" I, Yang Chow Liang, IC: 690926-04-5175, of 10, Pengkalan Rama Tengah, 75100 Melaka, hereby wish to make a second police report against the former developer of the residential project of the Malaysia China Light Industrial City, Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd.

On 26.11.1997, I had signed a Sales and Purchase agreement with Bukit Rambai Park (vendor) and Sierraview Sdn Bhd (proprietor) to purchase a piece of land distinguished as PT No 5550 together with a single storey terrace house priced at RM 79,000.

I had paid the following amount to Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd;

1.. RM 7,900.00 being 10 % of purchase price (receipt no .1014 dated 30.9.97)
2.. RM 6,000.00 being partial second claim (receipt no.1726 dated 15.8.98)
3.. RM 1,900.00 being balance of second claim (receipt no.1727 dated 15.9.98)
4.. RM 200.00 being differential sum (receipt no.1728 dated 15.9.98)
5.. RM 69.26 being interest charged (receipt no.1729 dated 15.8.98)

I had also paid RM 200 to Shareena Abdullah & Lim (Advocates and Solicitors) on 4.11.97 being disbursement fee for Sales and Purchase agreement. (Receipt no. 0447)

Later, I and other purchasers came to know that the whole project (both the residential and industrial development) had stopped work in 1999.

Subsequently, a Purchasers Action Committee was formed in year 2000. I was elected as the Chairman. The two advisors are Kerk Kim Hock, DAP Member of Parliament for Kota Melaka and Lim Guan Eng, former Member of Parliament for Kota Melaka.

In the Committee's meetings with the Receiver and Manager (Hals and Associates) appointed by the Arab Malaysian Bank Berhad, we were informed that about 200 residential project buyers and about 300 industrial land purchasers were affected by the work stoppage. The residential buyers had paid about 30 % of their progress payment totaling about RM 4 million to Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd.

We were also informed that any revival plan to rescue the residential project would involve the application of a new developer's licence as Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd was found not to possess any valid developer's licence.

The Receiver had decided to make Sierraview the new developer and Sierraview had in August this year successfully obtained a developer's licence from the Housing Ministry.

All the affected buyers of this residential project are now required to sign a new Sales and Purchase Agreement with Sierraview, the new developer because the previous Sales and Purchase Agreement signed with Bukit Rambai Park have been declared null and void.

Although the new developer has taken into credit all the progress payments already paid to Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd, all affected buyers have suffered financially and emotionally due to the work stoppage.

I, on behalf of the Purchasers Action Committee and myself would like to make this report to call on the Police to carry out full investigations as Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd had possibly committed a few offences because

1.. it did not obtain a valid developer's licence when it engaged in housing development
2.. it had signed Sales and Purchase agreement with about 200 purchasers when it did not possess any valid developer's licence
3.. it had collected about RM 4 million from the purchasers when it did not possess any valid developer's licence
4.. it did not open a Hosing Development Account as required by the laws

This is my report."

On 25.11.2002, I received a letter dated 21.11.2002 from the Police (enclosed) informing me of the outcome of the Police investigation into my report against Bukit Rambai Park Sdn Bhd.

I then submitted the letter for discussion by the Purchasers Committee.

The contents carried four handwritten sentences, which read as follows:

1.. Kami telah merujuk kepada Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan.
2.. Setakat ini elemen tipu tidak wujud kerana projek berjalan
3.. Kes tipu wujud jika pemaju jika pemaju mengambil wang dan terus menghilangkan diri
4.. Kami akan buat semakan lanjut dari pihak berkenaan dalam beberapa perkara.

The Committee noted that there was no mention as to the offences committed under the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act though it was already a confirmed fact that the former developer did not possess a valid developer's licence and did not open a Housing Development Account.

The Committee was puzzled by the reply, which said, " no element of cheating exists at this stage because the project is in progress." Does this mean that when a new developer revives a project, the former developer can be absolved from his guilt for violating the laws?

The Committee wondered why till today the Police have not approached the Receiver and Manager, whom we believe could assist in the investigations.

The Committee was also shocked at the reply, which said, " cheating exits if the developer takes and runs away with the money".

The Committee found that this is illogical and immaterial as what was important and material was that the former developer was not an authroised person to sign Sales and Purchase agreement with the housebuyers and to collect any money from them.

Does not it constitute an offence of cheating if someone who is not authorised to do so does so under false pretensions that he is authorised to do so, irrespective of whether he runs away with the money?

The Committee feels that there is a need for the Police to investigate the point that since the former developer did not set up a Housing Development Account as required by the law, whether this in itself constitutes an offence of criminal breach of trust under the Penal Code.

The Committee also wishes the Police to investigate whether any transaction and disbursement of the about RM 4 million of the purchasers money collected by the former developer involved any criminal breach of trust as the Housing Developers 9 Housing Development Account) Regulations 1991 Section 7 has stated very clear guidelines money which could be withdrawn from such an account. Thus, even though no account was set up, there is also a need for the Police to pursue as to whether any money was disbursed for purposes other than stated by the guidelines.

While the committee welcomes the speed at which the Police could inform us the outcome of the investigation, the reply regrettably does not give us the impression and confidence that thorough investigations have been carried out.

The reply in fact made the Committee feel confused, sad and angry as to what were the criteria or basis used in carrying out the investigations which resulted in the kind of outcome conveyed to us.

The reason why I am lodging a new report is because the Committee still has full confidence in the Police, except that we want a complete and thorough investigation..

The committee is prepared to accept any outcome of a complete and thorough investigation.

As such, the Committee feels that there is urgent need for the Attorney General Datuk Ghani Patail to intervene and call for the investigation papers so that he can review the investigations.

The Committee also urges the Attorney General to give the necessary directions to ensure that thorough investigations can be carried out and that justice is done.

This is my report made on behalf of the nearly 200 purchasers of the residential project of the Malaysia China Light Industrial City project.

Yang Chow Liang