Latest news with #LighthouseLaw
CNA
4 days ago
- Business
- CNA
Bukit Canberra hawkers contractually bound to provide free meals under pay-it-forward scheme, lawyers say
SINGAPORE: Hawkers' participation in a scheme to provide free meals at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is mandatory based on the language of their tenancy agreements, said lawyers consulted by CNA. A 2024 version of the contract seen by CNA states that a stall tenant 'shall participate' in the pay-it-forward programme 'as implemented and/or directed by the company', requiring them to set aside 100 meals at their own cost for the scheme. Another clause requires the tenant to provide at least two menu items below S$3 and display them prominently. The tenant shall also offer a 10 per cent discount on their other menu items to CHAS Blue, Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation card holders, another clause read. Managing partner of Lighthouse Law Adrian Wee said it does not appear from the wording of these clauses that the hawkers' participation in the scheme is voluntary. "The use of the word 'shall' suggests that the tenant is obliged to participate in the scheme and that this is one of the several obligations imposed on the tenant under the tenancy. "The fact that the scheme has not yet started has no bearing on whether the tenant will eventually be obliged to participate if and when the scheme starts," he added. Lawyer Chooi Jing Yen also agreed that the word "shall" means the hawkers legally have to participate in the scheme. "Technically, if the hawkers fail to comply, that would be a breach of the contract," he said. Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is one of several social enterprise hawker centres in Singapore. In 2024, then-Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment Koh Poh Koon said that all social enterprise hawker centre operators must propose ways to ensure affordable food options are available as part of their tender proposals. "So far operators have committed that all stalls in their centres will provide at least one value meal option. This is not an attempt to force hawkers to sell all of their dishes at low prices. "Instead, the intent is for operators to work with hawkers to offer a range of food offerings at different price points," he had said at the time. Value meals only account for about 5 to 20 per cent of meals sold in social enterprise hawker centres, he noted. "Hawkers are not expected to make a loss selling value meals." The operator of Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre took to Facebook on Tuesday night to address the free meals programme. According to Canopy Hawkers Group, it received 'overwhelming interest' during the stall application stage three years ago, and it was 'not easy' to select tenants. "Other than offering affordable and quality meals, we also incorporated into our selection criteria hawkers who shared our vision to pay-it-forward to the community, through the offering of free meals to the low income. "As hawkers were selected on this basis, we incorporated Pay-it-Forward into the tenancy contract," the operator said in its post. After the hawker centre opened, the operator discussed the programme with the stallholders further, and reduced the original arrangement of 30 meals per month to a total of 100 meals over the three-year tenancy period, the post read. This revised arrangement was reflected in a contract variation around August 2023, said Canopy Hawkers Group. In the Facebook post, it noted that the programme has not officially started and the preparatory work has not been done yet. "So there is no obligation on the part of the hawkers, and no penalties to speak of. "While hawkers have voluntarily agreed to participate at the point of selection, we also acknowledged the view that charity should not be contractual, and this is something to be reviewed again when the Pay-It -Forward programme is ready." Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC Ong Ye Kung had said on Monday that there are no penalties if hawkers "do not or are unable to provide the meals". The health minister also said the initiative had yet to start. Mr Wee said if the tenants were selected on the basis that they were willing to participate in the programme to provide free meals, then it is not surprising that their participation is written into the tenancy agreement in the form of a "binding obligation". "In general, if something is voluntary, meaning the tenant has the option of not doing it, then that choice should be reflected in the terms of the agreement between parties, or, better yet, omitted altogether," he said. Mr Chooi pointed out that accepting tenants based on their willingness to participate in the programme and the operator's decision not to enforce the scheme seemed contradictory. If Canopy Hawker Group later decides to enforce the contract or the relevant penalties despite having said publicly that they will not do so, hawkers may rely on the legal principle of 'estoppel' as a defence, he added. "(This means that) the hawkers can say, 'sorry, despite what has been written in the contract, you have separately and publicly stated that this is a voluntary obligation'," said Mr Chooi. The fact that the hawkers are not providing free meals in accordance with the contract does not mean that the operator can penalise them for not keeping to the terms, he added. From its post on Facebook, it appears that the operator has also acknowledged this point, Mr Chooi said. He added that the post seems to imply that a voluntary charity scheme need not or should not have been included in the contracts in the first place, especially if they were not going to enforce it against the hawkers. Amarjit Singh of Amarjit Sidhu Law said if the scheme is for charity, it should be voluntary. 'If hawkers agree to participate and set aside free meals, then it should be ok. But the imposition of penalties is unreasonable,' he added, noting that Mr Ong has also confirmed that the hawkers will not be penalised for not giving out free meals. The terms of a contract need to be reasonable, fair and not onerous, and should not put either party at a disadvantage, he said, adding that in general, the courts would decide on the reasonableness of a contract.
