Mr deputy Speaker, this Bill represents a critical and timely recalibration of Singapore’s urban renewal framework.
By adjusting the consent thresholds required for collective sales based on the age of a development, we are providing owners of older properties with a far more realistic and practical avenue to consider redevelopment.
At the same time, the Bill introduces vital safeguards to protect dissenting homeowners who, for good reason, wish to safeguard their living spaces. Striking this delicate balance between enabling necessary rejuvenation and protecting private property rights is complex, but this Bill moves our property regulations firmly in the right direction.
Mr Speaker, Singapore is ageing rapidly, and so is our built environment. Today, about one in 20 private non-landed residential units are over 40 years of age, while more than 1,000 of Singapore’s 3,750 private residential developments are at least 30 years old.
In many of these older estates, critical infrastructure is reaching the absolute end of its design life. Lifts break down; waterproofing systems deteriorate, leading to persistent ceiling leaks and structural spalling concrete; and fire safety systems need to be upgraded.
Fixing these systemic issues requires massive capital injection. Yet, not all estates have accumulated sufficient sinking funds or reserve funds over the decades to undertake such extensive overhaul works.
This presents a financial predicament for many residents, particularly older, retired homeowners living on fixed incomes. They may be rich in equity but cash-poor, lacking the free cash flow needed to pay heavy special levies, which can easily run into thousands of dollars per household, to top up depleted sinking funds. The resale market for very old condos may also shrink, making it harder for owners to sell and move away from older estates.
As condo estates get older, a collective sale or en bloc can be a vital, welcome lifeline that grants them an exit route that frees up locked-in equity to support their retirement, downsize to a more manageable unit, or transition into housing better suited for their twilight years.
Lower thresholds for collective sales in older developments are not just about market efficiency. They are about pragmatic compassion for homeowners caught in aging buildings.
From a broader nation-building perspective, it also makes sense to recalibrate the thresholds for collective sales. Many older private residential projects, such as former HUDC estates, sit on sprawling, low-density land parcels located in mature, well-connected townships.
If redeveloped efficiently, these under-utilised sites could yield significantly more homes to meet the pressing housing demand of current and future generations of Singaporeans.
In Aljunied GRC, for example, Affinity at Serangoon and The Minton were both redeveloped with more than 1,000 units each on former HUDC estates that had 244 units and 342 units respectively.
It is far better for Singapore to focus our development energies on redeveloping low-density, aged brownfield housing estates than to continually clear precious greenfield sites like Maju Forest. Recycling land that already possesses established transport links, utility networks, and community infrastructure is the essence of sustainable urban planning.
At this juncture, I would also like to call upon the Ministry of National Development (MND) to actively assess whether plot ratios for select older private developments can be selectively increased in future Master Plan reviews. Enhancing the development baseline for older, sub-optimally used plots would boost redevelopment potential, making en bloc sales far more financially viable for property developers while offering homeowners fair compensation to facilitate their relocation.
Sir, while I support lowering the en bloc thresholds for older estates, we must remember that a home is not just a financial asset. Homes are locations where families are built; they are places that carry deep emotional weight, stability, and memories.
While some owners wish to liquidate, others deeply cherish the spacious layouts and large land area offered by older developments. These are luxuries rarely seen in modern private condos. For many long-term residents, even with a successful en bloc payout, it may be virtually impossible to purchase a unit of comparable size, character, and location in today’s property market.
Thus, I welcome the safeguards built into this Bill to protect dissenting or hesitant homeowners, such as the shorter time frame that Collective Sale Committees (CSCs) have to collect signatures for a Collective Sale Agreement (CSA), and an extended restriction period to prohibit repeated, aggressive en bloc attempts where underlying support remains insufficient. Raising the threshold required to initiate subsequent attempts prevents minority owners from facing persistent harassment year after year.
However, Mr Speaker, I wish to highlight a practical concern regarding the shortened 6-month signature period, specifically as it applies to larger developments.
In large condominiums with hundreds or even over a thousand strata units, the administrative burden on a volunteer CSC is immense. Gathering signatures is not merely a matter of sending an email; it 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.
A rigid 6-month window may inadvertently penalise large estates where a vast majority of owners actually favor a sale, but where the sheer logistical complexity prevents the committee from reaching the final finish line in time.
To resolve this issue without compromising the intent of the law, I urge the Government to consider two potential refinements:
Firstly, MinLaw could consider tiered timelines based on the size of the estate. It may be better to calibrate the signature collection period based on unit count. For example, the signature collection period could be maintained at 6 months for smaller developments, but MinLaw could allow 9 months for estates with more than 300 or 500 units to collect the requisite number of signatures.
Secondly, MinLaw could consider introducing automatic grace period extensions to the signature collection period. For example, if a CSC manages to reach within 5 percentage points of the requisite consent threshold at the end of the initial 6 months, they could automatically receive a one-off 3-month extension to secure the remaining signatures.
Would the Government consider these adjustments to ensure that larger estates are not unfairly stymied in obtaining the requisite number of signatures?
Mr Speaker, urban renewal is a continuous journey. Redevelopment is a crucial pathway in ensuring that our housing stock remains safe, modern, and sustainably built.
This Bill strikes a crucial, balanced stance. It gives older developments a viable mechanism to redevelop and relieve asset-rich-cash-poor owners from crushing maintenance costs, while protecting homeowners from unrelenting pressure.
However, to further enhance the effectiveness of this Bill, it should be coupled with active upzoning to create additional incentives for homeowners and property developers to redevelop aging developments and increase the availability of housing in mature estates throughout Singapore.
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.
