 Should
a member of the Collective Sales Committee (CSC) rallying for the
cause of en bloc and selling away the estate, be on the Management
Council (MC)?
Since the en blocers want the estate to be sold, and the Management
Council (MC) comprises of residents who are empowered to make
decisions relating to the continued maintenance and upkeep of the
estate, the logical answer is "no". There is a possibility that
decisions made by a CSC/MC would result in the running down of the
estate to create the perception that the estate is a "slum". And
slum seems to be a buzz word among en blocers. Though we Stayers
have yet to see slums in Singapore!
So why do members of the CSC want to sit on the council? What is
their agenda? And why would owners vote them onto the council in the
first place?
This question raises ethical issues for those who want to know the
SPs running the estate have the best interests of the estate at
heart. Would they give more carparks? Approve more upgrading?
Repainting? Initiate ideas that could make the estate look more
beautiful?
Interestingly, it is not illegal under the Land Titles Strata Act
for a CSC member to be a council member despite the obvious conflict
of interest. It is left to the moral compass of the CSC and the
owners who vote them in, to decide whether such a move is in tandem
with the needs of the estate - the maintenance needs and not the en
bloc motive. En bloc agendas should have no place on the MC and the
running of the estate. Since en blocers are normally a more vocal
group to begin with, and have organised support from having contact
with residents through the agents and the attendance at en bloc
EOGMS, they could easily be voted to the council.
But is it right? Should a member of the CSC sit on the MC? As en
bloc rules are new, and evolving, should we really wait for a system
of checks and balances to be devised by the powers-that-be?
Shouldn't the power to decide rest with an SP's own judgement and
conscience?
|
|