Coming EOGM and BGV AGM

Dear fellow owners and residents,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

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

Before the EOGM...

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

1. 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.
   


2. 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.
   


3. 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.
   


4. 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.
   


5. 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?
   


6. 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.
   


7. 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

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

Things to CONSIDER before the EOGM

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.

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


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


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


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


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


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


7. 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.

Tags: Botanic Gardens, Botanic Gardens Mansion, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore Botanic Gardens, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, condo, condominium, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, real estate, singapore