The appeal by the majority to bring the date forward has not been decided upon yet. It is a 2 stage process for 'Quashing Orders '.
With due process and by law, there must be 8 clear days between the serving of the summons and the actual day of the hearing. But the minority lawyers have been given just one and a half days to prepare. The second day of the hearing for this appeal will therefore be heard on Friday afternoon.
Jul 17, 2008
Jul 16, 2008
Newspaper rebuttal
The petition signed on Sunday by some majority owners was delivered to the the Mp for Tampines GRC and Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan On Monday evening.
.
.
Mr. Mah has in his possession another petition; one handed in by the minority owners at the previous Monday's Meet the People Session, albeit quietly, without media attention. We had turned down repeated requests for an interview; preferring not to dramatize our estate in the media.
.
The minority only request that due process be followed, that the law should be allowed to take it's natural course. We were assured in previous sessions by our eminent MP that due process is paramount in the legal system. That although he cannot and would not interfere directly in the decision making of the STB, he would make representations on owners' behalf, both for minority and majority. That is only fair.
.
Newspaper report:
"It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties"
Both the en bloc lawyer and the Property Agent have stated in previous letters to the owners that it was unwise to purchase a new unit before the sale was confirmed- and there is a long way to go before it is confirmed.
En bloc Lawyer letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
These owners have therefore only themselves to blame for ignoring sound advice and making unwise purchases beyond their means.
.
Property Agent letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
.
.
"Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get $700,000 should the sale go through.
.
Just where did Mr. Balasubramaniam get his figures from? Where is his evidence? Plucking unsubstantiated figures from the air and presenting them as facts to the Minister is deplorable. Did the reporter for the ST ask for proof before reporting these figures in the paper? There is NO such thing as an average open market value of a typical unit for TC. The last individual unit sold in Tampines Court was in OCTOBER 2006 - at a price of $520,000. There has been a freeze on the sale of units at least since 15/05/2007* as the buyer has placed caveats on all the units, both minority and majority.
* my unit taken as example
Publish Post
.
The minority only request that due process be followed, that the law should be allowed to take it's natural course. We were assured in previous sessions by our eminent MP that due process is paramount in the legal system. That although he cannot and would not interfere directly in the decision making of the STB, he would make representations on owners' behalf, both for minority and majority. That is only fair.
.
Newspaper report:
"It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties"
Both the en bloc lawyer and the Property Agent have stated in previous letters to the owners that it was unwise to purchase a new unit before the sale was confirmed- and there is a long way to go before it is confirmed.
En bloc Lawyer letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
These owners have therefore only themselves to blame for ignoring sound advice and making unwise purchases beyond their means..
Property Agent letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
.
.
"Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get $700,000 should the sale go through.
.
Just where did Mr. Balasubramaniam get his figures from? Where is his evidence? Plucking unsubstantiated figures from the air and presenting them as facts to the Minister is deplorable. Did the reporter for the ST ask for proof before reporting these figures in the paper? There is NO such thing as an average open market value of a typical unit for TC. The last individual unit sold in Tampines Court was in OCTOBER 2006 - at a price of $520,000. There has been a freeze on the sale of units at least since 15/05/2007* as the buyer has placed caveats on all the units, both minority and majority.
* my unit taken as example
Publish Post
Jul 15, 2008
High Court OS
By now, all the majority owners would have received a 44 page email copy of the Originating Summons N0. 941 0f 2008/P from the en bloc lawyer.
High Court Hearing Date and Time: tomorrow afternoon. The hearing is closed to the public.
High Court Hearing Date and Time: tomorrow afternoon. The hearing is closed to the public.
.
Decision date: 05 Sept 2008
Jul 14, 2008
Appeal
The Majority have filed an Appeal to the High Court and have appointed Michael Huang SC as their counsel.
Counsel for the Minority are N. Sreenivasan and Siva Krishnasamy
The appeal should be heard Wednesday 16th before Tan Lee Meng J
Counsel for the Minority are N. Sreenivasan and Siva Krishnasamy
The appeal should be heard Wednesday 16th before Tan Lee Meng J
Here is an anonymous comment about the 'commotion' yesterday.
.
.
"I came to know about the commotion at the void deck of Blk 120 and at the function room at the Management office on Sunday and went down to check. I was told by (resident’s name) being an SP on his own accord is exercising a petition to the Minister to appeal to the STB to bring forward the date before the 25th July.
.
I am surprised that the MC had allowed a single SP to use the function room to collect signatures for his letter to the Minister.
.
I am also shocked to know that the representative of (property agent) had contacted via email and SMS to majority owners to come to the Management office to sign the petition on an urgent basis. Is the PA being hired by all the majority or only one SP whom they took his instruction to contact majority SPs.
.
My comment: This SP is no mere resident; he is on the Management Council and is the financial advisor to the Sale Committee.
.
I am surprised that the MC had allowed a single SP to use the function room to collect signatures for his letter to the Minister.
.
I am also shocked to know that the representative of (property agent) had contacted via email and SMS to majority owners to come to the Management office to sign the petition on an urgent basis. Is the PA being hired by all the majority or only one SP whom they took his instruction to contact majority SPs.
.
My comment: This SP is no mere resident; he is on the Management Council and is the financial advisor to the Sale Committee.
Jul 13, 2008
Rumbles in the jungle...
There was a bit of a commotion today outside the MCST office between some majority owners who want to appeal to the High Court and those that do not. Later on, a resident set up shop to collect signatures for a petition; possibly for our eminent MP.
.
It is rumoured that the en bloc lawyer will probably file an appeal soon. I was told it could be done on an urgent basis.
This is their prerogative.
The minority, of course, will object.
.
It is rumoured that the en bloc lawyer will probably file an appeal soon. I was told it could be done on an urgent basis.
This is their prerogative.
The minority, of course, will object.
