The Singapore Constitution and the Enbloc Law Pt 1

Over the past few days, if you have not heard, the Horizon Towers (HT) Judgment was given by Justice Choo Han Teck (who made previous judgments on the HT case last year - see here) which effectively allowed the sale to go through.

You can read the judgment either on the Supreme Court website (available for 3 mths only) here, or I've uploaded it onto scribd where you can read online or download as a pdf here. You can also read Today's reporting on the 'landmark ruling' (here)as well as one reader Ong Cher Meng who is, and rightly so, very concerned about the implications of J Choo's judgment on the future for minority owners trying to save their homes (available here). You can discuss these issues on the condosingapore forum here.

Due to work constraints, I'd very much like to address some of the key concerns that emerged from J Choo's recent judgment, but unfortunately I can't. At least not immediately. I'll try to do this over the next few weeks (sorry!).

What I want to address is the point of the constitutionality of the enbloc law (LTSA) which the minority owner lawyer Mr Chelva Rajah raised, but was not really reported in depth in the papers. You can read the pertinent points raised by Mr Rajah and responded by the judge - Points 5 to 7 on the judgment document.

The 2 points in the Singapore Constitution raised by Mr Rajah, that he argued conflicted with the LTSA, were Articles 9(1) and 12(1) which are (available on the Statutes Online here):

• 9(1): No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. [On 'Liberty of a person']
• 12(1): All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. [On 'Equal protection']

Mr Rajah raised 2 challenges on the Constitution (Points 6 and 7 of the Judgment). I want to comment on Point 7 first in this post, since that is one I'm incredibly uncomfortable with. I will quote the salient part of Pt 7 here:

"Mr Rajah argued that ss 84A and 84B(1)(b) were in breach of Art 12(1) because Art 12(1) is presumed to lay down a prohibition against unreasonableness and arbitrariness. He submitted that the 80% rule discriminated against the appellants as the minority because the majority thus has a choice as to where they wished to live while the appellants would be deprived of that choice. Counsel is not wrong insofar as the final consequence of achieving a majority was concerned, but the circumstances and the law in this regard are more complex than that. Firstly, the right to equal protection under Art 12(1) must be determined from the outset, that is to say that when a law is passed, it must apply to everyone equally. Hence, until the subsidiary proprietors decide who wishes to sell, there is no majority nor minority. The opportunity of selling a condominium en bloc is an equal opportunity to all subsidiary proprietors. Neither the legislature nor the STB decides who the minority would be; the minority is decided by a vote of all the subsidiary proprietors. Secondly, the law founded upon a majority vote in such circumstances is consonant with the democratic ways of condominium living. Thirdly, unlike the constitutions of the countries referred to by Mr Rajah, the omission of a provision in our Constitution that would have ensured a fundamental right to own property was a deliberate omission given the scarcity of land in Singapore and as such, the court must recognise that there is no such fundamental right under our Constitution. The Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) in fact allows the government to acquire any land in Singapore for specific purposes so long as it provides due compensation. Considering these factors together, I am of the view that the provisions of the LTSA do not infringe Art 12(1). "

J Choo's rebuttal to Mr Rajah's argument that enbloc laws do not grant equal opportunity and protection rests on the 3 points he raised:-

1. The right to equal protection must be determined "at the outset", "when a law is passed, it must apply to everyone equally".
2. The majority vote is democratically valid.
3. The Constitution does not include a fundamental right to property ownership, due to land scarcity.
   

J Choo elaborates on the first point: "Hence, until the subsidiary proprietors decide who wishes to sell, there is no majority nor minority. The opportunity of selling a condominium en bloc is an equal opportunity to all subsidiary proprietors. Neither the legislature nor the STB decides who the minority would be; the minority is decided by a vote of all the subsidiary proprietors."

My concern is the rather precarious definition of "at the outset" - when is the outset of the law? There are two interpretations of this 'starting point' or outset:

• First interpretation - when the very first EOGM is convened in accordance with the First Schedule of the LTSA. This seems to be J Choo's point of outset - since he argues that at this point there is "no majority nor minority". Majority and minority only appears at the 2nd starting point which is...
• Second interpretation - when an application is made to the STB for the collective sale. At this point, the 80% majority has been achieved and it is clear cut who benefits from the sale and who are against the sale.

The opportunity to sell enbloc "is an equal opportunity" ONLY from the standpoint of the first interpretation. It becomes a moot point from the second interpretation because equal opportunity would not exist anymore - majority have rights and access to funds, legal consultation and representation, enbloc expertise, and so on, with far more opportunities than a minority owner.

So when is the outset, to coin J Choo's phrase? The LTSA provides two sets of legal procedures - one is about how the enbloc process should be conducted as indicated in the various Schedules, the other is the process of application to STB for the collective sale embedded within the Act itself. I'd argue that the application to STB should be the 'outset' of the law, and not before, when there is no majority or minority. After all, until the STB application or the 80% vote has been triggered and the CSA executed, the entire process could fail to materialise in which case the definition of majority or minority is really meaningless. The Schedule procedures are merely means towards the actual STB application, without which there would be no enbloc to speak of whatsoever. So if we take the second interpretation of 'outset' - when 80% is achieved - does the law provide equal opportunities for everyone? Not anymore.

To give a concrete example, the access to legal representation and consultation is a double blow for any minority owner who wishes not only to challenge the sale at STB or the Supreme Court, or even to challenge a point of law (which is what many of the latest legal battles are about nowadays). Not only does the minority owner have to find legal representation for him/herself (or as a group), and in these days, s/he has to find a damn good and hence expensive lawyer because the legal arguments are all about how well one can interpret the law, s/he has the trauma that should the sale succeed, s/he has to pay (a) legal fees for his/her own lawyers (b) legal fees for the majority owners' lawyers as deducted from the sale proceeds (c) court and legal fees of his/her opponent if the Judge finds that the minority owner (who let's admit, knows very little about enbloc law) is at fault (as in the case of Mr Ken Lee of Airview Towers). The majority owners can divide legal fees across themselves, which can amount to maybe a few thousand if you have a large number of units, compared to the hundreds of thousands for the minority owner. Access to legal representation is NOT an equal opportunity for minority owners.

