Peter Low & Sylvia Lim [Photo: Straits Times]
Peter Low & Sylvia Lim [Photo: Straits Times]
Peter Low & Sylvia Lim [Photo: Straits Times]
By Andrew Loh
The dispute between the opposition Workers’ Party Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) seems to all boil down to two issues – what constitutes a “trade fair”, and the need for a “letter of support” from a grassroots chairman.
The meaning or understanding of the term “trade fair” would determine whether the application forms and the information it requires are suitable; and clarity on why elected members of parliament must seek “support” from unelected and volunteer grassroots leaders will go a long way to shed light on the current case.
These seems to be the nub of the issue in the court case which has arisen from the WP town council (TC) going ahead in holding what it calls a “mini-fair” in Hougang central during the Chinese Lunar New Year period this year.
The NEA is accusing the town council of contravening Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act which states that a permit is required for “any temporary fair, stage show or other such function or activity”.
Sylvia Lim, chairman of the WP town council, told the court on Wednesday that she viewed the term “trade fair” as referring to a “pasar malam”, the colloquial term for night market.
These, she said, were usually organised by the Citizens’ Consultative Committees, which are grassroots organisations.
The WP event, on the other hand, was a “community event held in a common area managed by the town council”, Ms Lim said.
The WP community event consisted of five stalls which sold the following items:

  • Chinese New Year (CNY) decorative items
  • Prepacked CNY sweets and candies
  • Mandarin oranges
  • Prepacked CNY cookies and goodies (2 stalls)

In addition there would also be several benches for CNY flowers and potted plants at the event.
However, the NEA application forms sent to the town council upon the latter’s request in December last year were for a “trade fair permit” and a “trade fair foodstall licence”, Ms Lim said.
As such, the WP town council found the forms sent to it by the NEA “unsuitable’, given that it was a community event, and not a trade fair, and that there were no “foodstall” at the fair it was organising.
After the town council asked the NEA for the relevant forms, the NEA sent it the same forms again.
Nonetheless, the WP town council proceeded to submit the form but not before striking out the words “trade fair” on the form and replacing it with “event”.
As for the requirement to also submit a “letter of support” from the area’s CCC chairman, Ms Lim questioned why this was necessary.
She said that firstly, the town council is empowered under the Town Councils Act to manage common areas, where the mini-fair would take place.
Secondly, she said she did not see why the town council, which is run by elected members of parliament, should seek the support of the chairman of a grassroots organisation.
The chairman of the CCC concerned in this case is Victor Lye, who is also a People’s Action Party branch chairman in the area.
“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 said.
Mr Tan objected to Mr Low raising the question on Tuesday, which the judge also deemed to be irrelevant and said that “the issue surrounding the conditions for a permit should not be argued in the present trial but at a judicial review.”
Also on Tuesday, during the hearing, Mr Low had sought to question the executive director of environmental health, Tai Ji Choong, on why the term “town councils” was removed from the application form.
Mr Low showed the court a copy of the same form from 2008.
It had included the “town councils” as organisations authorised to conduct fairs.
However, in the set of forms sent to it by the NEA in December last year, the term “town councils” was no longer included.
The judge decided on Wednesday that the question was irrelevant and ordered Mr Low not to proceed along that line of questioning.
Also at the heart of the issue is why exactly did the NEA not grant the permit, and why it told the WP town council that the forms were “incomplete”.
Mr Tan, when commenting on this on Tuesday, said “since AHPETC did not appeal against its rejected application, it should not use the court to find out why it was not given the permit.”
Another issue which has come to light is whether town councils are in fact permitted to hold such events at all.
In its letter to AHPETC last year, the Ministry of National Development (MND) had said that town councils are prohibited from engaging in “commercial activities’.
However, the fact that the NEA had asked the WP town council to submit an application to hold such an event seems to contradict what the MND said, and that town councils are in fact allowed to hold such events as long as it fulfilled the requirements or conditions, one of which is to get the “letter of support” from the chairman of the CCC.
It would thus seem that the case is one of unclear rules, regulations, terms used and questionable conditions. And it does not seem that the fault, if any, would lie entirely with the WP town council alone.
But the main issue here is what are the reasons for the NEA to reject AHPETC’s application, besides the forms being “incomplete”.
Why, exactly, were they “incomplete”?
Perhaps Thursday’s hearing will shed light on this.

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

Brad Bowyer claps back at PAP’s K Shanmugam over comment that PSP is “half-hearted” about contesting in Nee Soon GRC

“Someone is very afraid of our campaign in Nee Soon and is…

“是时候放手啦” 老报人吁政府放宽对本地媒体钳制

资深老报人巴吉尔(PN Balji)认为,政府是时候放手对媒体的钳制,也直言,即使新加坡自诩第一世界国家、第一世界社会,却没有与其第一世界身份相符的媒体。 本月13日,工人党青年团举办网络讲座会,探讨后冠病时代的新加坡,巴吉尔也是主讲人之一。 他也是英语媒体《新報》(The New Paper)与《今日报》前主编。他谈及政府在各种层次对本地媒体的钳制,这包括要想办报,就得申请准证,而且只为期一年,而且如果拒绝更新准证,政府也没有义务解释理由。 1970年代,在《报纸与印刷出版法令》下推行报章改制,各报须由公众持股重组成为上市公司,确保报章不由单一人士或公司所拥有。然而,巴吉尔也指出,“魔鬼藏在细节里”,政府引入股权结构,需出让三巴仙股份,而持股者可能会必须一切代价捍卫政府权益。 再者,控制不仅来自法律层面,有好些行动党政府前内阁部长,都当过报业控股董事会主席,包括林金山、前总统陈庆炎、纳丹等人。即便现任主席李文献也曾当过部长;报业控股总裁伍逸松,也是军伍出身,是武装部队第五任三军总长,中将军衔,2007年退伍后担任东方海皇集团主席暨总裁,2017年则接任报业控股总裁至今。 巴吉尔坦言,对媒体的操控是广泛的,甚至达到任命谁当董事会主席,“我不确定什么时候就连委任编辑也要干预。” “出格”的编采人付出惨重代价 巴吉尔忆述,曾有一次已故建国总理李光耀,向编辑们抱怨某一张照片,“当时他还是总理,他质问编辑们到底想怎样?想把他拉下台吗?因为这就是英国媒体对前英相威尔逊(Harol Wilson)所做的事。”…

Vincent Wijeysingha: This is home where I root myself

By Loke Hoe Yeong SDP Rally at Clementi Ave 4 open field,…