It is absolutely disgraceful that the SC have released the names of the 4 objectors on Facebook!
Let me be clear:-
Owners have the right to know the names of the objectors and this should have been done by post.
Objectors have the right not to have their names splashed on the internet - and on the very worst platform to boot.
I have always been against the publication of names on the internet without express permission being given . (Case in point - I recently got the Today newspaper to retract my name from a recent on-line article)
They sale committee should have had the decency to stick to updates on the process and not publish the names of the 4 SPs who are merely exercising their Statutory Right to Object. Their names should have been redacted at the very least on the social media platform.
I had to look up the LTSA Part VA (2010) for a refresher on the STB timeline... we haven't been here in 10 years and the rules have changedSo, the maximum length of time it can take at the STB is 60 days from first mediation date. 60 days is the maximum, it can of course take less if the STB decides that no further mediation would be productive. Before giving the Stop-Order, the objectors will be given notice and 7 days to withdraw their objections. If not, then it's on to High Court.
It looks like all objectors are long-time owners (no SSD owner), I know 2 of whom to be widows. I hope they go easy on them.
At this point in time, I do not know what the objections are about - but I am guessing that these objections will not proceed to the high court. My support is about supporting the minority owner no matter what his objection may be, as it is obviously very important to them to make such an effort. The objections may be based on emotion, technicalities, hard evidence or sheer nonsense - but there is a window of 60 days for them to air their grievances and that is how it should be.
Some awful comments coming in
One of the sanest ones is Anonymous 13:
* 26 Oct 2017: UPDATE: The FB post has been removed.
Bozo! I have my right to deserve to know!
ReplyDeleteSure. Just ask your CSC. They have to provide those Infos. Why do you need to see the names on a public Facebook page other than for public entertainment? TC owners are becoming a laughing stock.
DeleteTC has become a laughing stock because of this blog. All other enbloc go through the process so quietly accept TC. This blog is making a joke out of TC SPs both majority & minority, causing upheaval and drama for TC residents as reported in TNP.
Deleteanonymous 1.2- Don't kid yourself. Even without the blog, i am certain that TC will still be a laughing stock. You think everyone in TC have the highest moral standards ? That is a load of BS.
DeleteI do not agree the SC was wrong. Is disclosure of names illegal? It is in the interests of every single SP (both majority and minority) in TC to know who the objectors are. everyone wants and needs to know who and why they are objecting.
ReplyDeletewhats wrong with showing the names,..the whole central com team is there also. its now CSC vs 4 objectors...as SPs, its good we know who we are dealing with and more importantly what are the real issues here.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point making the names public? Pressure them? Mock them? The enbloc is a private matter. Just go to the CSC if you need the names. Its just so silly.
DeleteNothing wrong in realeasing the name of the minority objectors. The 4 minority also know the names of all the majority. So what's the problem ? Let's have full transparency of this case. I am sure the majority will fight all the way to defend this round. We have the economy of scale in legal fee as our numbers are much larger.
ReplyDeleteReally? Nothing wrong? Have the majority names been listed on Facebook? No? Then let's start with you Mr. Anonymous.
DeleteWhat about you Mdm blogger, you have released so much details of our enbloc, badmouthing our team and 'washing dirty linens' in the public. Who give you the right to badmouth our enbloc and the team appointed by the majority in public blog ? Did you respect the majority's right of confidentiality ? Stop being so self righteous !
DeleteNever once did I publish a name to go with their 'dirty linen' or bloopers, a name and association that would linger on-line forever. General terms such as SP, SC, majority, minority etc are applicable to every enbloc and are forms of anonymity that I accord to everyone.
DeleteThe CSC are just posting STB's official notice on TC official facebook for all SP's information and updating purpose. You mean they are not allow to do that ? If they don't update some SPs will complain again. Hard to please everyone.
DeleteWhenever you mention TC enbloc team (CSC/MA/Lawyer) and badmouth them, the market already know who they are. You no need to spell our their name in full.
DeleteThe blogger wants anonymity, so she accords this to everyone, and gets upset when TNP posts her name. She just wants to operate in the dark like a ninja when in fact, anyone who really wants to will easily find her name. Same with these 4 objectors. If not FB, then one of the thousands of ways.
DeleteWhat did the objectors do to have their names displayed on a public page? The enbloc is a private affair. The CSC has no right to do this and I hope it will fire back at them at the STB. They deserve it.
