Reply to Stewart Hoe

lionheart's picture

A very happy and prosperous 2010 to you too Stewart. On behalf of the PHRA committee I thank you for your continued support and for voicing your concerns.

I was really pleased to receive this note from you although the issues have been explained time and time again in various postings in the past. It presents me with an opportunity to address these same issues once again and I hope for the last time. My great frustration is that many residents just do not bother to read in detail what is posted on the Net before they bring up issues. It is my fervent hope that I can use this email exchange with you as a standard response to future queries of a similar nature. This reply would necessitate reference to efforts of the last PHRA Chairman, Mr. Cheah and I beg your indulgence if this reply is long-winded and tedious.

In your last paragraph you mentioned, kindly answer to Charles's email point by point and allow transparencies to all residents”. It is my sincere belief that this PHRA committee has been the most effective, transparent and pro-actively updating committee so far. If it is any indicator, the association file folder alone is already four times as voluminous compared to the combined last three years or so. This does not include the numerous web postings on both the Yahoo Group and the PH Website since the inception of this committee in March 2009. For the sake of inclusiveness we have successfully increased the membership of the PHRA from 40% to 70% of residents and in effort to disseminate and receive information/feedback to/from as many residents, the Yahoo eGroup now has about 280 members (we have another 50 email addresses to be added). PH has a total of 391 houses. There is no censorship in the PH eGroup!

Personally, I moved to PH only in December 2008 and also had some issues with the developer, FDSB during my purchase and renovation period. Having gotten involved in the PHRA (March 2009) rather reluctantly and upon the prompting of my mother-in-law, it certainly was not my intention to be elected Vice-Chairman. Work commitments prevented me from actively participating in PHRA efforts until about July/August 2009. Much credit must be given to Cheah for his efforts which is self-evident here. It is a rather comprehensive compilation of facts, documents, chronology, links, etc. and I suggest that you read the PDF document in toto. I do not know if you have met Cheah before but if you have, then you may know he is a no-nonsense guy who can be abrasive at times. This did not go down well especially with some of the older committee members who felt they needed more respect. I think Cheah is the kind of person we needed in the PHRA at the time; to reframe perspectives and focus efforts without the emotional baggage of previous committees. In fact, he moved to PH one month after me and upon his election to the post, he stated his intention to quit in 6 months; when he did after 7 months, I have had to helm the committee. I would like to emphasize here that I am fully conversant with PH issues and would not appear seemingly at odds with Charles if I am not totally convicted about what in my opinion, is the best way forward for our community as a whole.

Cheah led the PHRA committee for 7 months and he had from the beginning put in writing how and what he wanted to do to unravel PH issues. The issues were initially briefed to him by the likes of Yap Boon Huan and Andrew Wan; both ex-secretaries of PHRA. Under Cheah, the PHRA kept issues with FDSB segregated into two areas; security service management handover (accounts and guard house status) and grouses of residents regarding FDSB deliverables. It was unanimously agreed in PHRA meetings under Cheah that the PHRA engage FDSB and focus ONLY in the security management handover conditioned upon acceptance of audited accounts. No one in the committee objected to this segregation and BH Yap even drafted/wrote the PHRA meeting minutes before his unfortunate medical problems forced him to relinquish his position.

As for the resident grouses on FDSB non-deliverables; it was decided residents were at liberty to engage FDSB since PHRA may not have the locus standi. Never once has the PHRA ever prejudiced the rights or prerogative of affected individual residents to seek legal redress on FDSB deliverables. Frankly, I have not even heard about some of the items on your list being mentioned by the previous secretaries but except the first item they all fall under the second category.

The segregation strategy paved the way for PHRA and FDSB to move forward again after two years of bad blood. You can verify this from the PDF document I referred you to above, which also contains links to the uploaded video recording of residents dialogue session with FDSB in March 2009.

