PUBLISHED IN TODAY WEEKEND (SINGAPORE) ON 5-6 JANUARY 2008
En bloc sales were the buzzwords of 2007 and if the economic indicators are right, the story will continue to dominate the headlines this year.
The en bloc craze of the past year has meant a lot more work for the Strata Titles Boards (STB). Since 1999, the board has shouldered the additional role of approving collective sales of developments that cannot get a 100-per-cent consensus from the sellers of the land but where 80 to 90 per cent of the sellers support the sale, depending on the age of the development.
Last year, Parliament passed changes to the law that require the 80 or 90 per cent consent level — depending on the age of the development — to also take into account the unit sizes of the Strata Title owners.
Lawyer Lee Liat Yeang of Rodyk and Davidson said in December 2005: "One important legal condition to be satisfied before the STB can grant an order for sale is that there is no objection filed by an owner on 'financial loss' ground.
"Another important legal ingredient … is that of good faith. In the Act, the good faith element has to be determined by having regard only to the following factors: Sale price, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds and the relationship, if any, of the purchaser to any of the owners."
Not surprisingly, the increased volume of work undertaken by the STB has brought in its wake its fair share of controversy and criticism.
In a case last year, High Court Judge Andrew Ang described a collective sale approved by the STB as "a real mess".
He then ordered a stay on the collective sale.
To be fair to the STB, such a stay order is rare. Also, the board rarely rejects an application for a collective sale. Nevertheless, the STB did withhold its approval in at least two en bloc cases involving Finland [Gardens] and Horizon Towers last year. The high-profile Horizon Towers case saw some of the best legal minds in the country slog it out as minority owners tried to block the sale and initially secured the STB's support.
The High Court eventually sent the sale back to the STB for reconsideration. After reconsideration, the STB approved the sale — although the minority owners are now appealing against the decision.
These en bloc cases have prompted many to look at the STB to see how its work can be made better or easier.
At a seminar last August, lawyer Ong Ying Ping raised this question: "Would it be better to revert to the original position before the 1999 changes? Is the present regime manifestly superior to the pre-1999 position where 100-per-cent consensus is required?"
Going back to the pre-1999 position would serve little purpose, since the changes were a pragmatic policy response to the promotion of urban redevelopment in Singapore.
Thus, it is more important to see how the work of the STB can be made better. Such impetus for improvement appears to have become more necessary in the light of recent legislative changes that gave the STB more discretion and powers.
The STB can now do three key things. It can:
• Increase the sale proceeds of minority owners who have filed valid objections to an en bloc sale application.
•Approve an en bloc sale application and disregard any technical irregularities that are non-compliant with the collective sales requirements if such non-compliance does not prejudice any owner's interest.
• Issue guidelines on the permissible expenditures that will count towards the evaluation of financial loss claims.
In effect, these new powers have enhanced the legal role that the STB plays — wider than the technical or mediatory role envisaged of the STB when it was first set up. That is why the board has had panel members with a wide range of experience, and only its president and deputy presidents are required to be legally qualified persons.
In addition, the discretion of the STB now appears to be more subjective and a body of precedents will be needed to control the application of these powers.
Indeed, one criticism of the STB, when it first rejected the Horizon Towers' collective sale application, was that it had not justified its decision with a detailed basis.
There thus appears to be a need to increase the legal expertise found on the STB.
When the Ministry of Law consulted the public on the changes it made last year, respondents had expressed a desire to see a "fairer and more transparent" process.
Lawyer Ong Ying Ping also noted: "Unlike policies that are both initiated and driven by government agencies, the en bloc legislation was largely a public-private initiative. The members sitting in the STB are all volunteers."
In February last year, the blogger of Enblocing Singapore wrote: "Given that nowadays, most objections are not really about financial loss … but about losing their homes …. there is a surprising dearth of the very people who should be involved in hearing these minority owners' plight."
Perhaps, for a better balancing of such interests, the time has come for the Ministry of Law to allow the STB to be operated by a team of full-time professionals rather than volunteers.
A newspaper reader suggested that a sitting judge should head the STB. Arguably, to take the idea forward, why not hand over the whole operation of the STB to the judiciary?
In his Second Reading Speech on the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill in September, Deputy Prime Minister Professor S Jayakumar emphasised that en bloc sale legislation required the maintenance of a careful balance.
