As far as I knew and experience.
Proxy cannot be voted as committee member, only can vote on behalf owner, but not being voted.

While for company, it is a bit different, as "company" is not a person in the first place so someone (from the company) must able represent the company.

Cherroy, I think he meant the casting of vote to appoint the new “management committee”.

If I re-call correctly, the proprietor will have to complete the proxy form. In the proxy form, it will state whether he is for/against a particular agenda to be tabled during AGM. The proxy will than vote based on that proxy form. As such, the power of the proxy is only limited to what is stated in the proxy form.

Now, the underlying rationale (I suspect) as to why proxy can’t vote for the new “management committee” is because they are not proprietors. If proxy voters are allowed to vote in new “management committee”, this action will encourage forged proxy forms and phantom voters (as my ex-chairman did).

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.

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.