Is this unjust or is this unjust?
-
The old contract already discharged liao.
The new contract payment of $18,000 was to entice her to give up the stall and terminate the existing contract. New exchange of consideration mah. Moreover misrepresentation on the side of the payer.
Most of the civil servants don't read or understand English. I applied for some licence a couple of weeks ago, faxed in 16 pages of the entire contract. After that, the officer called me up to ask for the "terms" of the contract, I was confused because I faxed all the terms over to her. Finally figured out what she called terms is actually tenure. I told her I faxed all the documents to her, but she is still clueless as to where to find the tenure. Then she requested that I only faxed that page with the tenure over to her, of which I did. The tenure is on the first page of the contract if she had just look at it.
The error is on HDB's side, the CEO of HDB should take responsibility for the error and have his salary deducted accordingly. We should take responsibility for our mistakes instead of playing tai chi and push it to an innocent victim. -
no wonder you keep asking people to read the article, you read and you were too stupid to understand what was written. We only need to read once, yes, you should read the article over and over again until you understand it.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:Oh my f u c king god, read the whole damn article -
...exactly, in this unjust society, you wouldn't expect anyone of the despots to take responsibility and they will just let the injustice play out... they only fight for their own pay increases...Originally posted by royston_ang:Ok, fortunately, the victim in this situation happen to be well-to-do. But to be fair, is anyone going to be responsible for such mistake made? Or we just cross our finger that such incident don't happen to us?
-
She doesn't want to move to a temporary location, it is not as if, she doesn't have a choice at all, and had to give up, is she wants to give up the stall, for the money.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Isn't that what I said? That she does not have to give up the stall and she only had to give up the stall if she took the compensation.... after they paid her and she gave up the stall, they now say that the 2004 agreement don't count... and ass-holes like you think that is not an unjust thing to do.
Make an agreement and after people accept the agreement and give up the stall, then say the agreement does not count and she must pay back the money and that was 4 freaking years ago.
Even she regret about thisFORMER 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.
-
Now, moronic fellow, continuing on living in your self delusion world, i tried to tell you this already
money paid out by mistake is claimable by law.
Which part of the sentence, that is by a lawyer, that you don't understand, it is a mistake, that is why, HDB don't have to compensate her at all, and if she have read the old terms and condition in the 1993 agreement, she wouldn't have signed the damn 2004 agreement and therefore the 2004 agreement is voided
.
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 -
We all take responsibilities for our work. If you screw up in your work, you are liable for dismissal and other corrective actions.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:...exactly, in this unjust society, you wouldn't expect anyone of the despots to take responsibility and they will just let the injustice play out... they only fight for their own pay increases...
Ministers and CEOs of government bodies are immune from such actions? -
... exactly, they agreed to give her the money to give up the stall. She gave up her store and now they break their agreement (after she had given up the stall for 4 years) and sent her a threatening letter... and only fools like you do not think that is unjust.Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:She doesn't want to move to a temporary location, it is not as if, she doesn't have a choice at all, and had to give up, is she wants to give up the stall, for the money.
Even she regret about this
Idiots like you think it is acceptable that when the despots started taking money for your CPF, they agreed to pay back when you are 55 and when you are near 55, they break the agreement. To you that is not unjust
Like I said earlier, people like you eat through their ass-hole and sh~t through their mouth and unjust is just and just is unjust. -
You are a moronic fellow who can't understand simple english at all, time and time.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:no wonder you keep asking people to read the article, you read and you were too stupid to understand what was written. We only need to read once, yes, you should read the article over and over again until you understand it.
Answer this then, if they doesn't realise it has been a mistake, why would they want to repay back the money, huh?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.
there they even admit to it, what more can you said
.
"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."
.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". -
Despots give themselves that privilege and if you are a man married to their son, you can look forward to promotion some more.Originally posted by maurizio13:We all take responsibilities for our work. If you screw up in your work, you are liable for dismissal and other corrective actions.
Ministers and CEOs of government bodies are immune from such actions? -
She doesn't have to give up her stall at all, if she moves to the temporary location, it is at the urge of her daughter, thats why she decided to take the money, READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, and stop, relate the CPF into this debate, because it has nothing to do with this at all, hello, can you understand simple englishOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:... exactly, they agreed to give her the money to give up the stall. She gave up her store and now they break their agreement (after she had given up the stall for 4 years) and sent her a threatening letter... and only fools like you do not think that is unjust.
Idiots like you think it is acceptable that when the despots started taking money for your CPF, they agreed to pay back when you are 55 and when you are near 55, they break the agreement. To you that is not unjust
Like I said earlier, people like you eat through their ass-hole and sh~t through their mouth and unjust is just and just is unjust. -
SO hard for you understand that, HDB is acting in public duty to recover back the TAXPAYER MONEY, HUH?