They should "provide additional safeguards and ensure greater transparency for all owners" but should not make it "unduly onerous to bring about an en bloc sale".
Who better than a group of impartial persons to manage this delicate balance other than the judiciary?
There is clearly a need to take a comprehensive look at the structure of the STB in light of its enhanced legal role, and to enable this enhanced legal role to be exercised by persons qualified to do so.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Wear pink for prayer & expression on October 22
On Monday, 22 October 2007, Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel Siew Kum Hong will take an important prayer to Singapore's most sacred law-making body, Parliament.
Scheduled to be heard and debated at some point between 1.30pm and 4.30pm, it is a prayer for thousands of people young and old, male and female.
The prayer is humanity's cry for fair treatment and non-discrimination. The prayer stands for the land of equality that independent Singapore's founding fathers and mothers sought to build.
The prayer also represents the dawn of a new page for civil activism in Singapore, where many holding strong views about the issue did not hesitate to come out and make their views known.
Siew Kum Hong is not just seeking the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. (It is highly unlikely that the legislation will be repealed, since most indications from the elected political leadership swing in favour of keeping Section 377A.)
Siew Kum Hong's prayer is more significant. It is about the future of expression in Singapore, and the importance of standing up and fighting for the things that one believes in.
Siew Kum Hong took on a very difficult task of bringing an important plea to his parliamentary colleagues. That journey for him has not been easy. People are have called him names. Others have also sought to stereotype him. He has been scrutinised at both a professional and personal level.
As a citizen of Singapore, I am proud to have a Nominated Member of Parliament like Siew Kum Hong. (I am as proud of the fact that he is a friend, who I respect greatly.)
He is doing what Nominated Members of Parliament should be doing in Parliament, in providing a voice for the parts of society that go unheard; and in highlighting issues that elected Members of Parliament, whether from the ruling party or otherwise, will hesitate to raise for fear of losing votes at General Elections.
Even if Siew Kum Hong does not seek or have a second term as Nominated Member of Parliament, it is clear he will go down in Singapore's history books as a pioneering NMP.
If you are free, make sure you are there to witness history in the making.
Be in the public gallery in Parliament on October 22 to hear Siew Kum Hong's prayer.
Also, wear a pink shirt / blouse to let him know that you're there to support him in what he is doing; and that you believe fundamentally in the importance of standing up and fighting for things that one believes in .
Even if you can't be in Parliament, wear a pink shirt / blouse on Monday to show that you too believe in standing up and being counted.
Your support will certainly make a difference. Let's be festively pink on October 22!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Scheduled to be heard and debated at some point between 1.30pm and 4.30pm, it is a prayer for thousands of people young and old, male and female.
The prayer is humanity's cry for fair treatment and non-discrimination. The prayer stands for the land of equality that independent Singapore's founding fathers and mothers sought to build.
The prayer also represents the dawn of a new page for civil activism in Singapore, where many holding strong views about the issue did not hesitate to come out and make their views known.
Siew Kum Hong is not just seeking the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. (It is highly unlikely that the legislation will be repealed, since most indications from the elected political leadership swing in favour of keeping Section 377A.)
Siew Kum Hong's prayer is more significant. It is about the future of expression in Singapore, and the importance of standing up and fighting for the things that one believes in.
Siew Kum Hong took on a very difficult task of bringing an important plea to his parliamentary colleagues. That journey for him has not been easy. People are have called him names. Others have also sought to stereotype him. He has been scrutinised at both a professional and personal level.
As a citizen of Singapore, I am proud to have a Nominated Member of Parliament like Siew Kum Hong. (I am as proud of the fact that he is a friend, who I respect greatly.)
He is doing what Nominated Members of Parliament should be doing in Parliament, in providing a voice for the parts of society that go unheard; and in highlighting issues that elected Members of Parliament, whether from the ruling party or otherwise, will hesitate to raise for fear of losing votes at General Elections.
Even if Siew Kum Hong does not seek or have a second term as Nominated Member of Parliament, it is clear he will go down in Singapore's history books as a pioneering NMP.
If you are free, make sure you are there to witness history in the making.
Be in the public gallery in Parliament on October 22 to hear Siew Kum Hong's prayer.
Also, wear a pink shirt / blouse to let him know that you're there to support him in what he is doing; and that you believe fundamentally in the importance of standing up and fighting for things that one believes in .
