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

Monday, 17 February 2014

Mr Wong Wooi Meng reply to the Chairman's Corner No.15

Dear Folks,

The right of reply is the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published.
Lobo in his Chairman Corner #15  has made allegations of wrongdoing, or incompetence and laid out a damaging critique of me (he continues to call me Mr.Wooi Meng despite half a dozen protests. He thinks he can belittle and show no respect to any individual he wishes).  

I presume that the JMB Silverpark has the civility to give the one criticized a "right of reply" as a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.  If I don't get this reply published unmolested within 48 hours on this Lobo-controlled JMB Blog, I'll have to publish it in an alternative more sincere and candid blog.

I've also .bcc my friends who may be unduly disturbed by Lobo's libelous remarks.

1.    What I've submitted to the JMC is the proposal based on the collective input of the protem RMS Committee since 8 Jan  2014.  Lobo fails to understand, despite being told repeatedly that the RMS Committee plans to keep the number of Owner/shareholders to a maximum of 50 so that the RMS Company can remain as a private limited company instead of  being classified as a public company.  All interested owners are invited to participate as shareholders of this company.

2.    Lobo made his own unsolicited proposal came on CNY eve more than 3 weeks later.  He proposes that the RMS company to be owned only by selected members of the JMC, with a qualified lawyer as the Chairman.

3.    My "alarm" was over the fact that Lobo did not suggest input to the RMS Committee's proposal for the RMS Company, instead he made his own unsolicited proposal in a coup-like grab at the RMS Committee's mandate.  Isn't there huge pecuniary incentives to do so?

4.    Lobo's solicitor delivered a Notice of Demand to me on 12th February, that among other things, that I undertake to immediately cease and desist from further publishing or causing to publish 2 eMails that  were addressed to the RMS Committee, under threat of legal proceedings against me.  In those emails I explained how Lobo's plan will give away the
exclusive RMS Business to a few lucky JMC members, and I went on a limb to make a firm RM300,000 offer to buy this exclusive RMS Business, not from Lobo as he claimed, but from the JMB, so that the JMC cannot promote Lobo's plan and  give away the RMS Business without first bringing up the offer to the AGM. By twisting the fact that my offer is to him instead
of the JMB, Lobo could avoid implication of Criminal Breach of Trust if he succeeded in launching his RMS Company without  Owners being told of my offer to the JMB.

This is exactly what I wrote to Lobo
Boniface Lobo, don't call me Mr.Wooi Meng nor Senile, I trust my faculty enough to offer to buy your proposed Newco from the JMB for RM1 million. If you don't agree that Newco is worth at least RM1 million you should then propose to the AGM to sell it to me. This is is a guaranteed sole operator of Silverpark RMS business protected by HouseRule 48 and
RMS Resolution drafted by you. On second thought it would be enough to offer only RM300,000 for Newco just to make the point that Newco has big intrinsic value belonging to all the Owners, and you cannot simply give it to 3 lucky JMC members, supposedly the guardians of Silverpark Owners' Interest. If you did, they windfall of RM100,000 each.
The JMC and possibly this RMS Committee will then be accountable to the Owners for this Criminal Breach of Trust

5.    Around the same time Lobo instructed Stewart to send out notice of a special emergency JMC meeting on 14th February to decide on the RMS Committee's proposal or Lobo's proposal for the RMS Business. Guek Yean and I told Stewart that we were unlikely to be able to attend that meeting.

6.   Guek Yean and I managed to reschedule our time and came in 15 minutes late to the JMC Meeting. This was another "feather flying JMC session" with Mr.Lobo shouting and banging table (Stewart, Guek Yean, and I have all recorded the session) and reminding me of possible million Ringgit defamation damages payable to hims.  Do you see the timing of Lobo's
Demand Notice with respect to this emergency meeting?

7.    Lobo said that the RMS Resolution (which he drafted, and posted by Guek Yean "for and on behalf of the JMC") empowers the JMC to decide and float the RMS Company without need to be endorsed by the Owners at a general meeting. As neither plans were posted on the JMB's blog, and Lobo has copyrighted his plan which is not to be disclosed without his written 
permission, over 95% of the owners have not the slightest whiff of what is a cooking.

