After Mr Tan L. H.'s letter (dated 15 August), Mr John Lee sent out via email his rebuttal of the points mentioned in Mr Tan's letter on 20 August. For the benefit of all, we have put up Mr Lee's email on scribd. Below is Mr Tan's letter in response to Mr Lee's email of 20 August. Mr Tan's letter has been sent to all owners and residents of BGV on 21 August.
"21 August 2008
Dear fellow subsidiary proprietor,
In response to my letter dated 15 Aug 2008, John Lee has sent an e-mail dated 20 Aug 2008 to various parties. In his e-mail, he makes certain statements which are clearly incorrect and misleading, and which I feel I need to set the record straight on. My comments are set out in italics below John Lee's statements:
1. He says that my "letter contain (sic) misleading information which needs to be corrected. He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee."
My comments: My letter makes it very clear that it states my own concerns and suggestions in relation to the formula for allocation of sale proceeds and the terms of the Collective Sale Agreement. As I emphasised several times in my letter, each owner should consider his own circumstances and take independent advice. I certainly did not claim to be protecting the interests of the owners. And I certainly did not say anything at all about the "integrity and rectitude" of the Collective Sale Committee anywhere in my letter, which touches solely on the issues involved.
2. John Lee says that "*The formula for apportionment of the sale proceed has been changed.* This is true. The Sale Committee found the previous method of apportionment (of 1/3 area, 1/3 share value and 1/3 valuation) to be cumbersome and complex. It raises more questions than answers. The valuation component can be challenged - e.g. why this valuer and not that valuer or why not 2 valuers instead of 1 valuer or will valuation done at the beginning of the en bloc still be applicable at the end of the en bloc (a period of 12 - 24 months)? The Sale Committee decided to use a straight ratio of area vs share value to avoid controversy and overcome complications. The ratio of 70% area and 30% share value was chosen because 1) it is the closest to the previous method under current valuation 2) as advised by the Consultant, it will pass the equity test of the Strata Title Board 3) it is used by other condos with the same configurations, i.e. 1 share value for differing sizes of the units and 4) this formula has been upheld by the High Courts in the case of Holland Hill Mansion."
My comments: is it true that the ratio of 70/30% is "the closest to the previous method under current valuation", and what exactly does that mean? The critical question is why was this new ratio chosen, when the previous sale committee - which John Lee chaired - applied the previous formula which is now lightly dismissed as "cumbersome and complex"? Which formula is in the best interests of subsidiary proprietors? And why 70/30% instead of 50/50%? John Lee should explain what has changed since the previous attempted en bloc sale to justify such a change.
Further, is John Lee saying that the Consultant has guaranteed that the 70/30% formula will be approved by the Strata Titles Board? If so, this should be obtained in writing from the Consultant, and incorporated in the terms of the agreement with the Consultant.
He should also let us know which successful en bloc sales "with the same configurations" applied the 70/30% formula.
And speaking of being misleading, in fact, in the Holland Hill Mansion en bloc sale that he mentions, the statra area/share value formula was indeed upheld by the Strata Titles Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal - but the ratio applied was 50/50%, and not 70/30%!
3. John Lee said: "He says: "*There is no protection in the CSA for you as a subsidiary proprietor*.... and the case of Horizon Towers is again mentioned. It is true that the owners of Horizon Towers who signed the CSA were sued by the Purchaser to honour the Sale and Purchase Agreement. If you recall, the consenting owners at Horizon Towers changed their minds about selling their property after they have entered into a contract with the Purchaser, when they realised that a neighbouring property was sold for twice what they got for their property. Of course, the purchaser has the right to enforce their contractual rights under the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. Will this be repeated in BGV? Not likely if consenting owners do not change their mind after entering into a contract."
My comments: Another misleading statement on John Lee's part. The majority owners in Horizon Towers were not sued because they "changed their minds". They failed to comply with certain legal requirements in their submission to the Strata Title Board, and the buyer sued on the basis that the sellers had failed to perform their contractual duty to make a proper application. Whether or not this was based on a change of the majority sellers' minds is an inference from the facts.
So the real question to be asked is, if the CSC makes a faulty application or some other mistake in the sale process, leading to the owners being sued, what recourse would the owners have against the CSC? As the CSA is currently drafted, none. Not only that, the CSA provides that the owners indemnify the CSC - in 2 clauses, no less (clause 6.1.38 and clause 10.3)! Why should the CSC not be held liable for their actions, when they are acting as agents and fiduciaries in relation to valuable properties? Why should the owners indemnify the CSC?
