For two successive weeks (September 1 and 8), Candidus II wrote against certain provisions of the Condominium Act. Reading between the lines the probability is that the complaint originated from the St Paul's Bay area or a similar summer residence. I would have expected Candidus to do his homework.

Let us begin with hotel time-share. "Owners" have to pay a yearly maintenance fee irrespective of whether they stay or not. Such a fee is stipulated in the contract. It is a pity that certain developers do not draft a proper contract listing the responsibilities of each unit. The common parts, by their very name, belong to all as an undivided asset. The whole block would gain, appreciate or, alternatively, become a slum, even if one unit were to neglect its responsibilities.

Before buying any flat or apartment, the potential buyer must first and foremost calculate the cost of its upkeep. The fact that he uses his flat on an erratic basis is irrelevant. He would have entered into a joint commitment from which he cannot abdicate. If anything, the Condominium Act is not strong and strict enough and should be tightened to eliminate any loopholes.

Candidus might not be aware of the futile friction that ensues when one unit for some strange reason or pique would not want to cooperate with the others. Even though each unit has to pay its share, how can the others enforce the respective contribution without going to court and add to the friction and increase the costs involved?

Referring to CCTV, one has to ask why the need had arisen. Was there theft, illegal entry, misuse of the common parts, litter, graffiti, vindictive acts, etc?

People must learn to live in a community. Could it be that certain opposition arises from the very person/s (or family members) responsible for some of those uncivilised acts?

Regarding foreign owners, these are known to "lend" their unit to "friends". Even if they keep it empty, they are still morally and legally responsible. Any lapse on their part would make them legally responsible, both from a criminal aspect and even more from a civil aspect for what they would have failed to do.

Thus, far from advocating the rescinding of the Condominium Act, Candidus would do better to find out the reasons and check what happens in other countries. The government should now study how this law has been used in practice and adjust it as required for the benefit of the majority of peaceful and civilised residents. Even as amended, the present legislation is still a half-baked law with too many loopholes that give rise to conflicts that in theory it should minimise.

Finally, those who object to carry joint responsibility have the free choice of selling and buying, say, a boathouse to be free of their "neighbours".