Letters

Aug 27

ST Forum

In the name of my neighbours, is there no hope for me?

I REFER to the article "Fix bank-or-CPF charge problem" (Aug 20) by Jessica Cheam. She called an en bloc sale "a forced sale in the name of urban renewal".

I might add that en blocs are "a forced process in the name of my neighbours". As my condo tries to go en bloc again for the fourth time, I am now at the mercy of en bloc team No. 4 which has decided, after they formed a year ago, to actually stop short of the Collective Sale Agreement signing. As most of us know, this is a technical ploy to keep the collective sale in the estate hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles, for an indefinite period. Because the clock only starts ticking on the collective sale once the first SP (subsidiary proprietor) has signed the CSA.

So, how long will we live under threat of this and every en bloc? Every year after our 10th year in the condo? Should families be allowed to be unsettled in this way? Did the framers of those en bloc laws consider this?

In my estate, there is a diehard group of pro-en bloc residents. They form about 20 per cent of the owners.

Again and again, they call for an extraordinary general meeting to "en bloc" the condobecause the laws allow this. So far, they have been defeated, yet they are indefatigable!

Once one disbands, a new committee rears its head. A committee, I might add, which consists primarily of owners who do not live in the condo and do not call it home.

Should my abode, my place of rest, be subject to this repeated unease? Should someone who does not value my estate and looks upon it as an economic tool, who has no roots in my community, be allowed to unsettle those who have nested there? Surely the core values of home and community should outweigh those of "urban renewal"? Should it always be about the money?

Property laws that are created to facilitate urban renewal and allow others to steamroll the nesting urges of 'Stayers' will always create dissent and unhappiness. Why should we have to fight tooth and nail to keep our home?

Is there Hope for Stayers?

Yeo Li Ying (Miss)
 

Aug 13

ST Forum

Collective sales destroy feeling of belonging

I REFER to Monday's article "Hope for owners fighting en bloc". I am a staunch "stayer" in a condo which has tried to go en bloc many times.There is a saying by Confucius: To have harmony in the nation, there must be harmony at home. Home, to many of us, is one of the most basic and important building blocks of a nation. But with collective sales, what is "home" when a majority can sell yours without your consent?I do not think this is the type of message we should be instilling in our young: "Your home is your home only until someone else sells it for you - without your consent."If every 10 years or so, your home goes on sale en bloc, how do you cultivate the emotional belonging and commitment to the home? Subsequently, without "home", how are the young going to cultivate the feeling of belonging and commitment to our nation? The young are the future pillars of our nation.What are we showing our young with the current en bloc situation, whose message seems to be "profit is everything"?
 

Aug 13

ST Forum

'Without architecture, we cannot remember'

THIS National Day, Kit Chan's 1998 song, Home, seems relevant as ever. "This is Home, surely, as my senses tell me," she croons.

My senses don't seem to agree. The primary school I studied in just six years ago has been razed; my secondary school's hall, stadium and (most importantly) canteen, I can no longer recognise.

Buildings as physical reminders of the past form perhaps the strongest of our cultural associations with a place. John Ruskin once remarked, "Without architecture, we cannot remember." So when we have strong associations with a building, it forms a part of our identity and it is imperative that we conserve it. For if the building is removed, most or all of the bond with the place goes with it.

Singapore's architectural heritage is largely confined to some colonial buildings in the Civic District, the racial heritage zones and novel but pointless things like our first bus stop.

However, even these are under severe threat in modern Singapore. The demolition of our first bus stop may have been averted, but such wondrous buildings as City Hall and the old Supreme Court have fallen prey to a plan which could diminish their charm.

The National Art Gallery, due to open in 2012, will join these two monuments with floating bridges; between the two buildings, a giant glass box, populated with giant steel trees.

The facade's integrity will be maintained (by law), but inside, the buildings will have lost much of their character. I envisage it being quite difficult to relive Mountbatten securing the surrender of the Japanese in City Hall when there are alien staircases hovering above me. And Norman Foster's spaceship in the background surely won't make the view from the Padang any prettier.

