Confusion Surrounding LPPB and Ronny Cham’s Letters

 

In my blog post yesterday, I discussed a letter from LPPB dated November 23, 2022, which stated, “We sincerely hope there will be a solution for both parties from the meeting with TCSB and their respective consultants.” However, I received an earlier letter, dated November 16, 2022, from Ronny Cham & Co., signed by Cham Ngit Shin @Ronny Cham, addressed to Puan Rosemary Ahping, LPPB’s General Manager. This letter referenced a meeting on November 16, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., attended by Topwira Corporation Sdn Bhd (the developer), LPPB, project consultants, and senior officers. It noted LPPB’s suggestion that Topwira meet with affected house buyers to resolve issues amicably, but Topwira insisted that buyers attend with their solicitors, architects, engineers, and surveyors to ensure a productive discussion.

Key Points and Concerns:

I am compiling documents to pursue legal action against Topwira Corporation Sdn Bhd and exploring the involvement of other parties, including Ronny Cham. My concerns include:

LPPB’s Letter (Nov 23, 2022): It references a November 16 meeting and expresses hope for a resolution between Topwira and house buyers. However, no buyers were present at this meeting, which only involved Topwira, LPPB, and their consultants.

Proposed Buyer Meeting: The follow-up meeting with house buyers never took place. Topwira required buyers to bring legal and technical professionals, and a later email stipulated the meeting be held at a hotel, with buyers covering all costs.

Ronny Cham’s Role: His November 16 letter claims he represents Topwira, yet he also sent me a letter stating he represents Rosemary Ahping, LPPB’s GM. LPPB has not clarified whether Ronny Cham represents Rosemary Ahping or the organization itself, leaving his role ambiguous.

I am uncertain whether Ronny Cham’s representation can be clarified in court and would appreciate advice from lawyers. These concise posts aim to clarify my confusion for readers.

Related Facebook Post (Today):

Wasting Court Time

Many societal issues stem from lawyers who unnecessarily prolong court proceedings for whatever reason. Wasting court time raises costs, delays justice, and burdens public resources, limiting access to justice for those in need. Delays cause hardship, reduce court efficiency, and undermine fair dispute resolution. In Sabah, Judge Richard Malanjum’s guidance to resolve cases within two years highlights the need for efficiency. The phrase “justice delayed is justice denied” remains relevant, as delays often benefit lawyers, who are paid regardless of outcomes. Efficient litigation, focused on legal points rather than disputed facts, could reduce financial burdens. I’ll explore this further in upcoming posts.

For Lawyers: Please review my Facebook post for context. I welcome your insights on addressing these issues.

To be continued.