Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 91 to 109 of 109

Thread: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

  1. #91
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    NUS said in its self defense: "The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite."
    So they admit that there is a conflict of interest but they went ahead anyway to conflict the sale!!! Why? So they then explain:

    NUS said: "The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose."
    NUS said the agreement for the collective sale was concluded! Concluded by who? When was it concluded? There are three parties involved or are they unaware. There is no conclusion of the collective sale until the Strata Titles Board approves the sale and sets a completion date. Haven't the NUS lawyers told them this? Can they be so bold as to claim it was concluded when the law tells them the collective needs to be approved by the STB?

    So, there is a conflict of interest by their own admission since the sale was not "concluded."

    "The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units."
    This is contradictory - I've heard that there is a letter written by them to the Sales Committee asking them to lower the reserve price. Seems they don't want the best sale price as they want the most profit from the development!

    So here again is more proof that they are showing a conflict of interest by their own admission since they were not seeking the best sale price.
    Seems like you don't understand English very well. As a result you are picking at the wrong things.

    I urge you not to display your ignorance.

  2. #92
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    If there is evidence for wrongdoing, perhaps it is prudent to contact the Commercial Affairs Department. The CAD can conduct an investigation and ascertain if there is a problem.

  3. #93
    Unregistered Guest

    Wink Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    Seems like you don't understand English very well. As a result you are picking at the wrong things.

    I urge you not to display your ignorance.
    I WAS IGNORANT until I read what was published in the TODAY newspaper on 17 March 2008:

    Heading: "NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query"
    By Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 17 March 2008 1032 hrs

    SINGAPORE: Fresh revelations about the relationship between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and purchaser Ankerite have surfaced, adding a new twist to the Gillman Heights condominium collective sale brouhaha.

    Acting for a group of minority owners fighting to scupper the Strata Titles Board's (STB) approval of the S$548-million sale of the property to developer CapitaLand, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang revealed in submissions to the High Court last Friday that condo majority owner NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite sometime around July 5 last year — about five months after the en bloc sale was inked.

    This fact, which was not available to the STB before it approved the deal, meant the Board was unable to make a "fully-informed judgment".

    CapitaLand had reportedly announced on May 15 last year that HPL Orchard Place and "two private funds" had bought 50 per cent of its subsidiary Ankerite.

    The court learnt on Friday that the NUS was one of the two unidentified private funds and had acquired a 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The NUS owns 303 units, or about half, of the property."

    I WAS IGNORANT until I read the Land Title (Strata) (Amendment) Bill No. 32/2007 which says (9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (2) – (a) if the Board is not satisfied that – (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: . . . (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors;

    I WAS IGNORANT until I read the PARLIAMENT DISCUSSION:
    In Parliament the discussion on “The LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL” states: Point 13 “Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board . . . is to determine that the proposed sale is bona fide and an arm’s length transaction . . . The Board will look at . . . the relationship of the purchaser to the owners, to ensure that there is no collusion. If the Board decides that the transaction is bona fide and an arms length transaction, the sale will proceed.”

    How is there no "conflict of interest" since it has a "relationship of the purchaser to the owners"-NUS. Are we ensured that there is no collusion? The information about their special relationship was not revealed to the Board but rather it was hidden from the Board and the other owners since CapitaLand described them as one of two "private funds." If they had nothing to hide, then why did they hide it from the STB?

    As to your comment that I "don't understand English very well" please don't trivialize this matter but show some respect to other forumers.

  4. #94
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    I WAS IGNORANT until I read what was published in the TODAY newspaper on 17 March 2008:

    Heading: "NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query"
    By Teo Xuanwei, TODAY | Posted: 17 March 2008 1032 hrs

    SINGAPORE: Fresh revelations about the relationship between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and purchaser Ankerite have surfaced, adding a new twist to the Gillman Heights condominium collective sale brouhaha.

    Acting for a group of minority owners fighting to scupper the Strata Titles Board's (STB) approval of the S$548-million sale of the property to developer CapitaLand, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang revealed in submissions to the High Court last Friday that condo majority owner NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite sometime around July 5 last year — about five months after the en bloc sale was inked.

