Parliament Says

LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the main purpose of this Bill, which amends the Land Titles (Strata) Act, is to provide additional safeguards and greater transparency for all owners involved in en bloc sales, ie, both majority and minority owners. The proposed amendments address the concerns of owners over the lack of clarity, transparency and safeguards in the current process of en bloc sales. They also ensure that the interests of all owners are taken into consideration more adequately. While the amendments are intended to achieve those objectives, we have also borne in mind that the amended law does not make it unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale.

Members will recall that during the Committee of Supply debate in March, I had informed the House of the changes we intended to make to the en bloc sale legislation following a review by a Study Team as well as consultations which we had with the President and Deputy Presidents of the Strata Titles Board (STB). Those proposed changes which I mentioned included:

(1) Including an additional consent requirement by number of units;

(2) Giving STB the power to increase the sale proceeds in cases where the STB is satisfied that it would be just and equitable to do so;

(3) Empowering the STB to issue guidelines on the allowable expenditures that will be taken into account in the evaluation of financial loss claims;

(4) Empowering the STB to disregard any technical or procedural irregularity if it will not prejudice any owner's interest; and

(5) Various improvements to the en bloc sale procedures to further enhance transparency and certainty of the en bloc sale process.

After I announced those changes, my Ministry conducted public consultations on those proposed changes. In these consultations, we received over 400 suggestions from more than 100 respondents. The vast majority of the suggestions were about making the en bloc sale process clearer, fairer and more transparent. We also had discussions with about 40 industry players experienced in handling en bloc sales. They include lawyers, property consultants, developers, academics and representatives of the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers (SISV). We also obtained further inputs from the STB.

The amendments in this Bill have taken into consideration the feedback and suggestions we received. Basically, Sir, the Bill includes the changes which I mentioned in the House during the Committee of Supply, except for one revision which I shall shortly mention. In addition, we have also included additional changes based on some useful suggestions received during the public consultations.

Let me now outline some of these changes.

Additional consent requirement

The first concerns additional consent requirement. Currently, an application for an en bloc sale can be made if there is consent from the owners holding at least 80% of the share values if the development is more than 10 years old, and 90% if the development is less than 10 years old. We had originally proposed to add a further requirement of consent from the owners forming at least 80% of the units if the development is more than 10 years old, and 90% of the units if the development is less than 10 years old. I explained that this was to address a problem, especially felt in mixed developments, where residential unit owners hold lesser share values despite owning a substantial floor area and a substantial number of units.

However, after considering feedback which we received, we are now revising this further requirement so that it will be based on the area of lots as shown in the subsidiary strata certificates of title instead of the number of units. There are two reasons for this change.

Firstly, consent by number of units could result in owners of large commercial units subdividing their property into many strata lots so as to "create", as it were, additional votes for themselves. We think this will defeat the intention of adding the second consent requirement, which is really to mitigate the current bias against residential owners in a mixed development.

Secondly, consent by the number of units means that a commercial unit will have exactly the same voting rights as a residential unit, notwithstanding that the commercial unit may be many times larger in size. That may not be fair to owners of large units. Using the area of lots as a basis for the second condition of consent, we believe, will mitigate the current bias against residential owners in a mixed development. At the same time, it will not be to the extent of causing bias against the commercial owners of units with much larger areas.

Formation and proceedings of an en bloc sale committee

Next, let me turn to the changes concerning the formation and proceedings of an en bloc sale committee. Currently, the law does not contain rules to govern the function and proceedings of an en bloc sale committee. In the light of experience and complaints which we have received, we believe there is clearly a need to enhance procedural clarity in this regard. The Bill now has two schedules - the Second Schedule and the Third Schedule - which provide for rules to regulate the formation of the sale committee and the sale committee's proceedings. These rules have been adapted from the provisions in the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) 2004 in respect of the council of the management corporation.

On the formation of a sale committee, the Bill sets out, for example:

(1) A decision to form an en bloc sale committee will have to be made by ordinary resolution passed at a general meeting. The intention is that there can only be one sale committee per development at any time;

(2) Members of the sale committee will have to be elected at the meeting. Similarly, a sale committee may be dissolved by ordinary resolution at a general meeting;

(3) A person standing for election to the sale committee must meet certain eligibility criteria. For example, such a person has to be an owner of a unit in the development; or be nominated by an owner which is a company; or be a member of the immediate family of the owner nominating him; and

(4) A person standing for election to the sale committee must declare his interest or relationship, if any, with a property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or a law firm.

Turning to proceedings of a sale committee, the Bill sets out, amongst others, the following requirements:

(1) The sale committee shall convene general meetings to consider key issues, such as the appointment of any lawyer, property consultant or marketing agent; the apportionment of sale proceeds; the terms and conditions of the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA); and the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement. These changes, Sir, will ensure that owners will have the opportunity to discuss such key issues before consenting to them; and

(2) The sale committee is also asked to keep minutes of the proceedings and must, within seven days after each meeting, either display the minutes on the management corporation's notice board or pass the minutes to all owners.

Collective sale agreement

Currently, the law does not regulate the drafting and signing of the CSA. The Bill now contains new provisions to address the issue of owners not knowing what is contained in the CSA, in particular, the important information, before they sign it or being pressed to sign the CSA under duress or misrepresentation.

First, the en bloc sale committee must provide a preface to the CSA, listing the clause numbers and page numbers where important information, such as reserve price, apportionment method, etc, can be found. Secondly, when an owner signs the CSA in Singapore, the lawyer appointed for the en bloc sale committee will have to be present to explain the legal terms and liabilities and address any doubts that the owner may have. Third, an owner can rescind his agreement to be a party to the CSA within a five-day cooling-off period after signing the CSA for the first time.

The Bill also requires the sale committee to provide updates of the consent level every four weeks instead of the current eight weeks. The updates on the consent level must also be certified by a lawyer.

Mode of sale: by public tender or public auction

The amendments also seek to enhance the transparency of the mode of sale which, at present, is not regulated. Firstly, at every launch of an en bloc sale, it must be by public tender or auction. Following a tender or auction, especially one which fails to achieve the price acceptable to the sale committee, the sale committee can engage in follow-up negotiations for sale by private treaty with any bidder to get the best deal for the owners. But any sale by private treaty must be concluded within 10 weeks from the close of the tender or auction. Secondly, the sale committee must obtain from an independent valuer a valuation report on the value of the en bloc sale site as at the date of the close of the tender or auction on the same date. Thirdly, the sale committee will be required to provide the owners with information on the bids received as soon as practicable after the close of the tender or auction or, where applicable, after the sale committee has entered into a sale by private treaty.

Return of moneys in management fund and sinking fund

Sir, I will now talk about the return of moneys in management fund and the sinking fund. Under the current law, the buyer-developer is entitled to the moneys remaining in the management fund and sinking fund upon the termination of the strata scheme following a successful en bloc sale.

We have taken into account, Sir, feedback received and, therefore, the Bill makes a related amendment to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) to provide that upon the legal completion of an en bloc sale, the moneys in the management fund and sinking fund of a management corporation shall be returned as soon as practicable to the owners of the lots in the development, in shares proportional to the contributions levied on the owners by the management corporation.

Conclusion

Sir, in conclusion, let me say that the changes that I have highlighted are but the more major proposed changes in the Amendment Bill.

These proposed changes will not apply to developments where the required 80% or 90% majority of owners, based on share value, have signed the CSA as at the date of commencement of this amendment Act. These developments will not need to comply with the new requirements set out in the amending Act.

Sir, the public response to the proposed changes has been largely positive; although, of course, some have expressed concerns that the changes are too onerous while others are of the view that there should be even more safeguards. I think this range of reactions is to be expected.

Let me reiterate that the amendments to the en bloc sale legislation maintain a careful balance. They provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners but, at the same time, they have been drafted in such a way as not to make it unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.46 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to declare my interest as a subsidiary proprietor of a strata title development which is undergoing en bloc sale.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, en bloc or collective sale is a complex property transaction, and can be time-consuming and costly. In many cases, the process of getting consensus from subsidiary proprietors can be tedious and emotional. The recent reports in the media have shown that collective sales have resulted in unprofessional practices and non-compliances with the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) by various parties involved in the sale. This has caused much unhappiness among some subsidiary proprietors who are calling for more protection of their rights, and a more transparent and fair process in conducting en bloc sale.

Sir, since the amendment of the Land Titles (Strata) Act in 1999, a few hundred collective sales have been successfully transacted. This has provided many opportunities for these sold land parcels to attain higher development potential, thus addressing the challenge of land scarcity in Singapore. Despite the increase in collective sales, many strata title developments are still faced with difficulty in convincing their respective subsidiary proprietors to go for collective sale. Common barriers to collective sale include unrealistic reserve price, difficulty in contacting the subsidiary proprietors, different interests of owners, unfair apportionment of sale proceeds, non-compliance with the LTSA procedures, financial loss of some subsidiary proprietors, and non-monetary reasons such as emotional attachment, convenience or closeness to loved ones.

Sir, I hope the proposed Bill will address some of these collective sale barriers, and facilitate the successful completion of more en bloc sales so that more land parcels can be better utilised to cater for an increasing population in Singapore. Sir, I wish to highlight four areas of the Bill which I hope the Minister could clarify:

(1) Additional requirements based on floor area;

(2) Empowerment of the Strata Titles Board to increase sale proceeds for minority owners with valid objections;

(3) A more transparent and fair collective sale process; and

(4) Cooling-off period.

