Botanic Gardens View

8th 4-weekly Notice

2011-04-27T22:22:00.000+08:00

As of 16 April 2011, 46 units signed the CSA, making up 30.5% of total share values.

7th 4-weekly Notice

2011-03-26T23:18:00.001+08:00

As of 19 March 2011, 46 units signed the CSA, making up 30.5% of total share values.

6th 4-weekly Notice

2011-02-25T23:12:00.002+08:00

As of 19 February 2011, 44 units signed the CSA, making up 30.1% of total share values.

5th 4-weekly Notice

2011-02-01T22:53:00.000+08:00

As of 22 January 2011, 44 units signed the CSA, making up 30.1% of total share values.

4th 4-weekly Notice

2011-01-04T22:51:00.001+08:00

As of 25 December 2010, 42 units signed the CSA, making up 28.8% of total share values.

3rd 4-weekly Notice

2010-12-15T23:49:00.000+08:00

As of 27 November 2010, 42 units signed the CSA, making up 28.8% of total share values.

2nd 4-weekly Notice

2010-11-07T23:46:00.000+08:00

As of 30 October 2010, 40 units signed the CSA, making up 27.4% of total share value.

1st 4-weekly Notice

2010-10-10T23:28:00.000+08:00

The CSC is required by law to put up a 4-weekly notice to update residents on the enbloc.

36 units signed as of 2 October 2010 making up 24.7% of total share values.

Outcome of 4 September EOGM

2010-09-15T22:15:00.006+08:00

The method of apportionment in the BGV CSA was approved.
Total number of votes casted : 86 share values
Number of votes casted For: 51 share values
Number of votes casted Against: 35 share values

The terms and conditions of the CSA was approved.
Total number of votes casted : 82 share values
Number of votes casted For: 44 share values
Number of votes casted Against: 35 share values

The first signing started on 4 September after the EOGM.

Action Needed

2010-08-31T22:23:00.003+08:00

Dear fellow owners,

The Sale Committee has now called for another EOGM, and is seeking proxies for its position. It would appear that they are determined to begin the collective sale process, starting off with an increase of the recommended Reserve Price (RP) to $xxx million (figures removed for confidentiality reason). This is despite some of the serious misgivings that we, and other owners, have raised in the last EOGM and through written feedback, all of which have not been addressed.

Before deciding whether to sign the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA), we urge you to consider the following issues:

1. All owners need to be aware of the contingency clause 4.1.4 which allows the Sale Committee to go for a lower sale price. In other words, it does not matter if the RP is $xxx million, or $xxx million (figures removed for confidentiality reason), or even $888 million. So long as the CSA gives the Sale Committee the power to accept a lower sale price, there is absolutely no guarantee to any owner that the amount stated in Schedule 2 (Method of Apportionment) is exactly what you will get.

2. While the contingency clause 4.1.4 might reflect ‘common practice’, it contradicts the very bullish and positive signals and rhetoric of the Sale Committee and ultimately expresses a lack of confidence in achieving the recommended RP of $xxx million. A more ‘realistic’ sale price might be offered to the Sale Committee, one that is far below $xxx million, and clause 4.1.4 gives the Sale Committee the power to accept such lower sale price. We have advocated the removal of Clause 4.1.4 from the CSA but this has been ignored.

3. We also questioned, during the last EOGM and via written feedback, the exact and detailed process by which clause 4.1.4 would be executed. What happens if a lower sale price is offered? How will owners be contacted? Who will be contacted? How will the signing of the supplemental agreement be conducted and for how long? What happens if 80% is not reached? Shouldn’t an EOGM be required? The actual process remains vague and ambiguous, which contrasts with the very precise legal nature of the rest of the CSA.

4. We understand that the proposed 60:40 method of allocation of sale proceeds is not acceptable to many owners, who want it to be on the basis of 50% strata area and 50% share value. This would be a fairer basis, as all owners have been paying the same amount towards maintenance and sinking funds all along, regardless of the size of their apartments. Again, this has been requested at the previous EOGM and in written feedback, but the Sale Committee has not acceded to owners' feedback.

5. Another major issue is the exclusion of liability and indemnity clauses in favour of the Sale Committee. These effectively provide that even if the Sale Committee makes mistakes or is negligent, it is excused from liability to the Sellers. If you sign the CSA, you will not be protected at all from any mistakes or negligence of the Sale Committee, and you will have to bear any losses or damages due to such mistakes or negligence yourself. For example, in the Horizon Towers case, when the owners who signed the collective sale agreement were sued for damages by the buyer, they had no recourse against the sale committee. We had previously asked for these provisions to be removed, for owners' protection.

These are very serious problems we have found with the CSA and with the collective sale process. We have repeatedly raised them to no avail. Whether you are for or against the sale is irrelevant when you consider the consequences of these 5 points in the event that a lower sale price is the best offer on the table, or when close legal scrutiny is made of the entire sale. If you agree with us - that the CSA is insufficient, that the conditions are not right, that you worry you might not get what is declared in the method of apportionment, that the method of apportionment of proceeds is not fair, or that there is insufficient legal protection for owners – and you are unable to attend the EOGM, then we request you respectfully to consider giving us your proxies for the EOGM. If you are unsure whether you will be able to attend the EOGM, you may wish to send us the proxy form first. In the event that you are able to attend the EOGM, your proxy will automatically be void by law, and you will be able to exercise your vote personally.

A proxy form is attached for your use. Please pass the completed and signed form to Mr Tan Lai Huat (at Blk 1 #xx-xx) or Ms Wong Hwei Ming (at Blk 9 #xx-xx) or to the Management Office at your convenience, but by no later than Wed, 1 Sep 2010 (as the forms have to be deposited at the Management Office by 2 Sep 2010).

Finally, we would respectfully urge that you take some time now to consider the effect of the CSA on your position and take any professional advice you deem appropriate, rather than wait and see what happens.

This is very important because although you may choose not to sign the CSA now, if the CSA is passed in its current form at the EOGM, and if it later becomes binding on all owners by reason of an order of the Strata Title Board, it will be too late to change any terms at that time. You will then become subject to all the terms of the CSA as it stands, including the sale price, the method of apportionment of sale proceeds, and the indemnity and exclusion of liability in favour of the Sale Committee. Please act now.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider the points we have raised.

Things to Consider

2010-08-14T03:05:00.008+08:00

Dear fellow-owners,

1 In respect of the EOGM that Mr Lee of the Sale Committee is convening, we note that under the new amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act both (a) the terms and conditions of the Collective Sale Agreement and (b) the method of apportionment must first be approved by the EOGM before matters can move further. Since owners of both two and three bedroom apartments are represented among the contributors to this blog, we are, in the interests of fairness and transparency, not taking a position on apportionment. But we would urge you all to examine the apportionment methods that the Sale Committee proposes, and decide for yourselves whether you think they are fair to you, given the scale of your investment in your apartment in Botanic Gardens View.

2 As for the Collective Sale Agreement, we note that Mr Lee's call for an EOGM tried to imply that changes to the Collective Sale Agreement are being made to take account of the new regulations. This is of course debatable. As you will recall, the Sale Committee made changes to the Collective Sale Agreement quite a while ago, after the Horizon Towers judgement made it clear what happens to Sale Committees that act in bad faith. These changes were all to its own benefit and to the detriment of the signatories' legal rights. We are highly doubtful that they will have had the good faith to remove these changes. We therefore urge owners in Botanic Gardens View to consider (and if you support an en-bloc sale to reconsider) carefully, with appropriate legal advice, before agreeing to an en-bloc sale. Among other things, you may wish to ask your legal advisors to:
(a) advise you on the implications of the Sale Committee's power to sell below the reserve price,
(b) the requirement that the signatories indemnify the Sale Committee for their actions, and
(c) how and whether signatories can obtain appropriate protection from the Sale Committee for any losses you may suffer in relation to the en bloc sale.
The benefits of such a sale are illusory, except to the professional speculators, but the damage to our interests and living standards will be real, permanent and irretrievable. The easiest way to protect yourself is to simply refuse to either approve or sign the Collective Sale Agreement.

3 We think it helpful, for the benefit of any newcomers among us, to remind ourselves of the many reasons why this estate has specific reasons not to succumb to the Sale Committee's determination to sell:

The most important reason first. Where do we go?

Botanic Gardens View:
- is freehold
- is in District 10
- is next to the Botanic Gardens
- is next to a major hospital
- is five minutes from Orchard Road and
- has apartments that are very spacious and well-laid-out by current standards

No matter how high a price we get for our homes (and remember that under the most recent version of the Collective Sale Agreement, the Reserve Price may not be the price we sell at as there is provision made for a lower Sale Price), there is no way in the near or distant future that we will be able to afford replacement apartments with all these qualities. None of us will be able to afford to live in the city centre once we are driven from Botanic Gardens View. Most of us who live here do not own more than one property, unlike some members of the Sale Committee.

We have been told ad nauseum over the last few years that for the money we get we can buy brand new apartments with fancy facilities. It was seldom mentioned that at Singapore prices these would all have to be far away in outlying districts. We ask, and keep asking: why should we sacrifice everything that we have now for less? Small flats at higher prices, far from the centre, with far higher conservancy charges,with unnecessary facilities that most of us will not need or use but will still have to pay for? And it is clear that given the housing market in Singapore, most of us will not even have any nest-egg left over, once we have been forced to spend the proceeds of Botanic Gardens View on inferior, substitute accommodation.

4 As the above list reveals, Botanic Gardens View is a unique site. Its long-term value will not go down. Why should a developer reap the benefits of this? We know who will own our estate if we sell, and it will not be ordinary Singaporeans such as ourselves. We consider our homes here to be long-term investments, and we see no reason to throw them away simply so that quick profits can be made at our expense.

Problems of (In)Validity and (Un)Reliability with the CSC Survey Form

2010-02-15T23:35:00.007+08:00

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents of BGV,

We are pleased that the BGV Collective Sale Committee has made one change in its proposed new draft Sale Agreement, to the apportionment method. As can be seen from the various blog posts highlighting the efforts that owners have taken to examine the CSA in depth, including various legal aspects of the contract, the CSC has nevertheless chosen to ignore most of their concerns with the proposed CSA. We wish to reiterate that the points listed here are not trivial matters but have legal and binding consequences for all owners.

Therefore, we wish to point out the following:

There is still no guarantee that the BGV Enbloc Sale will sell at $xxx,000,000 (figure removed due to its sensitive nature). This is because of the clause in the CSA that allows the CSC to accept a lower sale price.

There is ambiguity in the process of informing owners of a lower sale price and getting their approval, opening up the possibility of loopholes, abuse and a lack of transparency in how matters will be properly conducted.

We now have three different apportionment methods offered to owners – (1) the CBRE’s 1/3 share values:1/3 strata area: 1/3 valuation; (2) Credo’s 70:30 method; (3) Credo’s revised 60:40 method. The latest revision seems to be an arbitrary one that does not seem to conform with the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers’ recommendations. No rationale is provided for the change in apportionment method, either.

The revised CSA does not address the issue of adequate legal protections for the subsidiary proprietors and the MCST from liability and damage caused by actions of the CSC, as well as from non-performance by an intended purchaser. The recent law suit against the Horizon Towers CSC will serve as a reminder of the need for legal protection for all owners to be addressed.

Lengthy discussions at the last EOGM and extended written feedback from owners have resulted in minor changes in the CSA and apportionment methods without addressing the serious concerns owners have. This raises the question of to what extent does the CSC take feedback from owners seriously.

We note that the CSC wishes to ascertain our views in respect of the continuation with or termination of the BGV Enbloc Sale. We have no objection in principle. However, we note certain problems with their Survey Form, which if uncorrected will render this exercise pointless. The most obvious problem is that there is no provision for the signatory to confirm their identity. There is therefore no way to determine whether a returned Survey Form is genuine or not. There is nothing to stop any party from, for instance, photocopying fifty forms and filling out names and addresses, on the side that pleases them, either for or against. Accordingly, the result of such a survey, whether for or against, could not properly form the basis of any decision. An attempt to use such forms to support the continuation of the BGV ENbloc Sale and the Sale Committee's existence, for instance, would certainly be open to legal challenge.

We therefore strongly suggest that:
(a) the survey form be modified to include provision for the signature of all subsidiary proprietors of the unit;
(b) all survey forms that do not have the name(s), apartment number or signature(s) should be discounted; and
(c) the survey forms should be counted by the entire MC.

We understand that many people are concerned about the possibility of harassment if they reveal their views. The events in, for instance, Laguna Park, where pro-sale elements committed acts of criminal vandalism and then tried (unsuccessfully) to blame them on anti-sale apartment owners, show that this is not an unfounded fear. However, if strict security is maintained, and the Survey Forms are not revealed to anyone but the MC and the CSC, any act of harassment should be easily traceable and appropriate action can be taken.

We therefore urge the BGV Collective Sale Committee to take account of the above and (i) revise the new proposed draft CSA to address the feedback highlighted above and (ii) revise the Survey Form so that it is actually valid, useful and usable.

CSC Letter cum Survey

2010-02-07T23:56:00.010+08:00

On 3 February, those of us staying at BGV received a letter from the BGV CSC. For those living off-site or overseas, they would have received the letter anytime from 4 to 9 February.

The letter from CSC is reproduced below.

The main points in the CSC letter are that:
1. The CSC has agreed to a marginal compromise with regards to the apportionment method in the CSA.
2. The CSC seeks to determine if BGV owners wish to continue or to call off the BGV enbloc sale via a survey.

While we applaud the CSC for wanting to hear from us owners with regards to our thoughts about the enbloc sale of BGV via the survey form, we have serious concerns with the validity and reliability of the survey form. We shall address our concerns in the next post.

Problems with a Lower Reserve Price

2010-01-20T23:07:00.011+08:00

Here's another letter sent to the CSC with regards to the draft revised CSA. Names have been anonymised at the request of the authors.

31 Dec 2009

To the Collective Sale Committee and Credo Real Estate:

Dear Sirs/Madams,

I am writing on behalf of owner of Blk 1 of Botanic Gardens View, who has appointed me as representative on the matter of the collective sale of Botanic Gardens View (BGV).

During the Extra-ordinary General Meeting (EGM) dated 23 August 2008, I and others, have raised a number of critical issues that are seen to be highly problematic both in the collective sale process, and in the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Since then, an amended CSA had been sent out to all owners dated 18 October 2009. In the letter from the Mr John Lee, Chairman of the Collective Sale Committee (CSC), it was stated that:

"After deliberations and taking into account the various proposals raised by a few owners at the EGM, the Collective Sale Committee (CSC) agreed with the amendments as proposed by Mr. Norman Ho. A set of the amended pages of the CSA is enclosed for your reference."

I note that the amended CSA included several changes made to Clause 4.1.4 (on the matter of the lower reserve price), with minor changes elsewhere. While this appears to indicate that the CSC may have taken into consideration the “various proposals”, upon closer reading of the amended Clause 4.1.4, I am very disappointed that majority of the issues raised on the 23 August 2008 EGM were not addressed. In fact, my reading of Clause 4.1.4 is that the revision serves to tighten a possible loophole to prevent Sellers who withdraws from the CSA because of the lower sale price from seeking legal action against the CSC and other Sellers.

I wish to reiterate the issues that I raised during the 23 August 2008 EGM, and which is still relevant now, on the following points of the apportionment method and the CSA:

Proposed Apportionment Method

1. I am unclear on how some of the figures were obtained in the powerpoint slides printout provided by Credo. For example, on the slide titled “Apportionment Method – A Comparison” which compares between the 70/30 method (Credo) and the 1/3+1/3+1/3 method offered by CBRE, the values for the latter method are dissimilar to my own calculations. Using CBRE’s apportionment method (which is stated at 1/3 Valuation, 1/3 Strata Area, 1/3 Share Value), these should be:

[Table inserted here has been removed due to its sensitive content.]

Firstly, the values on the powerpoint slides for the 1/3 CBRE method shows deceptively similar values to the 70/30 Credo method. Owners might think that there is not much of a difference between the two methods when for owners of 117sqm units, the difference is substantial at over -$114,405 if we compared CBRE values against Credo values (see pdf file with calculations). I would like to know how Credo derived their 1/3 method apportionment of proceeds, which is quite different from those calculated using CBRE’s apportionment values.
Secondly, using the argument of narrowing the variation between upper and lower bands of premium over valuation is incorrect. In the example of 1/2SA+1/2SV used in the letter dated 12 Sep 2008, a 1% premium increase for a 117sqm unit size amounts to $29,756, whereas a 1% premium increase for a 163sqm unit size is $46,097. In other words, a 2% increase in the smallest unit is almost equivalent to a 1% increase for the largest unit. So, saying that the smallest unit gains 135% premium compared to the largest unit’s 103% premium is deceptive when looking purely at the percentage increases, as it might look to the reader that the smallest units gain proportionately more relative to the biggest units, when that simply isn’t accurate.
The better approach is to look at the apportioned amounts offered by Credo (70/30) and by CBRE (1/3 method) and consider the differences between the two methods. When viewed this way, the 38 units that are 150sqm and above have a positive difference, whereas over 108 units have a negative difference ranging from from -$82,231 to -$114,405. In other words, 108 units will stand to lose the equivalent cost of buying a car if they go with the Credo method. This is untenable and unfair. Given that the argument of using variation is questionable, I would like to see further justification of why the 70/30 method is a ‘fairer’ option for all owners. I would like to see evidence that other estates of similar configuration as BGV have adopted the 70/30 method, or failing that, why this estate is more suited to the 70/30 method over all other methods, without using the variation argument.

