Lost of Old Guards at 27th AGM on 27 Apr 2011

The ex chairman stood up and question the present chairman and the secretary as to why they have not vetted the AGM minutes and notices before it were send out to the Subsidiary Proprietors. Why his prepared ex chairman reports were not include.

Why was there an increased in the expenditure for the year

2010 and more deficit.

The present MA who only took over as at 1st January 2011

explained.Primarily there was an increased in property tax,

ultilities & water  charges and repairs.  

Why was there a drop of car park income. The difference of

income amount to about $8,642 (about $720 per month)

The bulk of the income was from containers charges. Less containers came into the complex as 2 major SP relocate their operation to another location 

Mr Ow ( a ex MC member who resigned on 20th Dec 2010 )

claimed that his proposal to sell 5 parking lots @ $80 x 12

months will help the MC in having an additional income of

$4,800 per annual, during his terms was turned

down.

click Car Park Issue

Note.

It was minuted in the previous meeting that the subject would be 

discussed further. The committee at that time has also been

pondering over whether there will a short fall of daily car park

income.  Parking charges in the complex is $1.20 per hour. On the

assumption that that Owner park his car for 4 hours per day for 25

days, The total income would have been $120 x 5 lots =

                                                                           $600 x 12 months

               Hourly Parking  Annual Total Income              =  $7,200.

[Any nursery student (except from "See Ka' Leow' University")]

Will know that it would be a overall loss of income and not an

additional income

commented that he have heard and notice that some ex committee members now parked their vehicles outside at the roadside to save cost as the LTA enforcement officer seldom come and take action. They can save $1.20 per hour if parked in the AIC Complex.

Those members also encourage their staffs / friends and others to park outside     

In the year 2009, Telco repaid some arrears from the rental of

the roof for IT purposes were paid. The repayment boost that

year income. In the year 2010, no extra ordinary income was

added to the accounts.

Therefore the accounts show a show a shortfall

The MC members who raised the questions are currently on the

26th Management Council and was aware of the accounts. The

accounts ending 31st December were approved in the General

Meeting. The objective to raise the questions are best known

to themselves as they have 3 months to get the accounts

verified prior to the AGM to get

click Minutes

a)  Why was there a provision of the increase in Managing

     Agent Fees? The fees were agreed on during the

     professional tender process for a new MA. This would be

     less than the fees quoted by the ex-MA for the current

     year if they were to be reappointed.

b)  The budget includes provisions for the general 

     maintenance of about 80 toilets @ about $250 each.

     Toilet doors, taps, pipes. leakage need to be change or 

     repaired

c)  There is also a provision to change or repair corridors Fire

     Exit doors.This a requirement by the Fire safety

     department. Each approved fire rated door cost about

     $1500 to $2000. There are more than 10 damaged doors.

d)  About $10,000 will be required to repair CCTV cameras in

     the complex, computers & soft-wares, CCTV monitors,

     CCTV at the lobbies. Some of the present equipments are

     faulty or were instructed to be taken off.

     Item b), c) and d) were brought up in 2010 but it were

     not discuss further or approved in any of the previous

     meetings

e)  To rectify and repair the Security guard house. The guard

     house and all the system in it were not earth wired and it

     was prone to short circuits.

     The matter has been brought to the attention to then MA

     & then chairman on many occasion. To them this was not

     an important issue.

(a)

Mr Chow,speaking in mandarin proposed to have 10, 12 or 14 council members. The MA, said under the Act only one choice shall be allowed. Mr Chow proposed that the meeting select 10 members to be elected as council members. It was seconded by Ms Josephine.

The ex chairman Mr Ng challenge the decision and proposed to have 14 members. He was seconded by Mr Ong.

He spoke on the reason and ask the SP present to read his open letter and openly ask members to have a no confident vote on a ex member. Mr Lee, stating his reasons and present his twisted and untrue facts.

He  wanted Mr Lee to give explanations and response to his allegations.

