Disclaimer






"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.

SP Meeting 1st July

The SP Meeting to update owners on the Tender and Sale Process was held in the  void deck of Blk 131 and lasted over 1 hour.  About 300+ people turned up. No greasing up required. I only recognised one other  minority owner in the crowd but there might have been more.

This post is going to be really long so, I'll add & edit bits as I go along.

The talk started with a quick greeting from the Chairman who then handed the microphone over to the vice-Chairman. GW talked about how the SC was formed and the difficulties they faced. He mentioned the resignation of the MA due to their 'disappointment' and how the SC managed to get them back. The audience gave them a round of applause. He also thanked the SC for their hard work. Round of applause.

Microphone handed over to the MA who proceeded to not explain why they resigned - mentioning only that they never ever wanted to resign. Glossing over that, he went on to talk about the choice of venue - showing my blog picture - and thanked me for pointing out the obvious. After that, it was an update on the consent level - still 81.79% as of 30 June 2017. That is 458 units out of 560 (620 owners)

I have no idea why he went on to give the reasons why the majority signed as he was preaching to the already-signed & converted
  • They can get a premium sales price over individual sales price
  • Leasehold property's capital value declines over the years 
  • They do not want to leave their children a depreciating asset.
  • Financial independence
  • Maximisation of land usage
He pointed out the recent case in Geylang where HDB houses whose leasehold properties were returned to the State as the 60 yr lease had run out. There was no compensation.  
If this was meant as a scare tactic, then it is disingenuous. All leasehold properties return to the State - that is the nature of all leasehold. TC need not worry until 2086, by which time I am guessing we will all be safely in our graves. Even graves are leasehold in Singapore and you get shifted out of your comfy earthen home after 15 years. So, really, there's no permanent leasehold home for the living or the dead. 

He talked about how it is good time to sell as the Government will release 6 GLS sites in 2nd half of the year. He compared GLS to Enbloc and the usual clean site vs complex enbloc situation. Then another go at convincing the minority owners to sign - again pointing to the lease running out as if it were next month. 

Percentage of signatories is important to the Buyer and TC's is not high enough. They want more people to sign. This completely negates an earlier point that TC had an impressive number of signatures compared to recent ex-HUDC estates. Mr. MA - you can't have it both ways - you can't say we have more signatures than other estates yet too few for the developers.

I was perfectly happy going down this well-trodden path of pro-enbloc viewpoints, after all, there is really nothing new to say. But then he made a fatal mistake. He informed the audience that the Minority did not actually win in Round 1 and expounded on the reason why.
Well, I could not let that go unchallenged and the heckling began. 
Near the end of the meeting I asked the lawyer to publicly refute the MA's version of events. He  was very courteous to this frazzled female and quietly asked the MA to retract his statement, which, to his credit, he did. I would like to see this retraction reflected in the Minutes when they come out.

If the MA and/or Lawyer is reading this they can read the tape transcripts here (names redacted). No litigation process? Really? 2 Senior Counsels (and another one sitting in the audience) and our own soon-to be-Senior Counsel slugging it out in a court before 5 STB panel members, calling witnesses and grilling them for hours and the STB giving a definitive decision before the expiry of the S&P and Qualifying Certificate? Fact: the Application was made 7 Jan 2008 and sale dismissed 25 July. Months of litigation which cost the 39 Minority $270,000 and goodness knows what the majority costs were. Astronomical, probably. FYI: the Minority won with costs. So we got some of our money back in the end :). The Buyer did not agree to extend because his lawyer was in the room the whole time and saw it was a lost cause. End of. 

Before you comment on why I am bringing up old issues let me remind you it was the MA who unwisely brought it up - completely off-topic and unnecessaryand had to be slapped down with the truth.  Red rag, bull etc A regrettable incident

Next up, some owners want $2million, is that possible. MA says yes - giving Rio Casa as an example. Who knows basically.  Our RP of $1.X is guaranteed. below that is no go,

TENDER LAUNCH DATE: 04 Jul 2017
TENDER CLOSING DATE: 15 Aug 2017, at 3pm.
TENDER PERIOD: 6 weeks
SPS can witness the opening of the Tender Box.
CSC will inform bidder of decision no later than 15 Oct 2017
Bidders pay 10% deposit

There was a media release today in the Straits Times.


