well fyire i hv to say i had to agree with u about this but it is up to the members to sign after reading all the details and perhaps better bring his/her own lawyer to chk the details b4 sign...right!

---

Added on August 5, 2008, 3:25 pmcherroy,
i hv to agree with u too, as they hv to chk all the details, i check before i sign of course if u ask me...so i got no problem with that and i get wat i promised so life is is great and so far so gd and getting better too...and yes we do hv our copirs of the agreement after stamping. As long as STG managed the STG outlet well and supported by us. We are sure that they can make it! thanks for all the reading....do anyone hv anything to ask? as i guess the purpose of the thread is already served and it is time for me to rest too after all the outlet will be open and what i done here already finish...so anyone any questions??

This post has been edited by siliconwiper.com: Aug 5 2008, 03:25 PM

Very Well said!

Bro Yaozz,

I guess it's abit unfair to use the "Con" in this context, this indirectly implies that STG is a scam. What are the proofs and facts to support your claim by saying STG is "conning" public's money?

---

Added on August 5, 2008, 5:17 pmI read in the earlier post that mentioned somewhere STG is limiting to a number of 20,000 members? is that true?

From the way i understand about the program, it will only benefit the people whom mainly staying in Klang valley only
at this point of time right? since there will be only 1 STG outlet in Sunway Pyramid in Aug and perhaps a few more by end of the year.

May i know how is the structure of the Board of Directors of STG? just curious to know.

Thanks Silicon!

---

Added on August 5, 2008, 5:22 pmChatwarrior,

No, i'm not picking on you. It's just my personal opinion.



This post has been edited by kirk08: Aug 5 2008, 05:22 PM

u think i never read the agreement meh? i'm fine with it so be it! do u think if this STG got problem or they don't follow the rules of the game i still go support ah? dun be silly my fren, i'm just the members and not the owner...think properly....if the are trying to do anything stupid of course u'm the 1st few who know it and i can do what is justified to me and all my fellow groups members....i'm a businessman and i'm not dumb even if they are clever! so u got problem with me? or what? u better do what ever u can here as i'm off to the thread soon....arioz....

---

Added on August 5, 2008, 10:07 pmwell log on to their website for the structure and my group expended till ipoh n Penang now...they won't wait until STG be in their place...i guess m=no problem at all...i even hv singaporean here...

20,000 yes! this is the 1st phase of the project....

This post has been edited by siliconwiper.com: Aug 5 2008, 10:07 PM

btw, is the Steven corner brand new look is completed?

where can see it? enjoy it?

I believe terms and conditions and the right to alter that as they see fit is a normal thing to do.
I've seen it many times everywhere.


http://www.gov.my/MyGov/BI/Site/TermsAndConditions/


http://www.pg.com/terms.htm


http://exabytes.com.my/about/legal/terms/

With the above quotes, it is not uncommon to have such clauses, as T&C needs to be changed and updated periodically according to needs and future conditions/events. It would be virtually impossible to notify ALL clients on this and manually have them to re-sign everything again, as such the people bound by such agreements ought to practice due diligence to be constantly updated of any changes to the T&C as posted publicly (yes it must be publicly, either on website or bulletin or any printed material by the organization) and if anyone so disagrees, they can cease the service.

Now, when it comes to STG, how close is their "rights to change T&C" to the common disclaimers as above?

---

Added on August 6, 2008, 8:53 pmWould it even be feasible to consult thousands of buyers in the first place?
Considering each one will have their own POV, and debate over it, before anything gets tangibly approved?

---

Added on August 6, 2008, 8:56 pmSo the saving point is this, if the T&C has been changed to a point where it doesn't favours you, you have the right to cease your membership with STG, otherwise, it is deemed as you would have agreed to it, and it is members' responsibility to keep themselves updated on T&Cs all the time.

Is this correct in me saying this, Mr SilliconWiper? Is there such clause as this?

This post has been edited by happy4ever: Aug 6 2008, 08:56 PM

Which means it is somewhat like an MLM scheme?