Let's look now at J Choo's 2nd point - that the majority vote is democratic. I question this notion of democratic and I question the definition of majority being pegged at 80%. A MAJORITY vote would simply be 51%, at a given point in time, and not across a long period of time to acquire that vote. It's like a moving goal post if you like - if you compare a truly democratic process of the Singapore Elections - majority vote is counted and defined at a fixed time of a few weeks after the start of the election process. It isn't the case that the process allows for any one party to say, 'let's check the votes and see, ah only 40%, let's continue for another year till we get that additional 11%' to become a majority vote. It also ISN'T the case that access to expertise, funds are equal for both parties - prosale owners and SCs have far greater access than stayers. So is it democratic, like an election? No. And of course, I'm still quite convinced that the figure of 80% as trigger point was decided by some policy maker who liked the number '8' but held back defining it '88%' because it'd be hard to calculate in round numbers in most estates.

Finally, to J Choo's last point about what I call the 'land scarcity doctrine' which argues that the right to own property cannot be constitutional since the government has to have the right to develop land as it sees fit. He cites the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) to support his argument, which in as early as 1999, a certain opposition MP JBJ had pointed out that since we already have the LAA, why have the LTSA? Indeed, the primary difference between the 2 Acts is the shift in responsibility and agency from the government (LAA) to subsidiary proprietors (LTSA), without considering (a) the social impact of enbloc sales (b) the power bias that majority owners have over minority owners (c) the differential access to opportunities (d) the unscrupulous means by which votes are obtained. In fact, to suggest an extreme position, I suspect if the LTSA is replaced with the LAA, there would be less discontent about enbloc sales, since the government has the final say on the redevelopment of the land.

In fact, if J Choo's judgment holds weight in future enbloc sales (and it'll surely do, since it furthers the cause of prosale owners), as Mr Ong Cher Meng pointed out, the future for stayers is gloomy indeed. I'll elaborate more on this in subsequent posts, particularly about J Choo's clear stipulation of the function of the STB.

A caveat here: This is not to say that I think J Choo doesn't know what he's talking about. I have no doubt that he's a competent judge in Singapore's legal system. And I am nothing more than a mere layperson when it comes to the law. What I do wonder though, is how policies and laws can be made, and upheld, without understanding the actual dynamics and nuances of the process itself. Sure, at the start when the law was made, everything was theoretical to a point. But the law has been enacted for close to ten years now, with plenty of feedback on the problems that needs to be redressed in the law. Yet the recent amendments has done little to address many of the issues raised here, and by numerous other people subjected to enbloc trauma. I'm not sure how laws get changed, who is responsible for that change, but if law makers and policy makers are not themselves subjected to an enbloc process against their wishes, how will any of the problems make sense to them? At the very least, law and policy makers need to invite groups such as the Hope4stayers into consultation over law reform. Many people in the Hope group are professionals, with experiences that needs to be shared with law/policy makers, to provide a more balanced view of the enbloc process. We can always hope, can't we (no pun intended).

Jeannette Aruldoss in April 2008 has written about the issue of the unconstitutionality of the enbloc sale. You can read her letter on scribd here. She has raised many important points as well.

Print Page

Tags: horizon towers, horizon towers judgment, ong cher meng, choo han teck, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale, singapore

How Minute Should the Minutes of the Meetings Be?

There's been some questions raised recently about what should be included in the contents of the Minutes of an enbloc EOGM. Some argued that the minutes should only contain the resolutions, nothing more. Others say that minutes should be as detailed as possible so that people can be kept informed; it should include, for example, question and answers, comments, queries, issues raised. The amended LT(S)A is 'quiet' about this, aside from requiring that minutes of EOGMs be kept, and they be displayed or passed to owners.

First, let's get back to the amended LT(S)A. Prof Jayakumar during the 2nd reading of the amendments on 20 September 2007 clarified the reasons for the amendments. He pointed they are for procedural clarity,to "provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners" (Reading available here). So safeguards and transparency for all owners are among the main rationale for the amendments to the law.

Second, let's look at corporate practice. In 2003, the investor watchdog body Securities Investors Association of Singapore (SIAS) urged listed companies to keep detailed minutes of shareholders' meetings. They strongly suggested including "comments and queries by shareholders and responses by the board and management" (BT 18 Feb 2003). This, they argue, will improve best practices in accountability, transparency, corporate governance, and will make the company more responsible to the shareholders. From the BT article:

Members complain that many companies refuse to record even the gist of relevant questions asked by them and answers given by the chairman of the meeting,' the statement said. 'Especially in the current environment of greater shareholder participation at general meetings and the emphasis on greater transparency and disclosure, Sias finds this practice of keeping skimpy minutes to be totally unacceptable.'

'Not to record comments or queries from minority shareholders represents total disregard for and disrespect of minority shareholders. It expunges whatever they have said from the institutional memory of the company. It is as if they never said anything at the meeting, as if they are too unimportant to say anything worth recording.'

Are there examples of companies that provide detailed minutes? Microsoft publishes a verbatim transcript of their AGM online, as well as the AGM video. Locally, Qian Hu Corporation published detailed minutes of their AGM, earning them Investors' Choice Golden Circle Special Merit Award for transparency (BT 13 Mar 2004).

Shouldn't what SIAS suggest be the same good practice for our enbloc EOGMs? After all, isn't the law amended to allow for greater transparency and more safeguards for all owners, including minority owners?

Or to paraphrase SIAS, do SCs that choose not to provide detailed minutes of their EOGMs have a "total disregard for and disrespect of" owners who have the courage to stand up, ask questions and raise issues with the sale? "It is as if [such owners] never said anything at the meeting, as if they are too unimportant to say anything worth recording."

SIAS warned that one consequence of having skimpy minutes is that because shareholders feel they are insignificant, they are less willing to ask questions. Perhaps this is what SCs hope for - a subservient group of owners who will just nod, agree, and do whatever the SC wants them to do.

There should be no reason why SCs cannot provide detailed minutes of EOGMs, including the minuting of questions, comments, issues raised by individual owners and the responses from the SC. None, unless they do not think highly of 'transparency', 'safeguard', 'responsibility' and 'accountability.

Print Page

Tags: EOGM minutes, minutes, EOGM, Extraordinary General Meetings, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore

Constitutional Ambiguities (at least for the layperson!)

A few housekeeping matters first. I must sincerely apologise to everyone about the lack of updates on the blog. Personal matters, illness and now with the date of vacant possession coming up, I've been busy with sorting the eviction from my much cherished home. I'll try to get my a$$ around to updating the Enbloc List soon (I've said that repeatedly, I know!). As some of you may be wondering, CondoSingapore Forum on Enblocs, a hotbed of information as well as arguments/fights, was recently down. They lost a good 7 mths' worth of postings on enbloc matters, apparently due to a hack attempt. The administrator has continued to update the forum with the latest news articles on enblocs, so kudos to him despite the loss of data.

Last week, a series of Straits Times Forum letters appeared regarding enbloc matters. Ms Susan Prior sparked off by talking about the loss of the 'sense of kampung' in our communities, especially our condos, and she pointed out: "... in Singapore, your home is not really your home and can be taken from you by your neighbours". You can read her letter here.

This sparked off two responses on two fronts - one attacking her point on 'kampung' and another by Mr KS Rajah (apparently the Senior Counsel KS Rajah) which argued that "Ms Prior's fears that her home is not really her home and can be taken from her by her neighbours may not be strictly accurate". Again these letters are available here.

Mr Rajah's argument centred around, interestingly enough, the Singapore Constitution, which you can find here. Now I'm a layperson, certainly not a lawyer, and my interpretation of his letter is based on my common understanding (however little that is) of the law. His point was that under the Constitution "the power to acquire, hold and dispose property is a 'liberty' that is protected by law". That got lots of people confused - if this is the case, is the enbloc law unconstitutional?

Let's go back to the start of Mr Rajah's letter - he wrote in response to Ms Prior about neighbours taking away other neighbours' homes. In this point, Mr Rajah was merely stating the obvious. He's not ignoring the enbloc law; rather, he's taking Ms Prior's argument - that a neighbour can force you to lose your home - to its literal sense, and rebutting that via a legal argument. A neighbour can't force you to lose your home, eg by kicking you out of your home, or by causing bodily harm, or by seige, or by enbloc.

His key point is this single sentence: "The acquisition must be through legal means." In other words, the acquisition of your property must be done within the (enbloc) law.

What he seems to 'sidestep' is that it is precisely USING the law that people are LOSING their homes BECAUSE of other people and for rather selfish reasons. He ends the letter with a 'softer' tone: "Ms Prior's fears that her home is not really her home and can be taken from her by her neighbours MAY NOT be strictly accurate" (my emphasis). It's not ".. by her neighbours IS NOT accurate". Indirectly he acknowledges that what Ms Prior is saying is in a way correct, but within a legal framework, what she's saying isn't correct. Lawyers being lawyers, they pick their words very carefully and there's a difference between "MAY" and "IS" (which is a stronger assertion).

Now the point of contention here, the space that is opened up by Mr Rajah's argument, is whether the enbloc law is constitutionally illegal or not. For example, further down in Singapore's Constitution (not mentioned by Mr Rajah) is this: "The Government shall have power to acquire, hold and dispose of property of any kind and to make contracts." (Sect 37(1)) followed by 37(2) " The government may sue and be sued" lol.

Now, let's say I'm damn bloody stubborn. I refuse to sign the CSA or SPA, and refuse to give my title deeds to the SC's lawyers, no matter what. This goes all the way to STB and I superglue the title deeds and any documentation for my property to my butt. I will not "dispose" of my property and I wish to "hold" it. What can the SC do?

In the Land Titles (Strata)Act Sect 84C (found here), the President, Deputy President or Registrar of the Strata Titles Board is authorised to appoint ANY person (typically a representative from the SC, ie a layperson, or sometimes their lawyer) to act on my behalf, to execute the transfer of property. We know that has happened in the past, when someone refuses to sell but has his/her property wrenched away under the LT(S)A. This opens up the following questions:

• Is the STB "the government"? Given that the members of the STB are often not associated with any governmental body, but are citizens from private firms (often with stakeholder interests in enblocs), is their authority to execute a transfer of property, although allowed by law, illegal under the Constitution?
  
• For that matter, given that under the LT(S)A Sect 84C, any person can be authorised by the STB to execute the transfer of property, not a judge, not the government, is this constitutionally legal?
• I have no issue under the old LT(S)A pre-1999, when a 100% consensus is required to sell an estate. That makes sense under the Constitution - if everyone has a right to acquire, hold a property, they have the individual right to dispose (sell) it too. But the law was changed to 80% majority triggering the sale, subject to STB's approval. This means that some individuals will invariably lose their 'liberty' to hold their property. And in many cases, under enbloc CSAs, many individuals lose their 'liberty' to dispose their property in any way they want it. CSAs often include clauses that restricts how you can sell your property once the enbloc process begins, after all.

There are two ironies to the space opened up by Mr Rajah for constructive debate about the constitutional legality of the enbloc law:

• It's going to cost a lot of money for any minority owner(s) to bring up this matter to the Supreme Court for discussion. Not a lot of people can do that, which means this matter is likely to disappear into the archives of forum letters.
• Even if it goes to the highest courts for discussion, how will the impact of the fact that enbloc sales account for a major component of our budget surplus this year, affect such decisions? After all, only approx. 9.4% of Singapore's population live in condos (2005 Dept of Statistics Housing Characteristics), which means the "urban renewal" argument is really quite flimsy. The only reason why enblocs are facilitated by the government is a purely economic one. If the enbloc law is found to be constitutionally illegal, will it be removed, or amended so that it becomes legal (a more likely scenario, I'd think)?

Please feel free to respond, particularly if my reasoning on this matter is incorrect.

Print Page

Tags: Enbloccing Singapore, Enblocing Singapore, Enblocking Singapore, collective sale, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, condo, collective sales, real estate, singapore, Singapore Constitution

Hong Kong's Collective Sale Process - Us learning from them or them us?

Thanks to readers who sent me this South China Morning Post article that led me to read up more about the 'collective sale' process in Hong Kong. You can read that article here (on scribd). While I am still reading up on the enbloc process over in our competing nation, these are some interesting points I've discovered.

