Sunday, 20 April 2014

Chairman’s Corner­ No: 17

Chairman’s Corner­ No: 17                                                                                    20th April 2014

Dear fellow Owners,

I write this Part A of the installment in this series with anguish about recent events in the affairs of the Resort in connection with the thankless voluntary job of Chairman.

Part A
The JMB run RMS proposal

I understand that many of you have been notified by a lengthy secret email (without copies extended to your JMC) dated 1/3/2014 (“the furtive email”) by a JMC member-Mr. Wong Wooi Meng (“WM”). It is titled “Is the JMC Front Running the Strata Title Management Act?”.It is a scathing defamatory attack about your Chairman. It paints a picture of your Chairman being a devious self-interested person with a private agenda out to make money at the expense of the JMB. That is as a result of many matters decided on by the JMC in particular the proposals on the JMB run RMS. The lengthy 4 page furtive email is classic defamation of your elected Chairman and 2 members of the JMC. The latter 2 members of the JMC are termed by WM as “cronies”. The furtive email does not refer to WM’s wife as a “crony” of WM.

The first four paragraphs in page 1 of the furtive email (referring to my pending suit in Court) ends with a threat to “…produce more sensitive records as Affidavits when the time comes…”.It is also contempt of pending proceedings in Court. The offence of perverting the course of justice by influencing potential witnesses or a party can be committed even by a simple email discouraging or threatening to “spill the beans” like the furtive email – more so if it is sent secretly without the knowledge of the opponent party to a case. A show cause letter was sent to WM by your JMC.

That resulted in an email dated 7/4/2014 (“the 7/4/14 email”) from WM to all JMC members in reply to the furtive email. In the 7/4/14 email WM claims that the furtive email is a “private e mail”, that he had sent to many owners and non-owners “friends”. He repeated the defamatory statements about my evil and dishonest intentions to make money, and commit CBT, among others, out of the RMS plan. Mention was made of how I used the law to control the JMC. It is classical defamation.

The law of defamation gives me a right to defend myself (without delay) in this forum and addressed to all Owners simply because WM did not disclose any of the names of his said “friends”. Matters may now impact all of you because of the latest developments mentioned in the last paragraph of Part A below under “Round 3 of disruption of JMC work

This Part A is therefore directed at those Owners to whom the furtive email was sent.The majority of the JMC members (excluding Mr. & Mrs. WM) agree with the facts in Part A.
For others, this part of your Chairman’s Corner is to notify all owners about the status of the JMB run RMS approved by the JMB to be explored at the EGM early this year. (“the said EGM”).The Proposals were to be approved by the JMC and reported to the next early AGM for endorsement. The AGM is also to align our accounting year with the Calendar year. (“the said early AGM”). This installment in this series is also as part of my usual Chairman’s Report to all owners for the AGM due by November this year.
I shall save you all the padding and go to the point as briefly as I can. It concerns disruption to ongoing JMB matters.

The background facts

Many will recall that at the said EGM on the matter of RMS, I had chaired the EGM. I had disassociated myself from getting involved in any JMB run RMS because of potential conflict of interest. I had chaired the EGM only because that was my job and more importantly I wanted to safeguard the Common property of the Resort in the matter and in the process collect rental income from any RMS vehicle set up by the potential RMS group at the Resort.

Some of you may know that after the EGM (not during the EGM) a so-called RMS group was (“the RMS group”) “formed” thereafter with WM as Coordinator. MS Julie Ho was to be the JMC Coordinator in that Committee.
Thereafter instead of meetings of the pro-tem committee, WM had initiated encouraged email exchanges between the RMS groups with copies extended to the other JMC members including me. (“The email string”)

WM and wife both wanted to invest in and actively pursue the RMS since they have between themselves a few units at the resort. That fact is reflected in a personal email to me from WM on 13th January 2014, In that email  WM wrote personally to me to seek my support for him to lead (presumably as Chairman of the future Board of Directors) the RMS Company (“Newco”) to be set up.(“the private agenda”).