I fear the same tragic fate awaits the two buildings as befell Dempsey Village. An outpost that was once rustic, quaint and comfortingly anachronistic has now been overrun by rowdy seafood restaurants and hip bars.

A similar invasion is planned for the Gallery, where only a fifth of floor space is to be for exhibitions, with shops and restaurants that hope to make it the city's next "lifestyle destination" taking up the rest of the area. It does not seem as if the Gallery will be any different from the upcoming Ion Orchard or indeed, the rest of Singapore.

"There'll always be Singapore," Chan goes on to sing. True, our little red dot will grow bigger and glow brighter, yet somehow, I believe we may end up bereft of true attachment to Singapore, and that may be the biggest tragedy of all.

Aug 1, 2008

En-bloc sales a menace to society

SOCIETY watches in disbelief at what is happening at Laguna Park. And now we hear of the ugliness in other condos too.

If collective property sales lead to gangsterism and bullying tactics in normally law- abiding Singapore, shouldn't the sales be stopped?

The ingredients of greed, dismissing neighbours' wishes, community strife and now criminal damage to cars - where will it end?

Perhaps it is time for the powers-that-be to realise that, once the en-bloc monster raised its ugly head, there are many hydra heads emanating from the problem because love of money is the root of all evil.

I worry what values we are teaching our children by example: that it is more important to make a profit from our homes and barter away our values of community and our memories than to have honour and discipline and respect for our neighbours.That it is okay to sell a condo like Gillman Heights and be part-buyer at the same time.

Collective sales, by their very nature, encourage us to disrespect our neighbour's wishes.

Not everyone understands the unhappiness caused by collective sales. To live in fear of reprisal in Singapore is against every vestige of social harmony we have achieved since our first National Day. Perhaps some live in bungalows and cannot understand how it feels to live in a condo and be 'evicted' by some rule of 80 per cent one didn't vote for? To live in fear and anxiety of losing one's home daily because there is never just one attempt on one's home sweet home?

It is clearly time to call for a referendum on collective sale rules.

Laguna Park is a symptom of the drastic unwanted social upheaval we condo owners are going through. Collective sales are divisive and cut to the very core of our sense of belonging and community.

July 24

No more freehold

Since there is no right to property in the Singapore constitution and in the LTSA, and your neighbours can vote to sell away your property, despite your clear protest, there is no basic human right to keep your home in Singapore.

For those of us, the middle class, the foot soliders of the economy who love Singapore, there is no more sense of permanence or belonging since our homes can be taken away from us. Worse, we live in the fear that in both good times and bad, the law supports our greedy neighbours and eggs them on. The law slights minorities and favours whatever-the-cost-to-logic-and-fair-play en bloc rulings.

So far, the law has contorted itself in every which way to ensure speedy and unfair en bloc rulings.

For Horizon Towers, the deal was clearly done in bad faith. But the court did not think so.

For Gillman Heights, the NUS involvement reeks and is a national disgrace. A lesson to our children indeed of money over honour.

For Airview Towers, despite the lack of two vital signatures, the courts ruled for the majority.

If Singapore is willling to sacrifice the foot soldiers of the economy in favour of urban renewal, and take away their very homes without conscience, making a mockery of due process into the bargain, there will never be a happy en bloc.

In fact, the very concept of “freehold” now belongs to developers. There is no “freehold” for the citizens of Singapore. At best, one can stay in one’s home 20 years before one gets booted out in the interest of urban renewal.

So, there’s no 99 years leasehold for en bloc victims. 15-20 year tenure is the new reality.

This is my country, this is the foot soldiers contribution to Singapore - my home, my memories, my community.

Majulah Singapura!


July 24

Unhumanitarian law

I think that it is immoral, if not un-humanitarian, for my neighbour to kick me out of my home just because he wants to reap a more handsome profit. To add insult to indignity, I’m also made to bear the guilt of standing in the way of his loot.

Somehow in Utopia Singapore, the Quest for Money seems to be a fundamental civil right that justifies denying property rights and taking away one’s home.

