An email to the mayor of Kota kinabalu on 28.7.2025.

 

Dear Datuk Seri Dr Samin Samitah,

I have written several emails to you at mayor@dbkk.sabah.my and had never received any response.

What your staff members are doing is detrimental to you and the Government of Sabah. They are misleading others to cover up their deceit in approving the occupancy certificate of Vistana Heights.

Since 2022 I have tried to resolve matters amicably to no avail.

Here is one of my posts. LINK

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.

Here is another post explaining the above. LINK

Datuk Seri, I have suggested a simple solution to this problem but the developer, architect and Sr. Lifred Wong do not seem to think it important. They would rather give excuses that cannot be substantiated.

Please give me an opportunity to explain this to you in person.

Thank you and kind regards,

Luqman Michel

0198500258