I suggested instead that his wife more suited for a dominant role instead of him for various reasons. The next day WM wanted the shareholding in the proposed Newco to be open to all owners. It was with a plan to wrest dominance of Newco and RMS for himself with the number of Family shareholders owning Units. The suggestion was contrary to the EGM Resolution. Silence descended. I then suggested that (as most RMS Group wanted) that to safeguard Common Property, the elected JMC members should retain control of the RMS Company. I gave him an outline of proposals (“outline”) to protect JMB interests (Non-RMS owner’ interests figured therein) and to speed up matters.

On 15/1/2014 WM varied my outline and wrote that the JMC had decided that the JMC members should “entrench” themselves as “Promoters/Directors” in the Memo & Articles of Newco. (“the JMC entrench point”).

The unsavory Facts

All the salient facts below are in chronological order from emails. It is in bullet form for brevity:
Ø   Except for emails by some in RMS group and WM, no RMS proposals were forthcoming from WM and RMS group;
Ø  I was being harassed by WM via email on at least two occasions to give the “other side’s story” (JMB). There was no input from other JMC members;
Ø  WM then wrote that all should be “alarmed” by my silence in not giving the “green light” to incorporate Newco;
Ø  One of the RMS group wrote that even if I am not interested in Newco/RMS, the use of Common property must be under the control of JMC. At that early stage, even the majority of WM’s RMS wanted the Board of Newco to be dominated by 3 out of a maximum of 5 Directors.
Ø  I sensed that WM could not articulate the RMS group proposals and appealed to RMS group for any one of them to send in the proposals by consensus.
Ø  WM felt threatened. He then wrote a defamatory email of 30/1/14 (the 1st “knee jerk email”)about me and the majority in the JMC to all the RMS group and used words like “intimidating climate” “ and “…we are playing a charade trying to figure out what the other side wants..” Despite being a JMC member it seems WM had joined the “other side”!
Ø  In that same knee jerk email WM gave his “post grad” qualifications (attending a 3 day course on Management by Ministry of Labour) and “’ volunteering his services to ensure the Newco is set up “transparently” and “…at arm’s length from JMB”!!! He abandoned his own JMC entrench point.
Ø  He mentioned a “JMC clique” taking over Newco “…earning millions per year without transparency …”.He expressed his fear in being “removed in a hurry” The private agenda was laid bare. He did not mention that his wife and him could also be termed as a “JMC clique” in the JMC-an aberration.
Ø  I suggested by email on 31/1/14 that WM and RMS group meet up with their solicitor’s to formulate the concrete proposals.
Ø  It was rejected unilaterally by WM the next day with further defamatory innuendos;
Ø  I then wrote that if I am asked to formulate the proposals professionally, I will charge about RM 10K to the RMS group (Not JMB) as authorized by the EGM Resolution;
Ø  That offer to help resulted in a barrage of defamatory statements from WM in an email of 4/2/14.(“the 2nd knee jerk email”) Words such as “….Lobo can then be guaranteed to rule BY LAW…bloodsucking both RMS participants and Newco shareholder alike….”(in bold letters)
Ø  That 2nd knee jerk defamatory email was even before I could pen the proposals.Let me stress the word “proposals”.
Ø  I waited until 5/2/14, then formulated the JMB proposals in compliance with the duty to protect Common Property (Section 8 of Act 663) and avoiding conflict of interest aspects with Newco’s declared Commercial interests under corporate law.
Ø  Thereafter WM then came with a shocking offer to buy the unborn RMS Company (as yet not formed and as if it was up for sale!) from me for RM 1 Million! (“the said offer to buy the unborn Newco”). I took as sarcasm. To “persuade” me, serious libelous words such as “…charlatan, swindler, con artist or cheat. (Again in bold letters) were flung at me. All this was also published to the JMC and the RMS group and God knows, who else.Criminal breach of trust (CBT) by the JMC if my proposal was accepted was made. My criminal intentions to “..hijack the RMS “…with the support of two cronies…” was repeated lately in WM’s email of 7/2/2014. All that is reserved for the Court.
Ø  On 14/2/14 at a JMC meeting (“the RMS meeting”) to consider the proposals by WM and myself was held.The JMC preferred my proposals since it accommodated the protection of Common property and included rental for use of common property by Newco. Those were absent from WM’s proposals. More importantly, it included dominance of the JMC in Newco Board to enforce and ensure the statutory duty of JMB under Section 8 of the Common Property Act 2007(Act 663) in the context of the (opposite) profit motive of Newco as a Corporation.
Ø  At the RMS meeting I declined nomination to be a Director/shareholder of Newco or to be involved in any RMS scheme, as I had stated at the earlier EGM.  The two other nominees for Directorship in the RMS Company declined to accept the nomination unless I also came in to advice on the law. The JMB run RMS matter was then shelved. The details are in the Minutes. Later when told that the statutory accounts of the JMB will not be ready, the said planned early AGM was then postponed.
Ø  That AGM had nothing you do with any approval for furtherlegal suitsneither on assessment nor to “Front running the SMAas stated in the furtive email and in the 7/4/14 email respectively.
Ø  At that RMS meeting, when asked about the basis for his defamatory salvo against me, WM said it was based on his “deductions” and “interpretation” of the “proposals” on RMS I had sent in on behalf of JMB for the consideration of JMC. WM apologized to your Chairman and two JMC members.
Ø  The former apology was despite me interrupting him repeatedly and telling him not to self-incriminate himself at that forum. All this was digitally recorded by the Manager.
Ø  The next day, WM withdrew his offer to buy Newco! (As if it was ever for sale in the first place!). I then realized that he had been serious with the said offer to buy the unborn Newco.
Ø  WM continued to be disruptive and an incoherent blabber mouth as he did in the previous JMC with Joanne in the Chair. I had defended WM then. I now realize why that Chair had told WM at least twice to “get out” at JMC meetings. On that score, I can now rationalize the frustrations for that treatment meted out to WM.
Ø  Presumably, on advice some lawyer buruk, he than did an about-turn and stated that he was “forced” to apologize out of sympathy! Bundle of contradictions. Digitally-recorded words cannot be twisted to suit WM’s fancies. Even if the “nuances” are different, the Court will decide if WM has lost his credibility as a result of his contradictions and devious tactics.

