Abdul Rahman Dahlan Should Not Appeal But Accept The Kuala Lumpur High Court Decision With An Open Heart(e/c)

Press Statement By Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng In Komtar, George Town On 5.3.2017.

Abdul Rahman Dahlan Should Not Appeal But Accept The Kuala Lumpur High Court Decision With An Open Heart To Allow The House Buyers To Reclaim Their Rights And Entitlement To Full Compensation From The Housing Developer For Compensation For Late Delivery.

Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Dahlan should not run away from explaining why the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that he abused his powers in favour of housing developers over house buyers, by using a false analogy that the Penang State Government also grants extension of time for our own contracts. Abdul Rahman was the Minister of Housing who had granted a 12-month extension to a developer to complete the project, thereby allowing the developer to record huge savings and purchasers to lose out on their claims of liquidated damages for late delivery.

Abdul Rahman had entertained the appeal of one housing developer caring only for their interests, without taking into account the interests of 104 purchasers, clearly showing that he is the Minister of Housing Developers rather than Minister of Housing. Did Abdul Rahman consult with the 104 housing purchasers before “robbing” them of their rights and entitlement to compensation with a stroke of a pen?

Abdul Rahman tried to wriggle out of being exposed as Minister for Housing Developers by equating his abuse of power (as ruled by the KL High Court) with the Penang Development Corporation (a state agency), granting extension of time to contractors. His argument is, if PDC can grant extension of time, why can’t he do the same? This is a false analogy. If a brother is bad, it does not mean that the sister or other family member is also bad.

PDC granted extension of time because it is within PDC’s rights to do so as a party to the contract. Extension of time was granted only after discussions between PDC and the contractor. Even the Auditor-General had given PDC the “green card” of approval of the extension of time after hearing and accepting PDC’s explanations.

In the housing sale and purchase contract, the Minister is not a party to the contract but an outside third party, who had no relationship with the sale and purchase contract signed between the purchasers and housing developer. The Minister had chosen to interfere in a private contractual agreement to side the single housing developer against 104 house buyers. In his case, the KL High Court had ruled that Abdul Rahman Dahlan had abused his powers.

At the very least, Abdul Rahman should have tried to gain the consent from the two parties in the contract, namely the housing developer and the house buyers. Instead he has chosen to blindly support the housing developer and continues to do so. He should have the courage to face 104 housebuyers and explain why he is appealing against the KL High Court decision.

Should he dare not do so or fail to convince the house buyers why he is right, then he should withdraw the appeal and accept the KL High Court decision with an open heart to allow the house buyers to reclaim their rights and entitlement to full compensation from the housing developer for compensation for late delivery.

LIM GUAN ENG

——Mandarin Version —

槟州首席部长林冠英于2017年3月5日在乔治市发表声明:

阿都拉曼达兰不应该上诉,反而应该以开放开明的心态接受吉隆坡高庭的裁决,让购物者行使他们的权利,向延迟交屋的房屋发展商追索全额赔款。

拿督斯里阿都拉曼不应该逃避解释,为什么吉隆坡高庭裁决他滥用权力,偏向房屋发展商而不是购屋者,而且他错误引用槟城为例子,指槟城政府也是在自己的合约上给予延期。阿都拉曼也是房屋部长,他批准了一家发展商的延迟交屋12个月,让发展商省下一大笔钱,购屋者却因此损失他们原本可以追讨的违约赔偿金。( liquidated damages)

阿都拉曼曾经接受一名房屋发展商的上诉,考虑他们的利益,而不是104名购屋者的利益,很明显地,他是“房屋发展商部长”而不是“房屋部长”。阿都拉曼在夺走上诉购屋者追讨赔偿的权利之前,是否咨询过上述104名购屋者?

阿都拉曼企图以槟州发展机构同样给予承包商展延期限作为例子,来为他做为“房屋发展商部长”的滥权行为辩驳。他的反驳点是,如果槟州发展机构可以批准展延,为什么他不能?这是错误的比喻。如果家里的兄弟不争气,不代表家里的姐妹或其它家庭成员可以不争气。

槟州发展机构批准展延,那是因为槟州发展机构是合约里有权力批准展延的一方。唯有在槟州发展机构和承包商讨论后,才可以决定是否批准。就连总稽查司在聆听槟州发展机构的解释后,也允许槟州发展机构批准延期交货。

在房屋买卖合约里,部长不是合约的签署人,而是第三方。他在购屋者及房屋发展商双方签署的合约里,并无任何关联。部长选择干预私人合约,并站在发展商一方,而不是104名购屋者一方。在他的案件里,吉隆坡高庭裁决阿都拉曼滥权。

阿都拉曼至少应该获得合约买卖双方的同意。但是,他却盲目地支持房屋发展商、批准他们延迟交屋。他应该拿出勇气面对104个购屋者,并解释为什么他针对吉隆坡高庭的裁决上诉?

如果他不敢这么做,或者说服不了购屋者,他应该以开放开明的心态接受吉隆坡高庭的裁决,让购物者行使他们的权利,向延迟交屋的房屋发展商追索全额赔款。

林冠英

0 Responses to “Abdul Rahman Dahlan Should Not Appeal But Accept The Kuala Lumpur High Court Decision With An Open Heart(e/c)”


Comments are currently closed.