Meeting your MP - A Guide

There's rampant discussion about the Horizon Towers debacle in the various forums, so we'll do something completely different.

For some, going to meet a Member of Parliament is a useless gesture. For others, meeting an MP is an alien idea. Some people, distraught enough with the enbloc of their homes, might be brave to venture into the unknown and make their MP earn his/her keep in a "Meet the People Session". Here's what happens at a Meet the People Session:-

1. First things first - you need to locate your MP. Each constituency/GRC has a number of MPs with each MP usually assigned a specific location in the GRC (in this case). Go to the Community Development Council's (CDC) website here. On the bottom right you see a "District Detector". Enter your postal code and it'll pull up which CDC you're in as well as a link to the CDC's website. Click on that and go to the website which will have a Meet the People Session page. Locate your MP from there.
   
2. You can find more information about your MP from the Singapore Parliament website (which contains their CVs). You can find Meet the People session times/days here too but NOT the location where the MP is attached to.
   
3. Once you've found your MP, head to the session location and be prepared for a long wait. Most Sessions begin in the evening (7pm onwards). Like most Singaporean activities, get ready to queue.
   
4. You will first be verified that you are indeed in the right constituency for the Session. In other words you cannot go to Potong Pasir if you are not IN Potong Pasir. They will turn you away if you're not verified. Once you've passed verification, you'll be given a Queue Number.
5. Depending on how many people before you, you may have to wait for up to 1 hour before you're called up for "Registration".
6. During registration, you'll need to present your IC card, and fill in your details on a computer for their record and for future visit purposes. Then you wait (approximately) an hour for a volunteer to draft out a petition for you.
   
7. Bear in mind some of the people who wish to meet the MP for various reasons may not be native English speakers (or in some cases, know how to write). So the volunteer prepares a written petition that will be recorded and passed to the MP when you meet.
   
8. Impress the volunteer - write your own petition! This is useful because the MP can bring back a copy of your own petition for follow up, rather than a quick summary written by a volunteer.
   
9. When presenting your case to the MP, be polite and to the point. Air your grievances and the problems with the enbloc in your estate (doesn't matter what stage you're at). The idea is the more petitions/complaints/letters to the ministries about enbloc, the more likely they have to do something, especially in response to the MPs.
   
10. The time from start to finish can be several hours (3 hrs or so) so be prepared. The result? You'll get a formal letter from your MP which will be addressed (depending on your issues raised) to the permanent secretaries of the Ministries of Law and National Development, requesting that they look into the matter on the MP's behalf.
    

The fact is there's been a few people (not a lot) who have approached their MPs so far. The MPs have to be accountable to their constituency members, irregardless of socioeconomic class status. Bring up issues on transparency, due process, conflict of interests, bad faith, cowboy antics, poor legislation covering enblocs, new amendments to enbloc laws etc.

The MPs are, as a senior member of government once said, "as good as it gets". Let's see if they're willing to pull their weight on the increasingly disturbing matter of enbloc sales.

Tags: Meet the people session, Member of Parliament, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, real estate, singapore, Enblocing Singapore

VICTORY for Horizon Towers - Enbloc Application Dismissed

[Updated 4 Aug morning to include news reports and names of law firm/agent as printed in the news]

Given the hundreds of enbloc applications that have gone through STB, isn't it ironic that there's been very few STB dismissals so far? Prior to Horizon Towers, the only two cases I could gather were Mandalay Court (March 2000) and Grenville Condominium (June 2000), both occurred right after the Land Titles (Strata) Act amendments in 1999. Mandalay and Grenville were dismissed due to procedural errors in their enbloc sale application, and in both cases relating to extraordinary general meetings (EOGMs) either being held late (Mandalay) or not being held (Grenville). Because of this technicality, STB dismissed their applications. Subsequently, both estates' SCs reapplied for a 2nd application to STB and both were approved.

On 3rd August, Singapore Stock Exchange News listed the following announcement about Horizon Towers:-

Following the hearing of the Strata Titles Board ("STB") in connection with the application (the "Application") by the vendors of the Property for the STB to order the sale of the Property in accordance with the Option to Purchase, the Company wishes to announce that the STB has on 3 August 2007 dismissed the Application.

The Company understands that the Application was dismissed by the STB because the Application had been made by the vendors without full compliance with statutory requirements. Horizon Partners is currently considering the STB's decision and reserves all its rights, including its rights against the subsidiary proprietors of the Property who signed the collective sale agreement and the Sales Committee of the Property.

An inside source highlighted that the dismissal was done due to possible procedural errors. From the 3 main news sources, here are their 'sketchy' descriptions of these errors (all dated 4 Aug 07):-

CNA: "applicants failed to include certain documents"; "some papers were defective"
BT: "insufficient notices were posted and some documents were not filed"
ST: "a notice put up on July 11 last year saying that owners with 80.81 per cent of share values in Horizon Towers had signed the sale agreement. A sale needs 80 per cent consensus. But only 79 per cent had agreed to the sale at that time, lawyers said." (Incidentally, they did achieve 84% but I guess the point here was that on 11 July the notice was incorrect.)

Update: ST 8 Aug 2007 gave clearer details of the law firms and lawyers involved.
HPL - SC K Shanmugam and William Ong of Allen & Gledhill
Majority owners - SC Jimmy Yim of Drew & Napier, SC Chelva Rajah or Tan Rajah & Cheah.
Minority owners - Kannan Ramesh, Senior partner of Tan Kok Quan Partnership, Phillip Fong, Senior partner of Harry Ellias Partnership.
A company owning several units hired Dr SK Phang who enlisted SC Michael Hwang.
Agent for Horizon Towers remained, as far as I could tell, First Tree Properties Pte Ltd (BT 22 Aug 2006).

The interesting points are:-

1. Again, STB emphasises the need for all applications to conform to the law in terms of procedures. Note that the merits of the application (done in good faith, method of distribution, financial loss) were not considered in these dismissal cases so far. It appears even seasoned law firms and enbloc agents may stumble over the legal protocols needed for enbloc sales. The moral of the story - make sure you adhere to the law. To the letter.
   
2. For those who are against the sale, it means not just objecting on the grounds of lack of transparency/lack of good faith/poor distribution/financial loss, but documenting meticulously every single letter/event/meeting that has ever occurred with regards to the enbloc as well as taking minutes/recording the sessions. Such information may turn out to be very useful later on. It also means that people have to be brave to object to the sale of their homes (preferably as a collective group), and that means objecting on all fronts - not just on the enbloc sale but on the procedures that were done to begin, move and secure the sale. Some agents and law firms are being paid hundreds of thousands if not millions to sell your homes and by golly, why should they have it easy? :)
   
3. Most CSAs/SPAs have indemnity clauses protecting SCs and majority owners from anything but acts of God (okay I exaggerate but you get the idea.. read your own CSA/SPA). Can Hotel Properties Ltd sue the SC/majority owners for procedural mishap?
4. A deja-vu may occur again when the new amended enbloc legislature kicks in later this year. I've already seen one CSA with contract-out clauses, or clauses that attempt to bypass the new laws. Even a clause that compels majority owners to agree that an EOGM occurred to elect the SC (a new proposed amendment to the law) even when it didn't actually happen. What will be the consequences for all owners (majority/minority) when the law is changing and people (including lawyers) are caught in the middle, waiting to see what fixes/amendments need to be done to their enbloc process? In the meantime, can current CSAs be worded such that they bypass or circumvent the new laws? Surely this can't be the case?

Tags: Horizon Towers, STB Dismissal, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, collective sale, property, singapore, real estate, Enblocing Singapore, Enblocking Singapore

Staying Ahead of the Game - Protem 'Inside Trading'

A look at the expat forum's thread on enbloc sales and you'll see it swamped by local Singaporeans trying to jump onto the 'enbloc wagon' by trying to suss out where the next 'enbloc potential' is and getting a unit or two there just before they hit the enbloc sale road. Speculators are jumping around the East Coast, lurking in condos in hope that some poor chaps will unsuspectingly sell their homes to an enbloc investor who can then cash it all in and reap the millions (the going rate nowadays, as they say).

But what happens if certain people within the estate have privileged information that an enbloc is going to occur, and buy up units in said estate before any enbloc announcements?

Yes, the only group of people who are aware of such things are the Protem Sale Committee (PSC) members. In an email, I was told this happened in an estate where members of the PSC who already own units there, decided to buy up other units in the estate, and shortly thereafter announced to everyone that they will be starting the enbloc sale.

Why should this be a problem?

• From the perspective of a unit owner who wishes to sell their home (for whatever reason) - usually if word goes around of an impending enbloc, the owner would either sell at a premium or hold back on selling, at least until the amount s/he could get is known. In this situation highlighted above, most owners who sold their units to the PSC were not aware of any enbloc and hence sold it 'on the cheap'. To the people who were planning to do the enbloc.
• From the perspective of a unit owner in general - Most owners will want to wait and see what are the pros and cons of selling their units collectively. They therefore want a PSC/SC that represents them and are fair in their dealings with agents/developers/lawyers. But if owners know that the PSC members have several units in their estate, bought precisely because of an oncoming enbloc, what confidence is there that they do not have ulterior motives of their own? Are they truly representing owners or themselves? Are they selling for the benefit of everyone (which might require taking a higher RP for example), or for their own benefit (which might be a lower RP but faster sale, since they have bulk purchases)?
• From the perspective of the law - the new amendments will address a key issue of transparency. Any PSC members who utilises privileged information not available to public (including all owners) for their own benefit is not trying to be transparent to everyone. In fact, it is the exact opposite since they are most likely to have their own motivations and drives to push the sale through (eg have to pay off hefty loans taken up from snapping up units). The law needs to protect owners from such 'insider traders' and to have procedures in place that require all owners to declare when they bought their units (and have such information open for scrutiny).

In the meantime, the wild wild west continues.

Tags: protem sale committee, pro-tem sale committee, protem sales committee, pro-tem sales committee, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc sale, property, singapore, real estate

STB Hearing - Horizon Towers

Another "Going to Court" case, this time on Horizon Towers at Leonie Hill. Given the objections raised (that the price has become outdated, that some majority owners now wish to rescind the CSA, that the deal was not done in good faith) fall into gray legal territory, it's no wonder the lawyers representing the respective parties are all heavyweights (Senior Counsels & Partners).

Estate: Horizon Towers, Leonie Hill
Stage: Sold at $850psf. STB Hearing 27/7/07 to 2/8/07
Party: Minority owners represented by Kannan Ramesh and Karam Parmer from Tan Kok Quan Partnership, and Philip Fong from Harry Elias Partnership. 1 minority owner represented by Senior Counsel Michael Hwang.
Collective Sale Lawyer: Tan Rajah & Cheah [As of 7 Aug 07 although news reports indicated Drew & Napier as representing the sellers (19-21 Jun 07) earlier]
Lawyer for Buyer: K Shanmugam and William Ong from Allen & Gledhill
Reason: Deal not done in good faith. Objection to Price. Not satisfied with SC's performance, SC not canvassing views of owners prior to sale despite improved market conditions.
Details: Owners (both majority and minority) objected to the fact that estate was sold 'on the cheap' in Feb 07 at $850psf when 6 mths later, Grangeford nearby is asking for over $2000. Offer price for Horizon was made in Apr 06 and in the following 9 mths, property prices surged to the extent price was outdated. Effort to mediate between objectors and SC failed so hearing to be conducted. 39 owners initiated EOGM to replace Sale Committee but was unsuccessful (acting for several owners - Senior Counsel C.R. Rajah of Tan, Rajah and Cheah). Application for judicial review of STB's decision not to postpone hearing rejected.

[Note: All information provided here summarised/extracted from BT/ST news sources. For sake of brevity and reading, references are omitted but if you wish to have them please contact me. Likewise for errors.]

Tags: Horizon Towers, Grangeford Apartments, STB mediation, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, real estate, singapore

Bringing the fight to the Courts - Futura Condo

I'll be compiling a new series of information that might be useful for minority owners/objectors. They will go under the label - "Going to Court" and will provide details of reasons why objectors are bringing their cases to court or STB for mediation, who are the lawyers representing the minorities, etc.

Now bearing in mind that only one en bloc has been rejected from collective sale by STB, this may be seen by many as a futile gesture or even a waste of time. But one must remember:-

1. Almost all collective sales nowadays have not reached the full 100% consensus (with many going into expressions of interest because they have not even reached 80%). That means there's a lot of minority owners, people who are not happy with the sale of their homes for whatever reasons.
2. The news will almost never report objections made by minority owners for every en bloc done. Rather, it'll be the juicy 'news-worthy' ones that make the headlines. Judging by recent reports of the heavy overload of work on the part of the STB, it appears there are increasing objections made for en bloc sales.
3. Remember the Waterfront View couple that brought their fight all the way to High Court. Even though they lost, the landmark rulings by STB and the Courts on the definition of financial loss clarified the situation for many. The battle now, from what I can see, is on the grounds of what constitutes 'good faith'.
   