Mr Lee state that he will response at another time.

Mr Tommy, a SP would like to know about the Open letter and is not confident to cast his vote unless Mr Lee response to Mr Ng's remarks

Mr Ong support Mr Ng and enquired how many proxies Mr Lee got and how many the secretary have collected.

He wanted to know why Mr Lee have collected so much proxies. Is the proxies being used to ensured Mr Lee get himself elected into the committee.

He proposed that each member present can only cast one vote.

Mr Lee said that those who give him the proxies wants him to represent them as he have some interest with those who gave him the proxies.

The MA explained that according to the BMSM act, any person can gather any number of proxies and voting is by proxies or share values.

(b)

Mr Ng further put forth uncalled for remarks against Mr Lee. He

said that all the past ten years he has been friendly and has

been working closely with him until last year due to the

drawing of container lots saga and the objection of the selling

of 5 car park lots. He reiterated that Mr Lee threaten him by

saying he will get his lawyer to sue. 

Mr Lee defended and said he never used the words  "threaten"

but said that he will ask his lawyers to write to URA regarding

the sale of 5 car park lots and Mr Ng has also withdrawn the

word "threaten" in the previous meeting. Mr Ng apologised and

withdrawn the word "threaten" and also commented on the

relationship of Mr Lee and the Govt Agency.

He reminded those who were in the meetings that Mr Lee step

down as the chairman more than 10 years ago due to a Court

suit with a contractor.  

( The allegation was Not True - it was agreed at that time that a chairman should not serve more than five years and Mr Lee did not accept the chairmanship after that )

to be elected as the chairman as he has serve more than 3 years as

a chairman and proposed Mr Ng as the chairman for that year.

The initial 1st & 2nd chairman who retired remembers that there

were an understanding that the chairman of MCST 826 should serve

only 3 years and not more than 5 years. They are wondering why this

chairman serves more than 10 years and still consider trying to hold 

power and to control the MC.

(c) Mr Ng further remark that at the last AGM (26 th) , Mr

     Anthony Tay made the serious mistake to propose the

     election of the 4 office bearers. It should be decided at a

     general meeting. He also criticised Mr Tay for the comment

     that he guaranteed that DTZ will not continue to be the next

     MA. The personal uncalled remarks were unfair to Mr Tay

(d) Mr Ong stood up to say, he has came forward to serve the

    MC four years ago after hearing that the then MC has over

    spend the MC monies like the installation of the Canteen

    aluminium windows' stoppers which was billed few

    thousands dollars and the installation of a wooden meter

    box that cost $800 which were all overpriced.

    He alleged that Mr Lee high handedness has caused a unit

    owner on the 3rd floor to lose a lot money and the tenant

    have sued the MC and the legal cost that  the MC have to

    bear was $10,000.

    The then chairman in a recent general meeting said the

    cost was about $100,000. (very absurd)

    Both exaggerated the amount.

    The legal cost was $3,750.60                       

note:   according to records, the canteen sub committee chaired by

            Mr Ng (then the treasurer) including Mr A Koh & Mr Chua H has

            approved and signed the work order to have those items

            installed including an awning that cost more that $6,000.

            The then main council were not aware until that job were all

            completed

(e) Mr Ong claimed that he helped the MC saved monies by

   using his contractor who charge only $800 instead of the     

   current  licensed PUB contractor who charged about $1,800

   for cleaning all the roof water tanks including painting of he

   inside of the tanks and water testing (in compliance with the

   government requirements)                                                     

click Taps

          Note:  

        The licensed Certified PUB contractor was recommended by the

        then MA.They have been doing many other job assignments at

        other MCST managed by the then MA

6) Voting for the Decision of the Number of Council members

    The votes for having 10 council members was 58

    and the votes for      14 council members was 27

    The motion to be have 10 council members was accepted.

The following members were proposed with the supported

votes.

MEETING CLOSE