There will be another media release on Tues in the Business Times & Straits Times again.

They have prepared an INVESTMENT MEMORANDUM to be given to the prospective buyers. I wanted to ask if we could see this memorandum but forgot.

VALUATION REPORT at date of close of public tender by independent valuer.
The real valuation for Rio Casa was $418M but the bid price was $575M

If no bidders then 10 weeks to conclude the deal by private treaty.

Question from floor: Assuming if all goes well, how long will the entire process take, without complications?

Ans (paraphrased): Good question. CSC empowered to accept offer above RP. The process depends whether or not we can get 100%. We don't have to go through the STB process. If objection, ....stop order.....High Court ...... litigation process , However it is you have 6 months vacant possession. In other words, you do not look for replacement flat for the moment until we have gotten a firm offer and we know that the process will go through smoothly, We'll advise you accordingly. 

I didn't think this answered his question at all so I asked for clarification - chiefly when is the COMPLETION DATE

Ans (paraphrased): After the STB approval it depends on the Buyers, whether 3 months, 4 months to complete. After completion you have another 6 months vacant possession, so 9 months. The STB will not take more than 60 days. 

I asked when the completion date was in the CSA 

Ans (paraphrased): 3 months after STB approval is completion date. 9 months in total from the date of the Sales Order.  

I made him clarify again that it was  60days(STB) +3 months(from date of STB approval) + 6 months to vacate. 

The lawyer took over the microphone to give the step-by-step process (paraphrased):

Once you have a successful Tender, the Tender document will say you have 6 months in which to apply to the STB. Of course we should do it as soon as possible, but this committee has 6 months to make the application. And once the application to the STB has been made then the STB will take about 60 days. Assuming there is no objection then ...... If there is an objection then it goes to the High Court...blah. blah, blah. Cannot give a definite time but a round estimate is 6 months to 9 months. Then there is the possibility of an Appeal with a rough gauge of another 9 months. No objection or 100%, the developer will have 3 months to complete the Sale. Then all the SPs will have up to 6 months to stay on if they wish to stay on, but if you stay on you will receive only 97% of your sales proceeds - the 3% is held back. 

I asked if the 3 months  were open to negotiation by the CSC with the Developer. The Lawyer confirmed that it was only 3 months. Once the Buyer accepted the tender bid they accepted the 3 months.  

I knew they were blowing smoke so I tried to get it reconfirmed by stating the question differently: 
ME: The CSC does not have the power to change the 3 months to any other figure, yes? 

There was a lot of heckling against my questioning so the answer got a bit lost amongst the calls of "No, it's 3 months" "Leave it to the Lawyers", "Go back home", "Get lost" "Troublemaker". Hecklers are the real bane of any meeting - not those who ask questions. Had they just accorded me the same courtesy given to others then my one concern could have been  finished in a few short sentences. I noticed no one else had to battle such nonsense. God, how I hate these uncouth meetings. 

Amidst the heckling the lawyer came back with a different answer (paraphrased): 
Whether they have the power to re-negotiate you will see in the CSA. Put it this way, the CSA gives your committee the discretion to negotiate for good terms for you. The CSC has the discretion to negotiate the terms of sale, so we have provided it to be 3 months, that is very standard. For any reason, for example, for a better price, they may want to reduce or increase the completion time so it is up to them to negotiate. 

So there it it is, finally - the 3 months is elastic. The truth of the matter is never in what they say, but in what they don't say. 

ME: Would this (change in completion date) constitute a significant difference?
The audience may not have understood my question and continued heckling, but the lawyer did - legally a significant material change in CSA conditions can it be challenged as a breach of the rules at High Court. 
Ans: No, we will make sure your reserve price is maintained.