Jul 12, 2008
Jul 11, 2008
Hong Kong V's Singapore
En bloc debate, HK style
WHEN land is scarce, your right to live in your home ends when your neighbours sell theirs.
This logic applies not just to Singapore - which defied expectations by recently producing its first collective sale offer since the recession took hold - but also to Hong Kong, which is now deep in debate over proposed changes to its compulsory property sale rules.
On the surface, the operative concept in both cities is the same: Urban renewal is expensive, and private capital speeds up the process. The government lends a hand by allowing an estate to be sold even if the sale does not get the unanimous approval of all the owners. But Hong Kong and Singapore differ in the weight each accords to minority owners. Singapore requires an 80 per cent consent for a sale of a property at least 10 years old, and a 90 per cent approval for a development less than 10 years old.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong has maintained a 90 per cent threshold since the 1990s, with a tribunal giving the final go-ahead after considering a host of factors, including the property's age and state of repair.
The Hong Kong administration has recently proposed that the threshold be lowered to 80 per cent - but only in cases where all but one unit has been acquired by one party, and where the development is at least 50 years old.
A observer may think this is just a case of laissez-faire Hong Kong playing catch-up, but the territory's deliberations on the matter actually hold many lessons for the Republic.
For starters, Hong Kong remains protective of minority rights. Even if the proposed change is passed, it would still be harder for the majority of owners in a Hong Kong estate to push though a sale, compared with those in Singapore.
And yet, the opposition to the proposed change in some quarters in Hong Kong has been fierce. The change, they say, is tantamount to a subsidy for developers as it would mean that they would not need to entice as many home owners with a good sale price.
One South China Morning Post reader declared in a letter published on Aug 3: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined public purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
The language is refreshing, considering the tendency here to cast in a negative light those opposing an en bloc sale.
At times, they are made out to seem as greedy home owners holding out for more money, or eccentric seniors unduly attached to their property, or simply stubborn people who will not let their neighbours get on with their lives elsewhere.
Some here may point to Singapore's public housing programme, where upgrading works are passed with a 75 per cent vote. If the majority can rule in public housing, why can't it rule in private estates?
But that is hardly a parallel, given that public flat owners who have their homes renovated via a majority vote get to keep their homes whether they approved the upgrade or no. Private home owners have no such comfort.
Another interesting point about the Hong Kong debate is that it gives weight to environmental concerns.
The proposal notes that the normal working life of reinforced concrete buildings - during which they are unlikely to require major repairs - is assumed to be 50 years. Consequently, it sets 50 years as the minimum age for a building which may be subject to a compulsory sale application under the relaxed guidelines.
Given the huge amount of energy and material that erecting a building requires, this safeguard reduces the likelihood of unnecessary demolition waste.
In Singapore, money is by far the biggest measure used to determine whether a collective sale can go ahead.
The Strata Titles Board, which gives such sales the final nod, takes into account the transaction's sale price, the method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the buyer to any of the unit owners.
Objections to the sale have to be couched in the language of dollars and cents. The minority owner has to suffer a financial loss or be unable to redeem the mortgage against his home in order for the sale to be called off.
The potential loss of built heritage or good architecture is not a consideration. Neither is the environmental cost of demolishing a building that is in good working condition.
There are mitigating factors of course.
Singapore has a pro-active conservation authority which keeps a look-out for historically and architecturally valuable buildings, and adds them to its protected list. This may lessen somewhat the need for stringent collective sale rules to protect urban heritage.
Singapore is also two-thirds the size of Hong Kong. This means the Republic has a smaller buffer of land and cannot afford to leave decaying buildings untouched for long.
Still, the debate in Hong Kong does hold up a useful mirror to our practices, whichever way that debate pans out.
It has been 10 years since the laws were amended here to allow a private estate to be sold without the unanimous consent of all its owners.
In the most recent property peak in 2007, 111 estates changed hands for $12.4 billion, according to property consultancy CB Richard Ellis.
As the Republic braces itself for the next en bloc wave, it could also cast its eye beyond its shores for clues as to how else it might reshape the Singapore skyline.
Urban renewal, after all, is far from being only a numbers game.
Straits Times - 10 Aug 2009
WHEN land is scarce, your right to live in your home ends when your neighbours sell theirs.
This logic applies not just to Singapore - which defied expectations by recently producing its first collective sale offer since the recession took hold - but also to Hong Kong, which is now deep in debate over proposed changes to its compulsory property sale rules.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong has maintained a 90 per cent threshold since the 1990s, with a tribunal giving the final go-ahead after considering a host of factors, including the property's age and state of repair.
The Hong Kong administration has recently proposed that the threshold be lowered to 80 per cent - but only in cases where all but one unit has been acquired by one party, and where the development is at least 50 years old.
A observer may think this is just a case of laissez-faire Hong Kong playing catch-up, but the territory's deliberations on the matter actually hold many lessons for the Republic.
For starters, Hong Kong remains protective of minority rights. Even if the proposed change is passed, it would still be harder for the majority of owners in a Hong Kong estate to push though a sale, compared with those in Singapore.
And yet, the opposition to the proposed change in some quarters in Hong Kong has been fierce. The change, they say, is tantamount to a subsidy for developers as it would mean that they would not need to entice as many home owners with a good sale price.
One South China Morning Post reader declared in a letter published on Aug 3: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined public purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
The language is refreshing, considering the tendency here to cast in a negative light those opposing an en bloc sale.
At times, they are made out to seem as greedy home owners holding out for more money, or eccentric seniors unduly attached to their property, or simply stubborn people who will not let their neighbours get on with their lives elsewhere.
Some here may point to Singapore's public housing programme, where upgrading works are passed with a 75 per cent vote. If the majority can rule in public housing, why can't it rule in private estates?
But that is hardly a parallel, given that public flat owners who have their homes renovated via a majority vote get to keep their homes whether they approved the upgrade or no. Private home owners have no such comfort.
Another interesting point about the Hong Kong debate is that it gives weight to environmental concerns.
The proposal notes that the normal working life of reinforced concrete buildings - during which they are unlikely to require major repairs - is assumed to be 50 years. Consequently, it sets 50 years as the minimum age for a building which may be subject to a compulsory sale application under the relaxed guidelines.
Given the huge amount of energy and material that erecting a building requires, this safeguard reduces the likelihood of unnecessary demolition waste.
In Singapore, money is by far the biggest measure used to determine whether a collective sale can go ahead.
The Strata Titles Board, which gives such sales the final nod, takes into account the transaction's sale price, the method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the buyer to any of the unit owners.
Objections to the sale have to be couched in the language of dollars and cents. The minority owner has to suffer a financial loss or be unable to redeem the mortgage against his home in order for the sale to be called off.
The potential loss of built heritage or good architecture is not a consideration. Neither is the environmental cost of demolishing a building that is in good working condition.
There are mitigating factors of course.
Singapore has a pro-active conservation authority which keeps a look-out for historically and architecturally valuable buildings, and adds them to its protected list. This may lessen somewhat the need for stringent collective sale rules to protect urban heritage.
Singapore is also two-thirds the size of Hong Kong. This means the Republic has a smaller buffer of land and cannot afford to leave decaying buildings untouched for long.
Still, the debate in Hong Kong does hold up a useful mirror to our practices, whichever way that debate pans out.
It has been 10 years since the laws were amended here to allow a private estate to be sold without the unanimous consent of all its owners.
In the most recent property peak in 2007, 111 estates changed hands for $12.4 billion, according to property consultancy CB Richard Ellis.
As the Republic braces itself for the next en bloc wave, it could also cast its eye beyond its shores for clues as to how else it might reshape the Singapore skyline.
Urban renewal, after all, is far from being only a numbers game.
Straits Times - 10 Aug 2009
The rules governing en bloc in Hong Kong are SO much better than Singapore's; buildings need to be 50 years old with 90% approval.
The rules governing en bloc sales in S. Korea are SO superior to our own; it is mandatory that owners be given a choice of cash or replacement unit in the new development.
.
I shall leave it to the Pariah to do her thing and attack the Government Ministries and their inadequate LTSA. Her latest salvo here
.
Still waiting for changes to en bloc rules
Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009
I APPLAUD Monday's well-argued commentary, 'En bloc debate, HK style', which highlighted the disparity between Hong Kong's code of practice for collective property sales and that in Singapore where the rights of minority secondary proprietors are plainly prejudiced in comparison.
I particularly admire that quotation from a South China Morning Post correspondent: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
I also endorse the environmental concerns of Hong Kong over the needless destruction of good architecture with perhaps decades of useful longevity ahead, and the subsequent costly redevelopment of any such site. For example, I would welcome the introduction of a 50-year age limit before any development could be considered for collective sale; that would at least relieve me of the incessant worry of enforced eviction from my treasured dwelling for the rest of my anticipated lifespan.
I would probably be categorised as one of the 'eccentric seniors unduly attached to their property' which I have occupied contentedly since August 1986, but I earnestly hope the Singapore Government will review legislation relating to collective sales without the unanimous consent of all secondary proprietors to alleviate the disadvantages they face compared to owners of both landed property and HDB flats. Dennis Butler
Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009
I particularly admire that quotation from a South China Morning Post correspondent: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
I also endorse the environmental concerns of Hong Kong over the needless destruction of good architecture with perhaps decades of useful longevity ahead, and the subsequent costly redevelopment of any such site. For example, I would welcome the introduction of a 50-year age limit before any development could be considered for collective sale; that would at least relieve me of the incessant worry of enforced eviction from my treasured dwelling for the rest of my anticipated lifespan.
Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009
No Go for change of date
The Application to bring the date forward to before the 25th July 2008 has been dismissed with costs.
STB Decision:
STB Decision:
Where we are now
S&P Expiry: 25 July 2008STB Hearing day 4: 07 August 2008
.
.
.
.
1) The Board has not complied with the SC's request to bring the adjouned Hearing date forward to a date before the 25 July - and if the Buyer is still not minded to extend*, then the deal falls through. The deposit goes back to the buyer and the interest to the en bloc lawyer.
.
2) The Board has not complied with the SC's request to bring the adjouned Hearing date forward to a date before the 25 July - and if the Buyer changes its mind and agrees to extend then the Sale Committee has to hold an EOGM to seek the mandate from the majority owners to extend, too#.
.
Since the buyers are not minded to extend, and there has been no request from the buyer pushing the majority to 'extend or else' as in HT then the majority can let the Agreement lapse, too.
.
*Not minded to extend"= do not agree to extend = pull out.
2) The Board has not complied with the SC's request to bring the adjouned Hearing date forward to a date before the 25 July - and if the Buyer changes its mind and agrees to extend then the Sale Committee has to hold an EOGM to seek the mandate from the majority owners to extend, too#.
.
Since the buyers are not minded to extend, and there has been no request from the buyer pushing the majority to 'extend or else' as in HT then the majority can let the Agreement lapse, too.
.
.
These are just my thoughts on the matter - if anyone disagrees please leave a comment
.
Tampines Court is Case No. 2 for the year 2008.
.
Jul 9, 2008
Property agent spiel
An interesting article in the Business Times today on why you should NEVER believe the spiel property agents weave!!
.
Business Times - 09 July 2008
(SINGAPORE) Developers are paying property agents bigger commissions - in some cases almost double of what was offered a year ago - to push their new residential project launches.
This is because the environment for selling homes is far more challenging now and agents have to work much harder to persuade potential buyers to part with their money.
A modest-sized developer told BT he does not mind rewarding agents with commissions of 2 per cent or more as, to him, speed of sales is paramount. He needs to achieve enough cash flow to begin construction and move on to his next project.
But even the big boys are having to pay a higher commission rate to agents these days - if they want their help to move units.
An established developer launching a big project these days could pay its appointed marketing agent 0.8 per cent of sale price - compared with possibly 0.5 per cent 12 months ago.
To further incentivise agents, the commission rate may go up to, say, one per cent nowadays, once a certain number of units have been sold.
Developers of smaller projects, for instance in the Telok Kurau area, are understood to be paying even higher commissions - often up to 2 per cent - compared with around one per cent or less a year ago, BT has learnt from property agents and developers.
On top of that, some developers are offering a bonus payout in the form of an additional 0.5 per cent commission if the project sells out within a certain time frame and at a price exceeding the developer's target.
BT understands that high-end projects have also not been spared. Their developers are having to reward agents with 0.7 to 1.5 per cent commissions - up from 0.4 to 0.5 per cent a year ago.
Teo Hong Lim, executive chairman of property group Roxy-Pacific Holdings, says: 'Speed of sales is most important to us. We don't want to target sales of just 30-40 per cent of total units in a project. We need to sell 80-90 per cent or even 100 per cent. We can then begin construction, and move on to our next project.
'At the end of the day, agents are also very much incentivised by commissions. It's a sort of a no-lose situation for us when we achieve speed of sales and the final net sales value of a development is higher than our initial target, even after we less the additional bonus commissions we pay the agents.'
While some market watchers may think that paying agents higher commissions will eat into the developers' profit margins, Mr Teo argues: 'Commissions are only part of our total project cost. It's definitely much, much lower than land and construction costs.'
A property agent says: 'Developers are more concerned with cash flow and sales take-up. The higher commission is a small amount to pay for boosting their cash flow. If they don't have the cash flow, higher interest expense will be a much bigger cost item than the commissions.'
Agreeing, Knight Frank executive director Peter Ow explains why agents need higher motivation today. 'The main reason for increasing our fees is that we're operating in a tougher market and, frankly, agents are highly motivated by fees. If you get two projects side by side, most agents will naturally push for the one where the reward is higher.'
Industry players acknowledge that agents have to work a lot harder to convince buyers, given the more cautious economic outlook, thinner foreign buying and the fact that fewer speculators are left in the market after the deferred payment scheme was scrapped last October.
BT understands that the extra work being put in by agents these days to realise sales at showflats includes studying the project's costing.
'We tell buyers the price we're offering is below current replacement cost, either because the developer bought the land cheap or locked in construction costs early.
'Sometimes we also use pressure tactics. We tell potential buyers that the developer will raise prices once it achieves a certain percentage of sales. And it works,' an old hand in the game told BT.
This article was first published in The Business Times on 9 July 2008.
Jul 7, 2008
The end is nigh
The enbloc sale of Tampines Court is dead if the STB does not approve the sale by the 25 July 2008. There will be no extension of the S & P as the buyer does not want to extend the time.
"Not minded to extend" = do not agree to extend = pull out
.
Wonders will never cease.
Wonders will never cease.
.
There is no big, bad developer breathing down the necks of Tampines Court majority bullying them into closing the sale before the deadline. There has been no request from the buyer to bring the hearing date forward 'or else'. This is not Horizon Towers No. 2 whereby the majority were threatened with a lawsuit if they did not extend. Indeed, the buyer seems quite complacent to let this slippery fish go, perhaps to catch it again at a later date, when market conditions improve. Tampines Court will still be here in 5 years time. They can wait. We can wait, too.
.
So what is the Sale Committee doing?
.
Why aren't they convening a meeting with the majority to touch base and find out the current wishes of the very people they claim to represent? Do the majority want to take advantage of the legitimate exit that has opened up unexpectedly? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. The SC may claim legal authority over signatures inked 2 years ago - but not moral authority. They haven't spoken a word to the majority since the EOGM in JULY 2007! That was a full year ago for crying out loud.
.
Do the majority even know what's going on?
An "Owners View" posted on the property agent's blog
A letter has been posted on the property agent's blog (link on the menu =>). Since I cannot reply directly on their blog (no comments allowed, strictly one way) I shall do so here:-
.
UPDATE: 15 July - just noticed they have enabled their 'comments' status on their blog. Will they publish my rebuttal?
UPDATE: 15 July - just noticed they have enabled their 'comments' status on their blog. Will they publish my rebuttal?
My comments are in RED
.
I am an owner in Tampines Court and would like to raise my views on the misleading facts happening in my estate by the minority owners on the following:
.
.
This owner's letter is actually the email sent to selective majority owners by the en bloc lawyer entitled "Majority Owners STB Update 30-06-2008".
.
"The developer buyer will NOT EXTEND the Sales and Purchase Agreement.
The enbloc sale of Tampines Court is dead if the STB does not approve the sale by the 24 July 2008. Wonders will never cease!
This is still true (typo 25 July)
.
"My view: The STB heard the case from 16th to 18th June 2008. At the end of the hearing, two more witnesses had yet to be cross-examined.
.
True at the time of emailing but now no longer true;
The SC now want to expedite the process and dispense with the necessity of having a full and fair Hearing by -
The SC now want to expedite the process and dispense with the necessity of having a full and fair Hearing by -
.
a) withdrawing its last witness, who happens to be the Chairman of the SC;
b) dispensing with the cross-examination of the minority witnesses save for a 'brief cross-examination' of one
c) making brief oral submissions
.
a) withdrawing its last witness, who happens to be the Chairman of the SC;
b) dispensing with the cross-examination of the minority witnesses save for a 'brief cross-examination' of one
c) making brief oral submissions
.
UPDATE: 04 July: Now they want to dispense with cross examination of the minority witness altogether and go straight to submissions! Do I sense panic? (Source: email from en bloc lawyer to STB 04 July 2008)
.
UPDATE TO UPDATE: 14 July. (Source: in letter from Counsel for majority addressed to STB 14 July). Looks like they want to cross examine the lone minority witness again.
.
UPDATE TO LAST UPDATE: 15 July. (OS 941 2008/P); Back to square 1 with the Chairman of the SC up for cross examination, and Applicants cross examination of the lone minority witness.
.
UPDATE TO UPDATE: 14 July. (Source: in letter from Counsel for majority addressed to STB 14 July). Looks like they want to cross examine the lone minority witness again.
.
UPDATE TO LAST UPDATE: 15 July. (OS 941 2008/P); Back to square 1 with the Chairman of the SC up for cross examination, and Applicants cross examination of the lone minority witness.
.
The objectors had also raised the issue that the unused beta sum should be distributed amongst all owners. The sale committee agreed that the unused beta sum would be so distributed.
.
There was a serious flaw in the Beta Sum distribution method. An unfair method of distribution is a pretty potent point of contention and the sale might not go through by using the original method. That's why the SC had to scramble and go back to the Buyer to get an amendment, who initially agreed with a condition but later retracted. It was then discussed on June 23rd in chambers. The application was withdrawn and so there is no change to the method of distribution of the Beta Sum. Regardless of how the SC would like to distribute it now, the buyer doesn't want to amend and so they are stuck with it (unless they make another application to amend, which they have not done).
.
The STB has fixed 7th Aug 2008 for the continued hearing. It is estimated that only one more day would be needed to complete the cross-examination of these two witnesses.
.
The SC are flip-flopping on whether they are going to cross examine anyone. (14 July). Well, if cross-examination of witnesses is considered a waste of time - what, pray tell, is a Hearing for?
This is what another independent minority owner had to say in their objection to the STB about the applicant's wish for a speedy end to the hearing. (I hope they don't mind me quoting them):
.
"The applicants may choose to conduct their case at breakneck speed if they so wish. But I would request that I be granted my day in Court (which I have so far) and sufficient time to prepare my written submissions."
.
The sale committee endeavoured to obtain an extension of the 25th July 2008 deadline from the Purchaser. At the moment, [the buyer] has reverted to say that they are not minded to agree to the extension.
.
.
True. They endeavoured but failed. Not minded to agree means they don't agree. It is astounding how many people actually read 'not minded to agree' as 'they don't mind agreeing'!!! The English language can be a bit tricky sometimes. May I add that the decision to extend has to be mutual. If one side backs out then that's it. The decision to bring the date forward was decided unilaterally by the SC in order to force the sale through before the expiry.
.
.
The sale committee has applied to the STB this morning for the hearing date to be brought forward. This application is being closely monitored.
.
True And I can further add that the minority has handed in their official objection to the said application. Two independent minority owners have done the same, stating their own objections. Nothing has been decided about the issue as yet. All five panel members have to agree to a new date - and that is not an easy matter as they have to fit it in with their busy personal schedules.
True And I can further add that the minority has handed in their official objection to the said application. Two independent minority owners have done the same, stating their own objections. Nothing has been decided about the issue as yet. All five panel members have to agree to a new date - and that is not an easy matter as they have to fit it in with their busy personal schedules.
.
I believe the Sale Committee will update the majority owners on the development.
.
The question is when? - after the STB decides on the matter or before? I hope they do it sooner rather than later and in plain English so everyone can understand. Better yet, have a meeting! One year of silence is quite enough.
.
I will correct a piece of information put up by the objectors on their blogsite. [the buyer] obtained the Residential Property Approval (the RPA approval) on 25th July 2007 and served it on our lawyers on 26th July 2007.
.
My apologies, that was way back in the "Facts about TC". At the time of posting, I was using a letter sent by the Chairman of the SC dated 23rd Oct 2007 as my source. In it he outlined the sequence of events:
.
10th July 2007 - Qualified Certificate (RPA) In-principle Approval.
.
You can see the letter for yourself in my 25 Oct Post - I scanned it in at the time.
So, maybe you should scold him for spreading this piece of misinformation to the owners!
.
It was only at the STB mediation that I picked up the correct date as being 25 July when the enbloc lawyer answered a panel member's question about the date of expiry.
.
At that time, the STB of Gillman Heights was being fought in the STB. The STB dismissed this argument in the Gillman Height decision on 21 December 2007.
The Tampines Court advertisements appeared 6 days later, on 27th December 2007.
The STB application was filed on 7th January 2008.
.
It is therefore not correct to say that the STB application was not filed for 9 months.
.
.
80%: 21 Jan 2007
Sale: March 25th 2007
Application: Jan 7th 2008 -
.
I still count 9 months from date of sale
I count 11+ months from the purported 80% threshold
Which is to be used?
.
By LTSA rules, the SC has 1 year to get the 80% and a further 1 year to make an application to the STB. The time frames may overlap. They had the luxury of time (1 year [to Jan 08] + 6 months [ 25 July 08] ) and they spent it unwisely and now they have to face the music.
.
UPDATE (15 July): their argument at the STB was that they could only have applied after 26 July, when the in-principle RPA was issued - so they therefore delayed by only 5 months.
.
UPDATE (15 July): their argument at the STB was that they could only have applied after 26 July, when the in-principle RPA was issued - so they therefore delayed by only 5 months.
.
I respect the objectors' point of views.
Mutual and I prove this by posting them on my blog. Pity it's not reciprocated.
.
Throughout this exercise, before the STB, special efforts were made to try and engage the objectors in a constructive manner.
.
It was the minority who made a special effort to mediate by requesting and receiving an extra day of mediation (day 3) and it was the Sale Committee that strenuously objected! As it was a case of 'one hand clapping', nothing constructive happened
.
There were many dialogues.
All dialogues were before Aug 2006. There were none one for 7 months prior to the sale and none since July 2007 (one year ago).
.
Moreover, even at the STB stage, when the objectors for the first time raised the issue of the distribution of the unused beta sum, the sale committee agreed that the unused sum should be shared by all.
.
They had to agree, it was a case of do or die. But, alas, the buyer does not. The minority objections have not been discussed on this blog (intentionally, as why let them know beforehand what we were thinking?), they were raised openly for the first time at the STB. They should have known their beta sum was going to be their Achiles heel.
.
However, this was objected to as well.
There are other grounds on which to object
.
It is incorrect to say that the unpaid maintenance and sinking funds contributions would be paid from the beta sum. The beta sum is utilised for the privatisation cost.
.
Unpaid privatisation costs and the interest due on the outstanding balance may be paid for by the Beta Sum. I stand corrected on the other MCST debts; for the moment. An incomplete computation for Beta claims has been submitted at the STB
.
UPDATE 2008: MCST DEBT WAS INDEED ADDED TO THE PRIVATISATION DEBT - SOME OWNERS WHO HAD STOPPED PAYING THEIR MAINTENANCE AND SINKING FUND CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD HAVE HAD THEM COVERED BY THE BETA.
.
It is hoped that this information would be corrected as well.
It is hoped that this information would be corrected as well.
If it is wrong, I will make all necessary corrections. All along, I have endeavoured to be as accurate as possible. It is only now, at the STB that I have the full documentation and only wish I could put it all up for everyone to see. Alas, being at the STB is the very reason I hold back and must let due process take its course.
.
a) I put up a post about the buyer refusing to extend the S&P only after the SC appeared in the void decks scrabbling for signatures.
b) I talked about the Beta sum only after the en bloc lawyer sent a letter to selective majority owners with incomplete information. They had conveniently left out the part where they had indemnified the buyers "against loss, claims etc"! Indemnified the buyers! What are we, millionaires?
.
The majority owners have been largely left in the dark and the minority are the only ones who have struggled this past year to get to the bottom of things. When you start from behind, there is a lot of catching up to do. We are stride for stride now and heading for a photo finish. Jun 28, 2008
I hear through the grapevine that a group of majority owners (the ones that are close to the SC) are signing a petition to move the hearing date forward. Their reason being that the buyer 'is not minded to extend' after the 25th July deadline. The SC have requested the STB for the adjourned date to be fixed at a time before the 25th and expected not only an earlier date BUT a speedy decision as well. Rushing decisions through is NOT in the best interests of the majority or the minority; it is an abuse of due process.
Justice hurried is Justice buried.
.
It is not the minority who set the dates, but rather the STB panel. They are professionals in their own right with busy schedules and fit these hearings in at their convenience, not ours. Bear in mind, it was the very late application to the STB by the SC that delayed the process to begin with by a whole 9 months!
.
Isn't it poetic justice that they are running out of time?! The majority owners signed the CSA stating "Completion of the Valid Contract of Sale shall be scheduled not earlier that 3 months and not later than 6 months from the date of the Valid Date of Contract" (4.1.5). But in the S&P, it was changed to one year from the in principle RPA date - effectively tripling the length of time to 16 months.
.
On another issue:
In case you haven't heard about the outcome of the Sale Committee's application on the 23rd June to amend the Sale and Purchase agreement over the distribution of Beta sum:-
The application to amend was withdrawn.
Jun 26, 2008
Just Articles
Goodbye en bloc sales
Sunday Times-27 April 2007
.
What if my condo's enbloc sale fails?
Sunday Times -27 April 2008
.
Mandarin Gardens management steps down over en bloc disputes
ChannelnewsAsia - 2 May 2008
.
Enbloc upraor at Bayshore Park. Mandarin Gardens
Straits Times - 5 May 2008
.
Enbloc system needs relook, as Bayshore shows
Straits Times - 5 May 2008
.
Mandarin Gardens En Bloc Sale
Straits Times - 09 May 2008
.
Regent Gardens owners file appeal despite sale completion
Straits Times - 17 May 2008
.
En Bloc woes at Toh Tuck Road
.
Proxy votes in Mandarin Gardens
Straits Times - 19 May 2008
.
En Bloc sales bring out the worst in Singaporeans
Straits Times - 01 June 2008
.
Developers turn landlords as property market stays quiet
Straits Times - 04 June 2008
.
Prices of some new properties coming down
Straits Times - 12 June 2008
.
HDB upgraders hold key to property market turnaround
Business Times - 12 June 2008
.
En Bloc blues? There's hope , says support group
Straits Times - 12 June 2008
Sunday Times-27 April 2007
.
What if my condo's enbloc sale fails?
Sunday Times -27 April 2008
.
Mandarin Gardens management steps down over en bloc disputes
ChannelnewsAsia - 2 May 2008
.
Enbloc upraor at Bayshore Park. Mandarin Gardens
Straits Times - 5 May 2008
.
Enbloc system needs relook, as Bayshore shows
Straits Times - 5 May 2008
.
Mandarin Gardens En Bloc Sale
Straits Times - 09 May 2008
.
Regent Gardens owners file appeal despite sale completion
Straits Times - 17 May 2008
.
En Bloc woes at Toh Tuck Road
Residents complain of noise, dust, as developer builds showflat ‘It’s like living in a shipyard’ It’s not chirping birds that wake them now, but pounding hammers. And it has been driving some Goodluck View residents up the wall. The 20-year-old Toh Tuck Road estate has been sold en-bloc, but residents have been given a six-month grace period and need to move out only by August. Long before that, in March, developer Hiap Hoe Limited started building the show flat. A resident said he has to endure the ‘noise outside his window’, every day from 8am. ‘It’s like I’m living in a shipyard. It’s all right if they build the showflat in the middle of the road or somewhere further away, but it’s hard to live here when there’s all that noise so close to your home.’ The fence surrounding the showflat sits barely 2m from his window. From his three-bedroom apartment, he can see and hear the workers. Work on the showflat is expected to be completed by the end of July, according to a circular distributed by the estate’s management agent. Yet, the residents patience is wearing thin. Said the Singapore permanent resident: ‘My son has to prepare for an exam and he has complained that he is finding it hard to focus. He shuts his windows to block off the noise. ‘I find it difficult too because I work from home.’ His neighbor upstairs, Madam Tracy Dean, said that sometimes the noise can be a little too much for her. At such times, she leaves the apartment. Said the IT consultant: ‘I really look forward to rain because I know the workers will have to stop work. All that grinding and banging can drive you up the wall. ‘Even with the windows closed, the noise filters into my flat.’ The Resident and his family plan to move out within three weeks. Madam Dean will leave for Bangkok in August. ‘We didn’t sign up to live like this. They work without considering that there are still people living here. I’ve had enough.’ And it’s not just the noise. Residents claim dust and mosquitos have also been invading their homes He said he complained to the estate management when construction workers used the swimming pool toilet, leaving trails of mud. He claimed that by starting work on the showflat, the developer was breaking the en-bloc agreement. His landlord, Mr John Tilley, also said the developers should not be working there before August. ‘We (tenants and owners) are expected to leave by 21 Aug. But it’s extremely unreasonable for my tenant to live in such conditions,’ Mr Tilley said. ‘The six months grace period is meant for those still living here to find alternative accommodation.’
INCONVENIENCE EXPECTED But a spokesman for Hiap Hoe said the company had not broken any rules. There are no ‘hard and fast rules’ on building a showflat during the six-month free stay period, she said. She added: ‘Some inconvenience is expected. But so long as we abide by the construction rules and try to minimise the inconveniences, the issue is unavoidable. ‘Building showflats during the free stay period is a very common practice in en-bloc developments. There is no clause that says we start work (on the showflat) only after all the occupants have left.’ The spokesman said they had received some feedback expressing unhappiness over the construction work. She said no piling work was done, except for the erection of metal beams for the showflat. The sale of the new development is scheduled for the third quarter of 2008.
New Paper - 17 May 2008.
Proxy votes in Mandarin Gardens
Straits Times - 19 May 2008
.
En Bloc sales bring out the worst in Singaporeans
Straits Times - 01 June 2008
.
Developers turn landlords as property market stays quiet
Straits Times - 04 June 2008
.
Prices of some new properties coming down
Straits Times - 12 June 2008
.
HDB upgraders hold key to property market turnaround
Business Times - 12 June 2008
.
En Bloc blues? There's hope , says support group
Straits Times - 12 June 2008
Jun 25, 2008
Gillman Heoghts High Court Decision
High Court dismisses appeal against Gillman Heights sale
Straits Times - 26 June 2008
Gillman Heights en bloc sale to move ahead following Court's ruling
ChannelNewsAsia - 26 June 2008
Gillman en bloc sale to proceed
Business Times - 26 June 2008.
High Court decision.( free to view for 3 month:
Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters[2008] SGHC 97
25 June 2008
..Straits Times - 26 June 2008
Gillman Heights en bloc sale to move ahead following Court's ruling
ChannelNewsAsia - 26 June 2008
Gillman en bloc sale to proceed
Business Times - 26 June 2008.
High Court decision.( free to view for 3 month:
Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters[2008] SGHC 97
25 June 2008
Honorable Choo Han Teck J
.
on TOP/CSC:.
"15. The relevant parliamentary debates show that parliament had intended to peg the requisite majority consent needed for the collective sale (80% or 90%) with the age of the estate/development"
.
"17. The words "TOP" or "CSC" were not mentioned at all during the second and third reading of the 1998 Bill by the Minister or any Member of Parliament. I am of the opinion that the references to TOP or CSC in s 84A(!) by the draftsman were merely used as a method of calculating the age of the development."
"17. The words "TOP" or "CSC" were not mentioned at all during the second and third reading of the 1998 Bill by the Minister or any Member of Parliament. I am of the opinion that the references to TOP or CSC in s 84A(!) by the draftsman were merely used as a method of calculating the age of the development."
.
"18. ...I am of the opinion that the parliamentary intention in respect of s 84A(1) of the LTSA was to allow en bloc sales with 80% majority consent for strata development that are more than 10 years old. It cannot be said that parliament had intended to exclude privatised HUDC estates from collective sale by making references to TOP and CSC in s 84A(1)."
.
"20. If a literal construction was adopted in the present case, the intention of Parliament to allow en-bloc sale of strata developments that are more than 10 years old if they have the requisite majority of 80% would thus be frustrated. The undesirable consequence of the literal interpretation in the present case may have the result that a privatised HUDC estate more than 20 years old cannot participate in a collective sale. I do not think parliament intended this effect because one of the reasons for privatising an HUDC estate is to let it enjoy the benefits of a private estate, including a collective sale."
.
"24. Furthermore, it appears that the CSC and TOP would not avail the appellants even if a strict literal reading of the relevant 84A(1) was adopted.
.....The appellants did not tender a recent strata title plan that reflected the clubhouse.... as a "building comprised n the strata plan". .....the building and the swimming pool, being common property of the Development, would not, in any event be reflected in the strata title plan. "
.
On purposive approach:
.
19: It is important to point out here that s 9A of the Interpretation Act requires that a construction promoting legislative purpose be preferred over one that does not promote purpose or object.....
......I agree, generally, with what was said in [case law here], warning, however, that the phrase "purposive interpretation" should not be used without the court keeping an eye on what purposes are involved and whose purposes are being served. "Purposive interpretation" is not a phrase to be used as a password like "open sesame". For the statute in question, for example, making sure that the safeguards in favour of minority subsidiary proprietors are properly observed is just as purposive as giving the majority owners a right to sell en-bloc."
