# Commentary: Condo en bloc rules are changing, and neighbours will feel it first

- **Source:** Channel NewsAsia
- **Published:** 2026-09-08T22:00:00.000Z
- **Author:** Gabriel Kor
- **Original:** https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/en-bloc-condominiums-thresholds-neighbour-disputes-6367166
- **Topics:** Private Residential, Transactions & Deals

## Featured rationale

The lower thresholds may facilitate redevelopment of ageing private estates, potentially increasing collective-sale opportunities while stronger safeguards and a three-year retry period restrain campaigns.

## AI summary

Parliament passed amendments lowering en bloc consent thresholds to 70% for estates aged 40–59 and 65% for those aged 60 or more.

## Original article

SINGAPORE: A home owner had lived at her condominium for two years when her neighbours began asking her, almost every day, to sign the estate’s collective sale agreement. She gave in to the pressure despite the seller’s stamp duty she would face. Another home owner stopped going to the estate’s general meetings and avoided neighbours who wanted to sell. But owners pushing for a sale had their reasons too, whether to leave an ageing development or to right-size. These competing needs are why a collective sale, or en bloc, can become a source of tension among neighbours, as media articles have shown over the years. That tension is worth bearing in mind because the rules governing such sales are about to change. Parliament on Tuesday (Sep 8) passed the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill , which lowers the share of home owners who must agree to a collective sale in older estates – from the current 80 per cent to 70 per cent for estates aged 40 to 59 years, and 65 per cent for those aged 60 years or more. This is done to support the renewal of ageing developments .

There are also stronger safeguards for owners who do not support a sale. At least 35 per cent of owners, counted by share value or by number of owners, will have to sign the request that calls the meeting to form a sale committee, up from 20 and 25 per cent today. The signature collection period will be shortened from 12 to six months. An estate that fails the collective sale bid will have to wait three years, instead of two, before a reattempt, while the cap on the extra money a court may award en bloc objectors will double. A SHORTER DEADLINE MAY NOT EASE THE PRESSURE The Ministry of Law said the halving of the timeline to obtain signatures is aimed at addressing the “prolonged pressure” on owners who do not want to sell. Speaking in parliament on Tuesday, Law Minister Edwin Tong said his ministry had received feedback about owners who refused to sign being named in social media and messaging chat groups, to pressure them into agreeing. Pressure has two parts: how long it lasts and how hard it comes. The shorter deadline cuts the first but leaves the second alone. Industry players have been reported as saying that a six-month signature collection period is "too short", especially for bigger projects. Addressing that, Mr Tong pointed to data that showed in developments of more than 100 units, most signatures are gathered in the first four months or within a concentrated window of one to two months. That is a fair answer to whether six months is workable. It is also a description of an intense campaign happening within a window the law is now shortening. Yet, nothing in the new rules touches the intensity. A higher bar to start a campaign and a longer wait after a failed one may also mean fewer campaigns, but neither eases the pressure once one is under way.

WHAT NON-CONSENTING OWNERS CAN ACTUALLY SAY Currently, the law lets the Strata Titles Boards and the court weigh only three things when they ask whether a sale was made in good faith: the price, the way the money is divided and any connection between the buyer and a home owner. An objection succeeds only where home owners get back less than they paid for their units, or where the money will not clear their mortgage. The only loss the court can recognise is financial. The courts have acknowledged the need to protect minority owners. Overturning the S$500 million en bloc sale of Horizon Towers in 2009, the Court of Appeal held that a sale committee acts for every owner in the estate and must hold an even hand between those who want to sell and those who do not. Objecting owners, it said, have to be “adequately protected from bullying and underhand tactics”. Yet, the duty is tested only later when a dispute reaches a courtroom, and only where a home owner can afford to object. Nothing tells a committee on the first day what it may do at a home owner’s door.