Well, looking at the gov.my as well as the pg.com website, you'll find that there's no obligation to make use of the website, or you'll have to forfeit anything should you first agree then decide not to use it later.

A more similar comparison will be such as Exabytes, where you've already paid an amount of money to them for a term of service. However do take note that the Terms & Conditions of Exabytes does not state anything to do with the type of service that you'll be getting, as that is in the pricing or quotation.

In short, if you've signed up for a plan that provides you with xxx amount of storage, it does not allow them to reduce it in any way at all for during the duration of the plan that you've paid in advance for. They can only do so after the expiry of the term that you've paid in advance for.

So with this in mind, it is up to siliconwiper.com to actually clarify the exact nature of the agreement that is signed here.

So once again, it is up to siliconwiper.com to clarify on this, especially on the part on the ceasing of membership as well as if there's any money back should a person decides to pull out, or will the full amount of money be forfeited permanently upon the signing of the contract.

Exabytes' can forfeit one's website should it violate the T&C by suspending the service.
Yes...it all depends on the exact T&C and agreement details from STG.

Generally, all T&Cs should be as generic as possible, covers conduct and operations, as well as rules of fair play and compliance etc etc. The details, like in exabytes' case, would be in the invoice/receipt whereby the details of services paid for is clearly stated.

However, judging on chatwarrior's posts that it was a SCAM solely based on the premise that the Company has sole rights on changing the T&C, is really bias because ALL companies has such T&C that allows the company to change it as and when the need arise. Chatwarrior is only speculating what may not even occur (no refunds/rebates/price hikes/payments etc etc), by being an absolute pessimist.

It is not an agreement between a few people like Real Estate, but deals with MANY people.
So it only makes sense for the Company to have such clause to safeguard it's interests in carrying out it's duty, updating the T&C without wasting time haggling with everyone's lawyers. It is good business sense to do it this way.

yes they can, but I was not making a reference to Exabytes with that sentence of mine that you had replied to here.

To be more accurate, Charwarrior did not speculate on this, but was relating an experience told to him by a friend of his:

http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=18973384

Note the following:
- the reluctance to even show the document to the potential before receiving the money
- the refusal to allow the potential client to have a copy of the agreement for further legal consultation

This does very much add to the suspicion.

Furthermore I'll have to say that the responses given out so far has been rather slimy, to the extent of refusing to clarify if this is supposed to be a MLM type of business, but preferring to have the details kept secret instead. Do take note that there's totally zero assurance, or even attempts of assurance of proper legal protection for the buyer by those who had been promoting this scheme heavily here as well.

This post has been edited by fyire: Aug 6 2008, 11:58 PM

Yes. I was adding it to what you quoted.
Well, there is a question now that being what was noted:
1 - the reluctance to even show the document to the potential before receiving the money
2 - the refusal to allow the potential client to have a copy of the agreement for further legal consultation

Were these two actions above a sanctioned procedure by the Company, or acted on by certain individual member?

Now, considering (1), how would anyone sign anything and pay for anything, without knowing the T&C and agreements that binds them?
And (2), how can they NOT have a copy of agreement, bearing in fact when you sign up, you must sign at least TWO sets of agreements, and initial on EVERY page of the agreement. You cannot put a signature of only one set and photocopy it.

Also, bear in mind, chatwarrior said his friend was shocked by the clause in the T&C itself, he smells scam on the pretext of the inability of the member to explain it properly to them.

Bearing this in mind, should this be justified as a Company being a scammer solely based on the inappropriate answer given by one of its member?

It is a known fact that the member MUST explain every detail of the agreement to chatwarrior and his friend. But failing which, should it then be justified to put a blanket wide generalization that the Company MUST be a scam?

On 1) Take note of the words used. Pay first, then sign, rather than the other way round which is the usual practice.

On 2) Again, take note of the words used. Refusal to part with an unsigned copy for the potential buyer to seek legal consultation before signing. After all, legal consultation won't do much good after the agreement had been signed.


