"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.

Minutes of the 16th SC Meeting

First off:


I only saw a hand-out by the former SC member Mr, Vasan who was not present at the meeting and who had resigned the day before: 'He (the MA) also presented the RLV table that was presented by Mr Vasan during the 15th CSC"

'They (MA & myself) agreed that all of the factors used in their calculation were basically similar, except one, which had already been discussed during the 15th CSC meeting.'

This is quite true - but the exception was quite a major one.

I have highlighted in RED where we differed (though I have not put in the Vasan figures, just my own which were already on this blog for quite a while)

We differed on the Efficiency- but I don't see that as a major problem as my figure was more generous to the developer

We differed on the Average selling price psf of new development.

I insisted that the 10% Bonus would be included in the GDV calculation by the Developer. Why? because :
  • Majority RLV in RD 1 at the Strata Titles Board included the 10% in their calculation

  • Minority RLV in Rd 1 at the Strata Titles Board included the 10% in their calculation

I take these 2 official RLVs as my gold standard - as they were presented for scrutiny by Marketing Agents and picked apart by a 5 member panel of experts and 2 Senior Counsels at the Strata Titles Board.   I rest my case on this. 

(The full RLVS can be found on my RLV post ).

Afternote: Mr Glen found out that one enbloc site which was developed into a private estate utilised 85% of the total gross floor area (GFA), which means the net saleable area is 15% lower than the available GFA. This information was presented in an email circulated to SC members, Mr Terence and Ms Naimh Choo. 

I pointed out to Mr Glen that one swallow does not make a summer.
Many moons ago I started a little 'discovery' of my own into the efficiency using a rather crude method: I added up the SQM of the new sale caveats lodged and compared that with the GFA allowed. The results were indicative only but it has spurred me on to finally do the WATERFRONT COLLECTION . I shall post the results when completed.

My old crude efficiency table:


  1. Why MA keep on comparing our land with Tampines Ave 10 land? Didn't they know that they are not makng an apple to apple comparison? They have already wasted 5 mths of our time and still keep on repeating the same sales pitch. If they have no confidence in the product they are selling, please resign instead of wasting more time !

  2. The minutes of the 15th SC mtg clearly stated that the MA worked out a revised RP of XXX M. No 'ifs', 'buts' or other conditions attached.
    If we cannot believe or rely on the veracity of any written minutes, letters or notices issued and signed by Secretary and Chairman, what is the point of continuing with this Enbloc. Furthermore it puzzles me that the MA does not officially accept his own proposed RP. I question his professionalism, sanity, integrity the whole gamut.

    Are these the same people who will negotiate with Developers on our behalf?
    Who cannot think clearly, communicate accurately or even write precisely.

    My take: it's just theater, drama, wayang or whatever you like to call it. A ploy by our MA/SC outfit.
    MA has been critised for his yoyo valuation. He'll look inept if his valuation spikes by too much after all that he's said. He has to depress TC valuation by comparing with inferior sites and exclude the 10% bonus area in his calculations.
    It's now SC call on the RP, to which he'll reluctantly agree ( after thinking long and hard ) MA now smells sweeter, he thinks.
    However the 'Fool Factor'is now squarely in SC lap, especially after that notorious letter to all residents. SC and residents now doing part of MA duties while he collects the full commission. Brilliant.
    It's obvious to me who is steering this Enbloc.

    All future minutes or notices be signed by:
    1) Chairman (to make it legal)
    2) MA ( Numero Uno, he who calls the shots)
    Only then, "What is written is what is Misunderstood by whoever is misquoted but Never to be Blamed or Responsible...." oh well, you know what I mean. I hope.

  3. Whatever lah. If you can't get 80% signature, it's game over. If you can get 80% signature but not done in a proper and transparent manner in the best interest of the SPs, it is still game over during strata board hearing. So, SC/MA, if you want the enbloc to go through, you should know what to do.

    1. Strata Board cannot decide to stop the sale. Objectors must challenge at the High Court. Another long drawn affair.
      Best to deny them 80% for quick end.

  4. Past wrongdoings can't be undone. What else will be unraveled I wonder?
    If it happens, challenge will be heard in High Court.

  5. If inspite or because of shenanigans 80% is achieved, STB will not stop the sale. It's up to residents to take up the fight to the High Court. New rules unlike Enbloc I. Best not to sign if you doubt competence of this SC/MA.

  6. What's the signing status now? Did not see the monthly notice.

    1. Minutes of the 16th SC Meeting held on 5 Nov should be posted on notice board within 7 days after meeting. Please ref Third Schedule of LTSA. Whoever is in charge, Please explain the delay. Thank you.

  7. FYI Rio Casa (ex HUDC) in Hougang appt Knight Frank as MA for collective sale. The proposed RP will payout in excess of 1.6X million.
    I am appalled by Hutton's valuation for TC.

    1. MA/SC will explain to you that Rio Casa is in a better location than TC.

    2. To SC/MA, TC is forever a pathetic piece of land, run down, high maintenance cost, blah, blah, blah..... getting bored on listening to broken record. Yawn !

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. RP hinges on Valuation to ensure owners are not shortchanged and Developers too can profit. Knight Frank's RP seems reasonable and balanced (recent HUDC Enbloc comps). Favourable for owners support and Developers interest. Rio Casa is off to a good start.

      Tampines Court MA appointment is questionable. It was not a fair nor transparent selection process. LTSA Laws were knowingly ignored by SC.
      The Hatchet Job on Tampines Court RP doomed our Enbloc from the beginning. TC did not have a fighting chance under this SC/MA combo.

      They now walk away, leaving many hurt, bitter and feeling betrayed.