I REFER to Monday's commentary, 'En bloc debate, HK style'. Our laws are sufficient to run our private estates. In most management corporations (MCs), lobbying for support is prevalent where most members are inactive. Therefore, the estate is run by a minority, who are unpaid volunteers.

It is therefore natural that the active members will run the estate in their own interests. However, the law lays down strict requirements to document support obtained by lobbying, to ensure such lobbying is valid. This is laid down clearly in the First Schedule of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act.

This brings me to a point about the powers the management council has under the law, to compel dissenting owners to comply with the house rules of the MCs.

An application to the Strata Titles Board for an order is not costly. As long as a house rule is properly enacted, and owners are given ample notice of the enactment, a management council is not high-handed if it takes action to enforce the house rule as it is merely discharging its required duties.

High-rise living in a communal estate requires an owner to subject himself to the wishes of the majority. Our laws are sufficient to guide us in peaceful communal living. It is the management council's practical rights that may need more care to execute.

If a council gives ample notice and details of properly conducted meetings, even if house rules were made with properly deposited proxies, as a member of the MC, one has to comply with these house rules so the estate can be run smoothly.

Unlike in public housing, private condo residents are free to make house rules for themselves, so long as these house rules are made with common sense.

Patrick Sio

This article was first published in The Straits Times.