Sat 11 Mar 2017
A group of owners brave enough to confront Mr Philip Yap showed up on Saturday morning at 10am when the office was opened to request for him and the Chairman of the management council Mr Packiasingh Raja Solomon to give answers to the questions submitted.
A group of owners brave enough to confront Mr Philip Yap showed up on Saturday morning at 10am when the office was opened to request for him and the Chairman of the management council Mr Packiasingh Raja Solomon to give answers to the questions submitted.
I gave a copy of the letter from the TAT to the Chairman as when I called him on the phone on the day after it was delivered to the office, which is day we visited the COB office, to ask if he did get to see the Company's letter addressed to him, he said no. He didn't want me to see him personally either to pass a copy of the letter to him. I guess the Chairman too doesn't know the law as regards to his position or role as a Chairman of the Management Council! A copy of the official mail from Tai Aik Tong sdn bhd(TAT) addressed to the Chairman was given to him on this day.
As Mr Philip Yap didn't want to respond to our 7 unanswered questions and chased us out of our office, we continued our meeting outside recorded by the following videos :
Major decisions like change of open car park privileges to owners and other matters discussed and decided by the Management Council has not been disclosed to the owners as minutes of the Council meetings have not been posted on the official notice board in the apartment building. This is another violation of law required by the Strata Titles act
More comments on the conflict of interest in having Mr Philip Yap as a building manager who is also a tenant in the apartment is covered below:
An owner speaking in Cantonese expressed two points about biasness of Mr Philip Yap. One is about why he had observed that another owner had two cars of which one did not have a sticker and the car was not clamped. Another point is that he had observed during AGMs and EGMs in the past, as many owners as possible are welcomed in those meetings but why Mr Philip Yap seemed to be knocking out people from attending the meetings.
My answer is that Mr Philip Yap was acting with biasness and intentions to control or influence the proxies obtained from contacting owners who don't live in the apartment himself, as he has access to it at the office, to get them to sign proxy forms so that he could use them for his benefit during the AGMs or EGMs. This reflects again the conflict of interest for appointing a tenant or owner to be a Building Manager in which case Mr Philip Yap is a tenant! The owners in attendance could witness his nominees as proxies and therefore have brought up this crucial conflict of interest situation that seriously affect their voting rights in the past general meetings. A full investigation to follow up on who attended the meetings tied with who are the proxies for which owner will reveal the evidence of manipulation of the voting rights in these official meetings.