Additional requirements based on floor area

Sir, I support the new additional requirements as stated in clauses 7 and 10 to obtain the consent of subsidiary proprietors or proprietors of lots with not less than either 90% or 80% of the total floor area of all the lots for developments which are less than 10 years or more than 10 years respectively. Although this requirement will address concerns of minority shareholders, it may not facilitate en bloc sale as it will be more challenging to get consensus of owners of that required floor area. In mixed developments, the owners of residential and commercial units usually have different interests. Owners of residential units usually regard their units as homes and, thus, normally do not wish to go for en bloc. Commercial unit owners are usually driven by profits and operating costs. Thus, they tend to be less emotionally attached to the development and pro- en bloc if there is good financial return. This contradiction of interests among different types of owners will be further aggravated with the new requirements. Thus, I wish to seek the Minister's clarifications as to whether the Minister can elaborate on how this new requirement can facilitate en bloc sale, especially in mixed developments.

Empowerment of Strata Titles Board

Sir, the new subsections 5A, 5B, 7A and 7B empower the Strata Titles Board to increase the sale proceeds for minority owners who filed valid objections subject to an aggregate sum limit. It is not clear how much is this limit and whether this limit should be decided at the AGM when the collective sale committee is formed. To facilitate en bloc, I propose that a lump sum (equivalent to what we call a contingency sum) should be set aside at the beginning, so that the collective sale committee can refer owners who object to the sale to the Strata Titles Board for a settlement. In this way, the interests of all owners will be better protected, thus minimising disputes among the owners.

Sir, with the increase in en bloc sales, there is also a need to consider increasing the panel of Strata Titles Board members. I understand that the present workload of the Strata Titles Board members is heavy and, thus, this may delay the completion of many en bloc sales. I propose that the Ministry consider appointing more Strata Titles Board members from the various professions so as to expedite the processing of en bloc sales and settlement of disputes.

Collective sale process

Sir, many subsidiary proprietors and proprietors are not familiar with the Land Titles (Strata) Act, and the procedures for en bloc sale. As such, there are often disputes arising from the collective sale process. We should provide a simple and clear legislative framework to ensure that en bloc sale can be transacted in a fair and equitable manner. I fully support the new subsection 1A which requires a collective sale committee to be constituted at a general meeting. In addition, the new Second, Third and Fourth Schedules of the Bill will provide clearer rules for the collective sale committee to comply. The three Schedules have addressed contentious issues such as the appointment of advocate and solicitor, property consultant or marketing agent, apportionment of sale proceeds, terms and conditions of the collective sale agreement, information on sale process to owners. These new requirements, which will be tabled as resolutions during general meetings, will make the collective sale process more transparent.

Sir, I would like to propose to the Ministry to consider designing a set of standard collective sale forms to facilitate these compliances. Having standard forms will remove any ambiguities and omissions which may render the sale process invalid, thus wasting resources and causing a lot of lawsuits.

Sir, the Bill, however, does not address a number of barriers to collective sale such as uncontactable owners, fixing of date of vacant possession, and non-monetary factors. We know that in the HDB's upgrading programme, we often cannot locate or contact about 2% to 5% of flat owners. As such, they are always regarded as "objection" votes. As for the strata title developments, I am not too sure whether non-contactable owners should be regarded as "minority owners" with valid objections. If that is the case, the Strata Titles Board must be empowered to decide for these non-contactable owners. Sir, the LTSA must address this problem of non-contactable owners, and consider its status in a collective sale. I hope the Minister can clarify on how we should treat non-contactable owners in an en bloc sale.

Sir, one common problem faced by owners in collective sale is the fixing of vacant possession of their properties. It is almost impossible for all owners to agree on a same date as each one of them has their own requirements. I propose that the Act should provide a fixed duration where vacant possession is to be handled over to the purchaser of the collective sale (probably 12 months after the receipt of sale proceeds). In this way, we can minimise disputes over the fixing of vacant possession date.

Cooling-off period

Sir, I fully support the introduction of a five-day cooling-off period to rescind the collective sale agreement. This will further protect the interests of owners, and prevent unprofessional practices by property agents to lure owners into signing the collective sale agreement. Clause 20 which requires the signing of collective sale agreement to be done in the presence of an advocate and solicitor will further prevent such unprofessional practices.

Sir, the proposed Bill will further add clarity to the collective sale process of strata title development. It will facilitate en bloc and remove some ambiguities, thus making the collective sale process more transparent and fair. As there are many strata title developments presently undergoing en bloc, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister as to whether the amendments will affect these developments retrospectively.

Sir, I support the Bill.

1.56 pm

Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill marks an important step in the evolution of a quintessentially Singaporean innovation - the en bloc sale. I said "quintessentially Singaporean" because the subject tends to possess the features of a local soap opera. Especially nowadays, we have neighbours squabbling, different factions, legal suits, money, sometimes, lots of it.

But what is often overlooked is the important policy that underlies the en bloc sale, which is to spur redevelopment of ageing estates in our land scarce country, and any legislative amendment that furthers this policy should be supported.

This Bill contains several amendments that enhance the en bloc sale process, either by injecting greater certainty, giving greater flexibility to the Strata Titles Board and improving the protection for owners. These include the addition of a second condition for consent based on the total area of lots. This is a good move because share values are sometimes not correlatable to the actual proportion of built-up land area, and this will make the obtaining of consent a fairer process.

Another welcome change is the power of the Strata Titles Board to allow applications that have technical errors, provided they do not prejudice any owner, and to allow such errors to be rectified. All these changes are and should be welcome.

There are a number of other areas of change where I feel the changes do not go far enough. But perhaps before I talk about them, I should just disclose my interest as a partner in a law firm which is involved in various en bloc transactions. This includes acting for one of the members of the consortium that bought the Horizon Towers project, which is obviously the subject of litigation today.

I should clarify that my remarks are directed at similar situations that could arise in the future. The Horizon Towers case is before the court and should be dealt with by the court.

The three areas on which I wish to comment relate to the regulation of the sales committee, the definition of "financial loss" which the Strata Titles Board is entitled to take into account in deciding whether to approve or reject the sale and the regulation of the collective sale agreement.

First of all, in terms of the regulation of the sale committee. The changes provide that the committee members must have certain qualifications, and one of the key qualifications is that he must not be a nominee of someone who owns a number of units, such that this owner of several units ends up with nominees of a greater proportion than his share of the total share value or, in any case, not having more than 49% of the members of the collective sale committee.

There is also a disclosure of interest provision, as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned, whereby someone standing for election has to disclose his interest, direct or indirect, in any property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or legal firm.

Mr Speaker, these changes are welcome, as they attempt to ensure that there is fair representation that no one person or group can dominate the committee and the sale process. However, the disclosure of interest provision, in my view, does not go far enough. Given the importance of the safeguard that no one owner of several units would be allowed to dominate the sale committee, it should be incumbent that any nominee must disclose in full any arrangement by which he represents the interest of another, whether it is through family relationship, a nominee arrangement, trust arrangement or other vehicles. This is to allow the prohibition against one party unfairly dominating the sale committee to have teeth.

Further, I believe that this Bill should seek to make the powers and duties of the collective sale committee clearer. For instance, does the committee act as an agent for the majority owners? Or is its role more akin to a board of directors? Does the committee owe fiduciary duties to the owners and can they be sued for breach? What is the standard for performance of their duties, given that many of these people are not legally trained or not from the property industry and are doing this on a voluntary basis in their spare time?

We should bear in mind that the owners entrust the sale process to the sale committee, and very few owners who sign a collective sale agreement actually bother themselves with the details of the process. And, of course, if the requisite majority is obtained, the minority owners, subject to their right to appeal to the Strata Titles Board, are swept along by the process. It is important that the committee should have their duties and responsibilities spelt out clearly so that all parties know what they can expect or cannot expect from the committee members.

On the flip side, the committee members should also know what immunities they have if they carry out their jobs diligently and honestly. One illustration involves the Horizon Towers case. Was it the committee's responsibility to make a proper application to the Strata Titles Board or was it each individual owner's responsibility? Can individual owners be sued and can they, in turn, seek an indemnity from the committee if it is proved that the application to the Strata Titles Board was indeed defective? In my view, it is important to clarify these issues for the future. As mentioned before, the Horizon Towers case should be left to the courts and the parties involved to decide and to resolve. But it is important to address this issue because, otherwise, owners who would support a sale may refrain from signing a collective sale agreement because they fear the potential liability that could engender, which itself would defeat the important social policy of encouraging the redevelopment of our older estates.

The second area I wish to comment on relates to the definition of "financial loss" which the Strata Titles Board considers in deciding whether or not to approve or reject a sale. The change here does inject greater certainty by spelling out four examples in the Fourth Schedule of what are deductions. But there is still room for argument, because the provision says that the Board may allow whatever deductions as they see fit, including these four examples in the Fourth Schedule. I do ask the question whether the Bill should go the entire way by spelling out the exhaustive list of deductions so that the position is made clear to any owner as to what can or cannot be counted in deciding whether or not to make an application to the Board.

