Letters, Truths, ACTION!

After Mr Tan L. H.'s letter (dated 15 August), Mr John Lee sent out via email his rebuttal of the points mentioned in Mr Tan's letter on 20 August. For the benefit of all, we have put up Mr Lee's email on scribd. Below is Mr Tan's letter in response to Mr Lee's email of 20 August. Mr Tan's letter has been sent to all owners and residents of BGV on 21 August.

"21 August 2008
Dear fellow subsidiary proprietor,

In response to my letter dated 15 Aug 2008, John Lee has sent an e-mail dated 20 Aug 2008 to various parties. In his e-mail, he makes certain statements which are clearly incorrect and misleading, and which I feel I need to set the record straight on. My comments are set out in italics below John Lee's statements:

1. He says that my "letter contain (sic) misleading information which needs to be corrected. He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee."
My comments: My letter makes it very clear that it states my own concerns and suggestions in relation to the formula for allocation of sale proceeds and the terms of the Collective Sale Agreement. As I emphasised several times in my letter, each owner should consider his own circumstances and take independent advice. I certainly did not claim to be protecting the interests of the owners. And I certainly did not say anything at all about the "integrity and rectitude" of the Collective Sale Committee anywhere in my letter, which touches solely on the issues involved.

2. John Lee says that "*The formula for apportionment of the sale proceed has been changed.* This is true. The Sale Committee found the previous method of apportionment (of 1/3 area, 1/3 share value and 1/3 valuation) to be cumbersome and complex. It raises more questions than answers. The valuation component can be challenged - e.g. why this valuer and not that valuer or why not 2 valuers instead of 1 valuer or will valuation done at the beginning of the en bloc still be applicable at the end of the en bloc (a period of 12 - 24 months)? The Sale Committee decided to use a straight ratio of area vs share value to avoid controversy and overcome complications. The ratio of 70% area and 30% share value was chosen because 1) it is the closest to the previous method under current valuation 2) as advised by the Consultant, it will pass the equity test of the Strata Title Board 3) it is used by other condos with the same configurations, i.e. 1 share value for differing sizes of the units and 4) this formula has been upheld by the High Courts in the case of Holland Hill Mansion."
My comments: is it true that the ratio of 70/30% is "the closest to the previous method under current valuation", and what exactly does that mean? The critical question is why was this new ratio chosen, when the previous sale committee - which John Lee chaired - applied the previous formula which is now lightly dismissed as "cumbersome and complex"? Which formula is in the best interests of subsidiary proprietors? And why 70/30% instead of 50/50%? John Lee should explain what has changed since the previous attempted en bloc sale to justify such a change.

Further, is John Lee saying that the Consultant has guaranteed that the 70/30% formula will be approved by the Strata Titles Board? If so, this should be obtained in writing from the Consultant, and incorporated in the terms of the agreement with the Consultant.

He should also let us know which successful en bloc sales "with the same configurations" applied the 70/30% formula.

And speaking of being misleading, in fact, in the Holland Hill Mansion en bloc sale that he mentions, the statra area/share value formula was indeed upheld by the Strata Titles Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal - but the ratio applied was 50/50%, and not 70/30%!

3. John Lee said: "He says: "*There is no protection in the CSA for you as a subsidiary proprietor*.... and the case of Horizon Towers is again mentioned. It is true that the owners of Horizon Towers who signed the CSA were sued by the Purchaser to honour the Sale and Purchase Agreement. If you recall, the consenting owners at Horizon Towers changed their minds about selling their property after they have entered into a contract with the Purchaser, when they realised that a neighbouring property was sold for twice what they got for their property. Of course, the purchaser has the right to enforce their contractual rights under the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. Will this be repeated in BGV? Not likely if consenting owners do not change their mind after entering into a contract."
My comments: Another misleading statement on John Lee's part. The majority owners in Horizon Towers were not sued because they "changed their minds". They failed to comply with certain legal requirements in their submission to the Strata Title Board, and the buyer sued on the basis that the sellers had failed to perform their contractual duty to make a proper application. Whether or not this was based on a change of the majority sellers' minds is an inference from the facts.

So the real question to be asked is, if the CSC makes a faulty application or some other mistake in the sale process, leading to the owners being sued, what recourse would the owners have against the CSC? As the CSA is currently drafted, none. Not only that, the CSA provides that the owners indemnify the CSC - in 2 clauses, no less (clause 6.1.38 and clause 10.3)! Why should the CSC not be held liable for their actions, when they are acting as agents and fiduciaries in relation to valuable properties? Why should the owners indemnify the CSC?

As an aside, it is unclear why there should be 2 indemnity clauses. And it should be noted that though the indemnity in clause 6.1.38 is at least limited to acts of the CSC "in connection with" the CSA, the Collective Sale and applications to the Strata Title Board, there is no such limitation in clause 10.3. So theoretically under clause 10.3 the owners indemnify the CSC against "all actions, costs, expenses, damages and claims" whether or not related to the CSA or the Collective Sale. How can this be acceptable to owners?

4. John Lee says: "*There is no provision for a performance bond from a bank to guarantee that the buyer will complete the sale and make full payment of the sale proceeds*. If Mr Tan is correct, then he should show us a Sale & Purchase Agreement with such a preposterous provision. No Developer will accede to this demand. It has not been done before and it will never be done ever. Our protection is in the 5 - 10% deposit placed with our solicitor, which will accrue to the owners in case of a default, and the advice of our Consultants on the bona fide status of the purchaser.
My comments: I have said in my letter that we are likely to be told it is not market practice. But that is no reason why we should not have a performance bond if the purchaser is really keen to buy our estate. Market practice has to start somewhere, doesn't it? And should we not learn from the lessons of other estates whose purchasers pulled out of their enbloc sales, to begin a market practice that protects us? The deposit is insufficient protection, as the potential damages for an owner who has contracted to buy another property may be much larger than his share of the deposit. I believe this is what happened in the aborted en bloc sales earlier this year.

In any event, if the purchaser is bona fide and does not intend to default, then it should have no problem giving the bond. But my point is that no one can say for certain that a seemingly strong company will not collapse - look at Bear Stearns and Enron, just to name 2 of the largest, most successful corporations that have collapsed without warning. The CSC should in fact be the party insisting on this in order to protect all owners' interests, and not say that "it has not been done before and will never be done ever". Is this indicative of how the CSC will be negotiating to protect owners' interests?

5. *He says: "The power of the CSC to enter into a sale below the reserve price, and other important terms of the sale, should be subject to approval of the subsidiary proprietors. *It is misleading and mischievous to suggest that the CSC can enter into a sale below the reserve price without the approval of the subsidiary proprietors. Clause 4 - Sale Terms Reserve Price: $630,000,000/ Higher if increased with the Sale Committee's approval and Sellers are deemed to agree to such increase. If the proposed sale price is less than the Reserve Price, the Sellers' Approval is required before accepting such lower sale price. Sellers' Approval is defined in Clause 11 of the CSA as "the approval of sellers constituting at least 80% of share value and at least 80% of the strata title area of all units". Similarly the terms and conditions of the CSA cannot be changed willy nilly without the approval of the owners.
My comments: if John Lee had read the letter carefully, he would have seen that I was referring to changes in the terms of the sale and purchase agreement to be entered into with the buyer, not the CSA. Under the CSA, the committee is empowered to change the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. And what is wrong with saying that if the CSC wants to enter into a sale below the reserve price, it should get the owners' approval? In fact, this should be done before any such sale is entered into, with clear explanations why the CSC recommends such action, and why the reserve price cannot be achieved.

Further, it is unclear how and when each owner's decision whether to agree to the sale below the reserve price is to be ascertained, and what time period an owner is given to make such a decision. In all, the mechanism for a sale below the reserve price is unclear, and owners would do well to ensure that it is clearly specified if they agree at all to such a provision. It could be said to look like advance preparation for a sale below the reserve price. Is there something owners should know about now?

In fact, having taken a closer look at the CSA, clause 5.6 does purport to give the CSC the power to change both the CSA and the sale and purchase contract willy-nilly, subject only to what is stated in the CSA and the law requiring Sellers' Approval!

6. John Lee says: “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”
My comments: In fact, it is John Lee and his CSC members who have been collecting proxies all along, making it appear like there is a majority in favour of the en bloc sale, when actually it is a minority. It just looks like a majority because this group of en bloc sale supporters attends and votes at the EOGMs, usually through proxies held by John Lee and his CSC members. So the end result is that resolutions passed at the EOGMs appear to be overwhelmingly supported, while in reality, the majority have not attended or voted.

Thus, I would urge all owners to attend the EOGM this Saturday, and all future EOGMs, so you can hear for yourself and make up your own mind about how the various issues raised above, and other issues that other owners raise at the meeting itself, will affect your own circumstances. Otherwise you leave your fate in the hands of a vocal, persistent minority who act with their own interests at heart.

Yours sincerely,
Tan Lai Huat
Blk x Taman Serasi #xx-xx
Singapore xxxxxx "


Below is a letter sent to our BGV email by an owner and the owner asked for the letter to be put on the BGV blog. We have reproduced it here for the benefit of all.

"21/08/2008
Dear Vanessa and Hwei Ming,

I’ve held back on making comments, but the latest email from John Lee about Tan Lai Huat has really infuriated me. Just as John Lee has answered point by point, I want to bring to the attention of readers and owners these points he made:

1. “His letter contain misleading information which needs to be corrected”.

In fact, I believe the information he provided is not misleading, but enlightening. The points raised by John Lee in his rebuttal is incorrect, and I’m sure they will be brought up at the EOGM, which I encourage as many of you to attend. For example, he suggested comparing ‘two documents’. I suggest you compare the CBRE CSA and the Credo CSA to see the ‘great disparity’. When compared in terms of sale proceeds, owners from Blk 1 stand to loose over $100k under the new CSA! I guess it is purely coincidental that none of the CSC members own units in Blk 1 so will not face this loss.

2. “He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee”.

This couldn’t be more obvious than the misinformation from the CSC’s own blog. For example, they stated clearly on their blog in response to the question: Can the reserve price be lowered after owners sign the CSA? Their answer was: “No. The reserve price is the minimum that owners agree to sell at. If the reserve price is not achieved, a sale does not take place”. I urge you to read clause 4.1.4 carefully to see if “a sale does not take place”. Such a clause about a lower sale price is not present in the CBRE CSA, but this just points out that the CSC is clearly preparing for a lower offer and is preparing to accept such a lower offer. Why else have this clause?

Some more “true facts” from their blog. In their “Timeline of Events”, they stated that in Jan 2008, “Owners present vote overwhelmingly in favour of formation of Collective Sale Committee”. Sounds like the entire estate is “overwhelmingly” for the sale, right? But actually, only 61 units out of 146 total attended and could vote. A total of ONLY 37% of the ENTIRE estate voted for the new CSC. That, my dear neighbours, is the “true fact”. A MINORITY GROUP has decided to push THEIR OWN AGENDA with no regard for the MAJORITY who are not keen on the sale.

And the most insulting, which many of you who received John Lee’s correspondence will remember, is now put up under “Alternative Places to Stay”. He has omitted certain sentences that were in his original letter, which I’ll now include, IN BOLD:

… It will not make much sense for us to sell our precious home and then splurge on a super luxurious home at 8Napier, Grange Residences, St Regis, etc. It will be plain stupid!

…Here are some estates where you can find homes with market value from $1-1.8 million: Normanton, Ridgewood, Pandan Valley, Pine Grove, Central Green, and many more in the east, west and central. Or, how about Punggol 21, the idyllic new town with shopping, nature, stream and MRT?

Some of the above estates are attempting to go en block, but they are not likely to succeed because they are huge estates, they have development charge issues, and most of them will not make it in time before the new Amendments become law.

Why did he omit these sentences? Because he called owners “stupid” just because we have a right to decide what kind of home we’d want to buy, luxurious or not. And how many of us were insulted that he would even suggest Punggol 21? I certainly do not see him moving out of his super luxurious home to this “idyllic new town”! And to add insult to injury, he suggests that we downgrade, downsize and move out of a perfect, central and beautiful location at BGV!!

3. “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”

Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Isn’t he just as aggressively collecting proxies to influence the outcome of a general meeting? Didn’t he already achieve that, to great effect and to possible detriment of our estate, during our AGM when he steamrolled his pro-sale team into the management committee, courtesy of proxies?

I’m sorry but I’m quite disgusted by John Lee’s high and mighty attitude. Given his attitude, his bullish behaviour, his misinformation, I’m now greatly concerned that it is only one step away from our estate becoming like that of Laguna Park – with people living in fear of enbloc vandals who will not hesitate to bully the rest into signing the CSA.

At the end of the day, the only *TRUE FACT* is this – now is NOT the right time to sell. And unless we get rid of the CSC, our estate will be sold for less than what it’s truly worth.

A very disgusted owner
Name withheld for fear of vandalism. Not everyone parks near the guard house daily."

Dear Owner,
We thank you for your letter. We can understand your reason for withholding your name for fear of vandalism but we hope you can contact us as soon as you see this blog post. Thank you.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, collective sale agreement, apportionment, proxy, EOGM, Letters to Owners, sale agent, sales committee

Time for ACTION!

Dear fellow owners and residents,

On 16 August, we received a letter by Mr Tan L. H., a resident staying here at BGV, in our mail boxes. He has sent his letter to all owners and residents, including those not staying at BGV. With his permission, we have reproduced his letter here in full for the benefit of all.


"15 August 2008

Dear fellow subsidiary proprietor,

I am a retired lawyer who has been living in this estate since 1991, and I was a Management Council member for a few years in the 1990s. I am writing to you in relation to the proposed EOGM on 23 Aug 2008, convened by the en bloc sale committee ("CSC") to approve the formula for apportionment of sale proceeds and the collective sale agreement ("CSA").

It is important to protect your own interest that you read this and take immediate action or obtain independent legal advice, as it would be too late to do so if the EOGM approves the proposed formula and CSA. This is regardless of whether you currently intend to sign the CSA or not.

Even if you do not wish to sign the CSA now, or are waiting to see whether you wish to sign it later, the terms of the CSA will be fixed upon approval at the EOGM and may become binding on you even if you do not sign, in the event that the Strata Title Board makes a binding order. These terms include the sale price, the reserve price, the formula for apportionment of sale proceeds to you (i.e. how much money you would get if the en bloc sale is successfully concluded) and other important terms such as when you have to vacate your apartment, and whether you get a share of the remaining management and sinking funds. Therefore if you do not act now, you may still become bound by the terms of the CSA which cannot be changed subsequently.

If you currently intend to sign the CSA, the above applies even more strongly, as you will become bound by the terms of the CSA as soon as you sign (unless you withdraw within the cooling-off period provided by the law).

I personally have several objections to the CSA, which may or may not apply in your case, as I understand that each of us has our own individual circumstances to consider. However, I would urge you to consider the following points, and take independent legal advice to protect your own position.

The objections and suggestions I have are as follows:

1. The formula for apportionment of sale proceeds has been changed from the one previously proposed by the previous collective sale committee. It is now skewed in favour of the units with the largest floor area, instead of that being in a one-third proportion as previously. The fact that all subsidiary proprietors have all along been paying in equal shares for maintenance fees and sinking funds is conveniently ignored. No reason has been given for this change, which benefits the owners of units in Block 9 the most. You should insist that the formula be in the same proportion as that previously used, or at least in a 50:50 proportion.

2. There are no protections in the CSA for you as a subsidiary proprietor if the CSC's actions cause you damage or loss. If you recall the Horizon Towers case, the owners who signed that collective sale agreement were sued for damages of about $5 million each, but had no recourse against their sale committee. That case was only resolved after a year-long court process involving large sums of legal costs and much stress and anxiety. This point is extremely important considering that you will be granting the CSC the authority and wide powers to act on your behalf in the sale. Even worse for you, the current CSA provides that the CSC is exempted from liability for their actions! You should require that indemnities from the CSC, collectively and individually, be inserted in the CSA to protect yourself, and that the CSC's exemptions from liability to be removed from the CSA.

3. There is no provision for a performance bond from a bank, to guarantee that the buyer will complete the sale and make full payment of the sale proceeds. This is important as developers normally incorporate a two-dollar company (without any financial resources of its own) to develop projects. Without such a performance bond, the developer could easily walk away from its obligations and liabilities to you as a seller. However, if you have contracted to purchase a replacement unit pending the completion of the en bloc sale , you will be stuck with contractual and financial liabilities in respect of that purchase. This has happened in a few en bloc sales earlier this year. You will probably be told that it is not market practice to provide such a bond. However, if a developer really wants to acquire our prime property, it should pay us the right price - our price - and comply with our requirements for our own protection. After all, our estate is in a totally unique and extremely valuable location - there is no equivalent to it in Singapore. You should insist that the CSA contains a requirement that a performance bond from an acceptable bank must be provided by the developer under the sale and purchase agreement.

4. The power of the CSC to enter into a sale below the reserve price, and other important terms of sale, should be subject to approval of the subsidiary proprietors. Under the current CSA, the CSC can decide, for example, to change the sale price, or change the time for vacant possession without such approval. Changes in the sale price are obviously very important as they affect the amount you may get in a sale. As for vacant possession, this would have important implications for families who need to make arrangements for school-going children, or who need to find alternative accommodation (obviously, this does not affect subsidiary proprietors who do not actually live in the estate). Changes in other terms would obviously have different effects, depending on the terms and the changes made. Are you comfortable enough with the CSC that you trust them to take such decisions on your behalf and in your best interests? It is always possible that other owners would rather make a quick sale at any price which makes them sufficient money to cover their own investment, which may differ from yours. You should require that the CSC obtains the approval of the subsidiary proprietors for any changes in the terms of the sale and purchase agreement from those specified in the CSA.

Aside from the above, you should study the CSA carefully and take independent legal advice if you need to. It will be too late to do this after the CSA is approved by the EOGM.

If you are unable to attend the EOGM but wish the above points to be raised on your behalf, I would be willing to act as your proxy for the EOGM. If so, please drop the duly completed and signed proxy form (or if your unit is owned by a company, the letter of authority) in my letterbox (at Block 1, Taman Serasi, #xx-xx) by Wednesday, 20 Aug. The proxy form and letter of authority are enclosed with the Notice of EOGM sent to you earlier by the MCST. If you change your mind and choose to attend the EOGM after the proxy form has been lodged, your attendance at the EOGM will, under the law, automatically cancel my appointment as your proxy.

Without sufficient votes, whether by proxy or by your attending the EOGM, it is highly likely that that the matters above will not be resolved in your favour.

Please take action before it is too late to protect your own interests. If everyone thinks that someone else will do the necessary, then the CSC will get their own way easily. This has happened in the last few general meetings when they obtained proxy votes to pass resolutions as they wished. Please think very carefully before you give your proxy vote to the CSC members, or leave the en bloc sale process entirely in their hands - will they act in your best interest, or in their own interest, bearing in mind that each owner has his own individual circumstances to consider?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please feel free to contact me (xxxxxxxx) if you wish to discuss the above. If I am not available, please leave a message and your contact number, and I will contact you as soon as I can. You can also e-mail me at: bgvresident@gmail.com

Yours faithfully,

Tan Lai Huat
Blk 1, Taman Serasi, #xx-xx
Singapore xxxxxx"


As this is a public forum, we have removed Mr Tan's phone number and address. For those of you staying at BGV, you can refer to Mr Tan's letter for his contact details. For those of you owners not staying at BGV (you would probably receive your letter by Monday or Tuesday), you can email him at bgvresident@gmail.com or email us at enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com and we will put you in touch with Mr Tan.


We will like to re-emphasize Mr Tan's last point:
PLEASE TAKE ACTION BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Whether you are for or against the enbloc, you have to take action to protect your own interest. Especially for those of you who wish to continue calling BGV your home, APATHY is NO LONGER an option.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, collective sale agreement, sale committee, proxy

Thoughts on the AGM

We apologise for the lack of updates since the AGM due to a technical glitch on our blog. But in the meantime, we received an email from a concerned resident who attended the AGM and wished for us to put the email on the blog. This concerned resident has raised pertinent issues.

"At the AGM on 7 June, John Lee and 2 other members of his collective sale committee (CSC) were elected as Management Council (MC) members, together with 2 others nominated by John Lee, presumably supporters of the en bloc sale.

This was a result of John Lee and the CSC gathering a large number of proxy votes. Thus, the new MC for the estate comprises of John Lee and 4 of his CSC members and supporters, i.e. 5 out of the total of 7 positions on the MC!

It should be noted that of those 5 nominated by John Lee and a Mr Soon (who was in the previous Pro-tem sales Committee), only John Lee and one other MC member, Ms Leesa Lovelace, actually attended the AGM - the others were all absent. And it appears that Ms Lovelace left the AGM before the elections were conducted. We only have John Lee's word that they had consented to their nomination for election to the MC.

If they did not even bother to attend the AGM (or in the case of Ms Lovelace, stay for the entire AGM), how much interest will they have in running and maintaining the estate in the best interests of the residents and subsidiary proprietors? How much attention will they pay to the needs of the estate?

Although an objection was raised by an owner at the AGM that there was a clear conflict of interest in having CSC members also sitting as members of the MC, this was brushed aside and John Lee and his CSC members and supporters were voted into the MC with the help of their proxy votes.

But, if I were one of John Lee's CSC members elected into the MC, I would be very hesitant indeed to take his word that there is no conflict of interest, just because he says so.

In fact, I would be rather concerned as to my own position. To an objective observer (as a court of law will be) it is very clear that the interests and duties of the CSC members are very different from, and clearly conflict with, those of the Management Council. If I were in their position, I would certainly seek independent legal advice on this point, before I get myself too deep into a hole.

And what hole would I be getting into? The CSC members would do well to bear in mind that they will have onerous contractual, common law and fiduciary duties to the subsidiary proprietors who sign the collective sale agreement as well as those who may become bound by it. At the same time, if they take up their positions as MC members, they will be subject to onerous statutory and common law duties owed to all the subsidiary proprietors who make up the MCST.

Each of them may therefore find themselves liable for damages to the subsidiary proprietors who sign the collective sale agreement, or to the subsidiary proprietors who comprise the MCST, or even to both sets of subsidiary proprietors, in respect of their actions and decisions while sitting on both the MC and the CSC.

They can be assured that their actions and decisions as MC and CSC members will be scrutinised very carefully, and that they will individually and collectively be held accountable for any breaches of their duties.

I hope each of them has the resources to meet such liabilities in the event that they arise, as these may well be substantial. In any event, they should consider their individual positions very carefully.

Thus, if I were one of them, I would not be too quick to celebrate my election into the MC. Now every decision made at CSC meetings as well as MC meetings will be fraught with peril, as the possibility of breaching one or the other of their conflicting duties and liabilities will always be present. John Lee may well have made the position of these CSC members untenable and certainly unenviable.

They can also be assured that there are subsidiary proprietors who are prepared to take them to the very last stage of legal proceedings in the event of any breaches or if any damages are suffered by subsidiary proprietors due to their actions or decisions while sitting as members of the MC or the CSC.

They should therefore not be too happy about having secured 5 out of the 7 positions on the MC, and think that with such an overwhelming majority, they can make decisions without due regard to their individual and collective duties and liabilities. Subsidiary proprietors will be watching their actions very, very carefully.

Finally, to those who gave their proxy votes to John Lee or other CSC members, I think you have done yourself, and the other subsidiary proprietors, a real dis-service.

You might think that having loaded the MC with CSC members and en bloc sale supporters will be advantageous to you. However, as mentioned above, that will not necessarily be the case, as it may do more harm than good.

And if you think about it carefully, what happens to your property value if the en bloc sale does not succeed in the end or is successfully challenged, and in the meantime, the MC has run down the estate deliberately or by inaction or negligence? Don't forget that John Lee has failed in his en bloc sale attempt made at the height of the property frenzy last year, and that the property market has soured considerably since then.

Even if you don't live here and have rented out the place or are keeping it for investment, your long-term rentals and investment value will be adversely affected. How will you recover your losses then, and who will you look to, to make good your losses?"

There is certainly a lot of food for thought raised by concerned resident.

Coming EOGM and BGV AGM

Dear fellow owners and residents,

We have a couple of things to mention today. First, there is a letter from Mr John Lee of the Sale Committee (a) calling for another EOGM and (b) asking for proxy votes for the AGM, which, as you know, will be held this Saturday, 7 June 08. Curiously, despite this letter being dated the 22nd of May, neither of the two main contributors to this blog has received sight or sound of it (just to make it clear, we are not actually surprised at this). Just in case this discrimination is directed at other owners besides ourselves, we are happy to republish the letter on this blog as a public service. Second, there is the AGM.

Concerning the EOGM, we fully expect that the course of events will be the same as for the previous two EOGMs. That is, the Sale Committee and its minority supporters will be the principal attendees and everyone else will stay away, having better things to do than argue about the division of spoils from the sale of other peoples' homes. Some of us will be there, of course, so that you will have a reasonably objective account of events. However, the division of proceeds is something that should interest at least some of us owners. I refer to those of us would be willing to sell for the right price (ie not during this current extremely bad market). It is usual in en-bloc sales for the owners of larger or better-situated flats to suffer, since their share of the proceeds of sale rarely reflects a fair apportionment taking into account the superior value of, for instance, larger flats on higher floors. Since as our addresses make clear we are both in this position, we will make no comment but simply leave it to you all, dear fellow owners and residents, to reflect upon your own interests in this matter and decide for yourselves whether the protection of those interests merits your attendance at this EOGM. Since neither of us is in the slightest degree interested in selling our homes, how their price is to be divided up is a matter of indifference to us.

Concerning the AGM will be held this Saturday, 7 June 08. We thought that we would take this opportunity to urge everyone to attend. The AGM deals with the real, bread and butter issues of the management of our estate, not merely with the attempt to sell it out from under us. These are things that will affect all us in our daily lives: who will comprise the Management Council for the coming year? What has happened to the ongoing five-year maintenance programme? Will this estate continue to be maintained in good condition? We are all aware of what can happen when the Management Council of an estate is hijacked by people whose only interest is to sell.

We are pleased that Mr Lee's letter also expresses his intentions to maintain this estate in good order. However, this does not remove the inherent conflict of interest involved in being both a member of the Sale Committee ( which serves the interests of those who wish to sell our estate) and of the Management Council (which exists to maintain the estate in good condition for all of us, including the majority who do not wish to sell). We know that calling on the Sale Committee to do the right thing and end its members' involvement in the Management Council is a hopeless endeavour. We, the owners, are the only ones who can compel them to do so. How?

Quite simply, by voting against any candidate for the Management Council who is simultaneously a member of the Sale Committee. Mr Lee makes no secret (except to us, of course) about his desire to collect proxy votes, ostensibly to support his blameless and worthy endeavours to maintain this estate in good condition. We find this frankly unbelievable. The inhabitants of this estate are sensible people. No reasonable proposal for the management and maintenance of this estate has ever been refused by the AGM. Apart from the attempt by the Sale Committee and its cohorts to sell our homes against our wills, there is no major dispute or disagreement among the owners concerning the maintenance and management of this estate (really, does anyone here actually support the parking of heavy vehicles in the car-park? Is there a secret pro-heavy-vehicle faction among the owners, who must be fought tooth and nail?). We fully believe that there is no purpose behind this collection of proxy votes except the attempt to remove all remaining members of the Managment Council who do not support the Sale Committee, and effectively turn the Management Council into the mere tool and mouthpiece of the Sale Committee. Obviously, this result will be to the detriment of both the estate and the majority of its owners. After all, if the Management Council ever consists of a majority of pro-en-bloc sale people, what is to prevent the Council from making decisions AFTER the AGM which may directly or indirectly cause the estate to deteriorate in their attempt to encourage people to sell? The owners are not blind to see that a letter from the BGV En Bloc Office encouraging people to improve the estate goes against their push for a fast sale. Why proxy Mr John Lee when it is equally valid to proxy some other member of the Management Council, eg the Chairperson? How many of us have heard certain people saying that the estate is getting worse, and it's best to collectively sell now before it's too late?

We need only be reminded of the massive problems that can happen to the management of an estate when that is hijacked by pro-sales owners - Look at Mandarin Gardens and Bayshore Park to see what can happen when too many proxy votes end up in the hands of Sales Committee members:http://www.sghousing.com/2008/05/05/en-bloc-uproar-at-bayshore-park-mandarin-gardens/http://www.sghousing.com/2008/05/05/en-bloc-system-needs-relook-as-bayshore-shows/

In summary therefore, we hope that as many of us as possible will:

(a) Attend the AGM
(b) Scrutinise with the utmost care both the past year's maintenance activities and the plans for future maintenance
(c) Vote AGAINST any candidate for the Managment Council who will not dissociate themselves completely from the Sale Committee.

and of course, continue to Just Say No to whatever piece of paper the Sale Committee waves under our noses.

We will be doing all of these things and we hope that you will too.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, AGM, voting, conflict of interest, Management Coucil

Yet ANOTHER Missing CSC Letter!!!

Once again, John Lee and his Sale Committee has continued with their tricks, despite our several warnings to be transparent and fair. Reproduced below is the letter, dated 18 April, sent by John Lee to some but NOT all owners and residents!

"18 April 2008
Dear Friends,
EN BLOC SALE OF BOTANIC GARDENS VIEW
You would by now have received by registered mail the Notice for the EOGM to be held on 3rd May 2008 at 3pm at the BGV Function Room. A second copy is enclosed for you just to make sure that you do not miss out on this important document.

At the first EOGM held on 12 th January 2008, we voted to proceed with the Collective Sale of Botanic Gardens View, and elected a 5 member Sale Committee for this purpose. This coming EOGM, we will be called to decide on the Consultants and the Lawyers to be engaged for the conduct of our Collective Sale.

The Sale Committee has worked hard to secure the services of reputable Consultants for our Collective Sale. We have received quotations form three Consultants and the Sale Committee has deliberated over the proposals. We are unanimous in our choice and will be recommending to the general body the appointment of a strong and reputable Consultant which has proposed a reserve price which is very close to our previous reserve price.

Please make every effort to attend the EOGM and join in the discussion. We value your opinion and it is important to us. If for some reason, you are unable to attend the EOGM, kindly give your proxy to someone who best represents your interest. If you wish someone from the Sale Committee to represent you, you may want to appoint either N.G. Ionides or myself as your proxy to the EOGM by 28 April 208 at the latest. Our particulars are listed below for your easy reference. Please use the enclosed return envelope to mail the completed proxy back to the BGV EN Bloc Office.”

We have, in separate posts, deplored this selective and systematic means by which John Lee and his sale committee excluded passing on important information to owners they suspect not in favour of the sale. This is NOT the first time it has happened and it is NOT a plain error! WHAT ELSE are they keeping from us as legitimate owners of BGV? THIS IS A SERIOUS CAUSE OF CONCERN AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT. STB would definitely be interested to know of such unethical and discriminatory behaviour of John Lee and his Sale Committee, and we fully intend to bring this up as discriminatory behaviour and bad faith during any and all legal proceedings!

As seen by this letter incident (and the other letters as well), John Lee and his Sale Committee is definitely not acting in the interests of all owners in BGV but namely their own interests in pushing through the en bloc of BGV. If they truly act in the interests of all owners, why then are they selective in sending out information only to certain owners? If the Sale Committee can keep information from owners they suspect are not in favour of the sale, what makes you think they might not also do the same, that is, keep important information from owners who are in favour of the sale or only give information that they think will help them push through the sale? For example, under the new law there is a 5 day cooling off period after you've signed the CSA. What is to stop them from excluding information from you that might cause you to rescind your signature within this period, UNTIL it's over and it's too late for you? Whether you are pro-sale or a stayer at BGV, there are SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS for everyone with such a Sale Committee helming the BGV en bloc.

John Lee has indicated clearly in his highly selective letter that owners should "give your proxy to someone who best represents your interest". Yet he offers only himself and Mr Ionides as proxies, as if they represent the interests of the entire estate. If you wish for any of our group to represent you, please contact us at enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com. You can send the completed proxy form to us and we will represent those who feel that the sale is untimely, unjust, and should be stopped.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming

things.unfair@gmail.com

Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

PS. We would like to thank yet another kind owner who sent us a copy of John Lee's 18 April letter. Thank you for your support.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, sale committee, STB

The Missing CSC Letter

Dear fellow owners and residents,

It appears that the Sale Committee continues its tricks. Reproduced below is the letter sent by the chairman of the Sale Committee to some but not all owners and residents.

“26 March 2008

Dear Fellow Owners,

We thank those who have attended the 1st EOGM held on 12th January 2008 and for your overwhelming support (over 85%) in voting in the five members Collective Sale Committee (CSC).

We were somewhat taken by surprise when CB Richard Ellis, citing market conditions, told us that they will not consider reappointment for our collective sale. Five other major Consultants were approached to give us their proposals for the collective sale. Two of them declined.

Thankfully, the other three agreed, and have submitted their proposals to the CSC. The Committee was pleased with the proposals and the reserve prices that were suggested.

We now need to call the 2nd EOGM to discuss and decide on the appointment of the Consultant and the Lawyer who will be handling our collective sale. To do this we need to collect requisitions signed by not less than 20% of the share values or owners of BGV. The requisition is attached for the signature of the owner or one or more of the owners if the unit is under joint ownership.

Kindly sign the requisition as soon as possible and either mail or deposit the signed requisition in our letterbox at Blk 9 Taman Serasi #01-11, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore 257720. The sooner we receive your requisition, the sooner we can call the EOGM. Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.”

As you can see, if you compare it to the email cited in the last blog post, there are some significant differences.

Not least, the Sales Committee continues to make willfully misleading assertions as to the extent of its support within Botanic Gardens View. In the very first paragraph of this latest letter, it is stated that 85% (it is implied, of the whole ownership) voted for the Sale Committee.

Why do we say that this is misleading? The people who voted for the Sale Committee were NOT the entire ownership of Botanic Gardens View! They were merely those who attended the EOGM that elected the Sale Committee i.e. 53 units voted, representing 36.30% of the total estate. The Sale Committee is therefore supported by barely a THIRD of all BGV owners. This is of course a much less impressive figure, which is probably why the Sale Committee has chosen to disguise it.

The other important difference between this letter and the email is that it contains a requisition form for a 2nd EOGM. The Sale Committee, obviously, did NOT send this form to those owners who only received the email. We leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why the Sale Committee might be engaging in this frankly unethical and discriminatory behaviour and continues to engage in such behaviour as with an earlier letter which was only sent to some owners and residents.

The 2nd EOGM will ask us to approve the appointment of the new property consultant and a law firm. We ask you to consider very seriously whether you wish to place your trust in these persons, in view of the fact that several reputable agencies have already declined the Sale Committee’s business.

Any Collective Sales Agreement produced in such suspicious circumstances should be examined with even more care than we have already recommended. It should be a provision of the Collective Sales Agreement that each member of the Sale Committee should fully indemnify the owners for any loss or damage arising out of their actions or negligence in the attempted enbloc sale. The owners should NOT be the ones indemnifying the Sale Committee as we have seen in some other collective sales agreements. Given the less-than-transparent attitude of the Sale Committee, and given that our estate will almost certainly receive bids from major developers with large financial and legal clout, we are rightly concerned that the nightmares that have faced owners of other en bloc’d estates caught out by irresponsible Sale Committees, will occur to us. It is NOT sufficient that we ‘implicitly trust’ our Sale Committee; there must be legal protection for us owners who should not be the brunt of any legal proceedings.

There should also be a performance guarantee by any purchaser. This will protect signatories who have incurred costs, such as in the purchase of a replacement property, in the event that a buyer withdraws from the sale agreement, as occurred recently in the case of Tulip Garden and Pender Court where the purchaser, Bravo has postponed several times the settlement dates for both sales.

Any Collective Sales Agreement that does not contain these provisions will put the owners at great disadvantage.

In conclusion, we note that if the Collective Sales Agreement achieves 80% support, even non-signatories will be caught by its provisions, however disadvantageous they may be to our interests. We therefore urge everyone, once more, to keep our signatures to ourselves, in defence of those interests.


Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street

Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming

things.unfair@gmail.com

Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

PS. We would like to thank the owner who alerted us to the above letter which was sent by the CSC chairman to selected owners. We would also like to thank all owners and residents who have shown us support and who continue to give us support.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, Collective Sales Agreement

Be Wary, Be VERY Wary

Dear fellow owners and residents,

Some of us have now heard from the Sale Committee. We reproduce the e-mail in full, for the benefit of those who may for whatever reason not have received this information:

"Dear friends,

Just a quick update on the status of the above (BGV En Bloc).

CBRE has indicated that they are declining reappointment as Consultant for our en bloc. The reason offered is that the market has changed, and the previous reserve price is not feasible in today's market. If the reserve price is lowered to match market expectation, they believe that it is not possible to garner the 80% support required.

The CSC invited five other consultants to give us their proposals. Two declined. The other three have submitted their proposals to the CSC. A second EOGM will be called very soon to allow subsidiary proprietors to vote on the three proposals."

You will note that even the Sale Committee's own property consultant now no longer thinks it worthwhile to carry on with the en-bloc disposal of Botanic Gardens View. One would think that the Sale Committee would have taken the hint and abandoned this worthless endeavour. Unfortunately, in its blindness, it continues to solicit customers for its dubious wares. Two of them have had the sense to decline. We strongly urge our fellow owners and residents to look with great care at what is eventually offered by the others. We know and understand the long-term value of what we have.

The Committee is already hinting in its e-mail above that it may propose a lower reserve price than before (and if we recall correctly, the original reserve price was itself never clearly established). If the original price was not worth selling for, we cannot see that any sensible person would think it worth while to sell their home for less. So it appears to us that our ongoing advice now gains even greater relevance: whatever document is presented to us, we urge everyone not to vote for it, still less sign it, before having taken independent legal advice on its implications for our rights. For example, we have heard from other estates how their Collective Sales Agreements include clauses that give the Sale Committee full control over the reserve price, including changing it without any voting or consent from the owners. This has direct consequences for those who sign the CSA: they may realize, months later, that they are not getting the deal they were initially promised but something much lower, just so that the en-bloc sale can be secured and forced through. We urge you to look through the CSA very carefully for loopholes that give the Sale Committee carte blanche to do anything they want with our estate without the consent even of their own supporters. The fact that the Sale Committee seems so insistent, even desperate, to sell the estate despite unfavourable market conditions should be a major warning sign for everyone tempted to sign their documents.

As for the next EOGM that is promised: we leave it up to you to decide whether to attend or not. The low attendance (of fewer than half of the owners) at the last EOGM in our view clearly indicates the majority's lack of interest in selling their homes. We will of course also be checking with the MC of Botanic Gardens View about the cost to estate funds of these pointless meetings. Whatever the EOGM's antics, always remember that the decisions of a minority have no moral or legal authority to force the majority ie all of us, to sell against our will. Dear fellow owners and residents, we are just going to say no, and we hope that you will too.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, collective sales agreement, EOGM, CSA

After the 1st EOGM...

Dear fellow owners and residents,

1 You will all probably be aware by now that a Sale Committee has been constituted by an EOGM. However, you may not have considered the various implications of this event.

2 First, of course, this means that we will now have to endure yet more weary rounds of insults, fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated numbers, as the Sale Committee attempts to persuade us (again) to its way of thinking. The only response to that is to hold fast and not allow ourselves to be worn down until we lose sight of our own best interests.

3 We should mention here that one of us has already received e-mails from one owner, attempting to intimidate us into ceasing these letters. We shall not do so, of course. However, the fact that a pro-en-bloc owner thinks that this is an appropriate method of persuasion is something that you may wish to bear in mind, when considering your position.

4 We would like to draw your attention to the fact that while the EOGM voted overwhelmingly in favour of constituting the Sale Committee, fewer than half of the owners actually attended the EOGM. [51 shares out of total of 146 shares]. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that the people who attended the EOGM and voted for the Sale Committee pretty much amount to the number of owners actively eager to sell Botanic Gardens View. That is to say, they are a clear minority of the owners. Therefore, as long as the rest of us refuse to give in, our homes are safe.

5 Those of us who are clear in our minds that we do not wish to sell our homes here already know the reasons why. The previous Sale Committee could not persuade us to agree to lose our homes and go into inferior lodgings just so that speculators may gain a windfall profit. We doubt if the current Sale Committee will do any better.

6 Others of us may be undecided, or willing to sell “if the price is right”. For those of us in that category, the following points may be worth bearing in mind:

(a) In view of the current inflationary situation, it is clear that whatever price is obtained for our homes will not be enough to get us alternative homes of equal size, location and amenity.

(b) The general economic outlook is uncertain. It is entirely possible that the price that might be offered for Botanic Gardens View will not be the optimal price. There is no guarantee, sadly, that the Sale Committee will not accept a sub-optimal offer, just to close the deal.

(c) We have had no information about how any sale price would be apportioned between flats of different size. If apportionment is not by floor area, owners of 3-bedroom flats will have paid for their flat per square foot, but will not be able to sell them in the same way.

(d) Owners will have no control over the terms of the Sale Agreement, and no assurance that their interests will be protected. The recent spate of en-bloc-related litigation speaks for itself in respect of this issue.

(e) In view of (d), we note that signatories to a Sale Agreement undertake important legal obligations and give up important rights. Non-signatories are not bound by this, a significant point when it comes to litigation.

(f) And of course no assertions from any party, whether pro- or anti sale, about the degree of support that a Sale Agreement has received should be accepted without evidence in writing ie signatures and addresses.

7 We wish our fellow owners a Happy Chinese New Year, and hope that this will merely be one of many more years spent in peace in Botanic Gardens View!


Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM

Voices of Other Enbloc Dissenters

Here are 3 recent letters from the Forum pages of ST and Today, which highlighted the experiences of what other estates/owners have gone through.


"TODAY, 27 Dec 2007

HELP, WE ARE EN-BLOC REFUGEES

Thursday December 27, 2007

LUCY HUANG

WE HAVE been "en-blocked" for a second time. On both occasions, we were
reluctant sellers.

People tell us we are lucky because we are getting a lot of money from the
en-bloc sale.

But in reality, we have had to downgrade each time - from private and
freehold, to HUDC and leasehold.

And now, it looks like we will have to either go HDB or move to the edges
of Singapore - away from our doctors, dentist, friends, church and clubs.

To make matters worse, at almost every prospective home we have checked
out, we have been told that there is a good chance of the place going en
bloc.

Our housing agent has told us that if we want to live in a condominium, we
have to face the fact that sooner or later the owners will try to go en
bloc.

We were in our late 60s the first time we were forced out of our home.

Now, we are in our late 70s. The next time, we will be in the same boat as
two of our neighbours, who are in their 90s but still have to uproot.

Is this the way we are going to pass our twilight years? Always faced with
the prospect of having to sell our home?

The experience is very stressful. Losing one's home ranks alongside losing
one's spouse, child or parent. It can be traumatic and mentally
debilitating.

We have two other options. First, we can buy an HDB resale flat, which may
not have the benefits a condominium offers in terms of security and
facilities. Second, we can consider landed property, which would cost a
lot more. And, as old people, we will have to hire someone to help
maintain it because we will be unable to do so on our own.

Of course, we could also choose to rent a home. However, this would put us
at the mercy of landlords who may decide to raise the rent to an
unreasonable level, or decide to take the property off the rental market,
which would mean more packing, moving and house-hunting.

Even with landed property, we wouldn't have complete peace of mind. The
Government may decide to redevelop the estate, or our neighbours may band
together to sell.

After working all our lives and raising our children, we had hoped to pass
our twilight years in peace and relaxation.

Instead, what can we look forward to? The constant fear of some bright
(and greedy) spark rallying all the neighbours to put the entire estate up
for sale to a developer?

And if at first they don't succeed, they will try and try again!

As en-bloc refugees, we are appealing to the Government to come up with a
solution, which will allow us to live the rest of our lives without the
fear of losing our home - again."


"TODAY, 4 Jan 2008

When a windfall is a whammy

Letter from AUGUSTINE CHEAH

I refer to "Help, we are en bloc refugees" (Dec 27).

Such situations are becoming more common and they are no laughing matter.

There are people going around speculating, and often, the ones who suffer
are innocent homeowners oblivious to what is happening until it's too
late.

The media can play its part by publishing stories to put some perspective
into things - about those who find that such a "windfall" often means
having to downgrade against their wishes. Stories of en bloc riches have
spawned an army of speculators and homeowners who don't want to miss the
boat.

My condominium, Bayshore Park, is currently trying for an en bloc sale.
The original sales committee, which had to disband because some residents
sent a legal letter questioning their validity, is again trying their luck
and have called for another extraordinary general meeting on Jan 12.

Unless there are further changes to the legislation, this will be a
perpetual affair. After one sales committee fails, another will be set up.

How can you live in peace under the perpetual spectre of an en bloc sale?
How can you decide if you should renovate your home in case the money is
soon to be wasted?

In my estate, there are also families who moved there after their previous
homes were sold en bloc. Needless to say, they are extremely unhappy at
the current developments and constant attempts to go en bloc.

Sometimes, it's not just about the money ..."


"ST Forum online, 29 Dec 2007

More legislation needed to protect condo owners who do not wish to join en-bloc sale

I HOPE there can be some preventive measures to protect owners of condominiums which have failed in an en-bloc sale, or those who have spent substantial funds on upgrading.

In my condo in Clementi Park, there is renewed dissent by residents against the forming of yet another committee to try again for another en-bloc sale. Owners recently banded together to form an anti-en-bloc group called Save Clementi Park and have launched a website www.saveclementipark.com to save the condo. The web site features many pictures of the condo.

The en-bloc sale attempt last year failed to receive even 50 per cent of the vote. Immediately after this failed attempt, one committee was disbanded, but another one was formed in November this year. This has unsettled many of the residents and such social upheaval is becoming all too common in Singapore.

As a resident of the condo, I am not in favour of an en-bloc sale. En-bloc processes, to say the very least, are disruptive. Moreover, our condo is in the process of upgrading at a cost of $2 million. An en-bloc attempt after a majority of us have voted to upgrade would be a sheer waste of owners' funds. Our upgrading will only complete around mid-2008.

There is no mechanism in place to deal with this. This is harmful to our societal psyche as stated by Mr Waleed Hanafi in his many website articles on en-bloc madness. Perhaps a time ban of, say, 15 years could be put in place for condos which have spent more than $500,000 for upgrading. Some balancing mechanism to reflect and honour decisions made by subsidiary proprietors should also be in place.

The en-bloc law needs to be reviewed.

Yeo Han Tiong"


As you have read, all were not the most pleasant of experiences. We are currently going through the same thing ourselves as that mentioned by Augustine Cheah and Yeo Han Tiong. The former sales committee was disbanded and now, another is coming up in its place pushing for the enbloc again, without care if ALL residents and owners wanted the enbloc. They will probably do this over and over again, putting residents and owners through unnecessary stress and duress time and time again.

We, who value our HOMES, have to decide what we want. Do we want to be evicted from our homes through enbloc and become en-bloc refugees like Lucy Huang? Do we want to make a stand to save our homes and say NO to enbloc? We believe it is the latter.

Tags: letters, enbloc dissenters, collective sale, collective sales, condominium, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, condo

Postponement of 1st EOGM

Dear fellow owners and residents,

As you will recall, we have continually urged the members of the former and would-be-in-future members of the Sale Committee to be careful in their dissemination of notice of events related to their en-bloc attempt. Their inability to ensure that all owners are kept informed has resulted in the postponement of the EOGM that was called for 1 Dec 2007. One of our fellow owners was not given any notice of the EOGM and consequently and quite reasonably objected to this breach of owners' rights.

We are informed that despite the necessary postponement of the EOGM, Mr John Lee, a would-be Sale Committee member, continued to tout the virtues of an en-bloc sale, insisting that a "good price" could be achieved. However, according to newspaper report dated 18 December 2007 “No takers for many collective sale sites as market cools”, most collective sale sites put up for tender have closed without any bids as developers have become more cautious about buying new sites and developers have also already acquired quite a lot of sites. We are wondering what sort of “good price” he was hoping to achieve for Botanic Gardens View, when developers have begun to signal the cooling of the property market. In fact, a recent Business Times reported on 3 January 2008 stated that CBRE themselves expect luxury prices to moderate rather than increase. Surely this will have an impact on developers' keenness on BGV as they will almost certainly buy our estate to develop into luxury homes.

Given the recent cooling down of the property market, especially at the high end, is there any point in going en-bloc for Botanic Gardens View now and putting residents and owners through the stress and duress again?

Mr Lee also made a number of unfounded assertions about the owners who oppose an attempt to sell en-bloc, including, most relevantly, that we are only 10% of the owners. We would be very interested to know how he comes by this figure. You will remember that before the new amendments to the en-bloc regulations came into force, the then- Sale Committee could not, despite all manner of scare mongering, promises and exhortations (all equally empty), persuade more than half of the owners to agree in principle to attempt an en-bloc sale. And the number of people who supported holding the EOGM (and actually bothered to attend) is significantly less than that. So why should he think that 90% of us have been so blinded by his pitch that we are willing to subsume our interests to his?

Mr Lee is professionally involved in property development. We do not deny his right to seek profit wherever he may find it. We do deny that we are obliged to sacrifice our interests for the sake of his profit. However "good" a price the owners might achieve in an en-bloc sale (from whom? we have no indication of a potential buyer or how the proceeds will be divided among apartments of different size), Mr Lee and his cohorts have never given a satisfactory answer to the basic concern of the majority: where will we live once we are driven out of Botanic Gardens View? Most of us, unlike some members of the would-be Sale Committee, are not rich enough to own more than one home. We would like to keep the one we have. A "good price" will gain us nothing (and in this current market, it will buy less and less by the time it comes into the hands of sellers). Is there a price that will buy us this location again, with all its advantages? Is there any other plot of land in Singapore that is next to the Botanic Gardens, five minutes from Orchard Road, within walking distance of shopping centres and a major hospital and has apartments that are freehold, large and above all, affordable to us? All Mr Lee's evasions and circumlocutions cannot hide the fact that the answer is "No". We appreciate this fact and we think our fellow majority members appreciate it as well.

So you will understand that until we see the names and the signatures, we are exceedingly sceptical of the claim that only 10% of the owners oppose an attempted en-bloc sale. We suggest that our fellow-owners should be too.


As it stands, we owners and residents have a number of issues that we should think most carefully about before rushing head long into another enbloc for BGV, especially in view of the coming EOGM on 12 January 2008.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View


Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View


or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore