GCD is in the process of reviewing the tenure of the present company that supplies the security guards and may well seek a replacement.
We wrote to GCD on April 1 to suggest that they reconsider whether there is a real need to have an intermediary company between GCD and the guard company. Thus far, the arrangement does not seem productive, with added red tape, and will cost the owners more if the cost of hiring the intermediary is passed on to the owners. Besides, if the Committee is prepared to spend hours helping GCD develop a set of operating procedures that will lay down clearly the responsibilities of the guard company, the responsibilities of the guards and the operational requirements, why would GCD need an intermediary?
I am pleased to advise that GCD has agreed to our proposal in April 2.
In my reply to Mr. Ben Yeoh, I have suggested that both parties should talk further in earnest on the those issues raised in our 30th March letter:
“This development (re the guard company) from GCD will be welcome by all owners, whether they are members of GCROA or not.
I have no doubt the owners will also hope that both parties will sit down to address the issues in my 30th March, 2012 letter. If we do that I am confident we will be able to dispose of most the problems in an amicable way. There could also be a way forward in respect of the more difficult issues, but only if put aside our pride and listen to other side’s point of view.”
Cheers to all.