- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,070
- Points
- 0
FOR more than an hour on last Wednesday afternoon, a silver Nissan was parked at the entrance to this condominium estate on Amber Road.
The car's owner, Mr Sia Kong Wah, 55, refused to move his vehicle, which was blocking cars from entering the 546-unit private estate, The Sea View.
Mr Sia left the car's bonnet open and switched on the hazard indicator lights.
Asked why the vehicle was there, Mr Sia, who is retired, claimed that his car was "sick" and that his mechanic was on the way from Johor Bahru.
The incident resulted in the police having to be called in to settle the matter.
But Mr Sia's antics were the culmination of anger simmering since October among a group of residents at The Sea View towards the condo's management committee (MC) over car parking issues.
The MC comprises 14 owners who volunteer their time to manage the estate.
When The New Paper turned up at the estate on Wednesday, Mr Sia was standing near a lift lobby, about 6m from his car, saying he "had no choice" but to do so.
He said he had applied with the management office for a temporary carpark slip for his sister-in-law who would be visiting from Malaysia on Sunday. He claimed that the management had demanded that his sister-in-law produce the log card for her car on arrival.
He said: "For two years, she has been visiting us frequently and stayed over almost every weekend. There has never been an issue over the parking. Suddenly there are all these new regulations."
Saying the MC chairman wouldn't meet him, he said: "This is the only way to get her attention. I wanted her to solve my problem."
On the dashboard and back windscreen of Mr Sia's parked car were four A4-sized copies of an unsigned handwritten note.
The notes were attentioned to the "residents of Sea View (with or without grievances)". They said that the vehicle "is very angry" with the management of The Sea View "for setting ridiculous carpark rules".
The note ended with an apology: "Sorry for the inconvenience caused."
As a result of Mr Sia's car blocking the driveway, the condo security guard had to divert incoming traffic via the exit driveway.
One resident who came downstairs to see the commotion was Mr Dawson Lim, 32, a senior executive with a bank.
He said that while the obstruction at the barrier gates was inconvenient, there was an alternative entrance along East Coast Road.
At 4.30pm, two policemen arrived and spoke with Mr Sia. Another three policemen arrived on the scene. They spoke with Mr Sia and staff of the management office.
Mr Sia, who owns two units in the estate, was overheard telling the officers that he wanted to see the MC chairman.
A staff member from the management office, who only identified himself as Mr Pung, showed up. He spoke with the condo security guards and the policemen.
He later told this reporter to leave and even raised his voice. A police officer advised him to calm down.
Mr Sia finally moved his car at 5.15pm. However, he stayed around the area and continued speaking with the policemen.
Thursday's drama wasn't the first incident last week. On Wednesday, 10 residents including Mr Sia, tried to submit a petition signed by 159 residents, each representing one unit.
The petition called for transparency in the way that the council has decided to impose the carpark charges, as well as a removal of the charges. The group gathered outside a meeting room in the basement carpark where the MC was having a meeting.
Mr Sia gave his name to a security guard stationed outside the room and entered the room to ask who the chairman was.
He also wanted an update on the status of his visitor lot application.
When told by the chairman that he was not allowed to speak, Mr Sia demanded to see the rules. A heated exchange ensued.
Two security guards were then called in to escort Mr Sia out of the room.
In the end, the residents who were waiting outside the room to submit the petition were turned away.
Frustrated, a few of them tried to prevent the council members from leaving. Others whipped out their camera phones and took videos and photographs.
New charges, but residents say there are enough lots
ON OCT 7, residents at The Sea View received a letter from the condo management informing them of new parking charges for their second, third and fourth cars.
Residents were advised to apply for new car decals and pay by Nov 1. The rates are $120 for the second car, $300 for the third car and $400 for the fourth car.
The circular stated that as of Sept 1, the number of issued carpark labels was 115 per cent of the available lots at the estate.
The New Paper spoke to six residents with more than one car, who feel there are more than enough lots in the estate.
In the letter, the council stated that each unit is given one carpark lot.
There are another 30 lots for emergency vehicles, the handicapped and visitors.
The letter said the council had agreed during the first annual general meeting (AGM) held last year that "should the allocation of parking spaces go above 85 per cent, the MCST would act to restrict the allocation of second, third and fourth car lots using a combination of parking fees and outright restrictions"."
Council chairman Tan Lee Keng told The New Paper: "The management reserves the right to impose the charges or any other amount that may be decided.
"So, there are no conditions attached to how we can exercise this by-law, but we just have to do it for the best benefit and best interest of the estate."
When asked for the numbers of cars issued with carpark labels, Ms Tan replied: "We do not have to give absolute numbers because they fluctuate all the time."
Several residents who refused to pay the fees found their vehicles wheel-clamped from Nov 8.
They had to pay $160.20 per car to have the wheelclamps removed.
Resident Madam Sim Kain Kain, 45, who runs a real estate business, was one of them.
She owns three cars together with her husband but parks only two at the condo. She leaves her third car at her office carpark.
On Nov 18, she drove the third car as the car she usually drove was sent for servicing.
She claimed she had explained that to the guard and got a temporary parking slip.
Said Madam Sim: "They have my unit number and name. The security could have easily contacted me via the intercom and let me know if there is any problem before putting the wheelclamp on my car."
Mr Ken Lum, 31, an operations manager at a bank whose family owns three cars, feels the carpark charges are unjustified: "This is absurd. There is no reason for the fees because there are more than enough lots available for residents and visitors."
On Nov 15 and Nov 18, at 1am, his mother and other residents counted the number of cars parked in the estate. The tally was 368 cars for the first day, and 383 cars for the second. Residents say there are 570 lots in the estate.
Their findings and petition were submitted to the council on Thursday morning when the residents made a second attempt to hand it in at the management office.
On Friday the council chairman, Ms Tan, said a resolution had been passed to reduce the carpark charges to $70 for the second car, $250 for the third car and $350 for the fourth car, from February.
Rules, fees depend on estates
DIFFERENT estates each have their own policy when it comes to issues like parking.
However Mr Francis Zhan, 65, the chief executive of the Association of Management Corporations in Singapore, said having parking charges set at $400 per month for a resident's fourth car is quite unusual and exorbitant.
In estates where there is a shortage of lots, it is common practice to charge residents a nominal fee of $50 per month for parking a second car and $100 for a third car.
Said Mr Zhan: "Usually there is no parking charge set for a fourth car because the assumption is that if a resident can be allowed to park a fourth car, it means there are sufficient lots which would not justify the high charges."