    This fact, which was not available to the STB before it approved the deal, meant the Board was unable to make a "fully-informed judgment".

    CapitaLand had reportedly announced on May 15 last year that HPL Orchard Place and "two private funds" had bought 50 per cent of its subsidiary Ankerite.

    The court learnt on Friday that the NUS was one of the two unidentified private funds and had acquired a 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite. The NUS owns 303 units, or about half, of the property."

    I WAS IGNORANT until I read the Land Title (Strata) (Amendment) Bill No. 32/2007 which says (9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (2) – (a) if the Board is not satisfied that – (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: . . . (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors;

    I WAS IGNORANT until I read the PARLIAMENT DISCUSSION:
    In Parliament the discussion on “The LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL” states: Point 13 “Let me now elaborate on the role of the Board . . . is to determine that the proposed sale is bona fide and an arm’s length transaction . . . The Board will look at . . . the relationship of the purchaser to the owners, to ensure that there is no collusion. If the Board decides that the transaction is bona fide and an arms length transaction, the sale will proceed.”

    How is there no "conflict of interest" since it has a "relationship of the purchaser to the owners"-NUS. Are we ensured that there is no collusion? The information about their special relationship was not revealed to the Board but rather it was hidden from the Board and the other owners since CapitaLand described them as one of two "private funds." If they had nothing to hide, then why did they hide it from the STB?

    As to your comment that I "don't understand English very well" please don't trivialize this matter but show some respect to other forumers.
    Trivialize, as in make trivial? Far from it.

    You misquoted the NUS statements. That's why you need some English lessons.

  5. #95
    Unregistered Guest

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered
    NUS said in its self defense: "The possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also considered before the university acquired its 15-per-cent stake in Ankerite."
    So they admit that there is a conflict of interest but they went ahead anyway to conflict the sale!!! Why? So they then explain:

    NUS said: "The university was satisfied that its investment in Ankerite does not give rise to a conflict of interest for a number of reasons. The agreement for the collective sale was concluded before the opportunity to invest in Ankerite arose."
    NUS said the agreement for the collective sale was concluded! Concluded by who? When was it concluded? There are three parties involved or are they unaware. There is no conclusion of the collective sale until the Strata Titles Board approves the sale and sets a completion date. Haven't the NUS lawyers told them this? Can they be so bold as to claim it was concluded when the law tells them the collective needs to be approved by the STB?

    So, there is a conflict of interest by their own admission since the sale was not "concluded."

    "The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners who signed the agreement and were seeking the best sale price for their units."
    This is contradictory - I've heard that there is a letter written by them to the Sales Committee asking them to lower the reserve price. Seems they don't want the best sale price as they want the most profit from the development!

    So here again is more proof that they are showing a conflict of interest by their own admission since they were not seeking the best sale price.
    OK - I'll be kind enough to help you.

    Firstly, the "possibility of a potential conflict of interest was also CONSIDERED" does not mean admitting conflict of interest. They thought about it and decided that there was no conflict.

    Secondly, they said that "the AGREEMENT for the collective sale was concluded", not that the sale was concluded.

    Thirdly, I'm not sure if you have heard the right things but even so, lowering the reserve price means that they are keen to sell but yet at the best possible price. This is a test in logic.

    Lastly, one cannot "conflict" a sale, because "conflict" is not a verb.

  6. #96
    DrMinority Guest

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    The Straits Times (Singapore)
    April 19, 2008 Saturday
    NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale

    I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.

    The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.

    Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.

    In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.

    Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.

    Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?

    Lam Seng Ming and three other owners

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by DrMinority
    The Straits Times (Singapore)
    April 19, 2008 Saturday
    NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale

    I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.

    The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.

    Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.

    In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.

    Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.

    Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?

    Lam Seng Ming and three other owners

    The more I read about en bloc issues, the more my hair stands. I thought Regent Garden was bad enough with purchaser going behind the majority owners to enter into a side deal with the minority owners in order to force the sale at below market price.

