Stayers' Poll & Links to Parliament Debates

Back in June 2007, the Straits Times published an article that described what they considered 7 archetypical characters in an enbloc sale - the Stayers, the Sharks (condo raiders), the Bochap Investors, the Activists, the Fencesitters, the Troublemakers (want more money), and the Happy Sellers. For the Stayers category, this is what they said:

"They've lived for decades in the same home. It's where they've brought up their families or shared memories with deceased spouses. Money is not an issue - they simply refuse to move out. One widow was afraid her husband's spirit would not be able to find her if she moved; others say they had no idea their home was being sold. One thing they have in common: really annoyed neighbours who want a quick sale."

I'd argue that nowadays, most stayers have also learned to become activists - people who would fight to protect their homes. So in the spirit of Stayers (and Activists), I've created a poll which asks what reasons might they have, for wanting to protect and keep their home. Note you can select as many responses that you feel fits your situation, but if possible, try to limit to no more than 3 of the most important reasons.

1. My right to my home is sacrosanct - If you believe you have an absolute right to acquire, hold and dispose of your home with noone interfering with this right, tick this.
2. My home is part of my identity - You have your memories here, your family was brought up here, your home and the network of people you've befriended are important to you and your identity, especially your identity as a Singaporean. Lose your home, and why should you be bothered to stay in this country?
3. My home is more than just about money - You can't put a value to my home.
4. I'm not offered enough money - I'll sell my home for the right price. My price.
5. I love my neighbourhood - It's not just my home, but it's my neighbourhood that I love and cherish.
   
6. I'm too old to move - I've reached an age where this is my retirement place. Don't take it away from me!
7. Pragmatic reasons - I bought this place and moved here because of pragmatic reasons, be it the catchment area for a good school, or the church that I'd like to go to, or proximity to Orchard Road etc.

This by no means is a well designed survey since some of the choices do overlap, but it's just to get a sense of what makes people want to stay, and more importantly, fight to keep their homes.

Previous Poll Results :
Question asked: What is your opinion of STB?

1. It's a rubber stamping machine - 25 (55%)
2. It should be run by judiciary members - 12 (26%)
3. It helps ensure a fair and equitable sale - 5 (11%)
4. It only slows down the process - 3 (6%)

Total of 45 voted. Interesting results, considering the idea of having judiciary members or the courts perform the current role of the STB in enbloc sales was mooted 10 years ago in the Parliamentary Debates on the 1999 Amendments.

You can download or read the Parliamentary Debates on scribd - 2nd Reading here and 3rd Reading here.

Now go poll, you Stayers!

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, Stayers

Pandering to "the Greed of Developers": 10 Year Predictions - Parliamentary Debate on 1999 Amendment to LTSA

In the middle of 1998, the Parliament debated on an amendment to the LT(S)A, to facilitate enbloc sales. Primary change in this 1999 amendment was the 90%/80% to 10 year old estates which we're all aware of.

A kind reader dug up the Parliamentary debates from 1998 and sent them to me. I read through them with horror.

Some of the criticisms raised in Parliament about the potential negative consequences of this 1999 amendment, they are the very reality we live in now. Opposition MPs, NMPs have talked about the arbitrary nature of 10 year age limits for estates, the need to factor non-material considerations, the need to have courts mediate enbloc sales and not STB, etc.. these were ALL raised almost 10 years ago, and ignored.

An interesting quote from Mr Shriniwas Rai, then a practising lawyer and an STB member, which relates to the previous post on the Constitution. He said:

We have got limited land supply and community interest must take precedence over that of the individual right. As I said earlier, one of the advantages that we have is that because we did not enshrine in the Constitution the right to own property, as some other countries did, we have this development.

I do not have what he said earlier, and I assume "this development" refers to the proposed enactment of the LTSA amendment. But is he right - is it that the right to own property is NOT in the Constitution, as he pointed out? This would seem to contradict Mr KS Rajah's point (see previous blog).

