Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, sans The Fourth Estate of Mass Media

Update 2: Get this ... it turns out that Obama is an acronym for Originally Born in Africa to Manage America!

"Born" is used under the purposive approach. Being mindful that we should NOT carry purposive interpretation too far, "born" should be technically "birthright" under the 1948 British Nationality Act and the 1963 Constitution of Kenya! http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

Update 1: On the right-hand column of this blog, read about the acronym "AIG" and what President Barack Obama said about AIG bonuses in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on 19 Mar 2009. Read it verbatim in this blog. Compare it with the following summarized version in The Straits Times (21 Mar 2009 edition): "Mr Obama reacted coolly when asked about the AIG controversy on the Jay Leno show, describing it as part of the culture of greed and entitlement on Wall Street that must be checked." After the comparison, I leave it to you to draw your own conclusion!
Why does en bloc law matter?

It matters ... in a civilised society (even if we do not have much of a civil society) ... in our system of parliamentary democracy with separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary ... more so in the face of our legacy of single-party parliamentary dominance (currently 82:2) ... especially when our elected representatives of the people are expected to uphold their parliamentary honour of "Dictum meum pactum" ("My word is my bond") ... particularly as we globally suffer today's consequences from yesterday's failure of checks-and-balances at multiple levels (ranging from the regulators to the regulated, from the industry to the market to the end-buyer).

What do others say???? The Intelligentsia/Academia. The Judiciary. The Civil Service. The Legislative. The Executive. The Industry Player (legal profession). What do they say? Let's read on ...
1. THE INTELLIGENTSIA/ACADEMIA. NUS Business School Associate Professor Ter Kah Leng published an article in the Mar 2008 edition of the Singapore Academy of Law Journal entitled "A man's home is [not] his castle - En bloc collective sales in Singapore":
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51582845/A-man-s-home-is-not-his-castle-En-bloc-collective-sales-in-Singapore-by-Assoc-Prof-Ter-Kah-Leng
In this insightful commentary, she listed the following as one of the implications of recent developments:

QUOTE [Capitalization emphasis is by The Pariah]:
136 The 2007 Amendments introduced more than 30 amendments after extensive industry and public consultation and feedback. While the 1999 Amendments facilitated en bloc sales, the recent amendments seek to regulate the market more and to “minimise complaints of harassment, unfairness and lack of transparency”. This was reiterated by the LAW MINISTER in the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill 2007 when he said that the NEW LAWS are intended to provide ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS RATHER THAN TO FACILITATE EN BLOC SALES. Recent HIGH COURT DECISIONS appear to be AT VARIANCE WITH THIS STATEMENT. WHILE PURPOSIVE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS THE PREFERRED MODERN APPROACH, IT IS TIMELY TO HEED JUDICIAL WARNINGS THAT THIS SHOULD NOT IGNORE THE SCOPE AND INTENT OF THE GOVERNING STATUTORY PROVISION NOR AMOUNT TO A JUDICIAL REWRITING OF LEGISLATION. PURPOSIVE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED TOO FAR.

2. THE JUDICIARY. High Court written judgement dated 3 Mar 2009 for the Regent Court en bloc case heard on 30 Oct 2008:

QUOTE [Capitalization emphasis is by The Pariah]:
21 At the Second Reading of the Bill containing the provisions for collective sales at Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (31 July 1998), vol 69 at cols 601-607, the Minister of State for Law said: "I had informed this House on 19th November last year that Government would be amending the law to make it easier for en-bloc sales to take place. The current position is that a single owner, for whatever reason, can oppose and thwart the sale. Government has received many appeals and feedback from frustrated owners whose desires to sell their flats or condominiums en-bloc have been so thwarted. As a result, these buildings cannot take advantage of enhanced plot ratios to realise their full development potential, which would have created many more housing units in PRIME 999-year leasehold or freehold AREAS FOR SINGAPOREANS. A SECONDARY BENEFIT is that these developments, especially the older ones, could have been REJUVENATED through the en-bloc process."

It was clear from this speech and others made in Parliament that the MAIN PURPOSE of the provisions relating to collective sale in the Act was to make it easier for collective sales to go through in order to promote BETTER UTILISATION of scarce land resources in Singapore and also URBAN REDEVELOPMENT.END QUOTE.

Ugh, since when did a "SECONDARY benefit of rejuvenation" propounded in Parliament become the "MAIN purpose of promoting better utilisation of land and urban redevelopment" in our hallowed halls of justice??? This is but one example of many preceding judgements. As the courts sombrely dish-out obiter dicta and set crushing precedents, the already uphill en bloc legal battles are made even more tortuous when the "purposive statutory interpretation" is "carried too far", as forewarned by Associate Professor Ter Kah Leng in the quote in para 1.

To me, this is evident when a "secondary benefit" becomes the "main purpose". The PRIMARY BENEFIT of "creating more housing units in prime areas for Singaporeans" is all but forgotten. Talk about selective amnesia!!! Nobody invokes this primary benefit of en bloc as part of the purposive approach. Why??? The authorities with whom I have engaged maintain a sheepish silence - probably too embarrassed and/or dumbstruck.

3. THE CIVIL SERVICE (URA/SLA). As mentioned in earlier blog entries, the statistics from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) published in Business Times (27 Mar 2008) showed the percentage of foreigners’ non-landed private residential purchases SHOT UP from 16% in 2000 to 29.1% in 2007 – more than 80% increase in 7 years!
Another chart showed that – within the same 2000-2007 time span – Singaporeans’ share of non-landed private residential purchases consistently DECLINED IN ALL GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS. In contrast, foreigners’ share DOUBLED OR TREBLED in the range of 114%-200%. If PRs are aggregated with foreigners, the NON-Singaporean share also increased substantially from 61% (Rest of Central Region) to 95% (Core Central Region). As the prime/popular residential districts are already built-up (except for the new residential enclaves in Marina Bay/Sentosa), this STATISTICAL PURCHASE DISPLACEMENT by foreigners is likely a direct consequence of en bloc sales facilitated by en bloc law. Whilst condo purchases by Singaporeans will likely exceed those by foreigners in the coming months as the economic picture becomes definitively grim, it would be more honest if the authorities could dissect the upcoming statistics more meaningfully to distinguish the new purchases by HDB upgraders from those by en bloc sellers.
These URA statistics from Year 2000 are very telling. Why? Because it was only in Oct 1999 that the Land Titles (Strata) Amendment Act introduced the concept of 80% (90%) Majority Consent where the private property rights of Minority Dissenters are abrogated by law. Thus, with this law, the Gahmen wedged its big foot into the natural interplay of market forces.
These statistics provide yet one more piece of damning evidence that the PRIMARY BENEFIT envisaged by our Legislators in pushing through this en bloc law (ie, "creating more housing units in PRIME AREAS FOR SINGAPOREANS") has totally flown out of the window! Indeed, more housing units have been created in PRIME AREAS - but for the FOREIGNERS! Even more ironically, it was AT THE EXPENSE OF SINGAPOREANS because the locals were already plonked in these prime areas before they were rudely yanked out a la en bloc! What else is new, eh?

In the midst of the 2006/07 frenzy, the media also went on an initial spin and hyped about "en bloc windfall" amidst yelps of mass hysteria "Wow, I bought my condo for $1mn and now I will be getting $2mn from en bloc, 100% profit, sell-sell" or "Cool, man, I get $1.5mn by selling my unit individually but I get $2mn by selling en bloc, $500k premium". When you bought a gold bar for US$10k and now you are getting US$20k whilst the bullion market is quoting US$30k, don't you think you'd look pretty silly even with your 100% profit?

Even as swathes of private residential properties went en bloc and as the Strata Titles Boards got buried under a growing mound of en bloc disputes, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) kept a deliberate silence and did NOT take a PROACTIVE STANCE to educate the public about land valuation methodologies (eg, Residual Land Valuation, Comparative New Unit Replacement Market Valuation, implications of Development Baseline computation, Outline Planning Permit findings, etc). For most owners who probably buy one or two condos in their entire lifetime, how many of us know there is such a thing called Residual Land Valuation?

The authorities' convenient silence probably dovetails with the national vision that the Re-making of Singapore would be completed in a decade or two, as expressed by MM Lee Kuan Yew during his visit to Mumbai (Straits Times, 31 Oct 2007).
Blog Amendment, 5 April 2009:Interestingly, in 2007, there was a little blurp about an en bloc sale in the Rangoon/Moulmein Road area involving 5 smallish condos (viz, Norfolk Court, Northern Mansion, Mergui Court, Mergui Lodge and The Mergui) that nearly unravelled because SLA whacked in an astronomical asking price for the 1000 sq m strip of road section that the Developer-buyer needed to buy from SLA to amalgamate the five en bloc plots into a single plot. SLA is not known to be frivolous in stating their opening price - very unlike opportunistic durian vendors, right? So the Developer-buyer then went into a tizzy to lobby and appeal to SLA. The appeal worked! SLA slashed the land premium by 50% from $16.74 mn to $8.37 mn! Even durian vendors don't give 50% discount unless they reckon that the fruit section they split for your inspection belies the duds in other compartments. Whether this is thorny or fishy, let's follow the press commentary trail ... and, assuming the press reports are accurate (since there is no subsequent correction, to my knowledge) you can then draw your own conclusion:
Straits Times, 22 Nov 2007: “... if the small pieces of state land in between are thrown in, the developer will have a site of 87,092 sq ft … in any case, three of the developments could not have otherwise been redeveloped on their own. ‘They need each other because there’s a 30m buffer requirement from the expressway,’ said Mrs Yong.” – Blog note: Mrs Yong is the en bloc marketing agent. SLA would have these land/planning facts at hand when they quoted their original asking price of $16.74 mn.
Straits Times, 5 Aug 2008: “… sources said that the deal hit problems when the firm tried to buy a 1,000 sq m section of a road from the SLA. … Industry sources told The Straits Times that the SLA had priced the land at $16mn – double what KSH and the industry experts expected. – Blog note: KSH is the Developer-buyer. This means that the Developer-buyer and industry expert (eg, the en bloc marketing agent) in making the en bloc offer to owners had priced the road section at $8mn. At $120mn en bloc price for the five pieces of condo land of 74,355 sq ft, it works out to be $1,614 psf. As the industry experts expected to pay half the SLA asking price for the 1,000 sq m (10,764 sq ft), that would mean the adjoining road section would be priced at $778 psf (48% of market rate).
Business Times, 30 Sep 2008: “KSH project manager ... said that SLA’s revised offer was more in line with the price ‘initially expected’. The buyers were caught off guard by the initial $16.74 million land premium. ... The SLA said that it had originally priced the land ‘similar to that offered by the developer to the existing land owners along Mergui Road’. However, on review, it noted the land had some development constraints and considered the revised price ‘in order to facilitate the development proposal’.” – Blog note: As stated above, SLA would have at hand all land/planning facts at the time of quoting the original asking price for road section. By selling state land at half the market price of the adjoining condo land, was it effectively giving a 50% discount? As the road section's sale proceeds go towards government coffers, is it in order for a state agency to do so "in order to facilitate the development proposal" of a commercial enterprise?