8.    The JMC voted for Lobo's proposal in a split vote.  Lobo said he will abstain as director/owner of his proposed company, and he only proposed Julie and Roni be the directors/owners, however they declined, and nobody else volunteered.

9.    Instead of relooking at the RMS Committee's proposal, Lobo then immediately brought up the anormaly of the "Commercial" status of Silverpark title which should be "Residential" as per S&P as a housing development.  Lobo said he will talk to Saranjit on getting the Silverpark land title status reverted back to "Residential", and subsequently declared that no RMS will be allowed in Silverpark, and only Owners and their family members are allowed access to Silverpark.

10.   I was pleased that Lobo's plan to give away the exclusive RMS business to a few JMC members didn't materialise. When Julie and Roni said that they were unhappy about my eMails depiction of JMC directors/owners of Lobo's planned RMS company, I offer them my appologies if they feel offended because I was highlighting the possible abuses if a few lucky JMC members can own and run the exclusive RMS business.  This is without prejudice to whatever litigations Lobo is going to throw at me for speaking up.

11.  Since the exclusive RMS Business has not been snatched from the JMB only to be given away to a few JMC members, I withdrew my RM300,000 offer to buy the rights to Silverpark RMS Business from the JMB.

12.  Several times in the meeting, Lobo, Julie, and Roni tried to get me to apologize for the subject eMails in Lobo's defmation suit against me. but I did not. I insisted that I wrote to alert the RMS Committee how the few JMC directors/owners of the RMS Company proposed by Lobo can easily abuse the RMS participants, and if they feel offended, then I'm sorry for them.

Yours Sincerely,

Wong Wooi Meng

Sunday, 16 February 2014

Chairman’s Corner No: 15

Dear Owners,

The Chairman's comments on the RMS discussions is in The Chairman's Corner No 15.
Since the RMS is subjected to the EGM resolution passed at the last EGM, a copy of the EGM resolution is attached below for your easy reference.

This message has been approved by the Chairman of JMB/JMC pursuant to House rule 39.3

Saturday, 11 January 2014

Rules pursuant to House Rule 39.1

Rules pursuant to House Rule 39.1

Dear Owners,

Pursuant to House Rule 39.1 of the JMB Silverpark Resort House Rules, and in view of the provisions of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) the JMC of JMB Silverpark Resort at its meeting on 9th January 2014 hereby makes the following Rules:-

1. Any Owner /Purchaser (“the operator”) who commences or relinquishes or disposes off or purports to relinquish or dispose off any Group email or Blog (“the said Media”) published inter alia to owners/Purchasers of JMB Silverpark Resort (“the Resort”) and intending to publish or comment on matters concerning the operations or functions of the Resort or JMB Silverpark Resort to owners /purchasers of Silverpark Resort (“the said Owners”) shall not utilize any owners’ mailing list of addresses including email or other postal or internet addresses (“the said addresses”) for that purpose without the prior written permission of the each of the said Owners (“the said consent”);

2. Upon obtaining the said consent, such operator shall at once before publishing any matter concerning the Resort notify the JMB Silverpark Resort about having obtained such permission to publish any and all matters from or purportedly from the said Owners and identifying himself or herself with all details of ownership of his/her Apartment unit and personal particulars of the said new Operator such as Name, NRIC number and address for service of any legal documents and Notices.

3. No Owner, operator or Moderator of any said media in possession of the said addresses shall transfer, sell, assign or otherwise dispose off any said media to any person or body corporate or unincorporated who or which is not an owner/Purchaser of an Apartment Unit at the Resort.

4. In the event that the said Media is transferred, sold, assigned or otherwise disposed off by an Owner Operator to a third party, who is not an Owner/Purchaser of an Apartment Unit at the Resort, the said Owner Operator shall be liable to ensure compliance in respect of publications on the said Media including liability for any defamatory content. The said Operator shall also be personally liable for and other liability under the House Rules in respect of such publications by the third party in the said Media.

5. This rule shall take effect from the date of making of this Rule.


This message has been approved by the Chairman of JMB/JMC pursuant to House rule 39.3

Other News

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...