DeleteThe CSC has every right to post latest official notification by STB on TC official facebook to update residents. Enbloc is never a private affair. Don't kid yourself.
DeleteAnonymous 4.8- Since you believe that an enbloc is never a private affair, then you must also agree that the blogger is not wrong to post information/opinions/details about TC enbloc, whether they are negative or not. I see some people being under the delusion that the blog is to be blamed for ruining TC reputation, and somehow think that anything negative should not be aired out on this forum as it is so called akin to "washing dirty linen".
DeleteNoone is interested in the names of the objectors other than SPs. And SPs have every single SPs name in that thick stack sent by Eldan. No, nothing wrong unless its illegal.
ReplyDeleteAll the 400 plus majority SPs and new converts can set out their names on fb right now.
Nothing disgraceful on the part of the SC, they are simply updating all SPs on the official notification from Strata. So if as said they have the courage to put forth their objection, their names being shown to all is inevitable. Are they expecting that they can operate in the dark and the rest of the SPs are not allowed to be informed? That's BS if I may say..
ReplyDeleteNothing disgraceful on the part of the SC, they are simply updating all SPs on the official notification from Strata. So if as said they have the courage to put forth their objection, their names being shown to all is inevitable. Are they expecting that they can operate in the dark and the rest of the SPs are not allowed to be informed? That's BS if I may say..
ReplyDeleteNothing disgraceful on the part of the SC, they are simply updating all SPs on the official notification from Strata. So if as said they have the courage to put forth their objection, their names being shown to all is inevitable. Are they expecting that they can operate in the dark and the rest of the SPs are not allowed to be informed? That's BS if I may say..
ReplyDeleteInform by post - not on FB
DeleteThey failed to make FB a private group. Failing that, they should at least REDACT names.
Did you make you blog as private so only TC FBs can access it. You openly attacked TC enbloc team appointed by majority non-stop, so you mean it's ok ? Who are you to judge what is right and wrong ? A self appointed Goddess that can do anything you want just because you own the blog ?
DeleteI redact all the time.
DeleteWhat is the golden rule to teach your children when they go on the internet... NEVER use your real name- especially on Face book and other social media.
Unless of course you see no danger in that - in which base, why are you still anonymous?
Who is “itshometome” ?
DeleteWrong. You are suppose to use yr real name on facebook. It's their policy. Teach yr children the right value : dare to oppose, don't hide your face behind a mask. This is the true 'courage of conviction to make an objection.
Deleteif u are asking, then u dont really need to know and just kaypoh. but if you must know then you can find out through 1000 ways.
Deletecome on blogger, you know yourself that even if they made fb private you will still complain.
Deleteyou want to support these objectors to your own disadvantage, and you think it is fun
"Itshometome" is also anonymous name right ? Pot calling the kettle black. If you don't want people to post anonymous, then why don't you post your real name ? I thought you admire "courage of conviction " So what's stopping you from posting in your real name since you have so much conviction in what you write ?
Deleteanonymous 6.8- Isnt the blogger advocating the protection of the objector's anonymity ? But you claim the blogger does not want people to post anonymous.I am very confused by your post.
DeleteBy publising the names of objectors in FB,Did any one offend PDPA Act?
ReplyDelete2.
Did STB release the names officially?
Did SC,legally or illegally, get the names?
If legally,why STB give SC the names?
Delay it shall be.. good luck to those Gan Cheong spiders who have purchased a new place. I'll contd to enjoy the good food at the round market a little longer...
ReplyDeleteThe enbloc process is a private matter between owners and developers. I never understood why a public Facebook page was chosen as a medium to communicate with owners. Its very unprofessional and disrespectful indeed.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing disgraceful about putting up the objectors’ name on FB, and for that matter, on any social media platform. It is not illegal either. Its all for transparency and in good faith
ReplyDeleteIf I was a betting man I would wager that that fax was marked 'Private and confidential' somewhere on one of the 3 pages (we only get to see 1)
ReplyDeletewe got to see the first page, unless a dimwit forgot to put P&C in the first page, and another thinks others are dim to have forgotten
DeleteRelax. Enbloc like TC scale is sure to have some objections. Normal. Take it easy.
ReplyDeletePosting STB update on official TC Facebook is consider disgraceful? Looks like blogger want to control everything. Must the CSC and the majority ask her permission for everything they do? Who do she think she is ?
ReplyDeleteWhat are chances of en bloc failing ?