1. They do not have an equivalent of a volunteer-run STB. Rather, they have the Lands Tribunal which comprises of 3 professional judges and sometimes a member who is a qualified surveyor. You can read up more about it here.
2. The age threshold for buildings for redevelopment, unlike Singapore's 10 yrs, is FORTY years (40. That's 4 times ours.). In fact, the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors has suggested following the Singapore model of 10 years to facilitate urban renewal but the fact remains - 40 years is what the HK government considers to be the age of buildings before it should be considered for destruction.
3. However, even if your estate is 40 years old, the Lands Tribunal may reject the application for sale, IF it considers the estate to be well-maintained and well-kept. This is because Chapter 545 of the HK law (Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance) Sect 4(2)(a) states that the sale shall be justified "due to the age or state of repair of the existing development on the lot". This means that only if the estate is run down or in a bad state of disrepair, shall the sale be justified and approved. This is radically different from Singapore's approach which completely disregards if an estate has just been upgraded, or is very well kept and maintained.
   

You can read Chapter 545 Land (Compulsory Sale for Redevelopment) Ordinance here (Enter 540 under 'chapter row' and you should see Chapter 545 in the list. Click on the arrows on the left to open up and read the individual sections etc).

Maybe our own legislators can take a leaf from the HK folks and learn from them. They seemed to have better considered the balance between urban renewal, individual property rights, and the condition of the estate (something wholeheartedly neglected here).

Print Page

Tags: Hong Kong, Land Tribunal, collective sale, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, collective sales, real estate, singapore

Statutes Online Updated with New Amendments

Just to let all know - the Statutes Online has now been updated with the new revised Land Titles (Strata) Act (here). I have not had the time to update the Enbloc List since the last update but bear with me - it should get done this weekend.

Print Page

Horizon Towers Update - Old or New

For those who have been in some deep part of our urban jungle, the news of the day had been about the Horizon Towers Appeal being approved. You can read the various articles reproduced here.

Two interesting points I should note:

• In terms of the lawsuit, what would happen if the appeal was dismissed? The lawyer for HPPL, SC Shanmugam, said that "we would have to consider the option [of continuing with the lawsuit]. HPPL hopes an order would be made for the sale eventually because then the action would be discontinued altogether." So it appears that even if the Judge did find that the STB dismissal was in order, HT owners might be faced with the lawsuit. This is odd, to me as a layperson, as I'd have thought that if the Judge deemed the STB dismissal to be lawful, then that's the final word on the matter - the appeal was processed and judgment made. Case closed. But it appears that increasingly, the lawsuit seems to be independent of any legal judgment (whether from the High Court or from STB for that matter) but purely dependent on the successful completion of the sale. So what happens, if by a miracle, STB actually dismisses the application this time round because it was not done on good faith? Would HPPL proceed with the lawsuit? I'd really hope not.
• So now the case goes back to STB. But when that happens, will the STB application and proceedings work under the old law or the new law? Some speculators argued that it'd be under the new law, particularly that allowing for any further technicalities to be disregarded so long as it does not prejudice any owners. But you can't have a mixture of the old and the new. If it's under the new law, then all the other regulations - allowing STB to increase proceeds for minority owners with valid objections, return of sinking/management funds, etc - should be equally applicable. This would also mean that to be fair, all HT minority owners should be given an equal opportunity now to re-apply for objections under the new rules (eg those who did renovations recently but would not have been able to object under the old rules).

This remains a gray area, for me at least. There are effectively 2 parts to the Amendments. The first part deals with procedures for securing the execution of the CSA and the tender process, and the second part deals with the application to STB. While the first part would seem nonsensical in HT's context, the second part seems to be more equitable for their case (it'd allow for more STB board members, it'd allow for technical non-compliance to be ignored if no prejudice is noted, etc) but it'd also mean that to be fair, minority owners should be able to submit new or revised objections as well.

Let's see what happens next.


Print Page

Tags: horizon towers, land titles strata act amendment, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, collective sale

Amendment to En Bloc Sale Legislation Take Effect On 4th October 2007

Direct from the Ministry (here):-

1. The Ministry of Law has announced that the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act, enacted by Parliament on 20 September 2007, will take effect from 4 October 2007.
2. The provisions of the new Act will apply to developments where the required 80% or 90% majority consent of owners (based on share value) has not been obtained as at the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, i.e. 4 October 2007. These developments will have to comply with the new requirements set out in the Amendment Act. Developments where the required 80% or 90% majority of owners (based on share value) have signed the Collective Sale Agreement will not need to comply with the new requirements. Developments that are 10 years or more require 80% majority consent while those below 10 years require 90% majority consent.
   

[Update - Didn't notice that today's International Bloggers' Day for Burma as well so go here and support!]

Print Page

Tags: Enbloccing Singapore, Enblocing Singapore, Enblocking Singapore, collective sale, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, collective sales, condo, singapore

"Consider" This

A commenter "ngiamsw" posted an interesting comment about the nature of the word "consider" in the new bill, particularly in the context of general meetings held for collective sales (discussed here). A lot of people believe that "consider" means the following together: (a) to think rationally, (b) to discuss in a meeting, (c) to vote on the matter. I would have agreed on this except when I read lawyer Mr Ong Ying Ping's slides from a seminar he gave. In it he raised the question with regards to EOGMs - should resolution be passed to comply with para 1(c) Schedule to LT(S)A (which is to "consider the collective sale")? In other words, should voting for a resolution be allowed? He referred to Sim Lian (Newton) Pte Ltd v Gan Beng Cheng Raynes and Anor [2007] SGHC 84 which was a case on Lincolnsvale. In the High Court judgment, Asst Registrar Paul Tan stated in Para 77 the following:

The propriety of the EOGMs:
The respondents raised the point that the EOGMs held to consider the collective sale did not comprise any voting and were therefore void or invalid. This argument holds no substance. Under para 1(c) of the Schedule to the LTSA, the EOGMs are held to “consider” the sale; there is no requirement for any voting or any passing of any resolution.

"There is no requirement for any voting or any passing of any resolution" when it comes to considering the sale. Now I've long discovered that in matters of law, there is no black and white, and it remains to be seen if AR Paul Tan's argument about "consider" will be used against owners who wish to vote or pass a resolution. Of course, if the committee chairing the EOGM allows for a vote to be passed, it gives them a stronger mandate (since it does not require them to do so) and that speaks a lot more for that estate's sincere attempt for transparency and fairness to all owners. But will estates do this, or will they merely "consider"?

