Public Tender or Private Treaty?

I have to admit to being highly suspicious of private treaties - especially those from buyer-developers who don't put in a bid at the public tender.  After the shenanigans that went on in round 1 (please read the transcripts) who would ever trust that particular route ever again! In round 1, the sale was thrown out because it was not done in good faith with regard to sale price, - and what went on out of owners' view was totally shocking.

The question is, do you want real transparency or just lip-service to transparency?

In government land sales, there are no private treaties , their policy is public tender only. A public tender is totally transparent and developer-buyers are pitched agianst one another.  Their reserve price is also kept secret.** As a result,  their tenders attract many bidders.  In an en bloc, the reserve price is never secret - it is known to everyone everywhere The moment you allow private treaties after a public tender then you automatically REDUCE the number of tender bids. You will be lucky to get one or two.

Without doubt, PUBLIC TENDERS - WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PRIVATE TREATY - ATTRACT THE MOST INTEREST.

Recent example:

CapitaLand tops record 19 bids for Bishan site

A 99-year leasehold land site for condominium housing in Bishan attracted a record 19 bids at the close of its tender by the Housing and Development Board yesterday – the highest number of bids in 12 years.

This is one bid higher than the Simei Street 3 tender in May last year. That site has since been developed into the My Manhattan by CEL Development.

The highest bid for the Bishan site came from CapitaLand at S$550.1 million, or $869 per sq ft per plot ratio, submitted through its wholly-owned subsidiary Bishan Residential Development.

The winning bid for the Bishan site suggests that the developer is looking to sell the units at around S$1,400 psf.”.

It is in the public interest that public tenders be held;  the collective interest is also best served  through a public tender.

The owners should request that the estate be sold through public tender only. Owners have nothing to lose by this and everything to gain. Force the interested buyers to make their bids public and they will have no choice but to do so. If they bid close to the RP they may fail - that is the beauty of tendering. 

Allowing developer-buyers the option of holding back and putting in a bid AFTER the tender just guarantees an empty tender exercise and a private offer close to the RP (already published in the media for heavens sake!!!). 

.

The LTSA rules favour private treaties in that they allow the SC to enter into binding contracts without prior consultation with the majority owners. An owner meeting (only with no voting ) to consider the sale is either after the public tender or after the private S&P has been entered into.

Why are private treaties treated differently from public tenders? What rational dictates that a SC informs the owners with tender bids ......but not with a private treaty offer?

Because it is NOT TRANSPARENT and owners can be easily conned, that is why.

.

Why would an interested developer decide not to participate in the tender exercise?

• With few or no bids, the owners might feel their estate has drawn little interest, while in reality, the interested party is waiting on the sidelines to come in to 'save the day' with a near RP price.
• With few or no public bids, the owners will feel their SC is justified in taking what they can get from a private offer. 
• In a tender, it is the SC who call the shots; set the dates and deadlines. In a private offer. the shoe is on the other foot and it is the developer who calls the shots and deadlines  eg 'sign by midnight or the deal is off'.
• Perhaps the developer wants to see the public bids first (if any) before delivering their counter offer.
• They avoid having their offer scrutinised by the majority who might feel other bids have more favourable conditions. If the meeting is held after the public tender then the private offer isn't even on the table yet.
• The SC can sign the private treaty unilaterally (if the CSA mandates them to do so, which is usually the case) and if the majority are subsequently unhappy, they can do nothing about it. It is only the minority who can bring the matter up to the STB and  High Court.
• Couple this with a 'Venus Fly Trap' kind of clause (see my CSA post ) and it's a slam dunk for the buyer.
• Perhaps the estate has been 'promised' to the said developer beforehand and the SC are just going through the formalities by holding a public tender, rejecting the bids/ counter offers, lamenting the poor response, proclaiming that all is lost etc...before suddenly introducing the saving private party with the RP (or possibly even lower) offer. 
• Perhaps the developer has come to some informal side-agreement with the SC to buy the estate at near the RP at the beginning- who knows, framed from the outset... as I say, it's all very fishy to me.

One of the Duties of the Sale Committee is the duty to obtain the best price:-

154      The duty to obtain the best price arises out of the SC’s duty to act conscientiously as well as to act even-handedly in the collective interest of all the subsidiary proprietors. The duty to obtain the best sale price is particularly crucial for the objecting subsidiary proprietors. As alluded to at [114] above, such subsidiary proprietors may be compelled by virtue of an STB order to sell their units either at a price which they were not prepared to accept or where they were in fact not prepared to sell their units at any price for personal reasons. In such circumstances, their only consolation or compensation for losing their units is the sale price they will receive. The SC must therefore strive to achieve the best premium available for the subsidiary proprietors by obtaining the best price for the development as a whole.
Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision, Andre Phang Boon Leong JA, Chan Sek Keong CJ, V K Rajah JA

** The procedure seems to be different for land sales on the reserve list whereby a site on the Reserve List System will be put up for sale if a developer's indicated minimum price in his application is acceptable to the Government. This minimum price is made known to the public but the developer's name is not.

Confusing... why have 2 different systems?

Reaffirmation

Who can forget the riotous EGM held in 2007 in which owners - majority as well as minority- were absolutely furious that the estate had been sold at near the RP even though the market had risen exponentially.

This time though, things can be different. Owners can maintain control and MinLaw has okay-ed it for estates that wish to do so.

From MinLaw -

Reaffirmation from owners before the award of a sale tender: A sales committee has to act in accordance with the mandate specified in its CSA. It really depends on what mandate is given to the sale committee. If the owners empower the sale committee to make the decision for award of tender within a certain prescribed parameters, without the need for reaffirmation, then it is not the governments position to intercede, and tell the owners how they should run the process. Likewise, there is nothing in the legislation, either in the past or going forward, to prevent owners from specifying that they want the sales committee to seek such reaffirmation from the owners, before the sale tender is awarded. This can be provided in the CSA if the majority wants.

The Minister of Law, Mr K Shanmugam, Order for Second Reading of Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill, 2010 and Oral Answers to Members Questions

After the tender, owners must insist:-

That any SP may witness the opening of the tender box and that all information be known to all owners as soon as possible. The tender box should be opened at the management office and NOT at the lawyers office at midnight or some such nonsense.

The LTSA mandates a meeting of the subsidiary proprietors (that means ALL owners)   after the tender or after the S&P has been signed and sealed in a private treaty. This 'or' is very sinister,  and could be TC's second undoing.

Hands up how many believe the SC will opt for the latter and  present the sale as a done deal.

It is for this reason that  under NO CIRCUMSTANCE should the sale committee be allowed to sign a S&P without first seeking owner REAFFIRMATION.

This is a prudent safety measure and had consenting owners this safety net in round 1 - they could have saved themselves a lot of anxiety. 

How could this reaffirmation be exercised?

Well; either

a) hold a subsidiary proprietors meeting (of which 7 days notice is given to all owners)  or an MCST EGM specially convened for the purpose and/or

b) by reply to a legal letter sent out to ALL consenting owners. Owners replies would have to reach the lawyer's office by a specified date but not later than the date of EGM or SP meeting in a).

To be fair, a non-reply should be considered a YES.

So, if 87% sign the CSA, and 72% reaffirm, 5% say no and 10% do not reply

Then 72 + 10  = 82%

It is important that the necessary 80% be attained in order to apply for sale at the STB.

If the process went well and the sale price obtained agreeable then there is no worry that owners will rescind their agreement en mass. But if there were general unhappiness about how the sale was conducted or the eventual sale price was unsatisfactory- then this is the best way for owners to force the SC to do their bidding.

Expect the en bloc lawyer, marketing agent, short-term investors in the estate to strongly block this. They want you to sign and be damned.

Why the LTSA does not include everything - 

Second, the Government is guided by the principle that we should not micro-manage the process and prescribe too many requirements as they may not be applicable to every development. Some of the measures suggested by Members are not without merit. They may well be very useful for specific developments, and owners may wish to adopt them.  But it does not follow that these requirements should be or can be prescribed for every en bloc sale.  Doing so may introduce unnecessary rigidity and pose considerable difficulties for owners if the requirement does not make sense for their particular development.  Hence, our stance is not to be overly prescriptive.  The real point is that owners are free to adopt these measures if they think they are suitable for their particular circumstances.  Thus, the ultimate choice is with the owners themselves on how the sale should be conducted.

 The Minister of Law, Mr K Shanmugam, Order for Second Reading of Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill, 2010 and Oral Answers to Members Questions

If anyone is in doubt and imagines I am putting words into the good Minister's mouth - please access the Hansard records for yourselves here 

Property Agents identification

All property agents will have to display their Estate Agent Card prominently when carrying out estate agency work from March 1 this year.