The law has legalized forced eviction. So pro-enbloccers can say they are operating within the law, therefore their conscience is clear. If the law allows my neighbour to drag me out of my home, can my neighbour really say that he is doing nothing wrong? If the law says an act is OK, it is really OK in good conscience? Legalizing an act, does not make the act morally right.

July 18

STB not the right tribunal ?

I refer to the report in Today about the Horizon Towers ruling.
The judge has ruled that the fact that a higher offer was received for the en bloc sale of the condo is not within the purview of the Strata Title Board; neither are any allegations of less than stellar conduct among the parties. And that if the STB has to hear such matters, it would never get its job done.

So, if I get an offer for my home of say, $7m, and the en bloc sales committee of my condo gets an offer of $5m, my recourse is to sue in the courts while the Strata Title Board can rule for the $5m sale and proceed? This defies logic and good business sense.

Moreover, if the STB is not equipped to handle matters pertinent to good faith, highest sale price, conduct of sales committee etc, it is time that approval of en bloc sales be given to a specialised legal tribunal which does.

Further, if the LTSA does not provide sufficient coverage to protect the rights of a subsidiary proprietor who expects a fair and holisitic hearing of their grievances, it is time for all en blocs to be held in abatement until such matters can be seriously addressed.

Horizon Towers is a mega test case for en blocs and our laws have not been able to adequately address the many questionable issues which have arisen in this matter. It is time to take stock, and address the serious inadequacies of our laws.

01 May 2008

Re-thinking our utilisation of land

My condo's proposed en bloc price is $1,500 per sq ft per plot ratio. As the agents explain it, the developer must sell at $1,800 psf to simply break even. This means pricing the new condo at well over $2,000 per sq ft. And that's district 21 and not even d 9!!. Imagine a price tag of $2m for a 1,000 sq ft apartment! The monthly payback mean one would have to comfortably earn $20,000 per month to pay back for a mere 1,000 sq ft apartment! *

Aren't en blocs contributing to raising the price of property beyond what is achievable for most?

One cannot help but notice the vast unused, green tracts of land near expressways, east coast parkway, etc. In many areas one sees a condo up for en bloc, there is a green unutilised tract of land close by.

Can the government look at accelerating the release of such sites to meet demand ? If the government were to release more untilised land to developers, the per sq foot cost of such land would only be one fifth what en bloc condos are realising. Developers would be able to price their projects much lower, resulting in a psf reduction of the property market - where prices are pushed ever higher due to the high cost of enbloc sales.

Even with the recent market woes, enblocs are priced so unrealistically that all who sell en bloc cannot afford to buy a similar new apartment.

A lower psf price for land (from land rather than en bloc sales) would mean that our young adults would be able to afford housing more easily, a financial quandry for many Stayers who end up paying mortgages for up to 30 years - their whole adult lives. For the generation which paid $400 to $800 psf, it was already a struggle. Surely we do not want our sons and daughters to be so disenchanted with the price of home at $1,500 to $3,000 psf that they shift their desire to live elsewhere? Isn't this already happening?

A greater efficiency of our land bank would also prevent wastage of having buildings still in good condition from undergoing demolition before the need is real. Because of the rush to enbloc, there has been a push to demonise old condos as slums. Old buildings whether 20 years or 30 years which are refurbished periodically are viable, have character and add variety to our homescape.

And for those who live in older bigger apartments with loans paid up, they will get to keep their spacious homes and enjoy being settled in their retirement years without having to worry about new loans or new locations or cramped spaces.

Perhaps if we could re-focus our utliisation of land, and stop fuelling the en bloc bubble, this efficiency would bring long term benefits to all.

1 May 2008 (ST)

DO IT THE OLD WAY

'Why not put an immediate stop to this entire flawed, resource-wasting, socially divisive process and revert to a... supply-and-demand property market situation?''

MR DENNIS BUTLER, responding to a letter by Madam Ong Boot Lian calling for an end to the collective property sale mediation process

1 May, 2008 (ST)

Not feasible to raise en bloc consent level to 99%

I REFER to the letter 'Raise en bloc consent level to 99%' by Ms Susan Prior (April 19) .