Then came the furtive and contemptuous email of 1/3/2014 mentioned above.Many words and phrases used by WM in the furtive email are the very same words used by another Owner who is a known sympathizer of the Developer. Hidden hands behind the defamatory salvo? (“The Hidden hands”). The irony is that it was WM and wife who initiated the complaint against the hidden hands for attempted “disruption” of JMC work in connection with ongoing court proceedings against Developer. It was for suggesting that all JMC members resign before the last AGM. That “disruption” resulted in that sympathizer being suspended from any further deliberations of the JMC on Developer matters. It was an unanimous decision of your JMC (including WM and wife) under the authority of our consensual House Rules! The same hidden hands were also at the receiving end of the former Chair’s disdain.

As mentioned, WM initially wrote in early January 2014 that the JMC should “entrench” themselves in the RMS Company as Promoters /Directors in the Memo & Articles of Newco. When my proposals on behalf of JMB echoed that in essence, (to protect common property) he unleashed the said defamatory salvo against me as being an attempt to profit in my personal capacity. Apparently he felt that his said private agenda to make himself the Chairman of the RMS Company was threatened by me for the second time. I doubt he forgot that my tenure as Chairman of JMB was (by law,)only short 3-year max term. I am sure he did not forget my disinterest in RMS. Credibility or the hidden hands at work?

Round 1 of disruption of JMB Court matters
All this acrimony took almost 4 months since January 2014 to date (mostly because of having to add WM’s repeated and persistent defamatory emails to the draft court documents.
As a result of that, my legal input to our lawyers on the Cukai Takisaran matter (mentioned in my last installment) and the Clubhouse damages matter came to a standstill. (Round 1 of disruption of JMB affairs).I suspect the hidden hands wanted to disrupt me and JMC’s work on the matter.I suspect so since WM had copied his latest 2 emails of 24/3/14 and 7/4/144 to the Developer who was never in the email string earlier. The latter email was also sent to COB.

