# MPs raise concerns over shorter timeline for signature collection as law passed to lower en bloc thresholds

- **Source:** Channel NewsAsia
- **Published:** 2026-09-08T12:01:06.000Z
- **Author:** Erin Liam
- **Original:** https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/en-bloc-lower-threshold-shorter-timeline-parliament-debate-6369906
- **Topics:** Transactions & Deals

## Featured rationale

The changes may facilitate redevelopment of Singapore’s roughly 20,000 private non-landed homes above 40 years, while tighter initiation and timing rules could limit disruptive attempts.

## AI summary

Parliament passed a law lowering en bloc consent thresholds from 80% to 70% for developments aged 40–59 and to 65% for those aged 60 or older.

## Original article

SINGAPORE: Members of Parliament (MPs) raised concerns about a shorter timeline to get signatures for a collective sale agreement and the cost of replacement homes as parliament passed a law on Tuesday (Sep 8) to lower en bloc consent thresholds for older developments. Under the new law, the consent threshold for developments aged 40 to 59 years would be lowered from 80 per cent to 70 per cent, and from 80 per cent to 65 per cent for those aged 60 years and above. At the same time, the legislation would tighten rules governing en bloc attempts . The threshold to convene a general meeting to form a collective sale committee would be raised to 35 per cent of owners, measured either by share value or the number of units. That is up from the current requirement of 20 per cent of owners by share value or 25 per cent of the number of units in the development. The timeline to obtain signatures for a collective sale agreement will be halved from 12 months to six months. After a failed collective sale attempt, the restriction period will be extended from two years to three years. During that period, any fresh attempt to form a collective sale committee would be subject to the higher requisition threshold.

In his opening speech, Minister for Law Edwin Tong said the amendments form an “integrated package” that facilitates the renewal of older developments, while providing greater certainty and also stronger protections for non-consenting owners. “The lower consent thresholds make board-based renewal more accessible for genuinely ageing developments where there is support amongst the owners. “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 for which there is really insufficient majority support,” he said. As buildings age, the cost of upkeep rises significantly, he added. The estimated cost of modernising a single lift starts from S$120,000 (US$95,000), and full replacement costs between S$200,000 and S$300,000 per lift. Repainting works can cost several million in larger developments, and the cost of mandatory façade inspections, spalling concrete repairs, waterproofing and structural inspections needs to be factored in as well, he said. “For the owners, this represents a real and growing burden. At some stage, continued investment in upkeep yields diminishing returns, and owners who wish to pursue renewal may nonetheless find themselves unable to do so under the existing framework,” he said. Mr Tong added that the law builds on previous efforts to ensure that Singapore’s framework for urban renewal remains “fit for purpose”, and allows for Singapore's urban landscape to continue to renew itself in an “orderly and sustainable fashion”. According to official government records, more than 360,000 private non-landed residential units are currently below 40 years, while 20,000 private non-landed residential units are above 40 years.

SIX-MONTH TIMELINE Several MPs raised concerns about the shortened timeline to collect signatures for a collective sale. MP Fadli Fawzi (WP-Aljunied) said that the administrative burden on a volunteer collective sale committee is “immense”, especially in larger condominiums. Gathering signatures involves door-to-door verification, coordinating with overseas owners, navigating complex probate matters for deceased owners and holding multiple town hall discussions to address individual anxieties, he said. “A rigid six-month window may inevitably penalise large estates where a vast majority of owners may actually favour a sale, but where the sheer logistics may prevent the committee from reaching the final finish line in time.” He suggested having tiered timelines based on the size of the estate, or introducing an automatic grace period extension to the signature collection period. MP Wan Rizal (PAP-Jalan Besar) said a shorter period to collect signatures can reduce uncertainty and prolonged campaigning. But if the timeline is “too tight”, owners may feel rushed and tensions between neighbours may rise, he said. Similarly, MP Ang Wei Neng (PAP-West Coast-Jurong West) suggested a mechanism allowing larger developments to apply for an extension where there are “genuine practical difficulties”. “This would strike a reasonable balance: protecting non-consenting owners from unnecessary prolonged pressure, while recognising that large developments should not necessarily be treated in exactly the same way as the small ones,” he said. In response, Mr Tong noted that the period of signature collection is usually the “most difficult” and “most polarising” phase of a collective sale exercise for all owners, “There will be sustained uncertainty and pressure in some cases, persistent lobbying. In one example, we received feedback that information on units that had not or refused to sign the CSA (collective sale agreement) were then named on social media, on WhatsApp, chat groups, other communication groups, to try and pressure these owners into agreeing to the sale,” he said. While this does not happen across developments, such practices tend to happen in longer signature collection periods, he said. He added that while they had considered the merits of a differentiated signature collection period, they decided against it as size is “not necessarily the only indicator of complexity” in the context of an en bloc sale. Mr Tong added that a significant majority of signatures are typically gathered within the first four months, or within a concentrated window of one to two months. Several large developments were also able to reach the 70 per cent threshold within six months. This data informed how they approached the revisions, he said.