    According to the above writer, if it were true that NUS did ask the SC to lower the RP, and given the vested interest in Ankerite, as against NUS's earlier undertaking that it would not intervene (am I correct?) in the en bloc process because of its 50% ownership power, I have lost the last 1% faith in private en bloc.

    Perhaps, we should consider one writer's suggestion -- all private estates can only be sold to the govt with the same HDB en bloc, or SERS, principle -- you get one for one plus cash compensation. You can sell the new one later.

    This will take care of the greed factor and focus only on the need to maximise the plot ratio and the renewal of the buildings.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    just wonder how STB approve such sale if NUS is ready involved in the sale pricing
    Quote Originally Posted by DrMinority
    The Straits Times (Singapore)
    April 19, 2008 Saturday
    NUS played critical role in Gillman Heights en-bloc sale

    I REFER to Mr Nicholas Kong's response on behalf of the National University of Singapore ('NUS: No conflict of interest in property deal', April 2). We minority owners - who have no wish to hawk our homes - of Gillman Heights in which estate NUS, by virtue of its 50 per cent ownership (303 units out of a total of 607), is the Goliath, wish to share our experience in the collective sale of Gillman Heights and, in particular, the critical role played by NUS.

    The owners were relieved by NUS' reassurance at an owners' meeting on Feb 18, 2006 that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' of individual owners decided to sell. We assumed, in the case of a collective sale, majority must be at least 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, depending on the legal age of the estate, but definitely not 51 per cent.

    Just over 32 per cent (or around 65 per cent of owners of the 304 units) chose to sell. The owners assumed that that should put paid to the collective sale. However, the sales committee left us in suspense. In June 2006, it announced that NUS had decided to join the sellers. With NUS' 50 per cent, the total percentage jumped to 82.7 per cent.

    In May last year, we learnt that Hotel Properties Ltd and two private funds had taken up stakes in the buyer of Gillman Heights, Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand. CapitaLand would retain a 50 per cent ownership of Ankerite. However, owners of the two funds were not identified.

    Only during the High Court appeal in March this year was it revealed that NUS owns one of the private funds. It has a 16 per cent stake in Ankerite. The Strata Titles Board did not have this material information during its hearing of objections in September and October last year and before it issued its ruling in December. Thus, it could not be aware of NUS' direct financial interest in Ankerite at earlier mediation sessions held in June and July last year.

    Mr Kong asserts: 'The financial interests of the university are aligned with those of the Gillman Heights owners seeking the best sale price for their units.' In 2006, after the individual owners had made their choice and before the June announcement that NUS would sell, much was going on while the owners were kept in the dark. It belatedly come to light that the delays had much to do with NUS' 'suggestions' that the reserve price be slashed by a hefty 20 per cent (a letter to this effect, dated May 16, 2006, was sent by NUS to the chairman of the Gillman Heights sales committee). Was that NUS' idea of 'aligning' its financial interests with those of the owners?

    Lam Seng Ming and three other owners

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    48

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Why is the dirt from Regent Garden littered on every thread?

  10. #100
    Forumer Guest

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by gillmanfolk
    just wonder how STB approve such sale if NUS is ready involved in the sale pricing
    What's the status of the sale & purchase agreement since the completion date is now past?
    As to the question of how STB would have dealt with the case, Part VA of the LTSA explicitly states that:
    “(9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (1) — (a) if the Board is satisfied that — (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: A) the sale price for the lots and the common property in the strata title plan; (B) the method of distributing the proceeds of sale; and (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors”.

