Policy address a harsh waiting game

The Estate Agents Authority was quick to accuse Shih Wing-ching's Centaline Property and another agency of confusing the market and, in a serious note, probably evading taxes with an innovative MOU tying provisional sale and purchase agreements to what Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu may say in the policy address.

Is the accusation fair, or is Shih's plea of innocence justified?

What is vital in an open market operation is that there should be no small print that makes buyers and sellers blind - while third-party obligations are not impaired.

Perhaps the EAA believes government interest is being impaired by the memorandum of understanding.

But it is disappointing that it offered no explanation after making the accusation.

To be fair to Shih and his market peers, the property market has been hit by much uncertainty after Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po raised hopes that Lee would drop the "spicy" stamp duties aimed at cooling a red-hot market.

Following Chan's leaks, developers continue to sell units in the primary sector at reduced prices. But the secondary sector is almost frozen, with only a handful of transactions made every week.

Although the financial secretary's recent words on stamp duties have raised hopes, his remarks have also created a state of suspense.

Buyers and sellers alike are waiting to hear whether or not the chief executive will actually end existing cooling measures.

Policymakers in the past would have handled tax-related issues with great caution, not releasing sensitive words prematurely.

The sense of uncertainty over the "spicy" stamp duties currently enveloping the property sector is the last thing needed.

An early announcement instead of a delayed one would be preferable after leaks were made in order to elevate expectations.

The wait may have stretched for too long since the financial secretary last spoke.

It is likely that it was in the midst of uncertainty over the policy address that Centaline and the other agency tried to overcome the suspense with extra terms.

These stipulated conditions that the provisional deals would continue to proceed if the "spicy" measures were to be dropped partially or wholly and the deals would be cancelled if the curbs were to remain unchanged.

Strictly speaking, this would better protect both buyers and sellers from uncertainty.

It is too large a factor to ignore.

The EAA has hit out saying it is inappropriate to include the conditions, saying this could cause legal disputes, confuse the market and implicate tax evasion.

These are serious accusations. When a statutory authority decides to make a strong condemnation, it is expected to offer an explanation at the same time.

The EAA, being an authority, is no exception to this expectation.

Shih maintains they are innocent after reconfirming the legal advice with a barrister. To be fair to market players - both buyers and sellers - the EAA should make public its grounds for voicing the objection.

Nonetheless, it's a good thing the policy address will be given next week and the situation will be clear.