"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.

Sale Committee - 1 year on

There have been a few changes on the sale committee since their election in Jan 2011.

At that EGM, 12 owners were voted onto the committee and some general information was gleaned from questions asked from the floor (tabulated).

3 SC members resigned between Aug & Nov 2011
1 SC member resigned in Feb 2012 (update Mar 2012)
1 Sc member resigned in Apr 2012 (update May 2012)

Since SC members are required to disclose details of their and their associates' interests in the estate, any change to this status should be relayed to the owners, or at least mentioned in the SC meetings and thus minuted if it involves a sale. There is nothing sinister or illegal about the selling of units in the estate whilst holding office, and I have never intimated as much. A change in holding position is simply just that; a change.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. The Chairman of the SC took exception to this comment and requested that it be deleted.

    "We are surprised and outraged that your blog has permitted this post with speculative comments, unsubstantiated allegations and above all accusing some SC members to be corrupt and plotting to share some money. You will agree that these comments are not just insinuating and abusive, but clearly defamatory."

    I wasn't sure if this comment crossed the line or not, but I certainly didn't read anything like what the Chairman read into it. My apologies though, I should have erred on the side of caution. As the moderator of comments, I do delete many, many unsavoury comments, the latest one being a two word expletive.

    I aploogise unreservedly to the SC, and if there are any more you feel that have slipped through the net, please don't hesitate to tell me.

    "We expect that these comments to be withdrawn forthwith from your blog with an apology from you for posting it."

    And there you have it. By the way, by posting comments I am in no way endorsing them, as I welcome and post comments from all quarters