Read More >>>

ST Letter : No benefit from collective sales

ST Letter : No benefit from collective sales

20 Feb 2011,

I refer to the special report on the experiences of former Gillman Heights residents ('For better or for worse'; Feb6).

The five residents interviewed have all suffered financial or emotional losses from the collective sale of their homes.

As a resident from a condominium unit about to vote on such a sale, I too have been told by the agents trying to sell my condo that I will have to downgrade from my 1,700 sq ft apartment to a 1,300sq ft one if I wish to buy a new property.

My current apartment has three bedrooms plus a maid's room. I will have to downsize to a two-bedroom unit (with no maid's room) or buy an HDB flat - and still be out of pocket after the sale. If I wish to buy a new apartment in the area, I will have to pay about $1million more than what I am selling for.

Whom does a collective sale benefit? Would it not be better to upgrade our existing apartments (I am told it would be about $30,000 per resident) rather than move?

The economics simply do not make sense - and many residents realise this only too late.

If a collective sale pays 30per cent above the market rate, which is the current rule of thumb for developers, it would be better to be prudent and hold off the sale, or face a loss.

In fact, I have friends from Gillman Heights who were out of pocket by more than half a million dollars when they had to move to a similar location. The market continued to move up in the two years before they got their money - as is the case for practically every collective sale I know of.

Harry Tham

ST Letters : En bloc issue raises many questions

20 Feb 2011,

I felt sad on reading the special report on those who sold their apartments en bloc ('For better or for worse'; Feb6).

As expected, there were positive and negative stories. This is to be expected in any collective sale, when not all agree to the deal.

Nevertheless, the issue again raises many questions. For example:

· What is a home? To some, it is not just a house but a place where one can put down roots and bond with one's neighbours, or where one was brought up.

· Does money matter so much that financial gains become more important than everything else?

· Does the right of those who support the sales rank higher than the right of those who do not want to make the change? Should an 80per cent level of consent be the deciding figure? Should it be 100per cent?

· Is Singapore so land-scarce that we need so many collective sales?

· Do such sales improve the quality of life in Singapore?

· Government-built HUDC housing allows people to have a good home at an affordable price. Why do we allow this to be taken away from some people?

My view is that collective sales have created part of the liquidity problem as well as the housing problem here.

People should have the right to remain in their homes until the buildings are no longer suitable to live in.

Ang Miah Boon

First EGM and SALE COMMITTEE

Date: 29 Jan 2011

QUORUM: 47% at 2.30pm :

Meeting opened.

Resolution 1: to consider and approve a collective sale of Tampines Court

YES: 956 by share value (239 units)

NO:  156 by share value (39 units)

Motion was passed

(Total number of units in TC: 560)

Nomination of sale committee members. Quite a number put their names forward and so it was decided that each candidate should take the floor for 5 minutes to introduce themselves and take questions from owners.

Now obviously I cannot name names on this blog, so in completely random order, here is what I gleaned.  Now, I do not take good notes on the hoof - so I WILL AMEND if need be later on.

Opinion

There were strong objections from the floor about a SP questioning candidates about the nature and extent of their ownership in the estate and elsewhere.  People seemed to think we should be more trusting of these total strangers who would be attempting to sell each and every unit in the estate. Obviously they have never read our Minister of Law's speech at the Second reading of the LTSA amendment Bill 2010. All the candidates answered when asked save one who refused - which raises suspicions in my ever suspicious mind.  A would-be SC member showing scant regard to the rules or worse, doesn't  know the rules.

But the questioning continued anyway and I wish now, it had been even more probing. 

Having 4 property agents on the committee is 3 too many.  I have no objection whatsoever to our own long-time resident property agent (L). But the rest! Just look at their form - one of them I can only describe as a battle-axe!! This is NOT good for Tampines Court. They might dominate the sale committee. I hope the other sale committee members can compete and hopefully not give them the chairmanship.

6 out of the 12 are new owners and to me that spells trouble - I am banking on the bankers  and financial guy to do the math, the businessmen to bring in know-how,  the 6  real TC owners who have been through round 1 to inject some wisdom. A lot rides on these real TC owners.

I despair at the lack of other professionals such as engineers, architects, lawyers. This is not a well balanced committee. 

But so be it.

