A little more focus.
A lot more clarity.

A foreign individual lawfully owned Commercial & Residential land before 20 July 2023. In 2026 the owner considers either retaining the property as-is or retaining and redeveloping it. A different foreign person also considers a fresh purchase in 2026. There is no applicable special exemption, pre-20-July-2023 OTP or later RPA approval. Which option lists all the incorrect statements?

(i) The existing owner can rely on the stated existing-owner protection when merely retaining the property as-is.

(ii) The existing owner must seek RPA approval to retain and redevelop the property.

(iii) The new foreign buyer inherits the existing owner’s as-is exemption because the land was already owned by a foreign person before the change.

(iv) The change required the existing owner to dispose of the property by 20 July 2024 even if it was kept as-is.

Sulaiman, an SPR for six years, compares a conventional terrace house, a strata-landed house in an approved condominium development, a strata-landed house outside such a development, and an ordinary private condominium apartment. He has no Residential Property Act 1976 approval. None is an executive condominium or HDB property.

(i) The strata-landed house within the approved condominium development requires approval because its built form is landed.

(ii) The strata-landed house outside an approved condominium development requires the relevant approval.

(iii) The ordinary private condominium apartment requires the same approval as the terrace because Sulaiman is an SPR.

(iv) The conventional terrace still requires the relevant approval despite his six years of SPR status.

Which option lists all the correct statements?

Keiko has three years left on her head lease. With the necessary consent and formalities satisfied, she grants a subtenant a one-year term ending before her own lease. Compare this with a transfer of her entire remaining three-year interest.

(i) The one-year sublease ends before Keiko’s three-year head term. Keiko retains a leasehold reversion beneath the subtenant rather than passing every remaining year.

(ii) The subtenant obtains exclusive possession during the agreed year. That makes the grant an assignment of Keiko’s entire remaining three-year interest.

(iii) A valid transfer of the entire remaining three-year interest would have a different estate structure. It would be an assignment rather than this shorter derivative lease.

(iv) The new occupier is described as a tenant and pays rent to Keiko. That description removes Keiko’s continuing position under her head lease.

Which option lists all the correct statements?