As an aside, it is unclear why there should be 2 indemnity clauses. And it should be noted that though the indemnity in clause 6.1.38 is at least limited to acts of the CSC "in connection with" the CSA, the Collective Sale and applications to the Strata Title Board, there is no such limitation in clause 10.3. So theoretically under clause 10.3 the owners indemnify the CSC against "all actions, costs, expenses, damages and claims" whether or not related to the CSA or the Collective Sale. How can this be acceptable to owners?
4. John Lee says: "*There is no provision for a performance bond from a bank to guarantee that the buyer will complete the sale and make full payment of the sale proceeds*. If Mr Tan is correct, then he should show us a Sale & Purchase Agreement with such a preposterous provision. No Developer will accede to this demand. It has not been done before and it will never be done ever. Our protection is in the 5 - 10% deposit placed with our solicitor, which will accrue to the owners in case of a default, and the advice of our Consultants on the bona fide status of the purchaser.
My comments: I have said in my letter that we are likely to be told it is not market practice. But that is no reason why we should not have a performance bond if the purchaser is really keen to buy our estate. Market practice has to start somewhere, doesn't it? And should we not learn from the lessons of other estates whose purchasers pulled out of their enbloc sales, to begin a market practice that protects us? The deposit is insufficient protection, as the potential damages for an owner who has contracted to buy another property may be much larger than his share of the deposit. I believe this is what happened in the aborted en bloc sales earlier this year.
In any event, if the purchaser is bona fide and does not intend to default, then it should have no problem giving the bond. But my point is that no one can say for certain that a seemingly strong company will not collapse - look at Bear Stearns and Enron, just to name 2 of the largest, most successful corporations that have collapsed without warning. The CSC should in fact be the party insisting on this in order to protect all owners' interests, and not say that "it has not been done before and will never be done ever". Is this indicative of how the CSC will be negotiating to protect owners' interests?
5. *He says: "The power of the CSC to enter into a sale below the reserve price, and other important terms of the sale, should be subject to approval of the subsidiary proprietors. *It is misleading and mischievous to suggest that the CSC can enter into a sale below the reserve price without the approval of the subsidiary proprietors. Clause 4 - Sale Terms Reserve Price: $630,000,000/ Higher if increased with the Sale Committee's approval and Sellers are deemed to agree to such increase. If the proposed sale price is less than the Reserve Price, the Sellers' Approval is required before accepting such lower sale price. Sellers' Approval is defined in Clause 11 of the CSA as "the approval of sellers constituting at least 80% of share value and at least 80% of the strata title area of all units". Similarly the terms and conditions of the CSA cannot be changed willy nilly without the approval of the owners.
My comments: if John Lee had read the letter carefully, he would have seen that I was referring to changes in the terms of the sale and purchase agreement to be entered into with the buyer, not the CSA. Under the CSA, the committee is empowered to change the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. And what is wrong with saying that if the CSC wants to enter into a sale below the reserve price, it should get the owners' approval? In fact, this should be done before any such sale is entered into, with clear explanations why the CSC recommends such action, and why the reserve price cannot be achieved.
Further, it is unclear how and when each owner's decision whether to agree to the sale below the reserve price is to be ascertained, and what time period an owner is given to make such a decision. In all, the mechanism for a sale below the reserve price is unclear, and owners would do well to ensure that it is clearly specified if they agree at all to such a provision. It could be said to look like advance preparation for a sale below the reserve price. Is there something owners should know about now?
In fact, having taken a closer look at the CSA, clause 5.6 does purport to give the CSC the power to change both the CSA and the sale and purchase contract willy-nilly, subject only to what is stated in the CSA and the law requiring Sellers' Approval!
6. John Lee says: “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”
My comments: In fact, it is John Lee and his CSC members who have been collecting proxies all along, making it appear like there is a majority in favour of the en bloc sale, when actually it is a minority. It just looks like a majority because this group of en bloc sale supporters attends and votes at the EOGMs, usually through proxies held by John Lee and his CSC members. So the end result is that resolutions passed at the EOGMs appear to be overwhelmingly supported, while in reality, the majority have not attended or voted.
