Already happen In the Committee
20th April 2011
In REPLY to the Open Letter,
Re: Vote of No – confidence in Mr. Lxx
distributed to you through your Letter Box by four ex council members
It is to the interest of all SP to attend the 27th Annual General Meeting to be held on 26th April 2011. Any Subsidiary Proprietor has the right not to vote for candidates they feel that the candidate will not contribute to the Management Council.
The contents in the Open
Letter distributed are
NOT TRUE FACTS but DISTORTED FACTS
The ex-chairman who was at the helm
and has been controlling the MC for more than 10 years finally resigned on 20th December 2010. He has send in his resignation 3 times in the last 2 years and have self withdrawn them.
Ask
him WHY he resigned ??, [ spending a lot of time investigating into other MC affairs ]
WHY ??
when he is not interested in making a come back, wrote the unpleasant
and
distorted letter.
THE FOUR WHO SIGNED are :-
1) the then chairman, the one who allows the Renovation of Toilets
contract signed to be Back dated & stalled the redrawing of Red
Container Lots to white Lots for 6 months, the one who has been
controlling the MC for more than 10 years.
2) the one whose friend renovates the 1 & 2nd level Toilets at $100,265
3) the one who was the supporting the Toilet Renovation Project
4) the one who wanted to sell 5 car park lots, who rudely walks out of
the monthly MC meeting twice without due respect to the rest and the
chair.
Blogger Pereria
You
begin to realise that every time, the ex sucker writes, usually its threats,
talk cock, talk big, talk down and half truths come out….Jo
These are indicative of their desperation!
There
will be more and more credible owners coming out and telling us that
insane guy has run out of steam and ideas to manage. Silly man !!!
Don’t you think so too and the fact that they have managed to surround themselves with the same kind of shit makes them smelly.
The FACTS:-
For the Year 2010, under the leadership of the then chairman, few things was done for the Management Corporation.
- Approximately 6 months were wasted on discussion on the redrawing of container lots to car park lots.
- Over 1 month on the issue of selling 5 car park lots and the attempt to discredit Mr Lee by bringing up past issue not related to the MC
- 1- 2 months on the proposal of appointing a MA, criticising the members (appointed by the then chairman ) to arrange for the selection of a new MA and trying to convince the members that DTZ, the MA should be retained. The then chairman failed to get members support.
- During the past few
months the MC change four Property Managers.The PE from the MA cannot
work with that group or tolerate their interferences
- The MA resigned on 1st
Dec 2010 giving one month notice. Without the support of
the MA, the then chairman resigned. (the MC was not aware that the MA have resigned until on 20th Dec 2010)
- The then MA reconfirmed their resignation on 20th Dec 2010
- The then Chairman was in total control of the MC, making and overrides all decision, even on voting matters where decision has been made and approved. ( like drawing of white lots into the Red container parking lots )
- The then Chairman also resigned on 20th Dec 2010
- Mr Lee, (as the Treasurer) has not interfere in any decisions making of the MC.
Allegation
in the
Letter
In the 3r' MC Meeting held on 15th July, 2008, Mr. Lim Hong Leong (ex-MA from DTZ), the then Managing Agent informed that Mr. Lee brought an old compressor to the Maintenance Office and requested the MC to purchase the run down compressor for S$250, however, the MC did not agree as the compressor was never used by the building Technicians. A cheque was actually raised and was in the hands of Mr. Lee, but was not deposited and he agreed to return the cheque by the following week.
THE FACTS
1. A brand new air compressor costing $800 (see
invoice) was loan to the MA for
2 years. The compressor was used by the technicians to do spray painting of
the fences,
wall, security guard house etc. Mr Lee requested the compressor to
be returned to his company.
2.
As
the compressor was not returned to the company, an invoice was issue
on 30/4/2008 or $250 to the MC. On the invoice, the technician Mr Asmi
acknowledged that the compressor was in their store since 2007
3. The
MA – Mr Lim HL authorised the payment and issued a cheque for
payment.