-
Read this sentence a thousand times until it gets into your head:Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:She doesn't have to give up her stall at all, if she moves to the temporary location, it is at the urge of her daughter, thats why she decided to take the money, READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE, and stop, relate the CPF into this debate, because it has nothing to do with this at all, hello, can you understand simple english
"She doesn't have to give up the stall"
If you are a little blind, let me make it bigger
"She doesn't have to give up the stall"
I think it is useless, you are just to stupid to understand it. -
This is a case where an agreement was broken. CPF is another case where payout at 55 agreement was broken.
-
That applies to you, she choose to give up the stall, at the urge of her daughter,but she has 3 choices, and one of it, is MOVE TO A TEMPORARY LOCATION, BUT SHE DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT AT ALL and you are still evading my question, brilliant,Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Read this sentence a thousand times until it gets into your head:
"She doesn't have to give up the stall"
If you are a little blind, let me make it bigger
"She doesn't have to give up the stall"
I think it is useless, you are just to stupid to understand it.
MORON, READ WHAT I HAVE QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE,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, [b]move to a temporary market across the road or set up shop at another location.[b]
IT IS NOT AS IF, THEY FORCED HER TO CLOSE DOWN HER STALL, OR THE MARKET IS SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD -
CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND A SINGLE THING WHAT I JUST TYPE, SO FAR
SO hard for you understand that, HDB is acting in public duty to recover back the TAXPAYER MONEY, HUH?
THIS IS A RATIONAL DECISION -
The did not force her to, they offered to give her $18000 to give up....Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:IT IS NOT AS IF, THEY FORCED HER TO CLOSE DOWN HER STALL, OR THE MARKET IS SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD
... now let me repeat that slowly so an idiot like yourself can understand it.....
They... (get it? think who they refers to, try try harder, think)
offered.... (get it? I know it is hard for idiots to understand, but try)
her... (you should understand right? you know who her refers to? try)
money... (surely you know what money is? even an idiot should know)
to give up her stall .... (you know give up? cannot sell things there anymore?) -
Answer this then, if they doesn't realise it has been a mistake, why would they want to repay back the money, huh? If you can't answer it, then it is self defeating, and don't make things up, like HDB threaten them with lawyer letter, thats why they want to repay back the money, in fact, they tried to contact them in 2004, but couldn't
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.
Even they admit to it, and wants to repay back, what more can you said!
.
"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."Ms Lau said she and her siblings can put together the $18,000 and they "don't mind paying" — but there is a twist.
STOP EVADING MY QUESTION!!!!
.
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".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..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. -
STOP QUOTING HALF OF WHAT I HAVE TYPED, DICKHEAD! AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CHEQUE AT ALL, IF SHE HAVE READ THE 1993 TERMS AND CONDITION THAT STATED THAT SHE IS NOT ENTITLE TO ANY COMPENSATION DURING THAT TIME, IT IS STILL VALID!!!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:The did not force her to, they offered to give her $18000 to give up....
... now let me repeat that slowly so an idiot like yourself can understand it.....
They... (get it? think who they refers to, try try harder, think)
offered.... (get it? I know it is hard for idiots to understand, but try)
her... (you should understand right? you know who her refers to? try)
money... (surely you know what money is? even an idiot should know)
to give up her stall .... (you know give up? cannot sell things there anymore?)
YOU FORGOTTEN THIS PART!
That applies to you, she choose to give up the stall, at the urge of her daughter,but she has 3 choices, and one of it, is MOVE TO A TEMPORARY LOCATION, BUT SHE DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT AT ALL and you are still evading my question, brilliant,
AND SHE STILL WANT TO CONTINUE ON SELLING ITEMS IF NOT, FOR HER DAUGHTER URGE, AND NOW SHE STILL WANTS A NEW STALL
IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND -
QUIT EVADING MY QUESTION, YOU MORONIC FELLOW, CAN YOU EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION, WITHOUT MAKING THINGS UP
LIKE EXAMPLE, HDB TRIED THEM WITH LAWYER LETTER, THATS WHY THEY PAID, UP READ WHAT I HAVE QUOTE, (STOP HALF QUOTING MY POST,) HDB TRIED TO CONTACT THEM, BUT COULDN'T, THATS WHY, END RESULT IS LETTER OF DEMAND, DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN ANY CLEARLY ENOUGH TO YOU!
HUH!!!!!!