Now note that ngiamsw's quote of p26 of the amendment bill on the Notice on General Meetings (2nd Schedule) that the clause to "consider" (2b) is separate from the clause to vote (2d). So what can be voted? (1) in respect of each considered proposed resolution (2d) and (2) the election of members of the collective sales committee (2d).

So here is where things get tricky. I quoted the 3rd Schedule which lists the various purposes of the general meeting, most of which are "to consider". But 2nd Schedule requires a notice of the GM to be delivered to owners, which must include the proposed resolutions. So can an owner vote ("may vote in respect of each proposed resolution" - "may" not "can" or "must"; "may" infers option)?

There's therefore 2 interpretations, and until a ruling is made or a clarification is made on this matter - the court is still out on it.

• (A) In accordance with AR Paul Tan's ruling, 3rd Schedule's various "consider" means that no voting is necessary - a resolution need not have a vote, although the sales committee might invite for such a vote.
• (B) Every resolution should require a vote, which means at every general meeting #1-4 there will be voting on the various purposes as outlined in the previous post.

I doubt B is the correct interpretation though, because at two crucial points, if put to a vote, the entire sale process may be thrown right out: "consider [or vote for/against under interpretation B] the terms and conditions of the CSA" and "consider [or vote for/against under interpretation B] the terms and conditions of the SPA". Would the law be written in such a way that a resolution/vote at the 2nd and 4th EOGM might jeopordise the entire process if the vote is against the CSA or SPA? I don't think so. Which would mean interpretation A is the more likely meaning.

So what can owners do? If interpretation A is the correct one, while SCs are under no compulsion to vote, they can be pressured to do so; after all, it gives them a strong mandate and they have to be convinced of their own conviction that the process will result in a successful sale, right?

Hope I'm not losing people in this interpretation of the general meetings (which ultimately, is my own interpretation... so "consider" it lol). Do let me know if this is a wrong interpretation; I welcome comments on this. What is not for consideration is the VOTE on the right hand side, with only a few days left!

Print Page

Tags: collective sale, collective sales, condo, en-bloc, en bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore

How Many EOGMs Does It Take To Lay the Golden (Nest) Egg?

A commenter asked how many EOGMs is required under the new amendments. Let’s count them up:-

EOGM 1: Election of Collective Sale Committee (CSC)

According to the Section 84A Subsection 1A, and Third Schedule Para 1, the first EOGM is to elect the CSC comprising no less than 3 members and no more than 14. Such election is to be conducted by ordinary resolution (majority vote). If this is like election for management councils, each candidate will have to be voted in, which means some may not be elected if the majority votes otherwise. During this EOGM, all candidates must declare any interests (direct or indirect) in any property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or law firm. (Third Schedule Para 2)

EOGM 2: Appointment of Law Firm, Marketing Agent, Apportionment of Sale Proceeds, and Collective Sale Agreement.

This is the 2nd general meeting. To “consider” the appointment of lawyer, marketing agent, to “consider” the apportionment of sale proceeds, and to “consider” the terms and conditions of the CSA. Now “consider” means it is purely informative; you do not get to vote on the matter. But I wonder if a subsidiary proprietor or a group can requisition for a motion to vote on these matters during the general meeting or not.

Some have tried to argue that since EOGM 2 is informative, it can be collapsed into EOGM 1. This means that the CSC is highly confident that (a) the SPs will elect for the formation of the CSC (b) all of them would be elected (c) they have lined up the law firm, marketing agent, and CSA already. However, I suspect some marketing agents and law firms will now insist that before they sign a contract to be their agent, the CSC must be fully ratified first (since the election of the CSC is an ‘internal’ matter now, and it might not even get off the ground).

EOGM 3: Execution of the CSA

The 3rd general meeting. This is to give an update on the total number of SPs who have signed the CSA and to provide information on the sale proposal and process. This is before the public tender.

EOGM 4: Number of Offers, Sale and Purchase Agreement

The 4th general meeting. This is to provide information on the number of offers from the tender, their respective amounts, and to “consider” the terms and conditions of the SPA. This will be held “as soon as practicable” after the close of the tender, auction or private treaty.

EOGM 5: Dissolving the CSC

This is not officially in the process, but a group can requisition for the dissolution of the CSC by ordinary resolution at an EOGM. (Third Schedule Para 12)

So a total of 4 (or 3 if some groups decide to shoot for compressing EOGM 1 and 2), or 5 if a group thinks the CSC should be dissolved. Only EOGM 1 and 5 currently allows action by the SPs, the rest (EOGM 2,3,4) are purely informative only. As I said, because these are general meetings, there's a possibility that a SP or a group can requisition for additional motions to be entered into the notice as well. This will have to be tested of course.

The EOGMs 2 to 4 are stated in the Third Schedule (you can find the document here) reproduced below:-

7.—(1) The collective sale committee shall convene one or more general meetings of the management corporation in accordance with the Second Schedule for the following purposes:
(a) to consider the appointment of any advocate and solicitor, property consultant or marketing agent;
(b) to consider the apportionment of sale proceeds;
(c) to consider the terms and conditions of the collective sale agreement;
(d) to give an update on the total number of subsidiary proprietors who, immediately before the date of the general meeting, have signed the collective sale agreement;
(e) to provide information of the sale proposal and sale process;
(f) to provide information on the number of offers received for the collective sale and the respective amounts; and
(g) to consider the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement.

(2) The meeting under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) and (c) shall be convened before any subsidiary proprietor signs the collective sale agreement.
(3) The meeting under sub-paragraph (1)(d) and (e) shall be convened after the subsidiary proprietors referred to in section 84A(1) or 84FA(2) have signed the collective sale agreement but before the launch for sale under paragraph 11.
(4) The meeting under sub-paragraph (1)(f) and (g) shall be convened as soon as practicable after the close of the public tender or public auction or, where applicable, after the collective sale committee has entered into a private contract under paragraph 11

Print Page

Tags: general meetings, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

The End of Enblocing Singapore?

Parliament has passed the amendment bill. According to the draft legislation (Attachment B):-
"To provide that the amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act will not apply to a development where the collective sale agreement has been signed by the required majority owners before the date when the amendments were passed by Parliament."

