OPEN letters ex chairman

[==========================================================================] 

[================================================================================================]

Date: 26"' October. 2010

Chairman Address at 5"' Council Meeting

This afternoon, I will explain and clarify the main purpose of my Open Letter which is circulated to all Members together with today's Agenda -

I will not discuss anymore all the arguments I put forth as detailed in the Open Letter which I presumed all Members have already read it before attending today meeting as I, like many of you, do not want to waste time.

I think my arguments are clearly stated, and if you choose not to agree and instead wants to proceed with the decision to draw the lines based on unsubstantiated arguments, this is your prerogative and is your opinion and you have absolute rights to decide. No arguments, but this is a dangerous trend.

I know the MC has discussed this issue on the painting of dotted car park lines over the red container parking lines over the past few months and voted twice on this same issue.

I am fully aware that when I circulate this Open Letter there will be unhappiness among some Members and I will attract many criticisms. Then why am I writing this Letter ?

My primary reason for doing this is for me to observe your reactions and to feel how each of you will react as well as to confirm my suspicion on the extent of the influence of a "Back Hand" working behind the scene

Please don't be confused by all the talks behind the scene, and truly judge for yourself what is really working for the best interests of AIC.

Not to my surprise, it does indeed lead me to form certain conclusions based on my quick observations which I shall share with you now.

So, the main purpose of my open Letter is NOT to argue further on the dotted car park lines, but to reinforce my suspicion. Please don't misunderstand and let me elaborate and clarify.

1. When I first changed the meeting date to Monday 25th as I needed to fly to Tokyo this morning which was subsequently cancelled. I understand some Members are not happy and if I ever have made you unhappy, it was not my intention.

I heard some Members remarked that why do we need to change the date, if Chairman is not around. Mr Thomas, can chair the meeting. Fine, this is correct.

But to these Member or Members who made this kind of remarks, my reply to you is that you do not even understand the proper protocol                           of conducting a Meeting particularly when there is an important or controversial issues to be discussed. So, if you do not understand, it is better you keep the comments to yourself.

 2. Secondly, many of the Members are angry and question why the Chairman still wants

to talk about this issue when it has been already voted twice. He is definitely bending towards Mr Richard Ong and fighting with him. Nothing is going to move if the Chairman does not approve then what is use of voting if the Chairman alone can decide whether to implement the decision which has been voted and approved. All these remarks or comments are rubbish .... sorry for using this word.

Gentlemen, as I stated earlier, it is not my intention to talk about the arguments anymore period. If the voting has been done just go ahead. However, I will register my objections accordingly stating clearly the reasons for my objection.

Second point, on the accusation that I am now ending 100% towards Mr. Richard Ong side because of my Open Letter---all these talks are very silly. Let me assure you all, once and for all, I am one hundred and one percent definitely sure, I am not bending towards anybody. Maybe there is someone among us who wants you to believe in this wrongful perception so as to create confusion and to divide the MC.

As the Chairman, I have always been adopting a neutral stand. This is my principle. I have my own mind and I make my own analysis and Judgment. I will not hear other people gossips behind the back. I make my own decision and form my own opinion. However, many of you may perceive otherwise as there are people who want you to think that way that I am bending towards Mr. Ong. I say one more time---this is definitely not true and it's up to you to believe my words or listen to other people gossips.

Third point, let me also assure you 100%, 1 do respect the decision of the MC and will implement the decisions taken and approved by the MC. In this particular case of dotted car park lines., I purposely issued this Open Letter to provide me with an opportunity to assess how manipulative is this "Back Hand" behind the scene, and how effective is the influence on some of the MC Members.

Sadly to say, this car park case has strengthened and reinforced my suspicion and convince me further that decisions now and in future will, most of the times, be made by this group of Members. I concluded that this "Special Interest Group" wield too much influence over some of you.

For example, in the last AGM, Mr. Anthony Tay, proposed a Resolution to change the Appointment of the 4 key Holders via voting in the AGM instead of leaving this decision to the 14 MC Members to choose the Key Appointment Holders.

I, as chairman of the AGM, objected to this as I feel it is much more appropriate for 14 Members to choose these key Appointment Holders as they know the Members well after having worked together for so many years and will be in the best position to decide and make a judgment. At the AGM, the SPs will not know enough the personality of each Members, and how can they decide then.

Despite this logical argument, at the end, I was defeated, as Mr. Lee had 19 Proxies (with another 8 waiting in line) and together with any one other Member with 8 or 9 Proxies they will control almost half, 50%, of the available voting rights. Of course, I will be defeated and voted down although they did not vote me out. This was my 1st experience and I noted personally the vote counts.

Gentlemen, ask yourself, why does a person need to go around (I do not believe that all 19 SPs will offer voluntarily) for Mr. Lee to act as their Proxies --- the only reason is he wants to make sure he has enough voting rights to continue to control effectively (behind the scene), and to a great extent influence the outcome of all MC decisions.