That enlarging of the “audience” (called “publication” in law)was done again by also bringing in the COB into the email string. Just like EACH defamatory email, it has adverse consequences in computation of damages for defamation for a “post graduate” WM-who ought to have sought competent advice. He seems to be aware of this-his 7/4/14 email is evidence.

The result?For being the subject of very serious libel in exchange for voluntary work I was doing with two members in the JMC, I contemplated resigning as your Chairman. But I realized that if I do that, I would be playing into the hands of the detractors. Instead I decided to clear my name in Court for the vile defamatory attacks. But I shall not use JMB funds.
If hidden hands were involved, WM may join them as a Co-Defendants in the suit to share the damages-which is running into millions of RM.

Position of WM
WM was penalized recently for disparaging remarks against the whole of the JMC pursuant to House Rule 43.2. I abstained from participating in that decision in view of my pending suit in court. The JMC decided to act under the House Rules and paragraph 8 of First Schedule to Act 663 and suspended WM against WM participating in JMC meetings run (according to him) by a “clique” and “cohort” of JMC members.

Round 2 of disruption of JMB Court and normal affairs
Then began round 2 of the disruption. The man who had accused me of using the law to control others,now himself (albeit through his wife in the JMC) accused me of lack of “Good governance and not acting within the confines of the law!” He wanted the Developer to be in at JMC meetings although he was a party to the JMC decision for Developer not being allowed to attend meetings. That was because of failure of Developer to appoint a Company Representative for meetings as per the law!

I doubt WM forgot the legal status of the Developer as an ex-officio member of JMC. I doubt he forgot the over RM 115,000 the Developer owed the JMB for many years as maintenance charges and other infractions of the law. I doubt he forgot the refusal of Developer to answer our letters on its status as a Developer. I doubt he forgot the Developer had attempted to steal the Clubhouse from the owners. If he forgot all that, then he is not fit to be a JMC member. Intention is not relevant in defamation. In short, WM wanted to start another round of disruptions again-this time hanging on to a purported a failure to act “…within the law and good governance…” by not including the Developer (who was invited but did not turn up) in JMC meetings.Round 2 of disruption of JMB affairs was taking shape.This time, poetic justice came to your JMC’s aid.

Constitution of JMC
To comply with the law, and for “good governance” from an administrative angle, the JMC decided to investigate the allegation on non-compliance with law by Mrs. WM. It arose from an email query sent to Mrs. WM on whether or not she associates herself with the libel by her husband since it was copied to her. She replied and skipped the question and instead mentioned the need to act in the interests of “good governance within the law”.Mrs. WM wanted your JMC to include the Developer in JMC discussions in all matters including matters on Court action against the Developer. (“the Developer sympathy”) From the language in the reply from her, it is clear that WM was now the “hidden hands” behind his wife. Yet your Chairman set investigations in motion.

Position of Mrs. WM
Due to the investigations, it was discovered that Mrs. WM was, as a Co-owner, always a Proxy and signed in as such by WM at AGM/EGM and not entitled to be a JMC member–even from the previous JMC’s time. The Gurney Corporation Case in the Court of Appeal on that point sent by me to all JMC members (including WM) two years ago in May 2012 was being ignored all along by WM.

Mrs. WM was informed as such recently and told that she cannot be a JMC member by law and “good governance” with immediate effect. She was asked to refund all allowances paid during her “tenure” with this JMC. The money belongs to owners-public money. Moral of the story? Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at other houses!

The COB has been advised that by virtue of the combined provisions of Act 663, Act 315 and Article 75 of Federal Constitution, (Article 76 of the Constitution is mentioned in Acts 315 and 663) the JMC can be constituted by 3 members with a quorum of 3 as spelled out in Second Schedule of Act 315.

Round 3 of disruption of JMC work

It has just come to my attention from some owners that WM and wife have started making telephone calls to many owners defaming the JMC and your Chairman. Section 11 (1) of Act 663 is relevant. That section means that any defamation of the JMC or its elected officers is defamation of the whole JMB. That means all Owners. The details are being gathered.

