New REIT saga!
- Thread starter Johnrambo
- Start date
A few key points came up to me:
1) Throughout the entire tirade, the poster (Nison Chan) did not mention anything about the property management company not being compliant with the contract they signed, so I assume that's a tacit admission that they have no legal grounds for not paying rent.
2) Whatever the reasons the poster gave for not being able to commence operations, it's ridiculous to slam them with a "You still have the audacity to send us an invoice for rental despite out unit NOT BEING OCCUPIED and HORDED UP". Excuse me, you were unable to commence operations for your own reasons and now you are trying to frame the whole thing as a moral outrage because you yourself cannot start operations.
3) The reasoning that the poster should be treated differently from Shake Shack because they are "MNC" and he's only "SME" is a dishonest argument. There is no particular reason why the property management company should treat him differently just because he's "SME". If someone goes buy something in his shop and at the counter claims no money what would he do? Probably tell the buyer to either pay up or get lost just like everyone who paid in front or behind the queue. Would he accept if the buyer now claims it's "ridiculous" to compare a poor guy like him with other customers who are richer?
Assuming his description of his dealings with the Leasing Executive is true, this can at most be construed as poor customer service and/or a badly trained staff with a defective attitude. Maybe one can also fault the Leasing Manager for not being emphatic enough when delivering hard messages, but Nison's overall tone is very self-entitled and acted like the Company is obligated to help him due to business challenges he faced from COVID. The gist of it is "How dare you ask a SME like me to pay up when I already face business difficulties due to COVID?"
1) Throughout the entire tirade, the poster (Nison Chan) did not mention anything about the property management company not being compliant with the contract they signed, so I assume that's a tacit admission that they have no legal grounds for not paying rent.
2) Whatever the reasons the poster gave for not being able to commence operations, it's ridiculous to slam them with a "You still have the audacity to send us an invoice for rental despite out unit NOT BEING OCCUPIED and HORDED UP". Excuse me, you were unable to commence operations for your own reasons and now you are trying to frame the whole thing as a moral outrage because you yourself cannot start operations.
3) The reasoning that the poster should be treated differently from Shake Shack because they are "MNC" and he's only "SME" is a dishonest argument. There is no particular reason why the property management company should treat him differently just because he's "SME". If someone goes buy something in his shop and at the counter claims no money what would he do? Probably tell the buyer to either pay up or get lost just like everyone who paid in front or behind the queue. Would he accept if the buyer now claims it's "ridiculous" to compare a poor guy like him with other customers who are richer?
Assuming his description of his dealings with the Leasing Executive is true, this can at most be construed as poor customer service and/or a badly trained staff with a defective attitude. Maybe one can also fault the Leasing Manager for not being emphatic enough when delivering hard messages, but Nison's overall tone is very self-entitled and acted like the Company is obligated to help him due to business challenges he faced from COVID. The gist of it is "How dare you ask a SME like me to pay up when I already face business difficulties due to COVID?"
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Aiyah, they are trying to get free/accidental legal advice.
Just go talk to real lawyers.
Just go talk to real lawyers.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 24,543
- Points
- 113
He want cancel REIT no want. All demand cancel then how? REIT price fall and also have to issue rights double whammy.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 108,927
- Points
- 113
I have also heard stories that the new management (post-renovation with new logo) at Suntec is not very good. 
I'm not sure if Kong Hee and CHC is involved.
https://www.chc.org.sg/notices/2020-07-01-update-regarding-suntec-singapore-shares/
Update Regarding Suntec Singapore Shares
Jul 1, 2020
Dear Church:
To date, CHC has held a 39.2% effective interest in Suntec International Convention and Exhibition Centre (“Suntec Singapore”) through our subsidiary, Urban Property Investments Limited (UPI). The remaining 60.8% was held by Suntec REIT.
Due to the COVID-19 situation, there has been severe disruption to businesses in Singapore, in particular the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (“MICE”) industry. In April this year, the CHC Board was informed that, in order to fund the business needs of Suntec Singapore, there would be an equity call for a capital injection of $40 million from Suntec Singapore’s shareholders. Based on our stake of 39.2%, CHC’s share of this capital injection would be $15.68 million. The decision to participate had to be made by the first week of June 2020.
After consulting our legal advisors and auditors, CHC’s Board deliberated substantially over the various possible options, studying the advantages and disadvantages of each possible scenario. Ultimately, the Board made the decision not to participate in this round of capital injection.
The Board based its decision on the fact that the COVID-19 situation is still ongoing, and that it would be prudent—given the current economic outlook—to preserve CHC’s reserves.
As CHC did not participate in the capital injection, there is now a change in the percentage of ownership of Suntec Singapore, with CHC holding 33.7% and Suntec REIT holding 66.3%.
I'm not sure if Kong Hee and CHC is involved.
https://www.chc.org.sg/notices/2020-07-01-update-regarding-suntec-singapore-shares/
Update Regarding Suntec Singapore Shares
Jul 1, 2020
Dear Church:
To date, CHC has held a 39.2% effective interest in Suntec International Convention and Exhibition Centre (“Suntec Singapore”) through our subsidiary, Urban Property Investments Limited (UPI). The remaining 60.8% was held by Suntec REIT.
Due to the COVID-19 situation, there has been severe disruption to businesses in Singapore, in particular the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Exhibitions (“MICE”) industry. In April this year, the CHC Board was informed that, in order to fund the business needs of Suntec Singapore, there would be an equity call for a capital injection of $40 million from Suntec Singapore’s shareholders. Based on our stake of 39.2%, CHC’s share of this capital injection would be $15.68 million. The decision to participate had to be made by the first week of June 2020.
After consulting our legal advisors and auditors, CHC’s Board deliberated substantially over the various possible options, studying the advantages and disadvantages of each possible scenario. Ultimately, the Board made the decision not to participate in this round of capital injection.
The Board based its decision on the fact that the COVID-19 situation is still ongoing, and that it would be prudent—given the current economic outlook—to preserve CHC’s reserves.
As CHC did not participate in the capital injection, there is now a change in the percentage of ownership of Suntec Singapore, with CHC holding 33.7% and Suntec REIT holding 66.3%.
Most of the building owner are big player or aka GLC linked.
So they dont bother much and just want payment upfront more payment money etc.
Small shop tenant cannot win.
They should just move on.
Suntec location have good supply of visitors.
So it is the tenant who choose them
So they dont bother much and just want payment upfront more payment money etc.
Small shop tenant cannot win.
They should just move on.
Suntec location have good supply of visitors.
So it is the tenant who choose them
Similar threads
