A resident of a new Housing Board development in Hougang has gone to court to obtain a refund for the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) she paid to the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).
Corporate travel manager Melinda Teo, 37, lodged a report with the Small Claims Tribunal on Monday (June 22), in a bid to get back the $367.20 that she paid in S&CC between November last year and May this year.
Ms Teo, who lives in the 680-unit Parkland Residences, a Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) project, said she should not have to pay the fees to the Workers’ Party-run town council as it took over the management and maintenance of the property only on June 1.
Before that, the project’s developer, Kwan Hwee Investment, had to step in to clean the common areas.
Earlier this month, more than 300 residents of Parkland Residences sent a petition to the town council demanding to have their S&CC waived or refunded. But their appeal was not answered by either the town council or the Workers’ Party MPs, said Ms Teo.
However, an AHPETC spokesman had said in response to media queries earlier this month that the town council would have to compensate Kwan Hwee Investment for the maintenance work done before June 1. As such, it cannot return the S&CC to residents, it told reporters.
Following Ms Teo’s move to take court action, a representative of AHPETC must attend a meeting at the Small Claims Tribunal on July 2, according to a court document issued to the town council.
Otherwise, an order could be given against the town council in its absence. The order could include a mandatory compensation to the claimant for claims below $10,000.
Ms Teo said she decided to go down the legal route as “our e-mails and petition have only received the silent treatment from the MPs and town council”. She added that several neighbours have expressed interest in filing similar claims with the tribunal.
The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) is “technically insolvent” and its chairman Sylvia Lim had been “economical with the truth” when she said in Parliament in February that the town council has been making transfers to its sinking fund for the 2014 financial year.
These were the charges levelled today (May 5) by the Ministry of National Development’s (MND) legal counsel — and were unchallenged by AHPETC — during the second and final day of a hearing on the ministry’s application to the courts to appoint independent accountants to safeguard government grants to the town council.
AHPETC had not made payments to the sinking fund for two quarters of FY2014, even though these were “mandatory obligations”, as the Attorney-General’s Chambers deputy chief counsel for litigation Aurill Kam, who is representing the MND, put it.
The court had heard that AHPETC’s income from service and conservancy charges (S&CC) was insufficient for it to make the quarterly sinking fund transfers. If the town council had made the transfers as required, it would not have enough money, Ms Kam noted. “From that point of view, it would not be an overstatement to say that (AHPETC) is technically insolvent,” she said.
The MND has withheld the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) grants to AHPETC for financial years 2014 and 2015. Its application was meant to safeguard fresh grants disbursed, following a report in February by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO), which found major lapses in AHPETC’s financial management, governance and compliance with the Town Councils Act.
“There is a suggestion that (MND’s application) is unprecedented. We submit that the adverse findings in the AGO report is unprecedented. The conduct of the defendant is unprecedented. Their response to calls to do the responsible thing is unprecedented,” Ms Kam said.
She added: “We say that unless these independent accountants are appointed, no serious steps will be taken to credibly review whether there has been any wrongful payment, breach of duty or unlawful conduct.”
Referring to Ms Lim’s comments in Parliament, Ms Kam said: “The reality was that at that time, the January 2015 transfer had already been missed. This wrong impression was reinforced when the defendant informed this court on March 27 this year, that it did not need fresh S&CC grants urgently, and could do without the funds for the next three months.”
AHPETC lawyer Peter Cuthbert Low had argued on Monday that the courts do not have the power to assign independent accountants to co-sign payments a town council makes using government grants, and that the Town Councils Act was intended to give elected Members of Parliament and town councillors full autonomy in managing town council funds — and to be accountable only to their residents.
MND had proposed that the court appoint Mr Ong Chao Choon and Mr Chan Kheng Tek from accounting firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), to be the independent accountants, or any other people the court deems fit and proper.
Today, Mr Low objected to the ministry’s nomination of the two individuals because PwC was involved in the AGO report. “So my client’s position is that there is a suspicion of bias,” said Mr Low. “We are not saying that… they will be biased, but because they came from the same auditing firm and PwC was the firm which was engaged.”
He added: “They need not come with preconceived notion, but as long as there is a perception…” Instead, the town council proposed that a “neutral” third party such as a retired judge or a Senior Counsel should nominate the independent accountants.
To address weaknesses in its accounting practices, AHPETC has hired Audit Alliance as its auditors and sole-proprietorship Business Assurance as its financial consultant. Lawyer Terrence Tan, who is also representing AHPETC, said the town council is on track to submit its overdue accounts for the FY2013/2014.
Judgement was reserved. After the hearing, Ms Lim told reporters that the town council looks forward to a fair outcome.
To start, we should also note that PAP activists Victor Lye, who made a Facebook post thanking his team for distributing the fliers, and Muralidharan Pillai, who confirmed to media that the flyers were from PAP, have both clearly indicated the origins of the flyers. In spite of that, the documents in question do not carry any PAP logo. The flyers were also distributed past midnight, as if done to avoid direct contact with residents.
Notwithstanding the highly mysterious and secretive air surrounding the distribution, Muralidharan had insisted to media that they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”.
Precedence set by the SDP
Ms Chee Siok Chin was jailed for a week for distributing flyers which were critical of the Government.
You are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12:15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with 5 persons did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Mark Chua
Senior Investigation Officer
Central Police Division
29 December 2008
The SDP members were charged under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules which states: Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
It is difficult to imagine that the legislative intent of this law was to curb the handing out of flyers, or similar communicative-type activity. I daresay the law was meant to prohibit gatherings that pose a threat to public peace, e.g. gangs out to intimidate or fight, or sit-ins that block traffic. The name of the law, after all, is Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Moreover, in actual practice, no action is taken against the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who stand at metro stations handing out flyers, or even those who interfere with traffic in some way, e.g. stopping people to sell them insurance
The point made by Mr Au definitely makes sense – the execution of laws should target the intended consequence, rather than the offending act itself. Unfortunately, the way the law was applied in the case must be taken into account in evaluating the present facts.
In the judgement passed by District Judge Chng Lye Beng, it is understood that, if a group of five or more persons distribute flyers of a political nature in a public place without a permit, they may likely be in breach of the law. Let us now compare the first three elements of the offence with the facts of the case at hand.
Five or more persons?
After the distribution of the flyers, Mr Lye posted this image on his Facebook page. According to his post, the people featured in this picture are the “(PAP) activists who worked through the night… to distribute flyers.” From this picture, one can easily make out seven people, which suggests that there were more than five people who helped to distribute the flyers. There might also have been more who helped out in the distribution but were not featured in this photo.
Post on Mr Lye’s Facebook page after the flyer distribution
Public places?
The flyers in question were placed at the doors of HDB flats, as seen in the picture above. This means that Mr Lye and his team were operating at the common corridors of HDB flats. It is also clear from the photographs taken from Mr Lye’s Facebook page that the flyers were left outside the flats – which suggests that they in no way entered into the home, or what might be considered private property.
Flyers of political nature?
To give the reader a better understanding of what would constitute ‘political nature’, it would be good to look at the contents of the flyers that the SDP members distributed. The flyers contained the following words:
Tired of being a voiceless, 2nd class citizen in your own country without any rights? Sick of the Ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore? Then join us for the
EMPOWER SINGAPOREANS
RALLY & MARCH
Saturday, 16 Sept 2006, 11 am
Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park
FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO
www.singaporedemocrat.org
In comparison. here are the contents of the flyers that the PAP activists distributed:
Comparing the contents of the two flyers, I opine that if the former can be constituted to be of a political nature, the latter undoubtedly is of a political nature too. The later also makes explicit references to the Workers’ Party and its Town Councils which should dissipate any doubts one may have about the political nature of the flyers.
Without a permit?
Prima Facie, it seems as though the actions of the PAP Aljunied team on Friday evening have satisfied the first three elements of the offence. In other words, Mr Lye and his team of five or more persons did distribute flyers which were of a political nature in a public place.
The question now would really be whether they had a permit for the distribution of the flyers. Both Mr Lye and Mr Muralidharan had not any any point in time produced any evidence to show that a permit has been obtained. If they do not have such a permit, they would technically be in breach of the law.
Alternative charge of Sedition
However, the SDP is not the only precedence we have of people distributing flyers without a permit and getting into trouble for doing so.
