“ape feels that TC has to be involved quite significantly in the LUP and not merely a passive (small share) paymaster. Should there be an accident/delay in upgrading/extreme nuisance etc the residents will most likely turn to their MP, don’t they?” So where does that leave the PA-appointed adviser that played such an important role in the gathering feedback, planning, etc etc? LOL

Those questions asked by ape are not rhetorical. Ape is really curious to know. All that ape know is that People’s Association is a statutory board (part of gahmen) and under PA, there is CCC and RC. Somehow, grassroots leaders/advisors work within this circle and ape is lost there.

To
Anonymous on Fri, 30th Oct 2009 12:52 am

Ape must have misinterpreted the Housing Board Act with regards to LUP. In anycase, from the perspective of accountabiity, ape feels that TC has to be involved quite significantly in the LUP and not merely a passive (small share) paymaster. Should there be an accident/delay in upgrading/extreme nuisance etc the residents will most likely turn to their MP, don’t they? Even if LUP is carried smoothly, who will have to follow up with the maintenance? TC or HDB?

1) How “Government” are these grassroot advisors?
2) How are they appointed? Who appoints them?
3) Are they paid? What is their terms of reference?
4) Do they get 8-month bonuses like CDC employees?

We should continue to press on this issue to let all stat boards know that they should be non-partisan.

Your point is interesting but leaves legal unexplained issues. If it is done via HDB Act, why is some part of the costs needs to be borne by TC and some parts by residents themselves and requiring the approval of 80% by residences.

HDB “owners” who bought those apartments has no contract which entitled them to future upgrading at substantially HDB’s expenses or required HDB to “upgrade” by way of setting up new lift access to their respective units not signed as agreed item of term bargain in the sale/purchase agreement. Nor is there any term in the contract for upgrade of existing lifts (TC’s responsibility for maintenance in any case. And since if it is an initiative under HDB Act (if it should now alleges this to be the case, unlikely I believe) why require resident’s approval? It should be HDB’s costs and so many prior LUP have already been completed through the years.

In any case, if it is done via HDB Act, the letter seeking approval from HDB residents should explicitly stated as such because it spelt out the rights and obligation as between the parties – HDB on one side and each resident “owner” on the other. Has this been done in the past? And what was HDB’s substantive involvement in the past of all other LUP?

Was it a passive paymaster or was it the TC organising the tender and construction award. There must be case precedents before – the letter of invitation comes from HDB or TC in the past? We cannot changed the game now because of public grouses since it is public expenditure item and public law and administrative law issue.

If an accident happens on site, who do the victim sues – HDB or TC. It can’t be HDB Act’s mandate and legal consequences flowing to TC or the reverse if faulty construction results in death in lift sudden collapse. Or is it??

PARLIAMENT MAKE STATUTORY LAW and it is the public service which IMPLEMENT all statutory law appropriate to their division. IT IS NOT THE RIGHT NOR PROVINCE OF STATUTORY BOARDS LIKE MND TO INTERPRET LAWS of who shall implement LUP. It has no legal capacity as such I believe because if it did, it can re-interpret all legislation in a distorted manner and Parliament is powerless to react until challenged in the court-room proceedings. Is this NOT correct???

If the contrary is true – that is to say, it is the administrative law right of MND to INTERPRET ITS APPLICATION in this instance VIA UNELECTED GRASSROOT, instead of elected MPs, THEN IT MUST BE THE CIVIL SERVANT HAVING ALL THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW POWER TO LEGISLATE MATTERS RELEVANT TO LUP IMPLEMENTATION.

Have we seen any civil servant attending Parliament to legislate any law??? I have NOT!!!

SO THIS IS ANOTHER CASE OF ABUSE OF OFFICE by MND, it is acting outside the limits of its statutory authorities in trying to interpret law applications WHEN THAT IS THE FUNCTION OF COURTROOM AND PARLIAMENT’S DISCRETION TO AMEND IF IT DOES NOT AGREE.

The Law Minister would have known MND is incorrect of stance at law, why did the Law Ministry NOT publicly advise accordingly, I wonder??

MND has no business to interpret legislation. One could argue that it is misfesance at law or could it NOT??

Anyone disagree??

I suppose PAP does not subscribe to Lim Swee Say’s “cheaper, faster, better” mantra when two or more people end up doing the same job! If we ever have 30 opposition MPs, does the PAP intend to appoint 30 such advisors (on public payroll)? It should definitely be illegal to abuse taxpayers’ money to play party politics.

Indeed, if the Town Council Act is violated in this instance, the perpetrators must be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Many people have the misconception that the government cannot be sued. In fact, it is guaranteed by Article 37(2) which states “The Government may sue and be sued.”

The way things are unfolding is a mockery of the rule of law and a mocking contempt of Singaporeans.