In hindsight, I know Cheah made a major mistake with the guard house issue. What was his sin? He had listened to the likes of Charles, BH Yap, Andrew Wan, etc. and was swept away by the same emotions that insisted PH wanted a legal guard-house as one of the pre-conditions of taking over security management from FDSB. Under current statutes and State regulations, there is no such thing as legal guard-houses for developments like PH. Obviously, if PHRA continued insisting on legality there would be no end. The problem with our guard-house is actually a problem of ill-location that poses hazards and inconvenience, and the fact that FDSB and MPSJ cannot take responsibility for third party liability claims. This remains a tussle between FDSB and MPSJ. PHRA recently took over security services management with EXPRESSED denial of such liability. The ill-location became more obvious when the road-link to Puchong Puteri was finally opened in early 2009 (residents then want to turn right upon exit and traffic from both directions became heavier).

Cheah has since admitted his error of judgment numerous times both in writing and verbally to residents both individually and collectively. In fact, I can now share with you this was the main reason why he resigned as Chairman; he felt he had let PH residents down by unnecessarily wasting months. However, before he resigned he did lay the groundwork for its rectification but he had already incurred the wrath of certain “senior” PH residents. We now see the fall-out in the incessant ranting of the same things on the Net. The referendum of 31st October 2009 and subsequent meet-the-residents sessions in December shows the majority want to move forward.

I must emphasize that the PHRA has never once abandoned residents by compromising their rights to seek legal redress on the matter of deliverables. Not ALL residents were affected by ALL the deliverables issues. As such, though PHRA can and did engage FDSB on those issues, it would be an injustice to ALL residents if it allowed those issues to undermine the taking over of security service management. Taking over security services management did not preclude the rights of affected residents to sue FDSB either individually or collectively if they think they can win. Charles was invited and did participate in a PHRA advice-seeking session with the National House Buyers Association (HBA) and he knows very well the limited options due to obvious constraints. The HBA has agreed to attend a Q&A session at the next PHRA AGM sometime in March 2010. The PHRA cannot and on my watch, will not institute legal action. If Charles so chooses (assuming he has a sure case, the energy, resources, to fight a protracted legal battle and sustain a possible counter-suit), no one can stop him from rallying the respective residents to do so.

Stewart, let me now respond to specific points in your letter before I proceed here to duly reply Charles “point-for-point” as per your request. Hope you do not mind if I put my comments in red font as follows:


From: [] On Behalf Of Hoe Stewart
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 11:26 PM
Subject: [puchong_hartamas] PHRA for Residents or Fivestar

Dear Ramesh

Foremost please allow me to wish you and your fellow committee members a Happy & Prosperous New Year 2010 ahead! Having just had the time after the year end closing to go through the trails of emails exchanges, I could truly appreciate that you and your fellow committee members are trying your very best to provide a secured, harmony and peaceful Taman for all of us to live in. Thank you once again.

Whilst I really appreciate the effort made by PHRA, however I do feel that there is a continuous obligation of PHRA to champion the rights and interests of the residents (especially the 1st owners) as against what the Developer had broken their code of business conduct and ethics. I hope to have managed to put this in perspective above. No doubt it is paramount to ensure the security of this Taman, however the new committee members should not oversight all the unsettled issues that have been brought up by the old committee members of PHRA to the Developer. It is a fallacy that the current committee did not engage FDSB on the issues.

I am one of the earliest residents that had moved into this Taman and I was delighted with the great initiative of some neighbours at that time to establish PHRA. Agreed. I could still recall that whilst the previous PHRA committee members were also taking the interest to look after the security of this Taman (this is not true nor reflected in the PHRA files. In fact, the previous PHRA committee was content to leave the management ENTIRELY to FDSB without supervision. Perhaps this is why slight improvements (so far) to security service now seem so obvious to residents who have been used to shoddy service) but they also at the same time help to challenge the Developer to meet their business obligations (agreed but where did ALL their noble efforts get us? Nothing was achieved and when Charles was sued for defamation, apart from some fund raising for legal fees, it was a helter skelter dive for cover as everyone dropped everything like a ton of bricks. I have the PHRA files to confirm this and actually felt sympathy for Charles when he appeared to be alone “holding the bag” so to speak. Unfortunately, Charles case has turned out to be a hindrance for PH in that FDSB was given a ready-made valid reason for not engaging on the guard-house; they plead sub judice! But it was quite saddened for me to recently note that the new PHRA committee members were more seen to be assisting the Developer in collecting their debts from the residents. I believe the key words here are “seen to be”. Let me remind you that ALL debts are due from us as PH residents/owners. Surplus in the management account belong to residents collectively and although there are amounts claimed by FDSB, the PHRA is effectively collecting monies that rightly belong to the residents collectively. I hope the present committee members will not take offence (no offense taken) by the manner I expressed my views. I merely hope that the PHRA could understand some of ours feeling by the act of PHRA doing so and thus would certainly create our lost of hpe & trust with the PHRA. Stewart, the PHRA is trying to operate effectively under very, very difficult circumstances as it is. A mess was inherited yet immediate solutions and measures must be put in place for our taman. The committee also hopes that residents will understand there is absolutely nothing for committee members to gain if the committee “appears the way it appears” to you and some others. There is nothing personal.    

I may not know what are the issues happening between Charles & the new committee members, but Charles & the previous committee members had certainly did a great job. I do not doubt that and would like to add that their intentions would have also been noble. Charles did a noble job to follow up on the following pending issues (with due respect, that would be the minimum expected of an association leader) that the Developer has always trying their luck to shy away from their obligations:-

1)  providing a hazardous position of the guard house (is Charles now finally singing the “hazardous” song too instead of the “illegal” song? I am glad because as explained above, the hazard IS REAL). [Again, please refer here]

2)  termites problems Stewart, this issue was new to me up until November when Bennet Ho wrote about it. I have never had a house that a developer gave me a lifetime termite guarantee.

3)  intercom system Sue the developer.

4)  smart home device This was optional to some house models only.

5)  water lekages problems Agreed. Almost all houses have this problem.

6)  long overdue execuions of MOT Perhaps you need to elaborate this to me as this is the first time I am hearing this but I know FDSB will not execute the MOT if individual security fees are not settled.


Stewart, the earlier committee should have got residents to take action before the CFs and individual titles were issued. No point shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. Holding on to not wanting to take over management of security as a protest was not only a mute point, it cost PH residents RM6,000 per month in management fees for years! This does not include security service provider charges.

Even a kid would know that the minimal amount of RM50.00 per month goes mainly towards security services. Residents should realize that they must keep their payments updated because we are paying for guards who keep our families safe. Instead we have some residents who take the excuse of so-called FDSB non-deliverables for not paying. The PHRA is trying to make it equitable for those responsible residents who pay by seriously enforcing payment on recalcitrant residents, even if it means through litigation. 

Charles attended the meeting with those above concerned presided by an MP and minutes adopted by the committee, Charles was sued by the Developer. The MP was Lau Yan Peng of Gerakan and he lost to Gobind Singh in the last general elections. Politicians are politicians and it was unfortunate that Charles made the error of thinking politicians are noble. So, good luck to you if you just go with Ah Chong & Ah Chai as claimed by Charles. Perhaps Charles is better off getting the ex-MP Lau to champion his case. If not, then Charles may as well go with Ah Chong & Ah Chai whatever that means.

I again wish to express my full support for you & the committee members to create a secured, harmony & peaceful Taman for all of us to live in, but do kindly answer to Charles's email point by point and allow transparencies to all residents. Stewart, thanks again for your support but if I were you, I would try view PH matters with a large dose of pragmatism.  



Sun Dec 27, 2009 8:26 pm

Attn N.Ramesh,

Can you let us know the remaining office bearers as there were many resignation
before 1st Nov 2009. Let me assure you there are more than the requisite number to form a committee. Can you please stop trying to undermine the PHRA by trying to get people to resign. Since you have threatened to bring legal charges against the PHRA to serve your selfish cause the PHRA can no longer trust your sincerity.  