4. THE LEGISLATIVE. As amply quoted in paras 1 and 2 above, I will not repeat ad nauseum what was said in Parliament by (i) the then Minister of State for Law during the Second Reading of the Bill introducing Majority Consent under the en bloc law (1998) and (ii) the then Minister for Law during the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill reviewing various aspects of the en bloc process (2007). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to make the point that during the 1998 Second Reading , the words "for Singaporeans" were even repeated: first, in moving the Bill for the Reading (Hansard, vol 69 at cols 601-607) and second, in the reply after various MPs/NMPs voiced their concerns (Hansard, vol 69, cols 632-634). Alas, these words have since been forgotten ... or so it would appear ...
Interestingly - outside of the en bloc context - during the Feb 2009 Budget Debate for Ministry of National Development, NMP Eunice Olsen asked who we were building or creating this global city for. In Minister Mah Bow Tan's speech, he replied: "This is a very relevant question. We are striving to be a global city of distinction ... but above all, we want to build a city that ALL SINGAPOREANS CAN BE PROUD TO CALL HOME".

In the following para 5, we will see what Minister Mah means. After all, "home" in Leonie Hill is also "home" in Rivervale! You just go from Hill to Vale, from District 9 to District 19, from Orchard Road to Sengkang. What's the problem with you people, eh?

In the face of (a) the ferocity of the en bloc frenzy in 2006/07 which will likely repeat in the next wave, (b) the unrelenting zeal in purposive judicial approach, (c) the way the en bloc law remains - in my opinion - unjustly skewed for the last 10 years even after the last legislative review in 2007 and (d) the untenable en bloc business modality for extant home owners as a direct operation of such law, I honestly do NOT know what to make of MND's tag line of "ENDEARING HOME"! Every time I come across that tag line, it seems to mock at me! Endearing??? http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2008/08/greek-mythology-themis-and-source.html
5. THE EXECUTIVE. In the midst of the 2007 en bloc frenzy, the Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, was interviewed and he gave this off-the-cuff answer (Sunday Times, 17 Jun 2007): “If you can’t buy an executive flat, buy a 5-room. If you can’t afford central area, go to the suburbs. If you can’t afford Tampines, go to Woodlands or Yishun.”
Minister Mah then went on to spout: "The FUNDAMENTAL REASON behind an en bloc redevelopment is really to make sure that older parts of Singapore have a chance to be rejuvenated and redevelop themselves" and "if we don't have this, we are going to have a static situation where things are going to run down and there is no opportunity for PEOPLE TO NATURALLY REDEVELOP".
Huh??? The rejuvenation and redevelopment are "SECONDARY BENEFITS", if we still remember what Minister of State for Law said in Parliament in 1998? Now in 2007, the Minister for National Development says rejuvenation is the "FUNDAMENTAL REASON". "SECONDARY BENEFITS" now became "FUNDAMENTAL REASON"??? Pray, who are these "PEOPLE" that Minister Mah referred to within this context of REdevelopment? It is likely that he meant the Corporate Developers because the abovementioned statistics from URA (URA is under MND's umbrella) unequivocally confirmed that the percentage of Citizen Purchasers of condos declined whilst the Foreign Purchasers spiked AFTER the en bloc law was introduced. Errr ... I thought "people" should mean "citizens who voted for their Member of Parliament to represent them"?

Compounding it perhaps, this kind of ministerial doublespeak was dutifully parroted in press reports (instead of being intelligently correlated back to 1998 parliamentary speech and contextually queried in incisive journalistic tradition). Thus, it may have confused our Judiciary and may have misled them to stray so far out into the "purposive" zeal and thus misinterpret it as the "MAIN PURPOSE" of the law? Nah ... this cannot be because we do have the finest of pre-eminent minds honed to the highest degree in our Judiciary most certainly! Such ministerial doublespeak is not helpful, to say the least.
Perhaps - as in a drunken stupor or in a realm of the sub-conscience - what was said when drunk or when dreaming may be more reflective of the truth, you think??? What was said by Ministers and Ministers of State in Parliament in 1998. 1999 and 2007 were well-considered, prepared in advance and probably rehearsed. Whatever these parliamentarians said have all been (i) diametrically CONTRASTED by post-en bloc ground realities of being Squatters, Refugees, Downgraders and Downsizers (even for those "lucky" en bloc'cers who "SELL HIGH pre-2H 2007 and BUY LOW post-2H 2008"), (ii) duly NULLIFIED by official statistics and (iii) roundly CONTRADICTED by guttural press comments! So what are our parliamentarians and ministers doing about it??? Any accountability?

In view of the foregoing PROVEN predicaments, WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL MANDATORY OPTION OF 1-4-1 EXCHANGE - how can the parliamentarians HONOUR THEIR WORD when they passed the en bloc law in 1999, believing that it would result in the creation of "many more housing units in PRIME AREAS FOR SINGAPOREANS"? Pray ... tell me how??? Is their word their bond? We are a House of Cards (don't even breathe "A Man's Home Is His Castle")! How much longer do we have to wait since the law was first passed in 1999 and amended in 2007 before the Gahmen will "DO RIGHT" FOR SINGAPOREANS and apply the true spirit of TRI-PARTITISM in the Re-Making of Singapore (instead of the present business model where it is at the expense of existing owners who "SACRIFICE" their homes for the national agenda of urban redevelopment and higher land-use intensity)? En blocs must pull up EVERYBODY (NOT just selected people - ie, flippers and corporate developers). Surely, we must NOT leave our own people behind as we re-make Singapore?

