slyvia
Chairman of AHPETC, Ms Sylvia Lim and lawyer, Mr Peter Low
Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), Sylvia Lim, was in the witness stand as the hearing on summons issued by the National Environment Agency (NEA) to the AHPETC moves into the second day.
Ms Lim testified in court on why the town council felt that the application forms which it was required to submit to hold a community event were not applicable for the lunar new year event it held in January.
District Judge Victor Yeo  ruled after a day of deliberation that the question on why and when the NEA removed the term “town council” from the 2008 revised application form for trade fairs to be irrelevant to the ruling of the case and disallow Peter Low, lawyer for the WP town council, from asking the question.
The judge ruled that it is not his power to preside over the rationale of the law and said that such questions will be disallowed after Mr Low failed to convince the judge with past judgements that it is any matter of the court to determine whether one has exercised due diligence in violation of public welfare offences such as Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA).
In court on Wednesday, Ms Lim referred to the communication between AHPETC and NEA starting with the email sent by AHPETC’s Public Relation Officer, Ms Chelsea Lu to Mr Tai Ji Choong, the NEA’s director of environmental health.
letter on 20th dec
Letter from AHPETC to NEA on 20th December 2013
Referring to the email sent on 20th December last year, Ms Lim explained that the town council sent the email to NEA because of concerns on whether the event to be held by the town council required any permit from the authorities and to ask for the forms which the town council had to submit, if any.
In the cover letter accompanying AHPETC’s application submission to the NEA, the town council highlighted that the form was used at the request of the NEA and that AHPETC felt that the form does not represent the town council’s agreement.
do not represent our agreement
Paragraph in the cover letter to NEA
In reply to Mr Low’s question of why the town council feel that the form was not suitable for the event, Ms Lim replied that there are three main reasons.
It was to Ms Lim’s understanding that trade fairs are normally referred to as “pasar malam” (night market) which are organised by Citizen Consultative Committees (CCCs).
The WP town council event, however, was intended to be held by the town council and was a community event, carried out on common area managed by the town council.
Ms Lim said that under the law, the powers and duties of the town council include the management of the common area.
Ms Lim also referred to the term “town councils” missing from the application forms supplied by the NEA.
In its previous version, the term was included as part of a list of entities which were allowed to conduct fairs.
Instead, one of the conditions specified by the application form, among the documents supposed to be obtained is a “letter of support” from the chairman of the Citizen Consultative Committee (CCC).
Ms Lim pointed out that in the case of the Hougang CCC, the branch leader is from the People’s Action Party.
“Since my colleagues and I were elected to manage the town council under the Town Councils Act, we do not see how the town council should be required to get a supporting letter from the CCC for something held in the common area under our charge,” Ms Lim told the court.
"Trade Fair" replaced with "Event"
“Trade Fair” replaced with “Event”
In the application form submitted to NEA, the wordings of “Trade Fair” is struck off and replaced with the word, “Event”. Ms Lim said that she approved the replacement of the words because it was constant with what they wrote in the cover letter that they do not believe they were organising a trade fair.
She also did not agree that the town council was holding a commercial activity as stated in the letter by the Ministry of National Development sent on 14th January 2014.
Frustration by defense lawyers
Mr Low showed signs of frustration after being blocked for “no less than 10 questions” in the past two days by Isaac Tan, the NEA prosecutor, saying that it is a waste of time.
Mr Low had not been able to ask any question from Mr Tai due to Mr Tan’s objections.
This came after Mr Tan’s prompt objection to Ms Lim’s statement of why the initial letter to NEA was sent.
Ms Lim was bringing up the point that she had been told by industry players in organising events that NEA “is not interested in events, unless open food stalls are involved or small events with less than 15 stalls.”
Before she could continue, the prosecution asked if the sources cited by Ms Lim would be questioned as witnesses. If the sources will not be questioned, then what Ms Lim said would be hearsay evidence.
Ms Lim said that she has not obtained permission from the people whom she spoke to, as their businesses could be affected.
Mr Low said that if Mr Tan has any objections on the hearsay evidence, he could address that in his cross-examination of the witness and  asked for the judge to allow Ms Low to allowed to continue her statement as it would provide the background of why the initial contact was made with NEA.
The judge noted the prosector’s objection but allowed Ms Lim to continue.
Other than Ms Lim, three more witnesses from the defense will be called up, Ms Chelsea Lu , Deputy General Manager of AHPETC, Mr Yeo Soon Fei and MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat.
The prosecution will be cross examining Ms Lim today (Thursday)