My position on this is the exactly the same as anything to do in regards to everything else. Scam or no scam, should the company in charge of such schemes do not make the attempt to stamp out such practices, then they very much deserve the bad reputation that is attributed to them due to the actions of their workers or agents.

This is the same position that I take for MLM related stuff, or for companies such as those DMAX/Cobra types.

The other thing of note here is that there's totally zero attempts at attempting to clarify if such is an appropriate thing to do or not by those who are promoting this scheme on here. Scam or no scam, this does sound extremely slimy.

While it does sound slimy, it may not amount to a scam.

Do not forget, shitty and dumb replies happens not just on STG and MLM companies, but even on government agencies too.
It does mar their credibility and professionalism, but never amounts to SCAM.

Also note on the term slander. If one claim it as scam solely based on actions of few individuals, and post a generalized statement that is detrimental to the Company's reputation, does it not amount to slander?

So, prior to claiming scam or attempted scam by the Company, the claimant must prove that it is indeed a company policy to behave in (1) and (2). Otherwise, the Company isn't held liable whatsoever.


Was there ever a FORMAL complaint filed to the management of the Company?
Best is to refer to Malay Mail hotline so an official reply is made.
LYN forum isn't a formal avenue. Silliconwiper does not speak on the Company's behalf nor an authorised rep for it.
Was there attempts to contact the management of STG to clarify it here?
Otherwise, shouldn't the benefit of doubt, as in innocent until proven guilty, be upheld first before more concrete evidence is provided by chatwarrior that, it is BEYOND ALL DOUBT, the Company does condone shabby dealings and (1) and (2) above.

This post has been edited by happy4ever: Aug 7 2008, 12:56 AM

Like I had mentioned before, my stand on this is, scam or no scam, it is indeed a red alert sign for any potential buyers to exercise more caution especially when it comes to the legal side of things.

Come to think of it, I've not encountered a successful case of slander against a person who's negative opinion is formed by false or inaccurate or fragmented information presented to them. In fact, what that is more common are some sort of civil suits against those presenting the information in the first place, depending on whatever the lawyers can think up of.

Its as I had said, that these companies themselves are responsible for the bad reputation attributed to them due to the actions of their own people. This is very much different from the legal liability that you are making a reference to.

Out of curiosity, how do you know what Silliconwiper's role is?

@And to Chatwarrior: take note of happy4ever's responses here on what you should be doing to proceed on this should you have actual evidence if this is a scam, or if you wish to clarify with the management of STG on the actions of those promoting on their behalf.

This post has been edited by fyire: Aug 7 2008, 01:30 AM

I believe Raja Petra slept in the cell from a successful slander case in his blog, am I right?
There are also cases of newspapers and bloggers being charged too.
But in due democracy, if one person is free to slander, the other is free to sue, regardless if it is successful or not.
Difference is, STG has the money to sue, does chatwarrior have the money to defend and/or counter sue?

In most cases, it can be settled out of court, to save time. However, is chatwarrior in the position of strength to negotiate such settlement in the first place?

Also, all information presented by the slanderer can be claimed as the cause of false perception given to him by the slandered party. No one will claim otherwise just to be charged.

And do note, they are also responsible to safeguard their reputation by launching a threatening legal suit to chatwarrior (and to the owner of LYN), should this thread and other threads/posts created by chatwarrior in Kopitiam, be officially made known to STG.

Based on his reply, I am perceived that he is just a member. Hardly the employee or official spokesperson, unless STG is really a chinapek company to hire Silliconwiper to answer so, erm *ahem* *ahem* hehehe

This post has been edited by happy4ever: Aug 7 2008, 01:54 AM

RPK himself had been the one giving out the information that is considered as slanderous by those who had brought the suit against him. Do take note that the suit in this case is brought against RPK, and not against those who had negative impressions of those who initiated the lawsuit against RPK. Hence this is the key difference here.

Chatwarrior's problem is his own. Incidentally, didn't you just come from a discussion in regards to defamation a few days back? Points raised there's pretty much the same as here too.