TWO PROPOSALS TO CONSIDER The government could consider writing a code of conduct for the signature campaign into the Act. The law already regulates how sale committees behave in other respects, and a code could go further to establish boundaries around how owners are approached. For example, sale committees could be required to name one person to deal with each household, and that person would be the only one who reaches out. An owner who wants the asking to stop could say so in writing, and the approaches would end for the rest of the campaign. The owner would continue receiving notices required by law, and could still change his or her mind. But the code means that a committee, or those working for it, that carried on regardless would have something to answer for. Home owners could also be given more time to rescind their agreement. Those who sign a collective sale agreement now have five working days to withdraw consent, once only, by signing a notice and delivering it by hand to the appointed lawyer. The new laws passed on Tuesday do not change that, even as it halves the campaign. The five days exist to make sure the owner's consent is informed and genuine, which was the government's reason for keeping them in 2010, when it turned down calls to scrap the cooling-off period altogether. A shorter campaign strengthens that case. In tandem, the government could allow the signed forms to be posted. Hand delivery sorts owners by who can reach a law office before 5pm on a working day, and the owner who is overseas, elderly or on shift work is the one it stops.

NOT A TRIAL RUN FOR VERS During the debate in parliament, several Members of Parliament (MPs) asked if changes to en bloc rules will have implications for the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) , which will allow owners of HDB flats aged 70 years or older to vote on whether the government can buy back their homes before the 99-year lease expires. Speaking in parliament in September last year, National Development Minister Chee Hong Tat said his ministry is still working out how the VERS vote will run . The latest changes should not be seen as a trial run for VERS, because the amendment Bill tabled expressly excludes any development on HDB land from the new class of collective sale it creates. There are other differences. An HDB flat carries no share value, so consent would be counted differently. The Ministry of National Development (MND) has also said VERS should not create a “lottery effect” and payouts will be lower than under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme because flats offered VERS will have shorter remaining leases. The government also holds one advantage no sale committee has. It can prepare replacement housing in advance and has said it will. That matters more than it sounds because a sale committee asks an owner for more than a price. It asks owners to trade a known home for a sum of money and a hope. The ones who say no most often cannot picture the other side of the move. For all those differences, the similarity lies in what happens between neighbours. In his reply to MPs, Mr Tong said the issue of VERS goes beyond the scope of the Bill, but accepted there are learning points between the public and private markets and said his ministry would share its experience of the collective sale regime with MND. As the rules are developed, the experience of private residential en bloc sales can offer a useful lesson. There is a need to support renewal efforts of ageing estates, but the process of seeking consensus and reaching a collective decision without dividing a community also matters. Gabriel Kor is Associate Professor and Deputy Head (Academic) at the Department of the Built Environment, College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore (NUS). The opinions expressed are those of the writer and do not represent the views and opinions of NUS.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: openai_codex_cli

### 评论：公寓集体出售规则正在改变，邻里关系将最先感受到影响

新加坡国立大学法律教授Gabriel Kor表示，将集体出售委员会征集签名的时间减半，会缩短游说期，但不会让过程变得更温和。

新加坡：一名屋主在她的公寓住了两年后，邻居几乎每天都开始要求她签署该项目的集体出售协议。尽管她将面对卖方印花税，她还是在压力下让步。另一名屋主则不再参加该项目的全体大会，并避开那些想要出售的邻居。但推动出售的业主也有自己的理由，无论是为了离开一个老化的发展项目，还是为了换到更合适面积的住房。正是这些相互竞争的需求，使集体出售，或 en bloc，可能成为邻里之间紧张关系的来源，正如多年来媒体报道所显示的那样。值得记住这种紧张关系，因为管理这类出售的规则即将改变。国会于周二（9月8日）通过了《土地业权（分层地契）（修正）法案》，降低了较老项目中必须同意集体出售的屋主比例，从目前的80%降至楼龄40至59年的项目为70%，楼龄60年或以上的项目为65%。此举旨在支持老化发展项目的更新。

对于不支持出售的业主，也有更强的保障。要求召开会议以成立出售委员会的申请，必须由至少35%的业主签署，按份额价值或业主人数计算均可，高于目前的20%和25%。签名征集期将从12个月缩短至6个月。集体出售竞标失败的项目，必须等待三年，而不是两年，才能再次尝试；同时，法院可判给 en bloc 反对者的额外款项上限将提高一倍。更短的期限未必能减轻压力律政部表示，将取得签名的时间减半，旨在应对不愿出售业主所承受的“长期压力”。律政部长唐振辉周二在国会发言时说，律政部曾收到反馈，称拒绝签名的业主会在社交媒体和通讯聊天群组中被点名，以迫使他们同意。压力有两部分：持续多久，以及来势多强。更短的期限减少了前者，但没有触及后者。据报道，业界人士称，六个月的签名征集期“太短”，尤其是对较大型项目而言。对此，唐先生指出，数据显示，在超过100个单位的发展项目中，大多数签名是在最初四个月内取得，或在一至两个月的集中窗口期内完成。这是对六个月是否可行的合理回应。这同时也描述了一场密集的游说行动，而法律现在正在缩短这个窗口。然而，新规则没有任何内容触及这种强度。启动游说行动的门槛提高，以及失败后等待期延长，也可能意味着游说行动减少，但一旦行动展开，两者都不会减轻压力。

