Another Resident Speaks Out

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: -

1. there was no proper survey to show whether even more than 50% owners wish to embark on the enbloc exercise?
2. there was no general meeting called to properly initiate a sales committee?
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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:-

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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%?
5. 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.

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

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

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:

1. 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.
   


2. 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.


3. 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.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic gardens mansion, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, singapore

Owners Meeting (again) this Saturday 3pm

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:

1. The Horizon Tower Case - What went wrong?


2. Understanding the Strata Title Board Application and avoiding its pitfalls?


3. 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:

1. 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?
   


2. 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?
   


3. 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?
   

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

Nearby Replacement Unit Values

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.

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

Letter to All Owners of BGV - 30 Aug 2007

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:

1. 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.



2. 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)
   



3. 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.



4. 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.



5. 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.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, botanic gardens en bloc, botanic garden en bloc, collective sale, property, enbloc sale, enbloc, en-bloc sale, en-bloc, en bloc, collective sales

The New Law, the CSA and You

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.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale, collective sales

Beware of Tsunamis and Hurricanes!

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.)

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic garden view, botanic gardens, botanical gardens, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, real estate, singapore