URGENT MATTER! 24/4 EGM!

[JEFF LAM YUET]

URGENT!!!

MO+DOC has collected over 400 proxy by MO's arrangement. I doubt their voting will. Our fellow owners of CC, please do come to the meeting tomorrow night and vote for RETENDERING option for a better, open and fair tendering. We need every single of you to join the force to fight for this battle. Nobody is helping us but ourselves only, see you tomorrow. THX!!!

[Muttley]

What happened then?

Winners, losers....casualties?

[Zorro]

Yeah what happened, I missed it as I was stealing chickens in Manila, like the great fox that I am... 

[Zorro]

My inate inborn sence of the hunt comes from my grat uncle Foxy Fred who spent many a long year staling chicken from old farmer Jones hen  house

[JEFF LAM YUET]

Hi All,

Firstly, thx everyone's support here.

Secondly, I would like to report to you guys that the results were about 40% vs 60% in votes that we got 40% support but the MO+DOC votes got 60%. However, 7 to 8 out of the top 10 "BIG VOTES" who got most proxies voted a more expensive cleaning company and one single security company while the rest 40% in both tenders voted for retendering.

In this case, only MO+Contractors are winners, 2009 budget has over 4 million deficit, every single contractors are more expensive then our already very dear budget with another extra several millions dearer, so the results will be either:

1. increase management fee from next year on

2. "eat" our surplus that we saved over years from now on til it becomes ZERO then increase management fee, those surplus is also we owners' money!

SO, WHO IS THE LOSSER? YOU CAN DETERMINE..................

Not to mention if MO+SECURITY should actively collect proxies or not, but those who got most proxies from MO should tell residents what behind their mind by using residents' trust.

I will provide further information next week.

[Zorro]

Are u saying the security contract did not go to the cheapest bid? 

[JEFF LAM YUET]

security went for the lowest bid

cleaning company didn't go for the lowest bid, but those who hold the most proxies collectively vote for another company.............

[giantsean]

Just curious... do they state any benefit of choosing a more expensive cleaning contractor?  Usually you cannot get away w/ an increase without some advantages to doing so (other than any foul play which may be taking place)

[Icarus]

I think I will wait and reserve judgement on this one until I see more detail.

Security is pretty straightforward. Head count & allocation. No real Q.C. issues. Clean uniform, polite and simply point at Octopus reader. No real premium advantage so cheapest best.

Cleaning is more difficult as quality & service is paramount. From bitter experience I know cheapest is not always best and sometimes you have to look deeper into the tenderer's capability and previous history rather than JUST price.

I am not saying that this is the case here but if there are any shenanigans going on, the perpetrators are either very brave or foolish to try such a thing under the public glare and tenacious scrutiny of Jeff Lam.

Anyway the owners voted accordingly so that's the end of the issue irrespective of your viewpoint.

Nice try Jeff. You may not have got what you hoped but at least you applied some pressure and made them realise such matters will not go unchallenged in the future. Thank you.

[Zorro]

Great that the wecurity contract has gone to the cheapest. The sooner we get rid of those octopus pointing guards the better....

[Fust]

Great that the wecurity contract has gone to the cheapest. The sooner we get rid of those octopus pointing guards the better....

Not necessarily.

Cheaper security contracts normally means lower paid security staff, which translates into lower quality staff...

[JEFF LAM YUET]

still,. thx for all support.

about staff salary, Tender document required min pay by government, so reduce price means profit cut but not slary cut unless they orginally give salary far higher than market price so they have room for salary cut, which is similar to our tendering this time that tenderers can cut price after request cos the bids were not real and final market price, it is due to the unreal competition.

but anyway, still a good trial for speaking up for public interest.

[Icarus]

Great that the wecurity contract has gone to the cheapest. The sooner we get rid of those octopus pointing guards the better....

Not necessarily.

Cheaper security contracts normally means lower paid security staff, which translates into lower quality staff...