SO THE DATES AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE:

Next he talked about the Tender Process:
  • The Tender fee is $1,000,000. We only want serious bidders to take part. 
  • CSC has until 15 Oct 2017 to inform the successful bidder. 
  • The successful bidder will have to pay a 10% deposit in 2 phases a few weeks apart. the balance on completion. If they withdraw from the process then this 10% will be forfeited and divided equally.
Next the Proposed Conditions of the Sale & Vacant Possession:
  • Some are already contained in the CSA but there will be a slight difference in what they ask the bidder to agree to and the CSA because these terms are better for you. 
  • Method of Distribution of Sale Proceeds is according to the Apportionment method in the CSA.
  • The Sale is conditional on getting 100% signatures or Approval from the STB
  • In the event of a contested sale and the High Court does not give a decision at the end of 18 months then the Purchaser & CSC can agree to extend or withdraw. (In Rd 1 the Purchaser withdrew at this point). 
  • If the High Court dismisses the our application, then we have another 12 months to Appeal.
  • The completion is 3 months after the sale order. There is a possibility that the sale completion may be postponed due to Owner bankruptcy, death, loss of mental capacity or a company owned property is wound up. Special permissions will be required.
  • Owners who stay for 6 months will have 3% of their sales proceeds withheld until they hand over the keys.
  • Owners will not have to pay rent for the 6 months.
  • Owners of tenanted units can continue to collect rent.
  • Owners will not have to bear Property Tax.
  • Owners will not have to pay the MCST fee.
  • Owners pay for their own utilities etc
  • Owners do not have to remove furniture and fittings when they leave.
  • MCST Management  & Sinking Fund will be divided between all units according to share value/
  • Owners will be invited to purchase a new unit from new development 
These are generous conditions if the Purchaser agrees to them - but they are all open to negotiation and subject to change. I doubt the Buyer will shoulder the property tax but the rest are doable.

Q from floor: How to calculate the Sellers Stamp Duty?
If owners have questions on SSD they can write into the Lawyer for clarification. Each seller is unique in this aspect.

Q from floor: Regarding the Letter about the CSC member owning multiple properties. Is there any truth in these allegations?
Simple answer: No, only the Chairman owns 2 units and that is well known in the estate. Other CSC members own 1 unit each.

MA: only less than 2% own more than 2 units 

I didn't hear the rest of what was said clearly. Something about...
  • There was talk about legal costs- who pays etc and a question about other enbloc percentages.
  • Someone requested a Timeline for the process on Facebook.
  • MA apologised for bringing up the Round 1 issue
  • MA said this was a short window of opportunity
  • Lawyer talked about the Long Stop date at 18 months from the STB Application for completion
  • GW stated the last Enbloc 2 failed because the Lawyer asked SPs to pay upfront. (This is not strictly true, there were mutiple reasons why that particular attempt failed)
  • The MA encouraged the minority to sign on.
The meeting ended with the Majority coming forward to pay their STB Application fees. I doubt if many minority will sign on as they probably understand the pros & cons better than most, having been round the block a few times.

If the Team actually do what they say they will do, that is, get the highest price possible with the Terms outlined in the Tender and proposed S&P, and keeping to the 60days + 3mths + 6mths formula, then all should be well. Pity they didn;t have handouts of the salient points of the meeting. They really need to get a FAQ up and running.

Methinks they already have a Buyer willing to go for these terms at the present RP. Just a feeling.

Thank goodness that's over. There will be no point going to the next SP Meeting as it will be a done deal by then.  An armchair appraisal far, far from the madding crowd will be quite sufficient for me.      

43 comments:

  1. Anonymous01 July, 2017

    Your tender launch date should be 4th July 2017 - tuesday. Not 4th August 2017.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous01 July, 2017

    The meeting was on void deck Blk 131 not Blk 130 too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous01 July, 2017

    Is the 10 weeks' private treaty period compulsory to have even if there are bids during tender period?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous01 July, 2017

    SO THE DATES AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE:
    01 Jun 2017 - 80% The CSC has 12 months to Apply for Sale to the STB from this date
    04 Jul 2017 - TENDER


    ( Hi for this part I think it should be '04 August 2017 - Tender' )

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the typo corrections. Comment 4: the tender open this Tuesday 4th Jul and runs for 6 weeks. Comment 3: you should pose this question to the MA in an email.