Lower Reserve Price Amendments

2. What are the detailed procedures on the dissemination of information on the lower reserve price and the process of the “signing of a supplemental agreement”?
a. This is not clearly defined and stated in the CSA, and needs to be done in as explicit a manner. I fail to see why such procedures are not explicitly described in a legal document such as the CSA when procedural matters are clearly explicated in the Land Titles (Strata) Act’s First to Third Schedules. For example, the LTSA requires that a general meeting be held “to provide information on the number of offers received for the collective sale and the respective amounts” (Third Schedule, 7.1.f, LTSA). By law, therefore, the CSC is required to hold at least one EGM to inform all owners of offers received, and subsequently, if they wish to accept a lower sale price. It is unclear, however, how and when will owners be notified of the opportunity to sign any supplemental agreement. Neither does it provide any information on how long will this process of signing the agreement take.
b. The revised Clause 4.1.4.a where “if the proposed sale price is lower than the Reserve Price, the Seller’s Approval shall be required (by way of signing of a supplemental agreement) before accepting such lower sale price” must be taken to read that not less than 80% share values in the Management Corporation and with not less than 80% of the total strata title area of all Units (excluding area of any accessory lot), ie the “Seller’s Approval”, must sign the supplemental agreement. Is this the case – that should a lower sale price be proposed, the CSC must obtain the signatures of owners that would constitute the Seller’s Approval in the supplemental agreement, before such a sale price can be accepted?
c. If (b) above is correct, then it should be included within the CSA, that the signing of the supplemental agreement must begin at the same EGM to inform owners of the offers received. A deadline must also be stipulated on how long could this collection of signatures for the supplemental agreement take. Otherwise, this supplemental signature collection can in theory last a year from the first signature on it. A reasonable length of time to collect the required Seller’s Approval signatures for a lower sale price, should be not more than 1 month, given that all owners would be aware and the CSC is able to keep everyone informed. This will set owners at ease that there is a reasonable and tangible outcome to this round of collective sale at a lower sale price, whether it is successful or not. Likewise, developers will also be assured that their offer will be taken seriously and not be dragged out for a lengthy period of time while the CSC collects the required signatures. A short and practical deadline will ensure that any change in market circumstances will not affect the proposed lower sale price. Any lengthier period of time will only complicate matters and any argument not to include a deadline needs to be justified to all owners.

3. Does the supplemental agreement required for a lower sale price supercede the signatures on the original CSA, as signed by Sellers? How does this have bearing on the Notice of Rescission fully entitled to Sellers by law which states that all Sellers are only allowed to rescind once from the CSA (also in Clause 6.1.37). So, if a Seller rescind once in the original CSA, signs back on the CSA, finds out the sale price is lower than the RP, can he rescind again? It should be clearly specified in the CSA that in such a situation, the Seller is entitled to his right of rescission.

4. Why is there Clause 4.1.4.b that effectively prevents any owner who previously agreed to the sale (at the expected RP) but decides against accepting a lower sale price, from taking action against any of the Sellers who signed on the supplemental agreement? By law, if a subsidiary proprietor (SP) has not agreed in writing to the sale, he or she may file an objection with the STB. Is a SP who has decided against a lower sale price still entitled to file an objection with the STB? It should certainly be the case, at the very least. I fail to see why such SPs are not entitled to any action against any Sellers who have agreed to the lower sale price, and I would like to know the rationale for this.

5. Again, I fail to see why the clause for lower sale price (4.1.4) is included in the amended CSA by Credo/Rodyk when it was clearly absent in the CBRE CSA. As Mr John Lee’s letter dated 18 October has clearly cited “positive outlook” where the “high-end market (which is where we are) will likewise improve”, and given the recent push again for the collective sale, the CSC must be seen to be confident enough in achieving the reserve price that there should be no need for clauses for a lower sale price. This clause reflects a certain lack of confidence in achieving what is maximally possible for the estate, and an ambivalence in the collective sale. Given its highly problematic nature and the lack of procedural explicitness, I would strongly argue for the complete removal of Clause 4.1.4 from the CSA. This was also the view of others who spoke up at the EGM.

Seller’s Approval

6. Clause 11.2 allows for sellers to “appoint a representative to attend and vote at a Sellers’ meeting and in respect of His Unit, that representative shall attend and vote at the Sellers’ meetings for and on behalf of that Seller”. I note that the second mention of meeting is in the plural. I hope this is a typographical error and would like to point out that the appointment of a representative is valid for only one meeting and not for any subsequent meetings thereafter. This is to prevent any representative from continuing to exercise their voting power beyond the meeting that they are explicitly entitled to do so.

I thank the CSC for allowing me the opportunity to provide further written feedback, although I must admit that most of these are already voiced to the CSC during the 23 August 2008 EGM. I had assumed, given that the EGM was completely audio recorded and minuted, that issues raised then would be addressed in any future revisions to the CSA or apportionment method. I am disappointed that this was not the case. I can only hope that this formal written feedback will make the CSC consider, very seriously, what has been said both at the EGM and now in this letter. Repeating these objections again will only serve to reflect poorly on the CSC’s claims that they seek to be a reasonable and fair group of owners to represent the estate.

Yours sincerely,
Owner
Blk 1 Taman Serasi
Botanic Gardens View

Questions and MORE Questions

2010-01-10T23:43:00.006+08:00

Here is a letter by another BGV owner for the CSC with regards to the apportionment method and the CSA. Likewise, this BGV owner is waiting to see if written feedback about the revised draft CSA will be taken into consideration by the CSC...

"Date: 2009/12/31
Subject: MCST 215 (Botanic Gardens View) - Revised Draft Collective Sale Agreement

Dear Sirs,

I refer to your letter dated 18 Oct 2009 and the revised draft Collective Sale Agreement ("CSA") enclosed therewith. In your letter, you asked for written feedback on the revised draft CSA.

I am writing to place on record the following points:

1. Feedback had already been given on the previous draft of the CSA at the Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") held on 23 Aug 2008, which lasted for several hours. The feedback given included vigorous opposition to, among other things, the formula for allocation of sale proceeds amongst the subsidiary proprietors, the clause empowering the Collective Sale Committee ("CSC") to enter into a sale below the Reserve Price, the clauses entitling the CSC to amend the CSA and the sale & purchase agreement without obtaining the prior approval of the subsidiary proprietors, and the existence of various clauses indemnifying the CSC and exempting the CSC members from all liability whatsoever. Also, I had requested for the inclusion of provisions to indemnify the subsidiary proprietors and the MCST against damage and liability caused by the actions of the CSC, as well as the provision of a performance bond to ensure performance by the purchaser.

2. Further, it should be noted that at the EGM, the correctness of the figures presented by Credo in support of the proposed formula for allocation of sales proceeds was questioned by subsidiary proprietors. Credo insisted that the figures were correct. However, Credo subsequently issued a letter stating that there were "typographical" mistakes in the figures presented at the EGM, without specifying what those mistakes were and without clearly informing subsidiary proprietors of the effect of the mistakes, which may make a material difference in the perception of subsidiary proprietors (especially those who had attended the EGM and saw the presentation by Credo) as to the decisions which they should make.

3. The feedback given at the EGM has not been taken into account in the revised draft CSA in any substantive or meaningful manner.

4. In particular, from the revised draft of the CSA, the CSC is intent on using the same formula for allocation of sale proceeds as set out in the previous draft of the CSA, notwithstanding that it has not provided satisfactory explanations as to why there was a change from the formula used in the previous en bloc sale attempt (which involved the same chairman and secretary as the current CSC). The formula for allocation of sale proceeds set out in the revised draft CSA is substantially and materially disadvantageous to the subsidiary proprietors of Block 1, and those of them who attended the EGM were totally against adopting this formula. It is grossly unfair to them as they each have one share in the MCST and have, all along, been paying the same maintenance and sinking fund amounts as the subsidiary proprietors in the other blocks.

5. Further, from the revised draft CSA, it also appears that the CSC is preparing in advance for a sale below the Reserve Price. The provisions in relation to such a sale below the Reserve Price do not adequately provide for the protection of subsidiary proprietors who may have signed the CSA on the basis of a sale at or above the Reserve Price. The revised draft CSA does not satisfactorily meet the many concerns raised by subsidiary proprietors at the EGM on this clause, on which the consensus was that it should be removed entirely, in the interests of the subsidiary proprietors as a whole. If such a clause is included in the CSA and potential purchasers are aware of its existence, no doubt they will utilise this to their advantage to reduce the purchase price.

6. Also, I would reiterate my position that the subsidiary proprietors and the MCST must be adequately protected under the CSA from liability and damage caused by actions of the CSC, as well as from non-performance by an intended purchaser. These protections must therefore be incorporated in the CSA, and the clauses indemnifying the CSC and exempting the CSC from liability for their actions must be removed. This is in the interest of all subsidiary proprietors and the MCST, and is absolutely necessary in view of the problems previously faced by subsidiary proprietors in other en bloc sales in Singapore. It is no excuse to say that this has never been done before, as the CSC is duty-bound to protect the interests of all the subsidiary proprietors, rather than adopt a CSA which is more favourable to purchasers in the hope of an easy sale, which may lead to problems for subsidiary proprietors subsequently.

7. It remains to be seen if any written feedback on the revised draft CSA will be taken into consideration by the CSC, after it has ignored the feedback already given at the EGM on the previous draft CSA. However, the CSC members should bear in mind the duties and obligations (including fiduciary duties and obligations) they each owe to all subsidiary proprietors, in the light of the Court of Appeal decision in the Horizon Towers case.

8. The CSA should be therefore be amended to take in the feedback mentioned above, and in due course be considered and decided upon by the subsidiary proprietors in a properly-convened general meeting. 9. Finally, I would also place on record that although the notice of the EGM specifically stated that the items on the agenda for the EGM were to "consider and decide on" the "apportionment of the sales proceeds" and "the terms and conditions of the draft Collective Sale Agreement (inclusive but not limited to the Reserve Price...)", the agenda was changed at the last minute at the commencement of the EGM, when the chairman of the CSA announced that the meeting would only be limited to a presentation and discussion of the draft CSA, and that the EGM would not in fact "decide on" the apportionment of the sales proceeds or the terms and conditions of the draft CSA.

Yours faithfully,
L.H. Tan"

Questions, Questions, Questions

2010-01-01T23:35:00.006+08:00

Despite having asked the CSC several questions at the last feedback deadline of 30 October, the CSC has only responded to one of my questions by extending the deadline of written feedback with regards to the proposed apportionment method and the CSA from 30 October 2009 to 31 December 2009.

I have decided to email the CSC again with my previous questions as well as new questions with regards to the apportionment method and the CSA. Perhaps the CSC will have more time this time round to respond to all my questions.

For the sake of fairness and transparency, I have reproduced my email to the CSC for all to see.

"RE: Feedback on BGV Enbloc‏
From: BGV Stayer (enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com)
Sent: 31 December 2009 20: 39PM
To:
Cc: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Dear Botanic Gardens View CSC,

I am writing in to place on record the various points as stated below:

1. During the EOGM held on 23 August 2008, the apportionment method of 50/50, removal of the lower reserve price clause, etc., were among the suggestions that surfaced. Although the CSC said they would consider the suggestions given by the owners, most, if not, all of them were not taken up. It would seem that written feedback is the only feedback that the CSC would seriously consider. This was not explicitly stated to owners either at the EOGM or via your previous letters. IT ALSO BECKONS THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS THE POINT OF HOLDING EOGMS IF THE VERBAL FEEDBACK GIVEN THEN ARE NOT SERIOUSLY TAKEN?

2. There seems to be a vote of no confidence in the market situation with the inclusion of the lower reserve price clause in the CSA. If the CSC has no confidence in the market, shouldn’t it be better to wait till the next upturn, rather than to sell BGV at whatever price we can? The lower reserve price clause should be removed to safeguard all owners against the quick sale of BGV. It seems like a case of “die die must sell”. We are NOT in dire strait that we need the money from the enbloc sale.

3. In the revised CSA, there are NO details on HOW the CSC will report the lower reserve price to all the owners.
a) Will ALL owners be informed? Or only the 80% who have signed the CSA will be informed? Or only the owners who are PRO-SALE sellers will be informed as they are likely to sign the supplemental agreement TO ACCEPT THE LOWER SALE PRICE?
b) How will all the owners be notified of the lower reserve price? Through an EOGM? Or through a selective process where only owners who are pro-sale sellers will be informed?

4. In the revised CSA, it seems to be a case where only those who AGREE to the lower reserve price have to sign the supplemental agreement.
a) As indicated in 3b, how can we be assured that the CSC has made every effort to contact each and every owner? What sort of assurance is the CSC giving to us, knowing that in the past, some owners had wilfully been omitted by the CSC from notification about the enbloc news?
b) In the case of owners who have signed the CSA but don't agree to the lower RP, what assurance do we have from the CSC and Credo that these owners would not be badgered and harrassed continuously into signing the supplementary agreement? Can we have assurance in black and white from the CSC and the lawyers that once these owners have indicated they want to withdraw from the CSA, they will be left alone thereafter?

5. There is no timeline stipulated for the informing of owners of the lower RP and no timeline stipulated for the collection of the supplemental agreement. The lawyers and the CSC have refused to set a timeframe in black and white citing it should be the developer’s/ buyer’s call. Therein lies the danger of allowing the CSC to NEGOTIATE with a potential buyer. If the timeline is going to be long drawn-out , e.g. if the CSC made arrangement with the buyer to sell BGV at the lower RP in exchange for 12 months to gather the signatures for the supplemental agreement, there is nothing we could do if the market picks up during the 12 months. That is not looking after the interest of the owners other than making a sure sale at a lower than agreed RP. A time frame of say, 2 months should be fixed by us, the owners so that we can be assured that the CSC is truly looking after our interests, that is, if after 2 months FROM THE FIRST SIGNATURE ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT THERE WERE INSUFFICIENT SIGNATURES, the enbloc sale will STOP rather than compromise to a lower reserve price.

6. I have earlier feedback during the 30 October deadline that the CSC and Credo should explain in greater detail why you felt that the 70/30 method is far superior to the other 5 apportionment methods detailed in the Credo presentation (included with the 12 September letter). It remains to be seen if the CSC and Credo would clarify this point or choose to ignore a legitimate query.

7. Also in my earlier feedback, I have asked both the CSC and Credo to clarify on what criteria will you be considering individual owners’ feedbacks? Currently, it would appear that the CSC and Credo is firmly committed to the 70/30 method since it has remained the same despite the EOGM discussions. Likewise, the changes to the CSA appear superficial and is tightened only to protect the CSC further from unhappy owners should a lower RP prevail, rather than in response to the numerous concerns over the lower reserve price matter. In other words, how will you revert to all owners on the feedback received (ie the exact nature of said feedback), your responses to them, why you made the decisions you chose to make, including why you felt that any feedback is unacceptable. Again it remains to be seen if the CSC and Credo will answer a legitimate query or choose to ignore it at their own convenience.

Yours sincerely,
Wong Hwei Ming
Blk 9, #09-17"

To Sell or Not To Sell - Asking the Right, and Hard, Questions

2009-12-29T23:05:00.002+08:00

Dear fellow-owners,

As you will be aware, the Sales Committee has resurfaced with a new draft contract. To sum up our opinion of it, if you have read it carefully, you will see that signing it will deprive you of all rights against them in the event of malfeasance or negligence on their part, and will also bind you to accept whatever price they decide, no matter how low it is i.e. the reserve price might as well no longer exist for any effect that it will have. Today, however, we wanted to remind ourselves, and any newcomers to Botanic Gardens View why we continue to think that selling this estate en-bloc is a bad idea for all those owners who are not short-term speculators merely out to make a profit at the expense of our long-term interests.

1 This is an absolutely unique site, We are next to the Botanic Gardens, next to a major hospital, five minutes from Orchard Road. None of us, however much we get in an en-bloc (and given the new draft collective sales contract, the Sale Committee obviously thinks that it won't be very much, which raises again the question of why they are so desperate to sell our property in the first place) is ever going to get a replacement with all these facilities. Do we think that any developer is going to give us a decent flat in any redevelopment? The experience of the unfortunate former inhabitants of Gilman Heights should tell you that this is a fantasy. We need to face the truth that wherever we go after this, it won't be in the centre of town, it won't have the best garden in Singapore on its doorstep and it won't have the size and good layout of our homes. Given the current bubbliness of the property market, a replacement of equal quality and convenience will probably cost more than the Sale Committee's price for Botanic Gardens View. This is the fundamental reason for us, and we think that it will be an important consideration for many others. If your answer (as ours is) to "Where will you go after being kicked out of Botanic Gardens View?" is "I don't know", it is something to take very seriously.