不同意出售的业主实际能说什么目前，法律让分层地契局和法院在判断一项出售是否本着诚信进行时，只能权衡三件事：价格、款项分配方式，以及买方与某名屋主之间的任何关联。只有在屋主拿回的金额低于其购入单位所支付的金额，或款项不足以清偿其房贷时，反对才会成功。法院能够认可的唯一损失是财务损失。法院曾承认有必要保护少数业主。2009年推翻Horizon Towers新币5亿元 en bloc 出售案时，上诉庭裁定，出售委员会代表项目中的每一名业主行事，必须在想出售与不想出售的业主之间保持公正。上诉庭称，反对的业主必须“得到充分保护，免受霸凌和不正当手段影响”。然而，这项义务只有在争议进入法庭后才会受到检验，而且只有在屋主有能力提出反对时才会如此。没有任何规定告诉委员会，在第一天站在屋主门口时可以做什么。

可考虑的两项建议政府可考虑将签名游说的行为守则写入法令。法律已经在其他方面规范出售委员会的行为，而行为守则可以更进一步，为接触业主的方式设定界限。例如，可要求出售委员会指定一人负责与每户家庭沟通，且只有此人可以联系该住户。若业主希望停止被询问，可用书面方式说明，之后在整个游说期内相关接触就应结束。该业主将继续收到法律要求发出的通知，也仍可改变主意。但行为守则意味着，如果委员会或为其工作的人无视要求继续接触，就必须对此作出交代。也可给予屋主更多时间撤回同意。目前，签署集体出售协议的业主有五个工作日可撤回同意，且仅可撤回一次，方式是签署通知并亲手交给受委任律师。周二通过的新法律并未改变这一点，尽管它将游说期减半。这五天的存在，是为了确保业主的同意是在知情且真实的情况下作出；这也是政府在2010年拒绝完全取消冷静期呼声时保留该安排的原因。更短的游说期强化了这一理由。配套而言，政府可允许已签署的表格通过邮寄提交。亲手递交会按谁能在工作日下午5点前赶到律师事务所来区分业主，而被挡住的正是身在海外、年长或从事轮班工作的业主。

不是VERS的试运行在国会辩论期间，多名国会议员询问，en bloc 规则的变化是否会对自愿提早重建计划（VERS）产生影响。VERS将允许楼龄70年或以上的HDB组屋业主投票决定，政府是否可在99年地契到期前回购他们的住房。国家发展部长徐芳达去年9月在国会发言时说，国家发展部仍在制定VERS投票如何进行。最新变化不应被视为VERS的试运行，因为提交的修正法案明确将HDB土地上的任何发展项目排除在其所设立的新集体出售类别之外。两者还有其他差异。HDB组屋没有份额价值，因此同意将以不同方式计算。国家发展部（MND）也曾表示，VERS不应制造“中彩票效应”，赔偿将低于选择性整体重建计划下的赔偿，因为获提供VERS的组屋剩余地契更短。政府还拥有出售委员会没有的一项优势。它可以提前准备替代住房，并已表示会这样做。这一点比听起来更重要，因为出售委员会向业主要求的不只是一个价格。它要求业主用一个已知的家，换取一笔钱和一个希望。那些说不的人，往往最无法想象搬迁后的另一面。尽管存在所有这些差异，相似之处在于邻里之间会发生什么。唐先生在答复国会议员时说，VERS问题超出了该法案的范围，但他承认公共与私人市场之间有可借鉴之处，并表示律政部会与MND分享其在集体出售制度方面的经验。随着规则制定，私人住宅 en bloc 出售的经验可以提供有用的教训。支持老化屋苑更新工作是有必要的，但在不撕裂社区的情况下寻求共识并达成集体决定的过程，同样重要。Gabriel Kor是新加坡国立大学（NUS）设计与工程学院建筑环境系副教授兼副系主任（学术）。文中观点仅代表作者本人，不代表NUS的观点和意见。