Some very interesting points were raised by Mr Ong around the theme: "Would it be better to revert to the original position before the 1999 changes ie with 100% consensus?" He gave a number of cases that I'm unfortunately unable to access (will try dropping into the Law Library to see if they have it), but here are some of his points:-
- Residual method of valuation is often used (Chew Ming Teck v Collector of Land Revenue and Anor [1991] SLR 8) and may be a point of contention.
- Can a MC council member abdicate all responsibility of overseeing the conduct of the SC, especially given that it is their responsibility under the BMSMA to control, manage and administer the estate?
- Mr Ong raised many points about CSAs which are addressed either on this blog or in the upcoming amendment bill. But one point he raised was this - when an EOGM is called to "consider the sale" (as required by law), does this mean that the activity is purely an informational one - SC announces a sale is achieved with a developer etc, or is a resolution required to be passed, in which case a vote may be called for? He referred to Sim Lian (Newton) Pte Ltd v Gan Beng Cheng Raynes and Anor [2007] SGHC 84 which unfortunately was in May 2007 and out of the 6 mth archiving by the Supreme Court online. So if anyone knows this case please let me know the details. Still, some CSAs have built into it that anyone who signs it MUST vote in favour of any motion or resolution passed by the SC (rigging the vote).
- Finally, Mr Ong pointed to the possibility to apply for a "Declaratory Order" for out-of-control pro-sale groups. If anyone know what such an order is and how does one apply for it, I'm sure people here are very keen, especially considering the previous poison pen letter from Tampines Court.
Tags:
18 comments:
this guy is just too free.. like some of our opposition "politicians"
er.. which guy are you referring to? like yourself, just too free and posting comments like that?
One thing is for sure. Dr Minority does'nt put forums to help himself. Not like some people every five minutes. And even a child can tell thats its from the same person who writes to himself.Who is too free here?
The 'genuine opposition' don't like the minority to get genuine information from genuine Dr. Minority. Therefore they are anti-Dr. Minority because it affects their "bread anb butter". At least he does'nt write to himself and do the answer himself. And he does'nt hog the whole forum with 'RUBBISH".
Thanks so much for your blog about enblocs, I feel informed and mightily fortified when I meet the SC's and query them, so much so that two of the sales committee have questioned their own role in my estate's enbloc. Both of them were unaware they were possibly breaking the law by writing their notes to the residents which depending on how you look at it might seem possibly unfriendly.
>>Both of them were unaware they were possibly breaking the law by writing their notes to the residents which depending on how you look at it might seem possibly unfriendly.<<
Hi, what notes were these? Do elaborate on this if you can, please :) What did your SC do with these notes (eg circulate, put on walls), and what were the nature of the notes? Am very curious now... :)
Some people are against your accurate and experience advice on the minorities .They would rather we accept what we were told. We were told we don,t have a case. They are unhappy now that we may have a case.
We guess no one is breaking the law when they use vulgarity on the enbloc blog. And someone from an big company too. Isn't that insulting someone ele's modesty? Ask your SC what kind of company they're invovled with?
Now the higher rank in the company seems to be helping in the blog.
Yes, just as I ask a straight forward question, I get a couple of genuine replies, and gained a few pseudo neighbours!!!!!!
Does your company have a LICSENCE to use gangster death threat on anti enbloc OCEAN PARK?
ok i am TOTALLY lost here...!
1. What estate are you guys talking about here?
2. What company and threats are you referring to lol
3. As a matter of courtesy could you use "other" when you choose an identity instead of anonymous? I'm getting quite confused as to who's talking! "Other" allows you to use a pseudonym still (aside from anonymous).
Cannot say. Threaten with defamation suit if condo is mention.
>>Cannot say. Threaten with defamation suit if condo is mention.<<
So how do you know the other "anonymous" is referring to the same condo and situation as well?
Some minorities have been against the sale and have been on the certain enbloc blog. And the owners of the have been verbally abused on the blog believe to be the agent and SC as they have full knowledge the condo and the owners. Then certain mysterios letter in our letter boxes about defamation if the blog is defamatory .
The only enbloc company thats not greedy in Singapore is SLLIVAS. So the whole of the country who is involved with enbloc should not be insulted. Good one enbloc singaporeans, past and present eblocers!
Don't think its from a "BENG". Too sophisticated and westernise. Must have known the Singaporean way of enbloc very well. Too smart to be true!
replying to you about what my two SC members said in their letters to us. In short, they said we(minority) were extremely selfish to not push for the sale and we would definitely have to face up to consequences if the deal was scuppered...not elaborated here.They did not sign the note but when I asked them they readily agreed they did send it out on pressure from the majority Hmmmmn......the saga continues
Post a Comment