Her letter seems to me to be a way of asking the relevant government authorities to revert to the 100 per cent consent ratio for collective sales. How so?

For apartment buildings and condominiums with 50 units or fewer, a 99 per cent consent ratio means that 49.5 units have to agree to the collective sale.

As this is absurd, rounding up to the nearest whole figure means 50 units, that is, 100 per cent. Similarly, for developments with 99 units or fewer, a 99 per cent consent ratio means 98.01 units. Rounding up means that 99 units have to agree, or 100 per cent again. Over the years, how many projects that had been sold collectively had 99 units or fewer each?

I would say a significant number, going from my clippings of such reports published in the papers.
If Ms Prior's suggestion is adopted, these developments would not have succeeded in being sold collectively.

However, I do agree that fairly new condominiums should not go under the en bloc hammer. My proposal is for the relevant authorities to consider disallowing buildings less than 20 years old from being demolished, unless there are extenuating circumstances, like a structural defect.
This does not prevent developers from buying and refurbishing them via a collective sale if they find that option financially viable.

Secondly, to allow for urban renewal to continue but at a more gradual pace, the consent ratio could be amended as follows: Buildings 20-24 years old (80 per cent); 25-29 years old (75 per cent); 30-34 years old (70 per cent); 35-39 years old (65 per cent); more than 40 years old (60 per cent).

Ace Matthews

24 April, 2008

En-bloc

Dear Sir,

I refer to the letter, "Flaw in en-bloc mediation process", by Mdm Ong Boot Lian in ST, 23 Apr 08. It is ironic that the writer should talk about minority objectors causing hardship for the majority. The hardship she enumerates is nothing compared to the heartache, anguish and despair the owners who don't want to sell face time and time again in the different condos that go en bloc. They are turfed out of their beloved homes by a handful bent on making money at the cost of other peoples' misery. They have to move to smaller flats because that's all they can afford with the money they get from the sale. To add to the pain and suffering, no sooner has one en bloc attempt failed than they are subjected to another en bloc process. If we are talking about inflicting hardship, it is obvious that it is the majority owners, or rather a handful of speculators, who are doing so repeatedly.

I agree with Ms Susan Prior's letter, "Raise en-bloc consent ratio to 99%" in ST, 19 Apr 08. The original intention of the law to aid redevelopment has been submerged in the opportunistic desire to make money. This has been at the cost of much dissatisfaction amongst the minority owners. Even if 15 % have objected to the sale in each case, considering the number of en blocs that have taken place, this adds up to a lot of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. The ones who benefit the most are speculators who buy up condos just for their potential for en-bloc. The law should be amended or repealed entirely so as to encourage these speculators, who are obviously flush with cash, to venture into more imaginative and creative ways of making money without causing unhappiness to anybody.

23 April 2008

Endgame of Enblocs

With reference to the letter by Ong Boot Lian, she thinks that Majority owners cannot commit to a home, may lose their new homes, etc because of the Minority. Apart from her stand that due process is an inconvenience which "adds insult to injury", her reasoning is fallacious.

Any sales process for an en bloc takes two years or more under the current rules (one year to sign CSA, one year to find a buyer). These rules were not created by minority owners. And as can be seen from a spate of recent failed enblocs, even majority owners are beginning to cheer failure; they realise that selling two years before they get their money is actually the reason why enblocs are not good for either the minority or the majority. The timeline of the En Bloc Endgame is a killer.

The fallacy of Mdm Ong's assumption is that an enbloc is a windfall. Yes, if you get your funds within the timeline of a normal sale (sell and buy in the same market). No, if you get your money much later (Russian Roulette).

As an en bloc victim who has gone thru the sale, I would like all Singaporeans to realise, once and for all: I signed in 2006. I got my money in 2008. The market rose; I had to buy a new home, pay to renovate it, pay stamp duty and rent costs while renovating. My cash flow became negative. I downsized. I moved out of my location of comfort. It is not worth it! En blocs are not a windfall because of the timeline needed by the due process. Why Singaporeans are not more wary of signing up for en blocs is because too much hype has been made of the cash windfall. Trust me. That is a big fat fallacy.
 

23 April 2008

So easy to lose our homes!

I note that reply from Ong Boot Lian's (ST Forum 23 April) to Ms Susan Prior's letter in which Mdm Ong cites recent cases where the minority have received a disproportionate and higher return in an en bloc sale.

While there should be safeguards to ensure that the system of enblocs is not abused, the whole concept of being forced to sell one's property lies at the crux of the issue. Now that there is an avenue for the 80% to force the 20% to sell their homes, the process should be more stringent, not less stringent. Laws should be equal for all Singaporeans, meaning fair. They should not be easier for the majority.

If some of the minority hold the process to ransom, it is because the process is flawed and allows for this. The sincere minority who oppose en bloc sales deserve a fair hearing. Their homes are at stake.

There are many of us who oppose en blocs because we want to keep our homes and will not sell at any price. We value our roots, our community and deserve to have stability in our home life. I am with Ms Prior on the 99% revision. As for Mr WIlliam Tan's proposal of lowering her suggestion to 90%, we should not make it easy to lose our homes. The enbloc system is unsettling the middle class and giving our children a sense of transience regarding the home. Home should not be merely about the mighty dollar and dislocation. The need for change is upon us.

17 April 2008

Too many powers to Sales Comittees in en blocs

I understand that the Ministry of Law is reviewing procedures for enbloc legislation. The Ministry should seek detailed feedback from owners who are experiencing enblocs now.

Under the current rules, vast powers are given to Sales Committees to choose and decide many matters pertaining to the sale of their estate. Matters such as sales price, collective sales agreements, terms for developers, appointment and commission structures for lawyers and agents. Although the system ostensibly provides for subsidiary proprietors to vote on these matters at EOGMs, the dialogue and due diligence process which is actually allowed by the SC is tainted to say the least. EOGMs for enbloc sales have become raucous with pro-sales groups literally shouting down and openly insulting those who wish to ask questions. CSAs are not open for discussion and not even presented beforehand. The hurry flurry of the sales committee to achieve their goal of selling the estate results in any SP who asks questions being treated like a pariah even by the person chairing the meeting. SPs who ask to attend SC meetings are shut out. Many decisions are treated as a fait accompli and SPs are barred from knowing how decisions were made. In my estate, all but one of seven agents turned down the offer to do the en bloc and this information was concealed by the sales committee. If the information were known, and the reasons for the declining of the other six made public, no costly EOGMs would have taken place to begin with because the en bloc was obviously borderline feasible.

Since an enbloc is still a sale of one's own home, a more measured, accountable and transparent process should be put in place to prevent the abuses and sheer hooliganism now taking place.

A system of auditing should be put in place for all enblocs so that sales committee activities can be scrupulously viewed by a neutral (non-owning) knowledgeable third party who reports ALL MATTERS openly to pro sellers and stayers alike.


17 April 2008

The Sword of Damocles

I refer to the letter from Professor Mak Yuen Teen (in the Business Times 15 April 2008 Consider the wider interests of society), the writer of whom I understand is a minority dissenter from Gillman Heights.

The experience of a Subsidiary Proprietor being enbloced is a time for dismay.

You feel beseiged, expend much energy fighting to preserve your home, and are forced to try to garner support from like-minded SPs, who with you, feel desperate to defend a concept which does not exist within the law - home. Instead of enjoying your family life, you dwell under the enbloc sword of Damocles. Life is no longer peaceful and your community is torn apart by strife. In effect, you are at war.

How our society could have come to this anarchy simply rests with a fundamental lack of a Singaporean's right to property. It is not contained in our constitution and was amended out of the LTSA when the first enbloc rules were put in place in 1989.
Before this, one had to get 100% consent to enbloc. No more. It is easy to lose one's home now.

Many feel that the government will never repeal this 80-20 rule as it is now enshrined in law. If laws cause human misery, they should be reviewed.

And look at the misery it is causing all around us. Minority dissenters are springing up in various condos as can be seen from the many anti-enbloc blogsites of the condos across Singapore.

Like Dr Mak says, only if you are being or have been en bloced can you understand how it feels.

If the last bastion of a Singaporean's need to have home as sacrosanct is taken away from them, through the sheer greed and manipulation of others, the dismay and discontent of the Stayers in condos will surely be perpetuated time and again until the 80-20 law is repealed.
 

16 April 2008

Decreasing the percentage for the minority to object to en blocs

Dear Sir

When the LTSA was changed in favour of the 80% majority, it was changed from 100% approval to 80% approval
on the following basis:

a) there was a small minority (as we understand it) in places like Kim Lim mansion who were blocking the sales from going through

b) the change of the original en bloc law was to facilitate redevelopment in really run down condos

c) the law was meant to allow for the intensification of land use in prime areas.

These original intentions have changed radically in that

a) now more than 20% have to oppose the enbloc process in order to save their homes

b) condos which are in very good condition have too often gone under the en bloc hammer

c) condos in non prime areas are going en bloc and not always with the intensification previously envisaged.

Since thousands of homes have gone enloc and there is now talk of en bloc in too many condominiums, can the government consider reviewing the ratio for en bloc success to 99% consent of SPs?

With the proliferation of resistance springing up in condos from Botanic Gardens, Bayshore Park, Clementi Park, Green Lodge, Dairy Farm Estate, Mandarin Gardens and more, each with their own blogsite, there is obviously a growing sentiment for staying put which the powers-that-be should take account of.


Troubled Times Indeed!

If all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection in the holding and disposition of property, surely apartment owners are to be protected equally to land owners ?

Under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, 80% of residents in a condominium can force the remaining 20% to sell their apartment. This is what another stayer obviously meant when she said,"in Singapore your neighbours can force you to sell your home" (through the provisions of the LTSA). The question now is, can an apartment owner seek equal protection from an en bloc under the Constitution?

Singapore should recognise a right to one's own home. Individual rights are granted in constitutions across the civilised world on the basis of their importance to people: the more important the right, the more inherent it is to human dignity, and therefore the more constitutional protection it deserves. One could not think of any possession more important than a home, as a person’s biggest investment - which should be his to keep or dispose of.


If Singaporeans are not given the right to own their homes fully, how are we expected to provide a mindset which encourages Singaporeans to stay and not seek for greener pastures? Societal divide is assured, if a neighbour, knowing of your passion for your home, can ignore you and vote to take your home away from you.

THE PROCESS

A deep divide created by the en bloc situation has surfaced: apartment owners have even less safeguards against their neighbours’ taking their homes than in the business arena.

Minority owners of condos going thru enblocs are bewildered at their lack of rights : for instance, they do not have a right to attend collective sale committee meetings, and there is no limit on the how often and when en bloc sales committees can be formed – be it 2 days after the failure of a previous en bloc, or 2 weeks after multi million dollar upgrading works have commenced. There are instances of collective sale committees refusing to release minutes of their sub-committees, where vital decisions have taken place, making use of a loophole in the Land Titles (Strata) Act that requires them to release minutes of only main committee meetings. Where such proceedings concerning your own home can be made in secret by others with vested interests, we are in troubled times indeed.

In takeover bids for shares in public listed companies, directors are required to hire independent financial advisors to advise shareholders.

Compare the information which shareholders can obtain, to the owners of recent condos in the media, many of whom have lost millions in the largest investments of their lives, simply because they did not realise that the eventual en bloc proceeds would not cover the cost of their future home.

Perhaps collective sale committees should be required to provide independent financial advisors to inform owners. Perhaps there should be a mandatory 20% of the sales committee consisting of dissenters, just like public companies must have independent directors. Transparency and accountability need to be provided for in en bloc sales and the current system is tainted simply to push the sale through.

While constitutional redress is sought, apartment owners should have access to multiple checks and balances. For now, it is distressing that even shareholders of public listed entities have more safeguards than owners in condominiums.


