Good entries here Jessica! Keep it up!

Finding the balance between the interests of the majority and minority owners is a complicated task. I can understand why the government would be pro-urban renewal for a land scarce country like Singapore, but I think there should be certain standards in place to make sure the interests of our citizens is not lost in the pursuit of commercial gain.

Anyway, all eyes are on STB now for it’s decision this afternoon….

It is indeed regrettable that the right to property (elsewhere considered to be sacrosanct) is not protected by the Singapore Constitution. But our Constitution does guarantee every Singaporean equality before the law and the privilege of enjoying equal protection under the law.

Recently, the minority owners of Horizon Towers in their appeal to the High Court, charged that en bloc laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the learned High Court judge disagreed and upheld the constitutionality of enbloc laws. But I’m not convinced.

All of us who are relegated to being Minority owners by virtue of holding on to our OPINION not to sign the CSA, are by virtue of en bloc laws, denied of legal protection of our legally acquired property rights.

Two owners who have the same kind of property rights should be treated equally and should enjoy equal protection by the law. Yet, en bloc laws divide the owners into 2 types, with one group given compulsory acquisition rights (which hitherto only the State had), and the discrimination is determined only by a Difference of Opinion.

Discrimination can take many forms: difference in skin colour, religion, gender, age or (in our case) opinion. To my understanding, all such discrimination is unjustified and the Constitution is there to guard against such discrimination.

En bloc laws give Majority owners the right to sell away my property without my signature and force me to a party to their Agreement (CSA) against my will; Minority owners have their property rights denied in return for little or no protection. We have seen that STB will more or less rubber stamp the sale application as en bloc laws give Minority owners HARDLY ANY ground to object to the sale.

To add insult to indignity, the law places on the slight shoulders of the resource-less Minority Owners the burden (onus) to explain why his property should not be forfeited! Having been denied of grounds to object to the sale, and bearing the burden of proof, Minority owners are reduced to a pathetic state of resorting to crying foul over procedural irregularities like “missing pages” or missed deadlines. Minority owners in fact have nothing to go on, but much to lose.

If a citizen, who has done no legal wrong, is to have his home (not to mention, his valuable, and sometimes, only, real estate) confiscated, then such a draconian law must BALANCE the interests of competing groups. A law which imposes compulsory forfeiture should give minority owners an adequate or full range of grounds on which to oppose the forced sale. This also serves the principle of equality or parity of arms in combat i.e. the idea of fair play and to win fairly.

Instead, en bloc laws arm Majority owners to the teeth and leave Minority owners weaponless. Isn’t the role of the Rule of Law supposed to protect the weak against the strong? How is the Public Policy of National Interests served by “facilitating” (wording in preamble of LSTA) Big Boys to oust Little Man from his home? Do we need laws to equip the Strong against the Weak ? No! We already have the Law of the Jungle for that!

En bloc laws discriminate against minority owners and are therefore unconstitutional, in my humble opinion.

The good thing about having CPF first charge is that an owner will have their CPF and their Bank mortgage fully redeemed.

The bad thing about CPF second charge is if the sale price is too low, then CPF will waive the outstanding amount, leaving a ‘hole’. This impacts negatively on the owners ability to buy his next home, his savings for retirement, childrens’ educational plans etc.

All properties were CPF first charge prior to 2002 - all properties, that is, except HUDC’s phases III and IV (eg Tampines Court, Waterfront View).

For some inexplicable reason, these properties had their apron strings cut long before any other property, as early as 1996 (when I bought my unit) and probably even before.

For these properties, the order of charge is
1) HDB
2)Credit POSB
3)CPF

This is the reason why many owners in these properties have experienced/are experiencing huge CPF shortfalls compared to other private properties. Some owners are losing as much as $260,000 from their CPF accounts. They will also walk away with zero cash as the CPF would have mopped up every last cent of the sale proceeds.

En blocs are not supposed to make people poorer, but alas, in HUDCs, they inevitably do.

Since there is no right to property in the Singapore constitution and in the LTSA, and your neighbours can vote to sell away your property, despite your clear protest, there is no basic human right to keep your home in Singapore.

For those of us, the middle class, the foot soliders of the economy who love Singapore, there is no more sense of permanence or belonging since our homes can be taken away from us. Worse, we live in the fear that in both good times and bad, the law supports our greedy neighbours and eggs them on. The law slights minorities and favours whatever-the-cost-to-logic-and-fair-play en bloc rulings.

So far, the law has contorted itself in every which way to ensure speedy and unfair en bloc rulings.

For Horizon Towers, the deal was clearly done in bad faith. But the court did not think so.

For Gillman Heights, the NUS involvement reeks and is a national disgrace. A lesson to our children indeed of money over honour.

For Airview Towers, despite the lack of two vital signatures, the courts ruled for the majority.

If Singapore is willling to sacrifice the foot soldiers of the economy in favour of urban renewal, and take away their very homes without conscience, making a mockery of due process into the bargain, there will never be a happy en bloc.

In fact, the very concept of “freehold” now belongs to developers. There is no “freehold” for the citizens of Singapore. At best, one can stay in one’s home 20 years before one gets booted out in the interest of urban renewal.

So, there’s no 99 years leasehold for en bloc victims. 15-20 year tenure is the new reality.

This is my country, this is the foot soldiers contribution to Singapore - my home, my memories, my community.

Majulah Singapura!