2 This is an absolutely unique site and there is no way that it is going to lose its value. Why should we let a developer get the benefit of its long-term capital value by selling now? This is a long-term investment. Those of us who are not professional short-term speculators do not need to be impressed by get-rich-quick fantasies. When the next genuine property upturn occurs, this will be the only major site left undeveloped on this side of Orchard Road.

3 We are honest, and admit that the uniqueness of this site also has drawbacks. There is no evidence whatsoever that the URA will lift the height restrictions on development on this site (because it is next to the Botanic Gardens). There is even a possibility that the restriction will be returned to its actual original authorised limit of four stories. This will limit the immediate value of the site to a developer in the present market, though in the long run, as the population rises, this will become less important. This is a further reason why we should think long-term and not be bullied or seduced into sudden decisions against our own interests.

4 We recognise that this development is old. However, we point out that there is no reason why it cannot continue to give good service if it is properly maintained, on a proper schedule. We are watching the MC carefully to ensure that it complies with its legal obligations to maintain the estate, so that the estate is not deliberately allowed to run down in order to force us out, as has happened with other developments.

So we hope that the above will be useful for everyone reading this blog and everyone interested in continuing to get the benefits of living in BGV. We wish everyone a Happy New Year, and hope that we will enjoy many more of them in BGV. As always, we reiterate our long-standing suggestion that anyone thinking of signing the draft collective sale agreement should get independent legal advice on how it affects their legal rights and obligations. We are of the view that its effect is entirely negative. But of course, there is absolutely no need to sign it, for the reasons given above.

Restarting Enbloc - By NOT Being Fair to Owners?

2009-10-26T02:10:00.009+08:00

I recently received the CSC Enbloc letter (see below) and the revised CSA that is an attempt to restart the enbloc process at BGV after more than a year long hiatus.

While I cannot stop the CSC from doing so, I want to point out several points that seems to have been ignored from the period of the last EOGM in August 2008 until now which pertains to the fair treatment of all owners, including those staying overseas or off-site and the continued lack of transparent process in the enbloc attempt of BGV.

Upon receiving the enbloc letter, I am, in particular, appalled that an extremely short deadline is imposed on all owners to request for written feedback on the most important document of all - the CSA and the apportionment method. Does this mean, if by this short deadline, no response is provided (which is likely), then the CSC will ASSUME that everyone is happy?

Surely that can't be how a group that is charged with taking care of the collective sale of the estate attempts to get a sense of the sentiments on the ground?

For the sake of fairness and transparency, I have reproduced my email to the CSC for all to see.

"From: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com
Sent: 26 October 2009 02: 01AM
To:
Cc: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Dear Botanic Garden View CSC,

Your Enbloc letter dated 18 October Sunday and the revised draft CSA were received by hand on 20 October 2009 Tuesday. It can only be assumed that owners who stay off-site or overseas will receive their documents anyday from 21 to 29 October.

There are several points which I wish to raise with the CSC and Credo:

1. The deadline of 30 October 2009 for written feedback is too soon. It is also unclear what is the nature of the feedback that you are requesting to comply by the 30 October 2009 – only the apportionment method, or with regards to the revised draft CSA as well. Given that the revised draft CSA was delivered in this letter, I can only assume that the deadline of 30 October 2009 applies for written feedback for both apportionment method and the CSA.

2. You have therefore effectively given owners only TEN days (and for many, less) to provide their written feedback on important matters such as the CSA of which the apportionment method is a part of. This does not give enough time for owners who reside overseas and also owners who are currently overseas to mull over, consider and respond. Neither does it give time for owners to get in touch with legal counsel with regards to the revised terms of the CSA. Also, it need not be pointed out that it has been more than a year since any formal correspondence was made on this matter, and many owners may have forgotten the exact discussions on pertinent issues by now.

3. At the very least, since the CSC has taken over a year to revise the CSA, the CSC should allow all owners at least 2 months, until the end of December 2009, to consider and respond to these revisions of the CSA (including apportionment method). Anything less will reflect negatively on the way the CSC seems to be giving owners insufficient time to examine the revisions. I can only assume that after this ‘deadline’ whichever date it may be, there will be no further discussion on the matter of the CSA so it is imperative that time be given for all owners to read through the legal document carefully, and under advisement by legal counsel.

4. At the 23 August 2008 EOGM, there were complaints by owners on the apportionment method and yet these issues did not change the apportionment method in the revised draft CSA in any way. It would appear that these complaints were ignored, despite the assurance at the EOGM that all feedback will be reviewed and taken into consideration, written OR verbal.

5. In order for owners to make an informed decision about the apportionment method, I find that the justification provided by Credo in the letter dated 12 September to be insufficient as it does not provide detailed accounts of all 6 different methods described. It is not the responsibility of owners, many of whom are not familiar with proper calculations for apportionment methods, to calculate alternatives as requested by the letter dated 18 October. Instead, it is incumbent upon the CSC and Credo to show to all owners what each owner will be getting from the en-b! loc sale, for each of the 6 methods, and then and only then, can each owner make a decision on which alternatives are more suitable for them.

6. Therefore, I would suggest reprinting the slides from the Credo presentation (included with the 12 September letter) which detailed the apportionment calculations for the 6 methods, and explain in greater detail why you felt that the 70/30 method is far superior to the other 5 methods.

7. Also, on what criteria will you be considering individual owners’ feedbacks? Currently, it would appear that the CSC and Credo is firmly committed to the 70/30 method since it has remained the same despite the EOGM discussions. Likewise, the changes to the CSA appear superficial rather than in response to the numerous concerns over the lower reserve price matter (although I will consult a lawyer on this point). In other words, how will you revert to all owners on the feedback received (ie the exact nature of said feedback), your responses to them, why you made the decisions you chose to make, including why you felt that any feedback is unacceptable.

8. Finally, to be clear and fair to all owners, I believe the CSC should make it explicit that you are requesting for written feedback on the revised CSA in your 18 October letter (it is implied, but not explicitly stated). Otherwise, there needs to be an EOGM to discuss the revised draft CSA, to be fair to all owners. At the very least, as mentioned, the deadline for feedback needs to be pushed by at least 2 months, and the protocols, processes and decisions whereby the CSC will consider such feedback should be made transparent to all owners.

Response from the CSC and Credo to the above points raised would be appreciated. Thank you.

Wong Hwei Ming
Blk 9, #09-17"

Comment Revisited

2009-06-30T23:41:00.000+08:00

Below is comment which was received in response to Mr John Lee's email. It makes good sense and so we have reproduced the comment as a blog post. It is something for us to think about.

"I have received this latest email from John Lee and wish to make two comments:

"What's past is past". I wish the past can be forgotten that easily. Many will remember a letter written by Mr Lee not so long ago, just before the changes in law. This letter stated that if a certain quota is not reached by a certain date, John will resign. Obviously, that quota was not reached and John did not resign. That, to me, made me cautious about the trustworthiness of some people who wish to collectively sell our homes. The past, indeed, remains in the present.

I think John is making an incorrect comparison between BGV and BGM in his email. His own search, which you can do on the internet (see link below) would reveal three prices, two for BGM and one for BGV. These are:

BGM - Sold Mar 09 (downturn) - $883psf
BGM - Sold Sep 08 (boom) - $1356psf
BGV - Sold Sep 08 (boom) - $1470psf

In fact, if we compare BGM and BGV sold AT THE SAME MONTH (Sep 08), you'll find not a lot of difference at all ($114psf or <>

In other words, I would think his point is more "due to market forces" of boom, since both BGV and BGM were sold at about the same value, REGARDLESS of the en-bloc sale. After all, if logically, the 'en-bloc potential' means offering better value for the buyer, then wouldn't the price difference between the two estates be more than 10%? In fact, if you look at previous sales values from 2000-2004 (link provided below), you'll find that prices for BOTH BGM and BGV have matched and doubled from 2004 to 2008, without the need for any en-bloc potential. Also, any prudent buyer knows that 'en-bloc potential' means very little nowadays, given that it takes time to complete the sale, especially if it goes through court. And even then, it is no longer a certainty that a sale will be confirmed without potentially severe legal consequences, as recent court cases highlighted.

I'd say that unless John has definitive proof that our units 'will plummet' if the en-bloc 'is dead', I'd think about the past, and consider that he has a strong agenda to keep the en-bloc sale alive whatever the cost. Otherwise, the statement sounds like a threat done in bad taste.

I would even suggest that it is the well-maintained estate that we have that makes a difference between BGM and BGV. Something that I hope the current MC will continue to do well, and not let the illusion that an en-bloc sale means you are entitled to run down the estate.

http://www.ura.gov.sg/realEstateWeb/realEstate/pageflow/transaction/TransactionController.jpf
http://www.redas.com/HTML/eProperty/transaction_search.asp
(You may need to copy and paste the various lines for URA and REDAS.)"

Thank you to the person for the research he/ she has done, especially with regards to the incorrect comparison that was done by Mr Lee which would otherwise be misleading BGV owners and SPs.

Email Received: Which hat is he wearing? And a Reasoned Response to Market Forces vs Enbloc Potential

2009-06-20T01:05:00.005+08:00

We received this anonymous email, that we're posting here verbatim below, and someone submitted a comment which is a reasoned response to Mr John Lee's latest email with the BGM/BGV price comparison (under comments):

I’m confused when I received Mr Lee's recent letter about the AGM.

Firstly, he wrote that Mr Tan Lai Huat’s resolution was not approved by the council. Isn’t Mr Tan Tew still the chairperson of the management council? Since when did Mr Lee become the spokesperson for the entire council when he is only a member?

Secondly, he said that the resolution is an en-bloc matter and nothing to do with estate management and urged owners who support the en-bloc to pass him their proxies. He signed off his letter as Chairman, Collective Sales Committee (CSC) and the letter was sent using BGV En-bloc letterhead.

I’m confused:
Mr Lee firstly objected to the resolution because it is an en-bloc matter which should not be tabled at the forthcoming AGM and he seemed to be speaking on behalf of the council. But he then objected to the resolution because he asserts it is Mr Tan's "cunning way of killing off the current enbloc attempt."

So in what capacity is Mr Lee objecting in - as an ordinary Council member who is working on behalf of all owners to manage BGV or as Chairman of the CSC who is working to sell off the estate?

The answer seems quite clear. And what is the view of the MC Chairperson on this matter, or has Mr Lee taken over this other committee too?

Time to take Action

2009-06-11T23:59:00.005+08:00

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents of BGV,

Mr Lee sent an email to some owners on 10 June and later by post, the same email was sent to all owners on 11 June. Mr Tan was forwarded Mr Lee's email on 10 June itself and he responded to Mr Lee's email in his letter which has now been sent to all owners and residents of BGV on 11 June. Below is Mr Tan's letter (which was written before Mr Lee's email came in through the post) in response to Mr Lee's email dated 10 June. Mr Tan's letter is reprinted with his consent.

11 June 2009

Dear fellow owners,

Please give this letter your urgent attention, as it involves your interests as a subsidiary proprietor of Botanic Gardens View.

I have just been forwarded a copy of an e-mail from John Lee dated 10 June 2009. This e-mail appears to have been only sent to selected owners, and not to all. In fact, it was not even sent to me, even though several questions raised by John Lee in it are, somewhat misleadingly, directly addressed to me. I am not sure if the selected owners who were sent this e-mail were aware that it was not even sent to me in the first place.

As John Lee's e-mail deals with a resolution which has been tabled for the upcoming AGM on 20 June 2009 pursuant to my request made in June last year, and which I strongly feel is in the interests of all subsidiary proprietors, I have set out his e-mail in full below, with my responses set out in italics below the relevant paragraphs.

In summary, I feel it is in the interest of every subsidiary proprietor to be protected from any liability or damages which may be caused by the actions or inactions of the collective sale committee, by getting an indemnity from the collective sale committee. Otherwise if anything adverse happens, we as subsidiary proprietors will have to bear the consequences ourselves. The Horizon Towers case is a case in point. There, through no fault of their own, the owners had to suffer months of legal proceedings and incur very substantial personal legal costs, without any contractual recourse against their collective sale committee.

My view is that if the collective sale committee wishes to impose a relationship under which they take on the power to sell my personal property, especially one as valuable as my apartment, the terms of such a relationship have to be very clearly set out and have to be acceptable to me, and should provide sufficient protection to me in case I suffer any liabilities or incur any obligations due to their actions or inactions in the course of that relationship. The same should apply to each and every subsidiary proprietor.

I would be grateful if you could take the time to consider this very important issue, which I believe affects your own interest as a subsidiary proprietor, and take the necessary action immediately:

John Lee's e-mail of 10 June 2009, and my response in italics

"Dear Owners of BGV,

I refer to the above resolution tabled by Mr Tan Lai Huat for our forthcoming AGM.

This resolution was allowed by the Managing Agent but not approved by the Council. The Council had its final meeting on 8th May 2009. This resolution was not surfaced at that meeting to allow the Council to discuss the merit of allowing this resolution at the AGM. Council Members only received an email from the MA informing them that this resolution will be included in the agenda after the meeting.

This resolution is a Collective Sale matter and has nothing to do with the Management of the estate. It should have been brought up at the appropriate forum. Also the subject matter of the resolution had been fully discussed and recorded in the last AGM (Appendix B in the current AGM Notice pages 10,11,12,13). It is a waste of members' time to rehash the whole issue once again."

Response:
By way of my e-mail dated 5 June 2008 (i.e. last year) to the Secretary and Chairman of the Management Council and to the Managing Agent, I had originally asked for this resolution to be circulated to all owners and tabled at the next duly-convened general meeting, This was pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act ("BMSMA").

However, the resolution was not circulated or tabled for the AGM last year or the EGM held on 23 August 2008, as the response from John Lee and the Managing Agent was that the EGM was convened by requisition of the en bloc collective sale committee ("CSC") and its supporters, and the BMSMA did not require such a resolution to be circulated and tabled for such EGM.

Having blocked the circulation and tabling of the resolution at that EGM, which would have been a good forum to discuss the issues raised, John Lee now says that this resolution should have been brought up at the relevant EGM and not at the upcoming AGM as it has "nothing to do with the Management of the estate"!

This is incorrect both factually and in point of law. Factually, because I had in fact asked for the resolution to be tabled last year, but was blocked from doing so. In point of law, because the BMSMA requires any resolution brought up by a subsidiary proprietor in accordance with the BMSMA to be duly circulated to all subsidiary proprietors and tabled at the relevant general meeting. It has taken more than one full year for the resolution to be circulated and tabled for consideration by the subsidiary proprietors.

Based on John Lee's arguments, this resolution would never be circulated or tabled at any general meeting at all, as it would not be tabled at an EGM requisitioned by the CSC, and neither would it be tabled at an AGM. In this case, it appears that the circulation and tabling of the resolution was not "approved" by the Management Council, but it should be noted that such approval is not required under the BMSMA as the process is mandatory.

It should be noted that the resolution was not "fully discussed" at the AGM held on 7 June 2008, and it could not have been so discussed, in the absence of the requisite circulation and notice of the resolution to all subsidiary proprietors. The Managing Agent has acted in compliance with the BMSMA to circulate and table the resolution for the upcoming AGM, for proper discussion and resolution by the general meeting.

"Mr. Tan's resolution requires the PERSONAL INDEMNITY, jointly and severally, of the Chairman and all the members of the Collective Sale Committee (CSC). This has never been done before in all en bloc sales in Singapore. Let me ask Mr. Tan this question "In all his (previous) career as a lawyer, has any of his clients requested him to give them an indemnity before he can act for them? If not, why is he requiring the CSC members who are all volunteers to give their indemnity?"

Mr Tan's resolution is a very cunning way of killing off the current en bloc attempt whilst we wait for the market sentiment to improve. If Mr.Tan and his anti-enbloc friends gather enough proxies and passes this resolution, all the CSC members will refuse to give in to this ridiculous request (for their personal indemnity) and will resign instead. This will effectively kill the current en bloc sale of our estate."

Response:
In my 20 years or so of legal practice prior to my retirement, I have never had a client ask me for an indemnity. This is because it was unnecessary - the relationship of solicitor and client is both a contractual and fiduciary one, and the law is clear on the duties, liabilities and obligations owed to the client in such a relationship. Quite apart from that, there is also mandatory professional insurance to protect the client in the appropriate circumstances.

However, the relationship between the subsidiary proprietors and CSC members is a very different one. For one, not all subsidiary proprietors agree to the the appointment of the CSC to act on their behalf to sell their apartments, or the terms on which the CSC members have appointed themselves, or the terms of the sale agreement itself.

Secondly, and more importantly, the parameters of the duties, obligations and liabilities of the CSC members to the subsidiary proprietors have not been clearly established in law, although the recent judgement of the Court of Appeal in the Horizon Towers case has gone some way towards clarifying the position.

Thirdly, even if the CSC members regard themselves as "volunteers", their actions create liabilities and legal obligations on the part of subsidiary proprietors, as they act on behalf of the subsidiary proprietors in a fiduciary as well as contractual capacity. This is especially so where the subsidiary proprietors sign the collective sale agreement (and even where the subsidiary proprietors do not sign the collective sale agreement, they may still become subject to it if so ordered by the Strata Titles Board).

