Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:32:40 +0800

From: John C S Lee

To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: EOGM - LETTER FROM TAN LAI HUAT

Dear Fellow Owners,

I have just received a letter from Mr Tan Lai Huat of block 1, whom we
all know is NOT in favour of an en bloc sale of Botanic Gardens View.

His letter contain misleading information which needs to be corrected.

He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he
is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and
rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee. He is also trying to collect as many
proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be
misled and confused by him. Read his letter carefully and compare this with the
terms and conditions of the CSA. You will find a great disparity between the two
documents. Permit me to answer Mr Tan point for point. Quotations in bold print
is from Mr Tan's letter.

1. *The formula for apportionment of the sale proceed has been changed.*
This is true. The Sale Committee found the previous method of
apportionment (of 1/3 area, 1/3 share value and 1/3 valuation) to be
cumbersome and complex. It raises more questions than answers. The
valuation component can be challenged - e.g. why this valuer and not
that valuer or why not 2 valuers instead of 1 valuer or will valuation
done at the beginning of the en bloc still be applicable at the end of
the en bloc ( a period of 12 - 24 months)? The Sale Committee decided to use a
straight ratio of area vs share value to avoid controversy and
overcome complications. The ratio of 70% area and 30% share value was
chosen because 1) it is the closest to the previous method under current
valuation 2) as advised by the Consultant, it will pass the equity test of the
Strata Title Board 3) it is used by other condos with the same configurations,
i.e. 1 share value for differing sizes of the units and 4) this formula has been
upheld by the High Courts in the case of Holland Hill Mansion.

2. *There is no protection in the CSA for you as a subsidiary

proprietor*.... and the case of Horizon Towers is again mentioned. It is true
that the owners of Horizon Towers who signed the CSA were sued by the Purchaser
to honour the Sale and Purchase Agreement. If you recall, the consenting owners
at Horizon Towers changed their minds about selling their property after they
have entered into a contract with the Purchaser, when they realised that a
neighbouring property was sold for twice what they got for their property. Of
course, the purchaser has the right to enforce their contractual rights under
the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. Will this be repeated in BGV? Not
likely if consenting owners do not change their mind after entering into a
contract.

3. *There is no provision for a performance bond from a bank to

guarantee that the buyer will complete the sale and make full payment of the
sale proceeds*. If Mr Tan is correct, then he should show us a Sale & Purchase
Agreement with such a preposterous provision. No Developer will accede to this
demand. It has not been done before and it will never be done ever. Our
protection is in the 5 - 10% deposit placed with our solicitor, which will
accrue to the owners in case of a default, and the advice of our Consultants on
the bona fide status of the purchaser.

4. *The power of the CSC to enter into a sale below the reserve price,
and other important terms of the sale, should be subject to approval of
the subsidiary proprietors. *It is misleading and mischievous to suggest that
the CSC can enter into a sale below the reserve price without the approval of
the subsidiary proprietors. Clause 4 - Sale Terms Reserve Price: $630,000,000/
Higher if increased with the Sale Committee's approval and Sellers are deemed to
agree to such increase. If the proposed sale price is less than the Reserve
Price, the Sellers'
Approval is required before accepting such lower sale price. Sellers'
Approval is defined in Clause 11 of the CSA as "the approval of sellers
constituting at least 80% of share value and at least 80% of the strata
title area of all units". Similarly the terms and conditions of the CSA
cannot be changed willy nilly without the approval of the owners.

I hope I have cleared your mind about the doubts created by the writer
of the abovementioned letter. Any points not answer in this email will
be clarified at the EGM.

Hope to see you all this Saturday.

Best wishes,
John CS Lee