"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.


According to the Land Titles (Strata) Act

84A – 1
(a): (a) the subsidiary proprietors of the lots with not less than 90% of the share values where less than 10 years have passed since the date of the issue of the latest Temporary Occupation Permit on completion of any building comprised in the strata title plan or, if no Temporary Occupation Permit was issued, the date of the issue of the latest Certificate of Statutory Completion for any building comprised in the strata title plan, whichever is the later;

Tampines Court was privatized on 01 April 2002. Being an ex-HUDC estate, it does not have a TOP certificate. What it does have is a Certificate of Statutory Completion CSC (Full) issued on 14 May 2003.

Technically, therefore, we are only 4 years old and should require 90% majority signatures before proceeding with the enbloc sale.

But will the Strata Titles Board follow the LTSA rules and regulations? Current rules do not allow the STB to rule as invalid that which is valid. Their hands are tied until the new amendments kick in.

But then again, HUDCs have always fallen through the cracks; we have always been a ‘special’ case. When buying our units off the open market, before privatisation, we were forced to take a Bank loan like a private property yet were bound to all the housing ownership rules set by the HDB. All private properties are CPF first charge if bought before 1996. All properties, that is, except HUDC's; which are inexplicably set before 1991.

Rules are rules. Laws are laws. Will the rule of law prevail?
10 September
Gilman Heights will be challanging the TOP/CSC at the STB on 23th, 24th Sept and 3rd,4th,5th Oct.
Minton Rise (another HUDC) will follow hot on it's heals on Oct 8th.


  1. hi to call for an eogm what numbers must you have and does it matter if the minority are included in the quorum

  2. There are 3 ways to call for an EOGM.
    1. The MCST can call for one.
    2. 20% of SP's eligible to vote
    3. 25% of all SP's

    Since there are 540 units in Tampines Court; 112 units are required for way 2, and 140 units are required for way 3.

    The 25% is the safest way to go as that way, the MCST cannot rule any requisitions out on say, them owing 2 cents to the MCST (yes, at the EOGM, people were in-eligible because of 2 cents!). Gather the forms all together and address them to the SECRETARY of the MCST. He has 2 weeks to call for an EOGM. If he does not, then the SP's can hold the EOGM themselves. Check the BMSM act on my website for details on holding an EOGM.

  3. Hi

    Just read a CSA where all signatories agreed to (a) grant the SC to requisition for an EOGM with their signatures automatically included in the EOGM requisition (b) to vote in favour of anything the SC puts up for motion or resolution. They can't deviate from this or it'd be considered a breach of contract.

    You might want to check with your CSA on whether such clauses exist. I think it can be contested in court that a CSA should not have such clauses which would contravene the BMSMA's regulations on EOGMs.

  4. We are much further along in the process, but thanks for the warning.

    People now will be signing away their right to express an opinion! There is no end to the deviousness and unscrupulous behavour of some SC, PA and lawyers combined. One must be constantly on the look out for new tricks that empower the SC and weaken the owners.

  5. can the sc just ask the property manager to hold the eogm?

  6. No, the EOGM has to be done through the MC. It is an STB requirement that they must follow the BMSM Act to the tee on this matter.