I'll try to upload the documents when I can, but I'd like to quote this excerpt from a speech given in Parliament by a well known opposition MP (initials starting with J and ends with J):

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not make any pretence. This is not a case of a minority or even a single man holding out against the society. It is not a question of society's interests that will be adversely affected if we give way to the man's wish and freedom to do what he wishes. This Bill simply panders to the greed of the developers and the other co-lessees who see, as has been said, a way to get rich quickly. That would appear to be the only reason for this Bill. There is no question of any national interests coming into this. There is, as has been pointed out, the Land Acquisition Act and even there, let me say, it is felt by many that that Act itself is being abused from its primary, original purpose which was that it should only be used for national interests; it is used for lots of other reasons now. So let us not pretend that a minority, even if it be a single man, is holding society to ransom.

This adds another instance to the list that is already growing in Singapore where the citizen is coerced. He is coerced to do something against his will, against his freedom to do what he wishes to do. Is that the kind of society we want in Singapore where a citizen is coerced at every turn and corner? Or is it a society where the citizen feels that he is free to make his own choice provided of course it does not harm the society at large? I am sure the answer to that must be quite plain.
...
My objection to this Bill is on principle. I think it is wrong to force one man to give up his property. I do not want to go into the reasons why he may be against the sale. Some reasons have been advanced but whatever it is, it is the principle. Do we rob a man or woman, as the case may be, of his or her freedom to do what he or she wishes to do with the property? Why is that necessary in Singapore? As I said, in a number of things, citizens are now being coerced. I think there should be a limit to this coercion.

Excellent words right there.

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, real estate, singapore

Poll Results and Updates

Several updates this week:-

Poll Results

First, the poll results are in. 49.7% disagreed to enbloc their homes (No), 22.7% might (Maybe), and 27.6% will enbloc their homes. The poll was set up in such a way that of the 9 possible options, they would cluster into 3 Yes, 3 Maybes, and 3 Nos. What is interesting is that almost 50% of the 163 who participated in the poll are (to use bad stereotypes) 'pro-sales' (Yes) or 'pragmatists' (Maybe). When the blog was set out, I anticipated that the majority of the readers would be those who were against enbloc sales or were minority owners (that is, after all, the intention of the blog). So it's pleasantly surprising to see that I 'seemed' to have a balanced viewership.

When the results are rank ordered, the top 3 reasons (comprising 70%) are: 38% said their homes are priceless. 17.8% said they would sign if the price is right, 14.1% said their homes are old, hence they'd sell. Bottom 3 reasons are: If no choice (1.8%), if can find replacement (3.1%), and a tie between my only home (3.7%) and I need cash (3.7%). What this indicates to me:

• People do view their homes (which according to government statistics are about 25.9 yrs old) as old. However, assuming the national average of 25.9 yrs, that means the building would have gone through only 5 'health inspections' which isn't a lot. It also begs the question - are Singaporean buildings really not built to last if they are considered old at 25.9 yrs old, or is it the case that estate management councils are not equipped to manage buildings on a long term basis?
• The majority do believe that their homes are priceless and I'm heartened by that. It means that there are people out there who value their homes beyond their financial value.
• People do believe strongly that they have a choice when it comes to enbloc sales. That being the case, it is imperative for people who wish to keep their homes not to sit on the sidelines and say to themselves "enbloc will not happen" and hope it won't happen. Owners who wish to keep their homes should endeavour to be pro-active, especially in getting a group of likeminded people together, much as a sales committee will do the same in their attempt to sell. A strong community can be formed within the estate through a common purpose of cherishing it.

Would you enbloc your home?
Yes	It's an investment purchase	16	9.82%
Yes	I need the cash	6	3.68%
Yes	Place is old	23	14.11%
Maybe	If price is right	29	17.79%
Maybe	If can find replacement	5	3.07%
Maybe	If no choice	3	1.84%
No	It's my only home	6	3.68%
No	Can't get replacement	13	7.98%
No	My home is priceless	62	38.04%
		163	100.00%

I will be starting a new poll soon, based on the new amendments that kicked in. Do feel free to participate again :)

Method of Apportionment

Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong wrote a clear explanation of his speech during Parliament and his feelings about the new amendments, which while improving on procedural aspects of the sale, may create a "loophole that permits what I would call a daisy-chain of reciprocal back-scratching to satisfy the law, without actually protecting anyone's interests". You can read the full speech, Prof Jayakumar's response, and his explanation on his blog here. Kudos to him for standing up to raise what is arguably one of the central points of contention in any enbloc sale - the method of apportionment.

News Update

Finally, a report in the Straits Times (reproduced here) on the mad dash to get that 80% before the law kicks in. And an update on the Horizon Towers (with caricatures!) here. I have as usual kept the En-bloc list as updated as I can.

