"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.

Anonymous Flyer No.1

Mystery flyer could have been sent by anyone. It was in a stamped envelope - so this guy spent $168 on postage. 

At the upcoming meeting people can make their feelings known and SC should take their cue from the floor and be open to suggestions. If the majority want to raise the RP (and I mean a strong mandate coming from the floor) then the SC should reconsider. The SC are the agents for the Majority and must take direction from them. 

The present RP is looking on the low side now but the 80% was reached very recently on the back of that RP and if the SC ACT FAST and there is indeed more than 1 bidder out there then it is worth one roll of the dice*.

*To avoid any misreading here (perhaps my euphemisms are unfamiliar), I am  not advocating for the RP to be raised at this point. I am assuming the 80% has been legitimately reached and the SC are ready to launch the tender soon. There could very well be 6 bidders out there salivating at the thought of clinching Tampines Court, there could very well be a bidding war, we could very well surpass our RP.

Or it could go the other way.

If there are no bidders or only 1 private offer, then the SC ought to hold firm against possible MA/Lawyer  pressure to take the 'only deal on the table'. The SC are not obliged to sell at the RP (High Court somewhere). TC is better positioned than Rio Casa (in my opinion) and should command an equal price. The Flyer author is correct in saying we can get a higher price down the line as the supply of large plots of land in developed areas dwindles. Even if we are the last HUDC to go, we will get a higher offer than today. There is no need to be overly anxious about selling now, there will be other opportunities down the road.

The one thing that should not happen is the RP being lowered using the Mechanism outlined by the Lawyers. That would probably bring matters to the High Court.

Rd 4 can theoretically happen immediately after Rd 3 if there is a 50% requisition, 2 years if there is only 20%

The writer makes an allegation that several SC members own between 2-9 units in TC (directly or indirectly). That seems rather a lot and pretty doubtful. You'd have to be talking about a consortium of some kind.
I only found one SC member owning 2 units; (Strata Roll 2015) but I cannot know about any 'indirect' ownership. 

The CSC's response to the letter was surprisingly measured and dignified. They actually made good counterpoints on the RP - but on the allegations on ownership they should be a little more pro-active and less defensive.

Perhaps now is a good time for all members to restate all their interests in the estate? Has there been a change in any member's ownership since their instatement? If so, LTSA says they have to declare in writing and put up a notice. 
I went back to the Minutes of the 1st EOGM :

2.4 Each of the members of the collective sales committee gave a brief description and declared their interest being in the Collective Sales Committee

No details - and 'declared their interest being in the CSC' is not the same as declaring their interest in the estate (how many units they and family members  owned directly or indirectly).
Perhaps the minutes were badly written, but now is a good time to clear the air regardless.


  1. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    First is Mr Vasan's letter. Second MA resigned. Third MA came back and now this?
    So much drama

  2. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    Everyone should be transparent about their interests. If someone has 9 units, it is new information, but after you absorb that fact, do you end up with a different conclusion? Do you think he will have a greater or less conflict of interest (against you)?

    One needs to put aside envy of the mighty windfall for that SC member if he indeed has 9 units. To put up this notice with no basis with a malicious intent - if I were me and if not for the enbloc, I would have reported it to the police. (Not with any intent to seek punishment for the person who put the notice, but to set the record straight for my own self in front of other SPs.)

  3. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    Don't put the blame on majority SPs. Why would they do that ? Most likely is either the anti-enblocers SPs or competitors. Both have good reason to try sabotage the enbloc. It's time for majority SPs/MA/SC to be united to see this round of enbloc through. Don't waste any more time. Fast actions are necessary at this stage. Don't get distracted by this kind of negative actions which will undermine successful enbloc. Such are expected at this stage.

  4. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    Isn't the current RP base on your calculation using RLV? That already meant it is fair based on the recent Gov land sales in Tampines region. Now that we see others successfully enbloc at a higher ppr value, suddenly we want to throw all these out of the windows and set a higher RP? If the others had enbloc at a lower ppr value, then would we follow suit and set a lower RP too or would we start waving the RLV at the SC again and said they have set the RP too low? At the end of the day, as I have mentioned somewhere else before, we can work on whatever scientific calculation on what should be the RP be. But what we will get will depend on how the developers value our lands. If none think we are better than Rio Casa, we will get lower. If they think we are better, we will get higher. We can think what we want but it does not matter to them.

  5. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    The letter writer is I'll informed. You can only retract your agreement to the CSA within 5 days after the day you signed. The letter is just another kindergarten style attempt to cover up ones greed.

  6. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    What are you trying to provoke this time. Are you in the majority? No right? So pleaee don't tell the majority what to do in the coming meeting. It doesn't mean that we cannot get higher than our current RP. Why need to raise it highet to jeopardize our chance of getting more developers to bid ? Please leave the majority alone and you no need to speak or suggest anything on our behalf which may stir up unncessary emotion & rock the boat !

    1. Anonymous08 June, 2017

      Yes! RP is already set. Please don't suggest any change anymore & complicate & delay the launch for tendering ! The coming meeting is primarily just for lawyer & MA to brief the SPs in the tendering procedure & answering queries. Anti-enblockers, for once, please respect the majority's rights. Thank you!

  7. Anonymous08 June, 2017

    Just curious, how much legal fee did antienbloc SP spent in first round ?

  8. Anonymous11 June, 2017

    Unless I've not read all sources properly, I don't see any confirmation that following the cooling off period, 80% is confirmed. Wasn't this expected on Friday?

    This lack of update is surprising as it's this % which is more important than what is published on the flyers.