Count The Social Impact Of En Bloc Sales

Source : The Straits Times, 21st September 2007

Lydia Lim, Senior Political Correspondent

WHEN Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta rose to speak about en bloc sales yesterday, the sounds one heard were not of cash registers ringing but of hearts breaking and communities crumbling.

One of six MPs to join the debate on the Land Titles (Strata) Amendment Bill, she spoke of elderly folk forced to leave their homes of many decades, and of people separated from neighbours they counted on for companionship and support.

She raised a valid question: did these dislocations serve a larger good?

She compared the collective-sale phenomenon to the clearing of old kampung.

People could accept the sweeping away of those old social communities for the sake of progress and a better environment for all, she said.

But the current en bloc sale fever seemed largely fuelled by a small group's 'greed'.

'When communities of people who have lived in peace and harmony are destroyed, we are paying a very high price because it takes decades for such living organisms as communities to be formed,' she said.

She also pointed out the irony of having, on the one hand, community development councils to build social bonds, and on the other hand, allowing 'the fast destruction of communities without really valid reasons'.

Her fellow Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong provided a different perspective.

For now, the en bloc process seemed to be meeting its objective of urban rejuvenation, he said.

That was the conclusion he reached after looking at figures released earlier this week by Deputy Prime Minister and Law Minister S. Jayakumar, in reply to a question he had filed.

They showed that the average age of all developments which applied for collective sale between January 2005 and August 2007 was 25.9 years.

Still, Mr Siew called for the figure to be monitored.

Any dip in the average age might indicate that the collective sale process was being used, not for urban renewal, but for maximising economic gain, which might not be healthy, he said.

It was within this wider context that all six MPs welcomed the Bill, which was later passed by the House.

They said the changes it contained were long overdue and would inject much-needed transparency into the en bloc process and enhance safeguards for owners.

The Bill sets out new rules to govern the formation and proceedings of the collective sales committee.

These include a stipulation that committee members must declare their ties with any other interested party in the sale, such as a developer or marketing agent.

There are also new safeguards concerning the signing of the sales agreement, with owners now allowed to change their minds within a five-day cooling-off period.

But several of the MPs called for yet more safeguards, as well as special provisions for those forced to sell against their will.

Both Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) and Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC) asked that buyers of a site be required to offer such owners one-for-one replacement units in the new development.

In his reply, Professor Jayakumar said the law had to strike a balance between making the process more transparent and fair, and not making it unduly difficult for en bloc sales to go through.

He also assured MPs that his ministry would monitor the en bloc process to see how well the new law worked to minimise cases of harassment, unfairness and lack of transparency.

'If it's necessary to make further amendments, then we'll have no hesitation to do so,' he said.

One salient point that did not come up during yesterday's debate was the situation before the last round of amendments in 1999.

Then, en bloc sales could go through only if 100 per cent of owners agreed. It was a case of minority owners wielding excessive control over the process.

That was why the law was changed - after being referred to a Select Committee - to lower the threshold to the present 80 per cent for developments over 10 years old, and 90 per cent for those below.

In crafting these latest amendments, it seems the Law Ministry was right to strive for evenhandedness in balancing the interests of majority and minority owners, between those who want to reap the rewards of their financial investments and those who want to hold on to cherished memories and relationships.

But while the economic benefits of such sales are easily quantifiable, the intangible social costs are much less easy to measure.

Given growing public concern over the latter, the Government may want to consider investing resources in a fuller study of the social impact.

That might well have serious consequences for Singaporeans' sense of home.