Sabana Shari'ah REIT

[ACTIVIST SPEAKS]

That is good.....if I ever get the chance to ask Knight Frank and Savills, I would really love to hear their answer. I append hereunder excerpts of what I wrote to MAS on the point that you came up. I thought it is really super but strangely, nobody seems to take any notice of it. Perhaps I did not write it good.

"MAS imposes a statutory duty on a REIT Manager and its individual directors to prioritise the interests of unitholders over those of the REIT Manager and its shareholders, in the event of a conflict of interest. The state of mind of the REIT Manager is of essence as it often dictates its course of action if a conflict of interest does arise. On 15 Dec 2016, the Manager directed the Trustee to enter into a conditional put and call option agreement with the Sponsor (also the controlling shareholder of the Manager) in relation to the proposed acquisition of 47, Changi South Property. The Manager directed the Trustee (buyer) to pay an option fee of 1% ($246,100) to the Sponsor’s solicitors but the Manager did not require the Sponsor (seller) to pay to the REIT any fee for their put option. This is unfair under normal circumstances, let alone this is an obvious “conflict of interest” scenario. The Manager not only did not prioritise unitholders interest over those of the Sponsor, it did the exact opposite by protecting the Sponsor’s interest over those of unitholders. The Manager violated this statutory obligation and it must face criminal liability."