"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.

What I found out today.

This is the part I hate: I wandered down to the signing session to ask a few questions of the MA, SC and Lawyer. (They were in the void deck, just outside the conference room. They preferred that to the Activity room))

The Lawyer
A young chap who was very forthright in telling me he is not familiar with Enbloc Law and so could not answer any of my questions. His only purpose, he said, was to sit there and witness the CSA signing.  Indeed, the First Schedule only states that the CSA should be signed in the presence of an advocate and solicitor who has a valid practising certificate. You would have to go back to hansard records to understand the secondary purpose of a lawyer's presence: 'The property which is to be the subject of a CSA may often be a very significant asset for the owner. It is important that the owners understand the CSA and it is important to avoid any arguments as to what was or was not said to them. ' (LTSA Amendments Bill Second reading).
The owners should be able to ask questions and have them answered by a knowledgable lawyer.
It is a shame that our so-called legal firm isn't able to produce one.

The Marketing Agent
A gist of some of the questions and answers

Q: Is the new RP considered a Supplemental Agreement?
A: No. Clause 1.2 of the CSA states that the RP can be increased
Q: Does the new RP start a fresh 12 months signing?
A: No.
Q: When is the end date for reaching the 80%?
A:  25 June 2017
Q: When is a Supplemental needed?
A: If the RP is lowered 
Q: You sent in a resignation letter, yes?
A: It wasn't a resignation letter per say- we were thinking of withdrawing, 
Q: Why did you change you mind?
A: Over the months, we fostered a relationships with SC and SPs.. some called us to reconsider. we felt that the spirit is not healthy in Tampines Court, but after the 2 months when everything stalled people did call to say they would sign so we thought, why not? See how it goes. Let it go naturally.
Q: Is it a LTSA requirement that a proper record of meetings be kept and minutes posted on the board within 7 days.
A; Yes, and kept up for 14 days. 
Q: Can a MA who has sent in an official resignation be reinstated without holding EOGM?
A:  This part is very, very tricky. anyone can send in a resignation... but is it accepted. We will answer that if the time comes 

So, it is good news that the new RP does not constitute a Supplemental Agreement and so the end of this enbloc is unchanged. That is a relief.

However, I disagree with his insistence that the email sent was not a resignation letter per say. 
Firstly, the SC certainly thought it was so - they labelled it 'Withdrawal of the Collective Sale Exercise for TC'. and secondly, the final paragraph read 'we regret very much the necessity to withdraw all our involvement in this collective sale exercise because our Management is of the view that the additional time, effort and resources will be spent for naught. Thank you, Yours faithfully etc'
If that doesn't sound like a resignation, I don't know what does. 

The Chairman of SC and pal GW
Well, this is where the frustration started. I questioned them on the lack of Minutes for the Nov 24th meeting. They denied that there was any necessity for meetings as nothing was important enough to warrant them and they only held  'discussions' to plot their course of action. They felt it bothersome to write Minutes for everything. I asked incredulously if they thought the resignation of the MA unimportant, and the course of action the SC wished to take also unimportant and so did not warrant a SC meeting or a record of what they discussed?! 

Round and round in circles we went.

They kept insisting that informal discussions were enough and no Minutes were needed. They clearly did not get why total transparency is necessary in the sale of 560 homes. They were confused between the words 'discussion' and 'meeting', the former being more like chit-chat in their minds. So, the MA resigned, lets have a chit-chat!  Let me clear it up for them: Meetings are held to discuss matters. Meetings are recorded so that the owners of the 560 units can see 1) who attended, 2) what was discussed (or chit-chatted) 3) what decisions were made and 4) how they were made, whether unanimous or split. The way it looks now, it seems the Chairman & pal just winged it on their own - perhaps keeping the other SC members 'in the loop' with BCC emails. Is there no one on the SC who can reign in this rogue Chairman?

They talked about putting posters up in the estate - so I asked them what they had promised to the MA for them to come back. They said 'nothing', but we have not seen that begging letter nor are we likely to hear about any unimportant chit-chat surrounding it.

The Letter of Resignation throws up some possibilities: The MA was peeved that the SC did not hold an EOGM  to propose the following:
  1. To present & explain the derivation of their RP
  2. To endorse on Mr Vasan's request for a valuation report at his own cost as stated therein in his response dated 24th Oct 2016
  3. To allow display of notices at prominent locations in TC
  4. To allow the use of Conference Room for CSA signing and
  5. To obtain an updated strata roll / mailing addresses
Item 1: They have not shown their RLV to date, save for flashing it on screen. A useless exercise
Item 2: What offer? We never heard about this because the SC are selective in what they record and what they tell owners.  Indeed, had owners known about Mr. Vasan's selfless offer, many would have stepped in to lighten the load financially. We could have had a Valuation done, but the SC blocked this... imagine that, a SC who do not want to know the true value of the land.
Item 3: Neither the SC nor any other committee/SP can hang signage/posters up in the estate, it is against Bye-Law 2.5. The have to stick to the Notice Boards. Old Notices should be taken down to make way for new.
Item 4: Well, well, well ... they tried.
Item 5: No problem. Any SP can get a copy of the Strata Roll if they pay the price. It is not free even to the SC.


  1. They may discuss sales tactics if they're peddling snake oil, NOT other people's homes. They who are chosen by the people, must be held accountable to the people. SC does not have Carte Blanche, there are Laws. Are the potential returns so lucrative to bear such risks and personal humiliation on our behalf? We only ask you act with dignity and be above board.

