Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kurykh 01:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore

En bloc sale of private strata title property in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete for being an OR essay. No assertions as to why this page is even notable in the first place, or if the issues are as serious as the page's creator said. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I did something wrong, please let me know. I apologize beforehand. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, actually :P. I was simply pointing out that a prod, if left unchallenged, would have led to exactly the same result as a successful AfD. Ironholds (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that tidbit. Will remember that, going forward. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 17:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


At the kind suggestion of LinguistAtLarge, I'm re-posting the flwg here:

To facilitate your review/verification of my Wiki page, here's another link to the Strata Titles Board (STB) Circular issued in 2004 to clarify the 1999 Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) which I have also added to my Wiki page:

[[1]] Strata Titles Boards Circular 1/2004

Whether a clarifying STB Circular has the effect of a "statute" is an open question (to me). This clarification effectively affirmed a window of up to 24 months to nail down an en bloc sale based on a Reserve Price established upfront (ie, even earlier than 24 months) in a moving (ie, for en bloc sales, usually frenzied upward-moving) property market. To date (ie, for nearly a whole decade), the en bloc industry along the entire value chain (viz, starting from the en bloc sale committee, to the property marketing agent/en bloc lawyer (both of whom operate under "no sale, no fee" structure), to the developer-buyer, to the STB, to the courts) takes this 24-month window as law.

It is beyond me as a mere citizen to challenge this - so I take it as part of the game rules and, accordingly, this is only a comment. However, this legislative effect created a business structure and modality that exacerbates the dire predicament of owner-occupiers (especially) who face the following crushing prospects in buying a replacement family home post-en bloc:
Squatters (rent until the market hopefully crashes),
Refugees (buy apartment in another estate of equivalent or older age and risk being en bloc yet again - there are letters to the press of such experiences),
Downgraders (buy public housing flats or move from central to suburbs),
Downsizers (buy in same neighbourhood at "twice the price; half the size").

BTW, I run this blog using my pseudonym of "The Pariah" at: www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com and a condensed version of my analysis of this piece of legislation is set out in this blog entry: [[2]] The Source and Themis
(but I suppose Wikipedia etiquette would NOT allow me to embed links to my own blog - Correct??).
(SINPariah (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Pls excuse me for being a befuddled Wikipedia newbie. But it looks like my postings on Arbiteroftruth's talk page disappeared yesterday. So I will repeat them here:

1. Again, to facilitate verification, I have added links in my new Wikipedia page to external web-sites of (a) the Attorney General's Chamber for the Land Title (Strata) Act and (b) the Supreme Court for the written judgement on Regent Court en bloc suit.

As the AG's Chamber link requires the Wiki user to know the name (viz, Land Titles (Strata) Act) or the chapter number (viz, Cap 158) before this statute could be accessed, it is not user-friendly to Wiki users unfamiliar with Singapore laws. How can I make the link more user-friendly pls?

As the Supreme Court web-master archives the judgements every calendar quarter, this Regent Court en bloc written judgement would eventually disappear from the "Current Judgements" web-page. How can I affix the link so that the judgement is available for viewing post-archival?

2. Likewise (despite being a non-technie), I've managed to convert the flwg into jpeg image files: (a) the statistical charts of the Urban Redevelopment Authority and Jones Lang LaSalle Research and (b) the pertinent page extract from the Singapore Academy of Law Journal article. However, my attempt to attach these under "insert a picture gallery" has resulted in rectangular blobs! As I obviously do not hold the copyright to these charts/article, can I add them to Wikipedia Commons with the necessary source attributes? If I'm assured that it's ok, then I will muck around to attempt an upload from Wikipedia Commons thereafter.

