Building Act is all-encompassing, cases of power abuse rare

I refer to the letters by Mr Francis Aurol and Mr Amolat Singh “Issues of governance, compliance and disclosure with condo management law” and “Building Act should embrace technology to improve governance” (both May 13).

The Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act provides subsidiary proprietors the rights to attend annual general meetings (AGMs) and council meetings, requisition an extraordinary general meeting, propose and vote on AGM resolutions, and appoint or remove council members and managing agents.

The management corporation is obliged to circulate the AGM agenda to all proprietors, post notice of council meetings on the notice board and display the minutes for 14 days within a week of the meeting.

Subsidiary proprietors can inspect and make copies of the management corporation’s documents for a small fee of S$15 per hour and can apply to the Strata Titles Board for an order of wrongdoing by the corporation or other proprietors.

I doubt whether the Companies Act gives shareholders widespread powers to inspect all documents and remove the board of directors or chief executive officer with such ease.

The letters published seem to suggest there is widespread abuse of powers by councils and agents. My experience as an agent has proven otherwise.

I have had the privilege of working with businessmen, professionals and homemakers who always acted in the condominium’s interest, discussing difficult issues often into the night.

There would be different opinions when there are proposals to increase maintenance fees, impose parking charges for a second car, carry out estate improvements or impose a higher levy for the sinking fund.

I have rarely encountered any situation, though, where there were accusations of impropriety by the council or agent.

Specific complaints to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau are investigated, and the Act is sufficiently endowed to warn council members against conflict of interest and managing agents against personal gain, with the threat of fines and jail terms.

What the writers asked for are provided in the Act; there is no need to embellish it.

Acts of selfishness, personal gain and abuse of powers are best countered with participation in the council by righteous proprietors, who should receive an ovation, instead of brickbats, at each AGM.

I agree with Mr Singh’s suggestion that technology can help improve governance and communication. There is software available where subsidiary proprietors and residents can communicate with the council and agent.

Bylaws, minutes of meetings, plans, old AGM documents and financial statements can be available online. Feedback and complaints can be processed via instant messaging.

Stakeholders can be notified of important issues and events with a video terminal at the clubhouse or lobbies. Facility bookings can be made conveniently on a computer or smartphone.

Proprietors are encouraged to attend AGMs and council meetings, and request financial reports to understand what is happening. Many dissidents at AGMs have been roped into the council and have emerged as strong supporters after their term.

I encourage subsidiary proprietors to volunteer for at least one term. It will be enlightening.