Business Times - 23 Apr 2010
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
MinLaw's response on MC, SC not satisfactory for owners
I REFER to the response of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) titled 'Residents have power to deal with MC members' (BT, April 21) to a letter by Florence Tan titled 'Keep members of MC, sales committee distinct' (BT, April 15) .
First, it is surprising that MinLaw should state that 'if residents are unhappy with the performance of council members, they can consider removing the council members concerned by way of an ordinary resolution at a general meeting on grounds of neglect of duty'.
My understanding has always been that only unit-owners, or 'subsidiary proprietors' (SPs), and not 'residents', have that power, although they may of course delegate such authority to their duly appointed proxies at general meetings.
MinLaw's hypothesis that 'separate members for the MC (management committee) and SC (sales committee) may not be very practical for smaller estates if insufficient persons come forward to form two separate committees' also seems arbitrary, as it fails to give any guide as to where the dividing line between 'smaller' and 'bigger' estates is.
According to our estate's experience, just one person is sufficient to act as MC of an estate, while three are required to set up a Collective Sale Committee. Does MinLaw contend these small numbers cannot be met even in the smallest estates?
Also, apparently, there is no provision in the present rules to compel Collective Sale Committees to provide periodical 'progress reports' (even if nil) to be made known to affected owners. Why not, when millions of dollars could be involved?
Against such a background, Ms Tan's reservations on the propriety of a perceptible conflict of interest between MCs and Sales Committees would seem valid enough.
MinLaw's easy dismissal of the issue is unlikely to satisfy owners who are opposed to the sale of their homes.
Narayana Narayana
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment