TAMPINES COURT - AN OWNERS VIEW

I am an owner in Tampines Court and would like to raise my views on the misleading facts happening in my estate by the minority owners on the following:

"The developer buyer will NOT EXTEND the Sales and Purchase Agreement.
The enbloc sale of Tampines Court is dead if the STB does not approve the sale by the 24 July 2008. Wonders will never cease! "

My view:

The STB heard the case from 16th to 18th June 2008. At the end of the hearing, two more witnesses had yet to be cross-examined.

The objectors had also raised the issue that the unused beta sum should be distributed amongst all owners. The sale committee agreed that the unused beta sum would be so distributed.

The STB has fixed 7th Aug 2008 for the continued hearing. It is estimated that only one more day would be needed to complete the cross-examination of these two witnesses.

The sale committee endeavoured to obtain an extension of the 25th July 2008 deadline from the Purchaser. At the moment, Far East has reverted to say that they are not minded to agree to the extension.

The sale committee has applied to the STB this morning for the hearing date to be brought forward. This application is being closely monitored.

I believe the Sale Committee will update the majority owners on the development.

I will correct a piece of information put up by the objectors on their blogsite.

Far East obtained the Residential Property Approval (the RPA approval) on 25th July 2007 and served it on our lawyers on 26th July 2007.

At that time, the STB of Gillman Heights was being fought in the STB. The STB dismissed this argument in the Gillman Height decision on 21 December 2007.

The Tampines Court advertisements appeared 6 days later, on 27th December 2007.

The STB application was filed on 7th January 2008.

It is therefore not correct to say that the STB application was not filed for 9 months.

I respect the objectors' point of views.

Throughout this exercise, before the STB, special efforts were made to try and engage the objectors in a constructive manner.

There were many dialogues.

Moreover, even at the STB stage, when the objectors for the first time raised the issue of the distribution of the unused beta sum, the sale committee agreed that the unused sum should be shared by all.

However, this was objected to as well.

It is incorrect to say that the unpaid maintenance and sinking funds contributions would be paid from the beta sum. The beta sum is utilised for the privatisation cost.

It is hoped that this information would be corrected as well.