Likewise in the Consultation Paper (Attachment A):-
"26. The LT(S)A will be amended to give effect to the confirmed changes. The confirmed changes will apply to all projects except those that have already obtained the majority of 80% / 90% (based on share value) at the time the proposed amendments are passed by Parliament."

I take these both to mean that the new rules on enbloc processes just kicked in yesterday. Someone let me know if this isn't the case. You can also read Prof Jayakumar's Second Reading of the amendment bill here; there's information of some of the changes made to the amendment bill based on subsequent feedback (but not the criticisms by the various MPs).

So what now? Is the blog done? Unlikely. What I call the 'baby months' of a new law will comprise of various parties using everything they can to push the boundaries of how the new amendments will affect their estate's sale. Pro-sales will do their best to cut corners if possible, anti-sales will do their best to ensure corners are not cut, and adhered to. While the process will take longer, it will ultimately allow many points of access for those who wish to keep their homes (and conversely many points of attack for those who want to sell).

Here's the prediction for the near future:-

1. Enblocs won't stop. Sales committees will have to be more sociable and actually do the ground work of meeting people, gathering support. Likewise, those against the sale will have to mobilise themselves and gather support. Questions about suitability of potential SC candidates will become frequent. The outcome will be largely positive because in many ways, if everyone turns up with their questions and grill the candidates, only those who are well-supported will emerge as more representative than pre-amendment time.
2. Marketing agents will bump up their commission fees, citing more work that they have to do to get the process moving along. Typical rates of 0.3% will probably go up to 0.4-0.5% for baseline RP, and 1.5-2% for above RP. The more established agents will be monopolistic and very quickly, you'll see standardised rates across the bigger firms. Owners will be in a conundrum - hire a big firm and pay the premium; hire a smaller firm and suffer a potential Horizon Towers. While decisions will rest with the various owners/protem-SCs, what must be clearly outlined now are the duties and responsibilities for the agents, in accordance with the new amendments. Eg some agents are saying you don't need 4 EOGMs but can compress them into less. Will this mess up the application? Maybe not, but maybe it might too. The beginning stages of a new law is always a painful time when both parties (pro- and anti-) strive to find ways to counter one another. Better be safe than sorry though.
   
3. Likewise for law firms and their fees. Again, the bigger ones will standardise quickly and the owners need to make clear what are the duties and responsibilities for the law firms. Through the law firm, the owners should also engage the SC directly to clearly outline their duties and responsibilities. Horizon Towers is an example of how things can still go wrong post-amendment since some aspects of the problems reside in the CSA and the responsibilities of the SC.
4. For those who love their homes, what can you do? Document everything, take note of when announcements for EOGMs are made, when they are held, whether a notice of who are eligible to vote is placed up, who voted, how was the voting done etc. Everything counts now. Attempts will be made by pro-sales people to interpret the new law in their favour and it'll be up to anti-sales people to ensure this does not happen. It means you need to mobilise yourselves into a group if possible. Look at the Love Bayshore Park and Dairy Farm groups, both fairly successful in raising the profile of their intention to keep their homes. Get together, read up on the new law, read both the Land Titles (Strata) Act and the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. Push the envelope yourselves - can you submit a motion before an EOGM to require all potential SC candidates to present a CV of their relevant experiences? Can you submit motions that require voting of a particular resolution to be done? Can you query the CSA during the EOGM? Can you demand an account or justification why particular agents/law firms were selected? Can you vote on these matters (or put in a motion to vote)? Bear in mind an EOGM doesn't mean that the pro-sales people hold the reins; any SP can submit a motion according to the BMSMA as shown below.
5. Use the forums eg condosingapore (but do create an account!) or create your own blogs, document for others to see what you have succeeded (or not succeeded) in doing. Many estates are now more emboldened by the knowledge that there are other estates that have like-minded owners who wish to do something about protecting their homes against mindless destruction. Information shared is always a good thing.

The baby months will be a time of testing and contesting the boundaries, as both pro- and anti-sales try to find their feet under the new regulations. The pro- have the advantage of big estate agencies and law firms to help them (since these firms will undoubtedly share their knowledge and intelligence about other estates among themselves and their clients). Anti-sales have only the internet, and their strong determination to fight back.

Good luck.

Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act First Schedule Requisition for motions to be included on agenda for general meeting
12. —(1) Any subsidiary proprietor may, by notice in writing, served on the secretary of the council of the management corporation or (as the case may be) subsidiary management corporation, require inclusion in the agenda of the next general meeting of the management corporation or (as the case may be) subsidiary management corporation of a motion set out in the first-mentioned notice and the secretary shall comply with the notice.
(2) The secretary of the council shall give effect to every requirement in every notice under sub-paragraph (1).
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not require the inclusion of a motion on the agenda of a general meeting for which notices have already been given in accordance with this Schedule, but in that case, the secretary of the council shall include the motion in the agenda of the next general meeting after that.

Print Page

Tags: collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore, real estate

Comments on Parliamentary Debate on Amendment Bill

I've been torn between ploughing through the videos tonight of the debates in Parliament on the enbloc sale, and churning out 2 papers that are due, VERY soon. So as a compromise, I watched some of them, and Prof Jayakumar's closing responses to all who raised concerns.

A couple of interesting observations. Each of the MPs raised extremely valid concerns and suggested ways to tweak and improve the amendment bill. Why were these raised at this stage and not earlier, right after the amendment bill was made public? I ask this because their concerns, ranging from collective exchange models, concerns for the elderly owners, method of apportionment, clearer standardisation of CSAs, duties and responsibilities of SCs etc, would have gone much further into improving the mess that enbloc sales are currently in. While admitting that the amendment bill is a major step forward, it could have been a GIGANTIC leap forward if such considerations were seriously taken on board. But it seems, when raised in Parliament, (a) they don't seem to have an impact on any possibility of tweaking the amendment bill (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), (b) the major arbiter is Prof Jayakumar (listen to how often counter-responses to the suggestions or concerns raised by (N)MPs are preceded by first person reference "I think", "I wish to point out", "I would not favour", "I'm reluctant to" etc). The latter point seems to suggest that rather than a careful consideration of some of the suggestions (many of which were raised during the public consultation, some by me LOL) by a group of experts/researchers/lawyers, the buck seems to stop at Prof Jayakumar. If he agrees with it (eg NMP Siew's suggestion that SISV look into clearer stipulation of guidelines for method of apportionment) it goes through the gate and MinLaw will consider following up on it (in this case, working with SISV).

