4/25/2007

En bloc Rules

Why are people crying foul of the en bloc rulings? In a democracy or democratic system where the majority rules, this is what it should be or must be. The majority, even if 51%, assumes all the power of the rest. And this en bloc ruling is even more stringent, demanding that 80% majority only can the group impose their wills on the 20% who disagree. Yes, the 80% can sell off your property against your will. And that is what the minority must accept. This is the beauty of a democratic system. I think when the rules were first mooted, it was a way to prevent a small unreasonable minority from going against the good sense of the majority. Now the table is turned against the minority by the tyranny of the majority. They knew that the law is on their side and they just lumped it to the minority. And they even ignored the minority completely by not informing them. I am impressed with such intelligent people. Play by the rule and take full advantage of the rule that favours you.

2 comments:

Matilah_Singapura said...

> Why are people crying foul of the en bloc rulings?

Because they are either neglecting the facts and/or don't understand the process.

En Bloc sales work in a MARKET democracy, rather than a POLITICAL democracy. The distinction is this:

In a market democracy, everyone's self-interest rests on the exchange of or the enhancement of PRIVATE PROPERTY. In other words you have to have PRIVATE property to "play" in a market democracy. i.e. a market democracy is HONOURIFIC — you have to bring something of VALUE to offer to the table.

A market democracy is also VOLUNTARY — no one forces you to play.

Since in market democracies individuals must use their private property, they can suffer personal losses if they make "wrong choices".

Contrast that with POLITICAL democracy: you can vote in any hair=brained scheme or politician into office. No need for private property — if there is a "loss" everyone bears the loss, and some smart buggers will be able to "dodge". There is no VOLUNTARY association — even if you don't "play", you have no choice but to surrender to the decision of whichever majority "wins".

Back to en bloc sales:

When people move into apartments, condos and such like, they do so will FULL KNOWLEDGE that they are entering into a CONTRACT by which en bloc sales will be decided by a specific system. These apartment owners do this VOLUNTARILY.

The world doesn't owe anyone a living, so these folks should also realise that no one FORCES them to live where they live. If they don't like the en bloc rules, they shouldn't have moved there in the first place, and chosen an alternative purchase — like private, landed property.

In a market democracy,people "vote" with their dollars. The more dollars you have, the more "clout" you have.... and the more you "win" if the consequence is favourable and the more you will LOSE if it is not.

Remember, the "majority" can make mistakes too, and so can the "minority".

In a market democracy, everyone gets a "lesson" and because of the increase or decrease in the value of their private property, it "encourages" them to moderate or modify their behaviour.

In a political democracy, no such responsibility is required. You can vote for anything at all — free money, free schools, free this that and the other and use political means to force someone else to pay for it.

Anonymous said...

all their lives, the people sense of moral sense of judgement have been weaken by a diet of materialism and when the rich wants to make more money out of them, they come and buy them out by pandering to their weaknesses and you call that 'democratic'?

that's how the rich mocks and play the people like gambits with their wealth!

the biggest winners are people like ng teng fong - despite the property downturn for so many years, still maintain his richest man status.

the rests sell off a part of themselves when they go after each other throats for a few more dollars!