SUPPORT FOR HOMEOWNERS Another concern raised was the cost of finding a replacement home, should a collective sale succeed. Non-Constituency MP Andre Low (WP) said a successful collective sale could leave a household struggling to afford a move. “For an older owner, making up the shortfall could mean drawing further on retirement savings, and a younger family with limited savings may need substantial new borrowing if it can obtain a loan at all,” he said. He asked the government to consider requiring a standardised disclosure of the likely financial and rehousing consequences before owners sign the collective sale agreement. Owners should be able to see indicative net proceeds based on the reserve price and apportionment method, with sale costs and relevant mortgage and CPF implications clearly explained, he said.

MP Yip Hon Weng (PAP-Yio Chu Kang) suggested that owners’ information packages should include indicative prices for comparable nearby homes, major relocation costs and the expected timetable. While this would not guarantee replacement, it would reveal the “real cost” of starting again, he said. MPs pointed out that elderly and vulnerable households, in particular, might require more assistance in the collective sale process. In the face of maintenance cost pressures and a lower consent threshold for a collective sale, MP Alex Yeo (PAP-Potong Pasir) asked whether some homeowners would be left with no other choice but to accept a lower and less competitive collective sale. He asked whether the government would consider setting up a support mechanism, particularly for senior homeowners who may require advice on their rights and relocation prospects in the collective sale process. MP He Ting Ru (WP-Sengkang) said there may be homeowners who feel they have no housing alternatives. They may be elderly, in poor health, or vulnerable in other ways, she said. She asked the government to clarify what specific bridging support or relocation assistance could be extended to elderly or vulnerable minority owners who did not consent to the sale, but are compelled to give up their primary home under these lower thresholds.

In response, Mr Tong said it would be useful to have a lawyer introduced into the process, as included in the 2007 amendment, to offer owners an opportunity to ask questions about legal terms, liabilities, what is outstanding on the mortgage, what they might have to incur by way of cost, and address any doubts that they might have. If needed or necessary, the collective sale committee can already work with the appointed lawyers to make special arrangements to accommodate signing by individuals who may face mobility issues or require additional assistance. The requirement of a physical presence of a lawyer only applies when the collective sale agreement is signed in Singapore, not when it is signed overseas, he added. Mr Tong added that information on the collective sale process is available on the Strata Titles Board (STB) website. Owners can also tap into legal support resources available to members of the public, including from Pro Bono SG's community legal clinics. “We will work with STB to enhance the relevant information after these amendments are introduced, as well as the guides that are available on the collective sale process, so that … those who are affected by the collective sales will be better informed,” he said. Collective sale committees must also provide a preface to the collective sale agreement, which states the clause numbers and page numbers where key information can be found, including the apportionment method for the proceeds of sale. That perhaps is the most important information for a seller, as well as the fees payable to parties involved in handling the collective sales, such as lawyers, professional agents, and others, said Mr Tong.

OTHER PARTS OF BILL Under the new law, the limit on court-ordered increases to the sale proceeds paid to objectors will be raised from 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent of the sale proceeds for each lot or flat, or S$2,000 for each lot or flat, whichever is higher. This increases the pool of proceeds available to be awarded to non-consenting owners. The amendments would also extend the collective sale regime to non-strata-titled private residential developments where flat owners hold long leases over their units but do not own the underlying land. Such developments require unanimous agreement between flat owners and landowners before they can be sold. Under the new framework, they could instead proceed with a majority-consent sale, with safeguards to protect landowners' interests. Currently, they can only undergo collective sale by majority consent if the flat owners own flat leases of at least 850 years. Most of the amendments would apply to ongoing en bloc exercises where the first signature to the collective sale agreement has not been obtained before the law comes into force. In estates where the first signature has already been obtained, the ministry said the rules will continue to apply. However, committees that are still collecting signatures will be allowed to convene general meetings to decide whether to terminate the agreement, and if so, to approve terms for a new agreement that will be subject to the new rules. Such collective sale committees will be given seven months from the start date to meet the required consent threshold for the new agreement.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 国会通过降低集体出售门槛法案，议员对缩短征集签名期限表示担忧

