# En bloc sale framework recalibrated as urban renewal ‘not merely desirable, but really imperative’: Edwin Tong

- **Source:** The Business Times
- **Published:** 2026-09-08T08:48:15.000Z
- **Author:** Chong Xin Wei
- **Original:** https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapore/en-bloc-sale-framework-recalibrated-urban-renewal-not-merely-desirable-really-imperative-edwin-tong
- **Topics:** Government & Policy, Transactions & Deals, Investment & Capital Markets

## Featured rationale

The recalibration could increase redevelopment opportunities among roughly 250 ageing developments, potentially expanding land supply while shortening uncertainty for owners through tighter sale-attempt timelines.

## AI summary

Singapore’s proposed en bloc rules lower consent thresholds to 70% for developments aged 40 to 59 and 65% for those aged at least 60.

## Original article

[SINGAPORE] Owners of older developments will face lower consent thresholds for en bloc sales to encourage rebuilds of ageing estates, among a raft of changes to Singapore’s collective sale regime under a Bill read in Parliament on Tuesday (Sep 8).

The amendments are designed with the aim of “making renewal more accessible where there is genuine majority support, while ensuring that owners are protected from repeated and disruptive attempts where there is not”, Minister for Law Edwin Tong told Parliament.

“The fundamental policy impetus at the heart of this Bill is the same one that Parliament endorsed when it introduced the collective sale regime in 1999 – that Singapore’s land scarcity makes urban renewal not merely desirable, but really imperative,” he said.

Developments aged 40 to 59 years will require 70 per cent consent for a collective sale, while those aged 60 years and up will need 65 per cent.

The thresholds will remain at 90 per cent for developments less than 10 years old, and 80 per cent for those aged 10 to 39 years.

Notably, developments aged 40 years and above that are currently gathering signatures will be allowed to terminate their existing collective sale agreement, and opt into a fresh attempt under the new framework.

Those that opt in will have seven months from the commencement date of the amendments to reach the applicable consent threshold.

Safeguards are being added to ensure non-consenting owners are not pressured, such as a much shorter window for signature collection – from 12 months to six – and a longer restriction period after a failed bid.

During the debate, several MPs raised concerns over whether the six-month signature collection period would be sufficient for larger or more complex developments, with some suggesting that more time be given in such cases.

Tong, in response, said that the government had considered having different timelines, based on factors such as the size of a development, but decided against it because size was “not necessarily the only indicator of complexity”.

Referring to MPs’ suggestions to account for the number of units in a development, and the age of a development and its owners, he said: “Where do you draw the line on complexity?

“So if you start recognising each of these different characteristics, you will find that the general rule of six months, which or any time frame that we want to enforce, will then get whittled away.

“And having a differentiated approach with different criteria itself then leads to even more complexity, and inherently more uncertainty for the collective sale scheme.”

He added that data from recent successful collective sales showed that a significant majority of signatures were typically gathered within the first four months, with several large developments reaching the 70 per cent threshold within six months.

Tong also noted that preparations begin before the formal signature collection period, with general meetings held and terms, such as sale proceeds, pricing and conditions, discussed beforehand.

Collective sale committees could use this period to gather and share information with owners, including those based overseas, he added.

The Bill also proposes that objectors could receive slightly higher sale proceeds, with the limit on court-ordered increases raised from 0.25 to 0.5 per cent of the sale proceeds for each unit, or S$2,000 for a unit, whichever is higher.

This provision was first introduced in 2007 as a protection for objectors, and applies where the High Court is satisfied that it would be “just and equitable to order an increase in the proceeds of sale to be received by the objectors”.

It would apply in cases such as the objecting owner having invested significantly in renovation works just prior to the collective sale exercise.

MP of Potong Pasir single-member constituency Alex Yeo asked whether homeowners who object to an en bloc sale can be exempted from Seller’s Stamp Duty (SSD) if the sale takes place within four years of their property purchase, particularly if they had bought their homes before the lower consent thresholds were announced.

Tong said that SSD serves a different policy purpose from the collective sale regime, as it is intended to discourage short-term holding of residential properties and curb speculative activity.

