QUOTE(joshuawhlam @ Aug 13 2015, 05:37 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
hehe. You explaination is too bias to the management lah. We want owner to be protected and management do their jobs.
Your assumption may not be logic as my opinions lah. The purpose of the act is to protect the owner to create a harmony community. Management office does not own the buidling, but helping to run the building. They can not turn guest to be host as chinese sayings. Management office can only do their jobs based on the limited power given by act and have no rights to waive the rights of owners.
In democratic soceity, police caught somebody due to crime. If somebody did no crime as in law, police can not feel he is no good and tambah his perception on crime to catch him. This is a misuse of power to limit the human rights. T
he same things, management office can not simply tambah things suka suka because they are helping to manage the building and not the owners. They can not suka tambah tambah things to waive the right of owner. This is also misuse of power. If everyone suka suka, then waive other rights. Why we need act and law?
Ideally, e-vote should be promoted as now most of the professional body such as ICE, EI, IET all use e-Vote to choose the Chairman etc. Nomination can be made before the voting and owner can do e-Vote. I have seen no reason management should not support those owners who are not attend the meeting and also take this as reason to waive the owner rights again.
Law must protect the rights in a justice way, not someone simply say and can add this add that. It does seem come back to the Emperor time already.
This is my 2 cents. I am neither bias on the owner nor management. I just think if one party can easy to waive the rights of other parties, law is basically not working in the system!
We need to separate out Management office vs Management Corporation.
Management office normally is a property manager/company employed by Management Corporation.
Management Corporation is formed from the proprietor owner aka committee members voted.
In the act, it is the duty of Management Corporation to take care of the building, not MO.
MC cannot simply voided the right of proxy, all must follow what the act has provided.
If a proxy is stated able to vote in the act, then the proxy can vote, as simple as that.
If during AGM/EGM time, the chair person of the meeting (the chair person of meeting doesn't necessary come from existing chairman) disqualify the proxy without any reason (like not paying maintenance fee etc), then the owner appointed the proxy can complain to COB, and any meeting that being convened that violate the basic of the act may be deemed null and void.
Jul 27 2015, 02:38 PM
Quote
0.0169sec
0.55
6 queries
GZIP Disabled