辩论中，议员亦提及重置住房成本及对年长住户的支援。

新加坡：国会星期二（9月8日）通过降低较旧发展项目集体出售同意门槛的法案，议员对缩短集体出售协议征集签名的期限以及重置住房的成本表示担忧。根据新法，楼龄40至59年项目的同意门槛将从80%降至70%，楼龄60年及以上项目则从80%降至65%。与此同时，该立法将收紧规范集体出售尝试的规则。召开大会以组成集体出售委员会的门槛将提高至业主的35%，按份额值或单位数目计算。这高于目前按份额值计算须获20%业主、或按发展项目内单位数目计算须获25%的要求。征集集体出售协议签名的期限将从12个月减半至6个月。集体出售尝试失败后，限制期将从两年延长至三年。在此期间，任何重新组建集体出售委员会的尝试，都将适用更高的提请门槛。

律政部长唐振辉在开场发言中表示，有关修订构成一个“综合配套”，既促进较旧发展项目的更新，也为未同意的业主提供更大确定性及更强保障。“较低的同意门槛，使真正老化、且业主当中已有支持的发展项目，更容易推进具广泛基础的更新。“与此同时，更高的启动门槛、更短的签名窗口，以及延长的限制期，确保该框架不能被用来在实际上缺乏足够多数支持的发展项目中，反复发起具干扰性的尝试，”他说。他补充说，随着建筑物老化，维修保养成本会显著上升。据估计，更新一部电梯的费用起价为新币12万元（美元9.5万元），全面更换则每部电梯需新币20万至30万元。在较大型发展项目中，重新粉刷工程可能耗资数百万，强制外墙检查、混凝土剥落维修、防水工程及结构检查的费用也必须纳入考量，他说。“对业主而言，这是实实在在且日益加重的负担。到了某个阶段，持续投入维修所带来的回报会递减，而希望推动更新的业主，在现有框架下仍可能无法如愿，”他说。唐振辉补充说，该法建立在此前努力的基础上，旨在确保新加坡的市区更新框架仍然“切合目的”，并让新加坡的城市景观能够以“有序且可持续的方式”持续自我更新。根据官方政府记录，目前有超过36万个私人非有地住宅单位楼龄低于40年，另有2万个私人非有地住宅单位楼龄超过40年。

六个月期限 若干议员对缩短征集集体出售签名的期限表示担忧。阿裕尼集选区工人党议员Fadli Fawzi表示，志愿组成的集体出售委员会所承担的行政负担“极为沉重”，尤其是在较大型共管公寓中。他说，征集签名涉及上门核实、与海外业主协调、处理已故业主复杂的遗嘱认证事宜，以及召开多场居民大会以回应个别业主的顾虑。“僵化的六个月窗口，最终可能对大型楼盘造成不利——绝大多数业主或许实际上赞成出售，但单凭后勤安排的规模，就可能让委员会无法及时冲过终点线。”他建议按楼盘规模设定分级期限，或为签名征集期引入自动宽限期延长。惹兰勿刹单选区行动党议员Wan Rizal表示，缩短征集签名的期限可以减少不确定性及旷日持久的游说。但如果期限“过紧”，业主可能感到仓促，邻里之间的紧张关系也可能上升，他说。同样，西海岸-裕廊西集选区行动党议员洪维能建议设立机制，允许较大型发展项目在出现“真正实际困难”时申请延期。“这将取得合理平衡：保护未同意的业主免受不必要的长期压力，同时承认大型发展项目不必与小型项目完全一视同仁，”他说。唐振辉回应时指出，签名征集期通常是集体出售过程中对所有业主而言“最困难”也“最两极化”的阶段，“在某些情况下会出现持续的不确定性与压力，以及不断的游说。有一个例子是，我们收到反馈，尚未签署或拒绝签署集体出售协议（CSA）的单位信息，随后被点名发布在社交媒体、WhatsApp、聊天群及其他通讯群组上，试图施压这些业主同意出售，”他说。他说，虽然这种情况并非在所有发展项目中都会发生，但此类做法往往出现在较长的签名征集期内。他补充说，虽然他们曾考虑过差异化签名征集期的优点，但最终决定不采用，因为在集体出售的情境下，规模“未必是复杂性的唯一指标”。唐振辉补充说，绝大多数签名通常在首四个月内征集完毕，或集中在一至两个月的窗口内完成。若干大型发展项目也能在六个月内达到70%的门槛。他说，这些数据为他们如何处理修订提供了依据。

