Enact a law to bar "pro-enbloc" residents from management council...really?

The wife and I came across the letter below in the ST Forum page today.

We agree wholeheartedly and empathize with the writer that alot of what she said does happen at estates with so-called "enbloc potential". However, is it really fair to enact a law that bar residents with enbloc intentions from sitting on a management council? Afterall, it is usually a democratic election process, whereby an AGM is held and council members are voted in through majority votes.

The bigger question here is if the "pro-enbloc" residents can be motivated enough to band together and assume office on an estate's management council, why can't the "anti-enbloc" residents step forward to do the same? If it is indeed true that many of the residents within that estate are against enbloc, some of these "anti-enbloc" residents should be able garner enough votes to become management council members. 

We wonder if the writer realized that she has already identified the crux of the problem here, i.e. few (anti-enbloc residents) are keen on running for office in any estate, and fewer still are willing to argue with loud neighbours who harbour an agenda. If the people who are directly impacted by an enbloc process are unwilling to step forward and be proactive in opposing the process, they should not then "cry father cry mother" (to borrow a hokkien term) when the management council of their estate is monopolised by (motivated) pro-enbloc residents.

In our humble opinions (as always), it is the "ostrich, leave it to other people to do something about it" or "the government should make a law to stop this, because we felt victimised despite the fact that we are not prepared to do anything ourselves to safeguard our own interests" mentality that is the real issue here.

And for the record, the wife and I are not currently or have ever been with a "pro-enbloc" camp...

.