The floor were never told if any of the candidates were undischarged bankrupts or in arrears to the MCST - because the managing agent did not ask them to declare.  It was done only after the meeting had ended and everyone had gone home  and only because this blogger complained about the omission.

The disclosures of units owned fully or jointly should have been made voluntarily  a as well as the nature and extent of associates' ownership in the estate - indeed, it is a requirement of the candidates to do so in the LTSA (new rules) - and not left to a sole owner working against the crowd to pry out such details. One grumpy old man even came up to me after the meeting and told me I was a troublemaker! 

The managing agent did not apply the rules properly nor the penalties for non-disclosure. 

No powers were given to the sale committee because well, there was no resolution to do so.  The 'Power, Duties or Functions' portion of the motion was deemed irrelevant by the managing agent, who took it upon himself to rewrite the rules. The sale committee has therefore been sent on it's merry way without any direction from the owners. Whatever they instruct the lawyers to write in the CSA will be all their own invention. Owners will be tasked to catch the horse after it has bolted at the CSA EOGM. 

By then, perhaps the other half of Tampines Court will wake up and ATTEND! 

A word to any SC member who might read this blog - READ MORE WIDELY . Also remember, you have not been appointed to represent the pro-enbloc / consenting owners only.

Feb 15, 2011

En bloc interest: Law requires conflict of interest declaration

MS GRACE Francis suggested that those interested in running for office in an estate declare non-conflict of interest ("En bloc roadblocks"; last Thursday).

With the amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act in 2010, candidates standing for election to the collective sale committee (CSC) and any existing CSC members are required to declare any conflict of interest. This includes any direct or indirect interest in entities such as property developer and property consultant, and the extent of ownership they or persons connected to them (such as immediate family members) have in the strata development.

Ms Francis also commented that there are pro-en bloc residents who join the estate's management corporation (MC) council and oppose attempts to improve the estate.

Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the MC council is duty-bound to ensure that the estate is well-maintained and kept in a state of good and serviceable repair.

Should the MC council fail to perform its duties, subsidiary proprietors/owners can seek redress through the Strata Titles Boards or the court to compel the MC council to perform its duties.

Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Director
Corporate Communications Division
Ministry of Law

Austral View en bloc, sale price of $88 million

Wed, Feb 16, 2011 AsiaOne

Austral View, a prime freehold apartment located in the Tanjong Rhu/Meyer Road residential area, was put up for sale by public tender today. According to a Straits Times report, its marketing agent, CB Richard Ellis, has set an asking price of S$88 million for the 2,837 sqm site, which has a Gross Plot Ratio of 2.1 and a permissible building height of up to 24 storeys. This translates to S$1,350 psf per plot ratio. In the report, it said potential developers may be able to break even with the S$88 million price tag at about $1,800 psf.

Bayshore Park condo owners in defamation suit

Read More >>>

EGM 1

SUMMARY

Pro-Owner Inititive: 1-for-1 EXCHANGE

It is time for owners to cover their bases. I never tire of repeating what our dear Minister of Law said about owner control:

 "Owners have the ultimate say.  They can ask for what they think is necessary, for the process, or for them to participate in the process."


There is no good reason why owners can not be given 2 options of payment.

1) Cash

2) 1-for-1 exchange

The signatories to the sale  can make their choice on signing the CSA, and those not for the sale can make the choice when they are being forced out of their homes. Remember it is wise to hedge you bets in the event that the eventual sales proceeds are not sufficient to get a decent sized replacement home or from a sale turned sour by the actions or  inaction of a sale committee.


Expect those who are wishing for a quick sale and a quick profit on their 'investment'  to fight this tooth and nail.  They will be HIGHLY vocal in their objections but stick by your guns because you are an owner, perhaps a long time owner,  and have a right to ask for what you think is necessary. Even if you have no intention of choosing this option for yourself, do not deny the opportunity to those who would. We are neighbours after all - some of us have been neighbours for 26 years. For goodness sake, have a heart.


From the Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision:


107      As the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively, there is no point at which the SC may act solely in the interests of any group of subsidiary proprietors, whether they are consenting or objecting proprietors. When an SC is first appointed, it is with a view to achieving a collective sale for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. At this stage, the interests of the subsidiary proprietors are not yet clearly differentiated. Thus, the SC’s initial paramount responsibility is simply to obtain the requisite consent for the collective sale as well as appoint competent professional advisers. The SC’s members and advisers also have the duty to avoid any possible conflict of interest (see [137]–[145] below). However, once the requisite consent is obtained and the interests of the objecting subsidiary proprietors become distinguishable from those of the consenting subsidiary proprietors, the SC’s role becomes that of an impartial agent acting for both camps. In other words, the SC must hold an even hand between these interests.