“Owners who participate in a collective sale may incur SSD if the sale occurs within the applicable SSD holding period, which ranges from three to four years, depending on when the property was acquired.”

He added: “For a collective sale to succeed, the collective sale agreement will have to account for any such stamp duties or any other deductibles, for that matter, payable by non-consenting owners when determining the apportionment of sale proceeds.”

Speaking during the second reading of the Bill, Tong said that Singapore’s stock of private developments has aged since the collective sale regime was introduced in 1999, and maintenance costs have risen significantly.

Around one in 20 non-landed private residential units are now aged 40 years or older, amounting to some 20,000 units in close to 250 developments.

Since 2023, the government has engaged a broad range of stakeholders to better understand the issues with the current framework, he added.

Two clear threads emerged from views shared.

“The first was a call to update the consent thresholds to facilitate the renewal of older developments,” he said.

Reading out feedback from an owner, which he noted “sums up the issue quite succinctly”, Tong said: “While the existing two-tiered consent thresholds were novel, innovative and necessary in 1999, conditions have changed since then. It cannot be right that a 10-year-old development and a 44-year-old development continue to face the same threshold.”

Owners were also worried about “being subjected to repeated and protracted collective sale attempts that disrupt the community that is in the condominium, and create prolonged uncertainty”.

“The lower consent thresholds make broad-based renewal more accessible for genuinely ageing developments where there is support among the owners,” he said.

“At the same time, the higher initiation threshold, shorter signature window and extended restriction period ensure that the framework cannot be used to mount repeated, disruptive attempts in developments where there is insufficient majority support.”

The collective sale regime will also be extended to non-strata-titled private residential developments, where flat owners hold a leasehold tenure of less than 850 years in their units, but do not own the underlying land.

These include developments such as Neptune Court, One Tree Hill Mansions, Paterson Court, Orchard Court and Townhouse Apartments, all of which are more than 40 years old and sit on land owned by the Minister for Finance (MOF).

MOF (Inc) is prepared to divest its interest in these developments at fair market value, said Tong.

The Bill, an amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, was first tabled on Aug 4, about a week after changes to the additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) regime for buyers of large en bloc sites.

Those changes give developers of such plots more time to complete construction and sell all units, before having to pay ABSD on the land cost.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: openai_codex_cli

### 集体出售框架重新校准，因市区更新“不仅可取，而且确实势在必行”：唐振辉

楼龄40至59年的发展项目进行集体出售需70%同意；楼龄60年及以上者需65%

[新加坡] 根据周二（9月8日）在国会宣读的一项法案，新加坡集体出售制度将迎来一系列修改，其中老旧发展项目业主在集体出售时将面临较低的同意门槛，以鼓励老化屋苑重建。

律政部长唐振辉在国会表示，这些修正案旨在“在确有多数支持的情况下，让更新更容易实现，同时确保在没有这种支持的情况下，业主受到保护，不会被反复且具干扰性的尝试所影响”。

他说：“这项法案核心的根本政策推动力，与国会在1999年引入集体出售制度时认可的是同一个——新加坡土地稀缺，使市区更新不仅可取，而且确实势在必行。”

楼龄40至59年的发展项目进行集体出售将需要70%的同意，而楼龄60年及以上的发展项目将需要65%。

楼龄少于10年的发展项目门槛将维持在90%，楼龄10至39年的发展项目门槛维持在80%。

值得注意的是，目前正在征集签名的楼龄40年及以上发展项目，将被允许终止其现有集体出售协议，并选择根据新框架重新尝试。

选择加入的新项目将自修正案生效日期起有七个月时间，以达到适用的同意门槛。

为确保未同意出售的业主不受压力，新的保障措施将被加入，例如将征集签名窗口从12个月大幅缩短至六个月，并在竞标失败后设置更长的限制期。

在辩论期间，数名国会议员对六个月的签名征集期是否足以适用于较大型或较复杂的发展项目提出担忧，一些议员建议在这类情况下给予更多时间。

唐振辉回应称，政府曾考虑根据发展项目规模等因素设定不同时限，但最终决定不这样做，因为规模“未必是复杂性的唯一指标”。

谈到议员们提出应考虑发展项目单位数量以及发展项目和业主年龄的建议时，他说：“你如何为复杂性划线？

“因此，如果你开始承认这些不同特征中的每一项，你会发现六个月这一一般规则，或我们想要执行的任何时限，随后都会被逐步削弱。

“而采用不同标准的差异化做法本身又会导致集体出售计划出现更多复杂性，并内在地带来更多不确定性。”

