Jeannette Chong Aruldoss said:
Dear Jessica Cheam & Letty Aw
It is indeed regrettable that the right to property (elsewhere considered to be sacrosanct) is not protected by the Singapore Constitution. But our Constitution does guarantee every Singaporean equality before the law and the privilege of enjoying equal protection under the law.
Recently, the minority owners of Horizon Towers in their appeal to the High Court, charged that en bloc laws are discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the learned High Court judge disagreed and upheld the constitutionality of enbloc laws. But I’m not convinced.
All of us who are relegated to being Minority owners by virtue of holding on to our OPINION not to sign the CSA, are by virtue of en bloc laws, denied of legal protection of our legally acquired property rights.
Two owners who have the same kind of property rights should be treated equally and should enjoy equal protection by the law. Yet, en bloc laws divide the owners into 2 types, with one group given compulsory acquisition rights (which hitherto only the State had), and the discrimination is determined only by a Difference of Opinion.
Discrimination can take many forms: difference in skin colour, religion, gender, age or (in our case) opinion. To my understanding, all such discrimination is unjustified and the Constitution is there to guard against such discrimination.
En bloc laws give Majority owners the right to sell away my property without my signature and force me to a party to their Agreement (CSA) against my will; Minority owners have their property rights denied in return for little or no protection. We have seen that STB will more or less rubber stamp the sale application as en bloc laws give Minority owners HARDLY ANY ground to object to the sale.
To add insult to indignity, the law places on the slight shoulders of the resource-less Minority Owners the burden (onus) to explain why his property should not be forfeited! Having been denied of grounds to object to the sale, and bearing the burden of proof, Minority owners are reduced to a pathetic state of resorting to crying foul over procedural irregularities like “missing pages” or missed deadlines. Minority owners in fact have nothing to go on, but much to lose.
If a citizen, who has done no legal wrong, is to have his home (not to mention, his valuable, and sometimes, only, real estate) confiscated, then such a draconian law must BALANCE the interests of competing groups. A law which imposes compulsory forfeiture should give minority owners an adequate or full range of grounds on which to oppose the forced sale. This also serves the principle of equality or parity of arms in combat i.e. the idea of fair play and to win fairly.
Instead, en bloc laws arm Majority owners to the teeth and leave Minority owners weaponless. Isn’t the role of the Rule of Law supposed to protect the weak against the strong? How is the Public Policy of National Interests served by “facilitating” (wording in preamble of LSTA) Big Boys to oust Little Man from his home? Do we need laws to equip the Strong against the Weak ? No! We already have the Law of the Jungle for that!
En bloc laws discriminate against minority owners and are therefore unconstitutional, in my humble opinion.
