Nonsense parking case, but is the judge mistaken as well too?

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/judge-dismisses-case-brought-by-man-against-condo-mc-for-not-issuing-him-car-park-label

"Mr Nanwani argued that the parking by-law is inconsistent with regulations which state that a management corporation shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property.

But Judge Ng found that the MC, which was constituted in March 1995, was not bound by the regulations, which came into effect in April 2005."

=========================

This part, I cannot agree with the judge.

How can the MC not be bound by new government regulations?

It's like saying that if new law was made for the worst drug trafficking offences to attract death penalty where it were just 20 years imprisonment prior, then those born before the law was enhanced would not be affected by it, how ridiculous would this be, since the action the law seeks to prevent is both urgent and necessary for the entire society to function properly from parliament's viewpoint.

So is the judge here saying that MC can ignore 'regulations which state that a management corporation shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property.'?

Or is this some legal technicality about MC vs MCST, such that the issue is with the careless or unfocused Straits Times reporter who has thrown shade at the judge as result of significant omissions, and thus ought to apologise and clarify the report.

In any case, the rule that MC 'shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property' seems so plainly sensible that parliament shouldn't even have needed to articulate it, unless to convey the messages that the judiciary is so capricious and irresponsible , they so often fail to apply reason in their judgements that unreasonable acts of defendants are routinely condoned. Shouldn't parliament give some respect to the judicial heirachy to establish case law, and trust judges to independently maintain the standard logic and reason and set the good example and standard for petioners to court to follow, rather than be handheld and told like children to do so?

Can someone with legal knowledge, clarify why the administration of law is in such a mess now, especially if there is indeed a difference between MC and MCST, since they are mostly the same function, except for perhaps a very small and minority difference in constitution only.