Your kind assistance would be much appreciated. Kindly e-mail me at:
<singaporeenbloc@gmail.com>
(SINPariah (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Do not Delete this article: I have found this article to be both accurate and informative and reflects the other side of the coin on this matter. As a victim of a failed attempt of an en bloc sale of my private condominium in Singapore, there are salient facts not generally known to owners beforehand. The rosy picture painted in the media is not an accurate reflection of what happens on the ground and the safeguards found in the Statutes for the minority owners are constantly being watered down by the Courts. Certainly, as an owner of a middle to low end private apartment, the assertion that the issue is not as serious as the pages's creator said is wrong, and it is indeed very serious to all those who are burned at the alter of En Bloc. In my estate alone, that would include many who would have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in their savings accounts had the majority been successful in their attempt at selling the estate in 2007(rising property market) at as price set in 2005(low property market). Buying a property at 'half the size, double the price' was the reality, as my research into a possible replacement property revealed at the time. I can only wait with dread at the next attempt to sell my home without my permission, at a price set by others and with very weak legislature to protect my interests. This article is correct in pointing out the weaknesses, pitfalls and untruths that lie behind this particular law. Itshometome (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The fact remains, my friend, that the article is completely based on original research, uncorroborated by experts, and we are not even sure if the issue is trumped up, in an effort to make it more serious than it truly is. The article cannot stay. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 06:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply - The contents are corroborated if you care to read the links embedded in this newly created Wikipedia page to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, Cap 158, Part VA and First-Fourth Schedules, the Strata Titles Board Circular No 1/2004, the High Court written judgement. Respectively, the sources are the web-sites of the Singapore Attorney General's Chamber, the Strata Titles Boards under the Ministry of National Development and the Supreme Court. What better pedigree can one get, ugh?
Reply 2 - The author of this Wikipedia page (SIN Pariah) has disclosed e-mail address <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> for you to contact the author if you would like to verify the statistical charts of Urban Redevelopment Authority and Jones Lang LaSalle Research and article page extract from the Singapore Academy of Law Journal. It is only because of the author's non-technie skills and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's tools that these statistical charts and journal extract are displayed as rectangular blobs. To date, Arbiteroftruth has not contacted SIN Pariah in any attempt to verify these statistical charts or journal extract.
(SINPariah (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
My friend, stats can be something that is twisted and contorted to something that it isn't. The fact still remains that this is an original research, and Wikipedia does not allow articles of original research. If you have a few experts to back you up on this, it would be totally different. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Arbiteroftruth: The statistics were published in Singapore's Business Times with attribution to URA and Jones Lang LaSalle research. Surely, public record is available to be attached as jpeg files in Wikipedia? The statistical charts are on my latest blog entry dated March 2009 (Para 3 entitled "Civil Service (URA/SLA)") at <www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com>. You could add up these published stats for yourself. Feel free to check it out to satisfy your validation or verification process.
I have kept a soft copy of a forum letter written to the press published in Today paper on 27 Dec 2007 by a Lucy Huang, recounting her post-en bloc refugee experiences. As I am not familiar with the technie aspects of Wikipedia, I don't know how to successfuly upload a jpeg file. Again, I urge you to contact me via e-mail <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com> so that I could attach the jpeg file for your verification to corroborate the dire prospects faced by private condo owners post-en bloc.
Surely, being on Wikipedia's panel of editors/reviewers, I hope you'd Seek Out Truth BEFORE you Arbitrate On Truth. I thought Wikipedia purports to be a platform to reflect ground realities and various schools of thought and NOT a platform for the "Who's Who" and the Powers-that-be. Am I mistaken perhaps? If I am so mistaken, then my apologies indeed.
(SINPariah (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is an information platform, not a platform for information that is contorted, and certainly not a platform for lies. You still cannot corroborate your information, and prove to me that you did not contort information, and turn them into damned lies. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The statistical charts are from Business Times. No contortion. No lies - damned or otherwise. Since I am not even technie enough to load jpeg files into Wikipedia, I'm NOT clever enough to massage pdf, gif or jpeg files!
Found a soft copy of another press report (The New Paper, 26 Aug 2008) about en bloc vandalism in an estate that is currently under en bloc sale process. Upon any request to my e-mail address <singaporeenbloc@gmail.com>, I stand ready and willing to e-mail as file attachment to anyone who cares to verify/validate "information" on this newly created Wiki page.
(SINPariah (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

i am a lawyer in private practice in singapore who also happened to be a non-consenting owner to an enbloc attempt to sell at a grossly unfair price and can relate to and confirm many of the things said by sinpariah especially under unjust law - in relation to what is alllowed by law under the 12 + 12 = 24 month window. (Vijust (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

vijust

  • Delete. The content has potential, but cannot stay in current form.
  1. Content should be written from a neutral point of view.
  2. This is a valid issue for inclusion, but current prose is written as an original essay.
  3. Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme is shorter than this; any salvageable content would be merged into a "Criticism" section.
  4. The news articles and citations can be reworked into encyclopedic prose, and does have potential to cover the points in the article.

