High Court Hearing on Horizon Tower

I attended three and half days High Court Appeal hearing on Horizon Tower. It was my first time attending the High court, and as one of parties :=). It however was one of most interesting and learning experiences I ever had.

We had just read the "street level bureaucracy", where it describes "it is practically a cliche to observe that the severe appointments of a courtroom, dominated by a bench behind which a black-robed judge looks down at other courtroom participants, convey the power of the system of laws over the individual. Separate entrances for judges, commands to stand and bow whenever the judge arrives of departs,...contribute to the mysteries of the courtroom". Though our "learned friend" restored several times during the hearing that "the court room is not circus." I found the courtroom with all these mysteries of high level bureaucrats and the interesting exchanges among these black robe lawyers to be far more amusing than a circus.

Horizon Tower En bloc sales has become quite "infamous" recently, the majority owners, have been frequently described as a bunch of "greedy" people "who tried to scupper the sales and breach the contract". When the application to STB being dismissed, the majority owner were facing the $800 million to S$1 billion lawsuit by Hotel Property and Partners. That was just like what Senior Counsel Mr K S Rajah said in the court that "the purchaser was holding a gun at majority owner's head."

The whole hearing involved at least three parties, majority owners, minority owners and purchaser. While a small group of 13 who signed collective sales agreement also to be an intervener participating hearing. There were no less than 30 lawyers who represent for various parties, all of them except purchasers are paid by Horizon Tower residents. The whole argument was surrounded on the point of law whether STB was wrong to dismiss the application based on three missing pages; whether STB has power to allow the amendment or the cure the defects of application.

For majority, while the HPL's lawsuit loom over their heads,of course, they wish the appeal will be granted,
For minority, they wish the High court will stand for the STB's decision so that their home will be preserved, under such a compulsory acquisition.
For the purchase, they not only want the court grant the appeal, they also want to assure the court's direction to bind the majority to the contractual action in order to secure the sales go through.

Therefore, it was not a simple play, but like symphony orchestra, only with different tones.

Mr Chelva Rajah, argued that STB was err to dismiss the application for only three pages left out inadvertently, however, in the course of STB hearing, those documents had been presented to STB with correct copies, therefore, it even needed not to amend; even if needed to amend, then STB was wrong to say that they had no power to allow the amendment, while he argued, STB has the power;

Mr KS Rajah, Mr Ramesh and Mr Michal Huang all argued that the error of missing three pages was not minor error, when application made under the statutory declaration, the all execution pages must be true and right, this was where the technical non compliance came into the place; the STB indeed has no power to allow the amendment, that was the very intent when the Parliament made this piece of legislation to protect the interest of the minority owners. The error was not only significant even can be a crime.

Mr K Shanmugam, had the different agenda with Mr Chelva Rajah, though he also very much wanted that the court would allow the appeal, but he suggested the "third options":- the STB was right to say the application was defective, however, since the defects were so minor that STB should had allowed to amend. He suggested by the past history of majority and its sales committee' performance, the purchaser was the only one who really has the interest to see the sales go through, if the court rules that the application was not defective, the majority owners will use "this court room to wash away their sins", then their contract action against majority owners will be affected; if the court rules the application was defective, therefore disallows the appeal, the purchaser will not have the deal too. Therefore, the third option Mr Shanmugam invented and he "insisted" the court should consider and allow the appeal with directions. Mr Michal Huang objected it by referring to "the purchaser's shopping list".

While we are waiting for the final ruling of the court, expected in next week, we can see this enbloc sales is really a sociological study subject, the ruling of Horizon Tower will set the precedence for many other en bloc sales, it will have confounding impact on social, legal and economic system in Singapore. The various secondary social groups behaviours are also fascinating. In the view of this en bloc event, I incline to agree with Durkheim, it is not only the individual forms the society, but most importantly, the social factors,and social system, society as a whole, created by men, but beyond control of men, shapes individual's life.