RAISE THE PERCENTAGE TO 70% TO CALL FOR EOGMS

We refer to the costly EOGMs which take place in en blocs and the need to monitor the overall en bloc process.

Perhaps the Ministry should also tighten legislation for condos which repeatedly try to go en bloc with only a 30% minority? In our condo, although an enbloc failed at a reserve price of $1.4b last year, within two months another new committee was formed - and for the same reserve price. This is obviously doomed to failure as less than 50% of the Subsidiary Proprietors voted for the first one.

However, the rules now do not preclude repeated attempts by the minority. This is a waste of MCST funds. Legislation should be enacted to limit the number of en bloc attempts a condo can make to a) once in 10 years and b) unless 70% of the SPs agree to call for an EOGM. The current rule enabling merely 30% to call for an EOGM (and set in motion a lengthy 2 year process from formation of CSC to sale) is too low a percentage to ascertain any prospect of success for an en bloc and therefore gives rise to wasted funds, not to mention the disruption of the lives of the SPs who wish to stay on.

21 March, 2008

Kampung spirit in condos

Dear Sir,

I refer to the letter, "Sense of kampung in condos overstated", by Mr Lau Chee Kian in ST, 20 Mar 08.

Contrary to what he says, the kampung spirit in condos is very much alive. You can see it in the playgrounds where children of different races get together to kick a ball around. You can see it in the camaraderie of a festive get-together where neighbours of different races share a meal and catch up with each other. You can see it in the help rendered to the temporarily home-bound, say after an operation, when neighbours of different races offer them food and other help.

The kampungs of our childhood have given way to condos and other high-rise homes. Don't destroy them in the name of greed, thinly disguised as "redevelopment". Don't let our children and grandchildren lose their sense of community by continuously being subjected to the atrocity of one en bloc after another.


20 March 2008

KS Rajah Forum letter

Dear Sir

I refer to the letter from KS Rajah in today's Forum page. Mr Rajah has commented that Ms Susan Prior's view that "your home is not really your home and can be taken away by your neighbours" is not entirely correct. As we all know, the 80%-20% rule in enblocs, which Mr Rajah fails to mention in his letter, applies in Singapore. If 80% of your neighbours vote to go en bloc, then one can lose one's home because of the majority rule.

Mr Rajah goes on to say owner's rights are protected. Does this mean that an individual's right to own one's home (albeit condo) is enshrined in our constitution and that en bloc sales are therefore against the broader spirit of the Singapore constitution?
 

14 March 2008

Re: Eroding our Sense of Kampong

Pl refer to the Straits Times article March 14th entitled "Some Gillman Heights owners fight on for their homes".

Gillman Heights is an excellent example of what is happening on the en bloc scene today:
a) minority owners are fighting desperately to keep their homes
b) minority and majority owners are finding that the replacement value like for like in terms of location, size and price does not result in a win-win situation for en blocers
c) en blocs create social tension within private housing estates which is eroding the fabric of our society and our sense of kampong.

The bitter jeers and ugly scenes reported recently at the Bayshore Park EOGM (reported New Paper 13 March) where the minority were not allowed a proper hearing are becoming typical of en bloc meetings across the island: neighbour is pitted against neighbour.

The increasing litigation for virtually all recent en bloc attempts is a symptom of a sickness from which our society needs relief ; this coupled with the increasing awareness that, in Singapore, your home is not really your home and can be taken away from you by your neighbours; all these factors are eroding our sense of home and innate security.

And last, many en blocers are realising too late that, after they signed on the dotted line, what they thought was a windfall is a shortfall. It takes two to four years to get en bloc proceeds - by which time the market has negated profits and resulted in en blocers having to downgrade or take loans to pay for their replacement homes. The dislocation to the elderly is especially poignant. What price will we pay for eroding our sense of kampong? What price have we paid already?

