Singapore’s biggest motor association in legal tussle with its president

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 27 May 2025
Author: Vanessa Paige Chelvan

The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association had taken Mr Neo Tiam Ting to court in a bid to have the June 2024 election of its 27th Exco declared null and void.

The Republic’s largest motor association and its president are tussling in the High Court over the election of the group’s next Executive Committee (Exco).

The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) had taken Mr Neo Tiam Ting to court in a bid to have the June 2024 election of its 27th Exco declared null and void.

“The dispute between the parties is essentially a political dispute,” High Court judge Vinodh Coomaraswamy said in a written judgment issued on May 23.

The SVTA, a collective of nearly 400 second-hand motor vehicle traders, was set up in 1972.

Mr Neo was elected president of SVTA in 2022; he was re-elected in 2024 for a second two-year term. He was also the association’s president from 2011 to 2015.

Ruling in the SVTA’s favour on May 23, Judge Vinodh said he found that the 27th Exco’s election in June 2024 “was of no legal effect and is therefore null and void”. Mr Neo has appealed against the decision.

The parties’ quarrel stems from their differing views about whom its members may appoint as representatives to vote at a general meeting – and for an Exco.

The SVTA’s position is that its members must be represented by a director or partner of the company or firm. Judge Vinodh called this the “narrow view”.

According to Mr Neo, members may be represented by any person, regardless of whether they are a director or partner. Judge Vinodh called this the “wide view”.

“The effect of the wide view is to allow a single person to vote at a (general meeting) as the representative of multiple members,” Judge Vinodh said.

The narrow view prevents a single person from doing that unless he happens to be a director or partner of each member that has appointed him to be its representative, the judge added.

Mr Neo is a director of five members of the SVTA.

The SVTA held two annual general meetings (AGM) and elections in May and June 2024. The first election was held in accordance with the association’s narrow view, while the second followed Mr Neo’s wide view.

Judge Vinodh found the results of both to be “null and void”.

The May election

In April 2024, the outgoing Exco scheduled an AGM – at which an election was on the agenda – for May 6, 2024.

A notice of the meeting stated that votes cast would be counted in accordance with the narrow view that only directors or partners of member companies or firms were entitled to vote for the next Exco.

Mr Neo objected to taking the narrow view, which he said was contrary to the SVTA’s Constitution.

His stance was that the SVTA’s Constitution appears to support the wide view, and that the Exco had no power to override the Constitution. He was also of the view that as president, he had the power and the duty to ensure that the election was held in accordance with the Constitution.

A subcommittee of the outgoing Exco argued that the narrow view should prevail because it had been applied consistently in past elections and that the SVTA’s Constitution was “open to interpretation”, among other reasons.

At the AGM on May 6, despite Mr Neo’s objections, the issue of whether to adopt the narrow or wide view was put to the SVTA’s members for a vote. A majority voted in favour of the narrow view. With this out of the way, members began to cast their vote for the next Exco.

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.

Judge Vinodh found that the results of the May election were null and void, as it carried on even after Mr Neo had suspended the AGM and left the meeting.

“It follows that the events which occurred on May 6, 2024 after the respondent suspended the AGM and (left) the meeting premises are of no legal effect,” Judge Vinodh said.

The June election

Mr Neo later told SVTA members that the results of the May election were void, and issued a notice stating that another AGM would be held on June 6 to vote for an Exco in accordance with the wide view.

While the June 6 election did take place, Judge Vinodh said it was null and void. He said that under the Constitution, a president who validly suspends a general meeting can reconvene it “only if he specifies as an integral part of the act of suspension when and where the GM will be reconvened”.

Mr Neo did not fix a date to reconvene the AGM as an integral part of his act of suspending the meeting on May 6, the judge said.

He also had no other power to reconvene the AGM, as it also depends on the type of general meeting.

Under the SVTA’s Constitution, the Honorary Secretary has the power to convene an AGM. “Therefore, by implication, the Honorary Secretary has the power to reconvene a validly suspended AGM after the AGM has dispersed,” the judge noted. This was not the case here.

“Given that I have found that the respondent did not have the power to reconvene the AGM, the June election could not have been validly conducted,” the judge said.

While the SVTA, which brought the case, did not ask the court to make a finding on the May election, Judge Vinodh said he could not make a finding on the June election without also considering the May election.

Judge Vinodh said he had “hoped and anticipated” that in light of his findings, the parties would reconvene the AGM and hold the elections “in accordance with what I have found to be the proper construction” of the Constitution, which supports the wide view.

The fact that the narrow view was adopted and applied in the past without objection from SVTA’s members “does not give these rules any binding force”, Judge Vinodh said.

“Unfortunately, instead of an election, there is to be an appeal,” he said.

Vanessa Paige Chelvan is a correspondent at The Straits Times. She writes about all things transport and pens the occasional commentary.