Thus, I would urge all owners to attend the EOGM this Saturday, and all future EOGMs, so you can hear for yourself and make up your own mind about how the various issues raised above, and other issues that other owners raise at the meeting itself, will affect your own circumstances. Otherwise you leave your fate in the hands of a vocal, persistent minority who act with their own interests at heart.
Yours sincerely,
Tan Lai Huat
Blk x Taman Serasi #xx-xx
Singapore xxxxxx "
Below is a letter sent to our BGV email by an owner and the owner asked for the letter to be put on the BGV blog. We have reproduced it here for the benefit of all.
"21/08/2008
Dear Vanessa and Hwei Ming,
I’ve held back on making comments, but the latest email from John Lee about Tan Lai Huat has really infuriated me. Just as John Lee has answered point by point, I want to bring to the attention of readers and owners these points he made:
1. “His letter contain misleading information which needs to be corrected”.
In fact, I believe the information he provided is not misleading, but enlightening. The points raised by John Lee in his rebuttal is incorrect, and I’m sure they will be brought up at the EOGM, which I encourage as many of you to attend. For example, he suggested comparing ‘two documents’. I suggest you compare the CBRE CSA and the Credo CSA to see the ‘great disparity’. When compared in terms of sale proceeds, owners from Blk 1 stand to loose over $100k under the new CSA! I guess it is purely coincidental that none of the CSC members own units in Blk 1 so will not face this loss.
2. “He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee”.
This couldn’t be more obvious than the misinformation from the CSC’s own blog. For example, they stated clearly on their blog in response to the question: Can the reserve price be lowered after owners sign the CSA? Their answer was: “No. The reserve price is the minimum that owners agree to sell at. If the reserve price is not achieved, a sale does not take place”. I urge you to read clause 4.1.4 carefully to see if “a sale does not take place”. Such a clause about a lower sale price is not present in the CBRE CSA, but this just points out that the CSC is clearly preparing for a lower offer and is preparing to accept such a lower offer. Why else have this clause?
Some more “true facts” from their blog. In their “Timeline of Events”, they stated that in Jan 2008, “Owners present vote overwhelmingly in favour of formation of Collective Sale Committee”. Sounds like the entire estate is “overwhelmingly” for the sale, right? But actually, only 61 units out of 146 total attended and could vote. A total of ONLY 37% of the ENTIRE estate voted for the new CSC. That, my dear neighbours, is the “true fact”. A MINORITY GROUP has decided to push THEIR OWN AGENDA with no regard for the MAJORITY who are not keen on the sale.
And the most insulting, which many of you who received John Lee’s correspondence will remember, is now put up under “Alternative Places to Stay”. He has omitted certain sentences that were in his original letter, which I’ll now include, IN BOLD:
… It will not make much sense for us to sell our precious home and then splurge on a super luxurious home at 8Napier, Grange Residences, St Regis, etc. It will be plain stupid!
…Here are some estates where you can find homes with market value from $1-1.8 million: Normanton, Ridgewood, Pandan Valley, Pine Grove, Central Green, and many more in the east, west and central. Or, how about Punggol 21, the idyllic new town with shopping, nature, stream and MRT?
Some of the above estates are attempting to go en block, but they are not likely to succeed because they are huge estates, they have development charge issues, and most of them will not make it in time before the new Amendments become law.
Why did he omit these sentences? Because he called owners “stupid” just because we have a right to decide what kind of home we’d want to buy, luxurious or not. And how many of us were insulted that he would even suggest Punggol 21? I certainly do not see him moving out of his super luxurious home to this “idyllic new town”! And to add insult to injury, he suggests that we downgrade, downsize and move out of a perfect, central and beautiful location at BGV!!
3. “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”
Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Isn’t he just as aggressively collecting proxies to influence the outcome of a general meeting? Didn’t he already achieve that, to great effect and to possible detriment of our estate, during our AGM when he steamrolled his pro-sale team into the management committee, courtesy of proxies?
I’m sorry but I’m quite disgusted by John Lee’s high and mighty attitude. Given his attitude, his bullish behaviour, his misinformation, I’m now greatly concerned that it is only one step away from our estate becoming like that of Laguna Park – with people living in fear of enbloc vandals who will not hesitate to bully the rest into signing the CSA.
At the end of the day, the only *TRUE FACT* is this – now is NOT the right time to sell. And unless we get rid of the CSC, our estate will be sold for less than what it’s truly worth.
A very disgusted owner
Name withheld for fear of vandalism. Not everyone parks near the guard house daily."
"21 August 2008
Dear fellow subsidiary proprietor,
In response to my letter dated 15 Aug 2008, John Lee has sent an e-mail dated 20 Aug 2008 to various parties. In his e-mail, he makes certain statements which are clearly incorrect and misleading, and which I feel I need to set the record straight on. My comments are set out in italics below John Lee's statements:
1. He says that my "letter contain (sic) misleading information which needs to be corrected. He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee."
My comments: My letter makes it very clear that it states my own concerns and suggestions in relation to the formula for allocation of sale proceeds and the terms of the Collective Sale Agreement. As I emphasised several times in my letter, each owner should consider his own circumstances and take independent advice. I certainly did not claim to be protecting the interests of the owners. And I certainly did not say anything at all about the "integrity and rectitude" of the Collective Sale Committee anywhere in my letter, which touches solely on the issues involved.
2. John Lee says that "*The formula for apportionment of the sale proceed has been changed.* This is true. The Sale Committee found the previous method of apportionment (of 1/3 area, 1/3 share value and 1/3 valuation) to be cumbersome and complex. It raises more questions than answers. The valuation component can be challenged - e.g. why this valuer and not that valuer or why not 2 valuers instead of 1 valuer or will valuation done at the beginning of the en bloc still be applicable at the end of the en bloc (a period of 12 - 24 months)? The Sale Committee decided to use a straight ratio of area vs share value to avoid controversy and overcome complications. The ratio of 70% area and 30% share value was chosen because 1) it is the closest to the previous method under current valuation 2) as advised by the Consultant, it will pass the equity test of the Strata Title Board 3) it is used by other condos with the same configurations, i.e. 1 share value for differing sizes of the units and 4) this formula has been upheld by the High Courts in the case of Holland Hill Mansion."
My comments: is it true that the ratio of 70/30% is "the closest to the previous method under current valuation", and what exactly does that mean? The critical question is why was this new ratio chosen, when the previous sale committee - which John Lee chaired - applied the previous formula which is now lightly dismissed as "cumbersome and complex"? Which formula is in the best interests of subsidiary proprietors? And why 70/30% instead of 50/50%? John Lee should explain what has changed since the previous attempted en bloc sale to justify such a change.
Further, is John Lee saying that the Consultant has guaranteed that the 70/30% formula will be approved by the Strata Titles Board? If so, this should be obtained in writing from the Consultant, and incorporated in the terms of the agreement with the Consultant.
He should also let us know which successful en bloc sales "with the same configurations" applied the 70/30% formula.
And speaking of being misleading, in fact, in the Holland Hill Mansion en bloc sale that he mentions, the statra area/share value formula was indeed upheld by the Strata Titles Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal - but the ratio applied was 50/50%, and not 70/30%!
3. John Lee said: "He says: "*There is no protection in the CSA for you as a subsidiary proprietor*.... and the case of Horizon Towers is again mentioned. It is true that the owners of Horizon Towers who signed the CSA were sued by the Purchaser to honour the Sale and Purchase Agreement. If you recall, the consenting owners at Horizon Towers changed their minds about selling their property after they have entered into a contract with the Purchaser, when they realised that a neighbouring property was sold for twice what they got for their property. Of course, the purchaser has the right to enforce their contractual rights under the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. Will this be repeated in BGV? Not likely if consenting owners do not change their mind after entering into a contract."
My comments: Another misleading statement on John Lee's part. The majority owners in Horizon Towers were not sued because they "changed their minds". They failed to comply with certain legal requirements in their submission to the Strata Title Board, and the buyer sued on the basis that the sellers had failed to perform their contractual duty to make a proper application. Whether or not this was based on a change of the majority sellers' minds is an inference from the facts.
So the real question to be asked is, if the CSC makes a faulty application or some other mistake in the sale process, leading to the owners being sued, what recourse would the owners have against the CSC? As the CSA is currently drafted, none. Not only that, the CSA provides that the owners indemnify the CSC - in 2 clauses, no less (clause 6.1.38 and clause 10.3)! Why should the CSC not be held liable for their actions, when they are acting as agents and fiduciaries in relation to valuable properties? Why should the owners indemnify the CSC?
