Review of Guard Company

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.


Advertisements
This entry was posted in Security. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Review of Guard Company

  1. rlshawnie says:

    Am curious to know any latest status on the suggested SOP on security matters?
    Collected my resident stickers. The condition of having to produce the registration card of our vehicles to collect the stickers DOES NOT sit well with me. Question: is this a TRUST issue? I am of the opinion that being OWNER of a property here, surely we WOULD NOT give this stickers freely to any potential ‘criminally inclined individual’ to render OUR COMMUNITY unsafe. As the quantum of stickers is an ENTITLEMENT to the type of unit that we bought, then the number of stickers should be given irrespective of the number of cars that the owner have.eg, 3 stickers entitlement to be given to the said owner even though the owner might have only two cars. As the stickers are numbered and recorded, the owner holds the responsiblity whatever he/she does with the “extra” sticker.
    conclusion:-
    1. Stickers are ENTITLEMENT, THUS I DO NOT HAVE TO prove ownership (by way of registration card) of vehicles to get them, but for record purposes I will provide vehicle number (written).
    2. I saw copies of other residents car registration cards when I went to collect my stickers which I think it’s not right to do so. Would really recommend that from now on everybody do away with this “registration card thingy’. Personally I felt it’s testing on my integrity as a resident here.
    3. Rules are necessary but when it goes overboard, it does test ones’ intelligence.

    • The draft of the Security SOP has been forwarded to Mr. Balachandran of GCD and we shall be meeting later this week (I hope) to advance the draft.

      On the issue of car stickers, it is not unusual for the management company of a gated community to ask for the car registration document. But what good will it do?

      There is really nothing to stop a resident who wants to apply for a sticker for a friend or employee or relative who visits regularly. The resident simply claims that the person lives in the house and even declares the name in the ‘register of residents’, if need be. That friend, employee or relative is then spared the hassle of having to register every time he comes to GC. What are the chances of being caught? Slim, I’d say, unless there is a concerted effort to follow closely the suspected non-resident.

      Numbered car stickers or access cards will not stop crime in GC if a perpetrator is hell bent to do it and there is a resident who is so screwed up he is willing to assist. Well, the criminal can be brought in by the resident, let loose to do his thing and is then ferried out by the owner himself. There is no trace of the perpetrator, period. But, really, are there such insane residents in GC? Who would dare say an absolute NO to this question?

      Let’s face it; no place can be 100% safe. We can only hope that whatever measures are adopted can help to minimize the risk. So if the prima facie requirement for a car registration document is to help ensure that stickers are only issued to bona fide residents, let them have it. This is a form of control but also understand no measure is ever fool proof if there are irresponsible or insane residents.

  2. boyscout2b says:

    Yeah, also we definitely are not paying for those thuggish DRBHicom Polis Bantuan & Rela samseng!

  3. yfyin says:

    Since there is a committee now, the middleman in hiring guards are really not necessary as the guards are hired by the owners to look after their security and properties, no owners are going to pay extra for this middleman.
    I am sure all owners are only willing to pay for the real or actual cost of the guards and not the profit that the middleman is making.
    Salary for a foreign guards is quite standard, the number of guards multiply by their salaries and plus their permit charges are easily calculated.
    I am only willing to pay for the actual salary of the guards and not the extra profit that GDC or it’s middleman is making.

    • Now there is not going to be a middleman and all owners should be happy that no one should make happy bucks off our sore working backs.

      There is no such thing as a free lunch in business. GCD must make a reasonable profit for all the the administrative and other services that they provide. We can quibble about the quality of the service. I know you mean well.

Comments are closed.