4. Mr
Lee did not sign the cheque, because according to the BMSM Act, he has
to declare his interest first before accepting the cheque.
5. The
matter was brought up at the 3rd
MC meeting on 15th July 2008 and the
MA’s technicians under instruction claimed
that they have never used it. MC
decided to return the compressor.
Allegation
in the
Letter
Free Mobile Phone
In the 3rd MC Meeting held on 15a' July, 2008, the Managing Agent (MA) also informed
the meeting that a mobile phone was given free as promotion when we signed up with Singtel. Mr. Lee pointed out specifically at the Meeting that the Contract was arranged by the Property Executive, Mr. William Tay, and not him. Mr. Lee then asked for a copy of the signed Contract for verification. When presented, the then Chairman checked and it clearly showed beyond any doubts that both Mr. Lee and the then Secretary signed the Contract on behalf of the MC. Before the said. meeting, Mr. William Tay, the Property Executive, has asked Mr. Lee for the return of the mobil phone which Mr. Lee then duly. returned, and which was subsequently auctioned off for S$50.00.
THE FACTS
The MC used Starhub as the Broadband provider. When the
service contract expired, the PE arranged it to be switch to SingTel which was cheaper
and provide more attractive services. The broadband service package includes
free email accounts, web pages and a free hand phone and free line for one
year and web monitoring .The MA and then chairman
was not
happy to change provider. The web motoring link our complex cameras
system to it. Anyone having the given internet IP address can view every
happenings of the drive ways, lifts, lobbies, entrance and exit of the
complex. One or two MC members and the MA /staffs felt that their
movements can be monitored through the web and were unhappy. The one or
two MC members who objected were concerned that their operation of their
businesses on the complex driveways, common areas etc, on regular basis
can be viewed by any Owners /Tenant going into the MC website.
Recordings will be proof of the encoachments of common property.
The contract was was signed by the then secretary (Mr Lee) and the treasurer. The MA & then chairman & the MC members involved used the excuse of who was the one to arrange the Singtel contract and the one who signed it to try to convince the rest of the Council that the decision was unwise and also to imply that Mr Lee has dishonestly retained the handphone.
The phone in its original packing, was all the while with the PE, Mr. William Tay,
which he produced immediately to the MC for inspection.
Para 2.2 15th July 2009 Meeting
The phone in its original packing was sold to Mr Thomas Leow for $50.00 and was never auctioned as claimed. This was recorded in Para 5.5 27th Oct 2009 Meeting as
[ The meeting agreed to dispose and sell the hand phone to Mr Thomas Leow at a price of $50.00 ]
On Decoding of ex- chairman car park disc
Allegation
in the
Letter
Cancellation of Ex-Chairman Car Park Disc.
Following the resignation of the Ex-Chairman. on 20th December, 2010, and before he had a convenient opportunity to return the parking disc, Mr. Lee on 3rd January, 2011 went to the guardhouse and specifically instructed the car park Supervisor, Miss Yati, to de-code and cancel the ex-Chairman's disc. The instruction was clearly recorded in the Guardhouse Log Book. When confronted, Mr. Lee strongly denied having given such instructions and attributed it to "miscommunication and misunderstanding" as minuted in the 8" Council Meeting on 25" January, 2011.
The correct procedure
would have been for the Property Executive to either
write a letter or to see the ex-Chairman personally and
request for the disc to be returned. That
is a proper way to proceed. One does not need to cancel or decode
immediately without giving any Notice.
Is the ex Chairman trying to Control the MC and instruct the Council
what to do.
THE FACTS
On Decoding of ex- chairman car park disc
The then chairman resigned on 20th December 2010 and did not return the car park entry pass disc. Another council Member Mr.Ow, who resigned on the same day, return his disc the next day. The then chairman has to pass by the security guard house twice every day and he claimed that he has no opportunity to return it.(for approximately 25 days ? ? - until he got stopped for the unauthorise use.)
