|
"MC issue: Blame it on apathy" by Teo Poh Siang in The Business Times |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 12 November 2002 |
I REFER to your editorial 'Improving estate management' (BT, Nov 5) and two other reports, 'Need to tighten law regulating MC activities' (BT, Nov 2) and 'Managing agents shouldn't canvass for proxies for MCs' (BT, Nov 2).
Your editorial rightfully pointed out that it is exactly because owners are apathetic about management corporation activities and shun general meetings that incidents like the one at People's Park Centre can occur. A proxy is an important legal instrument. By empowering a person to vote at a general meeting on behalf of an owner suggests the owner has full confidence and trust in the person.
Property owners are mature and mostly educated, if not well-informed. Surely they know the legal significance of empowering a proxy.
Doesn't this suggest, in the case of People's Park Centre, that the owners empowering the proxies endorsed the continuation of the outgoing council and, therefore, its chairman? Doesn't this also suggest that those empowering proxies are confident of the existing managing agent and supported the proxy-collection campaign? Would an unhappy owner be willing to do that?
The focus, therefore, is to educate property owners on the significance of a proxy and not point a finger at the managing agent or blame the inadequacy of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA).
Many managing agents and councils have witnessed general meetings being attended by only outgoing council members themselves. I have witnessed AGMs of several MCs being attended by only office bearers: chairman, secretary and treasurer.
Under such circumstances, these outgoing office bearers were forced to continue holding office by default of the LTSA. In fact, an elected council comprising just two members is not rare. The common answer from owners for not serving in MCs are 'This is a thankless job' or 'I am not interested' or 'I am busy'.
We should, therefore, commend those who serve passionately. A provision for an allowance, subject to approval by a general meeting for serving council members, should be legislated. After all, the Town Council Act already provides for this.
I welcome a code of conduct for MCs for an objective, selfless and honest council.
But by limiting the term of the council members, it would only reduce the already small number of selfless, serving council members. If the council and managing agent are incompetent, removing them from office is the correct procedure. The LTSA has sufficient provisions for this.
Managing agents and councils have tried various means of inviting owners to general meetings, including arranging for a date which would be most convenient to owners; providing lunch; and convening meetings in hotels, in the hope of better attendance.
If attendance is bad at general meetings and voluntary service is poor after 35 years of LTSA, it may indicate that people in this society place self above community and not vice versa.
Teo Poh Siang
Singapore
|