I think you will find that all Security staff including the present ones are paid bottom dollar. I dare say many of the existing staff will be taken on by the new contractors at same or worse terms. That's part of the financial squeeze that Jeff and others are looking for.

Personally I would like better trained more enthusiastic staff but less of them more appropriately used. The current manning levels are extraordinary in the industry given the supporting technology but this was not addressed in the contract renewal. Ask informed parties about our CCTV system. It's better than a Cat 1 High Security prison but we still have guards guarding the Octopus "guards" guarding the lobbies guarded by Concierges.

Zero incidents of crime maybe, but is this because of our supposedly "impregnable" manning system or maybe that CC is a virtual island in one of the lowest property crime related countries in the world. It's the if the Devil doesn't exist do you need God philosophy that everybody is frightened to question.

Unfortunately there isn't one competant trained Security professional in the MO (or OC I think) so we have this "if in doubt throw resources at it" model. No harm done I suppose if you get a healthy 10% overide on everything spent.

Sorry that's me being cynical again.

[kent]

Great that the wecurity contract has gone to the cheapest. The sooner we get rid of those octopus pointing guards the better....

Not necessarily.

Cheaper security contracts normally means lower paid security staff, which translates into lower quality staff...

I think you will find that all Security staff including the present ones are paid bottom dollar. I dare say many of the existing staff will be taken on by the new contractors at same or worse terms. That's part of the financial squeeze that Jeff and others are looking for.

Personally I would like better trained more enthusiastic staff but less of them more appropriately used. The current manning levels are extraordinary in the industry given the supporting technology but this was not addressed in the contract renewal. Ask informed parties about our CCTV system. It's better than a Cat 1 High Security prison but we still have guards guarding the Octopus "guards" guarding the lobbies guarded by Concierges.

Zero incidents of crime maybe, but is this because of our supposedly "impregnable" manning system or maybe that CC is a virtual island in one of the lowest property crime related countries in the world. It's the if the Devil doesn't exist do you need God philosophy that everybody is frightened to question.

Unfortunately there isn't one competant trained Security professional in the MO (or OC I think) so we have this "if in doubt throw resources at it" model. No harm done I suppose if you get a healthy 10% overide on everything spent.

Sorry that's me being cynical again.

Icarus,

I agree that the security can be better utilized.  However, I see value in the guards at the Octopus.

Reason being that if there was no one checking, then anyone can get inside your building.  I already notice that there are people who try to slide through the doors without scanning their cards even when the guy is there.  Beyond this, the concierge cannot be expected to know ever single resident / guest.

Anyone with possessions that they value will value a sense of security.  If a strange person were to gain access to your floor, it doesn't take much to break into all the apartments.  Being caught on camera is of no consequence unless the culprit is caught and therefore an ounce of prevention is worth pounds and pounds of cure in my humble opinion.

[Icarus]

Kent,
I think we aired this pretty fully last March when you were then AgentK. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and no one can decide the argument because we have never had an attempted burglary or criminal caught entering the building.

I can only refer to my experience at the Waterfront, West Kowloon which is also MTR managed. Like here we have Octopus readers but no guard and just a Concierge. There have been no incidents of crime and the Concierge actually opens the door for you rather than watch you struggle laden down with shopping. I am at a loss to see the crime prevention difference between the two scenarios bar MO attitude.

As a matter of interest, research has shown the average human can recognise over 100,000 faces & some nearly half a million. This is not names, addresses but by association such as whether they live in a town or building etc. Try it yourself and walk around CC. See how many faces you recognise as locals you have seen before.

A concierge (unless they suffer from prosopagnosia) should be able to recognise the high 90% of residents in the tower through familiar contact. So if you know most the people are residents just check the ones you don't know. I would have thought a trial period without guards is worth a go. If we have any incidents or burglaries, re-instate them immediately but we will never know unless we test the theory?

Anyway if you are happy to pay for that's your choice.