- Mailer Diablo 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad of and impressed with the wealth of information in this article on the current enbloc situation in Singapore. As a minority dissenter who have been involved in such a process, I can verify that the contents are well-balanced and educational. I notice Arbitorfortruth still has some reservations on this article. Why not take up SINPariah's offer and contact the originator for proper verifications?

suntzeren(Suntzeren (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. Upon reading "What Wikipedia Is Not", I have to say that the content is (a) a personal essay (b) a soapbox, which represents an unbalanced view of en-bloc sales in Singapore. This is clear from the non-neutral position and rhetoric of the content author. The author has already established his/her feelings on the matter on en-bloc sales on his/her own blog but I don't think Wikipedia should be a further platform to promote his/her non-neutral views. It represents a very specific perspective on en-bloc sales, especially the advocating of '1-4-1 exchange' which has no supporting evidence. I would suggest corroborating evidence for statements such as 'the authorities to date have NOT been receptive to proposals for one ADDITIONAL option' (evidence?), 'Anecdotal accounts corroborate these poll findings' (evidence?), 'this trend of STATISTICAL PURCHASE DISPLACEMENT BY FOREIGNERS in CCR..is likely a direct consequence of en bloc sales facilitated by such en bloc law' (source?), 'it could take nearly six months from the date of application' (reference?), 'Bodyguards were employed' (reference?), 'Even earlier suggestions by lawyers..to develop a Best Practices and Code of Conduct were not taken up by the authorities' (reference?) etc. Unless substantial changes are made, the content is not suitable for wikipedia.

Wikisider (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kimchi, Mailer Diablo and Wikisider. I have left a message on Kimchi's talk page about my jpeg file attachments and would appreciate some guidance/help as I'm really NON-technie. I have started amending the article and now that a friend has helped me put in the citations for the Land Titles (Strata) Act (which is the source for all the points that I made in this Wiki article), I will plug in a slew of citations at the various tagged places. Just give me a few days to tidy it up.

Where the points relate to newspaper reports (eg, what the specialist en bloc lawyer said about 1-4-1 exchange), I have the source, the date, BUT Singapore's press media database in DIGITAL FORM is very limited (UNLIKE in the USA). The articles are archived every 7 days and there is no way to obtain an archival URL. I went down to our National Library to check if I could get an ISSN or IBSN number but even the archives in our National Library are in microfiche form and can only be accessed on the library premises and only photocopies could be made - that doesn't help to provide a digital access for Wiki's verification purposes. And I'm trying to limit the non-free copyright use to as FEW jpeg images as possible. Ditto for the Hansard Parliamentary Reports - I have the full volume/column references and would include that in the citation source but, again, there is no way to obtain an archival URL. So would that help in your Wiki review/verification pls, Kimchi, Mailer Diablo and Wikisider? Your guidance pls.
(SINPariah (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! I've stuck in a whole bunch of citations to the LTSA law and various articles. Is it better now? I'll need some time to clean up the Wiki page and say stuff in a different tone.

Comment The emphasis should not be on a different tone but to move away from using wikipedia as your soapbox. The content clearly presents one side of this controversial matter and hence its neutrality is greatly questioned. Further content to balance the article, not additional references to the law, should be added. If anything, limit any personal opinions on the matter to a sub-category on Controversies, rather than having them located almost everywhere in the content. For example, assume your audience is the Singapore Government - how would you rewrite the content to ensure it is not seen as seditious or libelous?
Wikisider (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimchi - I want to better organize the stuff by adding new sections so that they appear under the "Contents" box. I don't know how to do it. Could you stick the codes and instructions in this talk page pls? Much obliged, (SINPariah (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment- I think the general consensus here tend towards having the article deleted. Therefore, I think we can do what is right now, and delete this soapbox from Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 02:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sure we can. However in the interest of following due process and getting more people to chip in (half the contributors are SPAs) we should wait on that until the alotted time is up. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/En_bloc_sale_of_private_strata_title_property_in_Singapore&oldid=1088296718"