Your description here differs from the case in point, where the false perception was given not by the slandered party, but by somebody claiming to present information on behalf of the slandered party.

Well, if you're to look at his reply alone, you'll find that there's not a single aspect of his reply that is ever consistent in anything at all.

Slander is only when a negative impression/perception of a party is made public, hence jeopardizing the reputation of the affected party.
It is not slander if it is kept to oneself privately.
Isn't it so?

Difference is, one side knew of the slander, the other (STG) knew not.
And from the other discussion (95% sdn bhd right?), those who cried scam were misled by misinformation, but still, doesn't justify a scam.
Hence i refrained from using the word scam so as not to get implicated.

To be made to perceive as a scam does not justify a public absolute stance that it MUST be a scam unless proper evidence has been put forth, and clear indication of clearing all doubts with the Management be sought first, of which chatwarrior did not show that to be done. All he had was his interaction with one or few members. No indication of involvement by chatwarrior with the Management to solve the dispute amicably.


Yes, this excuse can be used as well to defend the act of slander, that the representative of the company had deliberately misled me to perceive such as such and such, etc. and hence my public outcry. Not sure if this will hold in court.
Thats why he cannot be from the management team or official representative lor....so no point in chatwarrior arguing with Silicon.
Best is to bring it up to consumer tribunal, or Malay Mail Hotline, or even MCA michael chong?
Posting all over LYN doesn't really raise much awareness...as not many people wants to read 20 over pages of long postings and arguments.

Do note here that the person charged with the suit is the one deemed by those who had filed the suit as the originator or the information that they deem to be negative, and also the fact that its not likely that all those who had gotten the negative impression as a result of RPK's writings had kept this privately to themselves either.


Its like I said before, Chatwarrior's decision is his own. Should he wishes to listen to your suggestions, then its his choice.

How much "more" are you getting by posting at forums? What's the point of posting this up and entertaining everybody everyday. Very free go find more "investment" and fork out your money into it .

Scam or not scam, we do our own due diligence to find out. Everyone can have their own view. Even until now, there are people believe some pyramid scheme out there might be legitimate.

We can only say it is a scam if it turns out to be scam, right?

Just as normal public out there, we can find out the legal issue of the scheme offered only, as I mentioned repeatable time already. MLM needs KHPDN licence to do so. Investment part for public need Securities Commission and BNM/BAFIA etc. If STG offering MLM scheme, then it should have MLM license to run the scheme, otherwise, it might mean illegal in the first place to offer MLM scheme. BTW, until now I don't know whether STG scheme is MLM or prepaid, because confusion information being posted. So I don't comment on it whether it is or not.

The scheme of this issue is actually quite similar to MW we had discussed before.
http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/553560/+120

Don't get me wrong, I don't say or comment STG issue is scam or legitimate scheme.

Just the T&C issues can be as same.
A lot of T&C are largely depended on sincerity of the company totally.

To be precise, if the contract stated payout ratio can be changed by the sellers without consent of buyers, then it is no different than saying this payout is projected, but not guarantee will be.

I don't think we need to drag on the T&C part. As mostly there are clauses that we discuss about it for 100 pages long also won't finish.
Just like we open an account with banks, there are T&C stated that banks can change the interest rate offered in the future without notice given. It might seems a disadvantage to the depositor, but we knew the sincerity of the banks, as mostly we trust they will offer some average market rate out there.

Whenever, there are T&C which are disadvatange to the buyers then it is totally up the sincerity of the sellers. Buyers risk is totally exposed to the sellers. In this kind of situation, just like above bank account issue I mentioned, it is fully up anyone to trust on the sellers. We had not much problem with banks because mostly we trust banks won't run away with out money.

Another even T&C is perfect taking interest on buyers side (seldom ), if the company closed shop, then whatever T&C is also useless, right?
It is same with banks, (but we knew banks won't close shop easily).

This post has been edited by cherroy: Aug 7 2008, 10:28 AM