CNA
04-08-2025
- Politics
- CNA
CNA Explains: Judicial mercy – what is this 'very rarely' invoked power of the courts?
SINGAPORE: Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng pleaded guilty on Monday (Aug 4) to a charge of abetting former Transport Minister S Iswaran in obstructing justice. A second charge for instigating Iswaran to obtain flights and a hotel stay from Ong will be taken into consideration during sentencing, which was adjourned to Aug 15. Both the prosecution and defence called for the court to exercise judicial mercy and impose only a fine, in light of what Ong's lawyer described as "a devastating cocktail of medical problems". What is judicial mercy? It's an extraordinary measure in which the sentence of an accused person is reduced on humanitarian grounds, criminal lawyer Adrian Wee of Lighthouse Law said. He said that factors considered by the court in applying judicial mercy include the severity of the crime and others such as the risk of re-offending. 'Ultimately it is a balancing exercise between the need to punish offenders and putting an individual, for example, one who is gravely ill, at risk,' said Mr Wee. Ms Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer described judicial mercy as the tempering of punishment imposed, in light of the offender's personal circumstances. "The court would take into account the offender's exceptional circumstances and ameliorate the punishment imposed to reflect the court's and society's humanity towards the offender's plight," she said. Mr Sanjiv Vaswani of Vaswani Law Chambers meanwhile defined it as the power that the courts have to impose a lenient sentence in light of exceptional mitigating circumstances. In exercising judicial mercy, the court "effectively displaces the culpability of the offender as a central consideration, with considerations of humanity", he added. In Ong's case, the court heard how cancer had damaged his skeletal system and severely compromised his immune system, making him vulnerable to life-threatening infections. He also suffers from complications which could exacerbate his risk of infection and gangrene. His lawyer Cavinder Bull said Ong's risk of infection would increase in prison due to the movement of people, in turn increasing his risk of death. In contrast, Ong's home environment is more controlled, and he has access to medical personnel who have been treating him for years. How does it differ from a mitigating factor? Ms Khoo said the court considers whether judicial mercy ought to be exercised only after considering all mitigating factors and arriving at a sentence. If exercised, the eventual sentence would be lowered to reflect the court's sympathy to the offender. "When exercising judicial mercy, the court is not so concerned with the eventual sentence being proportional to the offending behaviour," she said. "This is considered at the mitigation stage. In exercising judicial mercy, the court is concerned about alleviating the effects of imprisonment on the basis that it is the humane thing to do given a specific circumstance." Lawyer Chooi Jing Yen, who runs his own eponymous law firm, said everyone is entitled to raise mitigating factors when they plead guilty to an offence, but not everyone is entitled to judicial mercy. "If successfully raised, the sentence will be substantially outside the norm, and generally cannot be relied on as a precedent for other cases,' he said. Veteran criminal lawyer Ramesh Tiwary said judicial mercy was "more than merely mitigatory because it shifts the focus of the sentence to account for the illness", rather than being punitive. Lawyer Mark Yeo from Fortress Law said the purpose of citing ill-health as a mitigating factor would be to persuade the court that a longer term of imprisonment would have a disproportional impact on an offender, compared with someone without the same medical condition. A reduction in sentencing with ill health as a mitigating factor would not be as significant compared to if judicial mercy was exercised, he said. Why still prosecute if judicial mercy will be exercised? While it is solely up to the prosecution to decide who to prosecute and what for, lawyers offered some insight. Ms Khoo said that convicting an offender shows that they are guilty of an offence. Just because judicial mercy is eventually exercised does not mean that the offender is not guilty or not liable. Mr Chooi pointed to the possibility of a "signalling effect" in the form of a message of deterrence still being sent to the general public. He