The specific question in issue, however, was not one concerning specific protection for the minority. It concerned whether a privatised HUDC estate can participate in the benefits of an en-bloc sale if the requisite conditions are met. In this regard, I think that the court should incline towards the affirmative answer than a negative one."
.
The remaining points do not form part of TC's objections.
Time period for en-bloc: 12 months (for 80%) + 12 months (STB application) = 24 months. Time periods may overlap. (my reading).
.
Straits Times-26 July 2008
Financial Benefits of en-bloc for TC
What did $19,666.00 in privatization costs bring to the residents of TC? How do some owners 'enjoy the benefits of a collective sale'?
2002 high-end public housing (HUDC)
2003 privatisation at $19,666 (strata title)
2004 a fence, 2 guardhouses and sleeping security guards
2005 en-bloc rumblings
2006 signature collection
2007 en bloc sale
2008 en bloc fight
2009 low to mid-tier public housing, substantial bank interest loss, substantial CPF loss, no cash for next home.
All this has a filter down, disruptive effect on:
retirement plans
investment plans
childrens’ education plans
$576,257 is owed to the MCST for privatization balance. But some of these owners who did not pay up on time like the rest of us, need not worry – they will have their debts paid by the diligent folk whose agreement was never sought. Not only that, if they have also chalked up huge interest penalties, that too will be paid on their behalf. So, on hindsight, it would have been better NOT to pay privatization costs promptly.
2002 high-end public housing (HUDC)
2003 privatisation at $19,666 (strata title)
2004 a fence, 2 guardhouses and sleeping security guards
2005 en-bloc rumblings
2006 signature collection
2007 en bloc sale
2008 en bloc fight
2009 low to mid-tier public housing, substantial bank interest loss, substantial CPF loss, no cash for next home.
All this has a filter down, disruptive effect on:
retirement plans
investment plans
childrens’ education plans
$576,257 is owed to the MCST for privatization balance. But some of these owners who did not pay up on time like the rest of us, need not worry – they will have their debts paid by the diligent folk whose agreement was never sought. Not only that, if they have also chalked up huge interest penalties, that too will be paid on their behalf. So, on hindsight, it would have been better NOT to pay privatization costs promptly.
.
Private Apartment –--> en bloc –--> public housing
Don’t pay you bills –--> more money from en bloc
Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of en-bloc, Tampines Court style.
Private Apartment –--> en bloc –--> public housing
Don’t pay you bills –--> more money from en bloc
Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of en-bloc, Tampines Court style.
Jun 11, 2008
Another call for 1-for 1 exchange
Property index and saga of the three-hump camel
Straits Times - 12 Sep 2009
SINGAPORE’S Private Property Market Index looks like a mutant three-hump camel, registering a 45 per cent bust from the second quarter of 1996, a 40 per cent boom from the fourth quarter of 1998, a 20 per cent bust from the second quarter of 2000 and a 58 per cent rise from the first quarter of 2004, with the latest figures in the second quarter of this year dropping back to below the second hump.
Yet National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said on Sept 2 that ‘as far as (private home) prices are concerned, we want to make sure… there is no excessive speculation’.
With a three-hump camel of boom-busts in 13 years, at what point is speculation deemed ‘excessive’? When a slew of sub-sale advertisements appear on soft launch and when kettles are owned for more than five years, yet property ownership of less than five years may not be ‘property trading’, it makes a mockery of tax laws.
Currently in land-scarce Singapore, we have 4.84 million residents (6,814 people per sq km), with a 6.5 million target population in 40 years. As Central Provident Fund savings are largely locked in home ownership, residential real estate goes beyond Mr Market’s wheeling and dealing. To draw a parallel, it is equivalent to rice harvests in Vietnam as an agro-economy – except we are in perpetual drought.
Mr Mah urges Three Thinks – ‘think carefully, think long term, think about the unexpected’ – before we buy property.
I did Three Thinks before buying a condominium unit. Now I cannot do even One Thing when my neighbours sell the roof over my head.
Property is all about location and timing. Retirement wealth is at stake. Can Mr Mah follow South Korean laws and do One Thing for Singaporeans: ‘Sell one, return one’ instead of ‘Double the price or half the size’ in collective property sales?
Tan Meng Lee (Ms)
Jun 4, 2008
Developers turn landlords
"PROPERTY developers such as Koh Brothers and GuocoLand, which bought collective sale sites during boom times, are now becoming landlords as they wait out the market slowdown.
They are leasing out apartments they bought to existing occupants as a way to generate some income instead of simply leaving them vacant.
They are leasing out apartments they bought to existing occupants as a way to generate some income instead of simply leaving them vacant.
.
If developers were to launch their projects now, it may be challenging for them to reach their target price for some of the projects.’
.
Frasers Centrepoint said it may offer short-term leases to the former owners of the 185-unit Flamingo Valley, a freehold site in Siglap Road that it bought for $194 million in February last year.
‘We had 50 owners who wrote to ask us to extend their lease…They haven’t found anything suitable,’ said the firm’s general manager of development and property, Mr Cheang Kok Kheong.
He said the firm was likely to extend a lease of six months to a year. This would ‘give us more time to think about our plans’."
Frasers Centrepoint said it may offer short-term leases to the former owners of the 185-unit Flamingo Valley, a freehold site in Siglap Road that it bought for $194 million in February last year.
‘We had 50 owners who wrote to ask us to extend their lease…They haven’t found anything suitable,’ said the firm’s general manager of development and property, Mr Cheang Kok Kheong.
He said the firm was likely to extend a lease of six months to a year. This would ‘give us more time to think about our plans’."
.
If developers were to launch their projects now, it may be challenging for them to reach their target price for some of the projects.’ - MR MAK of Knight Frank, on companies holding out for better prices
Straits Times - 04 June 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)