I am just pulling rabbits out of the hat for the time being because I am new to this issue as well.

Now let me tell you why I have differing opinion from Cherroy and yourself. Why would I side with management.

Before that... need to clarify and you are right, sorry for the sloppy explanation there.

Proprietor in the Act is the parcel owner.
As for votes, there is two types, show of hand and by poll. (section 17(1) of Schedule 2 SMA)
Where there is an equality of votes, whether show of hands or by poll, the Chairman is entitled to cast a vote (section 17(5) of Schedule 2 SMA).

Now back to the topic...

As we all know, before the AGM/EGM commence, the agenda will be published in notice board or circulated to proprietors. Attached together with the agenda is a proxy form.

Now when you look into the proxy form, it will most likely address all the agendas except for appointment of new committee members, reason being at that early point in stage it is not possible to know who has been nominated as a committee member. Hence, that subject matter is discussed during the AGM itself.

For obvious reasons, the proxy derives his power from the proxy form. It will therefore be safe for me to say that the parameters of action of a proxy is subject to the content of the proxy form dictated by the Proprietor.

Besides, the committee members are something that is "personal" to proprietors and third parties (example where such powers are not accorded in a proxy form) should not be allowed to participate in such voting for fear that the voting process may be skewed or tempered with.

unfortunately, the Act doesn't elaborate further on proxy (i.e. voting of committee members), if the Act is silent, we will need to refer back to the proxy form. If the proxy form is silent as well, then your management is correct in disallowing your sister (as proxy) to vote.

strange... what's the point of assigning proxy if he/she cannot vote?

new SMA has expanded powers to block parking, access, cut water etc. Good idea to pose this question.

I don't buy explanation. The act is used to protect the rights of the owner. The reason I don't buy the explanation is due to it is fair and the right of owner is not protected. Every act has plenty of loopholes and management used the loop holes to manipulate the condition. Then why we need the act?

In current technology, we can use whatapps/viber/ blar blar blar or even a courtesy phone call to update the condition. I believe the voting process should progress to be electronic voting. Seem the rights of owners should be protected. It is like backward management style to me. No e-vote never mind lah. Peoples comes also can not vote. Next time.... maybe management want to check IC leh. how do management who is owner who is not. Next time maybe check this and that..... Sounds a red herring for bias.

only sole proprietors are member of council and can be voted into office, proxy holders are merely to facilitate decision making in the event of absence of sole proprietor during proceedings such as AGM, EOGM..

my question: does the new SMA address ownership rights for community areas such as shared clubhouse, private parks and so on, in a master title development of landed strata housing with multiple separate parcels (whereby the community areas are not part of any of the parcels)? This is in particular related to "double" G&G developments.

If No, any future plans in the pipeline to further address this issue?

Thanks, aurora97.

This post has been edited by corleone74: Aug 13 2015, 04:10 PM

Don't quite understand your question,
but common property belonged to MC and any use of those area is under MC control, including to build whatever facilities that allowable under the act.

You don’t have to buy my explanation.

Am in this discussion because my guess is as good as yours, I am new to the SMA as well and my participation is intended to further my understanding of the SMA.

Also, I am calling my “theory” based on what I can see in the SMA. If you find something that is different, please feel free to share.

Let’s stick to your original question, whether the SMA has loopholes or otherwise, whether technology etc…, like it or not SMA is here to stay and it’s the best you got.

hehe. You explaination is too bias to the management lah. We want owner to be protected and management do their jobs.

Your assumption may not be logic as my opinions lah. The purpose of the act is to protect the owner to create a harmony community. Management office does not own the buidling, but helping to run the building. They can not turn guest to be host as chinese sayings. Management office can only do their jobs based on the limited power given by act and have no rights to waive the rights of owners.

In democratic soceity, police caught somebody due to crime. If somebody did no crime as in law, police can not feel he is no good and tambah his perception on crime to catch him. This is a misuse of power to limit the human rights. T

he same things, management office can not simply tambah things suka suka because they are helping to manage the building and not the owners. They can not suka tambah tambah things to waive the right of owner. This is also misuse of power. If everyone suka suka, then waive other rights. Why we need act and law?

Ideally, e-vote should be promoted as now most of the professional body such as ICE, EI, IET all use e-Vote to choose the Chairman etc. Nomination can be made before the voting and owner can do e-Vote. I have seen no reason management should not support those owners who are not attend the meeting and also take this as reason to waive the owner rights again.

Law must protect the rights in a justice way, not someone simply say and can add this add that. It does seem come back to the Emperor time already.

This is my 2 cents. I am neither bias on the owner nor management. I just think if one party can easy to waive the rights of other parties, law is basically not working in the system!

I believe your referring to Gated and Guarded Developments, although recent amendments to the Strata Title Act and SMA cater to G&G, I have no coverage on this area. Am a condo warrior at heart.

In any case I agree with Cherroy’s point. Common area (since G&G now fall under strata title act/SMA) is a very broad based definition, to put things into perspective… aside from parcels owned by purchaser, everything else is common property.

noted.

When the act silent on voting committee member issue, we cannot say the management is correct to disallow proxy to vote.
Just like if there is no act or specific act say you cannot speeding in highway, enforcer cannot summon you even if you are speeding at 150km/h.

If the proxy is meant representing the original owner, then the proxy acts on behalf owner.

Just like listed company AGM, many also appoint proxy to vote on the resolution.

While proxy cannot be voted as committee member because the act does state committee member must be from proprietor owner only.

