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.
Showing posts with label BT Letter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BT Letter. Show all posts
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
BT Letters : Residents have power to deal with MC members
Business Times - 21 Apr 2010
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Residents have power to deal with MC members
MS Florence Tan ('Keep members of MC, sales committee distinct', BT, April 15) suggests that members of management committees (MC) be distinct from members of en bloc sale committees (SC).
Ms Tan is of the view that there will be a conflict of interest when members of the MC, whose main role is to oversee maintenance of the estate, are also tasked with the responsibility for an en bloc sale.
Separating the members of an MC and SC may not be very practical for smaller estates if insufficient persons come forward to form two separate committees. The Land Titles (Strata) Act allows owners to elect who they feel are best suited to represent their interests into the SC. The Act also allows owners to remove any SC member or even the entire SC if they are of the opinion that they are not discharging their duties in a fitting manner.
Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the MC is duty-bound to ensure the estate is well maintained and kept in a state of good and serviceable repair. Should the MC fail to perform its duties as imposed by law, residents can seek redress through the Strata Titles Board or the Court to compel the MC to perform its duties. 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.
Thus, it is entirely within the powers of the majority of the residents to deal with errant MC members.
Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Head, corporate communications Ministry of Law
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Residents have power to deal with MC members
MS Florence Tan ('Keep members of MC, sales committee distinct', BT, April 15) suggests that members of management committees (MC) be distinct from members of en bloc sale committees (SC).
Ms Tan is of the view that there will be a conflict of interest when members of the MC, whose main role is to oversee maintenance of the estate, are also tasked with the responsibility for an en bloc sale.
Separating the members of an MC and SC may not be very practical for smaller estates if insufficient persons come forward to form two separate committees. The Land Titles (Strata) Act allows owners to elect who they feel are best suited to represent their interests into the SC. The Act also allows owners to remove any SC member or even the entire SC if they are of the opinion that they are not discharging their duties in a fitting manner.
Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the MC is duty-bound to ensure the estate is well maintained and kept in a state of good and serviceable repair. Should the MC fail to perform its duties as imposed by law, residents can seek redress through the Strata Titles Board or the Court to compel the MC to perform its duties. 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.
Thus, it is entirely within the powers of the majority of the residents to deal with errant MC members.
Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Head, corporate communications Ministry of Law
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 16, 2010
BT Letter : Keep members of MC, sales committee distinct
Business Times - 15 Apr 2010
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Keep members of MC, sales committee distinct
AS en bloc sales fever is revived, it is important for the government to take note that, often, members of the management corporation or council (MC) are the same people as those sitting on the sales committee set up for selling the property . This presents potential conflict of interest and leads to malpractices.
When the MC, whose main roles are to oversee maintenance is tasked with the responsibility for collective sale, there would be obvious an conflict of interest simply because they are not in neutral positions; they have the power to make decisions on maintenance matters that influence en bloc sales.
A case in point is a condominium where the MC, in pushing for an en bloc sale, has openly said that non-maintenance is a tactic to make owners fed up of their run-down properties so that they would want to sell.
The MC also said that money should not be wasted on estate planning when an en bloc sale is in prospect. As a result, the estate's conditions, amenities and facilities have so deteriorated that they are posing safety and health hazards to residents.
As en bloc sale procedures can take years, maintenance of estates need to be continued at a reasonable level. Hence, it is important that management of maintenance issues be separated from en bloc issues and that members of the respective committees be also distinct.
Florence Tan
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
__._,_.___
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Keep members of MC, sales committee distinct
AS en bloc sales fever is revived, it is important for the government to take note that, often, members of the management corporation or council (MC) are the same people as those sitting on the sales committee set up for selling the property . This presents potential conflict of interest and leads to malpractices.
When the MC, whose main roles are to oversee maintenance is tasked with the responsibility for collective sale, there would be obvious an conflict of interest simply because they are not in neutral positions; they have the power to make decisions on maintenance matters that influence en bloc sales.
A case in point is a condominium where the MC, in pushing for an en bloc sale, has openly said that non-maintenance is a tactic to make owners fed up of their run-down properties so that they would want to sell.
The MC also said that money should not be wasted on estate planning when an en bloc sale is in prospect. As a result, the estate's conditions, amenities and facilities have so deteriorated that they are posing safety and health hazards to residents.
As en bloc sale procedures can take years, maintenance of estates need to be continued at a reasonable level. Hence, it is important that management of maintenance issues be separated from en bloc issues and that members of the respective committees be also distinct.