Part B
We now come to more pleasant but mundane matters.
The omnipresent “Developer” & our Strata Titles
Pursuant to “good governance and action within the law” your JMC has now decided to vigorously challenge the real status of the purported “Developer”. The legal fund will be used to speed up the long overdue Strata Titles issue. Owners have waited over 17 years for it. The duty is fundamental to the JMB’s existence. For that reason and for reasons including the Raub District Council’s assessment of our Units at commercial rates and for the syncing of the annual accounting period to a Calendar year, your JMC is again planning an early AGM for that purpose. Hopefully the accounts will be ready.

Ongoing Court matters
The assessment of Damages case is ongoing now. So is the billing for the Legal Fund. The Valuation Reports by Khong & Jaffar have been filed. The expert witness is ready. That Expert witness has amended our estimated quantum of damages to reflect certain aspects. The details cannot be disclosed in this forum for obvious reasons of back-stabbers and hidden hands.

Cleaning and Painting of Buildings
With all the distractions, we have, (thanks to our able Manager) the long overdue cleaning and painting is progressing very well. Owners who visit the Resort can see the vast difference now. Photos before and after the job will be put up in our Clubhouse and at the next AGM venue. The owners will recall that JMB had bought the paint and utensils etc. and used our in-house maintenance staff to do the work saving substantial costs.  As Chairman, I think the JMB should recognize this contribution by the Manager and staff. Your input (both for and against) is welcome.
B. Lobo
JMB Silverpark Resort
Bukit Fraser, Pahang

Saturday, 22 March 2014

Mr SL Foo Balcony views

Balcony Views

Attached are photos ,from my balcony, of the commencement of the long
awaited painting of the Silverpark complex and of a pastel sunset. The
painting of the complex is arduous , requiring the use of a 44 meter sky
lift and pain staking water jet cleaning of the grime accumulated over the
past years before painting of the primer and 2 coats of paint.

I trust this earnest effort to restore the sparkle of this jewel of a place
will encourage all owners to pay our dues !

With warm regards,

Click on photo for enlargement

Monday, 17 March 2014

Notice to all owners on the painting

Attention to all Silverpark owners especially those who utilise their apartments

Dear Owners,

The painting work to the external wall of Silverpark Apartment has begun. JMB has hired a 44-meter Sky Lift to facilitate the painting work by our JMB maintenance staff. To begin with, all the external surface of the wall will be white washed with high pressure water jet. After the cleaning is complete, one layer of sealer coat will be applied to the external wall surface and followed up with two layers of finishing coat of Jotun All-Weather emulsion paint. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the painting work is expect to be completed in three months. Meanwhile, we wish to apologise for any inconvenience that may arise while the painting work is in progress.

Thank you.


The 44-Meter Sky lift


 JMB Silverpark maintenance staff preparing safety equipment before starting work


Waterjet at B01 & B02 Apartment

Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Notice to all owners

 Notice to all owners 

This is to notify all owners that, due to attempts at hacking into the email accounts of the Chairman- Mr B. Lobo and JMC member- Ms Julie Hoh, with immediate effect their current email addresses have been replaced.
Any communication with them can be directed through the JMB's email address, whereupon, (except for junk posts by the Developer's sympathisers or agents), the said emails will be forwarded to the new email addresses by the JMB office.
The Chairman has also unsubscribed himself from the Bukit Fraser google group email.

Thank You.


This message has been approved for posting in this forum by the Chairman of JMB Silverpark Resort  pursuant to House Rule 39.3 of the House Rules

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Chairman’s Corner No: 16

Chairman’s Corner No:16       

                                                                                 25th February 2014             

Dear fellow Owners,

I start off this installment with reference to the part in the last Chairman’s Corner No: 15 under the heading “Every cloud has a silver lining-good news for all owners” relating to the increased assessment rates of our Apartment Units.

