees and if she wins she pays legal fees) courts system and definitely not send her a threatening letter for what is their own stupid mistake.
... and where did I say that they were already fighting in court? Idiot.
and please reply to other points i have pointed out and not just try to nit-pick people's points but not reply to it... -
*sigh* allentyb_v2.01... get your priorities right, injustice is injustice, whether it is done on the rich or the poor... if she is so rich, would she be selling stuff in a market at the freaking age of 75?????
If you want to rant against the rich, rant against those that become rich taking public money and behaving dishonorably and unjustly. -
NO!!!!!! she is bored, thats why she wanted to sell items again, thats why she requested a new stall!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:*sigh* allentyb_v2.01... get your priorities right, injustice is injustice, whether it is done on the rich or the poor... if she is so rich, would she be selling stuff in a market at teh freaking age of 75?????
If you want to rant against the rich, rant against those that become rich taking public money and behaving dishonorably and unjustly.
and goodness i am not ranting at the rich, i am cursing at the policy implemented, which is stupid and dumb, great, this is the reason why i keep mentioning, read the freaking article -
I was replying to allentyb_v2.01 saying that they have a recourse in the courts.Originally posted by Father Lim:please read carefully, i have never insinuated that you have said that they were already fighting in court... i was referring to your conclusion that this case would end up in the courts....
and please reply to other points i have pointed out and not just try to nit-pick people's points but not reply to it...
Idiot. -
...even if bored, she is so rich like you say, she cannot go on round the world trips and pay for her friends to go with her?Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:NO!!!!!! she is bored, thats why she wanted to sell items again, thats why she requested a new stall!
and goodness i am not ranting at the rich, i am cursing at the policy implemented, which is stupid and dumb, great, this is the reason why i keep mentioning, read the freaking article
You keep talking about the house that she stays in. She did not pay for it by herself. Why should you be jealous of her? The issue is whether an injustice was done on her. They made a mistake and sent her a threatening letter. Gross injustice. -
my mum has money to go on trips and her friends urge her to go overseas together. but she refuses cos she doesn't like going overseas.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...even if bored, she is so rich like you say, she cannot go on round the world trips and pay for her friends to go with her?
You keep talking about the house that she stays in. She did not pay for it by herself. Why should you be jealous of her? The issue is whether an injustice was done on her. They made a mistake and sent her a threatening letter. Gross injustice.
She has brunches with her friends fortnightly which shows that she does enjoy the company of her friends and she can afford things...
but why doesn't she go overseas? it's a lifestyle choice...
different people have different ideas on how to enjoy their lives...
and working to this old lady is fun... why?? cos she is able to make full use of her time, feel that she is a useful person and she can be together with all her friends, which seems to be the most important thing to the old lady...