New-for-old swops may feature more in collective sales  

Deals where owners get new units in redeveloped property may be a way out for projects having trouble getting 80% approval

Collective sales may be hot but when homeowners are not tempted by the cash, a ‘fair exchange’ might be the way to get around the deadlock.

Hold-outs have stalled the sale process at quite a few estates – particularly prime ones – in recent months. The reluctance stems from the fear that the sale proceeds will be insufficient for a new unit of similar size in the same area, particularly given the rising market.

Typically, a collective sale for an estate more than 10 years old can proceed only if 80 per cent or more of the owners agree to it.

More cash might do the trick but another way is for the owners to do a swop – they get a new unit in the redeveloped property instead of money for their existing one, says lawyer SK Phang of Phang & Co.

So far, such ‘exchange’ deals have been few and far between, with some property consultants and developers calling them complicated and cumbersome.

But Dr Phang believes that more homeowners – particularly those in projects having trouble getting 80 per cent approval – are likely to consider it.

It could be a full exchange for all the owners or a hybrid deal, where some owners opt to sell for cash while the rest pick a unit swop.

This would allow investors to cash in at the collective sale price while owner-occupiers could move back into the redeveloped property, instead of relocating to a less ideal area, said Dr Phang.

In a hybrid deal, the cash offer would be worked out based on the assumption that the entire estate is to be sold for cash.

Last year, Dr Phang helped all 20 owners of Paterson Lodge in the Orchard Road area work out an exchange deal. He is now working on two similar projects.

The benefits to the developers are clear. They will enjoy reduced risks as they would have ‘pre-sold’ some of the units in their new project. The overall cost of the land will be less and so they will have less cash outlay.

Smaller developers, particularly contractor-developers which may not have access to vast amounts of cash, are likely to be more open to the idea, consultants said.

But while developers may save on costs, their potential return may also be less, said
Mr Lui Seng Fatt, the regional director and head of investments at Jones Lang LaSalle. The key would be whether the site is in a choice location. ‘Otherwise, they will just pay cash. It’s more clean cut,’ he added.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung’s director, Ms Tang Wei Leng, said of exchange deals: ‘There are a lot of uncertainties in terms of the time line; a lot of administrative hassles.’

Those keen on a swop deal are likely to be from estates where a conventional collective sale is not possible due to the large number of homeowners facing a loss, said Mr Lui.

‘In a swop deal, you get a promise to own something yet to be built or even approved by the authorities,’ said Credo Real Estate (Singapore)’s managing director, Mr Karamjit Singh. ‘It’s possible but there are hurdles. Owners have to be prepared for more steps.’

One such step is that when an owner delivers the apartment title to the developer, it has to be free of encumbrances, he said.

Homeowners typically have loans but this hitch could be resolved with the developer’s help. Dr Phang cited a case where the developer provided a corporate guarantee to the bank to take over the encumbrances.

Owners will also have to find a place to live during the 18 months or more during construction of the new development, but they may be able to negotiate a rent subsidy with the developer, said Dr Phang.

Ms Tang also pointed to the ‘risk of the developer not completing the project, or not completing it on time or according to specifications’.

In the case of Paterson Lodge, the owners will transfer their estate’s land to the developer only when the project is completed and they have received titles to their new homes.
A performance bond will solve these problem, said Dr Phang.

For exchange deals, there will be an extra round of negotiations on the ‘replacement’ units, consultants said. And this is what some developers are wary of.

‘It seems troublesome because you have to consider which unit on which floor or size to give to the owners,’ said one developer. ‘Documents have to be drafted watertight. I could put in a clause saying that we will just give a unit of a certain size, for example.’

Dealing with many owners is the tricky part, said another developer.

The major challenge is the acceptance of the market to the idea, said Dr Phang.

‘In a dynamic market, with rising replacement costs, swop deals will become more popular,’ said Mr Singh.

Source : Sunday Times – 25 Feb 2007

Also, an excellent take from The Pariah -  HERE

Gillman Heights 2yrs on

Gillman Heights were saddled with two problems; a poor sale committee and the National University of Singapore owning a good percentage of the estate. I find it obscene that the Chairman is sitting pretty in a landed estate while many of the owners downgraded - some all the way down to HDB again.

