berthahenson

The WP-NEA affair over a fair

In News Reports on October 17, 2014 at 2:50 am

Remember all that fuss about a Chinese New Year fair in Hougang? How the temporary stallholders got hauled up for illegal hawking? And they thought the t Workers’ Party town council had got all the permits ecetera? Well, they compounded their fines but the town council refused to. See you in court, WP told the National Environment Agency.

I had wondered why the WP didn’t just compound the offence and get on with the business of running the town council. From reading the reports over the past couple of days, I can only surmise that it wanted to make a point about the jurisdiction of a town council and the role of the Citizens Consultative Committee (read: pro-PAP grassroots group).

Not that WP has a hope in getting their points across when the issue is so cut-and-dried: You needed a permit, you didn’t get it, you broke the law.

It wasn’t for want of trying though. The WP counsel wanted to look at whether the requirements for a permit for a temporary set-up were even valid or necessary, especially since the set-up is in an area under the town council’s charge. Why then, for example, the need to also get a supporting letter from the CCC which, by the way, approves the setting up of pasar malams etc.

Seems the line of questioning was deemed irrelevant.

Of course, we need to abide by the law. We need to make sure temporary set-ups are safe, hygienic, don’t add to noise, don’t bother residents and don’t pose a problem to traffic. We expect officialdom to do the needful. WP’s chairman Sylvia Lim argued that this wasn’t about “cooked food’’ nor was it a trade fair. It was a community  a mini-fair, with just half a dozen stalls selling CNY paraphernalia – and therefore did not require a permit.  Except that the WP didn’t make this plain to the NEA. It’s not clear from the reports whether even if it did, it still needed to get a permit for the stalls – with the CCC approval. The fact is that the WP TC had started the process of application but stopped corresponding with the NEA half-way. (Guess it got fed up with the red tape? Or saw a chance to get its grievance out in the open?) It went ahead with the fair even though NEA had threatened enforcement.

Sigh. As I did then, I feel sorry for the stallholders caught in the middle. It’s always the small people who get trampled on.

Anyway, the case is over and verdict to be delivered on Nov 25.

Over-charging over over-charging Part 3

In Money, News Reports on October 16, 2014 at 8:45 am

I have got to say I found the Law Society’s letter to the ST Forum Page, Don’t equate reduction of costs with over-charging, pretty annoying.

It starts by talking about how “much ink has been spilled following recent claims of overcharging by lawyers representing the Singapore Medical Council’’. I wouldn’t call a grand total of two letters “much ink’’. I guess my definition of “much’’ isn’t quite the same as the Law Society’s.

It goes on to say: “Without commenting on specific cases before the court and the inquiry committee, it appears necessary to explain the process to the public.’’

(Thank you very much but could you drop the condescending tone? In any case, I don’t think the explanation was very full.)

It then explains the “taxation’’ process. In a nutshell, a lawyer charges a sum of money to a client. Say, he wins the case for his client, then his bill goes to the loser, who can challenge it.

The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client.’’

I am not sure what that means. I guess it is something like this: What a lawyer might charge a client, isn’t the same as what the losing party pays the client (winning party) to defray fees of the lawyer. So if your client has deep pockets, the lawyer is in luck. Because the loser pays whatever amount that is “taxed’’ and I suppose the client foots the rest of the bill.

Then it tells us that we shouldn’t be surprised if there is a difference: “The law actually intends that there will be an appreciable margin between what a losing party pays in taxed costs, and what a winning party has to pay its lawyers. It is an attempt to reach a fair balance between the victor and the vanquished. ‘’

The question then is what is an “appreciable margin’’ – 10 per cent? 20 per cent? 100 per cent? And does the law really intend to have an appreciable margin? I didn’t know that! Yes, yes, I am not a lawyer.

It goes on: “In practice, most bills of costs submitted for taxation are reduced. The winning party’s lawyers have a duty to seek the highest quantum reasonably arguable, and the losing party’s lawyers have a duty to seek the highest possible reduction of those claimed costs. The court will balance both views and decide. That a winning party’s bill of costs was reduced on taxation should not automatically be construed as overcharging.’’

What a strange bargaining process! Keeps the judges busy…But this only happens if the losing side disputes the bill and brings it up to the court no? And the loser needs a lawyer to argue the bill down? What then is the definition of over-charging? How much above the appreciable margin should this be to be construed as “overcharging’’.

According to Rule 38 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules on Gross Overcharging: An advocate and solicitor shall not render a bill (whether the bill is subject to taxation or otherwise) which amounts to such gross overcharging that will affect the integrity of the profession.

I would have thought the Law Society would have referred to the above in its letter as part of its explanation of the difference between fee taxed down and overcharging. It would have been educational. And give examples please.

It also goes on to say that “if a client is dissatisfied with his lawyer’s bill, he can also tax that bill in court’’.

So you hire another lawyer to bring down your original lawyer’s fees?  Wow! I wonder if this is common practice? (Is this what the Singapore Medical Council should have done in the Susan Lim case? Or did it think the fees of $1m plus charged twice is a reasonable fee for the SMC to pay? Ooops! Wrong of me to refer to specific cases…)

Final paragraph: “The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.  The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.”

Isn’t that so odd? There is an independent committee, which the Law Society has no control over, to deal with complaints. Which makes you wonder why the Law Society is spilling ink at all. LawSoc could at least give more details on how these committees work or the results of its work.

Here’s my response to the Law Society letter:

Much ink has been spilled by the Law Society on the general process of taxation by the courts. Without commenting on specific cases before the court and the inquiry committee, it appears necessary for the Law Society to elaborate on the phrase “appreciable margin’’ and define the term “over-charging’’. It might also be appropriate to disclose statistics on complaints of over-charging (after taxation and not through fraud or other action) and how many were acted on. This is so as that the public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.

Grieving over grass

In News Reports, Sports on October 15, 2014 at 12:53 am

If you haven’t heard about the state of the field in our National Stadium, you’ve been sticking your head in the sand for too long….

Anyway, here’s the story:

Singapore, the self-styled City in a Garden, acknowledged yesterday that it doesn’t know how to grow grass.
“We’ve never been a people to let the grass grow under our feet,’’ said Mr Si Beh Suay. “We always race to be Number 1, so we’re more used to proper running tracks – not fields.’’

He said the Sports Hub had tried to shine some lights on the root of the problem but the grass stubbornly refused to grow. He sniffed at the suggestion by environmentalists to use manure labour to feed the field, pointing out that the emitted gases combined with the particles in the haze would lead to spontaneous combustion.


“We’ve hit a sandy patch but it’s a growing process,’’ he acknowledged, adding that he would bring in the horticulturalists from the Singapore Botanic Gardens to coax the grass, known by its scientific name as socceritis allergenia.

Brazil soccer stars last night decided to play beach volleyball among themselves in the National Stadium, kicking up clumps of sand and grass. The polite Japanese preferred to go to their green, green grass of home to tend to their bonsai plants.

Mr Si: “Look, we all know the grass is greener on the side. But it only looks greener, it’s really not as green as people think. Actually, it’s plastic.’’

Netizens poured cold water on his comments, noting that Singapore, maker of Newater, builder of Jurong Island and host of F1 race, should also be excellent in the development of grassroots bodies.


Social commentators said the problem was equating excellence with profit making. “You measure your success by how much money you made from people using the pitch, not from letting grass grow. That would be too slow.’’

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 797 other followers