"Discrepancies and Transparency Issues in DBKK Meeting Minutes"
Click on the images to get a clearer view.
The above 2 pages are minutes of meeting given out on 11.6.2025
The following are pages 2,3 and 4 of the revised minutes given to me on 21.7.2025
On June 11, 2025, the second meeting was held at DBKK, attended by two officers from the Integrity Department. During the meeting, we received the minutes of the May 5, 2025, meeting, prepared and signed by DBKK City Engineer Lilitia Jenneh and checked and signed by Mr. Kalvin Liaw, Director of the Building Control Department. Notably, the minutes lacked the signature of Sr. Lifred Wong, the Director General, raising suspicions of intentional omission rather than an oversight.
I sent two emails to Sr. Lifred Wong requesting a signed copy of the minutes and one email to Puan Siti Fairuz of the Integrity Department to confirm if her copy was also unsigned. I received no responses, heightening my concern that the unsigned minutes could be contested in court.
On July 21, 2025, two uniformed DBKK officers delivered to my home a copy of the May 5, 2025, meeting minutes, the minutes for the June 11, 2025, meeting, and a letter dated July 15, 2025. Upon reviewing the May 5, 2025, minutes, I identified discrepancies between the version provided on June 11, 2025, and the one delivered on July 21, 2025.
Discrepancies in the May 5, 2025, Minutes:
Item 2.1 i): The updated minutes reference the approval of the development plan (DP/001/02.11/S/1045/111, dated March 8, 2011) used in the sale and purchase agreement. This information was absent from the original minutes. Notably, I only received the development plan dated March 8, 2011 on May 13, 2025, from the architect, per Sr. Lifred Wong’s instructions. This addition suggests the minutes were altered to include information not discussed during the meeting, potentially misrepresenting its content.
Item 3.2: Original Minutes: Stated that the approval plan for the retaining wall would be reviewed to confirm the existence of a proposal for constructing a retaining wall at the back of Lot S9 for reference in the upcoming meeting.
Updated Minutes: Stated that the approval plan would be reviewed to assess the need for constructing a retaining wall at the back of Lot S9 for confirmation in the upcoming meeting.
Discrepancy: The original minutes focused on verifying an existing proposal, while the updated version implies evaluating the necessity of construction. The Engineering and Planning Departments were tasked with checking for a proposal, not assessing construction needs. This change alters the task’s scope and intent.
These discrepancies, combined with the unsigned minutes and lack of response to my inquiries, indicate a lack of transparency and consistency in DBKK’s documentation process. The addition of information unavailable at the time of the meeting and the altered wording suggest retrospective editing, which could undermine the minutes’ credibility in a legal context, potentially constituting misrepresentation or procedural irregularity. To address this, I will retain both versions of the minutes and related correspondence as evidence. I plan to inform my lawyer and request an official explanation from DBKK regarding the changes to ensure accountability and transparency.
We shall do an analysis at a later date.
Related posts:
LINK 2nd LINK 3rd LINK 4th LINK
Versi BM:
Kekurangan dalam Minit Mesyuarat 5 Mei 2025:
Perkara 2.1 i): Minit yang dikemas kini merujuk kepada kelulusan pelan pembangunan (DP/001/02.11/S/1045/111, bertarikh 8 Mac 2011) yang digunakan dalam perjanjian jual beli. Maklumat ini tiada dalam minit asal. Perlu diperhatikan, saya hanya menerima pelan pembangunan bertarikh 8 Mac 2011 pada 13 Mei 2025 daripada arkitek, mengikut arahan Sr. Lifred Wong. Penambahan ini menunjukkan bahawa minit telah diubah untuk memasukkan maklumat yang tidak dibincangkan semasa mesyuarat, yang berpotensi untuk salah menyatakan kandungan mesyuarat.
Perkara 3.2:
Minit Asal: Menyatakan bahawa pelan kelulusan untuk tembok penahan akan disemak untuk mengesahkan kewujudan cadangan pembinaan tembok penahan di belakang Lot S9 sebagai rujukan dalam mesyuarat akan datang.
Minit Dikemas Kini: Menyatakan bahawa pelan kelulusan akan disemak untuk menilai keperluan pembinaan tembok penahan di belakang Lot S9 untuk pengesahan dalam mesyuarat akan datang.
Kekurangan: Minit asal memfokuskan kepada pengesahan cadangan yang sedia ada, manakala versi dikemas kini menunjukkan penilaian keperluan pembinaan. Jabatan Kejuruteraan dan Perancangan ditugaskan untuk memeriksa kewujudan cadangan, bukan menilai keperluan pembinaan. Perubahan ini mengubah skop dan tujuan tugas.
Kekurangan ini, ditambah dengan minit yang tidak ditandatangani dan kekurangan tindak balas terhadap pertanyaan saya, menunjukkan kekurangan ketelusan dan konsistensi dalam proses dokumentasi DBKK.
Penambahan maklumat yang tidak tersedia semasa mesyuarat dan perubahan dalam penulisan menunjukkan penyuntingan retrospektif, yang boleh melemahkan kredibiliti minit dalam konteks undang-undang, berpotensi menjadi salah nyata atau ketidakaturan prosedur.
Untuk menangani ini, saya akan menyimpan kedua-dua versi minit dan surat-menyurat berkaitan sebagai bukti. Saya bercadang untuk memaklumkan peguam saya dan meminta penjelasan rasmi daripada DBKK mengenai perubahan tersebut untuk memastikan akauntabiliti dan ketelusan.
Kami akan melakukan analisis pada tarikh kemudian.
Comments