[lioncityftw]

These statements by CPIB is damn interesting (see extracts below highlighted)....

1) Firstly, although Shan had offered and paid for extension renovations beyond his boundary area, why was the land size increased from 9,350 sqm to 23,164 sqm with fencing while the rental remains the same? 

Wah knn so good ah, If tenant is supposed to rent a 9,350 sqm area but if he offered to pay for renovations at adjacent land due to 'safety concerns' at more than twice his original area size, then he is entitled with access to the whole area with fencing at same rent? Adjacent land no need to pay extra rental? How much to pay for reno than can have such special arrangement? Isn't this preferential treatment? Commoner can have such arrangement or not? LOL. 

Can SLA be clear about their guidelines and the law regarding such a special tokong arrangement? *Wink

2) Clause 15 mentions that 'Minister Shanmugam and his agent were not aware of the Guide Rent. But final negotiated amount is $26,500. Next, at clause 23 finally mentioned that initial Guide Rent to be $24,500, then intended to charge tenant another $2000 to 'recover the amortized costs of works' which totals up to match exactly $26,500, LOL. 

WTF is happening? Really satki report findings with so many questionable points appearing technically legal but so coincidental like a freaking elephant in the room..LOL 





https://onecms-res.cloudinary.com/raw/up...0(002).pdf

.
.
.
NBPCB, next GE better vote them out la. How long is the kum gong 61% going to be hookwinked by these 'legal' antics? LMAO.