MISTAKEN PAYMENTS TO HAWKERS CEASING OPERATIONS

MISTAKEN PAYMENTS TO HAWKERS CEASING OPERATIONS:

(Reasons): 6.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what checks does the Ministry or the National Environment Agency have in place to prevent mistaken payments to hawkers who cease operations due to upgrading works at hawker centers; (b) how did the mistaken payment of $18,000 to Mdm Lee Ah Muey come about; and (c) what will the Ministry do to take responsibility for this mistake.

7.

Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on the erroneous payment of $18,000 by HDB to hawker Mdm Lee Ah Muey in 2003; (b) how did the HDB make the error in the first place; (c) why did the HDB and NEA fail to contact Mdm Lee earlier; and (d) how many cases of such mistaken payments by the HDB or NEA were there in the past five years.

The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, I would like to take Question Nos. 6 and 7 together.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mdm Lee Ah Muey was previously a temporary permit holder selling clothes in the vicinity of Lim Tua Tow Market, near Upper Serangoon Road. She was relocated to the market at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, in 1993 and assigned a stall to operate her business. However, given her former status as a temporary permit holder, she was informed that she would not be entitled to ex-gratia payments if the market were to be affected by redevelopment. Mdm Lee signed a letter of undertaking to acknowledge this.

The market at Hougang Avenue 1 underwent the Hawker Centres' Upgrading Programme (HUP) in 2003. The staff handling Mdm Lee's case offered her the option to resume business at the upgraded centre or to receive an ex-gratia payment upon giving up her stall. The latter option was wrongly offered as the staff had missed her written undertaking. Following the staff's mistake, Mdm Lee decided to quit hawking and was given the ex-gratia payment of $18,000.

The error was detected in April 2004. Subsequently, many attempts were made to contact Mdm Lee in writing and through personal home visits over a three-year period. When Mdm Lee was finally contacted in September 2007, she agreed to return the amount, and requested that a stall at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, be allocated to her so that she could resume her business. As there were no vacant stalls at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, Mdm Lee was offered a stall in other locations, but she rejected them.

Despite her agreement to make repayment, HDB heard nothing from Mdm Lee over the next three months. HDB then decided to make an official claim, serving a letter requesting Mdm Lee to return the money. HDB also extended the time for her to return the ex-gratia amount. The matter has now been amicably resolved. HDB has accepted her proposed instalment plan. She is also considering to take up a stall being offered to her.

In the past five years, out of more than 1,000 cases of ex-gratia payments handled, there have been three cases of wrong payments, including Mdm Lee's case. HDB is in discussion with the other stallholders on the repayment of the ex-gratia payment.

The management functions of HDB-owned markets and hawkers have been transferred to NEA since 2004. To avoid a re-occurrence of such incidents, NEA has tightened the checking procedures of ex-gratia payments. The manager-in-charge of the market/hawker centre will check on the stallholders' eligibility for ex-gratia payment and another senior officer will verify the eligibility before payment is made.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. Given that four years had passed between the time of payment and the claim for repayment, was it reasonable for HDB to demand that Mdm Lee returned the $18,000 in 21 day's time? Could HDB have contacted her again before sending the letter of demand, despite not having heard from her for the preceding three months?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Mr Speaker, as I have explained, HDB had actually sent many letters as well as personal visits to Mdm Lee and, in fact, had met up with her three months before the letter of demand was sent out. So, there was a meeting and there was an agreement to repay, but HDB did not hear from her ever since. After the letter of demand had been sent, we sat down with her again and had basically reached an amicable solution with her on an instalment plan.