Law Passed to Lower Collective Sale Thresholds: 70% for Developments Aged 40 to 59, 65% for Those 60 and Older

The current 80 per cent voting threshold, which applies across most projects, will be lowered to 70 per cent for projects between 40 and 59 years old, and 65 per cent for those 60 years and older.

The thresholds remain unchanged elsewhere: 90 per cent for developments less than 10 years old, and 80 per cent for those aged 10 to 39 years.

Notably, developments aged 40 years and above that are currently gathering signatures will be allowed to terminate their existing collective sale agreement and opt into a fresh attempt under the new framework. Those that opt in will have seven months from the commencement date of the amendments to reach the applicable consent threshold.

At the heart of the changes, said Law Minister Edwin Tong, is whether it is feasible or sustainable to continue investing in major renovations and upkeep for older developments, or whether the land can be put to better use through renewal and redevelopment.

“Over time, major components reach the end of their service lives; repair bills grow larger and more frequent and the fabric of the building, its structure, its systems, its common areas, will require even greater investment simply to remain functional and liveable,” he said.

“Owners often find themselves stuck, unable to maintain their properties adequately, but also unable to move forward with renewal. That is not a good outcome for residents, and it is not a good outcome for Singapore,” he said.

Tong noted that today, about one in 20 non-landed private homes are aged 40 years or older, totalling about 20,000 units in close to 250 developments. That number will only grow, given Singapore’s rapid urbanisation from the 1970s to the 1990s.

He cited lifecycle costs as an example of the pressure. A lift shaft starts from S$120,000, while a full lift replacement costs S$200,000 to S$300,000 per lift. Such costs weigh on a development’s sinking fund and become a real and growing burden for owners.

Speaking in the Business Times report of the same debate, Tong framed it more broadly: “The fundamental policy impetus at the heart of this Bill is the same one that Parliament endorsed when it introduced the collective sale regime in 1999, that Singapore’s land scarcity makes urban renewal not merely desirable, but really imperative.”

The amendments fall into two broad categories: supporting the redevelopment of ageing developments, and strengthening safeguards for non-consenting owners. Tong said three safeguards will be rolled out.

Higher bar to start. The agreement of 35 per cent of owners by share value or number of units will be required to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting for the formation of a Collective Sale Committee, up from the current 25 per cent. This ensures collective sale exercises are initiated only when there is serious intent and support, reducing the risk of owners being subjected to a prolonged and disruptive process that is unlikely to succeed.

Shorter signature window. The window for a Collective Sale Committee to obtain signatures for a Collective Sale Agreement will be shortened from 12 months to six months. Tong acknowledged this is a period where owners can be subject to significant pressure, either from fellow owners or from professionals appointed in a collective sale, and said the shorter window provides greater certainty to all owners.

Longer cooling-off after failure. The restriction period after a failed collective sale attempt will be extended to three years, up from two. During that period, the first attempt to form a new Collective Sale Committee will require the approval of at least half the owners by share value or number of units, while second and subsequent attempts will require 70 per cent consent for developments aged 40 to 59 years and 65 per cent for those aged 60 and above.

Separately, objectors could receive slightly higher sale proceeds. The limit on court-ordered increases rises from 0.25 to 0.5 per cent of the sale proceeds for each unit, or S$2,000 for a unit, whichever is higher. The provision was first introduced in 2007 and applies where the High Court is satisfied it would be just and equitable, such as where an objecting owner invested significantly in renovation works just before the collective sale exercise.

The 10 MPs who rose to speak were largely concerned with two issues: the adequacy of the six-month signature window, and safeguards for non-consenting owners.

Several, including Fadli Fawzi (Aljunied GRC), Wan Rizal Wan Zakariah (Jalan Besar GRC), Ang Wei Neng (West Coast-Jurong West GRC) and Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok GRC), questioned whether six months was enough, especially for larger developments. Wan Rizal said a development with several hundred units, owners constantly overseas and elderly owners who might require assistance could find the timeline challenging, and that an unrealistically short period could create pressure to obtain signatures quickly, increase tension between neighbours and reduce the time available for owners to understand the valuation, method of apportionment and replacement housing implications.

Tong said the government had considered differentiated timelines based on factors such as the size of a development, but decided against it because size was not necessarily the only indicator of complexity. “Where do you draw the line on complexity? So if you start recognising each of these different characteristics, you will find that the general rule of six months, which, or any time frame that we want to enforce, will then get whittled away.” He added that a differentiated approach leads to more complexity and inherently more uncertainty for the scheme.

He cited data from recent successful collective sales showing that a significant majority of signatures were typically gathered within the first four months, with several large developments reaching the 70 per cent threshold within six months. He also noted that preparations begin before the formal signature collection period, with general meetings held and terms such as sale proceeds, pricing and conditions discussed beforehand.

Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir) and Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) proposed more safeguards, such as providing advice and support to home owners, especially seniors, on matters including their rights and relocation prospects. Tong said much of this already exists and that the Government will consider whether more is necessary, noting that legal support resources are available including at Pro Bono SG’s community legal clinics, and that individuals standing for election to a collective sale committee must declare their own position and potential conflicts of interest.

Yeo also asked whether homeowners who object to an en bloc sale could be exempted from Seller’s Stamp Duty if the sale takes place within four years of their purchase, particularly if they bought before the lower thresholds were announced. Tong said SSD serves a different policy purpose, being intended to discourage short-term holding and curb speculative activity. “Owners who participate in a collective sale may incur SSD if the sale occurs within the applicable SSD holding period, which ranges from three to four years, depending on when the property was acquired.”

WP Non-Constituency MP Andre Low said recent debates over Maju and Gillman forests have shown how much Singaporeans care about natural spaces, and that the country should examine how much more can be accommodated on land already developed before accepting the loss of places that would be difficult to replace. Asked by Tong whether he agreed that those issues have nothing to do with land use arising from collective sales, Low said he would not agree with that definitive statement and believes the two issues are linked, albeit not directly.