    I note last October's missive was signed by only 3 members. If the other half is leery, come clean and get out. All will be held collectively responsible for action taken by the few usual suspects.

  2. Totally in character; evasive, delusional and in denial. By their transgression and indiscretions they themselves put this collective sale in jeopardy
    Any interaction is counterproductive. Don't waste your time with them.

  3. Because meetings were held and minutes recorded, we now know:
    This SC was aware of potential conflict of interest issue with previous Secretary. (Mtg 1, Have we been scammed?)
    Committee has a scant working knowledge of LTSA, BMSM and By-Laws. Instances of members winging it through meetings dispensing bad advice, having to reconvene for a re vote. (Mtg 15)
    Huttons $50 million reduction of RP due "Alternate construction methods" accepted by SC without demand for verification.(Mtg 13)
    Enbloc erudite, Mr V strive to keep SC within the law.(Mtg 1,15)
    SC voted unanimously to expel Mr V. His folly; advocating for a higher RP directly to residents. Mr V reinstated. Expulsion unlawful.(Mtg 14)
    SC voted to raise RP.(Mtg 15)
    Mtg 15,16 and subsequent developments saw MA vacillating on his further involvement and finally resign.
    SC exec cited a statistical outlier data in support of lower RP. (encroach into MA area of specialization. Mtg 16)
    Secretary's omission of Mr V valuation offer is uncovered in MA resignation letter. (Mtg 16)
    It's unconscionable.
    Enough for now.

    Is an MA dependent valuation the only one that matters?
    We are thankful for these recorded minutes to keep us informed.
    Minutes of meetings are a legal record. It's significance better explained by Mr Adrian Chan (Deputy Chairman, Advocacy and Research Committee of the S'pore Institute of Directors) in his article 'Minuting the board meeting' Business Times 16 Jan.

    IN GOD WE TRUST. All others are held accountable.
    Mr Chairman, unless you can walk on water, please ensure a legal record of all significant events and decisions after SC meeting 16 is made available for scrutiny.

    End of discussion.

    1. Super Sleuth SC Exec great effort in uncovering obscure, needle in the haystack Enbloc site, whose numbers buttress MA's RP. I should say 'good job!' but you're suppose to be on TC residents side, NOT Huttons. Maybe there's no discernible difference.
      Must be a relief that discussions are not minuted. What other inconvenient facts have you forgotten to include. We can only wonder.

  4. Gimme a minute. An interesting read. Enjoy. http://www.btinvest.com.sg/specials/boardroom/minuting-the-board-meeting/

  5. Tell me why:

    Mr Vasan resigned.
    Material information was withheld from minutes.
    SC reverted back to MA despite irreconcilable differences in RP.
    RLV calculation promised but not released to ALL concerned SPs for scrutiny.
    Conspicuous silence in 'Conflict of Interest'
    Lack of transparency and openess.
    Unable or unwilling to corroborate SC version of happenings with verifiable original documents.
    After Meeting #16, SC preferred unauthenticated, undocumented, unverifiable carefree discussion instead of the formal setting and protection of the legal framework of 'Minuted Meetings'
    Blatant defiance of Laws and Authority. Notices still posted on estate walls after 2 weeks. Simple task for law abiding SC to comply.

    Many sign in anticipation of promised RP. Many promises were broken by SC.
    SC do not have free rein to sell what they do not own. They will ALL be held accountable for acting irresponsibly unaccountable.

    I will not sign to endorse such unscrupulous conduct.
    How low can you go?

  6. Just exactly what relationship has MA fostered with SP?
    He was vilified. His proposals and tactics dissected and smashed into smithereens. Depraved work ethics exposed. Lacks conviction in his RLV numbers to subject it to scrutiny.
    Why would any SP call him? It is because of his intransigence on that insulting RP that everything stalled. Whatever happened to those 20 pending sign up he cited? (Mtg 15)
    Sign up rate is tepid. Since last Sept it averaged one a month. No Mr MA, it will NOT happen naturally.
    Chairman had invoked "Emergency War Powers"
    LTSA, BMSM and Estate Bye-Laws are held in abeyance. Meetings are suspended. Clandestine gatherings now scheme and strategise. Decisions made in total secrecy.
    It's 80% before deadline come hell or high water.
    Is skullduggery, subterfuge deception also in your arsenal SC?
    Trust our elected SC, it's for our own good!

  7. If Resignation was just a 'dirty thought', then MA should have kept it to himself. That withdrawal letter cited compelling reasons to quit. It was unequivocal. Certainly SC accepted that fact. They were looking for replacement Property Consultant, planning an EOGM to sanction the appointment. (Enbloc FB,30 Nov 2016)
    Right now MA, yours is an illegitimate appointment.
    Chairman, call for an EOGM to make it Kosher.
    What are you afraid of? A hostile reception, maybe.

    PS. Those in charge have a habit of writing compelling letters that fail to convince even themselves. Remember 3rd Oct letter of SC.

  8. I would appreciate if those responsible remove the notices on the wall ASAP.
    This is open disregard of rules and regulation of Tampines Court.
    We do not want to see stickers all over our estate, neighbours with big dogs or smoking in our lifts if other residents also disobey our bye-laws.
    Please set an example of good neighbourliness.