In what was popularly referred to as the “poison letters“, a flyer that was critical of the PAP was distributed to residents in the heartlands via letter boxes. The Strait Times described the flyer as “an A4-sized sheet with the criticisms in English and Chinese, made allegations about corruption and exploitation and complained about cost of living issues, among other things.”
It was reported that Police investigations were ongoing although we didn’t get to hear the end of the matter. TODAY reported that the flier was in breach of the Sedition Act which states, among other things, that a seditious tendency is one which seek:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore
The “poison letter” incident raises another bag of issues for the PAP flyer distribution in Aljunied GRC. While the target of the flyers – the Workers Party – do not form the government, its members are rightfully elected Members of Parliament, who are part legislative arm of the government. The contents of the flyers might possibly be also be construed instigate dissatisfaction among the residents of Aljunied against WP. Might it have the consequence of causing political unrest? The potential is unthinkable. However, to a certain extent, it may be possible to interpret the contents of the flyers to amount to a “seditious tendency” under subsections (b) and (d).
Conclusion
Ultimately, if this case ever goes before the courts, the issue of the legality of the flyer distribution lies with the Judiciary. Personally, I do hope that it never will, just as I wished the case of SDP and the “poison letter” never did. Even though I believe the actions of Mr Lye and team are akin to a political lowblow, I am of the firm opinion that, as far as the law is concerned, they should be free to do what they do – just like how all political parties distribute flyers during their house visits. I an no fan of laws that can be interpreted and applied in a manner that is over-reaching and discretionary.
However, should a police report be made by a recipient of the flyers against the PAP activists, might it be an uphill task for PAP activists to justify the legality of this flyer distribution?
People’s Action Party (PAP) activists in Aljunied GRC have gone on the offensive, distributing flyers today (March 13) urging residents to quiz their Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) over the accounting and corporate governance lapses committed by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).
Titled “What You Should Ask WP’s Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council”, the flyer — which was in English and Chinese and came complete with a chart — compared AHPETC’s managing agent rates with those of some PAP town councils. Among other things, it charged that there was improper governance by AHPETC and that the town council had “overpaid its friends at FMSS by at least S$6.4 million”.
“This is our ‘lost money’. It means we have less money to clean and maintain our estate,” the flyer said, reiterating that serious problems that could affect residents were flagged by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO).
The lapses, which were highlighted by the AGO in its audit report on AHPETC, prompted National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan to table a motion in Parliament last month. Among other things, the motion called on town councils to uphold higher standards of accounting and reporting to safeguard residents’ interests.
During the parliamentary debate, PAP ministers and MPs had zeroed in on a potential conflict of interest: AHPETC secretary Danny Loh and his wife, the town council’s general manager How Weng Fan, are also the main directors and shareholders of AHPETC’s managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS).
Adding that the WP had deliberately remained silent to queries posed by auditors and in Parliament, the flyer also listed questions that residents should confront the WP MPs with, including how much FMSS and other businesses owned by AHPETC employees earnt from the town council, as well as what the town council’s latest financial situation is. The flyer added: “Why did AHPETC allow the husband-and-wife team to verify and approve payment on work done by FMSS, which is owned by them?”
It was not stated on the flyer who had come up with the contents. When contacted, PAP Paya Lebar branch chairman K Muralidharan Pillai confirmed that the flyers — which were distributed to units in Kovan — were handed out by PAP activists today. Adding that it was a ground-up initiative by the activists, he said they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”. The plan is to distribute the flyers throughout Aljunied GRC, he said.
He pointed out that the WP MPs had said in Parliament that they would answer to residents directly on AHPETC’s lapses. Adding that the flyers contained publicly available information, Mr Muralidharan said: “Our activists decided to help residents understand the core issues and suggested questions that they may wish to ask of their MPs. Residents are free to make up their own minds as to what they wish to do after reading the flyer.”
The WP did not respond to queries by press time.
Some Kovan residents who received the flyer told TODAY that they were wondering who had distributed them. Nevertheless, a resident who gave his name only as Mr Seah said: “Everything in the flyer is directed at WP. It is quite obvious that it is from the PAP.”
