Changes to the law
30/10/2001 The Star Articles of Law with Bhag Singh
WHEN difficulties arise because the laws do not provide adequate protection
or remedies, the inadequacies are quickly identified as the immediate causes
of the problems.
Officials at various levels are quick to point out that changes will be made
to the law. This may offer some comfort to the public but may not provide
relief to those already disadvantaged by the existing situation.
This is because it takes time to make changes to the law. The changes have
to be carefully thought out and formulated. Then they have to go through the
process of being tabled in Parliament. The deliberations and decision may
sometimes be postponed in the face of more urgent matters.
And even when the changes are made they do not become law that is applicable
immediately. There are occasions when it has taken some time for the law to
be brought into force.
Readers are likely to be aware of the changes now being made to laws governing
the housing development industry which were recently discussed in Parliament.
The reports are encouraging.
However, this is not the first time that such things have been said. Some
of these are matters which have been discussed by high officials on previous
occasions, but they are now being crystallised.
Such reports, of course, give comfort to readers. It makes house buyers feel
that improvements are being made and that their interests as house buyers
will be better protected in future.
Many readers tend to cut out such newspaper reports and keep them in their
files for reference when they run into problems.
However, the public should be careful because what is reported is often what
is said in the parliamentary debate.
Whilst many useful statements are made, there is also no lack of irrelevant
statements if the report of the entire proceedings is read. Any reliance on
such statements by the public could be misleading and lead to incorrect assumptions.
To what extent the law will be changed depends on what is contained in the
Act or Amendment Act that has been passed. The actual sections have to be
examined and clearly understood.
This is because the amendments will initially include proposals that have
been made in the light of perceived problems that are faced. However, though
these proposals may be incorporated into the Bill, there may be further amendments
along the way and even on the floor of the House.
Eventually what matters is what has been passed. The Amendment Act with the
changes made or the entirely revised Act will need to be looked at to appreciate
the law as it has now been enacted or re-enacted.
It sometimes happens that after a public grievance is considered, changes
are then proposed and the public is pleased and applauds the move.
However, in all such cases the amendment must be viewed in its entirety so
that not only the words are looked at but the effect is appreciated.
Take, for example, the practice of some housing developers to create a change
for their own benefit even though the property has already been sold.
There have been cases where the housing developer has not been able to pay
the money due to the lending institution, the lender forecloses the property
leaving the house buyers empty-handed even though they still have loans to
repay.
It is hard to believe that such problems can arise after an amendment was
announced years ago whereby a property cannot be charged by the housing developer
if it has been sold.
However, what was not highlighted was the fact that an amendment was made
to allow the housing developer to charge the property which had been sold
provided the consent of the house buyer was obtained.
In practice what happened was that when the house buyer went to the lawyer’s
office to sign a stack of documents, one would be a letter of consent to allow
the housing developer to charge the property after it had been sold.
In a scenario where the buyer was made to feel that his interest was being
looked after by lawyers whose services he was paying for, many buyers signed
such consent letters even without knowing that they had agreed to part with
their right to the property if the housing developer turned out to be insolvent.
The fact that many lawyers in such situations are from the housing developer’s
panel has often resulted in divided loyalties. Some lawyers whose presence
on the panel depends on the goodwill of the housing developer will find it
difficult to protect the interests of house buyers.
This is just an illustration of how what has been formulated for the interests
of house buyers may turn out to be ineffective.
The changes now being proposed with regards to protecting the rights of house
buyers need to be clearly understood. There are indeed good proposals in the
pipeline.
It is hoped that they will not be watered down along the way. The real implications
will be known when the amendments in full are published and examined.
|