27 February 2008

FORUM PAGE LETTER FREQUENCY OF EN BLOCS

RAISE THE PERCENTAGE TO 70% TO CALL FOR EOGMS

We refer to the letter from Radha Khoo of the Ministry of Law on the costly EOGMs which take place in en blocs and the need to monitor the overall en bloc process. (ST Forum 27 Feb)

Perhaps the Ministry should also tighten legislation for condos which repeatedly try to go en bloc with only a 30% minority? In Clementi Park, although an enbloc failed at a reserve price of $1.4b last year, within two months another new committee was formed - and for the same reserve price. This is obviously doomed to failure as less than 50% of the Subsidiary Proprietors voted for the first one.

However, the rules now do not preclude repeated attempts by the minority. This is a waste of MCST funds. Legislation should be enacted to limit the number of en bloc attempts a condo can make to a) once in 10 years and b) unless 70% of the SPs agree to call for an EOGM. The current rule enabling merely 30% to call for an EOGM (and set in motion a lengthy 2 year process from formation of CSC to sale) is too low a percentage to ascertain any prospect of success for an en bloc and therefore gives rise to wasted funds, not to mention the disruption of the lives of the SPs who wish to stay on.

13 February 2008

Preserving Condo styles from the 1980s

My condo Clementi Park was built in the 1980s. It is a rambling, spacious and spread-out estate with 494 units on a million sq ft of land. There isn't a condo like it anywhere in Singapore. In the heart of my condo lies the unspoilt woods of Clementi Park. The hillside terrain, mature trees and park-like atmosphere would never be planned in the hustle bustle world of today with its too-close buildings and utilitarian maximisation of land.

Apart from the Clementi Park hill, the blocks of the condo were built to match the undulating character of the land. Blocks were built into the hillside so that a fourth floor apartment could be four storeys high from the front, but on road level at the rear. Unique stepped structures with charm and quaintness. Surrounded by utter greenery.

Today, we marvel at conservation houses of a hundred years ago for their historical value. Too many of those were demolished before we could fully appreciate what the loss of them would mean to us. I wonder if fifty years from now, our children's children will find unique estates like Clementi Park of historical value architecturally? In any case, for its stunning internal nature parks, it is already worth preserving.

In view of the urban renewal which is happening to Singapore's old condos at an astonishing rate, perhaps we should stop the demolition of mature estates for now. Enough. Let's look at the buildings of the last two, three or four decades with a different eye. They are a part of our history too!
 

27 December 2007

More legislation needed on en bloc process to protect sitting owners
who do not wish to sell

I hope there will be some preventive guidelines in the future to protect sitting owners in condos which have failed to go en bloc, or which have spent substantial funds on upgrading, from being allowed to try and try again for en bloc to the disruption of the lives of their neighbours.

I note in my condo the renewed dissent by residents against the forming of yet another committee to try for the en bloc process.

The enbloc process in our condo was attempted for about a year last year and failed to receive even 50% of the vote. Immediately after this failed attempt, one committee was disbanded (due to lack of success and lack of votes) but another one was almost immediately formed in November this year. This has unsettled many of the residents and such social upheaval is becoming all too common in Singapore, the only country where one's neighbours have a legal right to say whether one is outed from one's home regardless of one's wish to stay.

As a resident of the condo, I am not in favour of en bloc. En bloc processes are disruptive to say the very least. Moreover, our condo is right now in the process of upgrading at a cost of $2m. An enbloc being attempted after a majority of us have voted to upgrade would be a sheer waste of owner's funds. Our upgrading will only complete around Mid 2008!

There is currently no mechanism in place to deal with this. This is harmful to our societal psyche. Perhaps a time ban of say fifteen years could be put in place for condos which have spent more than $500,000 for upgrading? Some balancing mechanism to reflect and honour decisions made by subsidiary proprietors should be in place. And some respite from enbloc discussion - say ten years - if one attempt has failed?

I hope there will be some legislative guidelines in the future to address this issue to protect those who live in their condo homes and have spent money to upgrade, as opposed to those who have merely invested for en bloc profit. Not to mention the emotional climate of upheaval which sitting owners, many of them retirees - can be subjected to yearly in having to protect their homes from endless discussions of forced sale. The effects of the en bloc law need review.