ReplyDeletemy opinion- zero
Deleteitshometome 15.1- I agree. Yet the desperate majority are so paranoid and are ever so worried that their precious en bloc will somehow be derailed even now. And yet they claim they have the interests of others in their hearts. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIf majority want hv a smooth objection hearing in favour of the sale,dunt press too hard to objectors..
I quote,
"In relation to the conduct of the sale committee and its agents, I found that there was no breach of the duty of good faith, no founded allegations of bias, and no undue influence or pressure exerted on the subsidiary proprietors of the property," he added among other reasons in judgment grounds issued last week.
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/high-court-clears-owners-panel-over-en-bloc-sale
I cannot find how miniority giving consent that their names be released in internet,include FB.
ReplyDeleteAt least,i cannot find in Forms 24--25 of STB.
But STB most likeky had forwarded a copy of TC objections to CS.
now,the million dollars question is,
Under what authority that some smart guys release the names in FB?
Will STB or 4 objectors see it as a form of harassment and complAin to STB ,or use it a fire power in HIGH Court,,touch wood?
I quote
The Board will, within 5 days of the filing of an objection, forward a copy of it by registered post to the representatives appointed by the majority owners and their lawyers, if any.
https://www.stratatb.gov.sg/Applications/Types-of-Applications.html
[The First Schedule. Para. 5]
i am not so sure u can equate long term stayer to no payment of SSD..who knows how many units they have?..they could have bought more units recently. end of the day,..it still boils down to money. really how much is enough?.
ReplyDeleteonly people who have something to hide will not use their real names. if everything is conducted above board, what is the problem with being transparent? In fact one of the objecting reaason is that the whole deal was not transparent enough...what irony. Also judging from the objection filing, it is obvious the 4 objectors can think for themselves; there is no need for you to suggest their names be redacted,..in Chinese, we call this 'kaypoh'....anonymous.
ReplyDeleteI agree the blogger is too "kaypoh'. Actually so far I did not see any of the 4 objectors making noise accept the blogger. Maybe they believe in transparency (nothing to hide) since one of the objection is lack of transparency ?
Deletebeing anonymous allows everyone to have their voice heard with total disregard to responsibility. There are great comments, and dull ones across the whole spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThis is great for a forum like this which is half fake, half gossip, half truths. But for a serious platform like mediation, SPs are entitled to know in the quickest possible time.
I agree though that SPs could be informed via another mode. But regardless, it will leak out. just like the blogger's name.
The blogger has quickly moved to applaud the objectors just for objecting. I think SPs (majority and minority) want to know exactly what the objections are about. Who knows there is a minute possibility that SPs should have 10-20% more, and in that case, we want to know. This will add to a month or so delay at the least.
PDPA Act.use following to judge,
ReplyDeleteA【Consent】.as i hv said,no consent given by objectors that objector names be released in FB.
B【Purposes】.neither they are told nanes used in this way.
C.【reasonableness】.
This is a grey area.
Two out of three in favour of objectors.
https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/legislation-and-guidelines
I think you mis-interprate the regulation of PDPA. They are meant to prevent retailers & commercial organization to use the clients' personal data to sell their products which is irrelevant to the one they purchase or sell their datas to other companies. Eg. Property & insurance agents. I don't see how posting official STB notice on official FB can breach PDPA.
DeleteTc enbloc 2015 FB.
ReplyDeleteshows only the STB Form with objectors name.the page no.003/003.two pages may b missing.
This is a clear indication of harassment.
If SC show full document ,their sin is lighter or no sin at all. Sc can explain they want inform SP the STB letter.
But now,
Sc need to show to Judges that showing the only page with objectors name is not harassment.
Did SC ask the lawyer before release this page?i doubt.
Ha ha from now on,we will not be informed about mediation result,only either fail or successful.
ReplyDeleteI quote from STB Guide Booklet,
Confidentiality Mediation session(s) are private and confidential, and no transcript or audio-visual recording will be made during the sessions. As the sessions are conducted in confidence, only the relevant parties and/or their representatives are permitted to be present during the mediation. Additionally, the mediation sessions are conducted on a “Without Prejudice” basis.
This means that any information disclosed and/or views expressed by any person in the mediation cannot be used as evidence against that person, in the event that the case proceeds to a hearing in the STB court. During mediation sessions, all parties will be allowed to present their respective evidence and make submissions to the Board.
[s.92(2) BMSMA] .