6. ONE INDUSTRY PLAYER (legal profession). In this arena of en blocs, there are many industry players: Gahmen, Developer-buyers, property marketing agents, lawyers. Lawyer Philip Fong of Harry Elias Partnership verbalized the need for a Best Practices Code for En Bloc Sales during an interview with Channel News Asia sometime in May 2007. Whilst MinLaw appeared receptive to this idea at the time, nearly two years on ... nothing was codified. Whilst our society has rejected ambulance-chasing lawyers, we have opted to look the other way when "no sale, no fee" is the en bloc industry standard that bred a sub-species of die-die-must-sell lawyers! Bearing in mind the Torquevillean propensities, such Best Practices Code should not be limited to the "do's" but also include the "don'ts".

Another lawyer who specialises in en bloc sales, Dr S.K. Phang of Phang & Co, was quoted in Weekend Today (14 April 2007): "A bona fide home owner should be offered an exchange ...". Quite evidently, Developer-buyers have NO SENSE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY despite being accorded the PRIVILEGE of GAHMEN-PRIVATE SECTOR DIALOGUE AND CONSULTATION. This dialogue has resulted in a piece of en bloc legislation largely calibrated to facilitate corporate developers' exploitation of the law to its fullest potential - viz, unlocking the value of prime/popular residential land which would otherwise NOT be easily available for redevelopment, harvesting almost double/triple "net saleable area" and selling the doubled/tripled space inventory at nearly double/triple the en bloc psf purchase price. Numerous Minority Dissenters during en bloc sale process right up to mediation level at Strata Titles Boards' tribunals have asked (and pleaded) for 1-4-1 exchange on same-size, same-level, same-orientation basis - ALL TO NO AVAIL.
When the playing field is so GROSSLY UNLEVEL, without the protection of carefully calibrated laws and regulations, 1-4-1 exchange could be a minefield! One mis-step in the commercial negotiation could result in such contractual exchange blowing up in your face. En blocs cut across an array of expertise in law, finance, behavioural science, construction, urban planning, economics and commerce - do the authorities seriously expect residential property owners to have such expertise to effectively negotiate one-on-one with corporate developer-buyers when both the en bloc marketing agent and the en bloc lawyer operate under a "no sale, no fee" basis? Whilst Paterson Lodge offers one exemplary example of a 1-4-1 exchange, we should be mindful that the Paterson Lodge en bloc was based on 100% consent. If 100% consent was so reasonably achievable, then MinLaw wouldn't need to push so hard over 1.5 years to introduce the en bloc law, correct??? It is facetious for MinLaw to uphold Paterson Lodge as an example that 1-4-1 exchange would be best left to market forces, especially when LTSA directly impinged on market forces epitomized by 100% consent!
For most Singaporeans, a condo is the most SUBSTANTIVE asset in their investment portfolio and is INTEGRAL to their retirement financial planning. By choosing to buy a condo, they paid a huge PREMIUM (especially for freehold tenure and choice location in land-scarce and densely populated Singapore). These owners ploughed in substantial PRIVATE savings and provident funds (i) at a PRICE LEVEL, (ii) for a LOCATION and (iii) at a TIME that they consider APPROPRIATE TO THEM.
The en bloc law forces the Minority Dissenters to liquidate this substantive asset against their will at a price/time unacceptable to them which would NOT enable them to buy a replacement unit in the same vicinity. This liquidation is at the behest of 80% (90%) of their neighbours who want to exit from this asset class for up to 80 (90) reasons unique to each of them.

This enforced liquidation is even more dire for those who used their CPF provident funds and bought/refinanced their housing loan after Sep 2002 because CPF charge would be robotically 2nd-ranking for such cases. Under this 2nd ranking, any shortfall to the CPF principal withdrawn for such property purchase and/or CPF interest that would otherwise have accrued would NOT qualify as "Shortfall" to prevent redemption of CPF charge which is one of the few grounds enshrined in LTSA to defeat the en bloc sale (assuming that it is not "re-interpreted" under a purposive approach). I have suggested that for Minority Dissenters with 2nd ranking CPF charge, their CPF principal and accrued interest should be deemed as 1st ranking for purposes of computing "Shortfall" in an enforced en bloc sale. As asset disposal is NOT at will for Minority Dissenters, this "deeming as 1st charge" would lend credence to CPF Board's underpinning mission "to enable Singaporeans to have a secure retirement” without straying from the other cornerstone value of personal accountability for one's investment decision.
But then CPF Board probably wants to have its cake and eat it too! On the one hand, the CPF Board reckons that you are still NOT fit to manage your own provident savings even at age 65 (yeh, that's how old you must be before the Board would allow you to draw a monthly pittance from your annuity). On the other hand, the CPF Board does NOT see it fit to protect your provident savings despite knowing that such sale of a residential property asset bought with CPF funds was FORCED upon you as Minority Dissenter in an en bloc!
Sigh ... whilst some of us may go dotty from age 65, the CPF Board appears to have been acting daft at a tender age of 32 (CPF Board was born in 1955; with effect from 1 Jan 1987, Minimum Sum was introduced with drawdown set at age 60 which has since been pushed back to age 62 and then graduated from 2005 to a range of ages 63-65). Perhaps, the Board is not as daft because CPF withdrawal age is tied-up to larger national issues of exchange rate and monetary management when Singapore's current net CPF contributions morph into net CPF withdrawals within the next two decades!!! I reckon the Gahmen is probably telling us less than what they have already projected whilst they focus their zoom on future inflationary pressures and increased life expectancies and the blah. They tell you some BUT they don't tell you all!
In my efforts at active citizenry on this en bloc issue, I encounter a range of responses from well-meaning souls:

- why bother because whatever the public says will just go into the Big Black Hole;

- why would Gahmen care when it affects less than 12% Singaporeans even if ALL condos are en bloc'ced tomorrow (12% is an approximation after excluding (i) landed properties and (ii) condos owned by foreigners/PRs who have no voting power at General Elections);

- why would anyone care when they are (i) HDB public housing heartlanders, (ii) landed property owners, (iii) condo owners who were already en bloc'ced out in the 1999 and 2006/07 frenzies, (iv) condo owners who have already "escaped" en bloc (eg, after winning their en bloc legal battles, or failed to garner the Majority Consent tipping point, or failed to find Developer-buyer, etc) or (v) condo owners who are too new to be en bloc'ced (eg, Temporary Occupation Permit was issued within the last few years);

- why worry when the next en bloc frenzy probably will be 5-10 years after the 2007 peak (the lower range is estimated by the school of thought of "Third Millennium=Short Cycles"; the higher range is from the school of thought of "2009=1929 L-shape economic recovery");

- why fret now when the authorities are open to further review as they wait-and-see ... except that when the next frenzy does come, it will likely be fast and furious because that is the inherent nature of all frenzies and legislative responses are anything but fast! In a frenzy, there is usually more heat than light, man! In today's environment, all over the world - from the USA to China - captains of governments and industries are shifting gear to "Head in, Hands on" approach, no more the old school of "Hands off" approach ... Get it? Then get moving, man!
I do take their points. These well-meaning souls are just being pragmatic, realistic. For that matter, why would anyone care about a sterilization cash grant pegged to the mother's age/education level and the family size/household income because that too does NOT impact the majority of our population? Why would CPF 2nd ranking matter to me when it is not even relevant for my own case?
But to me, it matters! There is a thread common to all these - whether it is about en blocs, euthanasia, police powers, environment degradation, HDB public housing lift upgrading programme, healthcare policies, school admission criteria, barrier-free access building standards, and whatever else that may pop-up tomorrow.

If it matters only when it concerns you, then very little would matter if you were Bill Gates or Jigme Khesar Namgyel! Then, we would all be the poorer for it even if we are the most wealthy nation one degree north of the Equator!

Yes We Can Too!

From adversity, comes opportunity – an opportunity to “do right” by the people, to re-balance. Here's a 9-part sojourn to reflect and inflect ...

1. TEASER: What is the point of Urban Renewal?
2. MOCKTAIL (non-alcoholic cocktail): Have we left our people behind?
3. APPETIZER: How to bring our people along in Singapore’s Re-Making?
4. NUGGET: Why en bloc law was (and still is) needed?
5. POSERS: What is today? What will be likely tomorrow?
6. DIGESTIVE: Why skew the law?
7. PURGATIVE: A sense of déjà vue!
8. NUTTY PEANUTS: Myths debunked!
9. CROWN JEWEL: 80% to en bloc The Istana?

Seized by the tumultuous collapses of this period – from East to West, spanning the spectrum from communist regime to celebratory capitalism …

– China is ramping up Social Welfare to assure her people of national safety nets in order to boost domestic consumption;

– the United States of America is re-inventing herself towards Activist Government to reverse the flow of “trickle down” to “trickle up” effects in order to make the rich contribute more to society and thus build-up the middle class.

From the footpaths in rural China ... to the supermarket alleys in Germany ... to Main Street in the US with much less buzz these days, there is a distinct dissonance with the past excesses leading to the present mess! Dismay when a surgeon refused to operate unless the fees are paid upfront. Disbelief when a cashier was sacked over a 1 euro refund coupon in stark contrast to CEOs who flew in on private jets to ask for hand-outs. Disgust when the board of directors approved executive bonus pay-out even as the company crumbled. Distrust when those who are supposed to govern, regulate and/or protect chose to break faith with the People and instead crossed over to join hands with the Corporates in the name of "Progressive Corporatism".


In the midst of this generational wave change, where does Singapore stand? “Social welfare” is unspeakable? “Activist Government” is unthinkable? “Trickle up” is untimely? Where do we re-balance ourselves (if at all)?

En blocs have a significant wealth effect on private residential owners who are (or were?) largely middle to upper-middle income Singaporeans (other than at the super-luxury condo category which is dominated by foreigners anyway). So???

At the 20 Sep 2007 parliamentary debate of the en bloc law, the then Minister for Law, Prof S Jayakumar put on record in his closing remarks that "the position I take is that this is an ongoing process ... my ministry, together with the other agencies, will monitor very closely the operation of these new provisions ... but if it is necessary to make further amendments, then we have no hesitation to do so".

"Change" is possible??? Will Singaporeans say "Yes We Can Too"???

1. TEASER: What is the point of Urban Renewal?

In this new year of 2009, I would like to re-frame the question to ask: “What is the point of our Singapore laws to facilitate the national agenda of urban renewal and higher land-use intensity?”

Just so as to have a brand new, gleaming all-glass 36-storey apartment block on Holland Road (instead of a 15-storey block that grossly under-utilized the existing plot ratio)???

What is the point of having shiny new buildings if we don’t BRING OUR PEOPLE ALONG WITH US in our quest of Re-making Singapore???

A country is NOT made up of a collection of swanky buildings but of the citizens who live, breathe and dream in these buildings (even as we are labelled as “lesser mortals” at best and ungrateful domestic riff-raff at worst).

More elaboration is in my blog entry dated 9 Feb 2009 entitled “Purpose of ‘purposive’ – Gillman Heights verdict”. http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2009/02/purpose-of-purposive.html

2. MOCKTAIL: Have we left our people behind?

We are NOT bringing our people along with us in this quest of Re-making Singapore - NOT on this Trojan Horse of en blocs! Words and numbers say it all.

2.1 Words from the horse’s mouth – When interviewed about en bloc sales, Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, was quoted in Sunday Times of 17 Jun 2007: “If you can’t buy an executive flat, buy a 5-room. If you can’t afford central area, go to the suburbs. If you can’t afford Tampines, go to Woodlands or Yishun.” (please refer to my blog entry dated 29 May 2007 entitled “In between … evolving a ‘Bagel Class’ of Singaporeans”). http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2007/05/in-between-evolving-bagel-class-of.html

In the same vein about land use/supply forces that drive en bloc law: Three years ago, Minister for Health, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, first mooted the idea of retirement villages in Johor, Batam and Bintan (Channel News Asia, 17 Apr 2006). Recently, The Straits Times and Today newspapers reported on 10 Feb 2009 that Minister Khaw visited a Johor Bahru site with an investor-developer who is planning to build a nursing home there for elderly Singaporeans. Reason: Land and labour are cheaper across the Causeway. Amidst the public hue and cry that followed, replete with comic spoof and many who froth and foam about the raison d'être of our Health Ministry, these were my wry observations:

– We sent our kids to Western universities and they will send us to JB nursing homes!

– In JB: Nurseries for our babies; nursing homes for our oldies! Because looking after babies and oldies are equally time- and labour-intensive. Kids need lots of space to run around. Exponentially growing number of chronic oldies take up precious space in land-scarce Singapore.

Have we forgotten our people, the human touch, the essence of public service? It would cleanse our hearts and minds to heed the words of Mr Barack Hussein Obama who addressed his White House staff and Cabinet on the next day after his 20 Jan 2009 inauguration as the 44th President of the United States of America: “We are here as public servants, and public service is a privilege. It’s not about advancing yourself or your corporate clients.” Hear, hear!

2.2 Numbers from the stables – The stables of “URA/Jones Lang LaSalle Research” provided the statistics that were reported in Business Times on 27 Mar 2008, nine months after the words from the horse’s mouth. Sadly, these statistics confirmed my projection of a Bagel Class of Singaporeans (please refer to my blog entries dated 29 May 2007 entitled “In between … evolving a Bagel Class of Singaporeans” and reiterated on 7 Aug 2008 entitled “So what’s the alternative in the END”).

Yeeha … I blogged about this Bagel Class projection in May 2007, a fortnight before hearing the words from the horse’s mouth in Jun 2007! I betted on the wrong horse, eh? The numbers are STARTLING - just over a 7-year time span!!!

One URA chart in the Business Times showed the percentage of foreigners’ non-landed private residential purchases went up from 16% in 2000 to 29.1% in 2007 – more than 80% increase in 7 years!

Another URA chart in the Business Times showed that – within the same 2000-2007 time span – Singaporeans’ share of non-landed private residential purchases consistently DECLINED IN ALL GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS. In contrast, foreigners’ share DOUBLED OR TREBLED in the range of 114%-200%. If PRs are aggregated with foreigners, the NON-Singaporean share also increased substantially from 61% to 95%.

Whoa ... these 2008 statistics NULLIFIED what was said nearly a decade ago in 1999 by the then Minister of State for Law, Ass Prof Ho Peng Kee, when he moved the Second Reading of the en bloc law in Parliament about creating “MANY MORE HOUSING UNITS IN PRIME 999-YEAR LEASEHOLD OR FREEHOLD AREAS FOR SINGAPOREANS”. [Capitalization emphasis is by The Pariah.] Looks like the additional housing units, especially in prime areas, went to the FOREIGNERS! Did the horse bolt from the barn and then got lost in the prime areas?

3. APPETIZER: How to bring our people along in Singapore's Re-making?

In my earlier blog entries, I have whined and harped ad nauseum about bringing our people along in the Re-making of Singapore. How? By adding one more settlement option for en bloc sales, viz, 1-4-1 exchange.

Hence, as early as 1 Mar 2007 (two days before the then Minister for Law, Prof S Jayakumar’s parliamentary speech was reported in the press about upcoming legislative review of the Land Titles (Strata) Act), I submitted a paper to the then Law Reform and Revision Division of the Attorney General’s Chambers on this principle of equity in offering “exchange” option to owners ensnared in en bloc sales. My first “exchange” blog entry was on 26 Mar 2007, as further refined with the passage of time and repeated in numerous subsequent blog entries in Apr, Nov, Dec 2007 and culminating in my last National Day blog entry of 7 Aug 2008. http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2008/08/so-whats-alternative-in-end.html

In fact, my proposed solution is more than 1-4-1 exchange. It encompasses about a HOLISTIC APPROACH to "manage" the en bloc beast instead of letting the crazed bull run helter-skelter in an en bloc frenzy. How?

One suggestion: By developing an en bloc quota system by (a) geographic regions, (b) estate type and (c) estate age - in much the same way that Singapore "manages" (i) land allocation for our transportation network on one level (roads, rail tracks, cycle paths, walkways) and (ii) time/distance demand by different vehicles on our road network on another level (Certificate of Entitlements, Electronic Road Pricing).

From a macro-economic perspective, an en bloc quota system would also be healthy to minimize asset bubbles and regulate redevelopment land reserves. Lessons that should have been learned from the 2006-07 en bloc frenzy that created the TRIPLE WHAMMY EFFECT: (1) supply contraction with demolition of estates sold en bloc, (2) immediately matching demand spike for replacement units (both purchase/rental) and (3) increased competition for construction resources/labour, thus fuelling price spirals on ALL fronts. Various government agencies were caught on their back foot, scrambling for sand, granite chips, foreign workers and housing for these workers that in turn spun-off into another barrage of complaints about increased sleaze in residential areas and new dumps in countryside areas.

Greater diversity in urban landscape and architectural legacy would result from en bloc quotas because redevelopment land would be made available at different points in time to capitalize on evolving building technologies/efficiencies and new design trends. As it is, the whole stretch of condos along Paterson Road will have the sameness of all-glass facades with disproportionate emphasis on bay windows, planter boxes and balconies brazenly exploited under the building regulations prevailing at that time.

Another suggestion: By calibrating incentives for plot amalgamation to create the spatial vista for better light and improved ventilation and also minimise the wastage of set-back boundaries in-between many small land plots where the apartment blocks jostle neck-by-jowl with each other (eg, with sub-tiered Development Charges for different ranges of land plot sizes).

Just as the legislative review was being prepped for parliamentary debate in Sep 2007, I specifically pointed the Ministry of Law official in late Aug 2007 to South Korea’s urban renewal model of “Hapdong Re-development” that mandates 1-4-1 exchange.
[Interesting trivia: The etymology of “Hapdong” in the Korean Hangul language traces back to its roots of the Chinese word for “Cooperation”.] To me, the South Korean urban renewal model is more neo-communitarian in approach. Isn't time to curb the Excesses, the Unsustainability, the Imbalance? Isn't it time to "manage" en bloc urban renewal?

4. NUGGET: Why en bloc law was (and still is) needed?

The introduction of the concept of “majority consent” to sell other people’s homes was seminal in abrogating private property rights of Minority Dissenters. It was NOT introduced lightly – it went through Select Committee review and parliamentary debates. It took more than a year before it became law. However, in my opinion, the law regrettably carried (and still carries) too light a touch – having interfered with market forces by introducing legislation that effectively wedged a big foot into other people’s main door, you don’t just lightly dip your finger of law in the pie and blithely shrug: “C’est la vie – let’s leave it to market forces”. as said in many more words and different ways during the Sep 2007 parliamentary review of the Land Titles (Strata) Act and in the responses to the May 2007 Public Consultation exercise.

Now, let’s go back in time ... back to a decade ago.

At the Second Reading of the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill in 1999, the then Minister of State for Law, Ass Prof Ho Peng Kee, said: “The current position is that a single owner, for whatever reason, can oppose and thwart the [collective] sale. ... As a result, these buildings cannot take advantage of enhanced plot ratios to realise their full development potential, which would have CREATED MANY MORE HOUSING UNITS IN PRIME 999-YEAR LEASEHOLD OR FREEHOLD AREAS FOR SINGAPOREANS. A secondary benefit is that these developments, especially THE OLDER ONES COULD HAVE BEEN REJUVENATED through the en-bloc process.” [Capitalization emphasis is by The Pariah.] NOTE: This 1999 parliamentary promise of “for Singaporeans” has been embarrassingly nullified by ministerial comment in 2007 and housing statistics in 2008, as substantiated in the above blog entry entitled "MOCKTAIL: Have we left our people behind?"!

At the Third Reading of the Bill, the then Minister for Law, Prof S Jayakumar, in discussing the change to include (instead of exclude) small strata title developments (ie, 10 units or less) into the fold of en bloc law reeled off these cogent statistics: “Many of these developments which have 10 or fewer units are old or have large areas which are underutilised, thus rendering them suitable for redevelopment. In fact, as at September 1998, developments with 10 or fewer units account for NEARLY HALF OF ALL STRATA DEVELOPMENTS in Singapore. Of the 2,272 strata developments which are freehold or close to 999 years, 47% are developments with 10 or fewer units. These developments ACCOUNT FOR 7% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS and ABOUT 80 HECTARES (10%) OF THE LAND AREA. Requiring unanimous decision will frustrate en-bloc redevelopment of these developments.” [Capitalization emphasis is by The Pariah.]

Sobering statistics, indeed! If we were to cast the net wider in 1998 to ALL strata title developments (ie, those larger than 10 units and/or those of 99-year leasehold) that have NOT fully utilized the plot ratio, we can understand and accept (even though some will still disagree with) the need for en bloc law in teeny Singapore from a national perspective.

5. POSERS: What is today? What will be likely tomorrow?

What I have cited in the above blog entry entitled “NUGGET: Why en bloc law was (and still is) needed?” was in 1998. With the en bloc frenzy in 2006-7, large swathes have since gone en bloc. Coming to the 10th anniversary, it would be timely to get a statistical update in 2009 of what’s left standing (viz, ALL strata title developments that have NOT fully utilized current plot ratios).

On top of that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, more statistics are needed and more questions need to be asked. With the law’s unyielding purposiveness and the two rounds of market frenzies in 1999 (39 sites of $2.5bn en bloc value) and 2006-07 (188 sites of $21.5bn en bloc value), have we achieved our national agenda of HIGHER LAND-USE INTENSITY now that the STATISTICS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WE HAVE INDEED WILLY-NILLY LEFT OUR OWN PEOPLE BEHIND??? Example: Based on the 2006-07 en bloc frenzy with lag effects of completion into 2009, from 1 Jan 2006 up to a cut-off date (say, 1 Jul 2009):

(a) What is the number of estates that were (i) issued with Strata Titles Boards’ collective sale orders and/or (ii) registered with Singapore Land Authority for collective sale?

(b) Based on (a), what are the estate numbers by en bloc age-bands after taking away the youngest 10% and the oldest 10% of such estates?

(c) What is the aggregate number of units that (i) have been or (ii) will be demolished after sale?

(d) What is the aggregate strata title area that (i) have been or (ii) will be demolished after sale?

(e) Out of (c)(i) - Regardless of application/construction/completion stage, what is the aggregate number of units that (i) have been or (ii) will likely be made available upon redevelopment? [Also, what are the aggregate number of sites and aggregate number of old units where demolition has been completed but there are no plans to redevelop (ie, vacant land will be held in developer-buyer’s land bank)?]

(f) Out of (d)(i) - Regardless of application/construction/completion stage, what is the aggregate strata title area that (i) have been or (ii) will likely be made available upon redevelopment?

(g) Out of (d)(i) - Regardless of application/construction/completion stage, what is the aggregate net saleable area that (i) have been or (ii) will likely be made available upon redevelopment?

(h) Could land-use intensity be even higher and at the same time improving spatial, light and ventilation factors if more thought and calibration went into “managing” this once-in-a-long-while Singapore Make-over opportunity? How? Perhaps, by incentivising plot amalgamations and thus avoid an explosion of cheek-by-jowl redevelopments with wastage of peripheral set-back boundaries?

(i) Could asset bubbles in property market be minimized if more imagination and creativity were injected into “managing” the triple-whammy impact of en blocs (viz, sudden contraction of housing supply with immediately matching spike in housing demand, exacerbated by keener competition for construction resources with consequent price spiral on all fronts)? How? Maybe, by taking a leaf from “management of road usage through COE (Certificate of Entitlement) quotas and bids” and introducing equivalent en bloc quota/bidding by geographic region and housing type? Minimizing asset bubbles would entail some back-tracking from pro-cyclical government policies to date in the push towards a World Class Global City!

Sorry if I'm giving some government agency a Bad Hair Day!!!

6. DIGESTIVE: Why skew the law?

Despite understanding and agreeing (YES, "agreeing"!!!) with why en bloc law was (and still is) needed, my resentment simmers over the light touch of the finger of law in the pie AFTER the Gahmen interfered with market forces by introducing legislation that effectively wedged a big foot into other people’s main door. And I remain perturbed about the way the present law continues to be skewed AGAINST owners (except en bloc flippers). Otherwise, how else could the Gahmen ensure that built-up prime/popular residential land would be easily available for RE-development through the incidental interplay of market forces? How else could corporate developers be highly successful predators of such choice bites?

Most of us were (and some are still) barking up the wrong tree … cursing our neighbours, condemning the Sale Committee members, shouting at marketing agents, sneering at lawyers, smearing corporate developer-buyers, some even resorting to criminal acts! Sure, these people are not totally blameless. Naturally, behavioural science and econophysics came into play! But the source (and therefore underlying primary cause) of en bloc disputes is the Almighty Law itself! The disputes are merely the symptons and side effects. That was why I sliced-and-diced-and-spliced the en bloc legalese in my last National Day’s blog entry of 6 Aug 2008 entitled “Greek mythodology: The SOURCE and Themis”. http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2008/08/so-whats-alternative-in-end.html

I don’t know about the Law gazing “on the horse as it does the horseman”, as Justice Choo Han Teck said in his first Horizon Towers en bloc judgement when he threw the case back to Strata Titles Boards for yet another round. But there is something Trojan about this horse because reality stares us in the face (not just gazing!) – the number of en bloc battle wins by desperate yet determined Minority Dissenters could be counted on less than five fingers of one hand! This is despite the phenomenon of everybody suing every one – Minority sues Majority, and vice versa. Developer-buyer sues some Majority or threatens to sue all Majority. Majority sues Developer-buyer. Majority even challenged the Strata Titles Boards!

When Singaporeans who, by-and-large are not particularly litigious as a people, start suing each other – left, right and centre – it is yet one more litmus indicator that something is fundamentally out-of-sync at its core! Since the source can be traced back to the Almighty Law itself, then it follows to a logical point that the law is at the core of this hullabaloo.

Hey, when you are promised Utopia during en bloc and end up in Ethiopia after en bloc – what do you expect??? When you realize that en bloc "windfall” is "shortfall” hype – what then? When it is at “double the price; half the size; quarter the value” post-en bloc, how does it all add-up? This topic was delved into in my last National Day blog entry dated 6 Aug 2008 entitled “IN-BETWEEN: Why en blocs are NOT right for Majority Consenters nor Minority Dissenters?” http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2008/08/en-bloc-why-it-is-not-right-for.html