对业主的支援 另一项被提出的关切，是集体出售若成功，寻找重置住房的成本。工人党非选区议员Andre Low表示，集体出售成功可能让一个家庭难以负担搬迁。“对较年长的业主而言，填补差额可能意味着进一步动用退休储蓄；而储蓄有限的年轻家庭，即便能够获贷，也可能需要大幅新增借贷，”他说。他促请政府考虑规定，业主在签署集体出售协议前，须获标准化披露可能的财务及重新安置后果。他说，业主应能看到基于底价及分配方法的指示性净收益，并清楚说明出售成本以及相关的房屋贷款与公积金影响。

杨厝港集选区行动党议员叶汉荣建议，业主资料包应包含附近可比住房的指示性价格、主要搬迁成本及预期时间表。他说，虽然这不能保证重置住房，但会揭示重新开始的“真实成本”。议员指出，年长及弱势家庭在集体出售过程中尤其可能需要更多协助。面对维修成本压力及更低的集体出售同意门槛，波东巴西单选区行动党议员杨展玉询问，是否会有一些业主别无选择，只能接受较低、竞争力较弱的集体出售。他询问政府是否会考虑设立支援机制，尤其是针对可能需要就其在集体出售过程中的权利及搬迁前景获得建议的年长业主。盛港集选区工人党议员何廷儒表示，可能有业主觉得自己没有其他住房选择。他们可能年长、健康状况不佳，或以其他方式处于弱势，她说。她促请政府澄清，对于未同意出售、却因这些较低门槛而被迫放弃主要住所的年长或弱势少数业主，可以提供哪些具体的过渡支援或搬迁协助。

唐振辉回应说，如2007年修订所纳入的，在过程中引入律师会有帮助，让业主有机会就法律条款、责任、抵押贷款未清余额、可能须承担的费用提问，并消除任何疑虑。如有需要，集体出售委员会已可与委任律师合作，作出特别安排，以便为行动不便或需要额外协助的人士提供签署便利。他补充说，律师必须亲身在场的要求，仅适用于集体出售协议在新加坡签署的情况，在海外签署时则不适用。唐振辉补充说，有关集体出售过程的信息可在分层地契委员会（STB）网站上查阅。业主也可使用向公众开放的法律支援资源，包括公益法律组织Pro Bono SG的社区法律诊所。“我们将与分层地契委员会合作，在这些修订推出后加强相关信息，以及有关集体出售过程的指南，以便……受集体出售影响的人士能获得更充分的资讯，”他说。集体出售委员会还必须为集体出售协议提供前言，列明可找到关键信息的条款编号及页码，包括售卖收益的分配方法。唐振辉说，这对卖方而言或许是最重要的信息，以及须支付给处理集体出售相关各方的费用，例如律师、专业代理及其他人士。

法案其他部分 根据新法，法院裁定向反对者增加支付售卖收益的上限，将从每份地段或每个单位售卖收益的0.25%提高至0.5%，或每份地段或每个单位新币2000元，以较高者为准。这增加了可判给未同意业主的收益池。有关修订亦将把集体出售制度扩展至非分层地契私人住宅发展项目，即单位业主持有其单位的长期租约、但不拥有底土的项目。此类发展项目在出售前，须获得单位业主与土地业主的一致同意。在新框架下，他们可以改为以多数同意进行出售，同时设有保障措施以保护土地业主的利益。目前，只有在单位业主拥有至少850年单位租约的情况下，才能以多数同意进行集体出售。大部分修订将适用于法律生效前尚未取得集体出售协议首个签名的进行中集体出售。该部表示，对于已经取得首个签名的楼盘，现行规则将继续适用。不过，仍在征集签名的委员会将获准召开大会，决定是否终止协议；若终止，则批准将受新规则约束的新协议条款。此类集体出售委员会将获自生效日起七个月时间，以达到新协议所需的同意门槛。