Florence Tan
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
__._,_.___
Friday, April 9, 2010
BT : Don't pamper spoilt property buyers
Business Times - 07 Apr 2010
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Don't pamper spoilt property buyers
I REFER to the commentary 'Public + private=property prices' (BT, April 3-4).
I would like to make two points on the writer's view that if private property prices go up, public flat prices will have to follow and hence intervention is needed.
1. Resale mass market condos are still affordable: First of all, mass market private property prices in Singapore over the past decade have hardly kept pace with even economic growth. While most countries enjoyed a property boom from the mid-1990s (post the commercial property bust in the US of 1990-1993) until the financial crisis of 2008, Singapore property prices peaked in 1996 and were in the midst of a long bear market until 2006; only in mid-2007 did the mass market condo segment start showing any signs of life. This very short rally from mid-2007 to mid-2008 was cut brutally short by the financial crisis. The property markets are now merely continuing from where they left off in mid-2008. The quarter-to-quarter comparisons that are so favoured by analysts and the media look high only because of the very low base and the fact that the market has to make up for quite a bit of lost ground over the past decade.
My point above is supported by the fact that resale condo prices are still very reasonable and not out of reach for upgraders. To illustrate, I would like to draw your attention to several good-quality condos near amenities in the Upper East Coast area such as Stratford Court, Villa Marina and Eastwood Green that are still available and have transacted recently in the $600 psf range - which means a spacious 1,200 sq ft condo can be bought for less than $800,000. Can someone explain to me how this is a bubble? In a truly overheated market (for example, London before the crisis), even resale flats receive several bids, sometimes even higher than the asking price.
The fact that new launches such as The Vision are selling at more than $1,000 psf only proves the herd-like mentality of unsophisticated buyers and not the fact that there are no affordable condos. If upgraders choose to buy at higher prices from developers, it is their problem and not one that requires government intervention. New launches cannot be used as benchmarks for the condo segment as a whole when nearby older properties are trading at a 20-30 per cent discount. There is still ample supply in the secondary market, as around half the condos bought in Singapore are for investment purposes and not for owner occupation. Ignoring this source of supply and continuing to release more land will result in an oversupplied and depressed property market similar to what we saw after the Asian crisis.
2. Buyers are too choosy and need to adjust to new realities: It has been proven several times by the government that buyers reject most flats offered to them for the flimsiest of reasons such as low floor, far from schools, etc, and then they claim that affordable property does not exist. Pandering to such 'spoilt' buyers is not the way forward. In major cities such as London, New York and Chicago, a workplace commute of around one hour is the norm; so will the case be here as prime-location property gets priced higher.
In a nutshell, every type of property - whether it has a poor view, faces the sun or is on a low floor - has its own price set by supply and demand. Buyers need to be mature and accept this fact rather than go crying to the government and asking for intervention. The government is already doing more than its share by selling subsidised built-to-order flats. Demanding cheap resale flats and condos on top of that is a bit too much.
Bobby Jayaraman
Arthur Sim replies: HDB data revealed that in Q4 2009, COV (cash-over-valuation) for resale flats was $24,000, double the $12,000 for Q3 2009. This does not represent a stable resale market. The median COV amount continued to rise in Q1 2010 - up $1,000, to $25,000.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Don't pamper spoilt property buyers
I REFER to the commentary 'Public + private=property prices' (BT, April 3-4).
I would like to make two points on the writer's view that if private property prices go up, public flat prices will have to follow and hence intervention is needed.
1. Resale mass market condos are still affordable: First of all, mass market private property prices in Singapore over the past decade have hardly kept pace with even economic growth. While most countries enjoyed a property boom from the mid-1990s (post the commercial property bust in the US of 1990-1993) until the financial crisis of 2008, Singapore property prices peaked in 1996 and were in the midst of a long bear market until 2006; only in mid-2007 did the mass market condo segment start showing any signs of life. This very short rally from mid-2007 to mid-2008 was cut brutally short by the financial crisis. The property markets are now merely continuing from where they left off in mid-2008. The quarter-to-quarter comparisons that are so favoured by analysts and the media look high only because of the very low base and the fact that the market has to make up for quite a bit of lost ground over the past decade.
My point above is supported by the fact that resale condo prices are still very reasonable and not out of reach for upgraders. To illustrate, I would like to draw your attention to several good-quality condos near amenities in the Upper East Coast area such as Stratford Court, Villa Marina and Eastwood Green that are still available and have transacted recently in the $600 psf range - which means a spacious 1,200 sq ft condo can be bought for less than $800,000. Can someone explain to me how this is a bubble? In a truly overheated market (for example, London before the crisis), even resale flats receive several bids, sometimes even higher than the asking price.
