MAYFAIR GARDENS

Mayfair Gardens plans en bloc sale

Straits Times - 22 Dec 2009

Mayfair Gardens up for collective sale

Business Times - 22 Dec 2009

Mayfair Gardens collective sale site launched for tender

Business Times - 21 Dec 2009

TC Prices SEP/ OCT/NOV 2009

Mandatory Death Penalty for under 25s is an obscenity in law

En bloc is virtually at a standstill at the moment, so there is not much to write about. Though I expect 2010 might see a resurgence in the market. Lets wait and see.

I went off-topic before with the Aware Saga and MOE's sexual education in schools. I am going off topic again with the death penalty in Singapore - not generally but specifically when it applies to young persons acting as drug mules for invisible kingpins.

.

TEEN DRUG RUNNER TO HANG

Straits Times - 14 Nov 2009

Death row inmate gets stay of execution

TodayOnline -Dec 3 2009

High Court's Order "wrong in law": AGC

TodayOnline - Dec 4 2009

.

I have started a discussion thread on the Government website Reach here about the convicted drug 'trafficker' Yong Vui Kong (now 21 but 19 years at time of apprehension):

.

Mandatory death sentencing for young persons is an obscenity in law. If the death sentence is merited for any crime, let it be restricted to first degree murder, high treason, and yes, drug trafficking for over 25yr olds. Any parent can attest to the absurd mistakes young people (and especially young men) can make, decisions that could potentially ruin lives but taken anyway without regard to the consequences. Every young person deserves a second chance as life is given only once, and the state should not take that life away casually for the advancement of their own agenda. The agenda in this case being seen to be' tough on drugs' and 'sending the right signals'. Casually because 'mandatory' takes away all mitigating factors, especially those that may be true but are impossible to prove. This is a young man's life and 47g is not enough of a reason to kill him.

"Why 25? Why not 21?"

Why not indeed'' It is an arbitrary figure, no doubt, and setting the age to 21 would at least be a small victory and it would save the life of this young man. But the death penalty is set at 18 - too young to vote, too young to choose citizenship (if holding a double passport), too young to watch an R-rated movie, too young for a whole host of things. But not too young to hang. Catching the small fry is a relatively easy task for the police - and the system is 'seen' to be working when they do. The death penalty is hailed as the reason why the drug situation is under control in Singapore. I have my doubts about this. I think it is more likely because Singapore has a top-notch Police force policing a geographically small country with nowhere for criminals to hide. It's like using a trawler to catch guppies in Bedok Reservoir. Yes, the young, feckless drug mules are easy to catch and I hope the Police continue catching the small fry and incarcerating them as they do. It is the legislation on what to do with young persons caught in the drug net that must change.

STATISTICS (though I am not a great fan of Wikipedia)

KNOW YOUR FACTS:

The Misuse of Drugs Act

.

Presumption concerning trafficking
17. Any person who is proved to have had in his possession more than —

(a) 100 grammes of opium;

(b) 3 grammes of morphine;

(c) 2 grammes of diamorphine;

(d) 15 grammes of cannabis;

(e) 30 grammes of cannabis mixture;

(f) 10 grammes of cannabis resin;

(g) 3 grammes of cocaine;

(h) 25 grammes of methamphetamine;

(ha) 113 grammes of ketamine; or

(i) 10 grammes of any or any combination of the following:

(i) N, α-dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine;

(ii) α-methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine; or

(iii) N-ethyl-α−methyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenethylamine,

whether or not contained in any substance, extract, preparation or mixture, shall be presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his possession of that drug was not for that purpose.

[38/89;40/93; 20/98;2/2006]

Offences Punishable on Conviction

Section creating offence	General nature of offence	Punishment
		Class A drug involved	Class B drug involved	Class C drug involved	Specified drug or quantity thereof or drug with specified content involved
5	(1) Unauthorised traffic in controlled drug except as otherwise provided in this Schedule	Maximum 20 years and 15 strokes Minimum 5 years and 5 strokes	Maximum 20 years and 10 strokes Minimum3 years and 3 strokes	Maximum 10 years and 5 strokes Minimum 2 years and 2 strokes	— —
	(2) Unauthorised traffic in opium where the quantity is —
	(a) not less than 800 grammes and not more than 1,200 grammes and containing not less than 20 grammes of morphine	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 1,200 grammes and containing more than 30 grammes of morphine	—	—	—	Death
	(3) Unauthorised traffic in controlled drug (except opium) containing such quantity of morphine being —
	(a) not less than 20 grammes and not more than 30 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 30 grammes	—	—	—	Death	—
	(4) Unauthorised traffic in controlled drug containing such quantity of diamorphine being —
	(a) not less than 10 grammes and not more than 15 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 15 grammes	—	—	—	Death
	(5) Unauthorised traffic in controlled drug containing such quantity of cocaine being —
	(a) not less than 20 grammes and not more than 30 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 30 grammes	—	—	—	Death
	(6) Unauthorised traffic in cannabis where the quantity is —
	(a) not less than 330 grammes and not more than 500 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 500 grammes	—	—	—	Death
	(7) Unauthorised traffic in cannabis mixture where the quantity is —
	(a) not less than 660 grammes and not more than 1,000 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 1,000 grammes	—	—	—	Death
	(8) Unauthorised traffic in cannabis resin where the quantity is —
	(a) not less than 130 grammes and not more than 200 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 200 grammes				Death
	(9) Unauthorised traffic in controlled drug containing such quantity of methamphetamine being —
	(a) not less than 167 grammes and not more than 250 grammes	—	—	—	Maximum 30 years or imprisonment for life and 15 strokes Minimum 20 years and 15 strokes
	(b) more than 250 grammes	—	—	—	Death .
.

One and only en bloc sale for 2009

Dragon mansion sold for $101m

Channel NewsAsia - 1 Dec 2009

Dragon mansion sold for $100.8m

Business Times - 1 Dec 2009

Pine Grove

Another ex-HUDC trying their luck yet again.

.

Pine Grove residents keen to sell en bloc again

Straits Times - 25 Nov 2009

.

Pine Grove owners make 3rd attempt to sell their property in a collective sale

ChannelNewsAsia - 24 Nov 2009

FYI

Pine Grove is a 99-years leasehold development located at Pine Grove in District 21. Completed in 1984, this privatised HUDC development comprises 660 units.

Facilities at Pine Grove include swimming pool, BBQ pits, gym, tennis courts, clubhouse, convenience store, and playground. 24 hr security

Development Name:	Pine Grove
Property Type:	Condominium
Developer:	HUDC Housing
Tenure:	99-year Leasehold
Construction Year:	1984
# of Floors:	16
# of Units:	660

Available Unit Types:

• 2-Bedrooms (1,297 - 1,389 sqft)
• 3-Bedrooms (1,829 - 1,922 sqft)
• Maisonette (1,853 - 1,946 sqft)

LAGUNA PARK

Laguna Park - en bloc sale called off

Business Times - 19 November 2009

.

Laguna Park not for sale - at least for now

Straits Times- 19 November 2009

.

Laguna Park man's fine quadrupled

Straits Times - 19 November 2009

12+12+12+ 12 + until the cows come home

KENG SOON

.

Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and Others
[2009] SGHC 242
27 Oct 2009

A sole minority owner lost at the High Court. This mixed estate took a very long time to reach this point - the time line is as follows:

First signature to CSA: Dec 2006
First signature to supplemental CSA (to lower the RP): Mar 2007
90% achieved for supplemental CSA: Sep 2007
Application for sale: Apr 2008
STB order for sale: Dec 2008
Grounds for decision: Feb 2009
High Court decision: Oct 2009

Purposive approached still favoured by the High Court.

Whether the application to the Board for a collective sale order was out of time
35 The plaintiff contended that the application to the Board, which was made on 16 April 2008 for a collective sale order, was out of time. In his view, the application had to be made within 12 months after the first owner appended his signature to the first CSA, that is, by 28 December 2007. This view was erroneous for two reasons.

36 First, where an earlier CSA had failed to achieve its intended purpose, ie, to sell the land to a purchaser, the proprietors of the land could not be precluded from making a new agreement with a lower reserve price. Hence, the supplemental agreement constituted a fresh agreement. Therefore, time for the purpose of para 1A(a) of the Schedule should be reckoned from the date the first signature was appended to the supplemental agreement.

37 Second, s 84E(3)(b) provides that proprietors holding not less than 80% of the aggregate share value may apply to the Board for a collective sale order. At the earliest, the 12-month period within which application may be made to the Board starts when 80% majority has been reached or first crossed (as the case may be). The plaintiff was therefore wrong to say that time for this purpose started running from the date of the first signature. There are two distinct 12-month periods. As I said, application may be made to the Board as soon as 80% majority has been reached or first crossed. However, this does not mean that the 12-month period within which application must be made to the Board necessarily starts then (see para 1(a) of the Schedule). For example, it could start at a later date when a greater percentage majority is reached so long as the time elapsed from the first signature to the time when such desired majority is reached is also not greater than 12 months (see para 1A of the Schedule).

38 The first signature to the supplemental agreement was appended on 24 March 2007 and the last was on 6 September 2007 (well within the 12-month period within which a majority of not less than 80% had to be reached). The other 12-month period (ie, that within which application to the Board had to be made) ccommenced on 6 September 2007. Therefore, the application made on 16 April 2008 was well within time.

My 2 cents:

It seems this ruling has opened up an avenue for the sale committee and the majority to extend the 12 month validity period set in the LTSA Schedule indefinitely. They can piggyback a supplemental agreement to start a new 12 months afresh just before the old one runs out. This could theoretically become an instrument of abuse if, say, a SC and a jittery majority can't find a buyer and don't want to process to end after all their 'hard work' - all they would need do is trot out a new CSA with a minor adjustment (for justification's sake at the STB should it be challenged) and Bob's your uncle.

.

So

X + 12 + 12 + Y

becomes

X + 12 + 12 + 12 + Y

or even

X + 12 + (12)m +12 + Y

.

Where:

X = time taken from conception to first signing. This could take months or even years. (See Botanic Garden View)

12 = twelve months from date of first signature of first CSA

12 = twelve months from date of first signature of first supplemental CSA

m = multiplier for number of supplemental CSAs

12 = time taken for application to STB

Y = time taken for hearings at STB, High Court, Court of Appeal, back to STB.

.

It beggars the question why set time limits at all?

• Once a sale committee is elected; they are there indefinitely. It can be argued in court that if the agreement can be extended with a fresh 12 months, then so too the SC's tenure - that's only logical, isn't it, it's a horse and cart situation, you can't have one without the other.
  
• An estate can be kept in limbo with successive CSAs until an eventual sale; that is the only finality possible.
  
• Once you sign a CSA; you cannot rescind (except during the 5 day cooling off period).
  
• Once you sign the CSA; you are automatically assumed to have signed the supplemental CSA EVEN IF YOU PURPOSELY DON'T (see Gillman Heights majority owners who refused to sign their Supplemental CSA).
  

I truly hope this goes to the Court of Appeal. Somewhere in the mountain of High Court decisions/parliamentary utterances in my cupboard, it was stated that there must be finality to the process.

.

What possible implication can this have for Laguna Park?

I can't say for certain - being only a humble blogger - , but it looks like all they have to do is lower the RP a little, get 80% to sign a supplemental CSA and, hey presto, they have yet another year to market the estate.

Botanic Gardens View

Here they go again at the BGV estate. I have been keeping a close eye on the goings on there for quite a while - a few owners keep demanding transparency and consideration, yet the SC and the property agent (surprise, surprise as to who they are, do they have their fingers in ALL the pies?) seemingly bulldoze ahead regardless.

Restarting En bloc - by NOT being fair to owners

It looks like the SC are seeking ratification for their CSA through the mail - and giving owners very short notice to respond. As I have heard time and time again - if an owner does not object or make his opinions known then he is supposed to have acquiesced to the proposal/decision.

The SC and property agent are being very bullish and high handed in their dealings here. They are also ignoring the directive given by the then DPM Prof S Jayakumar in the Second Reading Speech on Land Titles (Strata)(Amendment) Bill on 20 Sep 2007; in which he said

"12. The sale committee shall convene general meetings to consider key issues such as the appointment of any lawyer, property consultant or marketing agent, the apportionment of sales proceeds, the terms and conditions of the CSA; and the terms and conditions of the S&P agreement. These changes will ensure that the owners will have the opportunity to discuss key issues before consenting to them."

Seeing as the last EOGM was 14 months ago; the proper thing to do would be to hold another EOGM to discuss further with the owners the important matter of the terms and conditions set out in the CSA and the method of apportionment of sales proceeds. A decent SC would do the decent thing - a group of gangsters will try to push it through as fast as they can, sailing very close to the minimum requirements of the LTSA.

Note:

The SC are in power indefinitely as their tenure is only fixed to one year from first date of signing the CSA, which hasn't begun yet. Any future SC in Tampines Court should have their pre-CSA tenure fixed to 6 months, otherwise the estate is left hanging in the wind. Owners must demand this.

From the THIRD SCHEDULE

7.-(1) The collective sale committee shall convene one or more general meetings of the management corporation in accordance with the Second Schedule for the following purposes:-

Before CSA signing begins 7-(2)

a) to consider the appointment of Enbloc lawyer and Property Agent (no 2)

b) to consider the apportionment of sale proceeds (no 3)

c) to consider the terms and conditions of the CSA (n0 4).

Laguna Park

Laguna Park could go at 20% discount to initial tender

Channel NewsAsia: 26 Oct 2009

.

$1.2b Laguna park en bloc sale bid fails

Straits Times: 17 Oct 2009

Tender for Laguna park closes with no winner

Business Times: 17 Oct 2009

.

Tender for Laguna Park en bloc closes unsuccessfully
ChannelNewsAsia: 16 Oct 2009

'The second bid was from a prominent local developer who expressed interest to pursue negotiations with the majority owners.'

This doesn't sound unsuccessful to me.

Local developers like their closed door sessions to strong-arm weak committees with unreasonable deadlines. I hope their sale committee knows how to play hardball and ALL owners are kept in the loop as to what is happening.