Unraveling the Legal Labyrinth – My Experience with Ronny Cham & Co. and Topwira Corporation (Part 1)

 

As a homeowner representing my son in Sabah, my ongoing battle with Topwira Corporation Sdn Bhd (TCSB), the developer of Taman Puncak Vistana, has taken an unexpected turn into the murky waters of legal ethics. This journey, detailed through a series of letters from Ronny Cham & Co., raises serious questions about professional conduct, developer accountability, and the protection of consumer rights in Sabah’s property sector. Today, I share the full correspondence to shed light on these issues and invite your thoughts.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Substandard Development

My concerns stem from TCSB’s alleged breaches of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Enactment 1978 at Taman Puncak Vistana—unapproved plan changes, inaccessible driveways, unmaintained infrastructure five years post-occupancy certificate, and fabricated as-built drawings to secure approvals. These issues have left homeowners, including my son, frustrated and seeking resolution. My blog posts and emails to relevant parties, including Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar (LPPB) and TCSB, aimed to highlight these defects and push for accountability.

The Letters: A Timeline of Correspondence

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the letters and emails exchanged: 16 November 2022 – Ronny Cham & Co. to Rosemary Ahping (LPPB)

                                        Click on image to see enlarged version

Content: Written on behalf of TCSB, this letter acknowledges a meeting on 16 November 2022 at 10:30 a.m. with LPPB, TCSB, and consultants. It notes LPPB’s suggestion for TCSB to meet affected buyers amicably, but TCSB insisted buyers bring solicitors, architects, engineers, and surveyors. TCSB agreed to meet purchasers, provided they are accompanied by professionals.

Observation: No buyers were present, contradicting LPPB’s later hope for resolution (23 November 2022 letter). This sets a tone of controlled engagement, potentially to intimidate.

 23 November 2022 – LPPB to Luqman Michel

 

Content: Updates me post-meeting, expressing hope for a solution between TCSB and buyers. Urges me to contact TCSB or their lawyer, Ronny Cham, to arrange a date.

Observation: LPPB’s optimism contrasts with the 16 November meeting’s exclusion of buyers, hinting at a disconnect or pressure from TCSB.

25 November 2022 – Ronny Cham & Co. to Luqman Michel

 

Content: Claims representation of Rosemary Ahping and Della E. Sinidol of LPPB, alleging my blog (luqmanmusings.blogspot.com) and Facebook posts contain “libelous and defamatory remarks” about them. Demands RM2 million each in compensation for reputational damage, citing unrelated articles (e.g., Twitter messages about David Zyngier, discussions with Stephen Krashen).

Observation: The relevance of cited articles to LPPB or Vistana Heights is unclear. This letter feels like an abrupt escalation, possibly a tactic to silence my complaints about TCSB.

30 November 2022 – Ronny Cham & Co. to Luqman Michel (Without Prejudice)

 

Content: Now acting for TCSB, references their 28 November 2022 letter (enclosed) proposing a 22 December 2022 meeting at a venue to be announced, contingent on me bringing a lawyer, engineer, architect, and surveyor, and inviting all complaint recipients (e.g., DBKK, ministries). Adds that I must cover TCSB’s professional costs and ensure attendance, or face defamation claims for further publications.

Observation: Labeled “without prejudice” (meant for genuine settlement), this feels more like a barrier—excessive conditions and financial burdens suggest intimidation, not resolution.

7 December 2022 – Ronny Cham & Co. to Luqman Michel

 

Content: Responds to my 1 December 2022 email, asserting I lack locus standi as a non-purchaser. Even if representing buyers, TCSB refuses further meetings unless accompanied by professionals. Suggests engaging solicitors for legal action.

Observation: Dismisses my role despite my son’s ownership, and the refusal to meet without preconditions reinforces a stonewalling approach.

To be continued....