The free entry pass disc is a privilege given to serving Council members and is not an entitlement and should be returned immediately when he resign
Mr Lee, a key office bearer, in-charge
of security and car park sub-committee, give
instruction to the Security supervisor
to decode all returned used discs on
3rd Jan 2010. ( After14 days and not immediately as claimed )
The then chairman used the car park entry pass on 2 occasions after he has resigned. 25 days after he resigned, on 13th Jan 2011 the then chairman’s car
failed to gain entry into the complex by using the car park disc.
The then chairman wanted Mr Lee to
apologise to him for giving instruction to the
supervisor to decode the disc
and also insisted that Mr Lee to step down as the
Treasurer and to resign from
the MC.
click to see Demand Letter
** Note: Mr Lee has been the Treasurer for 2 years.
Allegation
in the
Letter
Mr. Said, our ex-security guard, who had worked in AIC for more than 20 years, approached the then Chairman for a loan of S$5,000 from the MC with monthly repayment to be deducted from his salary. The purpose was to pay for his medical fees and daughter's Polytechnic School fees. The Council approved, but the loan was not made due to delay caused by Mr. Lee's insistence on investigating Mr. Said's credit worthiness a procedure which in principle was not wrong, but which, in this circumstances at the time, lacked compassionate. We learned that Mr. Said eventually obtained finance assistance atom his relatives.We took issue during the 6th Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 30th November, 2010, of the S$5,000 loan from the MC, . On clarification with Said subsequently, he said that there was no such loan. Again, Mr. Lee made an incorrect statement and not telling the truth.
Note : puzzling ?? WHY it took Three (3) and half years for the then Chairman to raise the Issue. In the 3.5 years there was at least 35 General Meetings for him to raise the issue. IT is an INSULT to his own integrity
THE FACTS
On Staff Issue
In May 2007, Mr Mohd Saaid (Security
Supervisor) requested a loan of $5,000
from the MC. Council approved a budget of $5,000 and Mr Thomas Leow & Mr
Lee would look into this matter before offering the loan to
Saaid
(Para 5.3 4th May 2007 Meeting)
After 1-2 meetings, there was no confirmation to lent the money to Mr Saaid. During the council meetings, it was agreed that the MC will help and try to arrange other loan for him. Mr Thomas Leow and Mr Lee were assigned to help him
Mr. Saaid manage to solve his problem and it
was recorded in the council meeting
(Para 5.3 26th June 2007 Meeting) as
Mr. Mohd Saaid Bin Ahmad received advice from Mr Lee and Mr Thomas Leow for his financial difficulties. His relative also helped him to ease the immediate bank loan Saaid had no further request and appreciated the Council’s kind assistance
The Council did not approved the loan as alleged by the writer and said that Mr Lee lacked compassionate which was not true.
After 3.5 years at 30th Nov 2010 (6th Council Meeting) the then chairman, in his reflection notes , said he regrets that he did not help Saaid
Take note that none of the 4 Signatory’s ever visited Saaid, who has been hospitalised and now is a handicap. " How can they clarified with Saaid when they do not know where is he or and he do not have any telephone"
According
to observers,
the then chairman who claimed to be kind and benevolent
have never
make any attempt to help Saaid, even until today
Allegation
in the
Letter
On Arrogance
& High Handedness
The cancellation of the ex-Chairman car park definitely as mentioned earlier showed beyond doubt his arrogance and high-handedness acting unilaterally all by himself. He should have simply asked the Property Executive to request for the return of the disc instead of ordering the cancellation or decoding it.
THE FACTS
1.
It is the
routine job of the Security to screen and decode any unauthorised car
park entry
disc. Automatically, once a person ceased to be council member, he
should return his FREE car park entry disc. He no longer enjoys
that privilege.