他补充称，近期成功集体出售的数据表明，绝大多数签名通常在最初四个月内收集完成，数个大型发展项目在六个月内达到70%门槛。

唐振辉还指出，准备工作会在正式签名征集期之前开始，包括举行大会，以及事先讨论出售收益、定价和条件等条款。

他补充说，集体出售委员会可利用这段时间收集信息并与业主分享，包括身在海外的业主。

该法案还建议，反对者可获得略高的出售收益；法院命令增加款项的上限将从每个单位出售收益的0.25%提高至0.5%，或每个单位2,000新元，以较高者为准。

这一条款最早于2007年引入，作为对反对者的保护，并适用于高等法院认定“命令增加反对者应收出售收益属公正和公平”的情况。

它将适用于诸如反对业主刚在集体出售行动之前对装修工程投入大量资金的情况。

波东巴西单选区国会议员Alex Yeo询问，如果集体出售在其购买物业后四年内发生，反对集体出售的屋主是否可获豁免卖方印花税（SSD），尤其是如果他们是在较低同意门槛公布前购买住房。

唐振辉表示，SSD与集体出售制度服务于不同的政策目的，因为它旨在遏制住宅物业短期持有并抑制投机活动。

“参与集体出售的业主，如果出售发生在适用的SSD持有期内，可能需要承担SSD；该持有期为三至四年，取决于物业取得时间。”

他补充说：“要使集体出售成功，集体出售协议在确定出售收益分配时，必须考虑任何此类印花税，或就此而言任何其他扣除项，由未同意出售业主支付。”

在法案二读期间发言时，唐振辉表示，自1999年引入集体出售制度以来，新加坡私人发展项目存量已经老化，维护成本也显著上升。

目前约每20个非有地私人住宅单位中就有一个楼龄达40年或以上，合计约20,000个单位，分布在近250个发展项目中。

他补充称，自2023年以来，政府已接触广泛利益相关者，以更好了解当前框架存在的问题。

所分享意见中出现了两条清晰主线。

他说：“第一是呼吁更新同意门槛，以促进较旧发展项目的更新。”

唐振辉读出一名业主的反馈，并指出该反馈“相当简明地概括了问题”。他说：“虽然现有两级同意门槛在1999年是新颖、创新且必要的，但情况自那以来已经改变。一个楼龄10年的发展项目和一个楼龄44年的发展项目继续面对相同门槛，这是不合理的。”

业主也担心“被反复且拖延的集体出售尝试所影响，这些尝试会扰乱公寓内的社区，并造成长期不确定性”。

他说：“较低的同意门槛使真正老化且获得业主支持的发展项目更容易实现广泛更新。”

“与此同时，更高的启动门槛、更短的签名窗口和延长的限制期，确保该框架不会被用于在多数支持不足的发展项目中发动反复且具干扰性的尝试。”

集体出售制度还将扩展至非分层地契私人住宅发展项目，在这些项目中，公寓业主持有其单位少于850年的租赁产权，但并不拥有底层土地。

这些包括Neptune Court、One Tree Hill Mansions、Paterson Court、Orchard Court和Townhouse Apartments等发展项目，它们均楼龄超过40年，并坐落在财政部长（MOF）拥有的土地上。

唐振辉表示，MOF (Inc) 准备按公平市场价值出售其在这些发展项目中的权益。

该法案是对《土地业权（分层）法》的修正案，于8月4日首次提交，时间约在针对大型集体出售地块买家的额外买方印花税（ABSD）制度变更后一周。

这些变更给予此类地块的发展商更多时间完成建设并售出所有单位，然后才需要就土地成本支付ABSD。