So let's start the ball rolling with the spaceship condo that I liked so much:-

Estate: Futura Condominium, Leonie Hill Road
Stage: STB approved sale 23/5/07, Appeal to Court on 20/7/07 before Justice Woo Bih Li
Party: 7 minority owners represented by Henry Heng Gwee Nam of Tan Peng Chin LLC
Majority Lawyer: Mr Matthew Saw of Lee & Lee
Reason: Deal not done in good faith.
Details: Within 3 hrs on 23/10/06, RP reduced from $291m to $287.3. No land survey conducted; No minutes kept of SC meetings; No owners' meeting called before RP reduction. STB failed to take into account allegation that SC failed to discharge its obligations. Reduced RP was unauthorised.

Tags: minority owners, objectors, court, stb hearing, stb mediation, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, real estate, singapore

Who Needs a Pro-Tem Sale Committee?

In an worrying twist to the en bloc madness, I witnessed over the weekend a troubling new incident. Now, traditionally, to begin the en bloc process, the following stakeholders are involved in the following sequence :-

1. Step One: PTSC - Group of like-minded subsidiary proprietors (aka owners) get together and commit to the task. This is the pro-tem sale committee (PTSC) which need not be voted in or nominated.
   
2. Step Two: Agent - The PTSC contacts property agents (typically real estate investment division) to draw their attention to the estate, and to ask them to give presentations to the PTSC.
3. Step Three: Owners - The PTSC nominates the most suitable agent to present to the remaining owners and begin the CSA.

I went to an agent presentation this weekend, in an estate in District 10, one of the few remaining super prime estates near numerous conveniences (embassies, up and coming eating places, schools, national park etc), and the above order is reversed. In other words:-

1. Step One: Owners invited to agent presentation. Agent obtained information on SPs on their own accord (this was found out quickly when not all SPs received the invitation letter).
2. Step Two: Agent encouraged those SPs present to nominate them as their en bloc agent.
3. Step Three: Agents then begin the process of soliciting PTSC members.

What this means is that the agent actually went into an estate, without any official invitation by any SP at all, to offer their services, make a presentation on selling the estate collectively, and then asks owners who would like to form the PTSC.

The key word here is "without any official invitation by any SP". Has the Wild Wild West expanded its frontier again in the story of enbloc madness? Can any agent go into an estate now, particularly one in a prime location, and present themselves as a suitable agent for the SPs?

Technically, yes.

The law is so open about the protocols for starting en blocs that nothing prevents this from happening. In fact, nothing can stop any number of agents (typically citing that they have X number of developers they're in talks with, who have expressed 'deep interest' in the land) from going into an estate uninvited, unwarranted, and give their sales pitch. Again and again. Without any invitation by any SP.

This brings new meaning to "representing the interests of all subsidiary proprietors" when they begin the process without any SP in mind at all, or without their permission. It certain indicates strongly that this is a self-serving agent who has taken the term "proactive" to a whole new level. And with such an agent, how can any owner be assured that they will be sufficiently represented, or their assets protected from any unscrupulous methods or tricks that an agent might do?

We're not talking about some chap putting a leaflet under the windscreen wiper of your vintage Rolls Royce when it's parked outside. We're talking about a guy walking into your home unannounced, saying he's interested in your car, he has your details, no need to testdrive he's already checked it all out, and claiming he has several buyers interested in it. Just agree to him being your sole agent and he'll sell your car for you, whether you wanted to or not. The buyer will of course pimp it up (or in mrbrown's term, zhng your car).

My good friend who stayed in this estate felt very angry about this whole deal, and especially violated by this agent who came into the estate without permission and started talking about selling it all off.

If the law does nothing about this, I fear more agents will be attempting the same trick in hopes of securing that juicy agreement that will fatten their coffers courtesy of a successful en bloc.

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

The Worrying Trend of Self-Replicating Committees

A good friend just contacted me, upset and frustrated. Her estate, Botanic Gardens View (BGV), has popped out another Sale Committee. Out of the blue. With another property agent (Huttons) while the first Sale Committee (SC) is still active (with CBRE). Looks like a two way fight has begun in her estate to garner interest and signatures.

The difference that the 2nd SC and agent is offering for owners of BGV? 1-for-1 exchange.

In and of itself, an enticing carrot and certainly a compromise for those owner-occupiers who wish to continue staying there. Move out for 3 years, move back in, presto, brand new apartment.

Except it's not really a collective exchange - the flats are 30% smaller, there's no guarantee what floor, face, etc you'll get. It's also doubtful if people opting for the exchange will have any say whatsoever in the design of the new apartments. In other word, not only are you getting a smaller flat, you're going in blind.

That's partly why collective exchanges are (a) damn difficult, (b) handled with finesse by a few small law firms such as Phang & Co, (c) appealing but in reality having the potential to shortchange owner-occupiers in the end.

But the carrot isn't the point. The worrying fact is that while the first SC has barely started to get around to collecting signatures, the second has emerged. Each with their own carrots.
Who's to say a third, with Ah Beng Agency ("we force your signature by hook or by crook, both sure painful wan") will not emerge? Or a fourth, or fifth? I wrote about the problem of multiple SCs in the past, in the case of Watten Estate, and it looks like BGV's hit with that issue too.

With the development charge increase, developers are now getting fussier in selecting which en bloc to go for (if any). But now all it takes is an eager agency to step in, offer their services (often 'free') so long as a group of like-minded owners is willing. And prime spots like BGV are in demand nowadays, with agencies very keen to win the 80% signature race and get the windfall (along with the owners of course).

Sure it means 'greater choice' for owners, but think this through:-

1. If an owner signs the CSA with Agent A, can he sign the CSA with Agent B as well? What are the consequences if he does so, and which CSA is valid (or are they nullified)?
2. One CSA is already legally tricky (full of legal terms, definitions, loopholes even), but two? Agents and lawyers will give you the short and sweet version during their presentations of what's included in the CSAs, but you can NOT trust what is said because it is what is NOT said that is equally important (sometimes more so). Many en bloc'd estates are now beginning to realise that their CSAs contain clauses that give a lot of their rights away, or have hidden clauses that allow SCs to do unscrupulous things (such as 'bribe' fencesitting minority owners with your money). Considering the multi-million dollars nature of some of the sales, you must be careful and go through each clause. That's double the time needed now, what with 2 CSAs/agents/lawyers/SCs.
3. Under what conditions will one SC bow out of the competition? If two SCs were to compete within the same estate, and each owner can sign only ONE CSA, that's a 50% distribution between the 2 CSAs. This means one may never achieve 80% unless one SC quits and nullifies their CSA. So when should one SC quit in favour of the other (considering both are self-interested/selfish groups who's going to blink first in the showdown)? Under what protocols (eg if an SC is able to achieve 50% in 6 mths time, the other should give up) or rules of the competition?
4. 2 SCs = 2 aggressive groups of people out for your signature = double the hassle and double the annoyance if things get out of hand between the 2 SCs. Given that there's no need for professionalism between the two competitors it can become a slugfest with owners caught in the middle (eg half-truths hurled against the opposite party). Imagine - Monday Huttons rings your bell, Tue CBRE rings your bell, Wed Huttons comes back to clarify some stuff CBRE might have said, Thu another party calls you to say that "the other party smokes pot", Fri both parties call you to say that "the competitor is in league with Voldemort, don't go near them". Sat you just want to cast the Cruciatus Curse on the SCs. Sun you plan to expelliarmus the annoying SC mugglies and boot them out of the estate.
   
5. Shouldn't there be some regulations that management committees can set up for the creation of SCs, to curb the potential rampant replication? Considering that any SC must work with the MC, or for that matter, obtain the owners' list from the MC, couldn't MCs impose non-refundable fees for any SCs that wish to set up shop? Such fees must come from the SCs themselves, and cannot be deducted from the sale proceed if successful. The fees can then go into the sinking funds for communal use, and should be a significant sum (eg $5000 per SC member) to deter the frivolous creation of SCs. That way, owners know that these SCs are serious about their intention to help sell the estate, and not there for their own self-interests.

In the meantime, I wish BGV owners good luck in their 2 way fight. Looks like it's going to get complicated.

Tags: botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, taman serasi, multiple sales committees, multiple sale committees, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, property, singapore, real estate