The Dump After Completion (Image Heavy Warning)

(Note: This post contains numerous images and may take some time to load. Please be patient.)

What happens after completion, when the owners get their money and have vacated the premises?
What happens when you don't have a management council anymore?
What happens when nobody gives a damn what happens to an enbloc'd estate?

A reader sent these photos in, of an estate that has gone enbloc. He stayed till the Date of Vacant Possession when he had to hand over the estate to the developers. In the period between completion and possession, owners have very little regard for the estate, and have begun to dump their things anywhere convenient, when they were clearing out. Not only that, the reader said that there's only a skeleton cleaning crew who is struggling to clean up the corridors, as well as the vacated units, in addition to their daily chores.

At the time when the photos were taken, the estate's still about 1/4 occupied but it looked like a wasteland. Literally.

Above: Notice of 80% achieved.

Above: Carpark lights increasingly left unreplaced.

Above: Corridor lights also left unreplaced. Oddly, the block with the SC chairman is very well maintained.

Sofa and abandoned junk left in stairwells. Complete disregard of fire safety hazards.

Above: Abandoned fishtanks. Potential mosquito breeding ground.

Above: More abandoned fishtanks, this time in the main entrance which still has plenty of thoroughfare.

Above: Abandoned in corridor.

Above: Sideways sofa left in stairwell.

Above: Basement of stairwell has become a dumping ground. There was a significant increase in mosquitoes and flies in the weeks preceding Possession.

Above: Unpainted exterior. "Out" is appropriate here.

Above: Reader's own recently renovated apartment, which is due to be torn down. A complete contrast to the rundown exterior and common spaces.

Above: Reader said he will miss his home sorely. "It isn't right, when our wonderful home gets torn down barely 4 years after its renovation."

I have to agree with the reader here. These pictures put a stark face to the after effects of an enbloc sale, as well as the complete hypocrisy of tearing down what looks like a perfectly cosy home. Sorry, dear Reader, for your loss.

Print Page

One Committee to Rule Them All: Management Committees and Sales Committees

Back in Jan 2007, I blogged about the potential conflict of interest when a member of the Management Committee (MC) is simultaneously a member of the Sales Committee (SC) in an estate (you can read that here). I wrote (and I repeat): "The mandate of the MC is to maintain or update/upgrade the development whereas the mandate of the SC is to sell off the development in whatever condition it is in, as quickly as possible".

Over the last few days, two condominiums over at the East Coast have fully realised the consequences of this conflict of interest, when their MC contains pro-sale members, or SC members. You can read about the troubles brewing at Mandarin Gardens and Bayshore Park here , here and here.

These conflicts of interest are not illegal. In fact, the LT(S)A's Third Schedule only requires that a member of the SC discloses his/her indirect or direct interests in "any property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or legal firm, being an interest that could conflict with the proper performance of his functions as a member of the collective sale committee" (Third Schedule LT(S)A, Sect 2). So from the side of the SC, so long as the member is not involved with any of the stakeholders in the sale, it's alright. On the side of the MC, the BMSMA states that so long as the member of the MC does not have any "pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, proposed contract or other matter which is before any meeting", it is alright as well. Nowhere in the law does it require that the member of the MC must declare and remove him or herself should s/he have any direct or indirect interest in a collective sale process. The consequences are felt at at least 2 estates now, and I'm sure countless others unreported in the media. The government needs to realise this is happening and do something.

How many of you undergoing enbloc sales have a member of the SC that is also in the MC? I've already stated in my Jan 2007 blog why this works so well in lubricating the sale process, so it's almost natural for the pro-sale group to have a member in both SC and MC. I have one in my own ex-estate - the Chairperson of the MC is the Chairperson of the SC. I can only hope that any estate involved in an enbloc sale, do their best to ensure that a member of the SC cannot be a member of the MC, and require that he/she withdraw him/herself from the MC once they are elected into the SC.

I've started a poll on this matter. Feel free to pitch in.

Previous poll results are (rank ordered):

Why are you a stayer?
My home is more than just about money: 18 (52%)
My right to a home should be sacrosanct: 17 (50%)
I love my neighbourhood: 16 (47%)
My home is a part of my identity: 9 (26%)
I'm not offered enough money: 7 (20%)
Pragmatic reasons (School, Church etc): 7 (20%)
I'm too old to move: 0 (0%)
Total voted: 34

It would appear that the top 3 reasons for people choosing to fight against an enbloc of their homes, is that they believe that their home extends beyond its value as a financial asset, that they should have the right to keep their homes, and because of the neighbourhood they live in. These are three really important reasons that unfortunately the government has chosen not to factor at all into their policy making process. A pity. Because these are the three most important reasons that establishes one's identity and affiliation to home and nation. Any wonder why some of the comments on my previous post suggests strongly that I should emigrate elsewhere, where there's less likelihood of my home undergoing enbloc?

Print Page

Tags: Mandarin Gardens, Bayshore Park, sales committee, sale committee, collective sale committee, management council, collective sale, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

A Personal Thought

In a few days, we'll be leaving our home of a few years. Speaking to Mrs Minority, we realised that we've moved homes 3 times in the last 4 years.

• From overseas to Singapore because of work opportunities. A return to Home if you like, with big "H" to represent the nation.
• From parent's home (staying there while renovations were ongoing) to the current home. A change from old home to new home, a small "h" for home but nevertheless our current home has become what it means, when everyone says "home is where the heart is". It was to be our wonderful place of rest, of peace, of tranquility (nice quiet neighbourhood), of sanctuary.
  
• From current home to smaller home. Courtesy of an enbloc we have to downgrade, because we have to stay in the same area due to work reasons. We're fearful that our belongings won't fit into the new flat. Lots of people have left, our estate a ghost town, and the few remaining people (won't call them neighbours as they agreed to sell) have been coming and going, moving things out and complaining about the move. Well, doh. They went into it fully cognizant of the need to move, whereas we refused to sign the CSA, and have to move against our will.

Walked around the estate again, one last time, before the moving nightmare begins. I think with regards to home, a lot of us go through various stages:

1. When we're young, we have a strong sense of belonging. Ken Lee's daughters do not want to move because they love their home, their neighbourhood, the non-physical and non-financial aspects of 'being at home'. We have memories of our childhood homes, for those of us lucky enough to have pleasant ones, and to remember them. We long for, and belong home.
   
2. When we go into adulthood and work, the world is our oyster, for those of us fortunate enough to fly beyond the nation's boundaries. Home is where we move, to work and earn the money to make it big in the world. We become pragmatic about where we stay. A lot of people who are owner-residents and are for enbloc, I suspect, are pragmatists and do not have a strong attachment to their homes. It's just an asset. We economise home.
3. When we get to our golden years, when memory fades and things become harder to be mobile for us, like many old folks who are traumatised by enbloc sales, a retirement home is something special. It's a place to rest, and celebrate what you have achieved, be it wealth, family, networks of friends, reputation. But with memory going, it becomes more crucial to be familiar with one's surroundings. Change, at old age, is not welcome. We familiarise home.

Each group has a reason to cherish their homes, or to see their homes as assets. It's a sad fact that in enbloc sales, the first group (children) and the last group (older folks) are often ignored, marginalised, or even neglected in any consideration - be it policy-wise or sale-wise. Yet, the middle group (the working group aged 25-64 yrs old) constitute about 60% of Singapore's population (Source: General Household Survey 2005). That's neglecting about 40% of the population in terms of considering enbloc policies or sales (assuming even distribution of age population across the middle-class socio-economic status).

Even if minority owners among the working group constitute only 20%, that works out to about 52% of people (young, old, minority) who may not want to go for enbloc sales.

That's a large group isn't it?

I'm going to miss my home. Badly. I'm in that 20% minority. Home for me means many many things, and to have it taken away from me against my will, makes my blood boil.

There's also about 52% of blood boiling (and voting) citizens, potentially.

Good bye home. We'll miss you.

Print Page

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

A Hero in our Midst: Ken Lee

Irregardless of the outcome of Airview Towers, one thing is for sure - Mr Ken Lee from Airview Towers stood up against people keen to take away his family home, bore the grunt of repeated legal offensives, and now made to pay the costs, because he stood up for 2 simple principles - that it is right for a person to protect his/her home, and that the enbloc law must be adhered to.

The Today paper yesterday published a full article on Mr Lee, and I've posted it on condosingapore (here). Do go there to read it. Some highlights:-

1. His order to pay his opponents' legal costs is estimated from $150,000 to $300,000.
2. He stayed in Airview Towers for approx. 30 years, making him a true blue stayer.
3. He fought against the enbloc partly to fulfil a vow to his daughters, who didn't want him to sell the flat, or move out.

Given the Court of Appeal's (COA) ruling, it is unlikely that STB will reject the application this time round. I'm beginning to understand their rationale, although I have yet to read the judgment on this case. The COA pointed out that so long as the 80% is reached within 12 mths, the sale must be valid. It doesn't matter if the owners sold their units to someone else and they didn't sign the CSA within the 12 mth period, it is still valid. This is to ensure that there are no complications in the sale process.

So, if 80% of a (say) Damn-Suay Estate signed the CSA, and...

• If all 80% gets struck by lightning and died, the sale should still go through.
• If all 80% are husbands and they all willed their flats to their kids/wives who are against the sale, and the hubbies get hit by Mad Cows Disease for eating too many burgers, the sale should still go through.
• If all 80% suddenly realised that their agent is a dodgy person, who has done some very questionable things to obtain the 80%, and decided to sell their units rather than wait for completion, then lucky dodgy agent will still get the sale, as it should go through. (Or until it hits any objection, but how effective are objections on bad faith or poor conduct nowadays, seriously?)
• But what happens, with the new law's 5 day cooling period, when an owner who signed the CSA on 4th April and triggers the 80%, decides to sell his unit to a buyer 4 mths later. Is the buyer then entitled to a 5 day cooling period as well, after he signs the CSA, or is he stuck?

Again, if anyone knows how to contact Mr Ken Lee, please contact me: enblocsingapore@hotmail.com.

Print Page

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

Shifting Accountability - Poor Ken Lee of Airview Tower

(To people who know Ken Lee, please ask him to contact me via enblocsingapore@hotmail.com.)

If you have not heard the craziest news in the latest enbloc debacle, you can read it here. Airview Towers' decision by the High Court of Singapore has been overturned by the Court of Appeal, allowing majority owners to bring the sale back to the Strata Title Board. Not only that, the Court of Appeal has ordered Mr Ken Lee to pay legal costs for the proceedings at STB, the High Court and Court of Appeal. Not only has David lost, he is made all the more poorer.

You can read my previous blog post about Airview Towers here.

Taking my caveat that I read the news as a layperson and not a lawyer, some cautionary points have to be made from Mr Ken Lee's turn of misfortune, which is applicable to everyone here:

1. The enbloc law is subject to so many different interpretations, and levels of interpretations, that there is no right or wrong. What was initially a clear cut case of 80% not being reached, as decided at STB and High Court, now turns out to be NOT the case after all. As the Tampine Court blogger pointed out: "...the enbloc legislation is ambiguous. The STB, High Court and Court of Appeal can all have a different interpretation on various aspects and the onus is on the minority to have the law clarified at their expense."
2. It also means that how to win in a legal enbloc battle depends heavily on (1) how much money you have to push the case through legal onslaught after legal onslaught, (2) which heavy weight lawyer you get to represent your case before the various levels - STB, High Court, Court of Appeal. No longer is it the case that if the law is clearly flouted, you can win. It's how you interpret the law, and how much money you have, that matters more.
   
3. The Court of Appeal also clarified a point about owners who sell their flats after they've signed the CSA - The CSA is binding on the selling owner as well as all future owners. Think of it as 'sins of the father' that just doesn't go away: "The original owners, in signing up for a collective sale, signed for themselves and future buyers" (Straits Times 25 Apr 08).
4. Point 3 is crucial because what it also means is that the onus of collecting signatures is shifted from the marketing agent (whose responsibility it is to collect signatures, follow them up etc), to the owner. The responsibility is now on the owner who must chase, and ensure that any buyer not only agrees to the CSA, but must sign the CSA within the 1 year limit. Preferably, the new buyer must sign the CSA on the day s/he signs any papers concerning the sale of the flat.
   
5. There is only two ways out of this situation - (1) Do not sign the CSA unless you are absolutely sure you do not plan to sell your unit during any enbloc attempt (2) Ensure that your CSA does NOT include clauses that binds future buyers of your unit.
   
6. The Business Times article pointed out that the Court of Appeal used "a different interpretation of the reference period during which the minimum period should be obtained". Until we get more information on this, I have to seriously wonder how different can their understanding of 1 year be from that of the STB and the High Court? I can hear some sarcastic readers among you suggest that perhaps they follow the Chinese lunar cycle instead.
7. The salt in the wound is when the Court of Appeal ordered Mr Ken Lee to pay legal costs. This is simply madness. IF the interpretation of the law is so subjective that different levels can have issues over what the law means and how it should be applied, especially in Airview Towers' case, why should a man, with no legal training but nevertheless chose to represent himself, be penalised? Did he waste the court's time? The STB and High Court clearly didn't think so, but the tribunal of judges that form the Court of Appeal must have felt that Mr Ken Lee must be made to pay.
   
8. Where is the accountability for the Sales Committee, and the marketing agent, whose primary responsibility is to ensure that the law is adhered to? It's like saying to the common people - "Hey, the law is highly subjective, just get a good lawyer, we (SC, agent) will legal-bash the objector and make him pay for daring to speak up".

I'm sorry but after Mas Selamat and Airview Towers, I think I'm not alone in having very little faith in the Singapore legal and governmental system, or the law for that matter.

It really drives home the simple point that has been raised here and by others again and again: Enbloc applications should be presided upon by judges, not the STB. If it has to go through 3 layers before a 'definitive' (and I use this term sparingly) judgment can be reached, why not cut out the STB and the High Court, and just have a tribunal of 3 judges to preside over any enbloc application that has objections? Saves a lot of time and money, if you ask me. And heartaches and headaches, I'm sure too.

Print Page

Tags: Airview Towers, Ken Lee, Court of Appeal, collective sales, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale, property, singapore

Suggestion of Short Term Lease to be Included in SPA

Received this email from an owner whose estate is due to be torn down in a few weeks' time. He made an interesting suggestion for inclusion in the Sale and Purchase Agreement - for developers to consider short term lease for owners one month before the Date of Vacant Possession. Reader has requested anonymity.

Our estate has already gone en-bloc, and the Date of Vacant Possession is end of the month. We were given 6 months from Completion to Date of Vacant Possession (DVP). However, as owners and residents slowly started to trickle out of the estate in the last few weeks before Vacant Possession, some of them began to contact the developer asking for an extension of the DVP. I was one of them.

Why would people want to request for extension, if they know they have 6 months to clear out, I'm sure some may ask. After all, 6 months is a long time to get a new home ready, renovated, moved in.

• Some people have kids still in school, and moving them out during school time isn't ideal or appropriate.
• Some have to do renovation work, and that can get delayed and delayed.
• Some bought units that became available, and are now rushing to have renovation done.
• Some have work commitments that cannot be adjusted to the developer's deadline.

Some of us called the developer individually, and the developer categorically said no to us all. This was about 1 month before DVP. About 2 weeks before DVP, the developer turned around and asked if any of us were interested in a short term lease. To some, it was too late - they'd already moved out but they said if given a choice, they'd have taken up the lease. We were about to move, so we were interested - any extra time is useful for us. But wait, there's a catch... There's a minimum period, the rental is at market rate, and unless enough people signed up, there won't be guard or cleaning services.

Unreasonable! The place is becoming a waste dump with people leaving and dumping their things everywhere. The mosquitoes are rampant because of the abundant puddles of water (and abandoned fishtanks). And they want market rate with no cleaners or guards?

We heard the same situation with Leedon Heights. People there were given 8 months short term lease, but were offered it so close to their DVP that it doesn't make sense. Many of them (and us) have already made preparations to move out - movers, termination of services, temporary storage, temporary accommodation - that a LAST MINUTE OFFER of short term lease just isn't practical.

I can only imagine what is going to happen when Farrer Court hits the DVP. As it is, renovators are so busy that they can't commit to schedule... movers are fully booked up... how 600+ owners from Farrer Court plus hundreds more from Leedon Heights.. Farrer Road and surrounding areas will be jammed with movers and renovation workers!

I would strongly suggest, in the future, that all owners push for an additional clause in the Sale and Purchase Agreement: That the buyer will offer a short term lease for owners and residents, at least 2 months before the DVP, so long as they do not intend to immediately tear down and develop the land. The terms of the lease should be aligned with market rates and conditions (including retaining essential services in a condo), and should allow owners to target the main school holiday periods (June, December) for them to leave.

This will be of great use to all owners, so that they don't have to rush around looking for temporary lodging, and can wait until it is the right time to move. Developers can benefit from the rentals of an otherwise empty estate. Can't see why it can't be done!

Print Page

Tags: Enbloccing Singapore, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

Three Perspectives on Land Acquisition

Read three rather interesting articles from three different sources - Business Times, The New Paper (really), and a Blog.

First, A/P Mak Yuen Teen from NUS Business School wrote a letter to the BT Editor, in response to a BT article on Saturday (here) about a possible MinLaw review of the enbloc amendments. The letter really deserves to be read in its entirety (available here) but let me extract some really great points from A/P Mak:

However, I would like to urge the government to go further than that. I hope that we do not approach en bloc rules purely from the perspective of urban renewal or economic development. En bloc sales should also not be driven primarily by the commercial interests of property developers, consultants, agents and advisers, but rather by the interests of those who are personally affected by en bloc sales, be they majority or minority owners, and the wider interests of society.

As we move towards a more caring society and recognise people with more diverse talents than just academic and business success, we should also take into account the wider societal and environmental impact of en bloc sales.

Can we have the moral authority to play a leadership role on the world stage, which is increasingly concerned with wider societal and environmental issues, if we disregard them in our own backyard?

What are the wider societal and environmental costs of tearing down perfectly good buildings and dislocating communities compared to the economic benefits?

Let's hope the government has the foresight, and the courage, to take the higher road of considering, seriously taking into account, the "societal and environmental impact" of enbloc sales. These have been raised in Parliamentary Debates in 2007 and back in 1999, so it's a matter of whether the policy makers and law reviewers want to assume the "moral authority" or not.

The 2nd article is from the New Paper (available here), about a man who refused to sell his home, despite agents badgering him to. While it's about a landed property, his tenacity and refusal to sell his home should be an exemplar to all stayers, whether they live in condos, or landed homes. As he said, "I want to stay here until they have to move me out". How I wish that can be the case in condos!

Finally, a rather interesting enbloc blog "Enbloc Outlook 2008" appeared recently, very quickly populated over the last few days with enbloc news. From my quick reading of it, especially the blog post of 14 April (here), I'm assuming that the blogger is pro-enbloc, and lives in Tampines Court. He/she gave, what I must admit, a good argument for the sale of Tampines Court to be pushed through. Still, while I'd love to argue point by point, recent workload and events have limited me to posting his/her link here. Feel free to write on his/her blog.

Print Page

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