Comments

In response to all the comments below on price:

Let's get back to basics here: there are more things wrong with this enbloc than just the price. Sure, the price is paltry especially under the present market conditions, but but there are a lot more contentious issues which may or may not hold water at the STB, and as a minority owner who refused to sign , I feel it is my right and my duty to bring to light these other grievances. Parliament has given me this narrow avenue of appeal and so I will take it.

.
At the end of the day, money is just money, and life goes on one way or the other. There are more important things in life that require our vigorous defence - country, family, religion, principles and home.

.

None of us knew at the beginning what en bloc entailed; we went into this wide-eyed and curious. The auditorium at the first meeting was packed to the rafters with people just there to listen, not to decide, but to gather in enough facts in order to make an informed decision. At least, that's what I was there for. Other meetings followed in quick succession, and as details unfolded and the players took the stage, doubts crept in. Slowly, slowly, it dawned on some people that all was not right, things were not proceding as expected . By the time the CSA dropped on my doorstep I had gone from being 'neutral but interested' to decidedly disinterested. The CSA itself, that hefty legal document riddled with dangerous clauses (the ramifications of which were not clear to me, just that they did not seem right at the time), sealed my resolve to remain in the minority. On 3 days in particular, people signed the CSA in droves - the others waited and watched. The disgraceful behaviour of some strong supporters at the AGM in 2006 clearly showed the direction and manner the enbloc sale was going - and it was downhill from there.

.

There can be no excuse for any enbloc conducted in the dark. A bare adherence to the minimal requirements of the law is not acceptable when homes and life savings are at stake.

When transparency, engagement and discussion is replaced by silence, secrecy and frequent citing of 'client privileges' you know there is something amiss.

.

It is now up to the STB to perform its role not as facilitator to enbloc sales but as fair adjudicator, detatching itself from partisan and vested interest. There is no need for them to continually abandon compliance of the law and turn its eye instead on its overall 'purpose' as defined by Parliament. Parliament has already defined it's purposes through those very laws and has ratified them one by one. Parliament's intent that enblocs be made easier has not resulted in the elimination of rules, but conversly in their tightening with the very intention that they be applied. The laws are the word of Parliament and the STB should feel comfortable applying them impartially.

.

If a sale is found to be improper or unsafe, Parliament surely would not want it approved. Singapore, afterall, prides itself on having high standards in all things, and the STB should find its justification in keepng that bar high.