    However, before anyone can form a conclusion, there are still some missing puzzles. If the postings in this forum are factually correct and have been truthfully made, the followings appear to be the sequence of events:-
    • 18 Feb 2006: NUS gave assurances that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' decided to sell.
    • 16 May 2006: NUS sent 'suggestions' to SC chairman that the reserve price be slashed by 20%.
    • Date X: Reserve price was slashed / not slashed???
    • 23 Jun 2006: NUS signed the CSA, resulting in a majority of 82% being achieved.
    • Date Y: Majority entered into a sale & purchase agreement with Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand.
    • 15 May 2007: CapitaLand announced that HPL and "two private funds" had bought 50% of Ankerite.
    • Date Z: Majority made an application to STB. NUS purchase of Ankerite was not disclosed in the application.
    • 5 Jul 2007: NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite and NUS’s Chief Investment Officer was appointed director of Ankerite.
    • Sep-Oct 2007: STB’s hearings of the case.
    • Dec 2007: STB issued its ruling. Completion date was fixed to 20 Mar 2008.
    • Mar 2008: It was revealed during the High Court appeal that NUS owned one of the private funds and it had a 16% stake in Ankerite.
    It is not clear whether the reserve price was eventually slashed and what are the dates that the majority had (a) contracted to sell to Ankerite; and (b) made the application to STB. Were the dates (Y & Z) before or after 15 May 2007? If before, how many months apart are they?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Pink4
    Why is the dirt from Regent Garden littered on every thread?
    becos the dirt lost money and not happy? so must have equal misery.. tell every tom dick and harry how RG minority owners make his life misery becos they got more money than he did!

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Forumer
    What's the status of the sale & purchase agreement since the completion date is now past?
    As to the question of how STB would have dealt with the case, Part VA of the LTSA explicitly states that:
    “(9) The Board shall not approve an application made under subsection (1) — (a) if the Board is satisfied that — (i) the transaction is not in good faith after taking into account only the following factors: A) the sale price for the lots and the common property in the strata title plan; (B) the method of distributing the proceeds of sale; and (C) the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors”.

    However, before anyone can form a conclusion, there are still some missing puzzles. If the postings in this forum are factually correct and have been truthfully made, the followings appear to be the sequence of events:-
    • 18 Feb 2006: NUS gave assurances that it would refrain from casting its vote unless the 'majority' decided to sell.
    • 16 May 2006: NUS sent 'suggestions' to SC chairman that the reserve price be slashed by 20%.
    • Date X: Reserve price was slashed / not slashed???
    • 23 Jun 2006: NUS signed the CSA, resulting in a majority of 82% being achieved.
    • Date Y: Majority entered into a sale & purchase agreement with Ankerite, a subsidiary of CapitaLand.
    • 15 May 2007: CapitaLand announced that HPL and "two private funds" had bought 50% of Ankerite.
    • Date Z: Majority made an application to STB. NUS purchase of Ankerite was not disclosed in the application.
    • 5 Jul 2007: NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite and NUS’s Chief Investment Officer was appointed director of Ankerite.
    • Sep-Oct 2007: STB’s hearings of the case.
    • Dec 2007: STB issued its ruling. Completion date was fixed to 20 Mar 2008.
    • Mar 2008: It was revealed during the High Court appeal that NUS owned one of the private funds and it had a 16% stake in Ankerite.
    It is not clear whether the reserve price was eventually slashed and what are the dates that the majority had (a) contracted to sell to Ankerite; and (b) made the application to STB. Were the dates (Y & Z) before or after 15 May 2007? If before, how many months apart are they?
    Based on the chronology given above, it appears that NUS became a shareholder of Ankerite with its Chief Investment Officer being appointed a director of Ankerite on 5 Jul 2007, whereas the STB's hearings were from Sep to Oct 2007. If these dates are correct, then NUS should have disclosed its interests to STB during the hearing and not until the High Court Appeal.

    That's only my personal view based on the chronology given above.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Pink4
    Why is the dirt from Regent Garden littered on every thread?
    BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO EVERY STRATA TITLE PROPERTY OWNER FOR HIS/HER OWN INTEREST.

    Why are you so worked up and taking it personal with uncouth language as "dirt", and inflate it to "every thread"? Are you one of the minority owners of Regent Garden and therefore afraid of the publicity? In any case, what "dirt" are you screaming about when it was merely a cross reference in only one sentence and without any elaboration of the case? You cannot be a neutral party seeking infor and knowledge.

    Please respect other writers if you want to be respected (unless you don't want to be). If any infor posted is incorrect, please provide the facts, but don't smear the thread with personal vendetta. Thank You.
    Last edited by James Tan; 20-04-08 at 22:47.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman
    becos the dirt lost money and not happy? so must have equal misery.. tell every tom dick and harry how RG minority owners make his life misery becos they got more money than he did!

    Norman, I respected your earlier posts, but this one stoops too low because you are making baseless allegations. Your last statement is very low class. Please respect yourself if you want to be respected.

    If you are not one of the minority owners or related to them, you should not take sides -- any comment must be justified by facts for readers to make an informed conclusion.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    48

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Mr. James Tan, why are you so worked up? Don't you find repeating the same unhappiness over and over again is like digging up dirt and throwing it everywhere? What is so uncouth about saying that? To us, your case is already very stale. We don't want to part of your quarrels. Must anyone who do not wish to read the same suff over and over again be a minority somewhere? You are very sensitive and you sound like a broken record.

    This thread is about Gillman Heights. Please respect that, and yes first respect yourself.
    Last edited by Pink4; 20-04-08 at 23:11.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by James Tan
    Norman, I respected your earlier posts, but this one stoops too low because you are making baseless allegations. Your last statement is very low class. Please respect yourself if you want to be respected.

    If you are not one of the minority owners or related to them, you should not take sides -- any comment must be justified by facts for readers to make an informed conclusion.
    i not minority owner. i taxi driver like you. i take sides learn from you. your facts about you speak for itself too.

    readers like taxi passenger. can make own conclusion that you are majority owner.

    and pink4 is correct.. this is about gillman. not everything about your RG okay?

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Pink4
    Mr. James Tan, why are you so worked up? Don't you find repeating the same unhappiness over and over again is like digging up dirt and throwing it everywhere? What is so uncouth about saying that? To us, your case is already very stale. We don't want to part of your quarrels. Must anyone who do not wish to read the same suff over and over again be a minority somewhere? You are very sensitive and you sound like a broken record.

    This thread is about Gillman Heights. Please respect that, and yes first respect yourself.

    Mr. Pink4, I am sorry if I had hit your raw nerve. I merely made one cross reference, only once and without even giving any detail about the other estate's problems, yet you flared up repeatedly.

    Yes, you are right that this thread is about Gillman Heights and therefore I failed to see why you are making so much fuss about another estate when one writer made a simple one line cross reference, unless there is something other forumers don't know.

    Therefore, I shall treat this matter closed. If you want to debate about the other estate (shall not mention the name to avoid hitting your raw nerve another time), let's do it at their thread. Thus, I will not reply you and don't waste other forumers' time fighting back. Good bye.

    P.S. As a matter of fact, I have far more friends at Gillman Heights than at the other estate. One of them is Mr. Lam who wrote earlier, so I would not want to waste their precious space with useless banter. Thank you, Pink and Nor Pink.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Anchorage
    Posts
    67

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman
    i not minority owner. i taxi driver like you. i take sides learn from you. your facts about you speak for itself too.

    readers like taxi passenger. can make own conclusion that you are majority owner.

    and pink4 is correct.. this is about gillman. not everything about your RG okay?

    Thank you, your personal view noted, but baseless allegations denied.

    See my reply to Pink4 which is ditto for you.

    Wish you luck and many passengers.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    48

    Default Re: NUS link in Gillman Heights sale under query


Similar Threads

  1. Gillman Heights sale finally completed
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 7
    -: 23-05-09, 15:55
  2. GILLMAN HEIGHTS: Final bid by 10 owners to end transaction
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 04-02-09, 15:23
  3. Gillman Heights en bloc dispute goes to Court of Appeal
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 17-12-08, 17:08
  4. Some Gillman Heights owners fight on for their homes
    By mr funny in forum En Bloc Discussion and News
    Replies: 19
    -: 10-04-08, 20:25
  5. CapitaLand buys Gillman Heights for $548 million
    By ahlahdin in forum En Bloc Achieved
    Replies: 8
    -: 07-02-07, 11:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •