Dialogue session with the residents on the 26th April 2007 ( WITHOUT PREJUDICE )


What a night! What an unforgetful night! The hall was packed and some had to stand outside the hall. Looking at the crowd, I have to admit that I was a little nervous. I started by telling the owners that this is a dialogue session and not a meeting. We are not here to make any decisions but to explain and clear whatever doubts they have over the implementation of the card access. Before I could finish, someone tried to interrupt. They wanted me to speak in Chinese. I told them that I would finish off in English and my secretary would try to explain in Chinese. I could see that a few of the owners were unhappy. I told them how the whole thing started. I told them why there was a different between the estimated cost which I told them and the real cost incurred. Mr David Khor, the GM of UOA was able to convince the committee ( a lawyer, a M&E engineer, an executive and some businessmen ) but I was not able to convince some of the owners. I am not in the same class as Mr David.

Before the R.A's secretary could finish explaining in Chinese, bullets started raining down on me. They put me in a defensive position. A few of them had come well armed with questions which I had no answers or in the position to reply. They were out to draw blood. They would not listen to any explanations. They would only look at the negative aspects of the implementation. To them, it's a waste of fund, it will not prevent any break-ins, it's a burden to them , they want a fool proof system and they wanted to be told the exact cost before Dats could start work. Perhaps , we have different perceptions. Dats Management felt that they could start work upon receiving the 60% consensus and some owners felt that they have to be told the exact cost. I told them that I put up the quotations on the notice board for two weeks. They claimed that they did not read them. What could I say? One lady was quite irrational in her argument. She wanted the committee to recommend a company to UOA which can do it with a lower cost. She wanted the committee to instruct UOA to stop whatever payments made to the current company. This is the most ridiculous suggestion that I ever heard. She must be thinking that The R.A. is managing Prima Setapak. I was speechless. She came up with so many ifs. What if her children knock into the glass? What if there is a fire? What if she was caught in the lift? She further claimed that the door is too small. I have no answers to all her ifs. The sundry shop owner was offended when I questioned his status at Prima. I apologized to him for doing that. I sincerely do not wish to embarrass him for claimming to own two units of the condos at Prima. I do not want to expose him. Should there be another dialogue session, I would not be so accommodating. He had no business to be there. If he has any grievances, he should bring them up with the management and not the Owners' Association.

One gentleman came up with a logical solution. He would try to get an independent consultant to look into the cost. I gave him a copy of the quotation. Our main concern is the cost. If it is justified, we have to accept it. If it is way above the market price, then we would definitely lodge a protest with UOA. At this stage, what's done cannot be undone anymore. You can get a court injunction to stop the project if you are willing to go that far. But, who will be the loser? We are. The developer will just use the money contributed by us to remove the injunction because under the Strata Title Act, they have the right to so. I told the crowd that my conscience is very clear. I am not a 10% man. I can accept all the attacks directed at me. I volunteer to accept this job. The worst scenario that I am looking at is to step down and pave the way for someone who can do a better job than me.

Another confident lady orator asked why the developer has the right to use RM 300 000 without getting our approval. I would like to advise her to direct the question to the Land and Mines deparment. Don't blame the owners, don't blame the developer but blame the goverment. The Strata Title Act is very clear, for any condos of which the strata titles have not being issued, the developer has the full authority to manage the condos. The goverment gives them this right. Some developers go for transparency but some treat the condos as their cash cows. In our case, UOA was willing to explain to us in details the full cost of the implementation. Majority of the committee were convinced but regretted to say that I was not able to convince some of the owners. There are 750 owners living at our condo. I don't expect them to think alike. I just hope that the majority are with me. As I have told you, I am not in the same class as Mr David, a very good orator with facts and figures.


I was quite angry with a committee member who tendered his resignation abruptly. In his letter , he told me that he resigned because he disagreed with the way the issue was handled. He was not happy because I did not put in enough effort to stop the project. Who am I to instruct UOA to stop work??? He was absent in many committee meetings. He was absent when the committee agreed to carry out a signature campaign . He was absent when we had the first dialogue session with the residents. He was absent when we had a meeting with UOA. Where is his responsibility as a committee member? I was not angry with him because he resigned. I was angry because he turned to the floor to direct his personal attack against me. I am not a gentleman if I point a finger at the committee should I sit at the floor as an ex-chairman.

I wish to see this thing through. I would not chicken out. I would be seen as a coward if I resign. The upgraded security system is not a total failure yet. It has not even being implemented. Give it a chance to work. My fate lies with the members in the next A.G.M. If they decide to remove me, I would leave gracefully. To me, this is a learning process. I wonder how many of the owners have ever heard of the Building and Common Property Act 2006 and how the new Act will affect us. I really wish to remain to work with the developer to enforce the Bill. I understand how it works because I have read the whole Bill. To tell the truth, if we are not properly organized, the winner will be the developer. This Bill gives us the full authority to manage our own condos ( of which the strata titles have not being issued ) but I am doubtful it will work if we are not united. To tell the truth, it will be years before we shall get our strata titles. We have to stand united to put pressure on the developer to convene the first meeting to set up the Prima Setapak Joint Management Body ( PSJMB ). Joint means together with the developer to manage our condo. The implication of the Bill is great. The Bill gives us the legal rights to decide ( the amount of maintenance fees, the rules and regulations and anything ) on what we want for Prima. The Bill will be gazetted soon.


Back to the card access. I wonder whether things would have been different if I had told the owners in the first dialogue session that the total cost of the card access implementation is in the range of RM 200 000 to RM 300 000 . I told them the estimated cost is RM 200 000. Should I had used the right highlighted word, I strongly believe that issue on cost would not have arised. Just imagine what the power of the right word used can do. People can capitalize and misinterpret on just one word used. I guess, my greatest mistake is not getting the right information. I am learning something new every day. To quote Datul Ong Ka Ting, education is a lifelong process.

What I wrote in this blog is my personal view. It does not reflect the view of the committee. Thousand apologies should I have offended anyone in this blog.

It's 12.25 a.m. now. Good morning and have a nice day!