I would like to raise the issue of one specific deduction which I say should be counted, and that is CPF monies or interest thereon. That is not listed in the Fourth Schedule, and indeed there was a case involving the Waterfront View in April 2007 where the Strata Titles Board rejected an owner's objection on the ground of financial loss, because there was a shortfall in terms of the CPF monies and interest to be refunded to the member's CPF account. Because the CPF Board did not require him to refund that interest in full, that was not held to be a financial loss.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this House has just spent three days debating the important changes to the CPF system. Given the importance of CPF savings, I do suggest that the CPF monies and interest thereon to be refunded to a member's CPF account upon the sale of his home should be treated as a permitted deduction as it does represent a real asset of that owner.

The third area that I wish to touch on relates to the regulation of the collective sale agreement. As the Deputy Prime Minister has stated, this will include a preface to set out the key factual information of any sale, including the reserve price, apportionment method for the proceeds of sale, and it does provide for the collective sale agreement to be signed in the presence of an advocate and solicitor.

I also note the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that it is intended that this collective sale agreement be explained by that lawyer to the party who is signing it. However, that is not expressly stated in the Bill, and I would suggest that it would be advisable to, in fact, include a requirement that the collective sale agreement is to be explained by the lawyer. In addition, the presence of a lawyer is only required where the agreement is signed in Singapore. And, of course, the question does arise if a substantial number of owners do reside overseas, what is the protection they receive under such a provision.

The cooling-off period is also a good move to allow any owner to change his mind if he has been unduly pressured in signing the agreement or for any other reason. However, I do opine that the proposed regulations, while an improvement on the current regime, do not go far enough in regulating the collective sale process. There is still a great deal of latitude given to the sale committee and, sometimes, their lawyers and consultants, and many issues could arise therefrom. For example, what is the length of the mandate that is given to the collective sale committee or to the marketing agent? How long does the reserve price remain valid? Who exercises the option to extend the time for fulfilment of conditions? In most cases, from my experience, the period for a mandate or reserve price is about a year. In a fast-moving market, even six months is a long time. And the reserve price given in the mandate may become outdated after a while, and indeed that was one source of unhappiness in the Horizon Towers case.

Where there are important or differing interests to be considered, our legislature has seen fit to impose standard terms and conditions, or even a standard form of agreement to protect these interests. One example is the standard housing developers' condition and standard form sales and purchase agreement under the housing developers' rules. This is designed to protect buyers who have handed over the purchase price by ensuring that monies are kept in a separate account to be used for completing the building. I would propose that the Act spell out standard terms and conditions and, indeed, a standard form agreement for collective sale.

There are differing interests at stake. The majority owners, most of whom have no real control over the sale and they would entrust it to the sale committee. And, equally important, the minority owners whose wishes not to sell are being over-ridden by the majority. A standard form agreement would reduce uncertainty as well as the scope for unfair dealing and, hopefully, avoid disputes. With such an agreement, the rights and liabilities of all parties, including the sale committee's duties and immunities, could be balanced and spelt out. The issues of mandate, reserve price, options for extending time and appointment of professional advisers can be addressed with certainty. Overall, with greater certainty, this will facilitate the en bloc sale process.

Mr Speaker, overall, the changes are a useful step in the right direction, and I do support the Bill.

1.55 pm

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Mr Speaker Sir, like the two speakers before me, I declare my interest in this matter. I do not have any property affected by en bloc sale nor do I represent anybody affected by en bloc sale. My interest in speaking on this topic is purely from a follow-up of what I have spoken at the Committee of Supply last March, and also because I have a few friends who are affected by en bloc sales and have been supplying me with ideas and ammunition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I applaud the Ministry of Law for amending the Land Titles (Strata) Act to enable the Government to address concerns of transparency and due process in the execution of en bloc sales.

Sir, in the past two years, while we saw many Singaporeans benefiting from en bloc sales, we also witnessed quite a number feeling frustrated and angry, and some of them probably may still feel bitter after the new changes become law. Much as we hope to achieve and safeguard the interests of everyone affected, we cannot always meet the needs and wants of everyone. This is especially so in the case of the changes to the law on en bloc sales.

Sir, having said this, I am heartened to learn that in the proposed legislative changes, the Government has taken cognisance of the many grievances, proposals and suggestions that have been aired at various platforms, including engaging the public through public consultations as early as April this year by listening carefully to the feedback and suggestions and brainstorming with some affected parties to hear them out. I applaud the Ministry of Law for doing this.

Under the Amendment Bill, we see a raft of changes. Some of the notable key amendments are the changes done in ensuring the proper balance of voting rights in the case of mixed development. The improvement of 80% - 90% rule to include BOTH the share value and unit area has indeed been properly thought through to help and protect the minority, as some would have argued otherwise before the change was made. I empathised with those who had previously been adversely affected in one way or another. I feel that the Government has tried its best to be fair and, in this case, carefully addressed concerns of the minority to ensure that this group will now not be prejudiced.

There has been much talk amongst owners who complained that they were not consulted before the start of a collective sale in their estate or the formation of a sale committee. The proper set-up of the Collective Sale Committee and its legal standing has been adequately addressed, including the rules to govern. The Government seeks to ensure that any sale attempt can start only if the owners have discussed the matter at a general meeting and agreed to proceed to explore possibilities of a sale. Also, currently, lawyers are not required to be present at the signing of the collective sale agreement. The new amendments seek to ensure proper advice is given to the "less educated" owners through the presence of legal counsel and regular updates. All these new changes are commendable and I applaud the Ministry of Law for accepting several constructive suggestions from the public to make the en bloc sale process more transparent and better protect owners who are legitimately selling or not deciding to sell their premises.

Sir, there is one area that I would like to highlight to the House today which I feel the Government can do more. The protection of the ignorant, the ill-informed and the ill-equipped, mainly the elderly, is one particular area that the Government can explore to safeguard as part of this Amendment Bill. With our ageing population and more dysfunctional families, there will be many more elderly Singaporeans living alone without trusted or sound counsel at such critical times when the loss of their homes is imminent. To this group of people, especially the older folks who are frail and weak and possibly living alone, I hope we could consider their plight and promulgate ways to protect their interests. I personally know of some elderly persons staying alone for more than two decades who are negatively affected by en bloc sales of their properties.

Last year, the Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI) in its Report on Ageing Population, vide a Media Release dated 8th February 2006, came out with some suggestions to achieve successful ageing for Singapore. I could not agree more with one of the calls made by the CAI, ie, to urge the Government to work with the private and people sectors to provide and ensure the old retain a roof over their heads.

Sir, in the case of en bloc sales, I hope that the Government can consider this particular segment of our population. It is a fact that senior citizens view security and stability as paramount in their golden years. In the past 40 years, the Government has succeeded in housing more than 85% of our population in affordable public housing. HDB goes a step further to provide replacement units for those affected by SERS. To those not living in HDB flats, this security is no different as it also means a roof over their heads. It is important to help them secure their nest eggs as they have toiled for many years to preserve them in the hope of living there peacefully till they die. For the elderly living in affected collective sale properties who are against the sale, we should try to minimise their sufferings from a reverse eviction from their legitimate homes. To them, the strong sentimental values in the place they stay far surpass the monetary gains. Moving to a new place would also pose as a hurdle, considering some of their physical, mental and emotional states.

Sir, I urge the Government to try to strike a balance between avoiding ghettos and the need to protect the elderly, especially the frail and weak. Yes, I do acknowledge that under the Amendment Bill, the Ministry of Law already seeks to ensure that owners are consulted and be protected from being kept in the dark on the sale process. The presence of lawyers also helps to ensure that the elderly owners are not being forced to sign the collective sale agreement under duress and that they are clear about the terms and fully aware of the implications of the agreement they have signed or about to sign. But I believe the Government could do more to help the elderly.

Sir, may I propose that, additionally, the Government consider letting elderly owners, aged 65 and above and living alone, have a one for one exchange in the new development so that they can continue to stay in the same locality they are most familiar with and to minimise the trauma of uprooting, searching for another home and all miscellaneous attendant problems attached to moving? Furthermore, could the Government consider developing a set of "Guidelines for Best Practices in Collective Sales of Private Properties" - I think akin to what my two learned colleagues have said a while ago about having prescribed forms and conditions - to ensure that all parties involved in a collective sale, including the developers and marketing agents, comply with them so that they could minimise disputes and unnecessary litigation?

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

2.18 pm

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): First of all, I welcome the proposed changes in the Bill to make the entire en bloc process more transparent and fair. Indeed, one positive thing about this debate is that Singaporeans should be made more aware of the rules of the game when it comes to en bloc sales.

Sir, if I may say so, the en bloc story has turned out to be a tangled tale of greed, fear, love and betrayal, with poignant twists and turns, as some people become rich and elated, and others homeless and somewhat depressed. There is skulduggery and the occasional violence reported. Eric Khoo and Royston Tan need not look very far for their next film plot.

If I may deal with each facet of the plot in turn:

First, the human dimension of greed, fear, love and betrayal.

The en bloc trend seems to bring out the worst in some people, turning neighbours against one another, especially during a property boom. Although it is not openly said, the general feeling is that greed - and also fear - has turned many reasonable neighbours into angry enemies. Family members also turn on one another. I know of at least one case where a middle-aged couple divorced as a result of the en bloc sale of their estate.