In this respect, subsidiary proprietors should note that in the collective sale agreement, the CSC has not only refused to provide an indemnity to subsidiary proprietors, but have instead provided for the subsidiary proprietors to indemnify the CSC, as well as to excuse the CSC from their liabilities to the subsidiary proprietors! At the appropriate time, subsidiary proprietors should require these provisions to be removed and replaced by an indemnity in their favour, regardless of the outcome of the resolution in this case.

Personally, my view is that if someone wants to impose such a relationship under which he takes on the power to sell my personal property, especially one as valuable as my apartment, the terms on which such relationship are to be established have to be very clearly set out and have to be acceptable to me, and should provide sufficient protection to me in case I suffer any liabilities or incur any obligations due to his actions or inactions in the course of that relationship.

There are therefore good reasons to require an indemnity from the CSC members. Regardless of whether they regard themselves as "volunteers" or otherwise, their actions will create real liabilities and obligations on the part of the subsidiary proprietors. The facts of the Horizon Towers case speak for themselves. I am sure the subsidiary proprietors in Horizon Towers would have dearly loved to have had the protection of an indemnity from their CSC members, after having undergone many agonising months of legal actions and incurring substantial legal costs personally.

Just because something has never been done before does not mean that it should not be done in future. We should learn from the mishaps of previous en bloc sales and take the necessary action to protect our own interests as subsidiary proprietors.

If the consequence of the resolution being passed is that the CSC members will choose to resign instead of taking full responsibility for their actions, that is entirely a matter for the CSC members to decide. In terms of timing, as I have pointed out above, I had asked for this resolution to be tabled more than a year ago.

"Let us now examine Mr. Tan's resolution to see whether it is more bark than bite? As is usual with some lawyers, they love to pick on something insignificant and irrelevant and blow it up into something that can be potentially catastrophic. At the centre of Mr Tan's resolution is his gripe that the AGENDA for the first collective sale EGM held on 12th January 2008 was not properly drafted by a lawyer which could potentially lead to disastrous consequences as elaborated by him. I attach the relevant AGENDA of the 12th January 2008 Notice of EGM (Please refer to attachment 1). Mr Tan, please tell us which of the 5 Agenda items do you consider defective and could potentially be hazardous to those who sign the CSA. Let us be specific and tell us how and why? If you are not able to answer our simple question, then you are guilty of making a mountain out of a molehill and using scare tactics to prematurely bring an end to the work of the en bloc committee."

Response:
Whether there are appropriate grounds to challenge the original appointment of the CSC and the subsequent actions of the CSC are for a court of law to judge. My point has consistently been that if the collective sale is challenged and subsequently set aside, whatever the basis, then all subsidiary proprietors (and especially those who sign the collective sale agreement) should require that they have satisfactory protection from any liabilities and obligations which they may become subject to by reason of the collective sale and the actions of the CSC. If John Lee has full confidence that the appointment and actions of the CSC will be upheld in any event, then he should have no problem providing the indemnity to the subsidiary proprietors.

"Finally, let me urge all owners who support the ongoing en bloc effort to attend the meeting to vote against Mr Tan's resolution. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please give your proxy to me (see attachment 2) or anyone of the current CSC members (listed above). Please confirm with them that they are able to attend the meeting also.

With best wishes,
John Lee
Chairman,
Collective Sale Committee"

Response:
As in previous EGMs, John Lee is again seeking proxy votes to support his own interest in the collective sale. As I have mentioned, I have proposed the resolution primarily to protect my own interest, but I feel it is also in the interest of ALL subsidiary proprietors, whether you support the en bloc sale or not. I would urge you to please obtain your own legal advice on this, for your own peace of mind, and attend and vote at the AGM accordingly.

If you wish to support the proposed resolution, but are unable to attend the AGM or are unsure of your attendance, you may wish to appoint me as your proxy for this purpose, by depositing your duly-signed proxy form in the letterbox at Block x, #xx-xx by 17 June 2009 (as the deadline for depositing the proxy form with the Management Council is 2 p.m. on 18 June, 2009). If you do in fact attend the AGM, the proxy will automatically become void by law, and you will be able to exercise your own vote at the AGM.

In any case, please consider the issues carefully and take such action as you think fit to protect your own interests. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Yours sincerely,

Tan Lai Huat

To reiterate Mr Tan's concern, regardless of whether you are for or against the BGV enbloc, we as subsidiary proprietors, should protect our own interests as no one, including the CSC members, can do that for us. The Horizon Towers case is a lesson for all of us. In Mr Tan's words, "We should learn from the mishaps of previous en bloc sales and take the necessary action to protect our own interests as subsidary proprietors".

It is time to take action.

Letters, Truths, ACTION!

2008-08-21T13:45:00.002+08:00

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.

Time for ACTION!

2008-08-17T23:34:00.000+08:00

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.

Thoughts on the AGM

2008-07-15T22:38:00.001+08:00

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

2008-06-05T03:30:00.007+08:00

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

Yet ANOTHER Missing CSC Letter!!!

2008-04-24T23:07:00.014+08:00

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.

The Missing CSC Letter

2008-04-07T01:03:00.006+08:00

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.

Be Wary, Be VERY Wary

2008-03-16T20:21:00.017+08:00

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

After the 1st EOGM...

2008-02-06T23:52:00.001+08:00

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

Voices of Other Enbloc Dissenters

2008-01-10T23:34:00.000+08:00

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.

Postponement of 1st EOGM

2008-01-05T09:05:00.001+08:00

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

Missing-In-Action Letter

2007-11-30T10:14:00.000+08:00

We have received news from some residents that they did not get a letter from John Lee dated 23 November 2007, and would like to ask other blog readers and concerned owners if they received this letter or not? And if not, is this the beginning of a selective and systematic means by which the sales committee (yet to be elected!) seeks to exclude passing on important information to people they suspect will not be in favour of the sale? If it is just a plain error, then we expect that the letter should be available to all owners again, but if it ISN'T an error, then WHAT ELSE are they keeping from you as a legitimate owner of BGV? This is a serious cause for concern.

Another point to note is that the letter was sent by and signed off as from John Lee, Member, BGV En Bloc Sales Committee. It would seemed: either they never did disband as promised in their various letters to owners or they have already elected themselves as the Sales Committee even before the EOGM on 1 December 2007.

Yet Another Resident Speaks Out

2007-11-29T17:54:00.000+08:00

We received comments from a fellow BGV resident who calls him/ herself "Concerned Resident". We feel that Concerned Resident's comments warrant a post on its own as he/ she has made very valid and salient points that concerns us all who are BGV residents and owners. . We have reproduced his/ her comments verbatim and we urge BGV residents and owners to read this post carefully.

Concerned Resident wrote:

"I am a resident in BGV.

I am surprised and disappointed that the previous sale committee has decided to re-start the en bloc sale process again, after their previous attempt failed to get majority support.

I have serious doubts about whether the same committee will be able to carry out their responsibilities effectively, based on what happened with the previous Collective Sale Agreement, where:

(a) the committee agreed to the commission of the property agent on a so-called "reduced" basis, while at the same time setting a reserve price and agreeing to an incentive commission rate which in fact increased the commission from 0.30% to a blended rate of 0.59% - nearly double the original rate! This was not spotted by the committee - the property agent only admitted this after an astute resident pointed it out at the 1st meeting! I don't know how the committee could still claim at the meeting that they had worked on the CSA very carefully for months to achieve the best agreement for residents.

(b) the committee agreed to the property agents' commission rate on the basis of $1,500 psfppr, and at the same time set a reserve price of $2,000 psfppr and agreed to an incentive rate of 1.5% for prices above $1,500. This meant that the property agents did not need to do anything to "earn" the incentive commission for the amount between $1,500 and $2,000! Again, pointed out by a resident.

(c) despite repeated questioning at the 1st and subsequent meetings, the CSA did not contain the formula for apportionment of the sale proceeds to owners. Even though it was said to be set out in the 5th schedule, there was no such formula in that schedule. This was not amended, even up to the very last meeting (2 months after the 1st meeting!), where the lawyer admitted that it had not been done. Again, this point was brought up by residents. It was not spotted by the committee, neither did the committee follow up to correct this critical error, after it had been pointed out at the 1st meeting! And apportionment of the sale proceeds is such a fundamental issue.

Saying that the committee members are volunteers doing this on their own time (as was done at one meeting) is not good enough - committee members who accept the position owe fiduciary duties to the owners, as well as a duty to owners not to be negligent, and to do a good job. The basic, fundamental errors mentioned above were pointed out by owners and not spotted by the committee members. Who knows what other errors were in the CSA which had not been spotted or pointed out?

If owners had suffered losses due to such errors or negligence, the committee members should be held accountable, and they should be required to indemnify owners against such consequences. As agents of the owners, the committee members owe fiduciary duties to the owners and should be held to the highest standards. Instead, the CSA contained provisions to excuse them from all liability!

If there is to be a new CSA, owners should insist that to protect their interests, the CSA should include an indemnity from the committee members jointly and severally. Also, the CSA should not contain any clauses that exculpate the committee members from errors or negligence. The Horizon Towers saga should serve as an instructive warning to owners of what could happen if things go wrong. In such a situation, owners should have recourse against the committee members who put them in trouble.

Further, in order to have a better assurance that the sale committee will be able to carry out their responsibilities and to answer for their liabilities if anything should go wrong, much more information should be provided about the members of the committee. There should be full and frank disclosure of their backgrounds, relevant experience, whether they are residents, how long they have been owners, and any current or potential conflicts of interest. Just knowing their names, addresses and occupations is not enough, especially when owners give the committee such great powers under the CSA to deal with such an expensive asset as their home."

"The previous attempt for an en bloc sale of BGV failed without getting anywhere near the required consent level. This was despite a last minute attempt to get owners to sign the collective sale agreement by:

(a) increasing the reserve price sharply: and

(b) arguing that the property bubble was about to burst, and owners had to sell at that point in time, or they would miss the peak.

In response to these:

(a) The sale price is not within the control of the sale committee. It is a result of market forces. And the sharp increase in the reserve price, coming less than 2 months after the sale committee set the original reserve price, calls into question what the actual achievable price for BGV should be, and what advice had been given by the property agents in relation to the initial reserve price and the increased reserve price. If a sufficient majority had signed the CSA based on the original reserve price, owners would have missed out on the nearly 20% "increase"!

(b) since the sale did not go through at that time, according to the committee's own argument, this would mean that owners have already missed the peak. So why is the committee still trying to do an en bloc sale now? Are they simply trying to get a quick return on their en-bloc investment, at whatever price they can get? This would explain why the original sale price was set at a lower level, as it would facilitate a quick sale, rather than trying to get a sale at the best price.

Selling at this time would mean that owners who have a long-term view would lose out, as BGV, by virtue of its location, will always be valuable as a super-pime location, and its value will inevitably increase over time. BGV is like a New York condo overlooking Central Park, or a London home next to Holland Park - the location will ensure its increasing value in the long run.

Also, and as important, having an en bloc sale would ignore the effects that it would have on residents' lives, such as those with children going to schools in the neighbourhood, or elderly residents who enjoy the Botanic Gardens and the security of a familiar environment. Why should owners who choose to live in BGV, with all its convenience and advantages, be forced by others to sell out at a time not of their own choosing, and to re-locate, probably to locations which are less convenient and less desirable?

For the reasons above, I am totally against the en bloc attempt. And as a resident, I will object to any use of the Management Corporation funds for the en bloc process, when the EOGM can be requisitioned by only 20% of the owners. The use of the MC funds should only be allowed if approved by the necessary majority at a duly convened General Meeting."

Before the EOGM...

2007-11-23T20:57:00.000+08:00

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

Another attempt is now being made to force us through the painful and damaging process of an attempted en-bloc sale. We have seen the notice for the Extraordinary General Meeting on 1 Dec 2007, and we have serious reservations about it. Apart from the numerous minor procedural errors (the proxy form appears to be for the election of a Council member, for instance), there are major questions unanswered. First and greatest: Should there not be a vote first on whether the owners want an en-bloc sale committee at all? We believe that this is the obvious first step, since it is far from clear that the majority of the owners actually wish to leave their homes in Botanic Gardens View.

In the interest of transparency and fairness, we have some proposals, which we hope that you will support:

(a) The EOGM should first vote on whether it wishes a Sale Committee to be formed or not. To go straight to electing members of a committee without this preliminary stage will pre-empt the decision of the meeting, be prejudicial to the interests of the majority and may leave the outcome of the EOGM open to subsequent legal challenge.
In addition, the EOGM may not be valid due to the lack of a motion for the formation of a Sale Committee and various other defects in the Notice.

(b) The vote should be by secret ballot. Secret balloting is a voting method in which a voter's choice remains confidential and the aim is to ensure that the voter states his or her sincere choice without fear of intimidation or otherwise. We realise that this is unusual. But the fact is that concerns have been raised with us by some of our fellow majority owners. They fear intimidation and even criminal actions against them by their neighbours if they reveal that they oppose an en-bloc sale. An open vote may lead to pressure being put on those present to vote otherwise than how they wish.

In the interest of transparency, openness and in order to remove any possibility of undue influence by any party, we therefore propose the following procedure for the EOGM:

(a) The first vote will ask whether a Sale Committee should be formed or not.

· The MC will give a form asking this question to the representative of each share value and proxy-holder present at the EOGM.
· Those present will be asked to identify themselves to the MC so that each share value will only be represented by one person.
· NOTHING ON THE FORM WILL IDENTIFY THE NAME OR ADDRESS OF THE VOTER
· Each form should be stamped by the MC to prevent duplication.
· The form will require a simple Yes/No answer.
· Abstentions will not be counted.
· Each share value representative will complete the form, then immediately put the completed form into a sealed box held by the MC.
· The votes will then immediately be counted in public by the Chair and Secretary of the MC.
· The result will be announced immediately by the Chair of the MC.
· If the majority of those present and voting oppose the formation of the Sale Committee, there will be no further action and the EOGM will end.

(b) If the majority in the first vote support the formation of the Sale Committee, we will proceed to the next step:
· The MC will, as before, hand out a form listing the persons nominated for the Sale Committee.
· NOTHING ON THE FORM WILL IDENTIFY THE NAME OR ADDRESS OF THE VOTER
· Owners and proxy-holders will then tick “Yes” or “No” against each name.
· Abstentions will not be counted.
· Each share value representative will immediately put the completed form into a sealed box held by the MC.
· The votes for each nominee will then immediately be counted in public by the Chair and Secretary of the MC.
· The results will be announced immediately by the Chair of the MC.
· If three or more of the nominees are supported by a majority of those present and voting, they will constitute the Sale Committee.
· If fewer than three of the nominees are supported by a majority of those present and voting, no Sale Committee will be formed and the EOGM will end.

We believe that this proposal will lead to a fair and equitable vote, that will more accurately reflect the views of the owners of Botanic Gardens View. We will shortly propose to the MC that this procedure be adopted at the EOGM. If the MC refuses to consider this proposal, we will raise the issue at the EOGM. We hope that you will be able to support this procedure.

We recognise that some owners would indeed be interested in an en-bloc sale if the terms were right. Those of you in that position may wish to consider some issues that have been raised before and that remain unanswered. For instance, in an en-bloc sale, how will proceeds be apportioned? Will owners be paid according to the floor area of their flats or by share value or by some other means? We would point out that any means of apportionment except by floor area will mean that owners of three-bedroom flats will lose out; you will receive less than a fair value for your homes. What will the other terms of the Sale Agreement be? Will it take heed of the lessons of the Horizon Towers case?

The property market continues to rise. This is not in fact good for the victims of an en-bloc sale. Those of us who have no other home but Botanic Gardens View will be left high and dry. There will be nowhere affordable that will not be inferior in location, size, legal status (ie freehold or 999-year lease), maintenance costs and convenience to Botanic Gardens View. We will gain nothing and lose what we already have.

We urge you to attend the EOGM and oppose the creation of another Sale Committee.

Best regards,

Vanessa Chan
Blk 9, #10-09

Wong Hwei Ming
Blk 9, #09-17

Things to CONSIDER before the EOGM

2007-11-13T12:47:00.000+08:00

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

If you have not heard, the existing protem sales committee has decided to conduct the first EOGM on 1 Decemeber 2007, under the new regulations, to nominate themselves as your devoted representatives for the en bloc sale. We would like to recap the highlights of their strategies to entice you into believing that the sale is a good thing.

They worried you with economic disasters and financial tsunamis, to get you to sign.

They brought in a big gun from STB, to get you to sign.

They tried to ridicule the blog and belittle/ dismiss the hard efforts of us owners, to get you to sign.

They waved the new regulations as a scare tactic, to get you to sign.

They increased the Reserve Price after they said they could not, to get you to sign.

They threatened to stop the sale if you don’t sign.

They threatened to disband the SC if you don’t sign.

Given the above points..

What else do you think they will do to get you to sign?
Just how far will they go to get you to sign or if you don’t sign?

Before the EOGM, we would like you to think very carefully with regards to the following points:

If it is so easy to renege on their word to disband, can you honestly trust them with a deal that is potentially worth half a billion and more?

We have seen in the past few weeks more en bloc sales that have exceeded the $2000 mark despite certain predictions about the economy.

Is now really the best time to sell?

We think now is not the most optimal time to sell.

Whose interests is the existing sale committee working for? Themselves or every stakeholder in the estate?

We are convinced that, given their tactics, they serve their own interests rather than every subsidiary proprietor, every tenant, every owner and resident of the estate.

Are they following the new regulations properly and fairly?

We do not believe so. The driving reason for the changes in en bloc law is to make the process more fair, more transparent and the sale committee more accountable to all subsidiary proprietors. One important change is for all owners to be actively involved in the sale process – they are able to vote on matters starting from whether to have an enbloc sale to who should be their agent, law firm, what the terms and conditions are in the Collective Sale Agreement etc. It remains to be seen how we as owners will be able to vote for these and already we’ve been told we cannot vote on whether to conduct the sale or not – that the sale will continue and we need only vote for the sale committee members.

If you feel, for various reasons, that the sale should not continue at this point in time, please contact us. We need your support now more than ever. If the first EOGM goes through, it means nothing will stop the sale committee from having their way and selling our super-prime estate in a few months’ time.

Apathy is not an option this time round.

The En-bloc Madness Continues...

2007-10-19T23:58:00.001+08:00

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

We are very sorry to report that the fight to save our homes is not yet over. The former Sale Committee, having disbanded, has now decided to relaunch the whole process "with immediate effect". We attach for your information the letter dated 15 October 2007 sent by Mr John Lee, the head of the former Sale Committee.

He is now calling for a General Meeting of the owners in order to elect a new Sale Committee. In order for a General Meeting to be called, 20% of the ownership by share value must support it. If a new Sale Committee is formed, the majority owners, who have already refused to support his proposals, will be put through this entire painful, expensive and damaging (to our interests) process again.

In the few days since the new en-bloc regulations came into effect, there has been no change in the reasons to oppose selling Botanic Gardens View en-bloc. We therefore urge you, as fellow owners, as always, to consider the matter carefully and seek independent legal advice, before making your decisions. We ourselves, and owners who have contacted us, will not be signing this document and we hope that our other fellow majority owners will do the same. Since the majority of the owners have already refused to support an en-bloc sale, we see no reason to recreate the Sale Committee.

The possibility of this en-bloc madness hanging over our heads for the next 12-24 months is very real, and frustrating for some owners. If you feel that this attempt should not be restarted at this point in time, please contact us.

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 through this blog

We will be updating the blog with more details at a later date.

Post-Amendment Update

2007-10-11T23:35:00.000+08:00

Dear Owners and Residents,

On 8 October 2007, CBRE wrote a letter to all owners addressing the amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the signing status and "moving forward". The letter is reproduced here for those who did not receive it. It stated that 74 units or 50.68% have signed the CSA although it did not state which date this was valid at. It also stated that the law firm Rajah & Tann "has advised that the CSA has been invalidated and the entire process would have to be reinitiated".

The two important points in the letter are that CBRE "believe [they] should be able to achieve the 80% mark if given more time" and that they "will keep you updated of further progress".

We also received an email from another owner of BGV requesting the immediate disbanding of the current protem sales committee (PSC), of which we quote 2 paragraphs from his email:

"Should there be any further endeavour, I wish that none of the original members of this Sales Committee be voted in for the mere fact, that thus far, there is no transparency as many of my legitimate queries have been ignored.

I was amazed that CBRE also did not response to my queries too in spite of reminders. Therefore, I hope that CBRE is not ever to be the marketing agent for BGV."

We want to raise several points in light of these two correspondences :

Is the left hand talking to the right? Is CBRE not aware of the PSC's and Mr Lee's letters (14 September 2007 and 25 September 2007 respectively) which stated quite clearly, twice, that "the current en block effort will come to a halt and the Sales Committee will be disbanded" should they fail to achieve 80%? If that is the case, without an existing committee, how can (a) CBRE continue to work on behalf of BGV (b) "further progress" be possible?
If the PSC is not disbanded contrary to their explicit and repeated statements of intent, because they are heartened by the possibility that 80% can be achieved "if given more time", what people of integrity are the members of the PSC if they would state one thing and do another?
The honorable thing that the PSC needs to do now would be to disband the PSC and stop the effort, and inform all owners of this, in accordance with their intent dated 14 September and 25 September. Otherwise, none of their words can be seen to hold any truth and neither can owners have confidence in people who do not hold to their words.
Despite efforts to scare (with tsunamis and the threat of the en bloc failing), entice (with increased asking price), and offer suggestions that clearly show the lack of understanding of owners of BGV, the fact remains that about half of the estate do not believe in the collective sale, whether at this time or at all. We have heard of Spanish Village going up for tender at $1700 psf ppr, and rumours of an estate in Newton going en bloc at $2300 psf ppr. The market has already continued to climb up in these 2 months.
If despite all of the above, CBRE and the PSC is going to go ahead with continuing their efforts, then be prepared for the following: (a) Given the new amendments, every agent and law firm will be trying to calculate new costs for their work, and the beginning year will contain fees that are not indicative of the market rates (not stabilised, not benchmarked); it'll be a time for firms to make a mark up in their profit margins, undoubtedly citing more work required of them. (b) Many sales committees, agents and lawyers are still unclear of the protocols for the new amendments with regards to EOGMs. To continue now would be to see a repeat of the confusions that happened in 1999 when the LT(S)A amendments kicked in then. (c) The existence of a PSC that is as non-transparent and do not have the integrity to honor their words.

This en bloc "effort" has now split our humble community into two, causing for some irrevocable damage to neighbourly relations. If you feel enough is enough, the agents and committee have given their best shot and failed, let's have some peace in BGV and let's move on, please contact us. We are compiling a list of owners who feel that, for various reasons, the collective sale is not to their advantage or their wishes. Your support will be greatly appreciated.

New law takes effect 4 October 2007

2007-10-04T17:33:00.000+08:00

According to the Ministry of Law, the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act takes effect today on 4 October 2007. This means that by law, the existing en bloc sale of BGV is not legitimate, especially since the "sale committee" has not been elected in by the Subsidiary Proprietors, nor was there an election on whether to conduct the collective sale or not.

The sales committee letter dated 14 September 2007 stated that the increased reserve price was an incentive to push owners to sign the CSA, so that "enough owners will come forward to join our CSA to bring us over the 80% mark before the date of implementation of the Amendments or 15 October 07, whichever is earlier." It further stated: "If we do not achieve the 80% before the new Amendments are made law, the current en block effort will come to a halt and the Sales Committee will be disbanded."

The date of implementation of the Amendments has occurred today. We noticed that the first 8 weekly mandatory notices around the estate were put up for only ONE day since they have now been covered by minutes of the 11 Sep Council Meeting. This is ILLEGAL - they are to be affixed to "a conspicuous part of each building" and covering them up will negate the purpose of having the notices up in the first place.

We spotted the notices yesterday - they stated that 73 units of 146 total signed (50%) dated 2 October. Putting aside the fact that all notices were conveniently covered by the minutes, if the 80% mark has not been achieved as of midnight 4 October 2007, will the existing sales committee agree to graciously halt the sale attempt and disband?

Fear and Doubt, Tsunamis and Eggs - Responding to Mr Lee's Letter

2007-09-27T00:03:00.001+08:00

Dear fellow owners of Botanic Gardens View,

We have become aware that two letters were circulated recently, one on 14 Sept 2007 from the Sale Committee and one dated 25 Sept 2007 from Mr John Lee (reproduced here). Some of us did not receive the first letter, either by post or by e-mail; we have not yet established how widely the second has been circulated. We urge the Sale Committee, collectively and individually, to ensure that ALL owners receive copies of their communications, in order to avoid concerns about the lack of transparency that results from partial circulation. For the information of all owners, the 14 Sept letter is available online via a private secure link from us; please email to us by clicking here or to enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com.

The Sale Committee continues to put pressure on owners to sign the Collective Sale Agreement. At least one of us has been subjected to continual telephone calls from CBRE, including to a family member at his workplace. Nonetheless, we continue to recommend strongly to owners that before doing so, they should seek independent legal advice. By signing the CSA you will hand over all control of this matter to the Sale Committee. At least one of the owners of Botanic Gardens View is also an owner in Horizon Towers and signed their CSA. Since the matter is now the subject of legal action we will not go into details. It is enough to say that she has reason to regret having done so.

We would like to mention a number of points that may be of interest to owners. The URA has never explicitly stated that it will in reality (rather than in our hopes) permit a developer to rebuild up to a plot ratio of 1.8. We cannot blithely assume that it will do so. The URA has, however, confirmed to us that the existing development restrictions on this plot will remain. The height limit of 4 stories (due to this plot’s proximity to the Botanic Gardens) will be retained for any new development (as shown here). And of course, there is currently no interested developer in sight anyway.

Another to which we would like to draw your attention is the reserve price. The Sales Committee has said that it has increased the reserve price. However, we have received no formal notification of this from the lawyer, Rajah & Tann, and therefore we cannot treat this as an official increase. This sudden change of mind also has implications for the Collective Sale Agreement, in that some owners will have signed under the old reserve price and some may have signed under the alleged new one, which may cause confusion (at the least) in future. Not to mention that there is no indication of what is the formulae used for apportionment and in particular, valuation. We paid for our units on the basis of their floor area, level and facing, not on the basis of share value. Will the price be apportioned fairly between three-bedroom units and two-bedroom ones? The Collective Sale Agreement is silent on this rather important point.
We are also disappointed by the tone of the Sale Committee’s letter. Contrary to what they pretend, one estate is not interchangeable with another. The location of Botanic Gardens View has unique and irreplaceable value, as we have pointed out before. Calling owners “plain stupid” because we prefer to stay in this location rather than in an inferior one is insulting and patronising and reveals perhaps more desperation than common sense.

Mr John Lee in his letter has implied that the Sale Committee’s failure to attract interest in the Collective Sale Agreement is due to “fear and doubt” spread by bloggers hiding “behind the cloak of anonymity”. We are somewhat confused by this, since our identities are not hidden (our names and addresses and contact information are all written at the bottom of this post and the previous letter distributed by mail and reproduced on this blog). We prefer to attribute owners’ reluctance to a clear understanding that their interests are not in reality being served by this attempt to evict them from their homes. Mr Lee claims that the forced sale of Botanic Gardens View into an overcrowded market would give owners a “nest egg”. Perhaps, for someone for whom this is not a primary (or sole) residence. For the rest of us, however, where exactly is the “nest egg” that he speaks of when it must be spent on somewhere that is smaller, more expensive and more inconveniently located than here? A nest egg, after all, requires a nest first. Not to mention that any other location may itself be subject to an en-bloc attempt in the near future!

We would also like to highlight to Mr Lee that we are ourselves owner-volunteers. If the en-bloc was not attempted, we would not have to put in our energies, time and expenses (from our own pockets) to keep owners informed and let owners hear another perspective so that they may make informed decisions.

In short, dear fellow owners, we hope that we will all continue to think the matter over carefully and be advised by our own independent legal advisers. Do not let a false sense of urgency push any of us into unconsidered decisions. A Sale Committee that acts in good faith and has the owners’ support has no reason to fear the new Amendments, which are after all designed to protect the interests of owners.

We remain, fully identified, fully resident, fully owner-volunteer,

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

Note: A blog reader has posted 7 comments in separate posts anonymously. We will attend to your responses in due time.

Minutes and Comments from the Owners' Meeting 8 September 2007

2007-09-23T00:13:00.000+08:00

It took us a while to compare notes and compile this, but we now have what we think is a comprehensive set of minutes and comments on the 8 September 2007 meeting.

For your information, the revised RP was done after this meeting, and of course, the Parliament has now passed the new amendments, which means it is now law.

Because the document is over 6 pages long, we have decided not to include everything in here. Readers can go to scribd (an online document storage site) and download or view the entire minutes here. We have included our overall comments below instead (it is the same as the last part of the document). We suggest you read the document on scribd first.

Overall Comments

During his brief about the new amendments, Mr Gan repeatedly pointed out that the new amendments will be other than them being a hassle (waste of time, effort and money), Mr Gan neglected to mention the benefits for us owners with these EOGMs which is to discuss the selection of property consultants, lawyers with all owners, to discuss the terms and conditions of CSA and SPA, apportionment methods and so on with all owners. Thus, showing transparency and accountability and fairness. He said that if every owner agrees that the SC has been very transparent, then there should be no need to follow the new amendments. However, we question whether the SC has been transparent or not – failure to provide slides, failure to provide formula for apportionment and valuation, failure to call for a meeting with sufficient time for owners, hard push to obtain 80% rather than taking the effort to conduct matters properly.

Mr Gan finally said that if he were to speak honestly, he will not do the sale for BGV under the new amendments because it would be laborious for him – he has to witness the signing, explain and clarify to owners with queries, sign off the notice of consent level every 4 weeks. In effect, it is more work for him. If it’s more work, even discounting the new amendments, what happens when things get complicated (eg legal complications that appear)? Will he back out because it is more work and most costly? We have to seriously question the ‘honesty’ of Mr Gan as a lawyer that is committed to the sale if he can say that under new amendments he will not do the sale since it’s too much work and effort.

Mr Gan also mentioned that it is not stated in our CSA that the sinking fund and maintenance fund will be given to us rather than go with the purchaser. But in the SPA when the tender goes out, they will try. So that means it is not a guarantee we have the funds returned to us. Did you know that under the new amendments, all management and sinking funds will be returned to the owners? That we don’t have to ‘try’ but we are entitled to the funds. We believe that there’s a substantial amount left in the sinking funds, and it should be duly returned to us, especially under the new amendments.

CBRE Mr Lake spoke saying the volume of successful transactions in the last 3 months (June:20, July: 12, August: 6) have been trending downwards. Mr Lake pointed out one strategy that exists at the moment is to hit 80% at whatever price you can, then worry about price later. He raised the spectre of Pacific Mansion and Rivershire where they raised their RP but did not succeed in a bid that satisfied the RP. He said that this is not the right basis or approach. The gist of the message is to hurry because the market might be turning down. However, we would like to point out a few things:-

CBRE’s own report in the Straits Times on 18 September painted a very rosy outlook for the property market (“Investment Sales to hit $50B in ’07: CBRE”) where the article cited CBRE’s bullish prediction of Singapore ending the year on a strong footing with sales hitting an all time high. Residential investments (en blocs) comprise a large proportion of their prediction and target.
If he is disdainful of the strategy of pushing up the RP to obtain 80% as Pacific Mansion and Rivershire did, why did he approve the SC decision to raise the RP up by more than 10%? Does this not defeat Mr Lake’s careful analysis of surrounding market rates which was his justification for arriving at $2000 in the first place?
What if the higher RP does not achieve a successful tender? Is the SC empowered to decrease the RP (even below $2000) without the consent of the owners? The CSA is silent on this matter. After all, 5.2.1 states clearly amendments of a substantial nature must be made only with written approval by all Selling Owners, and yet we wonder if written approval was obtained for raising the RP (which the SC is entitled to under 14.(b)(ii) but it is still a substantial amendment). What if he/she does not approve of the amendment, especially if it is a downward revision of the RP? Again the CSA is silent on this matter. After all, 24.6 of the CSA states that “The Selling Owners hereby irrevocably represent agree and undertake from time to time and at all times to ratify and confirm whatsoever the Solicitors and/or the Property Consultants shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this CSA”. In other words, anyone who signs the CSA shall “ratify and confirm” anything done by virtue of the CSA. That is carte blanche to do anything they want in our books.

As a sidenote, we noticed that the new RP in Mr Lee's letter are different in 2 places. Do see if you can spot it. Some say it's a minor amount, but an error is an error.

Another Resident Speaks Out

2007-09-16T22:11:00.001+08:00

This was received from another resident of BGV, who calls him/herself "BGV Resident"...! We reprint this email verbatim, and add our own comments below. It goes to show that when the Protem SC becomes pushy, rather than becoming more transparent, they are actually becoming less so. We only anonymise the newly increased reserve price (henceforth $Y).

BGV Resident writes:

"I have just read the fresh circular letter from Mr John Lee today. Funny how he says he doesn't have any problem with the new law - as if he has a choice - and goes on to say that they have been guided by the same principles of "transparency and accountability". Is that why: -

there was no proper survey to show whether even more than 50% owners wish to embark on the enbloc exercise?
there was no general meeting called to properly initiate a sales committee?
the self-styled protem sales committee took it upon themselves to choose for all owners, the agent and lawyer, and inform owners only after the fact?
we are told that one member of the sales committee is employed by a "property developer" but we do not know which developer, and cannot decide for ourselves whether there is truly no conflict of interest, as Mr Lee claimed at the August owners' meeting?
Mr Gan the lawyer was proudly introduced as Deputy President of the Strata Titles Board at the August meeting while he was at the same time acting for the committee to move this CSA along, as if there is no conflict of interest?
till this day, the slides presented at the August owners' meeting (containing vital explanations, estimates, figures and other proposed terms) have not even been circulated to all owners, even though this was requested at the meeting?
we have no explanation of how the figure of $Y psf ppr was decided upon, as opposed to any other figure? [The only clue in the letter is that it says Ardmore Park went for $2337 and for some reason their new figure is close to this (rather than the latest figure in the list, $1810 psf ppr for Grangeford.) What would an up-to-date valuation report of BGV say - we are way off or on the mark?]

I also wonder why Mr Lee is concerned about the coming legislative changes regarding EOGMs etc, since Mr Gan the lawyer was so confident in explaining during the August meeting that his drafting of the CSA (paragraph 25 on page 18) would take care of any changes to the law and that the CSA would not be badly affected.

Finally, the last page of Mr Lee's letter shows what a sad state they are in - to argue that we should move to other enbloc-possibility condos (out of the frying pan into the fire), some even older than BGV, and to even faraway Punggol 21 (forgetting the fact that we currently enjoy living near the one and only original Botanic Gardens, Tanglin Mall, Orchard Road, Bukit Timah Road and Holland Village, in a location that people would die for and is not replaceable by any of those he mentioned)! Talk about comparing apples with pears, as far as Punggol 21 is concerned."

Many thanks to BGV Resident for your honest response. We would like to add the following as well:-

It is really a bitter pill to swallow when Mr Lee's letter on "Where to Stay" lists out places that are condos that are ONGOING en blocs (eg Pandan Valley, Normanton, Pine Grove, Ridgewood etc), or even Punggol 21, when he himself lives in his comfortable bungalow nearby (as verified in the White Pages). It is questionable if the chairman even stays in BGV. It really doesn't matter to him if you miss Botanic Gardens because it's only a stone's throw from his home.
Is the PSC's idea of transparency one where a letter is sent out on the 4th Sep 2007 for an Owners' Meeting on 8th Sep 2007? Sure, everyone received the letter (eventually) but how many could change their appointments at the last minute, especially during the school term break, to attend an urgent meeting with Mr Gan? Less than 40 people turned up including the PSC.
How transparent is the PSC when they failed to inform you that URA refuses to support the PSC's application for a 10 storey redevelopment? That the maximum allowable height in the event of a total redevelopment is STILL FOUR STOREYS? We will inform you in the immediate future our own discussions with URA and what we found out (especially about the 1.4 vs 1.8 plot ratio).
Does the revised RP $Y mean that CBRE will benefit from the excess fee charge (since it already exceeds $X as stated in the last agreement)? Or will $Y be fixed at 0.38%?
Where is the calculation for valuation that is a part of the method of distribution? It was promised (along with the slides) to everyone that the valuation formula and rationale would be sent to all owners.

Is the sale done in 'good faith'? It is beginning to appear that good faith is beginning to go out the window in the rush to get that 80% that the PSC desperately needs.

Reserve Price Increase - Trying to Pre-empt the New Law

2007-09-16T00:20:00.000+08:00

Apologies for the lack of update. We've been busy compiling our notes and comparing them from the last meeting. We'll be putting these notes up shortly as well as our comments on them.

In addition, another letter arrived from Mr Lee. This time they have increased the Reserve Price (RP) by about 18%. We knew this was going to happen as it is a common tactic by agents and SCs to bump up the RP when the signature collection has stagnated, things are not moving along, or when they are facing a deadline.

And what deadline is this? Not the worry about financial market tsunamis, but of a Law coming into existence. Here's 3 things to think about before you sign the dotted line:

A bump of 18% is significant. CBRE and the PSC obviously knows that this can be done. So why start at the amount stated in the CSA (henceforth named "X")? Improved market conditions (but didn't he worry about tsunamis?)? Or is it because $X is easier to secure a sale with a buyer? In other words, rather than getting the best possible value for your property, by initially starting with $X, the PSC has opted for the FASTEST way of selling your property. Put it another way, if 80% signed at $X on the 5 Aug, then ALL of us would not have received the 18% extra present.

By increasing the RP, they are now pushing for the FASTEST way of getting 80%. But this beckons - if they can bump up by 18%, does that not speak volumes about HOW MUCH MORE THE ESTATE IS WORTH? Think about it this way - from not signing, you have just witnessed an 18% increase in value in your unit in less than 2 months. We reiterate our point - that we as owners need not worry about how valuable our estate is - we KNOW it is valuable, and it should be us who dictate the selling price. Eng Lok didn't become the highest en bloc sale of its time because it followed the market; it LED the market.

The latest letter was very silent of concerns by owners about the Horizon Towers situation. Lately there are even more cases being brought to court or STB that are contested on legal grounds. Increasingly, points of law around the sale and the CSA are brought to question. Considering that the sale of the property will be of the same range as that of Horizon Towers and it is likely that only major developers like CDL, SC Global, HPL, Capitaland, etc will attempt to buy the estate, what are the consequences for majority owners if major issues are brought up at STB hearings or in court that might lead the case to be dismissed? Issues that are may be recognised and prevented under the new Law because it will force things to become systematic, transparent and fair? We are ultimately small buyers versus a major developer if it comes down to lawsuits and there is no written guarantee that what happened to Horizon Towers will not happen to us.

We will post our notes of the 8 September Owners' Meeting and you can judge for yourself if you feel safe signing your rights away in the increasingly risky process of en bloc sales. We ask for your patience as this is not a matter anyone wants to take lightly. It isn't simply a matter of signing on the dotted line, as much as the PSC would want you to believe.

Owners Meeting (again) this Saturday 3pm

2007-09-07T00:12:00.000+08:00

By now, most of you would have received yet another CBRE letter about another owners' meeting this Saturday. At such short notice, they are pulling out all stops to get you to sign the CSA as soon as possible, before the new Law kicks in. We find this strange as some of us have yet to receive the presentation slides from the first CBRE owners' meeting that was promised to everyone. When contacted, CBRE changed the story and said that they will give the slides out ONLY to owners who make the effort to contact them. I guess that's earning their $834,000+ fees for you.

They have invited Mr Gan Hiang Chye of Rajah & Tann back to address the following issues:

The Horizon Tower Case - What went wrong?

Understanding the Strata Title Board Application and avoiding its pitfalls?

The Amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act and its implication for ongoing Collective Sale.

If you don't know this, Mr Gan is a big gun in the en bloc business. Not only is he a partner with Rajah & Tann and no less, the lawyer handling our BGV en bloc, he also is the Deputy President of the Strata Titles Board! A man wearing these many hats is highly respectable and his advice will carry a lot of weight, especially if he can offer definitive answers to many concerns us owners have.

It surely must be expensive to invite him back - on a weekend no less - and we certainly hope our legal fees are not going up by the minute! Still, when you go for yet another owners' meeting (maybe they should just label the Function Room the "En Bloc Room"), do think about these:

So far, we've had Mr Jeremy Lake, Executive Director of CBRE and Mr Gan Hiang Chye, Deputy President of STB dropping by our humble home. Doesn't this speak very highly of our estate's super-prime value? Short of a Member of Parliament visiting to tell us how choice our location is, don't you think it's clear from their presence that there will be other boats to come by, as pointed out in the recent letter to owners?

The law firm and marketing agency are not paid the bulk of their fees unless the sale is successful. Will they be objective and fair in their representation of legal and en bloc matters? Would it not be more advisable to seek independent legal advice?

Is there a conflict of interest when a senior member of the STB, who on the one hand should be neutral, objective, and ideally not be involved in the sale process, has agreed to come to BGV to talk about vital concerns at the explicit request of the protem sales committee, who on the other hand is very obviously pushing hard to get owners to sign away their homes and investments?

Nearby Replacement Unit Values

2007-09-06T23:16:00.000+08:00

We do the homework so you don't have to! In the CBRE presentation, some estates were named as viable replacement homes for those wishing to use your 'windfall' to buy a unit nearby. Let's look at those estates suggested:

One Jervois

TOP Dec 2014. Means it won't even be ready should the en bloc succeed (along with 6 years rental to wait for it!)

Waterfall Gardens

TOP Dec 2010. Won't be ready should en bloc succeed. 2.5 years rental required.
Estimated average increase in unit value = $60+ per month
Assuming increase is constant, a 2196 sqf unit will be worth approx $2700psf by completion or $5.9m.
Units are therefore OUT OF REACH price wise

Grange Residences

TOP 2004. Units are available now.
Estimated average increase in unit value = $70+ per month
Assuming increase is constant, a 2487 sqf unit will be worth approx $3400psf by completion or $8.4m.
No smaller sized units are possible in this development.
Units are therefore OUT OF REACH price wise

The Equatorial

TOP 2002. Some units are available now.
Estimated average increase in unit value = $65+ per month
Assuming increase is constant, a 1722 sqf unit will be worth approx $2340psf by completion or $4.0m.
That means you will not have anything left over, or may have to top up.

Regency Park

TOP 1990. En bloc potential which means you may have to move again.
Estimated average increase in unit value = $80+ per month
Assuming increase is constant, a 2250 sqf unit will be worth approx $3000psf by completion or $6.7m
No smaller sized units are possible in this development
Units are OUT OF REACH price wise

Fontana Heights

TOP 1985. En bloc potential which means you have to move again.
Estimated average increase in unit value = $61+ per month (with $1950psf asking due to speculation)
Assuming increase is constant, a 3466sqf unit will be worth approx $2560psf by completion or $8.9m
No smaller sized units are possible in this development
Units are OUT OF REACH price wise

This is not including the others in the CBRE list, or the nearby estate like 8 Napier with its $4000psf asking price NOW.

So out of these properties, when you take into account the fact that replacement values are not the prices NOW but 11+ months or more later, most will be out of reach.

If you think the picture described above is too bullish, today's Straits Times and Business Times both reported that economists are projecting strong growth this year and 2008, particularly in the construction industry where our buyers will be from. This despite stock market and export problems. Likewise, a noted property director said in yesterday's Business Times that the fundamentals in the property market are still strong, with most BGV owners still hitting the undersupply situation by 2008 (you will have to compete with other en bloc owners for replacement homes). This will definitely inflate prices in the prime districts, as people capitalise on the supply shortage and the huge demand generated from en bloc millionaires (just think of the owners of 1362 Farrer Court/Leedon Heights/Tulip Gardens/Spanish Village units alone who will be looking for replacement homes as well in 2008, possibly at the same time as all of us).

It isn't simply a matter of how much money you're getting now, for those who are home owners. It's a question of whether you can find a suitable replacement home in the near future, should you agree to sell BGV now.

Letter to All Owners of BGV - 30 Aug 2007

2007-09-05T14:01:00.001+08:00

This letter was sent out to all owners of Botanic Gardens View, dated 30 August 2007. We are reproducing the letter here.

Dear fellow owners of Botanic Gardens View,

We represent a number of owners do not wish to sell our apartments in an en-bloc sale. We do not refer to ourselves as “minority owners”, because we are not in the minority. Despite the pressure that has been brought to bear, there is no evidence that the majority of the owners, particularly the resident owners, actually wish to go against their own long-term interests and sell their apartments into an overcrowded market. This being the case, we ask our fellow owners, both resident and non-resident, to consider the following points:

At the meeting on 5 August, one of the Sales Committees presented a Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). We will not comment about the terms, since these are for each owner to consider. However, we would like to emphasise that a CSA is a binding legal document, with significant legal obligations and financial consequences for anyone who signs it. Signatories of the CSA give up important rights and acquire equally important obligations. As the Horizon Towers case shows, changing your mind after signing will entail a great expense of time and money. We would therefore urge all owners to take independent legal advice and consider carefully not only what is in the CSA but what is not, before they sign.

For our fellow owners’ consideration, we attach a table setting out some of the discrepancies we found when we ran the method of apportionment and calculation of the minimum sale price through a spreadsheet. We note various errors, from the simple calculation error on Schedule 3 (Error 4) to differences when the Sale Proceeds are calculated based on the defined apportionment ratio (Error 3) to a discrepancy of over $7000 (Error 1). We urge you to double check the figures yourself; enter the values as defined in Schedule 3 and 5 in a spreadsheet and ensure decimal values for apportionment ratio are set to 6 points as defined in Schedule 5. (The table is sent to all owners via post)

At the recent August meeting, it was suggested that owners who sell could buy replacement properties in developments such as Fontana Heights, Grange Residences, One Jervois, Regency Park, The Equatorial and Waterfall Gardens. Now, apart from the risk that these developments too will suffer an en-bloc attempt, the fact of the matter is that none of them offers the same combination of advantages that Botanic Gardens View has in terms of (i) location, (ii) size, (iii) layout, (iv) land-holding tenure and again, (v) location. Even if we were able buy any apartment in these developments (which is not guaranteed), we would inevitably lose out on at least one and possibly all of the above factors. We are in effect being told that in exchange for losing our property here we can pay out more and get less in return. There is no logical reason why we would wish to do that. Those of us who live here precisely because of this location will inevitably lose out, since it will not be possible for us to buy a unit in a redeveloped Botanic Gardens View. 8 Napier, the former Eng Lok Mansions, will be selling for S$4000 per square foot. There is no reason why a redeveloped Botanic Gardens View should be sold for a lower price. The reserve price proposed by the Sales Sub-Committee is certainly not going to cover that.

This leads us to our major point: We were told at the 5th August meeting that we should go for an en-bloc sale because the market may be reacing its peak and we will “miss the boat” if we do not sell now. We respect the professional expertise of the agents, and the opinions of the owners who wish to sell, but the truth is that their interest is in making the sale, rather than helping all owners to maximize their long-term benefits. The loss of amenity to the residents is not a factor for them, since it will not be a factor in the sale price. Before worrying about “missing the boat” we need to ask ourselves whether the boat’s destination is anywhere that we want to go to, and just as important, whether there will not be other boats in future. Given the number of developments that are now on the market for en-bloc sale, or which have already been sold, we also need to ask ourselves whether we are truly maximizing value by selling now into a market that is already loaded with properties, in which we might well be forced to reduce our reserve price even further in order to find a buyer. This would make no sense at all.

Property booms come and go. This one will indeed end at some time. So what? We are strongly of the view that Botanic Gardens View’s unique and irreplaceable location will ensure that its value will be maintained regardless of the property cycle. As one of the few remaining prime parcels in the centre of town, Botanic Gardens View would in fact be even better placed for the future. And in the meantime we residents will continue to benefit from its many and irreplaceable advantages. We should not let ourselves be pushed blindly into signing legally-binding documents without thought or professional advice.

Any owners interested in further discussion can contact us (Click on name to email):

(a) Vanessa Chan (Blk 9, #10-09)

(b) Wong Hwei Ming (Blk 9, #09-17)

or through this blog.

The New Law, the CSA and You

2007-08-29T23:02:00.000+08:00

Dear residents and owners of BGV,

We thank CBRE and John Lee for their letter dated 27 August, including a reprint of the email by John Lee as well as 2 supporting emails in favour of Mr Lee’s insight into the future. We believe strongly that it is a gross misrepresentation when the consensus level is based on partial signatures and not fully verified, completed, witnessed and legally recognised signatures.

We’re sure Mr Lee is aware of this blog and the previous posting on his email. The BGV blog is for all owners and residents, whether you agree or disagree with the sale. We aim to update the blog every few days with new comments on the en bloc sale, and we have many issues that we would like to bring to light. It remains to be seen if these issues will be addressed or ignored.

The climate for en bloc sales has changed because of two major factors totally unrelated to the financial market. First is the Horizon Towers lawsuit that is specifically directed at the majority owners who signed the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Second is the new Amendment Bill to the Land Titles (Strata) Act which will be made law in early October. The first is hardly mentioned in discussions around BGV sale because many people are not aware of what rights they have, and more importantly what rights they surrender or do not have when they sign the CSA. As a nominated MP said recently, “just like any other commercial transaction, there are very real commercial and legal risks in collective sales”. Every owner must be aware of the liabilities and risks involved (something the new en bloc Law plans to address). Yet, in response to the new Law, CBRE and the PSC are trying to circumvent it by pushing as hard as possible for the 80% consent to be achieved before the Amendment Bill is made law. We find this ironic - and question this hard sell and push to sign - since the new Law is specifically aimed to improve and increase transparency and accountability of the PSC to all owners. The tighter procedures are ultimately good for all owners but by hoping to avoid it, what is the message that the PSC is sending out about being transparent and accountable to all owners? Maybe it’s too much of a hassle? After all, as pointed out in today’s Business Times, while consultancies believe the new Law will make the process “time-consuming”, add costs, slow down the process, are these the central issues that should drive the sale, or should it be that owners are kept properly informed, the process is completely transparent, and the PSC accountable to all owners?

Pros and Cons of Signing Now

We would like to highlight the disadvantages of signing the CSA at this time:

You cannot sue any member of the PSC. In fact, not only can you not sue the PSC, they are completely indemnified in the 2nd longest standing clause in the document. To rub salt to the wound, the PSC is entitled to include majority owners as co-defendants etc
On the other hand, you as an owner who signed the CSA can be liable for anything that may cause the sale to abort. This clause is the LONGEST standing clause in the document. It shows who the lawsuit arrow may be aimed at when things get ugly
You can’t sell your unit unless you have a buyer who must agree to the collective sale (no matter how he/she disagrees with it)
You give the PSC rights to agree to any terms and conditions the Purchaser may require, and to approve the sale and purchase agreement on your behalf; you have no say in the eventual terms of the sale.
You bear the costs and expenses for any legal proceedings
You give the rights to the PSC to conduct the sale by any mode (including private treaty which often is not transparent and may not offer the best value; there’s a reason why the new Law mandates sale by public tender or auction only)
You do not know what the outcome of BGV STB hearings and appeals will be. Look at the problems facing the majority owners at Horizon Towers now
You will quickly realise the costs to yourselves if STB does NOT AGREE to the sale.
You agree to pay for the STB application costs up front
You do not know if the entire application will be dismissed by STB because the sale does not comply with the new Law (unless 80% is achieved before it commences)

Advantages of being an owner who does not sign the CSA :

You pay nothing unless STB AGREES to the sale
No one can sue you as you have not signed any legal document
You can retain all the rights to your home
You get the same sale price as everyone else if STB allows the sale

For example, you would have noticed that the agent fees have been revised from 0.3% of the old sale price to 0.38% of the new sale price. Did you know the revision is effectively an increase in the agent's fee of $834,971.73 or $75,906.52 per month over 11 months of the agent’s work (using their timeline). This is not including the % excess or GST (in excess of $55,000). Will you be able to question this?

Not under the old en bloc Law. But under the new en bloc Law, yes, since it has to be properly considered and even voted in a general meeting.

We therefore urge you to seriously consider the en bloc sale, and the agreement that they are pushing you to sign. Given the new Law, there is an element of uncertainty about the repercussions of it on BGV’s sale, and it makes more sense now to wait, see what new rights you are entitled to, and how more accountable and transparent the PSC has to be to you. Consult an independent lawyer about the terms and conditions, bearing in mind the new Law and Horizon Towers. Remember that while some of the clauses in the agreement are 'standard', that doesn't make it right or fair to owners.

Beware of Tsunamis and Hurricanes!

2007-08-20T00:26:00.000+08:00

A number of owners have received via email an update from Mr John Lee of the Pro-tem Sale Comiittee (PSC) dated 17 Aug 07, which we have included in the Comments section for those of you who did not receive it.

We would like to thank Mr John Lee for his detailed analysis of the “Future Uncertainties”, and of the impending hurricane, tsunami and assorted scarring of the world economy. Mr Lee paints a picture of a very gloomy outlook in the future, one dominated by a global recession which will affect all countries. Mr Lee is entitled to his strong beliefs about the pessimistic future, undoubtedly from his experiences in an investment company.

We find it strange, therefore, that a systematic search through various media sources including Asian Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Business Times, New York Times, London Independent, plus 30 other news sources, in the past 6 months revealed only four articles that talked about a global recession (Straits Times 19 Aug 07, Australian Financial Review 4 Aug 07, Montreal Gazette 2 Apr 07 and New Straits Times 6 Mar 07). All 4 articles pointed out that a global recession is not forthcoming.

For example, just recently, Sunday Times reported that “experts polled by the Sunday Times do not believe the sub-prime crisis in the United States will lead to a global recession” (19 Aug 07). The Business Times (17 Aug 07) also argued that the domestic economic growth will not be dampened; it'll be driven by booming building and construction activities that are not going to halt. David Lum from Daiwa Institute of Research pointed out that the “building and construction driver is not going to slow down at all, and that driver is good for a few more years, not just this year”, contrary to Mr Lee’s forecast of a downturn in fairly soon.

Perhaps we should turn to another Lee for his views. Minister Mentor Lee, founding father of modern Singapore, over the weekend assured Singaporeans that the market nervousness will go away soon. He asserted that "whatever the troubles, they will go away in weeks, if not months. What we are absolutely sure of (about) East Asia is that it is set to grow. Nothing will change the long-term plans and growth of China and India, and the rest of Asia”. MM Lee also stated that Singapore’s future is secure, and that “economic growth is here to stay for the next 10, 15 years or more”.

Ultimately, whether you believe Mr Lee or MM Lee is up to your own beliefs about the future, your risk disposition and whether you simply need the cash now or not. If you take Mr Lee’s gloomy outlook, then by that logic, if the tsunami and hurricanes are at your doorstep, it would make sense to individually cash out your property investment now, as opposed to taking the riskier route of going for an en-bloc which can take anything from a year to two, without a guarantee of a sale until legal completion.

On the other hand, experts will tell you that in the face of volatile economies, the best thing to do, if you are not strapped for cash, is to wait and hold out. The land value of Botanic Gardens View will always appreciate in the short and long term future.

Furthermore, and importantly, if developers are becoming more cautious, then perhaps we may already be too late in maximising our land value. After all, the MD of Credo has reported that developers have “bought more than they ever intended” and will be slowing their purchases down (ChannelNewsAsia 18 Aug 07). Will we then expect to see the PSC lower the reserve price, to make it more ‘realistic’? Or to put this in another way, to ensure that the sale goes through, even though it may not be the true potential value of the land?

Whether you believe we’re too late or not, wouldn’t it be better to just wait and see what happens in this "increasingly unfavourable economic situation", rather than push for the sale and get a less than satisfactory sales proceed?

You can believe Mr Lee or MM Lee. But regardless of which side you take, common sense tells you that you are the owner of a unit in a land that will always be in demand, and that you can afford to be patient, rather than be persuaded by hurricanes, tsunamis and assorted disasters.

(For those owners who did not receive Mr Lee’s email, you can find it in the comments section.)

"Say No to En bloc" Support Group is Encouraging

2007-08-08T08:04:00.000+08:00

Dear BGV residents and owners,

Many thanks for your words of kind support. We've been gathering a steady stream of owners and residents who believe that an en bloc sale at this time is inappropriate as well as those who would simply prefer not to sell.

We understand that some people are fearful of retribution from pro-sales owners - that they'd get their cars scratched, homes vandalised, etc. That's why they'd prefer to remain anonymous (while showing support).

As a colleague who's been through an en bloc and lost his home can verify, anonymity is an imaginary thing :-

The CSA contains a table with lists of names, and columns for owners to sign (along with a witness's signature).
When an owner signs the list, there is nothing stopping that person from 'glancing' through the list, checking which of their neighbours are delaying the sale.
There's nothing to stop the owner from asking the agents if so-and-so ("a fellow resident I can persuade, you know") has signed yet.
There's also nothing to stop SC members (who have primary knowledge of who signed and who didn't) from telling other owners in a friendly chitchat who has or hasn't signed.

The only group of people kept in the dark, are those who have not seen the CSA. Who have not signed. Those who for various reasons believe they shouldn't, or wouldn't, sign the CSA.

We're open to more support, as well as suggestions on how to protect the identities of people while at the same time allowing everyone to be part of the Say No to En bloc Group. Some pro-sales people can be aggressive. But we strongly believe that people who want to protect the right not to sign, or the right to have a home in BGV, can be equally vocal and principled.

So please continue to email us, even if it's only to say hi as an expression of support! Or if you have any issues with the current en bloc, feel free to let us know!

Email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Starting a Support Group for Those who LOVE BGV

2007-08-05T00:52:00.000+08:00

Today is a big day for BGV. There is an owner's meeting organised by the Protem Sale Committee (PSC) and CB Richard Ellis. I urge everyone to attend it, even if you are against the sale. This is not to show that people are interested (a common misconception.. just because I attend means I want to know more about selling my home meh?), but to gather information about what certain self-interested parties are trying to do to our precious homes.

Date: 5 Aug 2007 (Sunday)
Time: 2pm
Venue: Singapore Botanic Garden, Function Hall

It'll also be a chance for those of us who wish to remain staying in BGV to be known to one another.

I propose that we set up a Say No to En-Bloc support group, or SNEG for short.

Why need this? Simply put - knowledge is power and in any enbloc exercise, the people who hold the knowledge of what goes on is the PSC and their agent. Owners who object, who do not wish to sell, who do not believe in selling for various reasons, are usually left on their own or worse, left in the dark. A support group will allow those of us who wish to keep BGV to become a group to offer support, solidarity and a strong communication channel among like-minded people. Just like the PSC is a group of like-minded owners, a SNEB group is like-minded as well, but with the wish to keep BGV as their home.

At the Owners' Meeting, flyers will be distributed to anyone who wish to join the group. Or one of us may approach you.

But only if you speak up about your opinion about the whole enbloc thing! So please don't be afraid to express your views. After all, if nothing is done, we might find our home rapidly sold off, and the conveniences that we take for granted (like taking an easy walk to Botanic Gardens where the Function Hall is!) will be forever gone.

Even if you couldn't make it for the meeting, please do email us to show your support: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Glaring Questions

2007-08-05T00:02:00.000+08:00

Many of you have received the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA) from CB Richard Ellis by now. Isn't it really nice that a full CSA, and not a draft, has been prepared and ready for signature collection without any consultation with all owners at all? Given that they are planning to sign the CSA on the same day they present it, it almost certainly means that the PSC will not be entertaining any amendments to it.

So here are some questions you can think about, and maybe even ask at the Owners' Meeting:

Who is the Protem Sale Committee? A list of 8 names are provided with their business credentials. But who wants to know how rich or high up the food chain they are? What is important to owners should be: (a) Is a member an OWNER-OCCUPIER (and how long they've stayed in BGV) or is he/she an OWNER-INVESTOR (renting out their units)? (b) What enbloc experiences have they had? The Horizon Towers fiasco (as documented in Dr Minority's blog) shows very clearly a slightest technical error can undermine the entire process, so you want people who are representing you and people who know about enbloc. Not just people who are keen to sell.
Why is the PSC not officially nominated and elected in an EOGM? This is a requirement in the new enbloc laws and the law states very clearly (no matter how the CSA writes it) that it will apply to all enbloc cases that have not achieved 80% when it becomes gazetted. So if the PSC is not formally elected in an EOGM, things get into trouble. Now what should be of interest to owners is WHY not hold an EOGM to present, nominate, second, and ratify the PSC? An Owners' Meeting to nominate the PSC is NOT the right place because it doesn't require that everyone is informed (an EOGM does that by law) and it doesn't require that everyone attend.
Why is the ending of the CSA in two parts - 6 mths after the first signature and the possibility to extend the expiry date up to 12 mths after first signature? Why have 6 mths there at all? Why not leave it at 6 mths to give everyone a peace of mind (if they cannot achieve 80% in 6 mths, then the whole thing is obviously not going to happen)? Yes, legally the PSC has 12 mths to collect the 80% but one would expect the whole point of having 6 mths there is so that people will not be left 'in limbo' over the whole enbloc process!
Why is the method of apportionment purely by unit size ONLY and not by other methods such as 50/50 mix of unit size and share value or other valuation methods? Unit size works if most units in BGV are similar-sized but we have a mixture. The current method gives advantage to the smaller flats (ave of $2700 psf) compared to larger flats (ave of $2300 psf). The method of apportionment also ignores the fact that when the flats were purchased, the higher the flat, the more expensive it was. Now, it doesn't matter if you have a ground floor flat or a top floor flat - everyone gets the same amount!
Why is there no mention of the sinking fund and what is going to happen to it? For that matter, will the sinking fund be 'locked aside' which means any urgent repairs may not be possible during the entire 22 mths of enbloc process?
What happens if a 2nd CSA which covers collective exchanges appear? Will a person who signs the first CSA be stuck and not allowed to sign the 2nd one, even if it is a better deal?

There are many other glaring questions about the CSA (eg success-based fees of agents, indemnity clauses, impending legislation, RP/CSA revisions etc). It just shows that there is still a lot of consideration to be made before we jump right into signing the CSA.

Remember - once you've signed the CSA you:

lose all rights to object to the sale during the STB mediation/hearings.
lose all rights to have a say in any RP/CSA revisions
give up your rights to the sales committee who can make decisions for you
give up your ability to sign another CSA that might come along, one that might offer a better deal (eg collective exchange, higher RP)

Update on 8Napier

2007-07-26T22:44:00.000+08:00

Further to the last posting on the new development at Eng Lok Mansion, Business Times has provided new information on "8Napier" on 17 July 2007.

No of units: 46
Price range: $4000-$4500 psf
Developer: Napier Properties. Director Mark Wee & Tony Tan, former Parkway boss.
Details: 10 storeys, 40 apartments of 3-4 bedroom units, and 6 penthouses. All penthouses are duplex ranging from 4000 sq ft to 6000 sq ft and are expected to be sold by auction. Smallest 3 bed unit is just over 2000 sq ft and priced at about $8 million. Some units are already sold to a mix of Singaporean and foreign buyers. Current plan is to limit sales to just 10-12 units.

'We may sell another dozen or so apartments when our showflat is ready on site in a few months' time. But we plan to keep the rest of the project, including the six penthouses, for sale after the project is completed, which will probably be around end-2009' said Mark Wee.

'All the units come fully loaded with top-notch lighting, sound system and kitchen equipment, bathroom fittings and the like, so that our buyers do not have to do any renovations as we are fitting the units to the highest standard currently available in the Singapore market. This should minimise the hassle of moving in' said Mark Wee.

Points to note:-

A replacement unit for owners if they want to stay in the same location and have to buy a unit in 8 Napier will cost only $8 million for a 3 bedroom 2000 sq ft unit. In the latest offer from CBRE, how much more will you have to pay out of your own pocket to buy a replacement unit?
$4000-$4500 psf currently. That is the market benchmark for the area and I'd doubt any developer who buys BGV will attempt to sell new units at anything less than what 8Napier is marketing.
Napier Properties are holding back units till end 2009, especially the prime penthouses. This shows their confidence in the market, and their expectation that they will achieve even more than $4000-$4500 in 1 and a half years time. Given the latest estimate of 20% increase in property price per annum, it would be fair to say they should be targeting about $5000 psf by end 2009.
In a Business Times report dated 10 Nov 2006, they priced the units at a 'high $2000 psf' but 6 mths later, revised it to $4000-$4500 psf.
That report also cited Mark Wee as stating that some of the priciest real estate in global cities like New York and London is around famous parks, and 8 Napier, which is just two minutes' walk to the Botanic Gardens, will be in that league. If 8Napier is in this league, what about BGV which is 30 seconds away from the Gardens?
Profit to developer? They bought Eng Lok at $128million ($1218ppr) in Mar 2006 but they stand to gain a cool $344million (less development costs and proceeds). This for an estate half the size of BGV. What a steal for Napier Properties. Will this happen to us as well, to be sold on the cheap?
To say that we have a goldmine on our hands, a piece of real estate around a famous park, is an understatement. But some people don't really care.

Is Collective Exchange a Good Deal?

2007-07-22T08:16:00.000+08:00

For those of you who missed out on the meeting on Friday evening (and there are lots of you, from what I gathered from the upset crowd), here's some information from the Huttons presentation on collective exchange for BGV. Information provided here is based on what I've heard in the presentation and is provided as is, for the sake of transparency in the ongoing en bloc of BGV.

First, about Huttons :-

They are 'affiliated' with Savills, but in terms of en bloc experience, it is unclear what they have done. They claimed to have completed one project (Tulip Gardens) but that's by Savills. They said they have 2 ongoing en bloc projects.
What annoyed me and many others who felt they'd just wasted our time, was this - they were NOT invited by any owners to give the presentation at BGV on Friday!! In fact, if you checked the letter sent out by them, addressed to Mr Tan Chew of the Management Committee, as 2 members of the MC (including the chairperson) pointed out at the meeting, (1) there is no such person as Tan Chew, (2) while Huttons did speak to the chairperson, the latter did not give any greenlight for Huttons to use his name, neither did he give permission to Huttons to do the presentation.
In fact, when someone asked if they have a protem sales committee formed to represent the collective exchange deal, the agent said they're in the process of forming one. When asked further, no names were provided and no owner from the crowd stood up to represent BGV in any way. This makes it very suspect if the agent even has any owner in BGV who is willing to represent all owners in the deal.
It is not known where they obtained the namelist of owners from, since a number of them did not receive their letters in their registered addresses.
They were apparently not aware that an existing protem sales committee had been set up with CBRE as the agent.
They have a lawyer who will help draft the CSA, but that lawyer is not Phang & Co who is the only company that really specialises in collective exchanges, and has done the only successful exchange thus far (Paterson Lodge).

Now about the collective exchange proposal:

The agent is in talks with 2 developers who have expressed interest in our super prime land. The sale will not be done by tender, but by private treaty between the owners and the developer.
Prices in the letter are indicative only, and not confirmed. In fact, the figures in the two tables are more similar now so whether you do an exchange or opt out, you'll be getting the equivalent value.
Huttons claim that while there are height restrictions due to proximity to Botanic Gardens, the developer can use a staggered design, so that it's only 4 storeys from the sides closest to the gardens, and then building up to 1.8 plot ratio further back into the estate, possibly higher storeys.
While the exchange units are 30% smaller, owners can opt to 'top up' to their original size according to the formula : for the first 10% of the existing area = $2000psf, thereafter it's $2700psf. In other words, to retain the same size unit that you currently have in the new estate, you must pay the developers (upwards of $150-200k approximately)! To retain the 'same size'! We're not even talking about same facing, same floor yet.
The most ironical part of the collective exchange proposal is that not everyone can obtain an exchange unit. It is subject to balloting. Like HDB flats. The exact number of exchange units are not known (can be anything from 1 to ?? depending on the developer and the deal). It is also not known how the balloting will be done (eg if you sign up earlier, will you get preferential treatment) and if you only want an exchange unit and not opt out, if you're unsuccessful in the ballot, can you pull out of the CSA (unlikely).

Some owners were very upset that this is happening in BGV - an agent coming in to give a presentation without permission from any owner at all. Some asked why is there a need to even consider selling the estate since it's in a prime location (as the agent willingly pointed out). Some questioned the integrity of the agent and their track record in pulling off what may well be a half-billion dollar deal. One owner suggests that since there is a crowd interested in collective exchange, that perhaps like-minded owners should get together to discuss this idea further, solicit from other agents (including Huttons) with the understanding that Huttons might not be the finalised company to handle an exchange deal.

I left very disturbed - how can an agent appear on our doorsteps without even the management committee's permission and attempt to sell themselves? I noticed that a good number of owners are in their late 40s and older; for these people a collective exchange is certainly ideal if they can stay in the same place again. But questions about collective exchanges remain:

Out of hundreds of en bloc deals that happened this year and last, only one was successful in a collective exchange (Paterson Lodge). Why is that so? I understand that for them, a 100% consensus was obtained and the logistics and legalities surrounding exchanges are not easy at all. Partly because it is not legislated (unlike Australia as mentioned by Dr Minority here) and partly because there's always different interests involved in the sale of an estate.
Because we won't really see the final product (our units) until the developer's built the whole place up, how will we know what we'll end up getting? Will we even have any say in the matter (will the architect give us plans/designs), will they let us know what floor, facing, size we'll be getting? Are they getting in a Feng Shui geomancer to ensure the place has good flow?
Given that next door's going to be a superluxury condo (Napier 8), will there be anything stopping a developer from giving exchange units that are nearest the road (for example), leaving the units they will sell at exclusive spots further in?
Also, even though a new development might have new units, it'll also have higher maintenance fees and an influx of tenants, possibly more than what we currently experience on the small roads and estate (since a developer will want to have more units in the estate than currently). Can we handle that?
If an exchange is done by private treaty, we won't know what's the maximum value of the land (since no bidding is done). We won't know what's the best value we can get when we sell our homes (if we do). If done by tender, on the other hand, we won't know what developer will we end up with, and what design/structure we'll get. There might be all sorts of unused spaces (corners, balconies) that make up to the size allotted, after all. Look at some of the new developments nowadays with wasted spaces in the units.
Ultimately the question is this - given that we're sitting on super prime land (it will always be a land in demand), and given that our place is still nice, big, spacious and well-maintained, does it make sense for us to sell BGV off now?

Can we ever find a place like BGV that we can call home? Our family, for one, won't.

Sales Committees - More to Come??

2007-07-18T11:57:00.000+08:00

(See below for an update on 19 July 2007)

Over Monday and Tuesday nights, most of us would have received the letter proposing "One to One Exchange" by Huttons Asia Pte Ltd (hand delivered and taking each unit's attendance). Huttons Asia is another real estate agent. They are different from CBRE. So what does this mean for us, the resident-owners of BGV?

Are there now two agents working for the one and same Sales Committee (SC)? Highly unlikely! Dear resident-owners of BGV, it looks like there are now two SCs and their respective agents for our estate. Not unlike what is happening in some other on-going enbloc estates, e.g. Watten Estate.

There is going to be a mad rush and fierce competition now between these two sales committees (SCs) and their respective property agents vying for our signatures on their CSAs. Especially so if both teams are trying to beat the clock before the government comes up with a new legislation regarding enblocs in the 3rd quarter. Be it the "Straight Cash" offer or the "One for One Exchange" offer, be it for or against the enbloc, we need to be very, very careful. We will need to hear and get all the information we need in order to make informed decisions about what is in our best interest - to sell or not to sell, to sign or not to sign.

Several (MESSY) scenarios can happen:

What if an owner signs both CSAs? Which CSA will apply, the earlier one or the later one? Bearing in mind that the CSA is a legally binding document, what will happen to the owner who signs on both CSA? What will be the legal consequences for the owner?

What if after an owner signs on one CSA and then realised that the other CSA is a better deal, can the owner back out of the one signed? Again because the CSA is a legally binding document, what will be the legal consequences for the owner for backing out of the "worse-off" CSA? What discourse is there for the owner?

Who can we trust - the SCs, the agents, the lawyers? NO ONE! We can only trust ourselves. At presentations and owners' meetings, SCs, agents and lawyers often tell the abridged version of what is included in the CSA. Often it is the UNSPOKEN that is more important. Unless you are a lawyer yourself, it is most difficult for laymen like us to fully understand the clauses in the CSA within a short period of time such as during the presentation, let alone to sign the CSA at the same time which often the SCs and agents will try their best to get you to sign as soon as possible!!! As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, ASK questions! DO NOT be pressured into signing anything even if you have the smallest of doubt. TAKE THE TIME to examine each clause carefully. You definitely do not want to realise, after signing the CSA, that you have just given up all of your rights to the SC and agent and lawyers to do what they like with your home. Afterall, this is OUR HOME, not theirs. We can only trust ourselves to look after our own interest, no one can do that for us and no one will do that for us.

If you survived the pestering at the presentation or owners' meeting and resisted the signing, do not rejoice too early. You may not be able to think in peace in the sanctuary of your home too. What is there to protect us from being badgered by both SCs where each SC will definitely be most competitive and aggressive to obtain the prerequisite 80% ahead of the other SC? As Dr Minority so candidly stated, "Imagine - Monday Huttons rings your bell, Tue CBRE rings your bell, Wed Huttons comes back to clarify some stuff CBRE might have said, Thu another party calls you to say that "the other party smokes pot", Fri both parties call you to say that "the competitor is in league with Voldemort, don't go near them". Sat you just want to cast the Cruciatus Curse on the SCs. Sun you plan to expelliarmus the annoying SC mugglies and boot them out of the estate." (Dr Minority, 19 July 2007)

Now that there are two SCs formed in our BGV. What is there to stop a 3rd SC or even a 4th SC from forming within our estate?? Can't the Management Coucil step in to regulate the situation before it turns totally ridiculous? We do NOT fancy having to "entertain" home visits and phone calls from the various SCs and agents after a long day at work. We have better things to do within our safe haven.

There are IMPLICATIONS for EVERYONE of us, both BEFORE and AFTER we sign. Thus , we urge all resident-owners to think very, very CAREFULLY.

We do find the whole situation getting absurd, especially now with a 2nd SC. As it is with the 1st SC, we found information lacking and not forth-coming.

As our blog states, we are only asking for transparency, equity and accountability from these people. But it seem we are not getting these simple things....

Huttons Asia will be holding a meeting this Friday 20 July, from 7pm to 10pm at the Function Room. Those of you have the time to attend, please look through the letter that was given to us and ASK QUESTIONS. We can only look after our own interest.

Here is the link to Dr Minority's latest post from which we cited his candid remark: http://enblocsingapore.blogspot.com/2007/07/worrying-trend-of-self-replicating.html

Once again, we acknowledge and thank Dr Minority for his help.

UPDATED 19 July 2007, 9:22pm

We have heard from some owners, who do not stay at BGV, that they did not receive the letter from Huttons because it was hand delivered. They were most unhappy about the situation. The SC and its agent, Huttons has neglected to take into account the owners who do not stay here at BGV. So NOT all owners are informed about the up-coming meeting this Friday 20 July, 7-10pm, which will affect every owner in one way or another. The choice to attend or not has been taken away from these owners. Equity?? As this goes to show, there is already A LACK OF EQUITY!

Another resident-owner has also reflected to us that when the Huttons people came round to deliver the letter, they did not even get the basic owner information correct for their particular unit. They had asked for another person who lives there but is NOT the owner at all! NOW this certainly makes us wonder where Huttons has gotten their name list from???

Conflict of Interest

2007-07-05T23:04:00.000+08:00

Most of us, the residents of BGV would have received a document dated 18 June on the Resolution Passed at the 22nd AGM.

Under 4.0 Election of Council Members, we would see a list of 7 members who were elected as members to the Management Council. If you look very carefully, you would see that one of the names has appeared in another letter (sent to us on 14 March 2007 by CBRE) as one of the members of the Protem Sales Committee. Do you see a problem here? Let us explain.

The Protem Sales Committee (PSC) of BGV has been formed - members were self-elected, already bringing into question how many of them are truly for the interest of all the residents of BGV, or only serving their self-interest - to sell off our BGV as quickly as possible (refer to CBRE letter dated 22 May 2007: their timeline reflected the urgency with which they are trying to get a sale for BGV as soon as possible!). The Management Council (MC) is formed to monitor the funds collected by the managing agent of the property, to engage the agent to make repairs, upgrades, maintenance of the property, on behalf of all owners.

Here lies the conflict of interest when a member of the MC is also a member of the PSC because the mandates of the MC and the PSC are totally different!

"The mandate of the MC is to maintain or update/upgrade the development whereas the mandate of the SC is to sell off the development in whatever condition it is in, as quickly as possible". (Dr. Minority, 5 January 2007)

There are a number of consequences: (we have reproduced what Dr. Minority has so aptly described)

Because the MC (who is in most cases effectively the SC) is in charge of the maintenance fund of the condominium, they have a say in whether to use it to maintain the property or even to upgrade/update it. But because they are the SC, there is no incentive to maintain, to paint the exteriors, to make repairs, when their primary purpose is to sell the place off. Why waste that money if the buildings are going to be torn down? Effect - the place gets run down.

Because the place gets run down, the SC will tell owners of the downsides if the sale does not go through - increasing maintenance funds required to upkeep the place (which if they had maintained in the first place, would not have been a major issue), place getting more decrepit driving rental and property value down.

Because the MC is typically the first group to become aware of en-bloc potential for the development, they typically freeze any repairs, maintenance etc to push owners into selling. So they know that once the 10 year age mark is reached for the property, they need only 80% agreement for the sale to go through. In effect, they stop the upkeep of the property except for the bare minimum (eg security, electricity, sports facilities). Forget painting the exterior or interior, forget updating or upgrading the place, even if the MC has the sinking fund to do so.

Therefore, we believe that any member of the PSC should not and cannot be a member of the MC to ensure there is NO conflict of interest and to ensure there is neutrality and fair play in the enbloc. As such, one member of the PSC in our BGV MC is already one too many!

PS. We would like to acknowledge the fact that our past MC has been doing a great job in the upkeep of our BGV estate. Thank you. We hope the new MC will continue to do so.

(Thanks to Dr Minority for allowing us to reproduce portions of his Myth #2 post)

$4000 at Eng Lok - What's Our Reserve Price?

2007-06-13T08:49:00.001+08:00

LianHeZaoBao on 12 June (Singapore News p5) reported on the Eng Lok Mansion redevelopment. They said the developers plan to build high end luxury boutique apartments. The article disclosed that each unit will be at least 2000 sq ft, of $4000 psf. Target buyers are overseas tycoons. Specifically, it would consist of 26 3-bed units (2000 sq ft), 14 4-bed units (2800 sq ft) and 6 penthouse units (6000 sq ft), along with an Olympic-sized pool.

$4000 psf.

If that's the case, and given that Eng Lok was one of the highest en-bloc sale of its time, what should our Reserve Price at BGV be?

(Updated with more information from the article)

The Question of Reserve Price

2007-06-05T23:42:00.000+08:00

It all boils down to this - the Reserve Price. What is the value of our home, and by this, we don't just mean the individual unit prices, but the land value. Taking advice from Dr Minority, I looked through the URA caveats lodged website (from his blog) and found that in the past year, only 2 units in BGV were sold.

The interesting thing was the price difference:-
Mar 2007 - $848psf
Apr 2007 - $1252psf

This represents a 47% increase in a month alone. Now some may say this is because the buyer in Apr 2007 was anticipating enbloc potential, so paid a premium for it (ie artificially inflated). So I looked at the various properties within 500m from BGV, a fair enough assumption given that land value will be pegged approximately to the prevailing market rates for units around the area. So that includes, Botanic Gardens Mansion, Grange Residences, Nassim Jade, Nassim Mansion, Nassim Park, St Martin Residences, Tanglin Residences, The Loft. The URA site gives prices for units sold from June 2006 to May 2007. Here are some numbers :-

The average psf for the proximity is $1649 (across the year, across all units)
Average for BG Mansion is $850 or $200 less than the average for BGV.
Most expensive estate is Grange Residences = Average of $1979psf
The average psf in the proximity has been increasing steadily from June 06 to May 07, about $70 per mth, from $1161 in 06/06 to $1998 in 05/07.
Eng Lok Mansion, the closest enbloc, was sold at $1218 psf ppr (Mar 2006). Next nearest are Leedon Heights ($1062 psf ppr), Beverly Mai ($1184 psf ppr). If you look further towards Grange Road, you'll get reserve prices at about $1700 psf (Grange Heights).

This is not counting the unique site of BGV being close to Botanic Gardens, which will attract a significant premium for any developer hoping to sell units redeveloped in BGV. And since we're talking about land value here, and not estate or unit value, the average pricing for these other nearby developments have to be taken into account, including new estates like Grange Residences.

What does all these mean?

To buy a replacement new unit in the same area would cost at least $1979psf (based on Grange Residences (GR) average) or ranging from $2091-$2237 psf from Apr 07 prices of GR alone. Given that GR is a few years old now, any developer can easily build and sell new units in BGV for more than $2300 psf. In other words, if we wish to stay in the same place again, near BGV, we're looking at about at least $2000-$2300 psf to buy a new condo unit.
In Nov 2006, Napier Properties said it plans to redevelop Eng Lok Mansion into a 10 storey, 46 unit high end condo, priced "at the top end of the Singapore luxury residential market and possibly a new benchmark". The price cited in Nov 2006 was high $2000 but given the bullish market, one can easily expect it to go up to $3000-$3500. That'll be our new luxury neighbour. We can expect that any developer that buys our estate will be using "Napier 8" (as it will be called) as a benchmark and will almost certainly develop high end luxury condos in BGV. Considering that nowadays developers are touting $4000 psf as the high end pricing for luxury condos, this is not unrealistic.
Will we be able to get an exchange unit in the new development? Not very likely, given the price difference between a new high end condo of about $3000-$3500 and the average of about $2300psf for the area. I think a major top up will be required, unless the developer decides not to build luxury condos (highly unlikely). It means we'll be hard pressed to get a similar unit in the same area, unless you move further westwards (towards Farrer/Holland) or towards River Valley or Bukit Timah.
So what should the reserve price be? If we work backwards from the figure of $3000-$3500 as a target price for developers to sell new units, and considering that developers typically factor in about 40-50% for costs and profit, a conservative reserve price would be about $2000-$2500 psf.

Are you happy with this RP? Almost certainly you won't be able to buy anything in the new BGV or Napier 8. You might be able to get something in Grange Residences with some topping up, but I've heard complaints about the structural quality of GR (you can hear neighbours from the thin walls).

Agents say you may not be able to afford new properties but there are plenty of slightly older properties nearby that are within reach. True, but how many years before those go enbloc?

I urge you to think carefully, before the agents do the song and dance and try to persuade you to sign the CSA...!

(Thanks to Dr Minority for helping with the numbers)

Why We call BGV Home

2007-05-25T21:10:00.000+08:00

What is a Home?

A place where one lives; a residence.
The physical structure within which one lives, such as a house or apartment.
A dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; a household.
An environment offering security and happiness.
A valued place regarded as a refuge or place of origin.

(Source: American Heritage Dictionary)

There are many reasons why we call BGV home:

For practical reasons:

It is freehold.
It is next to Botanic Gardens (less than 2-minutes' walk).
It is just next to Gleneagles Hospital (very convenient in case of emergencies and to access the medical care services provided at the medical centre).
There is easy access to public transport.
It is close to the city centre (a mere 20 mintues' slow stroll to Isetan Scott).
Yet, it is peaceful and quiet.
It is close to the different embassies and high commissions (American, Australian, British, Chinese, Japanese)
It is within close vicinity to schools (SCGS, SJI, ACS, Nanyang).
The estate was recently upgraded - new corridors, new stairs, lifts, the exteriors updated (not just paint but a subtle redesign).

For personal reasons:

It is our safe haven.
It is our place of security and happiness.
It is a place where our hearts and souls reside.
It is a place where memories are made and treasured.
We LOVE this place.

How can one place a monetary value on the above? Sure, the estate is over 30 years old, but anyone who comes by will not think it is so. Furthermore, the upgrade matches the environment and the nearby Gardens - shades of green, wood trimmings, attention to detail. There's not a lot in the way of facilities but that just means less maintenance for us residents. People keen to en-bloc cite urban renewal as a reason to 'rejuvenate' the land. Yet what is there to rejuvenate? There's nothing wrong with the very well-maintained estate. No, it isn't urban renewal that's the driving force for some people who wants to en-bloc. It's simply human greed.

What are your reasons for calling BGV home?

Comments

2007-05-23T22:27:00.001+08:00

Dear residents of Botanic Gardens View,

This blog has been created for all of you to express your opinions and comments on the enbloc process of BGV. Please feel free to express and share your opinions, comments, ideas, experiences, anything.