The increased Commercial rate assessment matter

As you now know, the Developer’s RMS run by Teruntum Project Management Sdn Bhd (TPM) has had adverse effects on owners ‘pockets. The RMS required the Resort to be classified as “Commercial” and not “residential”. All owners have been paying the higher commercial rates as assessment for using the “Resort”. We had been taken for a ride for many years!! I am now exploring all our options to obtain a windfall for each and every one of us from the Developer/TPM for this fraud. A lot of legal work and planning must be done. It is too long a list to mention. I am not at liberty (for obvious reasons) to disclose what your legal sub-committee (your Chairman assisted by Ms Julie Ho and the Manager) is doing on that score.

The TPM/Developer has cheated us all these years over the Clubhouse /liability matter and now the assessment matter. The TPM/Developer will now have to pay us damages possibly running into many thousands of Ringgit to each owner. A brief survey of residential buildings in the locality revealed that the assessment for a 3-bedroom residence is about RM217 per year. Whereas, for a two bedroom Unit, we have been paying about RM1526 for the same period! (Almost 700% difference). It was higher before that. That is because we are classified as “commercial” all these years due to the Developer’s RMS. It is now settled that after our Clubhouse case, it is a contempt of court for the Developer to even think of running any RMS by itself or through any company.

The High Court order (upheld by the highest court in Malaysia) BARS the Developer its, agents (TPM) etc from carrying on ANY commercial activities-including the RMS. To refresh our minds, it is appropriate to repeat the relevant Order (v):

(v)“Defendan Pertama dan/atau Defendan Ke-2 atau pekerja- pekerjanya, ejen-ejen, nomini, privy dan/atau pegawai-pegawainya adalah dihalang daripada mencerobohi, meneruskan penghunian atau memasukki Rumah Kelab tersebut dan/atau menjalankan sebarang aktiviti, komersil atau sebaliknya, didalam Rumah Kelab tersebut atau mana-mana kawasan Pembangunan yang termaktub sebagai “harta bersama” dibawah Perjanjian Jual Beli, STA 1985 dan BCP 2007;”
(Note the words in bold are supplied)
Unlike the Clubhouse claim, since owners paid the exorbitant assessment, the money cannot go to JMB but to all owners’ pockets. After the clubhouse windfall for the JMB around the corner, another windfall is on its way for us- this time for individual owners. Your Chairman has already initiated steps to revert our Silverpark Apartments back to the “residential” status for a reduction in the assessment rates.

I think God decided that the JMB run RMS under House Rule 48 was not to be. Fortunately, House Rule 48 was not drafted in mandatory terms. In fact, had this covert action by the developer on the “commercial” status classification of the Resort been discovered earlier, House Rule 48 would not have seen the light of day.
It has now to be abandoned because if the JMB run RMS is implemented, the JMB (or anybody for that matter), the classification of “Residential” status will have to revert to “Commercial” with the consequent increase in Assessment. It will be unfair to many Non-RMS owners.  Furthermore, the law provides that the “…common property is for the benefit of all Proprietors …” or owners. That law is in the parent Strata Titles Act 1985 (Act 315).

Unattended Units of absentee Owners

Another piece of good news. A common grievance of some ex-RMS owners has been a cry for maintenance services for their empty units at the Resort. We have heard that cry.

Your Chairman has now found a way in Act 315 to enable absentee owners who cannot look after their Units (cleaning, airing the premises etc.) to solve the problem. The JMB is now actively planning to provide a cleaning service for a fee- (which is income to the JMB.) Details will be announced soon by the JMB Group email Moderator.

The Litigation Fund & Update on Court matter

Some of you may recall that purportedly pursuant to the decision of the 6th AGM, the culprit owner had published in his “Bukit Fraser” group email misleading information (which was subsequently retracted). One misleading matter was that owners will have to pay RM 1,500 each for the Legal or Litigation Fund. That blanket figure was misleading. But then we know who was behind that type of misinformation.
Owners will now be aware that their contribution is much less than that figure and equitably based on the area (Sq. ft) of the Unit owned. The JMB’s recent post on the JMB group email/Blog carries the details.

Strata Title for our Apartments
In the next installment of this piece, you will be hearing about action on the long delayed Strata Title matter and other matters.

House Rules and House Rule 5.1
I am taking pains to explain the scope of the recent amendments to the House Rules because some murmurs were heard in the corridors of Silverpark. I have dealt with this matter before, but apparently some have not read or understood it. Hence the succinct repetition here again.
The House Rules are in law,a contract between the JMB and the owners. A reading of Singapore University Professor Teo Keang Sood’s book “Strata Title in Singapore and Malaysia”(latest edition) will be educating-for owner lawyers.A reading of our Contracts Act will also be illuminating on the point.
Bukit Fraser group email and Developer
The Bukit Fraser group email is NOT your JMB group email. It is moderated by a disgruntled ex-JMC member.(“the Bukit Fraser Moderator”). He has helped himself to the email addresses of all owners when he was the Moderator of the JMB Blog/email group.
That Moderator is aware that the House Rules were passed UNANIMOUSLY at two AGMs of all owners. The House Rules are registered with the COB under Section 14 of Act 663. The Bukit Fraser Moderator was present at both AGMs. He did not object then. Now he objects because he is on the receiving end. He ran foul of House Rule 5.1 and was penalised by your JMC. He was penalised for misleading publications on the JMB decisions in the Bukit Fraser group email and more seriously, for sending VIRUS infected emails to selective JMC members. He is an IT “Expert” (as he claims) and has all the nefarious tools to infect others’ emails with viruses .The inference that the Bukit Fraser Moderator is the culprit is because only he has access to the email addresses of JMC members whom he does not like (and whom he singles out for the infection). His latest attempt was to infect your Chairman’s private email for the third time.
That Moderator had tried to mislead all of us after he was caught. He purportedly brought in a “New” Moderator as replacement. He now goes by the handle “Ex-Bukit Fraser Moderator” to take pot shots at your JMC members. What a wayang kulit or sandiwara!!The “New” Moderator is the Bukit Fraser Moderator’s IT Manager friend who is not an Owner of a Unit at Silverpark.Thereby the Bukit Fraser Moderator thinks he can avoid liability under the House Rules. Pathetic. His attempt to evade liability under the House Rules shows the validity of the said Rules. That Bukit Fraser Moderator had taken his complaint about the House Rules (and the penalty imposed on him) to the COB and the Housing Ministry, but nothing happened. Even if it is pending in that forum it is subjudice for the JMC to deal with his letters. He has changed the forum. He should not be writing anymore letters to the JMC. He has already done so and it was ignored. It will continue to be ignored. If it is defamatory, it will be dealt with in the courts.
Now I am told that the Bukit Fraser Moderator is “presenting” his case in his “private” Bukit Fraser Group email. He states that the House Rules are not “legally “correct. He wants to disagree with Professor Teo and senior lawyers-even though he is not a lawyer himself! It is akin to a thief who is caught for theft condemning the law on theft-under a different name!  He should take his case to the courts.
I believe he also did that virus infection exercise to the email of the previous Chairman of the JMB. She had mentioned it as something strange happening to her email. The Moderator of Bukit Fraser had done it because being a nuisance at a public meeting; he was told by that Chairman to “Get out”. The meeting was disrupted. This is the type of people we have had to deal with on the side-lines while concentrating on the Clubhouse Court case, the delayed Title (to our Units) matter and the assessment reduction matter.
The Bukit Fraser Moderator is an admitted good friend of the Developer. He has stated in an email that he has “…. more than a cordial relationship with the Developer…”The man does not realize or does not want to realize (because of favors done for him by the Developer) that he is being used to dismantle the unity in the JMB. It all started after we had won the Clubhouse Court case, which he was dead against as a then JMC member. He is still dead against it-and has expressed it many times. His specific target is your Chairman.
The ultimate beneficiary of all this acrimony among us is the Developer.Divide and rule comes to mind. Or is it distracting the JMC from its work by the baseless side issues? If owners want the JMC to concentrate on the cases in court and the belated title to our Units and the assessment issues with the Developer, your JMC have to be left in peace to do the job. The detractors do not want that. I therefore urge all owners to rise up to the occasion and do your duty. Start by IGNORING the poison in the Bukit Fraser Group email. Most members of your JMC had done that long ago. Do not post any comments-good and bad on that forum.It will die a natural death. Better still, UNSUBSCRIBE from that group email by clicking the “Unsubscribe” link there.The Private Data Protection Act 2010 (enforced recently) may help.
One may ask, who is behind all this false statements about some JMC members and who are out to scuttle the JMB cases in Court and the recovery of our cheated Assessment money? The answer? –They are the same two persons who had also frustrated the previous JMC in their work!!Please ask the previous JMC. The duo seems to have a penchant for doing so.
The legal basis for the House Rules
Some owners have asked questions on the House Rules. The House Rules are required to be made and enforced under Section 8(1) and 8 (2) of Act 663. It is required to be kept under Section 14(1) of Act 663. It has its roots in the Main Act 315. It states that the scope of the Bye laws (or what Act 663 calls “House Rules”) must be inter alia for “…regulating the control, management,administration, use and enjoyment of the subdivided building…” We cannot have proper “use and enjoyment ” of our subdivided building in Silverpark if acrimony and discord is the order of the day due to disparaging remarks etc. about owners (or the elected JMC) made by another owner in respect of the “administration” of the common property and affairs of the JMB. More so without resorting to the Grievance procedure in the House Rule 44.
Hence, the House Rules must have a nexus with the mutual duties inter se of owners. It is equivalent to a statutory Deed of Mutual Covenants signed with the Developer long ago. Upon the Act 663 coming into force, the Deed of Mutual covenants had become inoperative or void and replaced by the House Rules by virtue of Section 44 of Act 663.
There are other legal provisions in support of this proposition, but this is not the forum for such a detailed discussion. In the interests of proper management of the common property and owners’ unity and to prevent disparaging remarks by “proxy” over the Internet and to avoid interference with the “use and enjoyment “of the “Parcels” the House Rules were amended at the last AGM-unanimously. House Rule 5.1 was inserted at the last AGM. The Bukit Fraser Moderator was present at that AGM but did not raise a whimper of protest.
The House Rules are supplementary to defamatory remarks, which is also a civil and criminal wrong-e.g.the tort of Defamation and criminal defamation in the Penal Code.On the civil common law front, for those owners who are lawyers, cases like that of Loutchansky about 13 years ago in UK will be an education for Internet publishers who publish defamatory materials and rely on “freedom of expression” and “Qualified privilege” as defenses.Loutchansky has held that Defense is untenable. The principle in Loutchansky went up to the European Court of Human Rights and was also upheld.
Our own superior Courts have said that defamation can be more serious than physical assault of the person. That common law and the Communications & Multi Media Act 1998 is the rationale behind House Rule 5.1. That House Rule was not intended to muzzle freedom of expression (as some may think). The rest of the story is for another legal forum.
Owners’ Remedy for genuine grievances and complaints
For those owners with genuine complaints, the Grievance procedure in House Rule 44 is available. There is no question of “muzzling” or gagging any owner. The problem is that those who criticise the House Rules do not read the whole document-painstakingly. It is prepared for the common good of all. Section 8 (1) of Act 663 requires your JMB TO ENFORCE IT.
The 2014 Annual General Meeting (AGM)

In the previous installment of this Corner, I had mentioned that (penultimate paragraph) as follows:
“…It has therefore been decided tentatively by your JMC that the AGM 2014 be carried forward from later this year to March this year to decide on the usual matters and also to obtain approval (if needed) for further action on the Assessment matter. If the JMB accounts for six months (July -December 2013) can be finalised in time, Notices will be sent out to all owners…”
Unfortunately, because of the delay in the audited accounts, the AGM has to be delayed because of the law. Section 9(1) of Act 663 requires the accounts to be tabled at an AGM to “…consider the Building maintenance Fund…”.If the accounts are not ready, then we are forced to await it. After the accounts are ready, a date will be announced to all owners.

B. Lobo
JMB Silverpark Resort
Bukit Fraser, Pahang

Other News

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...