HDB says “No” to “columbarium” flat buyers
According to the Straits Times news report “HDB says ‘no’ to refund requests for BTO flats in Sengkang columbarium fallout” (Feb 23) – “The flat buyers were also given up to this Friday to notify HDB if they wished to proceed with the cancellation of their flat application.
If they do, they will be subject to the standard process of cancellation, wherein they forfeit the option fee they paid if they cancel before signing the Agreement for Lease.
If they cancel after signing the agreement, they will forfeit 5 per cent of the flat’s purchase price.”
Administrative law
When I read the above – I was reminded of a course in Administrative Law I took in my undergraduate studies at an Australian university.
“Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.
A public authority commits a procedural impropriety when it fails to comply with procedures that are set out in the legislation that empowers it to act, or to observe basic rules of natural justice or otherwise to act in a procedurally fair manner towards a person who will be affected by its decision.
The twin elements of natural justice are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua – “no man a judge in his own cause”), and the requirement of a fair hearing (audi alteram partem – “hear the other side”).”
Natural justice
In my limited understanding as a layman – I think that the HDB’s decision has failed both the “twin elements of natural justice” – because it judged itself in this controversy and the aggrieved HDB buyers were never given the opportunity of a fair hearing to determine the facts and circumstances at issue.
The third rule is that an administrative decision must be based upon logical proof or evidence material.
Investigators and decision makers should not base their decisions on mere speculation or suspicion.
Rather, an investigator or decision maker should be able to clearly point to the evidence on which the inference or determination is based.
Evidence (arguments, allegations, documents, photos, etc..) presented by one party must be disclosed to the other party, who may then subject it to scrutiny.”
The facts?
- Let’s look at what has been reported in th media.
Since the BTO ebrochure did not mention “columbarium” and the hard copy of the brochure and a page on the web site did – we have to ask as to what was the document which most of the buyers accessed – since almost all did eapplications?
Also, how did the above occur? Was it “inadvertantly”, “intentionally” or otherwise?
Fairness
Finally, the question of fairness – such as would you buy a flat next to the largest facility with a columbarium in Singapore (base on the tender bid price and the cost of the building)?
Can you imagine what what it may be like when its QingMing time?
So, what is the MP going to do now?
Win battles lose war
TRS Contritubor