PHRA Dialogue Updates

yeak's picture


It was a great event yesterday on the dialogue with developer. If you have missed it, here are some information you may find it useful.

  1. Brian video tape the event and if he is free he will upload it to YouTube. It was quite lengthy.
  2. Mr. Cheah our Chairman is the moderator. He single handed manage the entire talks. Not many of us spoke because he basically said all things on behalf of us. :-)
  3. On developer side are Ms Wendy and Mr. Nick. Ms Wendy remind us that one of the reason why guard house legality delayed is due to this place is not built on "gated community". It was a surprise and I could not stop dropping my jaw upon hearing it.
  4. We focused on two topics: Guard House and Accounts. The rest of topic not the main issues, can be discussed after the dialogue.
  5. Developer is helping us to push thru the legality of having the Guard House.
  6. We volunteer to meet Developer this Saturday to go thru the Accounts, and find ways to settle the bad debts that many residents didn't pay for the security guard service.
  7. In our opinions, we still need Developer to continue provide the security guard service before handling the entire management to PHRA. Therefore we advice Developer to continue to send us bill.
  8. On the bad debts, it should be cleared as many residents actually wanted to pay. Leaving the past "dissatisfaction" feeling aside (I don't have any), let's get service moving on and PHRA shall ask Developer to cooperate with us: a. don't send any "saman" for bad debtors as it get it worst; b. retract the "saman" and get back all bad debts; c: PHRA learned to collect the fees and get things done. After all, PHRA will be responsible to do this later. Start the training now!
  9. We still need volunteer especially lawyer. We need people to read legal documents and understand the laws.

The best thing is, after the dialogue, everybody seemed still sticking around didn't feel like going home! That's the spirit for community!

Last but not least... please note that we have e-group setup by our Chairman. The purpose of e-group is to communicate with you via email. This way all latest updates and discussions can reach you on-time. It is open to public.

Visit the e-group here: Residents of Puchong Hartamas

You need a working email address to join the group. Don't use temporary email address which you seldom login to. We need to build up a reliable list of users. You can organize the mail you received into folder or labels so that it won't distract your works.

Your rating: None

I wish it had been more of a dialogue in the real sense than a one-way communication. We had high hopes since we were told that Wendy Tan, Property Manager of Fivestar Development, would be there. But she kept saying that there were many things she could not comment and asked for two months to obtain approval for the present guardhouse without any conditions.

While in principle this period of two months was agreed upon, I feel that this should not limit the residents from complaining to the MPSJ that the guardhouse is still a safety risk for cars driving out of Puchong Hartamas Phase One.

I think we should mount a signature campaign to complain about

a. the lack of proper vision to enable the outgoing drivers to see CLEARLY on-coming cars from Bandar Puteri. This has led to several near accidents and the authorities should not wait till there is an accident before taking action!

b. the lack of parking lots for visitors who need to stop at the guardhouse to register before entering our housing estate. When they stop at the gate, they block the access and many cars have to wait along the main road. STATIONERY CARS AT THE MAIN ROAD POSE A SAFETY RISK TO MOVING VEHICLES AND VICE VERSA.

Residents must take action to complain before the developer gets unconditional approval for the guardhouse!

Which brings me to this point - Isn't the MPSJ supposed to look after the safety of the taxpayers like us? If there are safety issues with the guardhouse, how can MPSJ even approve the guardhouse without conditions?