Drama on the Sale Committee

It had to come to this, the only thinking member on the Sale Committee - the Vice Chairman - has been ordered to leave the sale committee by the Chairman et al. The VC will not toe the line with regard to the Reserve Price and has a lot to say about the slapdash way in which business is being done.

What order of events has led to this shabby state of affairs?

Apparently (and I am only surmising) it started before the last (3rd) EOGM. The VC claims that the RP was never discussed in any great detail and his efforts to persuade the SC to raise the RP repeatedly fell on deaf ears. He asked that his dissent to the current RP be noted in the meeting's minutes. He also gave a 'notice of motion to amend the motion to approve the current RP' but that motion never saw the light of day at the EOGM.

Who is subverting the rules here? 

The Managing Agent  - whose business it was to hold EOGMs for the Collective Sale and to ensure proper order and compliance of BMSM  rules? 

The Enbloc lawyer - who doesn't seem to have much to say about anything and should be enforcing proper LTSA rules at the very least?

The clueless SC - who are blinkered by their own ignorance?

The MA - who changes his tune every week and has no time for interfering SC members or problematic SPs in general?

The EOGM 3 came and went and the current RP was accepted. This does NOT mean that the SC has to forge ahead regardless, complacent in thinking that this RP is indeed what SPs really want. To date 44.46% have agreed and the remaining 55% have more sense than to sign (I hope).

Not happy that the SPs were being led down the garden path with a dangerously low RP, the VC took it upon himself to alert owners to the danger ahead. It takes a great deal of effort to write, print and personally deliver 560 letters into 560 units spread out over 13 blocks. This shows dedication and conviction.

The Sale Committee did not like their precious RP to be challenged by someone who obviously knew more about RLV than they did. He made them look foolish and they retaliated. We now know them to be bumbling fools and kicking him off the SC only makes matters worse. There is now no one on that committee capable of understanding much less leading our estate down the collective sale path.

We do not want yet another  sale committee who is more comfortable following advice than leading. Who cannot or are unwilling to challenge flawed MA advice and opt only for the safe option of not-rocking-the-boat. Can you imagine sending that ineffectual lot into a multi-million dollar meeting with a pack of jackals? They'll be eaten alive. I do not want to put my home in their hands.

Now to the matter of whether the sale committee have the authority to boot a fellow member off the committee... and the answer is NO.

WILL THE ENBLOC LAWYER PLEASE STAND UP HERE AND TELL THE SC FOOLS TO READ THE RULES.

According to the Third Schedule

Vacation of office of member of collective sale committee 
5. A person who is a member of a collective sale committee shall vacate his office as such a member — 
(a) if the person was a subsidiary proprietor at the time of his election and he ceases to be a subsidiary proprietor;  Has he ceased to be a SP? No
(b) if the person was the nominee of a subsidiary proprietor and the subsidiary proprietor who nominated him — 
(i) ceases to be a subsidiary proprietor; or No
(ii) notifies the collective sale committee in writing that the person’s office as a member of the collective sale committee is vacated; No
(c) upon the receipt by the collective sale committee from the person of a notice in writing of the person’s resignation; Has he resigned? No
(d) where he is a member under paragraph 1
(2) and the number of subsidiary proprietors increases to more than 3, upon the election of the members of the collective sale committee at a general meeting convened after that increase; 
(e) if the person is removed from office at a general meeting; Was an EOGM held to remove him? No
(ea) if the person is removed from office by the collective sale committee in accordance with paragraph 8 on the ground that an application to a Board has been made under section 84A during his tenure as a member and the person is a subsidiary proprietor who has not executed the collective sale agreement to which the application relates; Application to the STB has not been made and his status as a signatory is unknown and immaterial
(f) if the person dies; Is he dead? No
(g) if the person becomes a mentally disordered person within the meaning of the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap. 178);  Is he crazy? Decidedly No
(h) if the person is convicted, on or after 4th October 2007, by a court in Singapore or elsewhere of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Is he a criminal? No

So, he was elected on to the committee by SPs at an EOGM, he has not resigned ergo he is STILL on the committee and they cannot bar him from participating or speaking at meetings. Indeed, he has a duty to speak out on matters which are of utmost concern to all SPs. It is the Sale Committee who are being derelict in their duty.

This VC once asked me to join him on the sale committee and I said no for many reasons. He said if I joined and subsequently resigned then that would at least raise a red flag on the proceedings. People would take heed.

I think the Vice Chairman has raised that red flag himself and it's him we should heed