The Big Read: No music, pets in certain areas – condo residents lament ‘strict, absurd rules’ amid competing needs

SINGAPORE: Ms Chen YL often feels like a “criminal” whenever she takes her two dogs out of her condominium unit. 
The 35-year-old software procurement lead said that if she is caught walking the dogs within the condominium’s premises, she would be slapped with a S$200 (US$154) fine. 
At her condominium in the eastern side of Singapore, a by-law does not allow dogs to walk anywhere on the ground floor. This extends to areas near the pool, barbecue pits, function room and gym. 
A by-law is a rule that residents must follow while living in a condominium. 
“It’s gotten quite dramatic, to a point where some of our neighbours have to go through the car park to bring our dogs to the back gate, which is quite sad,” she said. 
“It feels like you’re doing something wrong, but you’re just walking your dog.”
Over at Park Place Residences in Paya Lebar, former resident Clara Chung said she was not allowed to sit on the chairs or near the tables around the swimming pool area after 10pm, as it would be deemed too “noisy” even if she was alone. 
Once, her bicycle was confiscated because her resident tag was not “visible enough”. 
“The tag is literally a cable tie,” said the 34-year-old marketing director, who never retrieved her bicycle.
She said it was too troublesome, as the management office closed before she ended work and the condo management offered no alternatives for her to collect her bicycle.
Talk to condominium residents and complaints about overly punitive and absurd by-laws such as these will likely come up.
But these rules are not introduced on a whim – they are typically made in response to other residents’ concerns and complaints and they go through a voting process.
TODAY spoke to several people who sit on their condominiums’ management councils, commonly referred to as the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST), who said that the rules across different condos vary quite widely because they spring up according to the unique experiences, priorities and needs of the residents in each estate.
As Mr Dennis Tan, the secretary of the MCST Association of Singapore, said: “The spirit of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) is self-governance.”
The BMSMA governs the management and maintenance of strata-titled properties in Singapore, including condominiums, outlining the responsibilities of the management corporation (management council) and residents.
This means that the kind of by-laws a condominium enacts depends on its “community spirit”, he said.
It also means that crafting by-laws for a condo is a delicate balancing act, as the competing concerns and needs of sometimes hundreds of residents need to be reflected fairly.
It may be inevitable, then, that some residents of a particular estate will find the by-laws too harsh, even as others may consider them reasonable and just.
In Singapore, condominiums are governed by two sets of by-laws. One set is the prescribed by-laws established by the BMSMA, which is compulsory and standard across all condominiums. 
Standard by-laws address essential issues such as the proper use of common property, including hallways, lifts, and recreational areas. These laws also deal with noise control, which limits permissible noise levels during certain hours to prevent disturbances. 
The standard by-laws also outline maintenance responsibilities for the upkeep of common areas and the procedures for reporting and addressing maintenance issues. 
The other set of by-laws, called additional by-laws, is created specifically by the MCST of each condominium and is thus unique to each. 
These can include detailed regulations on the use of facilities such as swimming pools and gyms, specific parking rules, including designated spots and restrictions on commercial vehicles, as well as pet-related policies.
The management council or a resident can propose an additional by-law. This proposal is then added to the agenda of the annual general meeting (AGM) or an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). 
Residents will be notified, allowing them to review the proposed rule and prepare for a discussion. The proposal is then discussed during the AGM or EGM, where residents can express their opinions. 
During the meeting, management councils may also repeal or amend existing additional by-laws.
Most additional by-laws can be repealed, amended or created by a special resolution passed at a general meeting.
A vote is then conducted to approve or reject the by-law. Typically, a special resolution must be approved by at least 75 per cent of the owners who turn up for the meeting.
Management councils must lodge the additional by-laws with the Commissioner of Buildings within 45 days of passing the special resolution. 
After registration, the by-law is implemented and the management council is responsible for enforcing it. 
Residents are expected to comply with the new rule, and any violations may result in penalties or other consequences as outlined in the by-law.
“People need to understand that when you live in a condo, you live in a community. There’s a lot of give and take,” said Mr Oo Gin Lee, 55.
Mr Oo has been a member of the management council at The Hillside at Upper Bukit Timah for nearly a decade and was its chairman for about seven years. 
Another management council member for a condominium in the central area, who wanted to be known as James, noted that experiences at different condos can vary greatly due to the diverse composition of management councils. Sometimes, the influence of a single, dominant member on a council can sway decisions. 
“The vocal ones, the ones making the most noise, will tend to influence and lead the council,” said James, adding that among council members, “there are some bad ones, some good ones, and some ugly ones. It can be a nightmare”.
In 2018, the BMSMA was amended to cap the number of proxy votes one can hold at annual general meetings. 