also noted that if a court exercises judicial mercy, it cannot step outside legislative bounds or where sentences are fixed. This means that if an offence has a mandatory minimum jail term, or has to be punishable by death - such as in capital offences involving murder and drug trafficking - then that is the sentence that must be meted out. In Ong's case, the offence of abetting obstruction of justice carries a jail term of up to seven years, a fine, or both. While both the prosecution and defence have called for judicial mercy to be exercised here, the court has the discretion to decide if it chooses to do so. How often is judicial mercy invoked? Lawyers all told CNA the exercise of judicial mercy was 'very rarely' applicable in Singapore. Mr Tiwary said: "The accused must have a terminal illness or an illness which would be life-threatening in a prison environment." Mr Chooi said the threshold for invoking it was "extremely high" and would take very exceptional cases, by and large on the grounds of ill health. In 2018, a man's jail term of three weeks was reduced to a S$250 (US$194) fine on account of his terminal cancer. Lim Kah Heng, 68, had pleaded guilty to a charge of corruption. He was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia shortly after he was sentenced. On appeal, the prosecution did not object to Lim's application for judicial mercy. A High Court Judge said he accepted that grounds existed for judicial mercy. He noted that corruption was a serious offence, and imposed a fine. In 2008, retail tycoon Tang Wee Sung was sentenced to one day's jail and fined S$17,000 after he tried to buy a kidney and lied about it. One of the two charges he pleaded guilty to had mandatory imprisonment. Tang suffered from end-stage renal disease among other medical conditions, and was granted judicial mercy by the court. Tang's case was raised by Mr Bull during mitigation, with the defence counsel noting that Tang received only one day of jail as a jail term was mandatory. According to a past judgment on Tang's case, the court said the sentence imposed would 'reduce the risk of aggravation of Tang's extreme ill health.'
CNA
30-06-2025
- Business
- CNA
Banana Leaf Apolo says supplier payment issue resolved, winding up application will be withdrawn
SINGAPORE: Indian restaurant Banana Leaf Apolo said on Monday (Jun 30) its poultry supplier had been paid, resolving the dispute that prompted the winding up court application against the eatery. The chain said in a statement that it made payment to Toh Thye San Farm on Jun 27, which a CNA source has confirmed. The payment to the company, which is represented by Lighthouse Law, was made three days after a notice was published in the Government Gazette. Banana Leaf Apolo CEO, C Sankaranathan, said that the application will be withdrawn at a court hearing on Jul 4, with no order as to costs. "The issue between both parties has been resolved in full," Mr Sankaranathan added. "There are no ongoing disputes between the parties." Established in 1974, Banana Leaf Apolo runs two restaurants in Little India and checks by CNA indicated both outlets were open as of last Friday. It is known for its fish head curry. Last November, the Singapore Food Agency imposed a two-week suspension on its Race Course Road branch after the eatery chalked up 14 demerit points in 12 months.
CNA
27-06-2025
- Business
- CNA
Banana Leaf Apolo faces winding up application filed by poultry supplier
SINGAPORE: Indian restaurant Banana Leaf Apolo, known for its fish head curry, is facing a court application by a poultry supplier to be wound up, according to a notice published in the Government Gazette. The notice was published on Tuesday (Jun 24). Toh Thye San Farm, the poultry supplier, filed the application on Jun 11, with a hearing scheduled for Jul 4. The company is represented by Lighthouse Law. The Banana Leaf Apolo's creditors or contributors who wish to support or oppose the application can appear at the hearing, said the notice. Established in 1974, The Banana Leaf Apolo currently has two branches, both in Little India. Checks by CNA indicated that, as of Friday evening, both outlets were still operating In November last year, its outlet along Race Course Road had its licence suspended by the Singapore Food Agency for two weeks after accumulating 14 demerit points within 12 months. The restaurant accumulated six points for selling unclean food, four points for failing to keep its premises clean and another four for not ensuring its appliances were kept clean.