It also breaks apart a community as they are not likely to live together nearby in the same constituency after their estate goes en bloc. The strong community ties built over the years are all but torn apart, especially for residents in privatised HUDC estates who have bonded from their HDB days. Tampines Court, which is in my constituency, is one of the casualties.

The en bloc fever has driven up property prices to dizzy heights, adding to the pressures. Many residents involved in en bloc sales are stressed by the entire process, especially those who object to the sale. Their worries include buying a replacement flat that will allow them the same ease and quality of life. But, given the high property prices, they have to either downgrade to a HDB flat or move to a smaller, more crammed private flat. The pain is more acutely felt by those who have retired or are retiring soon. They are unable to obtain bank financing and have to draw on their hard-earned savings. The legal costs to pursue one's case to the bitter end have also been a point of stress for many. I know that many people have been made millionaires through en bloc sales. It can be a good get-rich scheme for many, better than striking lottery. We know of "serial en blockers" - people who buy properties that are expected to go en bloc just to reap the profits of a collective sale and then move on to the next one. I have heard of one person who was involved in 66 en bloc sales, and made a total of about $200 million from his buying and selling spree. But such windfall is at quite considerable cost to others - social, emotional and personal cost.

Sir, if I may compare the spirit of en bloc with that of HDB SERS (the Selective Estate Redevelopment Scheme). SERS has tried to preserve the strong community ties by assuring residents affected of another flat in the new site, so that they can choose to live with old neighbours again or pick flats elsewhere. Why not apply this guideline to private en bloc as well?

Can the Minister look into adding a provision that developers should offer a replacement unit in the same estate to residents as an option at an affordable price? This way, economic considerations can be balanced with social ones. It can also help address the genuine concern of residents who enjoy living in the same area and have built up strong community ties over the years, and also help assuage the worries of residents about being able to afford another flat elsewhere.

The en bloc plot has a second element, which is that of coercion.

There have been allegations of harassment and intimidation on the part of some sale committees or marketing agents. The reports can be quite serious. I have heard of one case where a resident received an anonymous call threatening the life of his daughter if he did not consent to the sale. Some complained that they signed the collective sale agreement under duress or false representation.

The Minister mentioned, in his answer to my oral question at the last sitting, that any owner who at any time feels that he is being harassed or intimidated to consent to an en bloc sale may lodge a Police report. Can I ask him how many such reports have been received each year, and what is the most serious received to date? And has any been received against marketing agents and, if so, does he discern a pattern? Also, what actions, if any, have been taken by the Police with regard to reports on harassment specifically related to en bloc sales? It would be useful to highlight these cases so that all are put on notice that such practices are an offence and, hopefully, more civil and restrained behaviour will be the norm in future en bloc sales projects.

Third, are the twists and turns of the property market, and sub-plots leading to blind alleys.

Sir, we know that one reason for the unhappiness of those affected by en bloc is that en bloc prices which appeared fair some months ago, now suddenly looked paltry. As a result, many have been scrambling to see how they could get out of the deal, signed when property prices were lower, and are angry at their sale committees, marketing agents and lawyers for not getting them the latest best price. Residents then begin to question if the sale committee, marketing agents and lawyers are representing their best interests to get the highest possible price or selling them out for a quick buck.

The proposals in this Bill go some way in addressing such grievances. They include requiring the sale committee, and its members, to be elected at a general meeting. The proposed Bill also ensures that the residents are kept informed and involved in appointing lawyers and marketing consultants at general meetings. The requirement for a formal valuation at the close of tender will also give residents a better sense of the value of their property, which it must be highlighted, can be either up or down.

The proposal to have a lawyer present to explain the legal terms and liabilities is also prudent, so that residents know what is it they are signing up for, and not just sign buta. But as hon. Member Alvin Yeo pointed out, the liabilities for residents need to be spelt out more clearly. We learn through the Horizon Towers' case that the majority owners can be sued for breach of contract. But some of the minority owners are a bit jittery now because they have heard that they can be also sued for inducing breach of contract by encouraging some majority owners to jump camp. Can I ask the Minister to clarify the liabilities faced by majority owners as well as minority owners who tried to get out of the collective sale agreement?

It is true that the amendments, in general, will mean extra legal costs will be incurred, and this may be a concern for some outside the House. But it should, hopefully, protect the less literate and less street-savvy residents who need clear and simple explanations to make an informed decision, assuming that lawyers will do their best to make things clear to residents and not more opaque.

Sir, I support all these measures. But can I ask the Minister, what if the lawyer appointed - and this is not hypothetical, it is human - after going through the 300th resident, and some estate can be very big, even with 500 residents, and the lawyer after going through each owner signing a sale agreement, and the 501st resident comes along, the lawyer, being very tired, summarised things and did not explain things clearly to the resident? Can the resident then lodge a report against the lawyer for not doing his job properly, and the lawyer being hauled up for sanctioning? Can these be grounds for the resident to claim that he has been misrepresented when he signed the agreement?

Many people reckon that the real winners from these amendments - the superstars in the en bloc plot as it were - will be the lawyers, because they will be earning much higher legal fees because of the many requirements. I think it is important to highlight that it will not be easy money.

Underlying the en bloc plot are sinister undertones of occasional collusion, particularly between marketing agents and potential buyers. It is important to place greater scrutiny on the role of marketing agents, to impose greater discipline on their code of behaviour. Marketing agents can get quite a lucrative success commission for getting an en bloc sale through. In some projects, they have been found to be overly aggressive in their bid to get signatures. I have also heard of marketing agents who collude with developers to secure en bloc packages at the expense of the sellers' interest.

For example, as we know, in one development, Horizon Towers, I understand that the marketing agent told the residents that he will not charge any commission for his services. But what he did was to work with the developers to take a commission from the buyer's side. I checked with the industry and found that it is not an isolated practice for marketing agents to have quiet collusion with the developers behind the scenes. In this sense, I ask for more transparency to ensure that whatever collusions or whatever arrangements have been made with the buyers be made clear to the residents.

The proposals to enhance the transparency of the sale process are therefore welcomed. But can I ask the Minister if such seemingly underhanded practices - such as collusion between the marketing agents and developers at the expense of owners - can be cause for a collective sale to be called off?

Finally, overarching the entire en bloc plot is the aesthetic and green dimension. W e should review the present provision that allows the estates below 10 years to go en bloc. Ten years sound very young. These buildings are not considered old and are structurally sound and some are even aesthetic, reflecting the latest architectural style. It is also not environmentally friendly to tear down perfectly sound structures only to build something almost similar, only more expensive and more densely packed.

Sir, I am not sure how the en bloc plot would end. But I would say that to many Singaporeans, especially older Singaporeans, what they want is a home, with some sense of stability and security, a place where they can sink their roots and build meaningful memories that can last a lifetime.

But the en bloc phenomenon pays little respect to such sentiments. I think, if allowed to be carried to extremes, the en bloc trend can be unhealthy and can indeed set back our dreams of making Singapore a place where you feel you can belong.

I would urge the Minister to monitor the pace and practice of en bloc sales and make sure that it does not put social cohesion at risk of the swing of the wrecking ball.

3.29 pm

Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak today on the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. The long-awaited amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act were announced last month following the public consultation exercise and focus group discussions which they called us as well as members of the public. Following the First Reading in Parliament, there have been many comments made through the media - some positive, some negative.

Before I move on to address these, I would like to make some comments on the social consequences of the en bloc fever, as we now call it, in Singapore over the last couple of years. If social communities have to be swept away in the prospect of progress and a cleaner, healthier environment for the people of a nation, such as when the kampongs were eradicated in Singapore, it is a phenomenon that the majority of the population would accept. In the case of the en bloc or CSA, it is basically greed on the part of some subsidiary proprietors and fly-by-night investors as well as hunger on the part of developers that is driving the whole movement in Singapore.

It is true that property prices had been low in the past 10 years or so, and this en bloc fever has helped to hasten the increase in property prices. But at what cost? Is it a case of economic gain but social disruption? I have noted cases where older persons who have a strong emotional attachment to their homes have been heart-broken when they have had to succumb to the majority's vote to go for the en bloc sale. I could not agree more with my colleague, Ms Ellen Lee, who spoke in detail about the effects of the en bloc sales on elders.

Additionally, the whole communities that have been built over decades when the neighbours know one another very well and have been a source of companionship and support are literally destroyed overnight. And in a few botched-up deals, such as Horizon Towers and Gillman Heights, the acrimony, hostility and anger that have followed are unparalleled. On top of this, many families are stuck in a financial squeeze due to the unforeseen trail of events, and this squeeze could run into millions. Unethical conduct on the part of one or more of the parties concerned has also become the talk of the town.

Looking at the high social costs, the clear legal and procedural controls over the whole process in the amendments are welcomed by Singaporeans. It is hoped that unwitting home owners and unscrupulous dealers will be equally warned of the consequences. However, I have four suggestions to improve the process further and ensure that implementation of the changes will be fair and helpful for Singaporeans. Let us first look at the scenario of condo raiders - I will spell it "condo", just for clarification - a term coined by Ms Alison Taylor in a letter to the Forum page of the Straits Times on 16th August. Condo raiders are short-term investors who buy one or more units in a private condominium and, within a couple of weeks, start agitating for en bloc sale or CSA. They campaign for CSA and often succeed in getting into the collective sale committee. Such persons are very savvy and familiar with the proceedings of conducting a sale. So they have the confidence to persuade home owners to go with the deal. Many of the subsidiary proprietors are not familiar with the legal processes. So they are tricked into signing the agreement. Condo raiders have made handsome profits in their en bloc deals and I believe even the new amendments will not be sufficient to stop them in their raids.