AND IF YOU HALF QUOTE ME AGAIN, YOU DICKHEAD, YOU ONLY WANT TO QUOTE WHAT IS ADVANTAGE TO YOU, AND YET CAN'T EVEN HANDLE A FULL POST WITH A DECENT REPLY, YOU CAN'T EVEN ANSWER ALL MY QUESTION AND YET STILL WANT TO CLAIM YOU ARE RIGHT
YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, YOU ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE SO DEAD WRONG, FATHER LIM ALREADY POINT OUT SO MUCH OF YOUR MISTAKE, AND STILL YOU CAN ONLY GOES ON AND ON WITH THE WORD - CONSIDERSATION
WHY CAN'T YOU JUST ADMIT TO THE VERY FACT, YOU ALREADY F U C K ED UP IN THIS THREAD! -
Now try very hard to understand this part,Originally posted by allentyb_v2.01:STOP QUOTING HALF OF WHAT I HAVE TYPED, DICKHEAD! AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CHEQUE AT ALL, IF SHE HAVE READ THE 1993 TERMS AND CONDITION THAT STATED THAT SHE IS NOT ENTITLE TO ANY COMPENSATION DURING THAT TIME, IT IS STILL VALID!!!
YOU FORGOTTEN THIS PART!
That applies to you, she choose to give up the stall, at the urge of her daughter,but she has 3 choices, and one of it, is MOVE TO A TEMPORARY LOCATION, BUT SHE DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT AT ALL and you are still evading my question, brilliant,
AND SHE STILL WANT TO CONTINUE ON SELLING ITEMS IF NOT, FOR HER DAUGHTER URGE, AND NOW SHE STILL WANTS A NEW STALL
IS IT SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND
She did not have to give up, they had an agreement, give up and get the money. So, she gave up. If they did not offer her the money, she need not give up.
After she gave up, they broke the agreement
Surely even an idiot like you can understand that? They made her an offer, they broke an agreement. She played her part. She gave up. They made her give up with the offer and then broke the agreement. You cannot understand that, you are too foolish to understand much liaoz... you know? a hopeless fool? -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
CAN'T YOU JUST READ WHAT HAS BEEN QUOTE BY ME, HUH!!!
Now try very hard to understand this part,
She did not have to give up, they had an agreement, give up and get the money. So, she gave up. If they did not offer her the money, she need not give up.
[b]After she gave up, they broke the agreement
Surely even an idiot like you can understand that? They made her an offer, they broke an agreement. She played her part. She gave up. They made her give up with the offer and then broke the agreement. You cannot understand that, you are too foolish to understand much liaoz... you know? a hopeless fool?[/b]
MDM LEE AND HER FAMILY ADMITTED THERE IS AN MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!!!! THATS WHY THEY WANT TO REPAY BACK, DON'T YOU EVEN BOTHER TO THINK THAT WHATEVER YOU HAVE POSTED IS ALREADY SELF DEFEATING, HUH!!!!!!
AND YOU MORONIC FELLOW, SHE WANTS TO CONTINUE ON, WHICH IS WHY SHE ASK FOR A NEW STALL, AND IF SHE READ THE TERMS AND CONDITION STATED VERY CLEARLY IN THE 1993 AGREEMENT, SHE WOULDN'T HAVE ACCEPT AND WOULD HAVE MOVE ON TO A NEW STALL, AND SHE HAS CHOICES, BUT SHE CHOOSE THAT DAMN CHEQUE WHICH IS CAUSING A DAMN HEADACHE FOR HER AT THIS VERY MOMENT AND WHICH PART OF YOU, DON'T UNDERSTAND
NOW YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND, THAT THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION TO BE CONSIDER, BECAUSE IT IS VOIDED, YOU F U C K ED UP, SO QUIT TRYING TO EVADE YOUR OWN GOD DAMNED MISTAKE, YOU MENTION After she gave up, they broke the agreement
THIS IS THE FREAKING REASON WHY I SAID THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION AT ALL, IT IS VOIDED, AND PLEASE FOR THE FREAKING LAST TIME, STOP REPEATING YOURSELF.
WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING IS SELF DEFEATING WHEN THE 'VICTIM' WANTS TO RETURN THE MONEY AND STILL REQUEST FOR A NEW STALL, AND DON'T YOU EVER DARE TO QUOTE ME PART OF MY THREAD, TAKE IT LIKE A MAN, OR PLEASE WEAR A SKIRT OR I WILL GENTLE WITH YOU, YOU BALL LESS PRICK,
SO DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN FROM THE FREAKING BEGINNING, I THINK I DO
FIRST OF ALL, WHY I SAID THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE WRONG, SIMPLY BECAUSE, ON ONE SIDE, THE DAUGHTER URGE THE MOM TO QUIT THE STALL, BUT NOT THE MOTHER DECISION AT ALL, WHICH IS WHY I TELL YOU, SHE CHOOSE TO GIVE UP THE STALL, BUT YOU KEEP MENTIONING, SHE HAD TO GIVE UP THE STALL IT PISSES ME OFF, BECAUSE YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS MEANING,UNLESS THE MARKET IS CLOSED DOWN FOR GOOD THEN TRULY, SHE HAD TO GIVE UP THE STALL!!!!!! IT IS NOT AS IF SHE HAD TO CLOSE DOWN HER STALL FOR GOOD, SHE HAD 3 CHOICES, ONE IS MOVE TO A TEMPORARY STALL, AND IS TO ACCEPT THE CHEQUE, SHE CHOOSE TO GIVE UP THE STALL, NOT HAD TO GIVE UP THE STALL. AND IT IS BY THE URGE OF HER DAUGHTER, THATS WHY MDM LEE CHOSE TO GIVE UP THE STALL AND THEY DON'T NEED THE MONEY AT ALL
HUH, I EVEN TYPE IN THE POST, NOT AS IF THE MARKET IS SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD, <----- IF THE MARKET IS SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD, THEN SHE HAD TO GIVE UP THE STALL
BUT IN HER CASE, SHE HAS A BLOODY CHOICE, 3 IN FACT, IF NOT FOR HER DAUGHTER, AND I AM NOT FINISHED YET, DICKHEAD
I WANT TO EMPHASIS AGAIN, QUIT QUOTE HALF OF WHAT I HAVE TYPED, YOU BALL LESS PRICK
AND SECONDLY, MONEY PAID OUT BY MISTAKE IS CLAIMABLE BY LAW.IT IS FREAKING PUBLIC DUTY FOR THEM TO DO SO, GET THIS INTO YOUR THICK SKULL, YOU MORONIC FELLOW
IF YOU CAN'T EVEN TYPE MORE THAN I HAVE TYPED, THEN YOU SUCKS AT ARGUE, AND STILL WANT TO POST SHORT POST, OH WOW, YOU THINK YOU COULD SHUT PEOPLE UP, OH PLEASE YOU ARE PATHETIC, IF YOU CAN'T THINK OF SOMETHING NEW, SHUT THE F U C K UP, BECAUSE I AM TIRED OF REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN
AND READ ALL THIS AND THINK HARDLY BEFORE YOU EVEN ATTEMPT TO POST -
YOU ARE EVADING THIS QUESTION, TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME
You are a moronic fellow who can't understand simple english at all, time and time.
ANSWER IT, if they doesn't realise it has been a mistake, why would they want to repay back the money, huh?
IF YOU CAN'T EVEN ANSWER AT ALL, WHAT IS THE POINT OF YOU TRYING SO HARD TO ARGUE WITH ME, IT IS VERY CRYSTAL CLEAR, THAT YOU ARE A MORONIC FELLOW WHO CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE IN THE WRONG, SO SHUT THE F U C K UPMs 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.
there they even admit to it, what more can you said
.
"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."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". -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Which part of the law did Allentyb confuses with??
Another stupid post, looks like you did not learn your lesson.
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.
What law is the HDB breaking for asking back the money which is the public money?
What injustice is done to the old lady if she and her children did not even understand the contract they are signing? Obviously they could have seek legal advice if they do not understand the contract.
Can u state out the laws broken and the codes of the law since u seems to "understand" so much of the basics of spore law that u can even point out allentyb has made a mistake?
Pls enlighten us and dont skip this post! -
Andrew, What is ur motive for posting manipulated facts to descredit the govt?
Is ur comprehension skill that F.U.C.K.ED UP or u just have ulterior motive?
U called the govt despots and dishonorable. But are u honorable by twisting facts and pushing blames to govt when they are not at fault?
Seriously, Allentyb has make no mistake here. Though he can be rude and unrefined, all his arguments are sound. U are the one who is evading his qns. So, if u still want others to see u as truly sane, u better argument in a logical way. Otherwise, all forumnites can see u are the one that should be heading to IMH. -
Look who is the crazy one here...posting this kind of shit at such hour.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=294396
Asking how to get banned when it is so easy just to change a nick. Can we trust his judgment in stock market and his ability to analyze articles??
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=282438
His warp logic... Investing in thailand BECAUSE THEY CAN BE REACHED BY BUS.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:If you have savings, convert some of your money into Thai Baht... because Thailand is the second biggest economy in SEA... and you can go to Thailand by bus...
Don't be fooled by people telling you to cash in through speculating... like casino gambling, you imagine you will make lots of money but lose everything instead...
Then, by his logic, all sporean should invest in Malaysia since we can reach there by bicycles or even by foot!!!!
Can u see how silly he is?!!![/b]