When an act silent on a certain issue and no specific guideline given = no say yes or no.

We need to separate out Management office vs Management Corporation.

Management office normally is a property manager/company employed by Management Corporation.
Management Corporation is formed from the proprietor owner aka committee members voted.

In the act, it is the duty of Management Corporation to take care of the building, not MO.

MC cannot simply voided the right of proxy, all must follow what the act has provided.

If a proxy is stated able to vote in the act, then the proxy can vote, as simple as that.

If during AGM/EGM time, the chair person of the meeting (the chair person of meeting doesn't necessary come from existing chairman) disqualify the proxy without any reason (like not paying maintenance fee etc), then the owner appointed the proxy can complain to COB, and any meeting that being convened that violate the basic of the act may be deemed null and void.

No, I think perhaps my question isn't clear enough wthout an illustration.

Say a developer is creating a landed strata titled township, and has a master title for 116 acres.

There will be 5 separate precincts of strata titled landed, each one being 20 acres with xx no of houses.

that means 5 strata titled schemes .

but the remaining community area of 16 acres is to be built a "private" park, lake, clubhouse etc. These amenities are not within any of the 5 strata titled schemes, but (is marketed) as private amenities for this landed township, and is gated.

So in this sense there are double gated. let's say an individual SP has a lot in strata title A, he needs to enter the first guardhouse and then access another guardhouse to his precinct. the first guarded allow him entry to the park etc, and the second to his strata titled precinct, but not to the other precincts B,C,D,E. I'm not refering to common areas within strata scheme A, B,C,D, E. I'm talking about the shared community amenities. So for example, let's say precinct A has a swimming pool. That is at the common area of precinct A, and is covered as common area. But what about the private park, clubhouse etc ("community" areas, as in the community within this 116 acre development)?

so therefore is there any provision or plan for provision in the SMA for the community areas ? I have asked this question to solicitors a while back and they had no idea, hence my request for it to be forwarded at your forum.



This post has been edited by corleone74: Aug 13 2015, 06:25 PM

This is my understanding:

Every sole proprietor of each individual parcel is automatically part of the strata scheme's management corporation (MC).

The MC convenes an AGM in which council members are elected. The council members act on behalf of the MC.

The MC then appoints a property manager to manage the property.

The MC is formed upon issuance of the strata title, before that, the developer with the owners jointly form the joint management body (JMB). THe JMB is dissolved when strata title issued and the MC is formed (to replace the JMB), wherein the council members are elected.

So with the new SMA, how will the process above be affected? I read that the strata titles now have to be ready (ie parcels subdivided) during the CF itself, ie before VP? Is this confirmed? If this is the case, will there no longer be a need for the formation of the JMB?

This post has been edited by corleone74: Aug 13 2015, 06:34 PM

Even more out of topic.... hahaha... no coverage on your topic.

Dragging another dead rabbit out of my hat...

Look at your scenario, the only thing i can't think of under the SMA that will help you is basically to set up subsidiary JMB/MCs (this feature wasn't available in Act 663).

I gather it will work out something like this:

Parent JMB/MC.
Subsidiary A
Sub B
Sub C
Sub D
etc...

Income will be collected by parent company, whereas all the subsidiaries will calculate the cost of maintaining those facilities in their strata scheme and bill it back to the parent JMB/MC.

P/s: oh common areas/property = shared amenities.

This post has been edited by aurora97: Aug 13 2015, 06:43 PM

haha that's what i thought. no coverage. but in fact, it is quite relevant , because for eg you can see quite a no of double G&G scheme these days. Yes, as you mentioned, there is something like a "parent JMB" which collects a community fee from all SP from the different schemes (precinct), and this fund is used to maintain the "community" areas. What I'm wondering about is the legal framework for this type of scheme, of which i think there isn't any (yet). I guess it will take another donkeys' years to resolve this.

This post has been edited by corleone74: Aug 13 2015, 06:50 PM

I think your may have foretold of things that will come, JMB will soon be a museum artifact. Not an expert in Strata Title Act...

If i recall correctly... this is what I have gathered....

Under section 8A Strata Title Act, the developer is required to apply for "certificate of proposed strata plan" and thereafter apply for subdivision within one month from the date of issuance of certificate of proposed strata plan.

so come VP, definitely you (or your bank lel) will get Strata Title, if i am not mistaken according to section 39 Strata Title Act, once registered in the strata register, the management comp will need to be formed.

condominium's don't face the problems you face because all the common areas/properties are located within the development plan.

Your case is like scattered across different strata titles, which poses a separate and unique issue just like Mix Development projects.

These are all developer created problems. Trying to lump everything all in and make a quick sale.

As for legal framework, please refer to section 63 of the SMA for subsidiary Management Company. The tools are there, only problem is how to use it proper.

Yes, that is a correct way, to say goodbye to JMB. in fact the reason why there is JMB is due to delay of subdivision of master title by developer, hence JMB is for those master titled properties and under purview of national land code, while the developer just delay to submit for subdivision of master to strata titles. whereas MC is under strata ttiel act. Actually, i read through teh STA before and what i wrote earlier is what i recall and understood from the STA .

in singapore, no JMB (that i ever heard of). Straight away strata title. this is the correct way. before CF issued, developer must subdivide master title to strata title. upon VP, strata title ready. then it's formation of MC and yada yada. simple and straightforward.

This post has been edited by corleone74: Aug 13 2015, 07:10 PM