In view of this, I have my first suggestion. A minimum period of residence should be stipulated as a criterion for being elected into the collective sale committee. In my opinion, the minimum period should be two years. Currently, there is no criterion of such a nature in the new amendments. Setting such a criterion would be an obstacle for these condo raiders in the form of protection or safeguard for the authentic home owners. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this proposal.

Mr Speaker, my second suggestion relates to the section on disclosure of interest in the Third Schedule of the Bill, on page 32. While the section drives home an important point on the need for disclosure of any interest that could be in conflict with the role and duties of an elected member of the collective sale committee, it does leave some room for thought. I think that the words "as soon as practicable" in the sixth line leave much to the imagination. There should be at least some sense of urgency when a person finds out that there is some conflict of interest in his role as a member of the collective sale committee. And I feel that, to reflect such an urgency, an added phrase like "within 48 hours" or 72 hours is important so that the importance of the section is upheld. In addition, there is no mention of the consequences for the person who does not disclose his or her conflict of interest. I would like to suggest that the violator of the conflict of interest policy be liable to legal action. Such a strong statement in the Bill would act as an effective deterrent.

My third suggestion is that a code of best practices needs to be drawn up and circulated perhaps in hard copy at relevant public organisations like libraries as well as softcopy on the Ministry's website, and I believe my earlier hon. colleagues have also made some mention to such a code. A code like this would state the best practices to be followed by the lawyers, developers and even sale committee. This could serve to guide the Singaporean public in this matter of collective sale agreements.

My last suggestion is that the Ministry or STB set up a special small unit to look into the complaints of stakeholders of an en bloc negotiation in order to troubleshoot. Conflicts could be averted. Gullible home owners could be made more aware of their rights, for example, those who are in the elderly category, and misunderstandings could be cleared through such a unit. Sometimes, a minor intervention at the early stages could prevent problems from escalating. In the long run, the collective good or benefits would far outweigh the initial outlay of resources to be spent to establish such a unit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that we, as responsible Singaporeans, try to maintain the cohesion of our society. When communities of people who have lived in peace and harmony are destroyed, we are paying a very high price because it takes decades for such living organisms as communities to be formed. On the one hand, we have the Community Development Councils (or CDCs) who aim to build strong communities through programmes to bond people and, on the other hand, we watch the fast disruption of communities without really valid reasons. And I also echo Ms Irene Ng's comments on the green aspect of destroying buildings below 10 years old. While there is no reason to stop people to sell their old homes and to buy new ones, when it is done in deals that affect large numbers of families, and from recent statistics provided by the Minister, at least 3,700 families were involved in these residential units since 2005, the State has to make sure that the process is fair and good for the people, and not just a profitable venture for a selected few. It is my hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will give due consideration to these suggestions.

2.39 pm

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. But first, I should declare my interest such as it is, in this matter. My girlfriend's mother's estate is currently undergoing a collective sale process.

Sir, there has been a great deal of attention on collective sales in recent months. The ongoing Horizon Towers case has shown up some of the inadequacies in the existing legislation. It is also a cautionary tale on the potential repercussions when things go seriously wrong.

At the same time, there is a lot of unhappiness with the status quo. From anecdotal evidence, a lot of owners are unhappy with the ongoing en bloc efforts in their respective estates. Some do not want to sell. Some feel that the proposed sale is unfair to them. Some believe that they will be unable to obtain an equivalent replacement unit in the current market.

And the unhappiness is not limited to locals. Expatsingapore.com is an online forum that is very popular with foreigners, and many of them have posted negative comments on the forum about their unhappy experiences, either as minority owners or as tenants forced to leave their "en bloc-ed" homes at very short notice.

All the shenanigans surrounding en bloc efforts have adversely coloured many foreigners' perceptions of Singapore as a safe, secure place, where the system works in a fair and transparent manner. It is not uncommon to see comments from foreigners about wanting to leave Singapore and never coming back, because of how they are being treated either as tenants or as minority owners.

That is the context within which this Amendment Bill is being debated. And this Bill is long overdue, given the long simmering complaints about the current legislation.

Indeed, I understand that many developments have been rushing to obtain the requisite 80% approval threshold for their collective sale agreements before this Amendment Bill comes into effect. That is so that those sales will come under the current legislation, and avoid the new rules.

That is, to my mind, testament to several things: the extent to which the current rules are perceived to be "pro-sale", the extent to which the new rules are seen to correct that imbalance, and the blatant disregard of many collective sale committees

(CSCs) for notions of fairness and the interests of minority owners.

Sir, there are many positives in the Amendment Bill. It creates a statutory footing for the sale committee as a committee elected by the management corporation in a general meeting. It injects a tremendous amount of sorely needed transparency into the collective sale process, a process that has come under severe criticism, criticism which, in my view, is wholly justified. That being said, there remains a significant omission from the Bill. The Bill seeks to do a lot of things but they are primarily aimed at ensuring procedural fairness. The Bill does not appear to do much in terms of substantive fairness which, in this case, would centre around the method of apportionment of the sale proceeds. It is as if we are saying that it is enough for the form to be proper and never the substance. In particular, the Bill fails to address the matter of apportionment of sale proceeds. That is possibly the single most contentious issue in an en bloc sale. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister had, in a written answer to my question provided on Monday, disclosed that this was one of the most common grounds of objections raised by minority owners to the Strata Titles Board.

Sir, I understand that all collective sales in Singapore adopt one of four methods of apportionment recommended by the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. These four recommended methods are by:

(1) Share value;

(2) Strata area;

(3) Average of share value and strata area; and

(4) Valuation and share value excess.

The SISV also recommends "any other method" which sounds like an oxymoron to me. But I understand that "any other method" is commonly understood to mean any combination of the above four methods that is fair and equitable.

Unfortunately, the SISV does not also provide recommendations and guidelines on when each of the methods should be used. That has somewhat inevitably led to CSCs selecting the method which is most likely to achieve the requisite majority to approve a sale. There may be a perfunctory attempt at justifying the method being adopted but this is seldom satisfactory. Since the pot of sale proceeds is finite, the chosen method usually advantages the majority, to the detriment of the minority who are normally the owners of the bigger units.

It seems to me a little irresponsible of the SISV to recommend methods of apportionment without also providing detailed guidelines on how to apply them in a fair and equitable manner. It is tantamount to giving a loaded gun to a soldier without also providing the necessary training and guidance in its usage. Is it then any wonder that the recommendations are frequently abused in such a manner as to effectively oppress minority owners?

t is true that when the majority owners apply to the Strata Titles Board for a collective sale order, they have to include a valuation report on the matter of apportionment use. But this seems to be more an exercise of going through the motions than of truly independent and critical evaluation and consideration.

Let me just cite the example of a valuation report that I have seen. In this case, the report basically set out and described the different methods of apportionment, without any critical analysis of the applicability or suitability of each method to the development in question. The valuer then proceeded to state its recommendation, which just happened to be the method that the sale committee had already chosen.

The valuer opined, and I quote:

"In view of the above methods and having regard to all relevant information, we are of the opinion that the 50% share value and 50% strata area method is a fair and equitable method of apportionment. We also understand that this method of distribution has also obtained the endorsement of more than 80% of the owners in the Collective Sale Agreement."

There was no analysis, no explanation, no justification. Just a bald assertion that the method in question is a fair and equitable method, with a telling reference to the endorsement of the majority owners. No reference to the other methods of apportionment recommended by the SISV. No comparison of the relative merits of each method. No statement as to whether this method is more fairer and more equitable than the others, or whether any other method would be more fairer and more equitable.

Sir, if that is not simply going through the motion, I do not know what is.

It does not help that Singapore is small and the industry is small. Everybody knows everybody else. A valuer who provides a report that does not meet a marketing agent's requirements will probably not receive any more work from that agent and probably any other agent. Bearing in mind the critical role played by marketing agents in this entire process, including suggesting and recommending valuers for such reports, everyone has a vested interest in not rocking the boat.

Indeed, I have been told by a minority owner who was in the pro-tem CSC for his estate that the marketing agent in his case actually told him that the agents will always ensure that their regular surveyors are engaged and that their regular surveyors will always agree with their proposed method.

Sir, all this simply means that when it comes to the single most important issue in an en bloc sale, minority owners are left with little protection from the law. The law creates a mechanism that permits and facilitates the collective sale of estates which, in itself, represents a significant derogation from property rights in the first place. And then the law fails to go on to ensure substantive fairness. I personally believe that to be a major failing in the system.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that the Ministry has consciously decided to adopt an approach based primarily on procedural fairness. That being the case, I would ask that the Deputy Prime Minister consider an amendment to the legislation to require that all valuation reports submitted to the Strata Titles Board include a declaration by the valuer as to its relationships, if any, with any of the majority owners or the marketing agent handling that transaction and, in particular, the amount of business that it has done with that marketing agent in the preceding 12 months.