I met the objecting minority at their STB hearings and High Court hearings; they were a fine group of people and were devastated by their loss.

The unlocking potential went 100% to the developer. If they had kept their units - they would probably have an open market value now of $1.5 million or more.

Instead, many owners have lost the equity they had built up over the years, were forced to downgrade into smaller, less valuable homes, probably with a smaller strata area and a reduced share value as estates are more dense nowadays.

This would be particularly damaging to those in the 50-60 yr old age group. Too old to build up a new nest egg, too young to retire. Hanging on to GH would have been a better option for them.

This could have been avoided had there been a 1-for-1 EXCHANGE built into the CSA. Owners would have been protected against a bumbling SC / en bloc raiders/   small-minded people /greedy Developers and other professionals in the field.

A 1-for-1 exchange is an owners safety net should things turn out for the worse.

Read More >>>

Amber Glades put up for collective sale

Amber Glades in Marine Parade has been put up for collective sale.
The condominium currently occupies a freehold residential site on Amber Gardens.
The site comprises two blocks housing 63 units, with a land area of over 40,000 square feet.
The indicative price is about S$120 million.
This works out to about slightly under S$1,100 per square foot per plot ratio.
This is comparable to the recent sale of Marine Point, which was sealed at SS$1,056 per sq ft per plot ratio.
Each owner could receive between S$1.34 million and S$2.24 million from the collective sale, depending on the size of their unit.
The successful buyer can re-develop the site to accommodate a 22-storey residential block.
This could comprise modern condominium facilities, comprising 100 apartments with an average size of 1,050 sq ft each.
Under the 2008 Master Plan, the subject site is zoned for “Residential” use with a gross plot ratio of 2.8.
The tender will close on March 2, 2011.
Tang Wei Leng, Executive Director of Investment Services at Colliers International, said, “Amber Glades is perhaps one of the last few freehold sites in the Amber area suitable for a mid-sized development.”
She added that “it is in a well sought after residential address in District 15″ and coupled with “its regular shape and dual road frontages, this site would appeal to niche developers who are familiar with the area or developers who are looking to replenish their land banks.”
Source : Channel NewsAsia – 8 Feb 2011

WHEN ESTATE UPGRADING IS THWARTED BY... En bloc roadblocks 

IN RECALLING the en bloc saga of Gillman Heights, the chairman of its sales committee stated that the condominium had to be sold en bloc because it was old and falling into disrepair ('No regrets, despite dear memories of Gillman'; Sunday).


This is a view commonly held among pro-en bloc residents, and it should be addressed. If an estate is old, it can be upgraded using the sinking fund, or through a special one-time contribution by residents. Such upgrading is far cheaper than the potential loss for owners from a collective sale.


As many former Gillman Heights residents quoted in the special report ('For better or for worse'; Sunday) ended up paying more for their new homes - some in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - those who live in old estates worth preserving should learn from such experiences.


There are pro-en bloc residents who often obstruct the improvement of an estate because they wish to profit from an en bloc sale. They prefer to see the estate fall into disrepair so they can cite the high costs of replacing old pipes, water tanks, old tiles and lobby areas subsequently. Such en bloc proponents join management councils and oppose attempts to improve the estate.


While many may argue that the decision on such an issue is best left to subsidiary proprietors, the reality is that few are keen on running for office in any estate, and fewer still are willing to argue with loud neighbours who harbour an agenda.


So, this issue must be solved by a built-in safeguard, which should require residents who wish to run for office to declare that there is no conflict of interest. There should be an automatic opt-out clause for those who harbour an interest in organising an en bloc sale.
There must be a law spelling out a conflict of interest to prevent residents who intend to lobby for an en bloc sale from sitting on a management council or any other official body of the estate that may influence the en bloc process.


A management council, by definition, must work towards the good of preserving, repairing and enhancing the estate and if this is so, pro-en bloc residents should be ineligible for office. 

Grace Francis (Ms)

Bizarre Arguments

Here is a comment that warrants it's own special post - as a prime example of how people can come up with the most irrational and bizarre arguments to try and put TC in a bad light. Never mind that such argument can be applied to every single estate in the country - and not just uniquely to TC - it's the fact that he can even SUGGEST such ridiculous scenarios to begin with!

Read More >>>