The then chairman should graciously return the disc without any
request as he
knew of the rules and has been chairman for more than 10 years.
Another
member who resigned the same day immediately returned it the next
day. The
then chairman need not wait until it was asked.
Does it mean that if no want ask or decode the pass, he can use it forever?
2. (a) A circular was given out that on 20th Sept 2010, that the Council has sold out
5 Nos of Car park season
parking lots. This was given by the instruction of
someone.
(b) Mr
Lee when he receive the notice of sale emailed the then chairman to say
that he is never or is a part of the committee decision and will file a report to
the
URA car park division that the MC will
convert the car park to season
Allegation
in the
Letter
Minutes
of the Emergency Council Meeting held on Friday, 20 September, 2010
reported
that Mr. Lee told the then Chairman over the telephone conversation that he
had already instructed his Lawyers to
file a report to the URA over the implementation
of the sale of the proposed Five season parking lots in AIC as suggested by Mr. Richard
Ong in order to boost the MC funds.
This was totally unacceptable and it undermines
the MC Authority. There was no need to involve any Lawyers or outside parties as such
issue could easily be resolved at the Council Meeting. Again, it clearly showed
his
arrogance and high-handedness.The use of Lawyers
to threaten the then Chairman and
the MC is absolutely unacceptable
THE FACTS
2.(a) During the council meeting it was discussed to
put on trial basis, to put up 5
season parking lots for bidding.
If there will be more than five applicants
balloting will be. This was not done so and the MA sold five lots in one day
(b)
A circular was given out that on 20th Sept 2010, that the
Council has sold
out 5 Nos of Car park season
parking lots. This was given by the
instruction of someone.
(c) Mr
Lee when he receive the notice of sale emailed the then chairman to say
that he is never or is a part of the committee decision and will file a report to
the
URA car park division that the MC will
convert the car park to season
(c) Mr
Lee did not use Lawyers to threaten the then Chairman. Another
Council member
confirmed that Mr Lee never threatened the then
chairman in the meeting.
The then chairman apologised and withdraw
the said word
“threatened”.
[ The statement was repeated at the 27th Annual General Meeting and it wachallenged by Mr Lee. The ex chairman Mr Ng apologise again and retract
the words " threatened" and confirmed that what Mr Lee said was "he will
get his Lawyers to write to URA regarding the change of free parking to
"Paid Parking" ]
Does the MC gain the extra income of 5 lots at $80 each and losses parking fees
at $1.20 per hour @ 8hrs per day for 25 days.
The scheme is questionable and is under consideration.
Allegation
in the
Letter
On 17th June, 2008, Mr. Lee, acting on his own, sent an email (as AIC Secretary
on behalf of the MC) to Mr. Edmund Tie,
the Chairman of DTZ, informing Mr.Tie that
the MC was collectively inviting
him (Mr. Tie) to attend the AIC Council Meeting
scheduled on 2e June, 2008.
This was a misrepresentation to Mr. Tie
as Mr.Lee has at
no time whatsoever discussed with the Council the idea
of inviting Mr. Edmund Tie His
action again was
unilateral and undermined the Authority of the MC. It
again reflected
his arrogance and high-handedness attitude.
THE FACTS
3. (a) In June 2007, Mr Lee as MC secretary, invited
Mr Tie, the
chairman of DTZ to a council meeting on 17th June
2007 to
resolve some conflicts between the MA & some Council members
Under the BMSM Act, the secretary is authorise to do so.
The then chairman felt that his authority was undermined and wants total control of the MC in which he claimed that Mr Lee was arrogant.
