"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.

LAGUNA PARK - ex condo chief trial continues...

Ex-condo chief scoffs at fine for mischief
Straits Times - 22 April, 2009
FOR his acts of mischief in Laguna Park condominium, Lee Kok Leong, 62, former chairman of its management committee, was fined $1,200.
'Fine, then fine lah. After all, I can afford it. I can spend $4,000 in one night on karaoke.’

Lee has paid for the damage he caused to his neighbours’ property, amounting to about $600.
But no, he had not apologised to them, he told reporters. And no, he had no regrets about what he had done.
'What’s there to regret? What’s done is done. I am not remorseful.’
Arrogant bullies are present whenever greed is allowed to get the upper hand, en bloc is match-made for this type of personality. It's a pity the Court didn't make more of an example of Mr. Lee; a rap on the knuckles is not much of a deterrent.
But then again, look at this case Lim Hong Eng v Public Prosecutor[2009] SGHC 92 at the High Court 17 April 2009.
Here a woman was witnessed as driving through a red light and crashed into a motorbike, resulting in serious injury to the motorcyclist and the DEATH of his pillion rider.
For this, she received only a 1 day imprisonment and a $2000 fine.
So taking a life through negligent driving is only a tad more serious than gluing your neighbour's lock?
Condo glue case: Lower court to hear new evidence
THE prosecution has appealed against a $1,200 fine handed down to the former chairman of the Laguna Park management committee for his acts of mischief.
The appeal came up for hearing in the High Court yesterday, but the case was sent back to the lower court for new evidence to be heard.
Businessman Lee Kok Leong, 62, was convicted in April over two mischief charges.
He admitted to inserting super glue into the keyholes of padlocks at the front and rear gates of Mr Yap Cher Sim’s flat in Block 5000E on Aug 25 last year. For that, he was fined $800.
The same day, he committed the same offence at another flat in the same block, belonging to Ms Alice Elizabeth Rappa, resulting in another $400 fine.
Lee could also have been jailed for up to a year for each offence.
The acts of vandalism occurred last July amid a row among residents over whether the condominium should be sold en bloc. Lee was caught in the act by a closed-circuit television camera installed by Mr Yap in the common corridor.
The prosecution appealed against the fine. It also applied for new evidence to be cited for the appeal.
Yesterday, Lee’s lawyer, Mr Ramesh Tiwary, sought an adjournment.
Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin noted that the prosecution was seeking to enter new evidence, but he could not hold a trial or make a determination based purely on affidavits.
‘There has to be a further hearing before some other tribunal,’ he said, referring to a provision on criminal procedure.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Jennifer Marie asked for the additional evidence to be recorded by the same district judge that sentenced Lee.
No details of the evidence were disclosed.
But Justice Chao described it as a ‘pertinent piece of evidence’, noting there were three affidavits from the prosecution and one from the defence.
The judge directed that the additional evidence be taken by the sentencing judge without him making any finding.
Straits Times - July 16 2009
Straits Times - 29 Aug 2009

No comments:

Post a Comment