For me, this is the first time I've witnessed Singapore's Parliamentary debates on a specific topic and watched/listened to it carefully with my analytic cap on. Having seen British Parliament in action (they have a dedicated TV channel broadcasting it even), and how lively (and intelligent in some cases) the exchanges can be, this is quite... monologic, let's put it this way :) I saw a post on condosingapore that seems to capture the sentiment well:-

I watched the Parliament news this evening, and seems that all MPs have some very brilliant idea about how the enbloc legislation can be further improved. E.g. banning SPs who have bought a unit < 2 years from being in the sales committee, etc
But it is a matter of "too much but too late". This is Singapore. Any proposed bill, surely will be passed without amendments. If only, instead of engaging in meaningless "for-show only" debate in the parliament, prior to the drafting of any new laws or revision, each MP can drop an e-mail to the Highly Paid Superscale Admin Service staff to have his/her view considered.
This is probably much more effective, and save the Minister from being bombarded in the Parliament. We will also be happier citizens, knowing that our dear MPs have been looking after our interests....via e-mails at least.

I'd strongly suggest watching the videos of MP Alvin Yeo, NMP Siew Kum Hong, NMP Mehta, MP Irene Ng, and of course Prof Jayakumar's closing responses.

Print Page

Tags: en bloc, collective sales, collective sale, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

Parliament Passes Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill

On 20th September 2007, Singapore Parliament passed the new amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act that will affect enbloc sales. You can read the brief reports on this on the Straits Times Online here, and ChannelNews Asia here. Both are reproduced on CondoSingapore here where you can discuss should you wish.

I'm including video links to CNA which kept streamed videos of the Parliamentary debate on this amendment. You may need Adobe Flashplayer to view the videos, and the videos are long (about 10-20 minutes each) as they cover the entire speeches given by the various Members of Parliament :-

1. Second Reading by Prof Jayakumar here.
2. Speech by MP Teo Ho Pin here.
3. Speech by MP Alvin Yeo here.
   
4. Speech by MP Ellen Lee here.
   
5. Speech by MP Irene Ng here.
6. Speech by NMP Kalyani Mehta here.
7. Speech by NMP Siew Kum Hong here.
8. Closing speech by Prof Jayakumar here.

You can find them archived on CNA's website covering the Parliament here (in case the links above did not work; look for videos dated 20th September 2007).

On a sidenote, HPL's Ong Beng Seng has met up with some Horizon Towers owners. You can read about that here.

Print Page

Tags: land titles strata amendment bill, singapore parliament, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

Will New Law Make Poison Pen Letters a Thing of the Past?

I just saw this flyer sent out to owners at Tampines Court, written by someone who views him/herself as a majority owner. You can view the flyer at the Tampines Court blog (here). I'm disheartened by the distinct element of threat included in the flyer.

The very idea of dividing an estate up into two camps is built right into the enbloc protocol. So long as there's an arbitrary 80/20 (or 90/10) requirement for majority/minority consent in a 10 yr+ estate (another arbitrary number), the estate will invariably be split into two, often opposing, camps. The difference in the past and now is that the minority group is getting more vocal, present, more organised and importantly, more knowledgeable in the facts surrounding enbloc sales and their rights.

Will the new Law make such poison pen letters a thing of the past? Not likely at all. Until the government begins to address the social and psychological impact of urban renewal, rather than the procedural and legal aspects, the ugly side of enbloc sales will continue to exist.

Print Page

Tags: enbloc poison pen letter, tampines court, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore

Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill - The Interesting Bits

I think every major paper/media source is reporting on this, including the Business Times which had a nice full page spread of the various proposed amendments in the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill.

For those who wish to play catch up or read the various reports, a few CondoSingapore forum members have put them up, so go here, here, here and here to read the various media reports on the Bill. Apologies that they're spread out a bit but if you read those 4 threads you'd cover CNA, BT, ST and Today :) Including the nice table from BT :)

Now comes the interesting part.

*IF* you want to read the actual Amendment Bill, you can find it on the Parliament's website and the exact link is here (requires a pdf reader eg Adobe Reader). This is the full legal document so it has to be read against the Land Titles (Strata) Act (the bill contains lots of 'delete this' 'add that'). The important thing you should note in this Bill, is the section of "Savings and Provisions". I'll get to that later :) Note also that there is a separate section now in the LT(S)A on convening of general meetings for purposes of collective sale. I have not had time to read through this carefully yet but over the next day or two, will get back to you with the specifics of the bill.

For the lawman's version, the Ministry of Law has kindly included a tabled version along with their rationale. You can find various information on their site including responses by Prof Jayakumar (on 27 August) here, and the first reading of the bill here. In the first reading is a word document that contains the tabled layman's version I mentioned, which I've included here.
I'd suggest downloading this word document since it contains ALL the changes, including those not reported in the papers.

So what's new (or can be further clarified)? (Have included the s/n so you can refer to the word doc) (Note: These are still proposed amendments)

1. (S/N 8) - Decision on whether to form a SC must be by ordinary resolution (simple majority) in a general meeting. In effect this is a motion in the general meeting for not just the SC members, but "its powers, duties or functions" (2nd Schedule Para 3(4)). In other words, you can vote NOT to have an SC, or not to have particular members of the SC. It means you as owners are now responsible for the fate of your estate, if you decide to vote for an incompetent group to sell your soul er land.
2. (S/N 8) - A SC may also be dissolved by an ordinary resolution at a general meeting of the MC. So if you suddenly realised that you did vote in an incompetent group, you can call for a GM and vote to dissolve the SC by simple majority.
3. (S/N 9) - (2) above is needed because there can only be 1 SC per development at any instance.
4. (S/N 10) - If the CSA lapse, or if the SC is voted out, the entire enbloc process stops.
5. (S/N 12) - Para 7 of the 3rd schedule outlines clearly the GM that must be convened to decide on such matters as appointment of marketing agent, property consultant, lawyer, apportionment of sale proceeds, terms and conditions of the CSA. No longer is this done through an Owners' Meeting (where some people may be excluded 'accidentally') but a formal GM. The list of functions for GMs is extensive (p33 of the pdf file). From that Para, I consider that various actions may be possible in a GM - "provide information" (no action required), "to give updates" (no action required), "to consider" (to provide information only). [Updated 22/9/07 - 'to consider' has no voting imperative behind it]
   
