Ministry of Law in denial again

Enbloc panels already have a lifetime
Straits Times – 28 Jan 2010
'Ms Prior suggests that a collective sale committee should have a limited lifespan. This is already provided for in the Land Titles (Strata) Act. The committee will automatically dissolve on expiry of the collective sale agreement. The agreement will expire if the requisite consent level is not attained within 12 months from the date of the first signatory.'

Is the Ministry of law telling the whole story here? There are two possible avenues by which the sale committee can extend their lifespan - before and after the signature collection.

1) Before the signature collection begins.
They can delay starting the process for months or even years.* The sale committee members, who were duly elected at the AGM for that purpose, can resign at any time, and their positions either left vacant or filled by others who are neither elected nor vetted by the owners. The LTSA on this matter is shambolic (especially Paragraph 10, Third Schedule  which nullifies most of what went before it!)

  *The LTSA Amendments 2010 have limited this initial period to 12 months - which is exceedingly generous of them and ridiculously long. Why would they need to delay their signature collection and keep the estate on tenterhooks? They are merely holding on to their positions and can sign on the last day to extnd their tenure by another 12 months. If the MInLAw wanted to shorten the time-frame for a collective sale - they could have started here.

2) After the 80% has been reached but there's no sale:
Once the sales committee has reached the 80% mark they then can have an extended tenure - thanks to a recent high court ruling (see Koon Seng House).* Should the SC fail to secure a buyer they need not be disbanded, as the legislation suggests. Instead, all they have to do is collectively sign a SUPPLEMENTAL CSA lowering the reserve price and they have a FRESH 12 months to get another 80% approval! 12 + 12
Then they have ANOTHER 12 months after that to secure a buyer and make an application for sale to the STB (12 + 12 + 12). 

This supplemental CSA is considered a new agreement. Of course, if the CSA can be renewed in this way, it is only logical that the SC tenure is renewed along with it.
The high court judge did not stipulate by how much the majority owners could lower the reserve price - so theoretically it could be by just $1.00.

And there is no limit to the number of supplemental agreements the majority can sign
And what about supplemental agreements changing other clauses in the CSA? What's the word on that?

This is another way the majority can circumvent the time frames and keep the estate in perpetual en bloc mode. Whatever happened to the process being finite? Can 'forever' even be considered a time-frame at all!

I ask the Minister of Law - is this fair?

*The LTSA Amendments 2010 have not made it a 'relevent event' when a buyer cannot be found within the time-frame - opening the door for the CSA and SC's continuance.