Even if you can't be in Parliament, wear a pink shirt / blouse on Monday to show that you too believe in standing up and being counted.
Your support will certainly make a difference. Let's be festively pink on October 22!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Keep377A.com Website Stained & Shamed
When Repeal377A.com was launched, it made me very happy. To me, it represented people who were willing to stand up, make their views known and be counted. I was also encouraged by the level of transparency shown in the petition signing process, right down to identifying the regions where people lived in Singapore.
When the Keep377A.com website came out, the civil activism made me even more glad. To me, it was about having a voice that needed to be represented, in response to Repeal377A.com.
I was, however, surprised by the decision of Keep377A.com to keep the "silent majority" hidden. The creators of the website were encouraging others to sign anonymously.
Since I was not too happy with this arrangement, I set up a Keep s377A group on Facebook to complement the work of the website. I feel people, who feel strongly about retaining Section 377A, should have a choice to identify themselves and be able to engage others about the views they cherish.
My decision to do this attracted much criticism since I have come out to support the repeal of Section 377A. One person even accused me of being hypocritical.
Fortunately, I managed to persuade some of these critics on the importance of doing so.
I also feel it was important to set up this group since a good number of my friends support the retention of Section 377A and this would be a useful platform to make known their position.
In a few days, Keep377A.com has gone on collect over 10000 signatures. Perhaps, this is a sign that the "silent majority" is really not so silent after all.
In a way, I was happy because the number of signatures had shown the case that Singapore's political leadership and mainstream media have been endeavouring to make.
But this morning, a friend shared with me his experience in signing the petition on Keep377A.com. He had included his name in the petition but he had left a comment to say that he was not signing the petition. Instead, he stated that he was disputing it and, in the comments section, he went on to highlight his reasons for disputing it.
Some time later, he checked back Keep377A.com. His name still remained there but his comments had been removed, and this gave the impression that he supported the petition. He has written in to the creators of the website to have his name removed but his name remains. (Update on 22 October 2007: His name has now been removed.)
This experience is not isolated. A reader has wrote in to another website to share this: "I've noticed that there were a lot of spoof messages on the keep 377a petition, whose ironic comments were taken down. However, their names were NOT taken down. This is dishonesty: either they should have left the comments and names, or taken down both. Please draw attention to this fact, as I believe that through this ruse the petition organisers at Keep377a have inflated their numbers through, essentially, fraud."
It is unfortunate that this has happened. An exemplary exercise started by a well-meaning group is now stained.
It is also shameful for civil activisim since the very integrity of the creators of Keep377a.com can now be called into question. These creators have lost the moral authority to run the website.
They had sought to establish their case on the basis of "healthy and wholesome traditional family values" and "to do what is right". But their impropriety is a slap in the face to those same values they have sought to espouse and to the supporters of Keep377A.com that have placed their trust in the petition on Keep377A.com.
It also does not do justice the case that Singapore's political leadership and mainstream media have tried to make.
It also means that Members of Parliament in Singapore, who seek to make the case for retaining Section 377A tomorrow in Parliament, will now have to seriously think about their credibility if they seek to rely on the results of the Keep377A.com petition.
The honourable thing for the creators of Keep377A.com to do now is to apologise for their actions, step aside and let a fresh group of persons run the website.
The fresh team can decide to re-start the petition process.
Alternatively, the fresh team can submit the petition to an independent audit of the signatories before the results are submitted to the Prime Minister of Singapore.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
When the Keep377A.com website came out, the civil activism made me even more glad. To me, it was about having a voice that needed to be represented, in response to Repeal377A.com.
I was, however, surprised by the decision of Keep377A.com to keep the "silent majority" hidden. The creators of the website were encouraging others to sign anonymously.
Since I was not too happy with this arrangement, I set up a Keep s377A group on Facebook to complement the work of the website. I feel people, who feel strongly about retaining Section 377A, should have a choice to identify themselves and be able to engage others about the views they cherish.
My decision to do this attracted much criticism since I have come out to support the repeal of Section 377A. One person even accused me of being hypocritical.
Fortunately, I managed to persuade some of these critics on the importance of doing so.
I also feel it was important to set up this group since a good number of my friends support the retention of Section 377A and this would be a useful platform to make known their position.
In a few days, Keep377A.com has gone on collect over 10000 signatures. Perhaps, this is a sign that the "silent majority" is really not so silent after all.
In a way, I was happy because the number of signatures had shown the case that Singapore's political leadership and mainstream media have been endeavouring to make.
But this morning, a friend shared with me his experience in signing the petition on Keep377A.com. He had included his name in the petition but he had left a comment to say that he was not signing the petition. Instead, he stated that he was disputing it and, in the comments section, he went on to highlight his reasons for disputing it.
Some time later, he checked back Keep377A.com. His name still remained there but his comments had been removed, and this gave the impression that he supported the petition. He has written in to the creators of the website to have his name removed but his name remains. (Update on 22 October 2007: His name has now been removed.)
This experience is not isolated. A reader has wrote in to another website to share this: "I've noticed that there were a lot of spoof messages on the keep 377a petition, whose ironic comments were taken down. However, their names were NOT taken down. This is dishonesty: either they should have left the comments and names, or taken down both. Please draw attention to this fact, as I believe that through this ruse the petition organisers at Keep377a have inflated their numbers through, essentially, fraud."
It is unfortunate that this has happened. An exemplary exercise started by a well-meaning group is now stained.
It is also shameful for civil activisim since the very integrity of the creators of Keep377a.com can now be called into question. These creators have lost the moral authority to run the website.
They had sought to establish their case on the basis of "healthy and wholesome traditional family values" and "to do what is right". But their impropriety is a slap in the face to those same values they have sought to espouse and to the supporters of Keep377A.com that have placed their trust in the petition on Keep377A.com.
It also does not do justice the case that Singapore's political leadership and mainstream media have tried to make.
It also means that Members of Parliament in Singapore, who seek to make the case for retaining Section 377A tomorrow in Parliament, will now have to seriously think about their credibility if they seek to rely on the results of the Keep377A.com petition.
The honourable thing for the creators of Keep377A.com to do now is to apologise for their actions, step aside and let a fresh group of persons run the website.
The fresh team can decide to re-start the petition process.
Alternatively, the fresh team can submit the petition to an independent audit of the signatories before the results are submitted to the Prime Minister of Singapore.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Readers Question - From Facebook
In August and July 2007, I was asked several questions on Facebook. Here are some of those questions and my answers.
Virtual Recruitment: Is this the next big thing for recruiters?
In my last job, I was recruited virtually. Everything was conducted and concluded by e-mail!
What role would you play in an adventuring band?
I'd be the non-musician turned adventurer!
Best place you have ever visited?
Mount Cook, New Zealand.
Would you kiss on a 1st date?
The lawyerly reply would be - it depends!
What is one thing you always carry with you?
Mobile phone.
Lee Kuan Yew - man, metaphor or hologram?
None of the above! Son of God because at the 1988 Singapore National Day Rally, Lee said, "Even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up.”
Who should pay on the first date?
Three ways to do it:
a. The one who asks for the bill.
b. The one who asks for the date.
c. Split it if you don't want to see the other person again!
What is the one thing I should always carry with me?
A mask!
What is the point of God?
Then, you don't get the point.
How can it be any other way?
Because that's what having a choice is all about!
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Virtual Recruitment: Is this the next big thing for recruiters?
In my last job, I was recruited virtually. Everything was conducted and concluded by e-mail!
What role would you play in an adventuring band?
I'd be the non-musician turned adventurer!
Best place you have ever visited?
Mount Cook, New Zealand.
Would you kiss on a 1st date?
The lawyerly reply would be - it depends!
What is one thing you always carry with you?
Mobile phone.
Lee Kuan Yew - man, metaphor or hologram?
None of the above! Son of God because at the 1988 Singapore National Day Rally, Lee said, "Even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up.”
Who should pay on the first date?
Three ways to do it:
a. The one who asks for the bill.
b. The one who asks for the date.
c. Split it if you don't want to see the other person again!
What is the one thing I should always carry with me?
A mask!
What is the point of God?
Then, you don't get the point.
How can it be any other way?
Because that's what having a choice is all about!
Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Friday, October 05, 2007
More Time For Public Response
The Ministry of Trade & Industry, Singapore, has responded to my letter concerning the short period of consultation for the proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act through The Straits Times.
It has extended the period of consultation. Its response is below.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
******
(Source: The Straits Times Forum, 5 October 2007)
Public consultation extended to Oct 26
We refer to the letter, 'Why only 10 working days for feedback?' (ST, Oct 3).
The proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and subsidiary legislation arose from the taskforce that reviewed the Act. The taskforce had considered inputs from various sources in the course of its work. At the same time, we have broached the proposed amendments with consumer and industry organisations when developing the taskforce's recommendations.
Notwithstanding this, we will extend the period of public consultation to Oct 26 in order to give more parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments.
We thank the writer for his feedback.
Lim Bee Khim (Ms)
Director
Corporate Communications
for Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Trade and Industry
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
It has extended the period of consultation. Its response is below.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
******
(Source: The Straits Times Forum, 5 October 2007)
Public consultation extended to Oct 26
We refer to the letter, 'Why only 10 working days for feedback?' (ST, Oct 3).
The proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and subsidiary legislation arose from the taskforce that reviewed the Act. The taskforce had considered inputs from various sources in the course of its work. At the same time, we have broached the proposed amendments with consumer and industry organisations when developing the taskforce's recommendations.
Notwithstanding this, we will extend the period of public consultation to Oct 26 in order to give more parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments.
We thank the writer for his feedback.
Lim Bee Khim (Ms)
Director
Corporate Communications
for Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Trade and Industry
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Monday, October 01, 2007
Dealing with errant library members
LETTER SENT TO THE STRAITS TIMES (SINGAPORE), THE NEW PAPER(SINGAPORE) AND TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 1 OCTOBER 2007
The National Library Board (NLB) in Singapore has implemented a programme to recover more than $5 million in overdue fines from some 800,000 library members.
This has prompted varied reactions from such errants users.
In some cases, the overdue fines relate to books borrowed several years ago.
Plus, some $3.5 million have been written off "for amounts greater than $6 that have been outstanding for more than five years belonging to library members who were not contactable, for foreigners who have left the country and for users who have since died".
The NLB can learn from this and put in place measures to swiftly recover such debts.
Where debts are written off or users fail to pay despite repeated reminders, the NLB should not hesitate to list such users on the databases of credit bureaus. This will affect the credit standing of those live users who seek access to credit facilities and may encourage them to clear their debts with NLB.
Separately, in other cases, "the cost of recovering the money (postage and printing charges) is a lot more than what" is owed by the user. The National Library Board has said that the estimated operating cost of this recovery exercise is "less than 1 per cent of the amount to be recovered".
By not returning the books promptly, these errant users are doing a great disservice to others who equally deserve the benefit of such public services. They are being absolutely selfish by depriving others of the gift of knowledge.
For these reasons, one can perhaps question why the National Library Board should even bear the estimated operating cost of this recovery exercise. In fact, this cost should be charged to and recovered from such users who fail to pay on time, either in the form of a late payment fee or interest charged for late payment of fines.
I welcome the steps taken by NLB to recover the amounts owed by members of the library. I hope it will take up some of my ideas and that the amounts recovered will be used to improve library services in Singapore.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
The National Library Board (NLB) in Singapore has implemented a programme to recover more than $5 million in overdue fines from some 800,000 library members.
This has prompted varied reactions from such errants users.
In some cases, the overdue fines relate to books borrowed several years ago.
Plus, some $3.5 million have been written off "for amounts greater than $6 that have been outstanding for more than five years belonging to library members who were not contactable, for foreigners who have left the country and for users who have since died".
The NLB can learn from this and put in place measures to swiftly recover such debts.
Where debts are written off or users fail to pay despite repeated reminders, the NLB should not hesitate to list such users on the databases of credit bureaus. This will affect the credit standing of those live users who seek access to credit facilities and may encourage them to clear their debts with NLB.
Separately, in other cases, "the cost of recovering the money (postage and printing charges) is a lot more than what" is owed by the user. The National Library Board has said that the estimated operating cost of this recovery exercise is "less than 1 per cent of the amount to be recovered".
By not returning the books promptly, these errant users are doing a great disservice to others who equally deserve the benefit of such public services. They are being absolutely selfish by depriving others of the gift of knowledge.
For these reasons, one can perhaps question why the National Library Board should even bear the estimated operating cost of this recovery exercise. In fact, this cost should be charged to and recovered from such users who fail to pay on time, either in the form of a late payment fee or interest charged for late payment of fines.
I welcome the steps taken by NLB to recover the amounts owed by members of the library. I hope it will take up some of my ideas and that the amounts recovered will be used to improve library services in Singapore.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)