On Complaint Letter Received
Allegation
in the
Letter
A complaint Letter dated 2nd May, 2008 was received by the then Chairman on
6th May, 2008. This Letter was signed by 3 Subsidiary Proprietors (SPs) and it included man untrue accusations and implied that the MC was negligent, and
tolerated some form of corruption in the upgrading of the Toilets Project and practiced
favoritism towards a particular MC Member We suspect that the 3SPs were instigated or influenced to write the
complaint letter by a MC member
THE FACTS
A motion for 24th Annual General Meeting
dated 28th Apr 2008, signed by 3
Subsidiary Proprietors were forwarded to the then
chairman. The then chairman
classified it as a complaint letter and presented it to the then MC as if it was
insulting. [ Till date the questions has not been answered, but to the then chairman he
has spend months to investigate on the complaints ]
There was no
proof that a complaint was lodge with the CPIB.Building Control
Authority wrote a letter to the MC asking about details of Toilet upgrading.
The then
chairman jumped into conclusion (without any evidence) when Mr Lee
spoke to a
Police officer regarding his personal matter which was “confidential” and
could not be disclosed.
On 20th
May 2008, the then chairman went to BCA Office and later to CPIB on his
own accord without informing the MC or any members.
The then
chairman reported to BCA that the cost of upgrading the eight toilets
(1st,
2nd levels & Canteen) was $48,500 and never report the
amount spent on
toilets upgrading.The
then chairman, in his report of 24th Annual
General
Meeting, 9 May 2008 declared that the amount spend was :-
“ Toilets repairs works were carried out for both block at AIC.
The costs for the toilets repairs were $84,995.00 “
The total cost should be $100,265.00
Summary of Payments on Toilets renovation
Canteen toilets - $14,230.00
1st & 2nd Level toilets - $44,000.00
Repairs /Tiling to other toilets - $40,995.00
Basins (Blk 625 Level 2 -
Gents Only) - $ 1,040.00
Total Paid = $100,265.00
This
is reason why the 4 signatory’s (who was in the sub-committee) does not want Mr
Lee to be the Treasurer. Only the
Treasurer can discover these figures.
On Appointment of Proxy in Annual General Meeting
Allegation
in the
Letter
At the last 26th Annual. General Meeting held on 4th June, 2010, Mr. Lee has secured the highest number of Proxies totaling 18 and with another Member who had up to 8 Proxies together, both of them control slightly more than 50% of the Voting Rights.
We are not questioning the Right to appoint a Proxy which is perfectly constitutional, but one would wonder why you need to collect as many as 18 Proxies. Of course, if any of you make this decision of appointing a Proxy to represent you at the AGM, please give careful thoughts to your reasons for appointing the Proxy.
We would encourage all SPs to make an effort to attend the AGM Meeting yourself and to exercise your Rights to vote accordingly. We trust you would also agree with us in that an abuse of voting power by any person not necessarily Mr. Lee who held an unreasonable high number of Proxies would have far more serious ramifications for our estate than an abuse of voting power by a person who held fewer Proxies.
Despite this logical argument of the chairman, at the end, the Resolution to vote in the AGM for these Key Appointments was approved. Mr. Lee was elected as the Treasurer while Mr. Yeo the Secretary with Mr, Ng continued as The Chairman and Mr. Thomas Leow as the Vice-Chairman. Mr Derrick Poh and Mr Chua Hong were voted out while Two New Members, Mr.Chow and Mr. Loh were voted-in
[ Note the distorted facts :-
17 is not 18 . 33% does not control slightly more than 50% of the Voting Rights. ]
THE FACTS
At the last 26th Annual General Meeting
Recorded Votes 73
1. Mr Ng (ex chairman)
2. Mr
Ong
3. Mr
Yep
4. Mr Chua H
5. Mr D Poh
6. Mr Ow
7. Mr J Poh
8. Mr Yeo
9. Ms J Tan
10. Mr Chow
11. Mr T Leow
12. Mr Loh
13. Mr F Wong
14. Mr D Quek
15. Mr A Tay
16. Mr Lee
Votes Holding
1
10
6
2
2
1 Total = 22 = 30%
9
8
6
4
2
2
1
1
1 Total = 34 = 47%
Total = 17 = 23%
Other Members hold 34 Votes ie 47 %
Mr Lee holds 17 Votes ie 23 %
The statement that Mr Lee and another member (total = 33%) control near to
50% is wrong and misleading. [ 33% is not near 50% - maybe 49.9% is ]
The then
chairman who has been in helm as chairman for the past 10+ years
wants to be the one who can decide who can be elected. The decision to elect
the 4 key holders was the consensus of the voting members at the AGM.
Despite the claim that Mr Lee controls near 50%, the then chairman was still
elected as the then chairman. It shows that Mr Lee also supported him. The then
chairman also did not opposed Mr Lee to be the Treasurer for that year
Mr Lee with17 proxies cannot be elected if he has no support from the rest of the
13 potential MC members.
[ Mr Lee was proposed as Treasurer by Mr T Leow and was voted in by the majority at the AGM]
The 4 signatory’s
team and their 2 unelected partners with the powerful then
chairman behind them were in a better position to exercise control of the MC as it
were for the past years.
Any member
who are elected into the council has only one vote out of the fourteen
and cannot influence the outcome of any MC decision. For the past few years it
was the then chairman and his lieutenants who controlled the decision of the
MC and not Mr Lee.
Extract from 26th Oct 2010 meeting. - commented by the then Vice- Chairman
2.6
" Mr T Leow begged to differ from because at the Annual General Meeting, there were powers of Proxies. Whereas at the Council meeting there cannot be any proxy. However , the Chairman disagreed as he said that influence by certain individuals with the MC can be strong and effective"
Jolin says
This 60 years old uncle's Maths is good - 33% is near 50% 66% is near 100%
Then 70% must be 100%++. If he is 100% sure that something is wrong why he runs away
# After
the last AGM, with the lost of their 2 team mate, the then
chairman launched an investigation to check
whether Mr Lee 17
proxies and the member 8 proxies were genuine
Mr Lee & the other members were asked to
take back all the
proxies, get it verifies with name of
proxies, signatories & their
nric nos, written on the it. After the inspection
the then Chairman
concludes and declares that all the proxies were genuine and
were in order.
The MA should have checked
and verified all the proxies before
the AGM.
It was not stipulated under the
Act or printed in the forms to have
the Name & Nric Nos.to be filled.
A jealous MC member who was unable to get his neighbour SP proxy says:- Very Easy to get a Proxy :
"JUST WALK INTO ANY OFFICE AND ASK THE PRETTY GIRL TO USE THEIR COMPANY STAMP, STAMPED IT & SIGNED"
Under the
Chairperson’s declaration of vote
10. The declaration of the
chairperson of the result of the voting on any proposal
submitted at a general
meeting of the management corporation or (as the
case may be) subsidiary
management corporation, otherwise than on a poll,
shall be conclusive without proof of the votes recorded for or
against
the proposal.
The then chairman in his authoritative action contravene
the BMSM Act when he
instruct the MA to investigate the proxies.
On
Drawing of Dotted Car Park Lines Over the 3 Container lots
The removal of DTZ as the Managing Agent
Allegation
in the
Letter
In this dotted car park line case, again, despite all the logical arguments put up by, the then chairman and 3 other Members, the MC voted, 7 Votes for Drawing the dotted white lines over the container lots, 4 Votes for putting up sufficient Signs to allow for ca parking over the container lots line marking, and 1 Vote for Status quo. 2 were absent.
After the lines drawing, a few months have passed, and the situation remains the same as before - very few cars want to park at the container lots because of inconveniences.
THE FACTS
There were no provision for 3 container lots near the fence behind Blk 625 in the floor plan. The containers were supposed to be parked in front of the respective warehouse units. The then MA was instructed to draw 3 designated RED containers lots and remove 12 parking lots by one member who claimed that the MC has given him the mandate to do so in the meeting.