6. (S/N 13) - Like a proper MC, the decisions and minutes of SC meetings must be kept and placed on notice boards etc. Also, like a proper MC, the SC must keep proper accounts of money received and expended for the sale, specifying the purpose of the expenditure and receipts. And any owner can apply for the accounts to be made available to him/her. (Para 9 of 3rd schedule, pdf p34).
7. (S/N 18) - Lawyer to certify updates on consent level. This is partly to stop some of the very questionable actions by agents in some estates which do not account for the consent level accurately. Now the lawyer must risk his signature on the dotted line :)
8. (S/N 19) - SC to give monthly updates rather than 8 weekly updates.
9. (S/N 21) - Applies to HUDC estates. Age of privatised HUDC estate can be taken from the date of completion of construction of the building as certified by (eg) HDB. (pdf p.19). The date of issue of CSC is the date of issue of Certificate of Fitness.
10. (S/N 31) - If unit was sold after an enbloc sale has been awarded to a buyer, that purchase price is not considered for financial loss claims. I believe this relates to a particular estate in Dist 10 where an owner sold off his unit right after the SPA but before completion.
11. Savings and Provisions - (pdf p37). This outlines clearly under what conditions can the new Act apply to the existing enbloc attempts. It applies to any estate that has not executed the CSA (ie achieved 80%/90%) before "the appointed day" (ie day of commencement of amended Act). It does not apply to any application made to or pending at STB before the appointed day, or to any SPA signed before the appointed day, or to any STB decision made before the appointed day. This is why some estates are pushing very hard for the 80% to be achieved before Oct - because if they don't, they have to comply with ALL the regulations in the Act. So if your estate did not elect the SC through a GM (as required in the new Act), then it'll have to do so. And it may risk being voted out if it had been bullish, aggressive etc.
    

Also, I noticed that there are amendments to the Building Control Act, which may put a major dent on developers' construction costs as well. This may well be another tap on the enbloc brakes, or at least developers will now have to see how much more they'll have to fork out to redevelop.

I want to go through the actual amendment bill and will get back to you with more points on it. Overall, in terms of procedures for enbloc sale, it's a major leap forward. In terms of the rationale for enbloc sale, well, nothing's been done to change the fact that urban renewal seems to be pegged at 10 year old buildings being torn down very soon after they've hit that mark.

Perhaps someone in Parliament ought to ask for the following statistics, to get a better picture:-

• What is the average age of the estates when it is submitted to STB for collective sale approval in the period of 2005-2007? The statistics should be broken down by districts. (Idea is to see if the age of estates is young relative to other urban redevelopment projects in other highly developed cities such as Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai)
  
• What is the average consent level for estates when the application is made to STB in the period of 2005-2007? (Idea is to see what is the level of dissent for en bloc sales)
  
• What are the main reasons of objection raised at STB hearings and tribunals by minority owners during the period of 2005-2007, and how are these addressed in the Amendment Bill? (Idea is to see fit of amendments to problems raised through STB channels)
  
• In terms of urban renewal, what is the percentage increase in number of units from the estates sold en bloc, in the period of 2005-2007? (ie no of new units developed versus no of old units from estate) The increase should be provided by districts. (Idea is to see if urban renewal is significant or not)

Print Page

Tags: land titles strata (amendment) bill, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, collective sale, singapore, real estate

Parliament Debates Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill

Over 400 suggestions from 100 submissions. Result - 30 proposed amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act.

News have started to trickle in and you can find details on CondoSingapore forum, here and here. The idea, according to Prof Jayakumar, is to make the enbloc sale more transparent, fairer and clearer. Debate is to continue next month, with the Amendment Bill gazetted by October 2007.

Some of the proposed amendments are listed below. I've noted in blue those that were in the original amendment proposal outlined in Mar 2007:-

• Requirement for sales committee to be formally appointed in a general meeting, and SC members have to declare any vested interests related to the deal
  
• Sales committee required to conduct a general meeting to discuss appointment of lawyer, agent, property consultant
• Providing updates on bids received and how sales proceeds will be divided
  
• 'Cooling period' of 5 days after the CSA is signed, in case owners changed their minds. Can only be done once.
  
• Owners' voting rights to be decided by the area of their flats in addition to share values
• Every home owner must have a lawyer explain their legal rights in the CSA
• Having a lawyer present to clarify doubts when owners sign the CSA and key terms and clauses to be listed upfront in the legal document
• Lawyer to be witness to the signing of the CSA
  
• STB to be given power to increase the amount minority owners get from sale proceeds for (say) renovation costs done recently
  

An excellent point raised by Philip Fong of Harry Elias Partnership is to implement a code of best practices: "There are no regulations as to how much information is actually given to the owners, so they know enough to raise questions. So in that sense, what I think would be worthwhile to consider is for the appropriate authority to come up with a code of best practices and if there are deviations from these practices, then they must be justified by the sales committee."

Some initial observations - unless there are more proposed amendments to be rolled out in the near future, it looks like (a) the emphasis is on transparency issues more than fairness issues (b) the 10 year arbitrary margin for triggering 80% enbloc consensus remains unchanged, despite many home owners hoping that something will be done about the senseless destruction of their homes. What MinLaw needs to remember is that the primary drive, the main reason for having enbloc sales, is the idea of urban renewal in the first place (which necessitates looking at the 10 year mark), and not the idea of profiteering (which would necessitate looking at transparency issues).

I'll continue to update you on the Parliament's discussion of the Amendment Bill as and when information comes in.

Print Page

Tags: Singapore Parliament, Land Titles (Strata) Act, Amendment bill, collective sale, collective sales, condo, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore, real estate

Parliament begins discussing Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill

I know everyone is now awaiting for news on Horizon Towers, but in the meantime, Channelnews Asia (CNA) has just reported that on Monday 27 August 2007, Parliament will begin to discuss the proposed Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill, which will affect en-bloc legislation. You can read this little blurb here.

I'll update you on Monday if there's any news on this matter.

Print Page

Tags: Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill, Singapore Parliament, En-bloc legislation, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore