Reply to Min Law from Pariah

MinLaw's reply asserts that: "for condominiums, the question is what number of owners is needed to make such a decision" and "in finding the appropriate balance, we also need to take into account the need for modernisation, rejuvenation of estates and optimisation of land use".

Within Singapore's national framework of political and social policies on home ownership, most Singaporeans used CPF/private savings to buy condos. Therefore, a condo is our inflationary hedge towards building our eventual retirement nest-egg. First, property is all about Location and Timing. Second, retirement savings are at jeopardy. Third, roof over the family's head is at stake.

Hence, calibration of en bloc law must necessarily go beyond the above two considerations cited by MinLaw. Instead, MinLaw needs to honour what was said in Parliament in 1999 when en bloc laws were first promulgated about "creating more housing units for Singaporeans".

MinLaw must be cognizant that NO owner from any en bloc estate is able to buy back a replacement unit in the same vicinity unless the owner is prepared to pay "double the price" or suffer "half the size" in replacement. This is despite the improved land use intensity post-en bloc! Since the PAP governs by studying hard statistics, MinLaw should be able to substantiate or refute this market observation.

At "double the price or half the size", it defies Rectitude and Logic that the Govt is unlocking land value for Corporate Developers, instead of Singapore citizens as Existing Condo Owners.

The Pariah, singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com

Queries on En Bloc Laws Min Law Replies

I REFER to Ms Jeannette Chong Aruldoss' letter, 'Questions on collective sale laws' (Aug 25). It states that the Strata Titles Board (STB) will consider only financial objections under current laws. This is not accurate.

The STB must also consider objections on grounds that the transaction was not done in good faith, in addition to financial objections.

Ms Aruldoss says the prospect of an objector having to pay the legal costs of the majority owners is intimidating. Most cases which have gone to the STB have in fact been successfully mediated by the STB. If there is no settlement, then an objector will have to decide if he wants to take the matter further to adjudication by the STB or by the courts. He will have to pay costs if his objections are untenable. It would be unfair to the other owners if an objector can unduly delay the collective sale transaction, at no cost to him, without good reasons.

Ms Aruldoss also seems to suggest that only strata title owners bear the burden of land optimisation. This is quite inaccurate and ignores the history and impact of land acquisition in Singapore.

The Government's land acquisition schemes have mostly affected land owners. The general public, on the other hand, have been the primary beneficiaries of such acquisitions, through public housing, building of infrastructure for public benefit and various other developments, including the building of condominiums - the latter allowed condominium owners to enjoy the land which was originally enjoyed by land owners.

The Masterplan sets out the different types of uses, including land for public housing, condominiums, industrial and commercial uses, as well as landed properties. Within the framework of the Masterplan (and subject to possible acquisition by the Government), owners of the various properties have the right to decide for themselves whether their properties should be developed.

For properties owned by individuals, each individual makes this decision. For condominiums, the question is what number of owners is needed to make such a decision. There have been suggestions that even one objector should be able to stop such a sale. But many stakeholders oppose that approach as it would give disproportionate say to one owner. In finding the appropriate balance, we also need to take into account the need for modernisation, rejuvenation of estates and optimisation of land use.

The law currently requires 80 per cent of owners (by share value and strata area) to agree if the property is at least 10 years old, and 90 per cent of owners to agree if the property is less than 10 years old. Our approach is comparable with that of Ontario, Hawaii and Hong Kong.

Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Head (Corporate Communications)
Ministry of Law