STB decided to grant the enbloc sales for Horizon Towers

It was a sad day for many Horizon Tower owners when STB delivered their judgment for granting the collective sales yesterday.

STB rejected the majority owners' application for collective sales order in August 3, 2007 based on merely three missing pages. With legal threats and twist and turns, owners of Horizon Tower had gone through many hardships, first, the High Court Appeal to overturn STB first ruling, then a new round of STB hearing. There were at least five SC (Senior Council) and some over 30 lawyers involved the case, bearing in mind, all paid by owners of Horizon Tower. Now, after so much "inside" stories had been uncovered, many were disappointed at such a ruling.

The inside stories include:
- the incompetence and conflict of interest of market agency
- the conflict of interest of some members of first sales committee
- the conflict of interest of between majority owners (CSP)'s lawyer and buyers
- the method of valuation, Land Title Authority gross land area and method of distribution shares.

Had not these unfortunate legal batters happened, many owners would not have known all these inside stories.

To be fair to many owners, they have been always ready to honor their contract with HPPL even after market price has taken a sky-high soaring. It is the moral and legal obligation that they are willingly to comply. It is however certainly unpleasant to discover that along the way of collective sales, something, (intentionally or unintentionally, for the benefit of doubt) had gone terribly wrong and could have prevented.

The objectors had argued that the first sales committee had not acted in good faith in all the proceeds in accepting HPPL offers,especially, they refused, at least, three majority owners' request that the deal should go back owners to deliberate before accepting the option.

They contended that the sales committee who represent all owners should have acted for the best interest of owners. They argued that in such circumstance STB should consider whether it was the intention of legislation in question to permit such a sale. In their opinion, it was bad faith within the meaning of law for the first sales committee proceed the sales considering all above factors.

The Strata Title Board relied on section 84(A)for its ruling. In one particular section of Parliamentary debate, it spells out that STB can only rely on the following factors to determine "bad faith"

1. the sales price for lot and common property in strata title plan;


2. the method of distributing the proceeds of sales, and


3. the relationship of purchaser to any of subsidiary proprietor

Which means,in law, STB will not have to consider others factors, such as listed above as "bad faith".

That leads a law question what is bad faith? and how to define one?

That also leads a typical sociological question, is law limits "bad faith" in above three factors just? The widespread belief that norms and laws are natural and good masks their political character. Is STB making a political decision or a moral and legal decision?

Now, en bloc sales has become a quite disturbing social phenomenon in Singapore, with a few speculators and profit driven developers might have gained, the majority had been left with bitterness of losing home and losing common bounding among neighbours. Instead of being a blessing, it has become sources of many sorrows and woes.