Luqman's musings

  Arkitek LYS became a limited company, on August 1, 2023. Under Malaysian law, this transition transforms the business into a separate legal entity, distinct from its owners or directors, granting the Sdn. Bhd. its own legal identity. According to their website (https://arkiteklys.my/), this change marked a transformation in 2023 from a Sole Proprietorship to a Body Corporate Architectural Consultancy Practice. The website frames this shift as aligning with a “vision for long-term enduring excellence,” suggesting a deliberate business strategy rather than a reaction to external pressure. This claim may be taken with a pinch of salt due to the timing. 

I am collating what I have written over the last few years to hand over to my lawyer in June. The situation at Vistana Heights, with a 20-foot drop behind the houses and an unbuilt retaining wall despite assurances from the now-deceased developer, raises significant concerns, especially given the lack of response from Dewan Bandaraya Kota Kinabalu (DBKK), the Housing and Urban Development Board (LPPB) as landowner, and LYS Architect. The architect’s apparent lack of worry about my threatened legal action is curious, considering the discrepancies I have noted. 

  I’ve been mulling over two frustrating matters while weeding in my garden—two situations where people seem to dig in rather than deal with the issues at hand. First, why aren’t the developer and architect in the Vistana Heights case taking the easy way out by buying back my property at market value instead of dragging this to court? Second, why is Lions Clubs International (LCI) not acting against the Lions Club of Kota Kinabalu Centennial Club when I’ve openly pointed out their failure to hold an election meeting, which violates the LCI Constitution? The same question applies to District Governor Annie Ho, who has thrown up hurdles to stop PP Chin Chee Thau from meeting for the Club Dispute Resolution Procedure (CDRP). Let’s unpack these one at a time, exploring how stonewalling, the backfire effect, and a stubborn refusal to think might be at play.

  To: Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) Re: Architect’s Responsibility Under Sabah Building Regulations (2019)   Dear Sir/Madam,   I am writing to seek clarification regarding the responsibilities of architects under the building regulations applicable in Sabah in 2019, particularly in relation to the Occupancy Certificate (OC) issued for Vistana Heights on October 2, 2019. The building regulations in Sabah at that time—likely the Sabah Building By-Laws 1964 or its amendments—governed the process, outlining architects’ responsibilities in plan submission and compliance certification. These by-laws were tailored to Sabah’s local context but shared similarities with the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 in terms of professional duties.   

  Following is the reply from Mr. Mok, the chairman of PAM (Sabah). On Sunday, 23 March 2025 at 06:27:43 GMT+8, Arkitek Mok JY <arkitekmokjy@gmail.com> wrote: [STRICTLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE] Subject: Response to Your Enquiry on Retaining Wall and Land Stability Concerns Dear Mr. Luqman Michel, Thank you for your email and for referencing my article in the Daily Express on 2 March 2025. I appreciate you reaching out with your concerns regarding the development project.

  On March 11, 2025, Mr. Mok Juang Yu, the chairman of PAM (Sabah), visited me at Vistana Heights. He mentioned that his purpose was to inspect the driveway I had highlighted in my Daily Express article, which was a response to his own published statements. He proposed discussing potential solutions with Architect LYS of Vistana Heights and the developer to address the driveway issue. Mr. Mok suggested expanding the driveway, similar to what the neighbour across the street had done. I expressed concern that extending the driveway onto the road, as my neighbour had, might cause issues with DBKK.