Law’s purpose to maximise scarce landIn some cases, interest of the majority must overrule individual
rights According to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the percentage of owners required for a collective sale is 90 per cent for properties less than 10 years old, while the requisite percentage is 80 per cent for properties more than 10 years old. If the current collective sale law is so “wrong to be begin with” and “take(s) away another’s right”, as Letty Aw Siew Hua asserts, Natural Law Theory suggests that this manifestly unjust law should be struck down by the courts. Alternatively, legal philosopher Lord Devlin opines that the law should not be enforced if it runs contrary to the standard of a “reasonable” or “right-minded” person. The parliamentary intent behind allowing collective sales without the unanimous agreement of the owners is to provide the impetus for higher intensity and better quality housing in land-scarce Singapore. I believe that the continued development and maximisation of our scarce land is reasonable and the current state of our law is consistent with other jurisdictions such as in Hong Kong. The overriding interest of the majority trumping individual rights can also be seen in the Land Acquisition Act whereby the Government may acquire property on a compulsory basis with due compensation to the individual owners. The Horizon Towers saga was unfortunate but this does not necessarily suggest that the law is deficient. Owners had detrimentally relied on the false premise of the sale going through and went on to purchase other property. Perhaps the solution is not a review of the en bloc concept but rather, greater public awareness and education of the legal procedures and implications in a collective sale agreement. The public should be especially aware that the decision of the Strata
Titles Board and High Court is not final, due to the possibility of their
decisions being overturned by the Court of Appeal.
|
| << Back to Archives |