This is an extract of a MPSJ letter to another government body regarding the
"Guardhouse and Security Management"

" Untuk makluman tuan , jabatan ini telah menerima surat bertarikh 24 November 2009 daripada Naib Pengerusi Persatuan Taman Puchong Hartamas Fasa 1 yang memaklumkan persatuan tersebut telah bersetuju mengambilalih pengurusan kawasan perumahan tersebut daripada pihak pemaju berkuatkuasakan pada 1 November 2009 lalu , termasuk pondok pengawal kawasan perumahan berkaitan."

Please go ask MPSJ why it would write such a letter. PHRA did not say those things to MPSJ nor are we stupid enough to say it. The PHRA letter will be posted online when our lawyer clears it. Rest assured that the wordings were carefully drafted.

Please clarify the following :
1.Most residents were under the impression that the PHRA was only taking over
the "security management". Correct. Please state your stand on this and also who bears the cost of relocation/reposition of the Guardhouse. No commitment was made to anybody.

2.In all discussion with MPSJ and their councilors with PHRA, it has been
maintained that the Guardhouse has not been approved and the present position is hazardous. That is correct.

Can the present committee show minutes of the meeting that agreed to bear the
cost for relocation/reposition. This question is mute by virtue of 1. Above. On 25/10/2009 , suggestions were made but were not carried out . Why I wonder ?? You are referring to a letter to be sent out to FDSB rejecting management handover totally? It was decided that a referendum be conducted among residents and let them decide on something that would affect them pertinently. It would have been an act of gross irresponsibility if that kind of letter had been sent out. I remind you now Charles that I had offered to resign if the residents referendum decided to reject the taking over without proper assignment of rights. The residents returned a 96% vote (100 voted out of 150 attendees) in favor of what the PHRA is doing today; take over with proper assignment of rights under the Supplementary Agreements..   

This will be of interest to a lot of house owners of Puchong Hartamas. Charles, what do you mean by “a lot”?

Charles Vander Slott



3rd January 2010


With reference to an e-mail from the ex-chairman there was a mention for a
collective agreement. MPSJ's guideline is 85% of the total residents in Puchong
Hartamas Phrase 1. Charles, since you have been going around the government departments to support your court case I would expect you to be well versed with prevailing guidelines and regulations and their applicability. Do not try to confuse PH residents who will be able to know once and for all when they are given the opportunity to grill the HBA in March.

Charles, you are barking up the wrong tree and PH residents should be thankful that we have a Supplementary Agreement in place. We must stop looking a gift horse in the mouth!

We have not sighted the assignment agreement from the developer to PHRA. It is with our lawyers at the moment and will be posted online soon.

The PHRA is collecting dues for the developer.The amount is said to be around RM200000. Are we doing this for free ? What amount belongs to PHRA or developer ? At least about RM70,000 from before December 31st 2008 is due to PHRA and we are awaiting the audited accounts for the period ended 31st October 2009. Initially, the PHRA agreed with the FDSB proposal to establish an escrow account since PHRA did not trust FDSB to eventually pay PHRA the amounts due. Later, FDSB suggested out of goodwill that all monies are to be paid in the name and account of PHRA. All this is assuming that ALL of residents eventually pay up their arrears. Legal action will eventually be taken if need be.

You say, “Are we doing for free?”. No Charles, WE (not YOU) are working for PH residents free.

Before the takeover, John Chong (our treasurer) has written a report on accounts and I believe this was not taken into consideration. As usual you believe wrongly. John Choong is still the treasurer of the PHRA. He has resisted so much pressure to resign due to work pressure yet he has stood by the PHRA. Contrary to what you want to think Charles, the PHRA accounts dealings (31st December 2008) with FDSB are based on those reports written by John Choong. Perhaps credit must go to you Charles for being like a vulture circling overhead; the PHRA finances are being handled with utmost integrity. Charles, you will not have the pleasure of satisfying your dubious desires because the PHRA consists of people with impeccable character. Mr. Lim Hok Ming is a senior banker and serves as a “cashier” since John Choong is currently indisposed.