    My opinion: The 10 weeks gives the CSC a timeframe to work within. It does not have to take 10 weeks, and they can always buy themselves more time by holding a second tender and a second 10 week window. They have 12 months from 01 Jun to get a square peg into a round hole, as it were.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous02 July, 2017

    It just goes to show how unprepared the MA and Edan are

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      Not really. The blog owner is asking too many obvious questions, many of them are already in the CSA. She is just trying to monopolise the meeting & wasting everybody's time & interrupting the meeting. As usual, seeking attention & trying to act smart. It's obvious she is not a likeable person. Even the minority has deserted her. She even make mistakes in her posting which need to be pointed out by readers. Lol.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      Lol man with his usual pitiful comments. The blog owner is just showing how daft you are by publiahing your comments.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      All the booing and boycott of blog and setup a new blog blah blah and people still come back, sneak a peek like voyeurs, and even comment on what they see! What do you call these people? There has to be a name for them!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      This place is only good for entertainment. Smart SPs will do their own due deligence. Wonder why all of sudden the anti-enblocers supporters start to crawl out of their holes to kpkb now. At the meeting don't know where they are hiding leh. Poor blog owner has no one to support her. These are the worst 'friends' who will dump you when they find you are in trouble.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      ^What trouble? The only troubling thing to me is when people are discouraged from speaking up by hecklers. Just like what yo are doing here with your personal and sarcastic comments. It is absolutely unnecessary and adds nothing of value to this enbloc exercise. Smart is something else.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      Where were you if you felt she was been heckled? Did you stand up & support her ? If she dare to speak up, why should you be discouraged to do so ? If you are a man, shame on you! At least the blog owner has contributed something. What value have you contributed to the enbloc? Talk is cheap !

      Delete
    7. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      ya lah, you smarter than others cos reply to comments that you think is unnecessary and add no value. lol

      Delete
    8. Anonymous03 July, 2017

      The most despicable anti-enblocers are those who want to protest but dare not do it to upfront & has to rely on the more outspoken SP like the blog owner to fight their battle. They may be the objectors but would not do it for fear of losing the case & paying legal fees & so will provoke someone else to fight the battle for them. You can find many of these people in office politics. Beware of such people & don't fall into their trap and allow yourself to be make use by them.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous03 July, 2017

      And the heckling continues. It's ok, you may continue wasting everybodies time :).

      Delete
    10. Too many childish remarks are coming in for comment No 6. This particular thread is closed.

      Delete
  7. Anonymous02 July, 2017

    May be good to put in a timeline on graphical format given each stage has flexible deadlines.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous02 July, 2017

    So can look for new homes that are available from next Mar?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous02 July, 2017

    3 months for completion is common. Due to the size of TC it is unlikely they will be able to complete faster than that. Don't forget, completion must be for all units on the same day. There is lots of legal paperwork to do before you can comeplete the sale, just like buying a HDB or private flat.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous02 July, 2017

    I suggest anyone has any questions email the MA/Lawyer direct. The blog owner doesn't act any for anyone (majority & minority). She is not always in the right. That's why she put her disclaimer clause to protect herself. If you make any decisions based on her advice or information & get into problem, good luck to you !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All Correct. This is just a blog, I am not always in the right, corrections to my postings are welcome. I do not speak for anyone.

      The CSC, MA & Lawyer are also not always in the right. If they make mistakes, I point them out. We are all only human (likeable or not is immaterial) but the Team has a legal responsibility to get it right the first time. They are paid professionals after all and the CSC have a moral duty of care and due diligence.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      Agreed that legal counsel need to buck up. Have been sleeping if SPs ask a question and they dont have it at their fingertips.

      Delete
    3. The lawyer seems approachable, courteous and handled the crowd and questions very well yesterday.
      I suspect this is his first collective sale experience under the 2010 rules. At least he doesn't stonewall or try to bully - we had a lot of that in rd 1 & 2.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      That shows that your understanding of lawyer's duty & scope of work is very narrow. Legal counsel is doing the right thing. Not every question is universally applied to all the enbloc SPs or CSA contract. If he answers to every irrelvant or personal questions the meeting will never end. That's why he advised the SP to write direct to him or seek advice from his own solicitor. I have full respect for our lawyer.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      My statement " That shows that your understanding of lawyer's duty..." is in reply to the statement " Agreed that legal counsel need to buck up...."

      Delete
    6. Anonymous02 July, 2017

      "The lawyer seems approachable .... ". I think the MA is also ok lah. Maybe he oversell & bring in round 1. He did realised his mistake & later withdraw & apologise. Having said that in my opinion, I think you also make a statement which I believe you realised you should not. I believe you know what it is. Anyway I am glad there is not too much of a drama & the meeting was able to proceed on till the end.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous02 July, 2017

    Dear Blogger...

    Thank you very much for summarising of what happening in the SP meeting on 1 July 2017.

    I feel benefitted more from you rather than MA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, the MA/Lawyer did a pretty good job - bar the regrettable incident - they should have had a print out to take away, though.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous03 July, 2017

      Thanks to the blogger for the summary. Couldn't trust the MA/Lawyer to prepare something half as good.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous04 July, 2017

      Me too. Blogger has done a good job !

      Delete
  12. Anonymous03 July, 2017

    Tomorrow (4th July 2017) is the tender day. I would like to appeal to the bloggers to let her blogs go Haitus so no information concerning our enbloc (knowingly or unknowingly done ) will be leaked to the public. Any SPS require any information should email directly to the SC/MA/Legal team as already been invited to do so during the 1st July 2017 meeting.

    Also although the blogger is doing the SPs a favour. In my opinion, I think it is not to her advantage if anything goes wrong with the enbloc and unhappy SPS may put the blame on her. Why risk putting yourself in unnecessary liability and stress ?

    Peace everyone! May the blessing be upon us when the tender result is announced and we have an extremely good offer from bidders !

    Cheers !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing much is going to happen from now on. The tender is a silent exercise and there's nothing to leak. The discussion yesterday at the meeting was very general and applicable to every collective sale. Even the proposed terms in Tender & S&P are commonplace and not secret.

      Comments will dwindle to zero soon enough.

      Tomorrow I will put up the advertised media and I think that will be that until close of Tender.

      Peace will reign in the kingdom once more

      Delete
  13. Anonymous03 July, 2017

    First and foremost, I do not approve of the shouts of “get lost!” and “shut up!” whenever the blogger tried to say something during the meeting. I think its unnecessary and makes the whole situation more tense without serving any real purpose at all. A lot is at stake here and the best way to handle such a situation is to remain calm and hear everyone out.

    I like to believe after reading the blogger’s comments that she is not entirely against the enbloc; she just wants to make sure that the whole process is done in good faith and all the stakeholders (SPs, MA, lawyer) take their fair share of what they are entitled to. Although I agree with the MA in terms of the advantage of having a bigger majority, having a CONSTRUCTIVE minority is not without its merits…a final lifeline if you will…just in case TC SPs got played out by whoever for whatever reasons. Notwithstanding, recent refinements in the enbloc laws, STB processes and High Court cases have all seek to make the enbloc process more transparent and fair and to force Managing agents and Sales Committees to walk a more narrower prescribed path towards a successful enbloc; so missteps are minimised and the whole process can be less litigious. For example, it used to be minorities are unfairly punished by making them pay a bigger share of the fees etc..Also there used to be dodgy deals between MAs and some SPs to entice people to sign up…all these unfair practices have since been exposed and shot down over the years.

    Personally I do not think any serious challenge will be mounted by the minority this time round as the offer is good and I think most of the people who did not sign recognised it too. They are also resigned to the fact that the music cannot last forever and all good things have to come to an end someday.

    Since it has to end….it might be better to end on a high note.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous03 July, 2017

      I also heard someone shouting 'enough !'. I don't blame him. Many of the majority must be very frustrated at the way she brag non-stop in her blog and equally non-stop condeming the SC/MA. If she is trying to contribute, there is always a gentler way to do it without been judgemental. Morever there is always the email or phone call she can use to give feedback & suggestions. No need to create so much hoo haa in her blog which serve no purpose except to stir up anger & create divisions among the SPs. In any case, her intention may be good but frankly I think she is talking too much. Since the majority has appointed the SC/MA respect their decision and leave them to do their job. I hope from tomorrow onwards she would stop posting any new stuff in her blog as this is a crucial period and it's best to lie low until the result of the tender.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous05 July, 2017

      there are at 100 units that currently have not signed and they are entitled to their voice too. Just because legally 80% has been reached doesn't mean 20% have to go on mute. In fact, the minority want a far higher price than the 80%.

      Its back to the same issue - if you are not happy, then skip this blog or start your own. Everyone has his own opinion whether the blogger is talking too much.

      btw even the tender ad isn't on the official facebook page now, shows how much timely info SPs are getting from the MA/SC.

      The blogger has been doing the dogsbody but important work, so I want to say thanks to her.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous05 July, 2017

      Are you absolutely sure 100 units SPs are unhappy if this enbloc is successful especially if we can get good price ? Please show proof instead of using the minority to support yourself. Minority did not sign for many reasons, they are not necessary anti-blocers. If you are so unhappy why don't you speak up during the meeting instead of relying on the blog owner to speak up for you. Where were you hiding when she is been heckled ? If you think the FB is not updating in time with the tender Ad why don't you post your complaints on the FB? No point kpkb like a spoilt crybaby in this blog under anonymity using the minority & blog owner to support your petsonal agenda if you are so unhappy ?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous05 July, 2017

      I'm perfectly happy making comments here, thanks. Its so easy to get under your skin.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous05 July, 2017

      TC must be the only estate that communicates with SPs through a PUBLIC Facebook page. It is such a meaningless, inappropriate and unnecessary channel for a CSC to use. Just close it

      Delete
  14. Anonymous04 July, 2017

    Very well said. Btw, are we supposed to have some advertisement in newspaper today?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous05 July, 2017

    "madding" or "mad"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous05 July, 2017

    I personally felt ashamed at all the heckling and shouting down of the blogger. That type of be uncouth and unruly behavior is certainly uncalled for, and not becoming of a civil society.

    We should attempt to have civil discourse at these meetings. Yes, I do understand that the topic is an emotionally charged one. The (forced) sale of ones home is certainly a highly emotional topic. However, respect for opposing views is so critical for complete disclosure.

    Bravo to the blogger for so working hard to get clarity on the process going forward.

    "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

    "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." --Mark Twain

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous05 July, 2017

    what TC can transform into is only limited by createivity and imagination of developer. big plplot can do more, rather than tiny plot. Dev will be bullish!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous06 July, 2017

    Minority are not necessary anti-enblocer. Minority's choice is clear : they will either sign or don't, simple as that and for that we respect their decision.

    Anti-enblocers on the other hand has only one objective in mind - to sabotage this enbloc. For all you know they may not even be TC SPs. I don't think the recent anonymous letters are sent by any of the minority as the objective of the letters is so clear - to stop the enbloc which is what the anti-enblocers want.

    Why anti-enblocers prefer to come to this blog is because it give them cover for their identity & protection against any legal consequences if any, so they think .

    On FB if they create too much problems they will either be blocked or legal action be takened against them for any defamation they make as their identity can easily be traced. Noticed that they love to praise the blog owner in the pretext of acting for the interest of SPs to avoid suspicion and will not hesitate to attack pro enblocers here but dare not do so on FB.

    I wont be surprise later if there is a bid, they will manipulate & provoke the enbloc SPs' feeling to encourage them to raise objections just as what they did in the letters to provoke SPs to withdraw their signing during cooling period. They got nothing to lose because they don't have to pay any legal fees if the objectors failed in their case. Either way the anti-enblocers win !

    All the anti-enblocers want is to see this enbloc failed. Don't fall into their trap !

    ReplyDelete