SGHOUSING.COM 新加坡房地产网

Two parties I knew bought into a Katong condominium for different reasons. One, a bachelor who never lived there, collected a windfall he had anticipated on an en bloc sale. The other, a couple, had spent heavily on doing up a dream home that they had not sufficiently enjoyed. Had they objected to the en bloc sale, they would likely be in a minority derided for a foolish sentimentality. Before 1999, an en bloc proposal required 100-per-cent agreement among the owners. Technically, the old lady who preferred the familiarity of her environment or wanted to live near her relatives could prevent her neighbours from becoming millionaires. The law was amended to allow an 80-per-cent majority to decide the fate of the minority.

What rights, then, do the minority have but the opportunity to cast a dissenting vote?

Is majority rule a fair yardstick when it can literally push someone out of their home, albeit under what most people would deem propitious circumstances?

Many societies thrive on the making of decisions that benefit the majority, from electing a government to small group commitments as personal as deciding on a venue for dinner. Without this mechanism, life may come to a standstill or there may be chaos. The question is whether this seemingly “as fair as it can get” principle should be applied to every situation.

All arguments distilled, it comes down to deciding whether the minority in a situation like this deserves protection.

In the wider context of a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society like Singapore’s, it is easy to understand the importance of upholding minority rights.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently assured minority communities that they will have the space to keep their heritage alive and not feel pressured by the dominating community.

In fact, a hallmark of Singaporean success lies in the acceptance, tolerance and promotion of diversity.

However, less visible is the recognition — or non-recognition — of the minority rights of communities defined by different factors, whether social, physical or sexual. Examples are the physically disadvantaged and working mothers.

Dissenting property owners to an en bloc proposal form an even more ambiguous segment.

For many people, buying a home is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. It would, therefore, be callous to consider an en bloc proposal solely as a matter of the mind and nothing of the heart, toting up the numbers on the profit to be gained.

The couple I mentioned were far from thrilled with the little profit they may make. Unlike the bachelor, they did not have the luxury of time to wait for the next trough before buying a replacement home.

Hence, this minority deserves some measure of consideration, if not protection. For example, ensure a minimum age of the property before it can be eligible for en bloc sale, so that prospective buyers, whether speculators or residential owners, are not blind to its possibilities. Another option is to allow a minimum dwelling period for any owner.

Fundamental to the issue of minority rights must be the respect of individual freedom that does not become criminal or result in others being disadvantaged as a consequence.

In an en bloc proposal, it is a moot point whether pecuniary benefits outweigh emotional considerations. If it is as clear-cut as deemed by many people, why peg approval to a 80-per-cent majority? Would not a simple majority, even if it is by one, have been sufficient?

Buyers of a strata development would have been spared all that angst if, on day one, they are made aware of an en bloc contingency by majority rule.

It is another matter, then, if you ask what price a place you call home, if you have to live with that uncertainty?

Source : Today - 8 Jun 2007