We have bought access card amounting to 2x RM50=RM100 and the automatic gate has not been working for a long long time. This should have been rectified and put into working condition before we took over security management. I have elaborated before at length on the web as follows: “Many queries have been received with regards to the access card system. Firstly I would like to confirm that a system would be in place soon. As you all know the current system has too many technical problems; the frequent down time would cause more inconvenience than effectiveness. As such we have used sticker system as an interim measure to enhance security especially at the main entrance. This will allow the guards to be more objective and conduct limited screening at the guard house.

The old system is not only unreliable and expensive, it has been overtaken by technology. We are currently looking at other options which are not only cheaper but more reliable. To make matters worse Fivestar used a vendor who is essentially a one man show, not based in KL and emergency response time is totally not acceptable. We will be bringing up your issues with Fivestar as part of our overall discussion on Tuesday. I would like to repeat that a card system will eventually be in place and will complement the stickers.”

Please go here for further reading.

I have previously put an e-mail on the Yahoo E-group, a letter from MPSJ . Quite
a few residents would like to have an answer instead of having secret meeting
for only five to six people.
Charles I resent your accusations that I consider to be an affront to my and the committee members’ good character and name. Your desperation has affected your ability to rationalize things and you are wasting everybody’s valuable time.

Before 1/11/2009 , there was a spate of resignation because of the 18/10/2009
meeting . I wonder why? Charles, I have with me some emails of their resignation letters and I think they contain reasonable reasons. What are you trying to imply? You attended the 18/10/2009 meeting as an invitee and witnessed Cheah losing his temper but you also witnessed the few motions being carried unanimously with two abstentions. What is your point?

Who are now the office bearers after 1/11/2009 and why is there no AGM taking
place to fill in the positions. You mean EGM? We have been advised by our lawyer that an EGM is not needed at the moment. See you at the AGM in March 2010 which is just a couple of months away.

Hope I will get a respond as soon as possible .

Thank you.

Charles Vander Slott






You posted an earlier note here (27th December 2009) and out of deference to
your seniority I felt I should talk to you in person. I now refer you to our
subsequent rather lengthy meeting for more than one and a half hours the next
day (Monday, 28th December 2009) and strongly believe I had addressed all your issues by detailed explanation. You telephoned me on Thursday (31st December 2009) telling me you wanted to work closely with the committee. I agreed and phoned you on Sunday (3rd January 2010) afternoon to invite you for a discussion. You refused. Now you post here another one of your ramblings.

What exactly is your agenda Charles? It is common knowledge that you are being
sued by Fivestar for defamation. There is talk that your case can even be
settled with an apology. I hope that is true because you cannot expect the whole
Puchong Hartamas community to sacrifice their comfort and security for just one man. The PHRA is trying to do its job for the majority of residents and your
obsession with your legal case continues to be bad energy. Please refrain from
trying to twist everything and anything to benefit your legal case.

Also, in case you have issues with the previous Chairman, I would appreciate if
you take them up with him directly.

The PHRA secretarial file is being scrutinized by our lawyers at the moment. A
complete set of documents with accompanying narration will be posted online only after we retrieve them soon. Committee members do not have the time to complete all tasks in the short time that you demand. We too have our respective careers to take care of.

Members of the committee have sacrificed three weekends to meet the majority of residents and have obtained valuable feedback from individual residents. We know how almost all of them feel. Please desist from continuing to insinuate that
there are improprieties. If the committee has made any mistakes I assure you
they would be wholly unintentional.

In the meantime Charles, our records show that you have an amount outstanding on the accounts and also your PHRA membership has expired. Please do the necessary to update your status.

Thank you.

N. Ramesh


Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)