A person can now only be appointed proxy holder for 2 per cent of the total number of strata lots in the development, or two lots, whichever is higher.
This was done to prevent situations where a handful of residents can push through their agenda by convincing neighbours who do not intend to show up for meetings to hand over their voting rights. 
Mr Oo said the cap was a good move that has curbed people’s ability to have excessive influence over their neighbours, but Ms Chen YL feels the regulations could go further by limiting residents to holding only one proxy vote.
“Groups of people with the same agenda can still huddle together to cast the same votes,” said Ms Chen. “It puts too much power in a single person that you barely know.”
Ultimately, Mr Oo, noted, how harmonious or tense a condo environment is largely depends on its culture: “A lot of people, when they buy their condos, don’t realise a lot of your life in a condo is affected by the culture of your management council.”
One way to avoid the nightmare is for prospective home buyers to do their due diligence on the culture of the condominium and enquire how funds are managed there, he said. But if one is buying a unit in a new condominium, it will be a matter of luck.
Even so, things are not cast in stone, as council members can be voted out through an election process held during AGMs. 
Residents can nominate candidates, and those who receive the majority of votes from eligible unit owners are elected to serve on the council.
“It’s like politics; if you do a bad job, you will be voted out the next year,” said Mr Oo. 
But while residents often have strong feelings about the by-laws of their condos – especially ones they disagree with – not many participate in the voting process that leads to the creation or repeal of these by-laws, Mr Oo noted.
It is hard to meet the minimum requirements of the quorum for the AGMs most of the time, he said, and meetings tend to be well-attended only if there is an issue on the table that affects all residents. 
James agreed, saying low turnouts for the meetings at his condo are the norm, and that it is difficult to get more residents to participate.
For their part, many residents who spoke to TODAY said that while they appreciate that the management system is a democratic one, they find it hard to make time for the meetings amid their existing commitments.
But the council members pointed out that without getting involved, residents are missing out an opportunity to shape the environment they live in.
Mr Oo said he decided to get involved in his condo’s management council after noticing some unhappiness among fellow residents and he wanted to do his part to improve their situation.
For example, before he joined the council and got the by-law repealed, residents who wanted to replace their parking decal had to pay a S$500 fee.
But there are those who, when faced with such bugbears, would rather retreat, especially if they are just renting.
One such tenant is a resident at the same east-side condominium as Ms Chen YL, who wanted to be known as Olivia.
She has her beef with another by-law at their estate: While driving, if a resident takes a shortcut by making a right turn against the traffic flow in the car park to exit, their wheel will be clamped the next day, even if the turn is made when there are no other cars around.
The 41-year-old marketing executive had a brush with this particular by-law last year. One Tuesday morning when she was already running late for work and school drop-off, she found a note on her car saying her wheel had been clamped and that she must pay a S$200 wheel clamp release fee. 
“(The note) said that our car had been observed to have taken an illegal turn on a Sunday morning, but they clamped my car on a Monday night at 11pm,” she said.
Olivia, who is a mother to a five-year-old, said her main concern is not the S$200 wheel clamp release fee, though she finds it a tad excessive. Rather, it was the fact that her wheel was clamped without any advance warning.
“What concerned me was that we’ve had times, in the middle of the night, where we needed to rush to emergency services. If they are doing this at 11pm at night, and they’re not telling you, and if we did have an emergency – I would be livid.” 
She pointed to other rules at the condo which have created a “strict way of living”. She once saw another resident being berated for having a bottle of water near the deck chairs because drinks are not allowed at the swimming pool. 
She cited another instance where women were told to dress “appropriately” at the swimming pool following a complaint by one resident that a woman had worn a “revealing” swimsuit, although this new rules drew backlash from residents.
“It’s a beautiful condo, but it’s just so controlling,” said Olivia. 
But instead of feeling moved to action, she feels drained and would rather just move, as she and her family are renting their unit.
“We actually tried to get out of our lease earlier, but we couldn’t,” she lamented. 
At another condominium, Riverfront Residences in Hougang, Ms Jolene Ng, found herself heavily involved in estate matters after the council put out a notice saying dogs are not allowed on the ground floor.
The notice, seen by TODAY, stated that the move was due to dogs urinating and defecating on level one, which caused damage to the grass turf and “inconvenience” to other residents. 
“I never planned to be involved if not for this unfair ban directly affecting my life,” said the marketing director, who said she feels blindsided by the introduction of this rule.
Ms Ng has banded together with other concerned pet owners to list their grievances and plans to participate in the condo’s upcoming AGM in November.  
“It should have been made clear from the day that the property was for sale that they would ban dogs, as it would factor into my decision on whether I want to buy it,” she said, adding that she had paid a premium for a unit on the ground floor. 
“I sank S$1 million to buy this property, and my dogs cannot walk comfortably.”