I also understand that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, is the Chairperson of the Council of the SISV. I hope that she can provide the appropriate feedback to the Institute for their consideration and action.

If the SISV does issue well-thought-out guidelines, then a valuer would have to justify any deviation from or inconsistency with those guidelines. This would then help the Strata Titles Board to better evaluate whether the transaction is in good faith in relation to the method of distribution of the sale proceeds. This is the responsible approach and would do wonders for fairness and transparency in the collective sales process.

Sir, I will now briefly touch on some other areas that I believe can be further refined.

Firstly, the Amendment Bill introduces a new provision that permits the Strata Titles Board to grant a collective sale order, subject to a condition that the sale proceeds must be paid from the proceeds of sale of all subsidiary proprietors, seems to me inequitable in that it penalises minority owners who do not file an objection. It essentially compels all minority owners to file an objection. If the minority owner does not sign the CSA but also does not file an objection, then he suffers a double whammy.

Firstly, the Board is not empowered to increase his sale proceeds.

Secondly, his share of the sale proceeds will be reduced, since he will also have to contribute to the amounts paid to objectors.

This seems unfair. After all, the majority owners are the ones who are keen and enthusiastic to complete the sale. So it only seems fair that they bear the cost of any additional payment to objectors. This is especially when they have the choice of whether to agree to making such payment, through the requirement for the CSC's consent.

Furthermore, the aggregate cap on the sum that the Board may order seems overly low. Collective sales typically involve payouts to owners in millions. 0.25% of $1 million is only $2,500. Any increase in the amount payable to objectors that is ordered by the Board will not be meaningful. Given that the consent of the CSC is required, there seems no reason why the aggregate cap should be so low, since the CSC can always withhold its consent if it feels that the amount being ordered is too high.

Secondly, the Amendment Bill goes a very long way towards resolving the ambiguities and uncertainties surrounding the selection of the CSC. But some issues remain.

For instance, the CSC is now a committee elected by the subsidiary proprietors at a general meeting of the management corporation. But the amendment Bill does not set out the extent of control that general meetings can have over the CSC, such as the power to issue directions to the CSC. The Bill also does not provide for the situation where all CSC members resign, as has happened with Horizon Towers.

In addition, the Amendment Bill leaves the nature and duties of the CSC hazy. Do CSC members have a duty to act in the best interests of all subsidiary proprietors, or only those who have signed the CSA? Does a CSC member even have any duty to act in the best interest of anyone other than himself or herself?

And for whom do the solicitors and the marketing agents act? To whom do they owe their contractual and fiduciary duties? The CSC? The management corporation? All subsidiary proprietors? Or only those owners who have signed the CSA? This latter point is especially important with respect to solicitors, because it would then guide them in their discharge of their duties. It seems from anecdotal evidence that some solicitors behave as if they are only acting for the CSC while other subsidiary proprietors believe that the solicitors are acting to protect their own best interests. This is not a desirable state of affairs.

Sir, these issues are not addressed in the amendment Bill. Perhaps they are governed by other areas of law, in which case, I would be grateful if the Deputy Prime Minister would clarify the position.

Thirdly, the Amendment Bill specifies that a motion at a general meeting of a management corporation for the purposes of a collective sale shall be decided by the value of votes cast for and against that motion. It goes on to explain that the value of a vote is equal to the share value. That is in paragraph 10 of the proposed new Second Schedule.

This may create a back-door through which owners of commercial units in mixed developments could oppress owners of residential units. The Bill introduces an additional approval requirement, ie, 80% or 90% for developments younger than 10 years, of owners by floor areas. This additional approval requirement is meant to address the common situation in mixed developments where commercial units have very high share values in comparison to residential units.

But requiring motions at general meetings to be decided by votes based solely on share value may result in commercial owners controlling the CSC, to the exclusion of residential owners. While residential owners are still entitled to withhold their approval from the sale, this seems very similar to the current situation where majority owners control the CSC and minority owners are not represented, which would lead to the very situations of animosity and unhappiness that this Bill seeks to avoid.

Finally, the Strata Titles Board is a tribunal constituted under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA). Under the BMSMA, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the High Court only on questions of law. In other words, questions of fact cannot be appealed to the High Court.

The Bill introduces a new rule permitting the Strata Titles Board to ignore procedural defects and errors in an application for a collective sales order where such defects and errors do not prejudice the interest of any person. The question of whether the interest of any person has been prejudiced is a question of fact. Under the proposed new rule, the Board's decision on that question of fact will not be subject to appeal.

Considering that this decision of the Board could well be critical in determining whether a collective sale order is granted, I would suggest that it may be appropriate to reconsider the provisions of the BMSMA excluding appeals to the High Court on questions of fact.

Sir, the collective sale mechanism has been highly controversial in recent months. It was introduced for the objective of ensuring urban rejuvenation by the private sector. It obviates the need for compulsory acquisition by the Government of decaying estates.

I think the jury is still out on whether collective sale is good for Singapore on the whole, given that it is essentially a balancing exercise between the need for urban rejuvenation, the economic use of land, and our interest as a society in preserving our physical and architectural heritage, our memories and our sense of rootedness. Here, I would echo the comments of my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me about the importance of maintaining memories and a sense of community. But I think we are past that, and that is not what we are debating today.

Indeed, the figures released by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this week suggest that the collective sale process has been meeting its objective of urban rejuvenation. The average age of all developments which applied for collective sale from January 2005 to end-August 2007 was 25.9 years. Having said that, this figure should be monitored on an ongoing basis, as any dip in this figure may indicate that the collective sale process is being used, not for urban renewal, but for the maximisation of economic value of estates, regardless of their condition. Any such indication would merit further discussion on whether it is a healthy development and whether it is desirable for the en bloc process to be used for such purposes.

Given that collective sales are here to stay in Singapore, it is incumbent on Parliament to ensure that we properly balance and protect the interests of competing groups of property owners. This Bill is long overdue in how it implements a long-overdue regime to govern the procedural aspects of the process.

Having said that, the Bill fails to address a central issue of apportionment of sale proceeds, as well as a few areas that I have discussed. Whether collective sales will continue to be dogged by the anger and unhappiness that have clouded so many in recent months bears monitoring. If they do, then it is clear that this Bill has been insufficient, in which case I trust that the Ministry will revisit the statute and reconsider the need to address the issues I have discussed, in particular, that of apportionment.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.55 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Ms Indranee Rajah) in the Chair]

LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I wish to thank all the Members who have spoken on the Bill. Basically, they have expressed support for the Bill, but if I could generalise, many of them wanted more safeguards, more provisions and more controls. I think this also reflected the feedback during the consultations. I would not dismiss the various suggestions that they have made as being without merit but, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, we have to craft the amendments in a way that strikes a balance between trying to make the process more transparent, fairer and with suitable safeguards while, at the same time, not making it unduly unmanageable or too onerous to bring about an en bloc sale. Basically, the challenge is how to make these amendments or other amendments without micro-managing the process because, ultimately, we have to leave the substantive agreements to negotiations between the subsidiary proprietors in an en bloc development.

But let me make this other general point. The fact that we are today about to enact these amendments does not mean that once they come into effect, the Ministry of Law will close shop and forget about the process of en bloc sales. Let me assure the House that this review by my Ministry, the Strata Titles Board and the Singapore Land Authority will be an on-going one. So we will see how these amendments operate in practice and see how the new legal regime works. And if it is felt that further changes are needed, in the light of subsequent experience, then indeed where it merits further refinements and changes, we will do so. At that stage, some of the changes and suggestions proposed by Members will also be taken into account.

From that general observation, I now turn to some of the specific points made by Members who spoke. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked about the new additional consent requirement that we have introduced in this Bill and he asked how it can facilitate en bloc sales. I should explain that actually the aim of this amendment is really to have an additional safeguard and not so much, to use his word, "facilitate" en bloc sales.

Because the viability and timing of en bloc sale, we have to leave it to the owners in the estate and the market to determine. This additional requirement was put into this Bill for the purpose of addressing a specific problem, and that is in terms of fairness in mixed developments where residential unit owners hold lesser share values despite owning a substantial floor area and a substantial number of units. So this is to deal with a special problem in mixed developments. As I said, we had originally proposed an additional consent requirement based on the number of units. But after considering the feedback, we have decided to revise this additional requirement to that based on area of the lots. And the reason is that the consent by number of units could result in owners of large commercial units sub-dividing their properties into many strata lots, so as to create additional lots, and that would actually defeat the intention of the process.

Secondly, the consent by number of units means that the commercial units will have exactly the same voting rights as the residential units, notwithstanding that the commercial units may be many more times bigger in size. That also would not be fair to owners with large units.

Dr Teo Ho Pin also talked about the provision for STB to increase the sale proceeds for minority owners. I think his point was that it was not clear what this limit was and perhaps a lump sum should be set aside. Let me respond to that point by saying that clause 7(1) of the Bill makes it clear that the total sum ordered by the Board for all the objectives shall be paid from the proceeds of sale of all the subsidiary proprietors and shall not exceed the aggregate sum of 0.25% of the proceeds of sale or $2,000 for each lot, whichever is the higher. So, what we have done is to provide for the formula to be based on percentage of sale proceeds. I think it is difficult to go beyond that and to provide for a specific quantum, the actual amount, in the law to be set aside upfront before the sale proceeds have been settled. It is a question of practicality and I think it is easier to set out the formula.