Application form submitted by AHPETC to NEA
NEA v AHPETC application form

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

港爆发最大规模示威,百万民众抗”送中“

香港近日来因修订《逃犯条例》,引来大批香港民众的反弹。香港民间人权阵线昨日(9日)发起游行抗议活动,要求香港政府撤销修订“逃犯条例“。截至昨日晚上9点,已有逾100万人参与游行,同时获得海外多个城市的声援。 此次示威活动亦是自1997年主权移交以来,香港最大规模的游行活动。 游行原定下午3点从维多利亚公园起步,前往香港立法会,但由于人数太多导致香港交通瘫痪。据悉,游行期间多个港铁站已实施管制,部分民众甚至被困在同一个地点超过一个小时。直至下午4点,由召集人岑子杰带领的游行队伍抵达政府总部,准备包围立法会。 据港媒报道,大批示威者身穿白衣撑着黄色雨伞,举起标语如“反送中“、”林郑下台“,并高喊”反送中“口号,要求政府撤回恶法。游行人士聚集了不同的人包括父母携带小孩一同参加、老年人、青年等各个阶层人士。不少香港艺人与公众人物也响应游行活动如黄耀明、何韵诗、王宗尧、苏玉华及前全国政协委员刘梦熊。 约晚上8点时,警方与示威者一度在金钟夏悫道爆发冲突,拉扯间险酿人踩人的意外。5-6名示威者一度冲破警方设好的路障,而警方向示威者喷胡椒喷雾试图阻止示威者前进。 在接近游行的尾声,部分示威者更是堵截立法会,要求与行政长官林郑月娥对话。期间,警民对峙已久,双方均有人受伤,血流披脸。警察公共关系科高级警司江永祥更斥责示威者漠视法纪,称已属非法集会,呼吁在场人士立即离开。 香港警方表示,游行期间最高峰时约24万人参与活动,目前合共拘捕了7人,分別涉及普通袭击、刑事毁坏、袭警等罪名。 修法后程序过于简单,恐受中国制约 而此次修订条例是由2018年一起发生于台湾的香港命案所引起,碍于台湾与香港间并无司法互助安排,无法将嫌犯移交台湾受审,故香港保安局期望能修例。 截至今日,香港的罪犯移交条例仍援用1997年回归之前的安排,与20个国家签订长期的引渡条例协议,其中并不包括中国、澳门及台湾。其他地区若提出移交嫌犯申请,需逐个个案经立法会审批。而修订条例后,全球便可向香港提出移交申请,只要疑犯在移交地犯下其中37项罪行,特首便可授权后,将单次移交疑犯。 对于修例为何引起大批港民的反弹,其主要原因为,港民忧心修例后将会引发不公平审讯,尤其在中国司法并未独立的情况下,香港疑犯很可能会被移交到中国接受审讯,并且打开从香港引渡疑犯的缺口,影响香港的新闻自由与营商环境。另外,港民认为缺乏立法会审批的移交过程,程序过于简单,中国可以轻易要求香港将疑犯移交到中国受审。 草案引起强烈反弹,港府却无意撤回草案…

张媛容:最后遗嘱似乎李显龙比李显扬受益较多

在野政治人物张媛容律师: 我取得了纪律审裁庭的报告,现在仍在阅读中。 有好多事项令我困惑。例如,审裁庭指林学芬“误导”已故李光耀,让后者以为最后一份遗嘱等同最初遗嘱,但实则两者有不同。 然而,最后遗嘱和第一份遗嘱的区别,仅在两方面: 首先,最初版本有“赠予”条款(Gift-Over Clause),说明若三名子女中有人比他早逝情况下的条文;但最终版本没有。事实上,所有最终版本前遗嘱都有“赠予条款”(第三版本有不同条文),吊诡的是最终版本却删除之。 其二,第一版本有附加条款允许李玮玲可以免租金继续住在欧思礼路38号,李显龙则需承担该故居的维修保养费用。最终版本同样允许李玮玲住在该处,但没有注明“免租金”和李显龙“在李玮玲居住期间承担维修保养费用”等字眼。 我从审裁庭报告的资讯得出,除了上述两处不同,基本上最后遗嘱和最初版本是相同的。 审裁庭报告未说明“赠予条款”的内容。一般上,赠与条款可规定,若任何受益人比立遗嘱者提前逝世,那么相关份额将由有关受益人的子女继承;若无子嗣,则份额将分配给其他尚在世的受益人。 假定“赠予条款”的性质如上述,实则有三个子女的李显扬,能从中受益,因此在最终版本排除掉“赠予条款”,并不符合李显扬的利益。 至于最终版本没有“免租金”和“承担欧思礼38故居保养费用”等字眼,实则对李显龙有利,至于李玮玲的受益则减少。 我看不出上述两种差异,能显示林学芬有任何不良意图。指林学芬故意修改第一版本作出上述两处更动,是荒谬的。若是我会排除掉这种可能。…

Malaysian Minister and Deputy Minister tested negative for COVID-19

On Monday (2 March), the Health Director-General (DG) of Malaysia Datuk Dr…

败选后 黄志明才想起该收紧就业准证?

据了解,全国职工总会秘书长黄志明坦言,针对外籍人士在本地就业,国人的焦虑确有提升,也建议政府或应缩紧就业准证(Employment Pass)政策。 他在前日接受《海峡时报》采访,声称职总就业保障联盟(Job Security Council)迄今协助超过2万工友,在疫情下匹配到新工作。 与此同时,他仍强调建设和扩张新加坡经济牵涉国人利益,仍需要外籍人士的技术和才能,来增强本地劳动力。 他也指若就业竞争某种程度上变得激烈,政府理应出台政策来保障国人能公平地取得好工作。 黄志明原是总理公署部长,在2020选举,偕同原交通部兼卫生部高级政务部长蓝彬明医生、内政部兼卫生部高级政务次长安宁·阿敏等人,上阵盛港集选区,惟不敌工人党何廷儒团队败选。 据了解,在选举之前,黄志明鲜少有提及,有关调整或缩紧外籍人士就业政策的建议。 全国工资理事会将召开第二次会议,黄志明则希望该理事会能尽量保住就业,保障特别是低薪工友群体的福利。 有鉴于冠病疫情对经济的影响,他预计未来半年至一年,失业仍会持续攀升。 职总在上月推出公平裁员框架,并声称保障职场的新加坡核心,惟拥有关键技术的外籍人士也能留下。…