As an aside, it is unclear why there should be 2 indemnity clauses. And it should be noted that though the indemnity in clause 6.1.38 is at least limited to acts of the CSC "in connection with" the CSA, the Collective Sale and applications to the Strata Title Board, there is no such limitation in clause 10.3. So theoretically under clause 10.3 the owners indemnify the CSC against "all actions, costs, expenses, damages and claims" whether or not related to the CSA or the Collective Sale. How can this be acceptable to owners?
4. John Lee says: "*There is no provision for a performance bond from a bank to guarantee that the buyer will complete the sale and make full payment of the sale proceeds*. If Mr Tan is correct, then he should show us a Sale & Purchase Agreement with such a preposterous provision. No Developer will accede to this demand. It has not been done before and it will never be done ever. Our protection is in the 5 - 10% deposit placed with our solicitor, which will accrue to the owners in case of a default, and the advice of our Consultants on the bona fide status of the purchaser.
My comments: I have said in my letter that we are likely to be told it is not market practice. But that is no reason why we should not have a performance bond if the purchaser is really keen to buy our estate. Market practice has to start somewhere, doesn't it? And should we not learn from the lessons of other estates whose purchasers pulled out of their enbloc sales, to begin a market practice that protects us? The deposit is insufficient protection, as the potential damages for an owner who has contracted to buy another property may be much larger than his share of the deposit. I believe this is what happened in the aborted en bloc sales earlier this year.
In any event, if the purchaser is bona fide and does not intend to default, then it should have no problem giving the bond. But my point is that no one can say for certain that a seemingly strong company will not collapse - look at Bear Stearns and Enron, just to name 2 of the largest, most successful corporations that have collapsed without warning. The CSC should in fact be the party insisting on this in order to protect all owners' interests, and not say that "it has not been done before and will never be done ever". Is this indicative of how the CSC will be negotiating to protect owners' interests?
5. *He says: "The power of the CSC to enter into a sale below the reserve price, and other important terms of the sale, should be subject to approval of the subsidiary proprietors. *It is misleading and mischievous to suggest that the CSC can enter into a sale below the reserve price without the approval of the subsidiary proprietors. Clause 4 - Sale Terms Reserve Price: $630,000,000/ Higher if increased with the Sale Committee's approval and Sellers are deemed to agree to such increase. If the proposed sale price is less than the Reserve Price, the Sellers' Approval is required before accepting such lower sale price. Sellers' Approval is defined in Clause 11 of the CSA as "the approval of sellers constituting at least 80% of share value and at least 80% of the strata title area of all units". Similarly the terms and conditions of the CSA cannot be changed willy nilly without the approval of the owners.
My comments: if John Lee had read the letter carefully, he would have seen that I was referring to changes in the terms of the sale and purchase agreement to be entered into with the buyer, not the CSA. Under the CSA, the committee is empowered to change the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. And what is wrong with saying that if the CSC wants to enter into a sale below the reserve price, it should get the owners' approval? In fact, this should be done before any such sale is entered into, with clear explanations why the CSC recommends such action, and why the reserve price cannot be achieved.
Further, it is unclear how and when each owner's decision whether to agree to the sale below the reserve price is to be ascertained, and what time period an owner is given to make such a decision. In all, the mechanism for a sale below the reserve price is unclear, and owners would do well to ensure that it is clearly specified if they agree at all to such a provision. It could be said to look like advance preparation for a sale below the reserve price. Is there something owners should know about now?
In fact, having taken a closer look at the CSA, clause 5.6 does purport to give the CSC the power to change both the CSA and the sale and purchase contract willy-nilly, subject only to what is stated in the CSA and the law requiring Sellers' Approval!
6. John Lee says: “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”
My comments: In fact, it is John Lee and his CSC members who have been collecting proxies all along, making it appear like there is a majority in favour of the en bloc sale, when actually it is a minority. It just looks like a majority because this group of en bloc sale supporters attends and votes at the EOGMs, usually through proxies held by John Lee and his CSC members. So the end result is that resolutions passed at the EOGMs appear to be overwhelmingly supported, while in reality, the majority have not attended or voted.
Thus, I would urge all owners to attend the EOGM this Saturday, and all future EOGMs, so you can hear for yourself and make up your own mind about how the various issues raised above, and other issues that other owners raise at the meeting itself, will affect your own circumstances. Otherwise you leave your fate in the hands of a vocal, persistent minority who act with their own interests at heart.
Yours sincerely,
Tan Lai Huat
Blk x Taman Serasi #xx-xx
Singapore xxxxxx "
Below is a letter sent to our BGV email by an owner and the owner asked for the letter to be put on the BGV blog. We have reproduced it here for the benefit of all.
"21/08/2008
Dear Vanessa and Hwei Ming,
I’ve held back on making comments, but the latest email from John Lee about Tan Lai Huat has really infuriated me. Just as John Lee has answered point by point, I want to bring to the attention of readers and owners these points he made:
1. “His letter contain misleading information which needs to be corrected”.
In fact, I believe the information he provided is not misleading, but enlightening. The points raised by John Lee in his rebuttal is incorrect, and I’m sure they will be brought up at the EOGM, which I encourage as many of you to attend. For example, he suggested comparing ‘two documents’. I suggest you compare the CBRE CSA and the Credo CSA to see the ‘great disparity’. When compared in terms of sale proceeds, owners from Blk 1 stand to loose over $100k under the new CSA! I guess it is purely coincidental that none of the CSC members own units in Blk 1 so will not face this loss.
2. “He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee”.
This couldn’t be more obvious than the misinformation from the CSC’s own blog. For example, they stated clearly on their blog in response to the question: Can the reserve price be lowered after owners sign the CSA? Their answer was: “No. The reserve price is the minimum that owners agree to sell at. If the reserve price is not achieved, a sale does not take place”. I urge you to read clause 4.1.4 carefully to see if “a sale does not take place”. Such a clause about a lower sale price is not present in the CBRE CSA, but this just points out that the CSC is clearly preparing for a lower offer and is preparing to accept such a lower offer. Why else have this clause?
Some more “true facts” from their blog. In their “Timeline of Events”, they stated that in Jan 2008, “Owners present vote overwhelmingly in favour of formation of Collective Sale Committee”. Sounds like the entire estate is “overwhelmingly” for the sale, right? But actually, only 61 units out of 146 total attended and could vote. A total of ONLY 37% of the ENTIRE estate voted for the new CSC. That, my dear neighbours, is the “true fact”. A MINORITY GROUP has decided to push THEIR OWN AGENDA with no regard for the MAJORITY who are not keen on the sale.
And the most insulting, which many of you who received John Lee’s correspondence will remember, is now put up under “Alternative Places to Stay”. He has omitted certain sentences that were in his original letter, which I’ll now include, IN BOLD:
… It will not make much sense for us to sell our precious home and then splurge on a super luxurious home at 8Napier, Grange Residences, St Regis, etc. It will be plain stupid!
…Here are some estates where you can find homes with market value from $1-1.8 million: Normanton, Ridgewood, Pandan Valley, Pine Grove, Central Green, and many more in the east, west and central. Or, how about Punggol 21, the idyllic new town with shopping, nature, stream and MRT?
Some of the above estates are attempting to go en block, but they are not likely to succeed because they are huge estates, they have development charge issues, and most of them will not make it in time before the new Amendments become law.
Why did he omit these sentences? Because he called owners “stupid” just because we have a right to decide what kind of home we’d want to buy, luxurious or not. And how many of us were insulted that he would even suggest Punggol 21? I certainly do not see him moving out of his super luxurious home to this “idyllic new town”! And to add insult to injury, he suggests that we downgrade, downsize and move out of a perfect, central and beautiful location at BGV!!
3. “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”
Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Isn’t he just as aggressively collecting proxies to influence the outcome of a general meeting? Didn’t he already achieve that, to great effect and to possible detriment of our estate, during our AGM when he steamrolled his pro-sale team into the management committee, courtesy of proxies?
I’m sorry but I’m quite disgusted by John Lee’s high and mighty attitude. Given his attitude, his bullish behaviour, his misinformation, I’m now greatly concerned that it is only one step away from our estate becoming like that of Laguna Park – with people living in fear of enbloc vandals who will not hesitate to bully the rest into signing the CSA.
At the end of the day, the only *TRUE FACT* is this – now is NOT the right time to sell. And unless we get rid of the CSC, our estate will be sold for less than what it’s truly worth.
A very disgusted owner
Name withheld for fear of vandalism. Not everyone parks near the guard house daily."
Dear Owner,
We thank you for your letter. We can understand your reason for withholding your name for fear of vandalism but we hope you can contact us as soon as you see this blog post. Thank you.
Tags:
