Nonsense parking case, but is the judge mistaken as well too?

[bic_cherry]

Nonsense parking case, but is the judge mistaken as well too?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...t-condo-mc-for-not-issuing-him-car-park-label

"Mr Nanwani argued that the parking by-law is inconsistent with regulations which state that a management corporation shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property.
But Judge Ng found that the MC, which was constituted in March 1995, was not bound by the regulations, which came into effect in April 2005."

=========================
This part, I cannot agree with the judge.
How can the MC not be bound by new government regulations?

It's like saying that if new law was made for the worst drug trafficking offences to attract death penalty where it were just 20 years imprisonment prior, then those born before the law was enhanced would not be affected by it, how ridiculous would this be, since the action the law seeks to prevent is both urgent and necessary for the entire society to function properly from parliament's viewpoint.

So is the judge here saying that MC can ignore 'regulations which state that a management corporation shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property.'?
Or is this some legal technicality about MC vs MCST, such that the issue is with the careless or unfocused Straits Times reporter who has thrown shade at the judge as result of significant omissions, and thus ought to apologise and clarify the report.

In any case, the rule that MC 'shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property' seems so plainly sensible that parliament shouldn't even have needed to articulate it, unless to convey the messages that the judiciary is so capricious and irresponsible , they so often fail to apply reason in their judgements that unreasonable acts of defendants are routinely condoned. Shouldn't parliament give some respect to the judicial heirachy to establish case law, and trust judges to independently maintain the standard logic and reason and set the good example and standard for petioners to court to follow, rather than be handheld and told like children to do so?


Can someone with legal knowledge, clarify why the administration of law is in such a mess now, especially if there is indeed a difference between MC and MCST, since they are mostly the same function, except for perhaps a very small and minority difference in constitution only.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

By-laws are not regulations made by the government; they are rules made by the appointed MC of each MCST. By-laws are enforceable as long as they do not contradict regulations which seems to be the judge's interpretation here.

 

[Cottonmouth]

Is Nanwani a shitskin??
This fucker must have rented out the condo still want to park there. Fuck his mother's cheebye.

 

[LexLuthor]

Is Nanwani a shitskin??
This fucker must have rented out the condo still want to park there. Fuck his mother's cheebye.

Yes, he is.

CB kia cannot take NO for an answer. The judge already made it clear that even though the regulations state that "MC shall not unreasonably withhold its approval", in the case of the CB kia it was reasonable and justified. The CB kia doesn't understand the difference between the Rule and the Exception. He is suing the MC on the ground of Exception after violating the Rule.

 

[bic_cherry]

Yes, he is.

CB kia cannot take NO for an answer. The judge already made it clear that even though the regulations state that "MC shall not unreasonably withhold its approval", in the case of the CB kia it was reasonable and justified. The CB kia doesn't understand the difference between the Rule and the Exception. He is suing the MC on the ground of Exception after violating the Rule.

View attachment 181131

Oki, thanks for clarifying the difference between exception and rule.

But don't general laws apply uniformally after they are passed?

The law u have appended looks very relevant to this case, and ought to have applied, but the judge didn't exclude it based on weather it were the original rule or the exception to it, but that the entire rulebook didn't apply to the MC, because the rulebook postdated when the MC was first formed.

Then wouldn't such rulebooks be very confusing or arbitrary, if not useless, since although the rules they carry are obviously essential to the MC/MCST function, by strange reference to when the rule book was written, the rules for different MC/MCST differ.

Then what is the point of each parliament, to make specific laws for the specific generation most parliamentarians represent only?

Then the outcome is so many rulebooks that people start behaving that they are the law unto themselves too.

 

[LexLuthor]

Oki, thanks for clarifying the difference between exception and rule.

But don't general laws apply uniformally after they are passed?

The law u have appended looks very relevant to this case, and ought to have applied, but the judge didn't exclude it based on weather it were the original rule or the exception to it, but that the entire rulebook didn't apply to the MC, because the rulebook postdated when the MC was first formed.

Then wouldn't such rulebooks be very confusing or arbitrary, if not useless, since although the rules they carry are obviously essential to the MC/MCST function, by strange reference to when the rule book was written, the rules for different MC/MCST differ.

Then what is the point of each parliament, to make specific laws for the specific generation most parliamentarians represent only?

Then the outcome is so many rulebooks that people start behaving that they are the law unto themselves too.

Even though the report said the new Regulations do NOT apply to the MC in that case which was formed in 1995, 10 years before the new Regulations were introduced, the Court decided the matter on the question of reasonableness, and NOT because the new Regulations did not apply.

The new Regulations are "prohibitory provisions", same as the kpkb Paraolympian case. In a prohibitory provision, what should NOT be done is the Rule. In a mandatory provision, what should be done is the Rule.

So even if the new Regulations apply, they are NOT inconsistent with the by-laws of the Condominium. The new Regulations state: "You CB kia even though you are a co-owner of the Condominium you are NOT supposed to park your car in the common area without written approval from the MC." So what is written approval ? It's the parking sticker lah ! This is consistent with the by-laws - apply parking sticker or fuck off !

Then the new Regulations go on to say that the parking sticker must NOT be unreasonably withheld. So comes the test of reasonableness. Was the MC unreasonable in asking the Ah Neh to update his log book ? The simple answer is NO. It's an easy task, but the Ah Neh has big ego and cannot take NO for an answer.