To revert back to draw 12 parking lots it took 5-6 months to debate on the issue. The decision to draw white parking lots in the RED lots thus allowing cars to park in it in was voted 2 times where the majority agreed. However, despite the MC decision to go ahead, it was not carried out because the then chairman and his partners gave instruction to the then MA not to proceed, Very few cars park there as the lots and driveway were used by some tenants who occupies it daily for their business use.
Mr Lee was not on the sub-committee and has not comment on the issue ever since it was raised by another council member
The comment that Mr Lee and his supporters refused to adopt the more economical and sensible approach is misleading.
The ex Chairman decided to allow drawing of White Lots into the RED PARKING
LOTS after 6 months of discussion and the Committee voted thrice to agree to the drawing of
white lots.
WHO is Behind it ???
The ex chairman company, does not have containers coming in and he is not driving his car as he was ban for driving due to drunken driving offences
On The removal of DTZ as the Managing Agent
Allegation
in the
Letter
Again, in the 7t' Council Meeting on 20th December, 2010, despite the ex-Chairman 10-pro arguments (including DTZ is a reputable Global real estate services Group, DTZ has serviced AIC for more than 15 years, etc.) to retain the Managing Agent for continuity and stability tabled during the discussion on the removal of DTZ as the managing Agent, a majority of the Council Members voted in favor of removing DTZ despite there having been no presentation of any solid arguments for the replacement was presented and despite there having been no cogent reason for introduction of a new Managing Agent. The decision was baseless and it was apparent to us that it has already made behind the scene, prior to the 7th Council Meeting proper.At the end of the 7Ih Council Meeting held on 20th December, 2010, DTZ left the Meeting even before a Vote was taken and the then Chairman also resigned and submitted his letter of Resignation. Mr. Ow, another MC Member also resigned and walked off
THE FACTS
The then MA tenders their resignation on the 1st December 2010 and was not removed by the MC as written.The then Chairman was aware but did not inform any Council Member
At the last 26th Annual General Meeting held in May 2010 A
Subsidary Proprietor had made a requested to the Management
Corporation to call for quotations on the appointment of the MA.
For the past 15 years there were no comparable submissions given
by others Managing Agents.
NO advertisements was ever
called and NO invitations were given to
other MA in Singapore to quote or present their Services profile for.
The controlling chairperson never intend to.
The unfair practice could have put the Management
Corporation in a spot
MANAGING AGENT ISSUE
THE FACTS
On various
occasion, in the MC meeting, the issue of getting quotations for the services of the MA were raised In November
2010, the then chairman appoints a member to put in an advertisement to call
for tender for a new Managing Agent. An advertisement was put into the Straits Time stipulating the dateline, terms and conditions. Only submissions to the mailbox shall be accepted. There were 12 submissions by other Managing Agents
The then MA
(DTZ) did not submit any tender applications to the
Council as per requirements as listed in the advertisement and
therefore was not qualified to be selected for an interview. The then
chairman submitted the DTZ quotation without any resume or proposal
by hand after all the 12 submissions were opened for inspections.
Four MA were shortlisted for interviews.On the insistence
of the then
chairman & his team mates, the then MA (DTZ) was given
another
chance to come to do a presentation.
Common industry practice does not allow it.
The then MA (DTZ) did not come for a presentation
The then chairman, on 20th December, 2010
put up a strongly worded
recommendation letter to convince the MC members to retain DTZ as
the MA.
of a new MA.
The then MA (DTZ) confirmed that they have resigned and their resignation dated 1st December 2010 stands and left the meeting.Subsequently, with the lost of the support of DTZ, the then chairman resigned immediately, followed by another council member Mr Ow. Another 2 members (supporters) left hastily with due respects to the Management Council.
The uncalled remarks, untrue and twisted facts written shows how low are the mentality of the 4 signatory’s.
60 years Old Man says:
"I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix him, to buy and get more supporters votes - like sending more confusing half truth circulars"....
"HA HA - who to BUY LUNCH ...
- with shark fin soup - wines.! "