Dr Teo Ho Pin also asked about the workload of the STB, whether it can delay collective sales and asked for the number of panel members to be increased. I think it is a good point. But let me say that the workload, although it has increased, has not really impaired the process of the STB deciding on these cases and there have not been undue delays. In fact, in a response to a parliamentary question earlier this week, my colleague, the Minister for National Development, said that a total of 60 en bloc applications were received by STB in the first eight months of this year. STB concluded 32 of them within six months. Only one exceptional case had to be extended, as an earlier date for hearing could not be scheduled as counsel for both applicants and respondents were involved in other matters. So it is really matters beyond the control of the STB.

Having said that, I agree with the Member that we could divide the heavy workload amongst more members of the Strata Titles Board. The Bill, as the Member knows, allows for the Minister to appoint more Deputy Presidents and panel members to the STB. So we will work with the Ministry of National Development to make these additional appointments once the amended Act comes into effect.

Dr Teo Ho Pin also asked for clarification about non-contactable owners, whether they should be regarded as minority owners with valid objections and whether the STB should then be empowered to decide on them. When an application is made to the STB by the majority owners who have agreed to the en bloc sale under a sale and purchase agreement, those who object to the sale must file an objection. That is provided for because only then can the Strata Titles Board consider the grounds of objection. There must be an objection. If there is no objection, then the STB would not be able to consider whether, for example, they have incurred a financial loss or have other valid objections. Therefore, those who did not sign the collective sale agreement (CSA) or cannot be contacted, the approach of the law is that they cannot be considered as having objected to the sale. In other words, an objector is considered an objector only if he has filed an objection within the allowable period stipulated under the Act.

The next point raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin was about providing a fixed duration where vacant possession is to be handed over to the purchaser of the collective sale. I think it is very difficult, for practical purposes, for the law to provide such details, because it would really be micro managing the issue. Because each development has its own requirements. A later vacant possession date may mean a lower price from the buyer. Also, each owner has his own timeline for vacating his unit. The buyer may have his own project development timeline, depending on the market demand and the resources. Therefore, the approach of the law is that it is better to leave it to the owners to negotiate with the buyer a deal that best meets their needs and interest.

Dr Teo Ho Pin also asked about the application of the law, whether it is retrospective and so on. As I mentioned in my speech, the proposed changes will not apply to developments where the required 80% or 90% majority of owners based on share value have signed the CSA as at the date of commencement of the Act. I know that, in fact, some have come to my meet-the-people sessions to say that people are rushing to form collective sale committees. The trigger is not the collective sale committee. It is whether they have obtained the 80% or 90%.

Mr Alvin Yeo asked several questions about the sale committee, scope of its duties, whether it has fiduciary duties, and Ms Irene Ng also asked about that. Mr Siew Kum Hong likewise asked for the nature of the sale committee, the rights and duties, what kind of duty of care that they have to act and in whose interest.

Mr Alvin Yeo, in elaborating the point, also referred to the Horizon Towers case. He was careful to say that the Horizon Towers case is before the court. But his plea was that, for future cases, we should spell out the issue of the rights and liabilities concerning the sale committee. Since the matter is before the court, I think Members will understand that I would not be able to go into details. Our policy intention in introducing these changes is to instill some order and transparency into the various processes. That is the major intention. So, to that end, we have structured the manner in which the sale committees are formed, how they may function, and so on. It is not our intention, in these amendments, to change the substantive law regarding their potential duties or liability, whether under common law, or as Ms Irene Ng asked about lawyers, whether under the law governing advocates and solicitors. It is not the intention of these provisions to change the substantive law concerning these matters. Whatever the legal position is, it will remain the same. So, as I said, in view of the Horizon Towers case, I do not think I should go into details about the law applicable to the sale committees.

Mr Alvin Yeo asked whether the Bill should go the full way to list in the Fourth Schedule all the permitted deductions, in other words, instead of being inclusive, be exhaustive. The specific point that he made was about CPF monies. He said that there is no reason why CPF monies should not be counted as a financial loss.

Madam, the list in the Fourth Schedule is based on what the STB currently considers as permitted deductions. It is not meant to be exhaustive. Over time, additional items could be added if the STB comes across other permitted deductions while dealing with future applications.

On the treatment of CPF monies, I think what Mr Alvin Yeo is, in fact, asking us to amend the law is to reverse the High Court's decision in the Waterfront case. My Ministry has no ground to disagree with the ruling in that case, and hence we have not sought to amend the law.

Perhaps, I should explain. In a property purchase, CPF funds can be used to pay for three components: (1) the lump sum for the initial purchase; (2) monthly repayments of bank loan principal; and (3) monthly repayments of the bank loan interest. I should explain that CPF funds used for the initial purchase - this is the first component - and for monthly repayments of bank loan principal - this is the second component - are factored in financial loss computation as they constitute part of the original purchase price. But CPF funds used to repay bank loan interest - this is the third component - are not taken into account, because if the law were to do that, then there would be no parity between an owner who takes a long-term mortgage with a high component of bank interest and an owner who pays totally in cash or an owner who takes a small loan and pays off the loan faster.

Some have asked if CPF interest forgone for the total amount of CPF money that has been withdrawn should also be taken into consideration. This component is not relevant because there is no actual financial loss in the CPF interest forgone.

Mr Alvin Yeo then asked about the lawyer's role in explaining the terms and conditions. The reason why we have put in this provision is that we have received feedback that owners do not know what is contained in the CSA. Some have claimed that they have been pressed to sign the CSA under duress or misrepresentation. So, in order to address these issues, we have provided for a lawyer to be present, and this offers the owners an opportunity to ask the lawyer to explain the legal terms and liabilities and address any doubts that they have. But I think we should leave the precise questions that may be asked of the lawyer to the meeting and other opportunities they may have with the lawyer. I think it would not be practical for the law to prescribe the precise items and details on which the lawyer will have to explain.

Mr Alvin Yeo also asked, if I remember, about owners who are overseas. My response to that is

we have to take a practical approach as it concerns owners who reside overseas. After all, if an owner resides overseas and he knows that there is an on-going en bloc attempt to sell but still does not make the effort to come to Singapore, I think it would not be practical to require that the lawyer for the en bloc sale to fly out to wherever it is and meet each of its owners. It would also not be fair to the owners in Singapore for such arrangements to be made as additional costs will be borne by them. Anyway, I think arrangements can always be made for those residing overseas to contact the lawyers by telephone or other means, or by email, if they have any questions to be clarified.

Mr Alvin Yeo also asked about the mandate given to the collective sale committee, the marketing agent, and so on. We have provided that the sale committee will terminate upon the termination or expiry of the CSC. The reserve price is just an indicative value. Depending on the market conditions, the actual value of a development could either go up or below the reserve price. Rather than for the law to state how long the reserve price will be valid, the better approach that we have taken in the Bill is to require the sale committee to obtain a valuation report on the value of the en bloc sale as at the date of the close of the tender or auction on the same date. For example, if the tender price is above the reserve price but below the latest valuation, the owners will have to decide whether to sell.

More than one Member asked about one-to-one replacement. Ms Ellen Lee proposed that we provide for one-to-one exchange and, I think, she was particularly concerned about the elderly. Ms Irene Ng also drew a comparison with SERS and asked if we could have one-to-one. Of course, I should mention in parenthesis that SERS is acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, and the system is very different. On this one-to-one replacement or exchange, we have considered these proposals for one-to-one exchange as well as requiring the developers to offer a replacement unit which may not strictly be for one-to-one exchange. We also consulted the people in the industry and our expert panel. While I fully understand the sentiments, I wish to point out that there are many practical difficulties. For example, in a letter written and it was published in the local newspaper, one owner was offered a replacement unit but declined the offer, wrote to the press to say that the replacement unit, which eventually his neighbour took, had many nooks and crannies that were not usable, the rooms were all much smaller, the neighbouring unit was so close that he could open the windows and shake hands with the neighbour occupant.

So, there will be various complaints. To avoid such complaints that owners are short-changed, we will have to prescribe in the law that developers must provide owners with details such as the size, configuration and the price of the units at the time when the developers make a bid to purchase the development. So, that is a major practical difficulty. And that may delay the process as well as add to the cost which could, ultimately, translate into lower sale proceeds. In the end, because of all these practical difficulties, we decided that the best is to leave it to the owners to negotiate with the developers for the best deal. I think it is better just to provide for the en bloc sale through an open tender or auction so that the owners can get the best price, and they can then decide how best to use their sale proceeds. If some of the developments, especially the smaller ones, can find a way to negotiate and offer for replacement, of course, they are free to do so. I understand that, in fact, this happens on the ground. Paterson Lodge was such a case. And I was told that some developers have offered the owners who are selling the first preview to purchase a new flat ahead of the public launch. But these are matters which we should leave it to them to negotiate. I would not favour prescribing these because you have to prescribe for a great number of details.

Ms Irene Ng asked how many reports Police has received about harassment and intimidation, and what was the most serious case. I am afraid I do not have these statistics with me. But let me emphasise that the new rules which we are going to enact such as requirement for general meetings be held, cooling-off period, requirement to sign before a lawyer, are all meant to address the issue of harassment and intimidation as well as scrutiny of the housing agents.

Ms Irene Ng asked why estates below 10 years are allowed to go en bloc when they are not considered old buildings, whether it is environmentally unfriendly, and so on. And this was echoed by Prof. Kalyani and Mr Siew Kum Hong. I will go back to 1999 when we first enacted the amendments providing for en bloc sale, and we had a Select Committee then. At that time when we drafted the first set of legislation, and we referred it to a Select Committee, we, in fact, received serious representations that we should not make any distinction between developments which were over or less than 10 years. In other words, the same rule - 80% - should apply to all developments, regardless of the age. We considered this but we thought that it was fair to require 90% for developments which were less than 10 years. In other words, rather than impose an arbitrary limit, we better leave it to market forces to determine the viability and timing of en bloc sales.

Since 1999, almost 70% of developments that had undergone en bloc sales were more than 20 years old. To date, there has only been one case of a development that was below 10 years, and that case was a development which originally had 44 units and was redeveloped to a development with 160 units.

Mr Alvin Yeo and Prof. Kalyani Mehta raised questions concerning the disclosure of interest provision. Let me deal with that now. Mr Alvin Yeo actually wants us to go further than what we have provided. What we have provided is fairly exhaustive, in my view: "A person standing for election ... who has any direct or indirect interest in any property developer, property consultant, marketing agent or legal firm, being an interest that could conflict with the proper performance of his functions as a member of the collective sale committee ..... shall, as soon as practicable after the relevant facts have come to his knowledge, disclose the nature of that interest at a general meeting." Mr Alvin Yeo wants us to go further to cover situations where there is no conflict of interest but where the candidate should, for transparency, I guess, declare if he or his family has several units in that development, and so on.

I am reluctant to go beyond providing for disclosure requirements to prevent conflict of interest situations as it will make it too onerous for members to volunteer their services for serving on the sale committee. Let us have this conflict of interest provision and see how it works. On the same provision, Prof. Kalyani Mehta was not happy with the phrase "as soon as practicable" because she thought it was open-ended, it can be declared any time. What is important for me to stress is that it is not open-ended because every candidate must disclose this conflict of interest situation. Although it says "as soon as practicable", it must be, at the latest, at a general meeting which is convened to elect members of the sale committee. In that way, there is a finite period - it must be declared by the date of the general meeting. So, all those attending the general meeting would be apprised of this potential conflict of interest situation.

What happens if there is intentional non-disclosure? I think that will be quite serious and it will render the person, of course, liable to be removed by the owners at the general meeting. Going back to our original policy purposes, the purpose of the Bill is to make things more transparent. In other words, all candidates must disclose so that everybody knows. It is not appropriate to create a new legal liability in that regard.

Then Prof. Kalyani Mehta talked about "condo-raiders". Because of these creatures she described as "condo-raiders", she wants a minimum period of residence to be stipulated as a criterion for being elected into the collective sale committee, and she proposes two years. In other words, you must be residing there for two years or more before you can be elected. I am reluctant to do that. Because if you prescribe in the law that you must have a period of two years, then it is an implication, is it not, that if you have purchased a property within one year, you are deemed to be a "condo-raider". And there may be people who have genuinely, bona fide, purchased a property within one year, 15 months or 18 months, intending it to be a home. And if they have done so, they may for good reasons want to serve in the sale committee to protect their interest and to protect the integrity of the process. So, I think it would create problems if we were to make that provision which will carry with it the implication and presumption that every purchaser who purchases a property within two years must have a certain taint or colouration about the intention. I think it is best to let the owners assess the candidates according to their own criteria and elect into the sale committee who they think are fit and proper to represent their interest.

Prof. Kalyani Mehta also asked whether we could have a special unit to look into complaints of stakeholders in en bloc negotiations in order to troubleshoot and deal with conflicts. Of course, as with all Ministries, my Ministry already has in place a system to receive and consider feedback, complaints and suggestions on en bloc sales as well as other matters, and also to address the issues and respond to them when necessary. This latest review of en bloc legislation is a case in point. Because we have a unit to look into the feedback, this had led to a study which eventually was a genesis of these amendments. But let me assure her that we will work with the Strata Titles Board and the people in the industry to see how the public and owners of strata title units can be better informed of the en bloc sale process, including the new requirements and rules.

This leads me to several suggestions that have been made by Dr Teo Ho Pin, Ms Ellen Lee, Prof. Kalyani Mehta, Mr Alvin Yeo, concerning guidelines, best practices, code, model law, and so on.

Dr Teo Ho Pin asked that we consider a set of standard collective sale forms to facilitate compliance with the new requirements, such as the new requirements in the Second and Third Schedules. I think Ms Ellen Lee also wanted us to develop a set of guidelines for best practices in collective sales in private properties. Prof. Kalyani Mehta also asked for a code of best practices to be drawn up. Mr Alvin Yeo proposed that the standard terms and conditions be set out in a standard form agreement for collective sale, in other words, standard CSA, if I am not mistaken.

Let me deal with the points in turn concerning best practices and forms to facilitate compliance with new requirements. Basically, as the Members would know, the Bill sets out essential requirements that the sale committee would have to adhere to. Notwithstanding that, I agree with the suggestions to develop the best practices guide, forms and such aids to assist practitioners in their work. So my Ministry will discuss with the Strata Titles Board and others, including the Law Society, to see how best we can do that. In fact, STB already has some standard forms, such as application for collective sale order, and we will discuss with them how the new requirements could either be improved or we can add on to the existing forms or include new forms, where necessary.

On Mr Alvin Yeo's suggestion for standard CSA contract, I agree with his objective of making clear to the owners what they would be signing. But I do not necessarily agree that the objective can only be achieved by prescribing a standard contract. I think the objective can also be achieved by requiring key information to be highlighted in the preface to the CSA and the requirement to sign before the lawyer responsible for the CSA, which we have done.

Mr Siew Kum Hong expressed his unhappiness with the guidelines, especially the guidelines issued by SISV, on how proceeds should be apportioned or distributed. I would look into this. But let me say that we understand that the SISV is working on refining valuation guidelines which are often used when valuers are asked to determine apportionment in sale proceeds. Of course, we are not able to specify in the law a standard apportionment method because there are a multitude of factors to consider in deciding on a single method of distributing the sale proceeds, including share value, size of unit, market value, and so on. So it would be very difficult to specify one standard method that you could apply to all sizes, designs and types of developments. But I take his point about the guidelines, and we will have discussions with the SISV.

Mr Siew Kum Hong also asked about the provision permitting STB to order an increase in payment. I think his view was that it is inequitable to order the increased payment to be paid by all subsidiary proprietors. It is not inconsistent with the provisions in the existing law because just as all owners contribute towards the fees incurred for en bloc sale, it is not unfair for them to contribute towards an increase in the sale proceeds ordered by STB. But this is why we have kept the maximum amount that an owner may potentially have to contribute as 0.25% of the sale proceeds, or $2,000, whichever is higher. Individually, it may be a small amount - Mr Siew made the point that it is a small amount - but collectively, it will give the STB a fairly meaningful amount which it can use in cases where it is satisfied that it is inequitable to do so.

Mr Siew Kum Hong also talked about having motions at the general meeting of the MC to decide on the basis of share values, and he thought it derogates from the benefits of the new requirement of the 80%/90% decision to have en bloc sales. The additional requirement of the area is actually to address the specific problem of residential owners holding less share value, despite owning a substantial floor area when it comes to deciding whether to sell the development en bloc. In dealing with that specific issue, we have decided that we should not alter the fundamental basis by which decisions are made at general meetings in a strata development. Even if, as Mr Siew Kum Hong pointed out, commercial owners were to dominate at the general meeting, they will still need to comply with all the procedures and requirements which we have set out in the Schedules and hold the required meetings to keep all owners informed.

Mr Siew Kum Hong also talked about appeals against STB's decisions. At the moment, it is currently limited to questions of law. I think he proposed whether it is time to consider removing that restriction. When we first enacted the provisions on en bloc sales by majority consent, we had to address this issue. We decided then that the Strata Titles Board, not the courts, would be the appropriate body to hear the application and objections as they would invariably be non-legal issues which lend themselves more to mediation rather than adjudication by the courts. We think this is still the case. As most objections relate to claims of financial loss or transactions not made in good faith, they are not really legal issues which lend themselves to adjudication by the courts. Also, allowing appeals on non-legal points, I think, would lead to unnecessary delays in the whole en bloc process.

I think the final point raised by Mr Siew Kum Hong is whether the valuer should declare his interest, say, with the marketing agent. Here, it is noted that our new provisions already provide that there must be an independent valuer, independent in the sense that he must not have an interest in the en bloc development. In any case, the owners in the general meeting convened to appoint a marketing consultant and valuer can still require that they disclose this and other interest.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, as I said in the beginning, I do not consider that all the suggestions made by Members, which are not reflected in the Bill, as being undeserving of consideration. The position I take is that this is an ongoing process. There will be more en bloc sales. We have to see how this new legal regime works in practice. My Ministry, together with the other agencies, will monitor very closely the operation of these new provisions. It is my hope that they will eradicate or, if not, significantly minimise complaints of harassment, unfairness and lack of transparency. But if it is necessary to make further amendments, then we have no hesitation to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Column No : 2053