{"id":11163,"date":"2025-11-13T10:49:32","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T02:49:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/?p=11163"},"modified":"2025-11-13T10:49:32","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T02:49:32","slug":"fresh-election-due-for-spores-biggest-motor-traders-group-as-appeal-court-voids-2024-polls","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/?p=11163","title":{"rendered":"Fresh election due for S\u2019pore\u2019s biggest motor traders group, as appeal court voids 2024 polls"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

SINGAPORE \u2013 The Republic\u2019s largest motor traders\u2019 association will have to hold a fresh election, after the appellate division of the High Court ruled that the two polls held in 2024 to elect the group\u2019s next executive committee (Exco) are invalid. <\/p>\n

In a judgment released on Nov 11, the court dismissed an appeal by Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) president Neo Tiam Ting, upholding an <\/p>\n

earlier High Court decision<\/p>\n

<\/a> that elections held in May 2024 and June 2024 are null and void. <\/p>\n

The appellate judges ordered that each party bear its own legal costs, overturning the earlier cost orders against Mr Neo.<\/p>\n

The decision means that the SVTA\u2019s 26th Exco, whose two-year term began in 2022, remains in office and is authorised to conduct a new, properly convened election for the next term.<\/p>\n

The SVTA, a collective of nearly 400 second-hand motor vehicle traders, was set up in 1972. Mr Neo was <\/p>\n

elected president of SVTA in 2022<\/p>\n

<\/a>, and he was re-elected in 2024 for a second two-year term. He was also the association\u2019s president from 2011 to 2015.<\/p>\n

The association took Mr Neo to court in 2024. Their quarrel stemmed from their differing views about whom SVTA members may appoint as representatives to vote at a general meeting and for an Exco. <\/p>\n

The SVTA had argued that members must be represented by a director or partner of the company or firm. The High Court judge called this the \u201cnarrow view\u201d.<\/p>\n

Mr Neo\u2019s view was that members may be represented by any person, regardless of whether they are a director or partner. The High Court judge called this the \u201cwide view\u201d.<\/p>\n

At the AGM on May 6, 2024, despite Mr Neo\u2019s objections, SVTA\u2019s members voted in favour of the narrow view, and began to cast their vote for the next Exco.<\/p>\n

Mr Neo then suspended the AGM. This was disregarded by the Exco, which named 19 candidates as members of the new Exco later that evening.<\/p>\n

Mr Neo convened another AGM on June 6, 2024, to vote for an Exco in accordance with the wide view. <\/p>\n

The group elected in May then went to court, arguing that Mr Neo had no power to call another AGM or hold a second election. <\/p>\n

A High Court judge ruled that both elections were null and void.<\/p>\n

In the latest judgment, Justice Woo Bih Li, Justice Debbie Ong and Justice See Kee Oon of the appellate division agreed that both elections were invalid, but for slightly different reasons.<\/p>\n

In its judgment on Nov 11, the appellate division said that the May election was invalid as it was conducted in accordance with the narrow view, which was in breach of the association\u2019s Constitution.<\/p>\n

It took issue with the High Court judge\u2019s finding that the results of the May election were null and void because the election carried on even after Mr Neo had suspended the AGM and left the meeting.<\/p>\n

The judges who heard the appeal said Mr Neo should have allowed members to vote on an adjournment, rather than take a unilateral decision. <\/p>\n

They described Mr Neo\u2019s adjournment as an attempt \u201cto get his way\u201d, or to have the election conducted along the wide view. <\/p>\n

Since the May meeting had not been validly adjourned, Mr Neo also lacked the power to reconvene the AGM on June 6. The June election, the judges said, was therefore invalid as well.<\/p>\n

With both the May and June 2024 elections voided, the court said the 26th Exco remains in office under Article 21 of the SVTA\u2019s constitution, which states that an outgoing committee continues its duties until a new one is properly elected.<\/p>\n

That means the current office-holders \u2013 many of whom also served on the disputed May Exco \u2013 can now organise a fresh election for the 27th term, this time using the wide view.<\/p>\n

During the hearing, lawyers told the court that some members had already tried to hold another election in June 2025, but that vote is also being disputed. <\/p>\n

The court criticised both sides for mishandling the dispute and focusing too narrowly on the June 2024 election instead of resolving all key issues, including the validity of the May election. \u201cThis was despite clear prompting by the judge to put all of the issues before him,\u201d they said. <\/p>\n

The appellate judges said that the legal tussle had been poorly handled on both sides. \u201cThis entire case was not well managed and\u2026 the actions by both parties contributed to the ongoing impasse,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

Mr Neo told The Straits Times that he feels disappointed by the judgment. \u201cI will be consulting my lawyer on the implications of the judgment (and) the next steps to take in the interest of the association,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n

ST has contacted the SVTA for comment. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n