This high number of Proxies obtained by a Single Member has never ever happened before. As I understand, in all previous AGMs, some Members only had a few Proxities usually less than 10.

In this dotted car park lines case, again, despite all my arguments which I think is very logical and make good sense, yet again, I was defeated. 7 or 8 of you voted to go ahead to draw the lines with 4 or 5 against and probably 2 or 3 abstain or not sure (as one or two are absence from the meeting when voting was taken).

Hence, I concluded that this MC Committee is now divided roughly into 7-4-3, and I can't help but feel strongly that, in future, all decisions proposed by this group of 7 or 8, Special Interest Group, will be approved no matter how illogical or weak in their arguments. I feel this MC cannot function probably now.

Besides these Two decisions, in future, I am 100% sure, there will be No.3, 4, & 5, etc which I do not want to be part of it. Just watch out for it, and it will be coming.

Lastly, you all recalled the Emergency Meeting I called on the five season parking case, Mr Lee told me clearly over the phone without mistake that he has already instructed  his lawyers to file a Report to the URA.

This is indeed very very serious and I don't take it lightly. Mr. Lee has lawyers and I too have many lawyer friends including the ex-President of the Law Society who said to me that although this is not a direct threat, but it does smell of a very serious warning.

It strongly implies to the Chairman, "You better watch your actions and be careful, I have my Lawyers on standby, anytime, if you do something wrong a Report will be filed against you and/or the MC to the relevant Authority accordingly".

At the end of the last Emergency Meeting, before he left, he told me, "No hard feeling". You know what---it is like someone giving you a tight slap on the face, and then said to you, no hard feeling, your face is so smooth and I just like to touch it".

So, what is he trying to prove? I don't know.

Following the outcome of the voting of the above mentioned two issues---Anthony proposal and the car park lines---I will now describe myself as only a "Lame Duck Chairman" only in name but has no influence to make the RIGHT decision. The real power lies in the "Manipulative Hand" acting behind the scene.

Do I want to be in this position ? Or does any of you want to be in this position ? Obviously not, right !

As many of us present here know, Mr. Lee was once the Chairman of AIC for many years before he resigned and stepped down as the Chairman. During that time, in my opinion, he was really running the show, everyone listened to him and did not argue much as he was perceived to be knowledgeable and seemed to know everything. He absolutely had influential control over the MA and the management of the AIC Complex. However, please go and find out the reasons why Mr. Lee did not continue to volunteer his services as the Chairman.

During my days as the Chairman, there was one occasion where the MC was sued by one of the SPs over the allocation or usage of electric power. It was rather messy and I needed to do a lot of further work to prepare the case together with the lawyers.

This arose because of the communications between Mr. Lee and the MA resulting in some information being given to the SP who, in the end, lost a few hundred thousand dollars including rentals incurred, delay in starting the operations and the need to move to another location. During this difficult period, the MC demonstrated great sincerity towards offering any assistance where possible to the said SP to find the best appropriate

Solution. Anyway, finally, the matter was not pursued by the SP, but the MC incurred more than S$10,000 on legal fees

Lastly, the most outrageous case was the instigation by some MC Members for 3 SPs to write in to the MC and complained about the toilet renovation implying that there was corruption on the part of one Member. One of the 3 SPs was Darren's father, but I never once asked him who was the person who approached his father to sign the complaint letter. I am sure Darren knows.

Besides, the complaint went all the way to the CPIB who in turn asked the BCA to investigate. Finally, after detailed investigations by the Chairman and clarifications with both the CPIB and BCA, there was no case of corruption or mismanagement on the part of the MC. A very detailed Report on this was written by the Chairman and circulated among all Members. Subsequently, Mr. Kuah resigned from the MC.

Gentlemen, it is no fun and tiring, if there are Members who want to "Char", and it is not healthy and waste of time leading to high tension among the MC Members.

As I said before, I joined the MC to make some good friends and I do not mind to contribute part of my time to help to manage the AIC in the best interests of the complex. I do not come in to make enemies or to be always on guard just in case someone will serve me with a lawyer letter because of some innocent mistakes. It is no longer meaningful.

Finally, Gentlemen, I think the MC should not be making a decision based on targeting a particular Member or in favour of any particular Member or special interest group. All MC decisions should be made in the best interests of AIC Complex and on behalf of all SPs.

*So, Gentlemen, this is my Resignation Letter. I will resign as the Chairman of AIC complex as I do not want to be one nor I wish to be labeled a "Lame Duck Chairman" as well as a MC Member with immediate effect. Please select someone else to takeover the Chair. I think we need a change.

Before I go, Mr. Lee, do you want to say something or any Members ?

 [==========================================================================]

Return to Menu