The fact that new launches such as The Vision are selling at more than $1,000 psf only proves the herd-like mentality of unsophisticated buyers and not the fact that there are no affordable condos. If upgraders choose to buy at higher prices from developers, it is their problem and not one that requires government intervention. New launches cannot be used as benchmarks for the condo segment as a whole when nearby older properties are trading at a 20-30 per cent discount. There is still ample supply in the secondary market, as around half the condos bought in Singapore are for investment purposes and not for owner occupation. Ignoring this source of supply and continuing to release more land will result in an oversupplied and depressed property market similar to what we saw after the Asian crisis.
2. Buyers are too choosy and need to adjust to new realities: It has been proven several times by the government that buyers reject most flats offered to them for the flimsiest of reasons such as low floor, far from schools, etc, and then they claim that affordable property does not exist. Pandering to such 'spoilt' buyers is not the way forward. In major cities such as London, New York and Chicago, a workplace commute of around one hour is the norm; so will the case be here as prime-location property gets priced higher.
In a nutshell, every type of property - whether it has a poor view, faces the sun or is on a low floor - has its own price set by supply and demand. Buyers need to be mature and accept this fact rather than go crying to the government and asking for intervention. The government is already doing more than its share by selling subsidised built-to-order flats. Demanding cheap resale flats and condos on top of that is a bit too much.
Bobby Jayaraman
Arthur Sim replies: HDB data revealed that in Q4 2009, COV (cash-over-valuation) for resale flats was $24,000, double the $12,000 for Q3 2009. This does not represent a stable resale market. The median COV amount continued to rise in Q1 2010 - up $1,000, to $25,000.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
BT Letter : Property tax for most will still be lower even if AV is hiked
Business Times - 04 Mar 2010
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Property tax for most will still be lower even if AV is hiked
MR DENIS Distant said that the benefits of the new progressive property tax may not last long if IRAS starts revaluing the Annual Value (AV) of properties (BT, Feb 26, 'Property tax boon may be short-lived').
Property tax is a tax levied on the ownership of property, based on the AV of the property. AV reflects the prevailing market rentals of properties. The tax payable will thus increase with an increase in market rentals and vice versa.
IRAS will only adjust the AVs of properties if the market rental data support such revisions. Currently, owner-occupied residential properties are taxed at a flat 4 per cent.
With the progressive property tax schedule, properties with an AV of less than $77,000 will pay less property tax compared to the current flat 4 per cent rate.
This is because the first $6,000 of AV is exempt from property tax. Even with future increases in AV, most owner-occupied properties will still pay lower tax under the new regime so long as their AV does not exceed $77,000. (As a reference, all HDB flats have AVs of not more than $11,000 currently.)
Only about 3 per cent of private owner-occupied residences now have AVs in excess of $77,000. Even then, our property tax rates will remain lower than in most international cities, even for the high-end properties.
Deanna Choo
Director (corporate communications)
IRAS
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Property tax for most will still be lower even if AV is hiked
MR DENIS Distant said that the benefits of the new progressive property tax may not last long if IRAS starts revaluing the Annual Value (AV) of properties (BT, Feb 26, 'Property tax boon may be short-lived').
Property tax is a tax levied on the ownership of property, based on the AV of the property. AV reflects the prevailing market rentals of properties. The tax payable will thus increase with an increase in market rentals and vice versa.
IRAS will only adjust the AVs of properties if the market rental data support such revisions. Currently, owner-occupied residential properties are taxed at a flat 4 per cent.
With the progressive property tax schedule, properties with an AV of less than $77,000 will pay less property tax compared to the current flat 4 per cent rate.
This is because the first $6,000 of AV is exempt from property tax. Even with future increases in AV, most owner-occupied properties will still pay lower tax under the new regime so long as their AV does not exceed $77,000. (As a reference, all HDB flats have AVs of not more than $11,000 currently.)
Only about 3 per cent of private owner-occupied residences now have AVs in excess of $77,000. Even then, our property tax rates will remain lower than in most international cities, even for the high-end properties.
Deanna Choo
Director (corporate communications)
IRAS
Copyright © 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Pre-development Land Investing
In business for over 30 years, success in providing real estate investment opportunities to clients around the world is a simple, yet effective separation of roles and responsibilites. The four pillars of strength guide the land from the research and acquisition, through to the exit, including the distribution of proceeds to our clients ......
To know more how this is really work for you and your clients....
Please contact me Terence Tay @ (+65) 9387-5896 or email : terencetay.kh@gmail.com
To know more how this is really work for you and your clients....
Please contact me Terence Tay @ (+65) 9387-5896 or email : terencetay.kh@gmail.com
Posts