In response to queries from TODAY, the management office at Riverfront Residences said the regulations are part of the estate house rules and pet owners are responsible for pets when they transit through common areas like car parks, corridors and lift lobbies. 
House rules are more informal guidelines set by the MCST or managing agents. Unlike by-laws, house rules do not require approval through a formal voting process. 
The management office said it has issued “several circulars” to remind residents to be more responsible.
“However we have received numerous feedback from residents regarding pet faeces and urine in the common areas, in particularly the level one recreation facilities,” it added.
While condominiums market themselves as luxury environments, the presence of stringent by-laws has left some residents feeling like they are under constant surveillance, with someone waiting to pounce on them for any missteps. 
Ms Chen YL said she has had many run-ins with her neighbours when they saw her walking her dogs in areas where they were not allowed. 
“A couple of times, I was walking my dog past the gym, and people in the gym would come out of the gym and tell me to go away,” she recounted.
“We have had neighbours tail us or follow us behind with their phone cameras on because they’re just waiting for your dog to pee.” 
She added: “This is not just enforced by the MCST anymore. It’s basically everyone. Everyone is now like citizen police. It’s very exhausting.”
Over at Riverfront Residences, where there is a notice saying dogs are not allowed on the ground floor, residents told TODAY that security officers have even started filming errant pet owners. 
“I’ve had to confront (the security officers) multiple times, and I have had to be quite forceful in saying that it’s an infringement of PDPA,” said resident Ms Ng, referring to the Personal Data Protection Act. 
Another resident, Mr Christopher Yeong, 32, said he had also been filmed by security officers while he was on the first floor with his dog, which made him feel uncomfortable.
But Mr Yeong, who works in the media industry, said he does not blame the security officers as they are just following orders from the management. 
Still, he added: “It’s quite a shame to be in fear on your property.” 
Ms Ng said that many dog owners now take the lift from their floor to the basement and walk through the car park to leave the condo and walk their dogs, so that they can avoid the ground floor altogether.
But she added that there are blind spots and reckless drivers in the car park, which pose a danger to the pets.
Mr Yeong noted that since Riverfront Residences is a new condominium and does not yet have its own MCST, the existing rules are being set by the developer, which has been rather harsh in its management.
For example, after a complaint about someone playing music too loudly at the barbecue pit during a get-together, the developer imposed an outright ban on music at the barbecue pits. 
In response to queries from TODAY, the management office at Riverfront Residences said this house rule was made in response to feedback from residents living near the barbecue pavilion. 
In other instances, condo residents face confusing rules, or rules that do not seem to make any sense. 
Ms Chung said at her previous condominium, residents were not allowed to move out on weekends except for a few hours on Saturday, and they had to book a time slot for their move.
“When I tried to book a slot to move out, they only allowed me one hour at 9am. It was frustrating and brought so much unnecessary stress,” said Ms Chung, referring to her experience about three months ago.
At the Cote D’Azur in Marine Parade, residents TODAY spoke to said that starting three years ago, they have had to pay S$2.18 to use the tennis courts at non-peak hours and S$4.36 for peak hours. 
A resident who wanted to be known as Meredith said that it was strange and frustrating that residents now have to pay extra for facilities that used to be free.
While condo residents acknowledged the need for by-laws, they told TODAY that more must be done to standardise how by-laws are implemented across all condominiums in Singapore, to ensure that estates are not run by management council members with their own personal agendas. 
Without standardisation, “everbody’s doing their own thing”, James noted. 
“It’s crazy. For example, if you go into a condo as a guest at different condos, they have totally different security structures,” he said. 
Some might require stringent proof before letting you in, others simply have an honour system.
“The Building and Construction Authority should step up and lay down the rules in a transparent and objective way,” said James. 
Ms Ng agreed, saying that there should be some kind of oversight of management councils.
“Just because (an influential council member) might love dogs, then his whole condo is just for dog owners and dog lovers,” she said. “But if he hates dogs then straight away, dogs are banned. Where are the checks and balances?
“I just want things to be fair. I’m not asking for things to be skewed in my favour. I’m just asking for things to be fair,” she said.
In response to queries from TODAY, a BCA spokesperson said that unit owners should play an active role in the decision-making process by attending meetings where their input would directly impact the estate’s management and by-laws.

It added that while it does not regulate MCST by-laws, it provides guidance through a set of strata management guides to help MCSTs understand the key provisions in the BMSMA and adopt good practices of strata management.
In the meantime, Mr Oo said those who are unhappy with by-laws in their condo should step up so they can get their voices heard.
“How do you solve the problem? You need to get into the management council and serve. If your management council has no one with a pet, your condo will not be pet-friendly,” he said.
The article was originally published in TODAY.