Print Page

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

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

Parliamentary Responses to Collective Sale Queries

Yesterday's parliament had an initial foray into the Land Titles (Strata) Act Amendment Bill, which will be discussed this week. Facts and figures were offered in written response to questions posed. You can read the full CNA article here and reproduced here. I will add in additional information from the written responses.

1. The average age of all developments which applied for collective sale from January 2005 to end-August 2007 was 25.9 years.
2. The average age of the developments in the Core Central Region (CCR), Rest of Central Region (RCR) and Outside Central Region (OCR) was 25.3, 28.4 and 23.9 years respectively.
3. The average percentage of owners who had signed the collective sales agreement at the time of application was 89.2 percent. About half of these developments received a consent level of 90 percent and above.
4. The common reasons for objections raised by minority owners to the Strata Titles Boards were that they would suffer financial loss and that the transaction was not done in good faith in view of factors such as sale price of the lots and common property, the method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the purchaser to any of the subsidiary proprietors.
5. Since 1 January 2005, a total of 3,700 private residential units have been issued Strata Titles Board orders for collective sale. When redeveloped, there will be 8,303 new units.

Comments:

1. Given the statistics above provided by MinLaw and Ministry of National Development, it is no surprise that the amendments did not consider the age of the estates as a possible factor for change (ie the 10 year arbitrary mark). A market-driven policy on enbloc sale has produced in the last 3 years or less, redevelopment for estates that are on average 25.9 years old. On its own, that average is a very good justification to leave the 10 yr mark as it is.
   
2. What it does not show, however, are the following: (a) the quality of a 25.9 year old estate and whether it is a blighted/run-down estate or whether it has been carefully kept and well-maintained for decades by judicious owners and management councils; (b) the spread of estates that are increasingly being attempted to go enbloc. I compiled the TOP data of all estates in the En-bloc List I have, and separated them into two charts. One for completed sales (which would correspond with MinLaw's data), and one for tendered/ongoing sales (not in MinLaw's data). The document is available here as a pdf with the usual caveats that the data is not 100% complete due to unavailability of some TOP data. However, when broken into two charts, and 5 yearly ranges, the spread of estates going enbloc are clearer. For example, while my data more or less confirms the 25.9 year average, the data also shows that for ongoing attempts, there is a noticeable increase in attempts on estates that are less than average range of 1981-1985, ie 1986 and younger.
   
3. This means that IF urban renewal is the driving impetus for enbloc policies then estates older than the average range should be going for enbloc. But instead, it is estates that are younger than the average range that are going enbloc, especially estates in the 1986-1990 range. These are pretty young estates by international standards. There's essentially an increase in attempts on estates that are younger than 1981-1985, and a decrease in attempts on estates that are older than 1981-1985. It is possible that the supply of older estates is decreasing. I can't comment on this because I don't have data on un-redeveloped estates that are older than the average range (which are enbloc potentials). However, the issue remains: Is urban renewal still the rationale and driver for enbloc sales (which my data that shows younger estates going enbloc suggests otherwise), or is it the rationale of economic maximisation of individual assets (selling for maximum profit)?
   
4. The common reasons for objection runs the whole gamut, but anecdotally I'd have expected financial loss to be less of an issue nowadays, than issues of good faith and on points of law. It's a pity a breakdown of the various objections was not disclosed.
5. A twofold increase in units available in the near future from redevelopment is a pretty good justification for enblocs but again, the statistics belie the qualitative aspect of urban living - that most of the newer units are smaller, with new estates more packed in. This will invariably affect the quality of living in Singapore's condos where increasingly the only major structural differences between mass market condos and HDB estates are the presence of security and sports facilities (swimming pool, tennis courts, gym).
   
6. With half of the developments exceeding 90%, the other half would be less than 89.2% which sounds about right, given that larger estates would typically obtain a consent level in the lower range of 80.1% to 89.2%, while smaller estates would hit 90% and above easily. Or combining two values, 10.8% minority owners of 3700 units is about 400 units that did not agree to the sale. Again, without a breakdown by size of estates it'll be hard to gauge exactly how many minority owners there were (ie 10% in an estate of 1000 units is more than 10% in an estate of 20 units).

I'll keep you posted with more information on this.

Print Page

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