Ang Moh: Greedy Papayas Should Learn from HK!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>En bloc sales: Adopt HK's 50-year limit
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I APPLAUD Monday's well-argued commentary, 'En bloc debate, HK style', which highlighted the disparity between Hong Kong's code of practice for collective property sales and that in Singapore where the rights of minority secondary proprietors are plainly prejudiced in comparison.
I particularly admire that quotation from a South China Morning Post correspondent: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
I also endorse the environmental concerns of Hong Kong over the needless destruction of good architecture with perhaps decades of useful longevity ahead, and the subsequent costly redevelopment of any such site. For example, I would welcome the introduction of a 50-year age limit before any development could be considered for collective sale; that would at least relieve me of the incessant worry of enforced eviction from my treasured dwelling for the rest of my anticipated lifespan.
I would probably be categorised as one of the 'eccentric seniors unduly attached to their property' which I have occupied contentedly since August 1986, but I earnestly hope the Singapore Government will review legislation relating to collective sales without the unanimous consent of all secondary proprietors to alleviate the disadvantages they face compared to owners of both landed property and HDB flats.
Dennis Butler

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>The difference
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><TR>'Hong Kong protects minority rights while, in Singapore, money largely decides the fate of a collective sale.' </TR><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- 4 or less paragraphs so show all paragraphs first before showing the media and bkstry and stuffs --><!-- story content : start --><!-- story content : start -->'Hong Kong protects minority rights while, in Singapore, money largely decides the fate of a collective sale.'
<!-- story content : start -->MR AUGUSTINE CHEAH: 'As Ms Tan Hui Yee pointed out on Monday ('En bloc debate, HK style'), the key difference between Hong Kong and Singapore regarding collective property sales is that Hong Kong protects minority rights while, in Singapore, money largely decides the fate of a collective sale. One gets far more home ownership security in public housing than in expensive private housing. With more Singaporeans moving from public housing into condos, the deficiency in our collective sale laws must be addressed properly as it will affect a larger number of people in time to come. The authorities such as the Law Ministry and the Urban Redevelopment Authority have received many suggestions over the past two years, but official replies have been few. Certainly, we have not seen any changes. To proponents of the comparatively liberal collective sale laws who argue that these laws are no different from compulsory government acquisitions of the past, Ms Tan's explanation nails the difference neatly: Private developers make a profit at the expense of someone's home in collective sales, while government acquisition is a sacrifice made for the public good.'

Cos root of all evils is 1 Familee rule in Peesai?

<!-- story content : end --><!-- Vodcast --><!-- Background Story -->