From a reader. 

Dear Singaporeans,

As Singaporeans lament rising flat prices, he said they ought to understand that the Government sells them at a subsidised price, below market rate, so that they can own an asset that will appreciate in value over the years.

It adds to their wealth and this is an asset-enhancing policy Mr Lee believes citizens should not find fault with.

If they do, they must be ‘daft’, he said, at a dialogue during a housing conference as part of a series of events to mark the Housing and Development Board’s 50th anniversary.

And if National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan is unable to defend this policy, ‘he deserves to lose’ at the next general election, he quipped, to laughter from the participants, including a chuckling Mr Mah.

But if Mr Mah loses to the opposition, he warned that Singaporeans better sell their flats fast as they would no longer be of any value.

 

Lee Kuan Yew is at it trying to cheat you again with these nice sweetie words: subsidised price, below market rate, an asset that will appreciate in value over the years.  Mr Liar, Lee Kuan Yew, please produce some statistics.

1) What is the selling price of new flats sold during the period 1994 to 1999? (Use this 5-year period only for discussion.)

2) What is the current valuation price of these flats now?

3) Please explain why there is a big drop in the current valuation price compared to the selling price?

4) Will the big drop in value explain these sweetie words: subsidized price, below market rate and appreciating asset?

5) You can go on to churn out false statistics. However, the owners of these flats know you have cheated them several hundreds of thousands dollars from the higher over-price flats.

A letter from a reader.

Lee Hsien Loong, you are as good a sweet talker and big time liar as your father.

If you have priced the flats correctly, you do not need to hand out a housing subsidy. Why don’t you price a 4-room flats at S1 million and then tell the young couple that you are giving him a big subsidy of S$700,000 assuming the final price the couple paid is $300,000?

Affordable? What do you mean by affordable?

Extending a housing loan that takes the young couple 30 years to pay is called affordable. You are locking this poor young couple to work as a slave to you for their next 30 years. In my opinion, a reasonable loan period should not exceed 20 years. Of course, the longer the loan period, the HDB flats that HDB sells can fetch a much, much higher price, period. You are robbing the people of their money and turning them into your slaves for 30 years. Please do not argue over this point. Just admit it. Your father started the GREAT HDB upgrading program and you are continuing his legacy of robbing the people of Singapore.

Now you said the government does not control the resale flats. Why? During the great upgrading period from 1990 and 2000, what did the HDB appointed surveyors did to jack up the price of the resale price to make the spiraling rise in the new flats price looks so much more attractive. Of course, now you don’t care about the resale price level because of two reasons.

1) You have over-priced the new flats when they were first sold.

2) Do you care about returning the drop in valuation of the resale flats because you had over=price the same flat when it was first sold to the poor owner who now is the sucker for the dropped in price of about $100,000. Btw, the new flats were sold bare, each owners had to dump in S$60,000 to S$120,000 to renovate the flat before moving in. That means, the poor owner who is selling his flats lost almost S$200,000.

Father and son are both great liars of the 20/21centuries and are utterly irresponsible.

Jan 26, 2010, New flats stay affordable By Jeremy Au Yong, The Straits Times online edition.

WHILE the Government will keep the prices of new Housing Board (HDB) flats in check, it has less control over prices in the resale market.

This state of affairs was highlighted by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday night when he commented for the first time on what has been one of the hottest topics of discussion.

Speaking at a gala dinner to mark the HDB’s 50th anniversary, Mr Lee stressed the Government was committed to keeping HDB flats affordable and that its new flats are priced within the means of the vast majority of Singaporeans.

On top of that, it would also build enough new flats to cater to demand as the population grows. In fact, to cap its 50th year, the HDB will build its 1 millionth flat this year.

However, the Government does not have control over the prices of resale flats, he said.

His explanation: ‘These resale prices are set by individual households who transact flats on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, and are affected by movements and sentiments in the wider economy, including the private property market. Hence, resale prices of HDB flats will fluctuate from year-to-year.’

Here is a contribution from a reader.  He describes how the government has manipulated HDB selling prices in order to yield high GDP figures.  He posits that it was done in 2 ways.  One, selected HDB estates like Sunset way are priced outrageouly high by HDB valuaers. Two, the private property price is currently being maintained at a high price by releasing very little new development sites for new development.

Download the article here.

Update #2

Mr N sent us another email:

8/13/09 7:27 AM

Dear Sir,

The post “‘Strange’ business going around at HDB flat” at civicadvocator.net/category/forem is a great help.

I wrote a report and will write a number of shorter posts at http://anaudienceof.blogspot.com and http://complainproper.wordpress.com.

Hope you could refer your readers to one of the sites.

Thanks,

NKH

Update#1:
We contacted Mr N and are waiting for him to allow us to publish a follow up report.

N wrote

Thanks for your support.

You may publish the letter as required since I needed an audience.

However I think a third person’s report would be of interest. There is content and issue it may involved. I had written about fifteen letters over more than a year and about half that number were replys from the authorities.

The report could also serve as a reference as the problem may remains.

Dear Mr N

We could publish your letter on our site.
Besides that, how else could we help you?

Dear Sir,

I hope my complaint is appropriate to your site. I will point out what happened between HDB, a neighbour and myself.

2. After I lodged a letter at the Meet-the-People Session, since no MP was in at the time, I noticed people shifting into the flat across the neighbour. Then followed a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat in one to two weeks time. A few days later the neighbour approached me for a compromise, which on reflection was his concession to me.

3. The noise kept continuing and I wrote to the MPs who wrote to HDB, Town Council and Police. One curious fact was Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO), replied to all the letters sent to HDB and Town Council. In his letters to me he wrote there was no excessive noise and asked me to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions. There were five such letters each without much variations with a copy to an MP who wrote on my behalf.

4. I know all along the neighbour is carrying on a trade of some kinds by the types of noise they make through each day. I know the officers and some members at the Meet-the-People Session, whom I came in contact with, cannot be relied on. And I had some helps from people and MPs at the Meet-the-People Session. An example, someone sent me a blind copy for the RC Chairman only, attached to a letter from HBO to me. He wrote no noise was detected during their joint visit to the house and asked the Chairman to give me a talk on good neighbourliness.

5. The blind copy tells me the house(or the flat) across the neighbour was used to monitor them. The date of the joint visit mentioned was the same day the Chairman and a member(who was arranged to meet him after) visited me that morning. Although he wrote no noise was detected there was definite noise before the Chairman and the member came into my flat. In conjunction with another instance I think there was probably an instrument which could detect or record noise in the flat across the neighbour.

6. I think after the force-entry a deal was struck with the neighbour because they could be evicted. There is a history such as an eviction of an occupier who was with the first owner, transferred of the flat to the present owner just after the eviction, a warning given to the present owner and other details, all of which I had written to the HBO and MPs.

7. Since the noise has not stop I could be forced to leave. The solution is for the issue to be make known.

With Regards,

nkh

SINGAPORE: For the first time, opposition—held Potong Pasir and Hougang will be eligible for the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) for 65 precincts islandwide.  Senior Minister of State for National Development Grace Fu revealed this to the media on Monday at a Home Improvement Programme (HIP) event.

Source: CNA

When asked by journalists if the surprise announcement — to include Opposition wards Potong Pasir and Hougang in the programme — was deliberately timed, Ms Fu said the move had been planned for a while. 

Sure it was, and probably the idea came after the last GE when PAP failed to win over the voters.  There is nothing wrong with just saying so, actually.  Voters aren’t dumb.  False graciousness continues to be a hallmark of the PAP.

http://208.79.203.2/~wayangpa/?p=4648

Written by Eugene Yeo and Jeremy Koh | 28 January 2009

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described the $20.5 billion Resilience Package as a ‘very decisive Budget’ that aims to help see Singaporeans through the difficult economic times ahead.

Much has been said about the Budget lately with most PAP ministers and MPs, labor union leaders, employers and ordinary Singaporeans echoing the Prime Minister’s words.

The package consists chiefly of measures to help companies save jobs, retain workers and to keep them afloat during the economic downturn. Measures to help households include doubling of GST credits and a personal income tax rebate of 20% which was unchanged from last year.

The government had argued that the most effective way to help Singaporeans cope with the recession is to save their jobs through supporting the employers. However, it does little to address glaring long-term deficiencies in our corporatist economic model.

The S$20.5 billion ($13.7 billion) package — a whopping 8% of GDP — looks like past stimulus plans instead of a forward looking economic blueprint to retool our export-oriented economy.

Why does Singapore suffer the most from the global economic turmoil as compared to our nearest neighbor Malaysia ?

For far too long, we have been overly dependent on external trade while certain government policies like the compulsory CPF saving scheme and the high prices of public housing squeeze the middle class dry and dilute their spending power in the domestic economy.

Singapore’s economy would be more resilient if it were better balanced. Consumption composes only about 40% of GDP — far less than other developed Asian economies, nearer to 55%. (read Wall Street Journal’s commentary here)

The best way to prevent companies from retrenching workers and shutting down is to provide a steady flow of businesses for them. Only when there is demand will there be supply. The government’s incentives to the business sector are only temporary measures to tide them over these hard times and does not generate a demand for their services or products.

Why is our domestic consumption so low as compared to other developed Asian countries like Japan, South Korea or Hong Kong ?

Take the example the average Singapore worker earning a median pay of $2,500 a month to support his family of four – his wife and two children. He takes home $2,000 after contributing 20% of his pay to his CPF. Assuming his CPF is enough to pay for his monthly mortage, all he has is $2,000 for the living expenses of his entire family. How much spare cash does he still have to spend ?

The limited spending power of Singapore’s middle class is the real scourge of the current malaise pervading every sector of our economy and we will be able to shower the storm better had we have a greater domestic consumption.

The GST credits and personal income tax rebates provide more relief to the lower-income group who does not spend much anyway than the middle income group.

We propose two measures which will put extra cash in the pockets of the middle class almost immediately:

1. Decoupling the price of newly built HDB flats from the resale market:

New HDB flats are currently sold at 70% of the resale value of neighoring flats. With the HDB resale market being popped up artificially by downgraders from private homes and foreigners, this impose a heavy strain financially on newly-wed couples looking for their first home.

Public housing must be kept cheap and its prices should reflect current economic realities on the ground. Singaporeans should not be allowed to spend more than a certain percentage, e.g. 15% of their monthly salaries on servicing their housing loans. Those whose incomes failed to reach the benchmark should be offered rental flats instead.

The prices of new HDB flats should be pegged to the median pay of the average Singapore worker, calculated based on the amount the average worker will need to fork out over a 30 year period. For example, 15% of $2,500 gives us a monthly installment of $375, and a loan of $135,000 which middle-income households can afford easily.

2. Reducing employeers’ CPF contribution to 10% or less:

An extra 10% cash for each Singapore worker to bring home monthly will translate to greater spending power beyond basic subsistence levels.

Less Singaporeans will need cash handouts which the government can redirect to give more to the lower-income groups to lift them out of poverty.

Upon the recovery of the economy, Singaporeans can be encouraged to buy life annuities and health insurances from private insurance firms to supplement their CPF and medisave.

CPF has already failed in its original function of serving as retirement funds for Singaporeans. How many of us can afford to depend on our CPF when we retire ? The government should stop meddling in the personal finances of its citizens and allowed them to manage their own hard-earned savings.

Singaporeans have one of the highest saving rates in the world at 34.5%. We are also home to the richest sovereign wealth funds in the region with Temasek and GIC amassing assets of more than $100 billion dollars combined. Why then do we have less spending power compared to our counterparts elsewhere ? Why can’t we retire comfortably in our golden years and instead have to continue working for as long as we can ? Why are there still homeless Singaporeans with no roofs over their heads in a developed country like ours ?

There is something fundamentally wrong in our corporatist model and it is time we rectify it. Singaporeans from three generations – our grandparents, parents and now ourselves have contributed immensely to build up these SWFs through our CPF contributions and HDB flats purchases and yet they can afford to lose billion of dollars in failed overseas investments with impunity.

Reducing both the employees’ CPF contribution and prices of new HDB flats will benefit every Singaporean far more than GST credits and cash handouts. It is time we reduce our contribution to Temasek and GIC unless they are made to be accountable to the people like the Norwegian Pension Fund which publishes an annual statement of account for every Norwegian with a stake in it.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/04/asia/village.php

Extracted from article:

“We will need to optimize land use, whether it is though reclamation, building upwards or using subterranean space,” Mah Bow Tan, the minister of national development, said recently, in describing the plans for population growth.

“Even if I want to show my children how I was brought up, I can’t show them,” said Ho Why Hong, 50, a taxi driver, as he searched for Kampong Buangkok. “Everything is torn down.”
“When we were growing up we didn’t lock our doors,” he said. “That kind of trust we had. Everyone knew each other. Any stranger who came into the kampong, we knew.”

http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=198317&&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=451

My england not so power but i will try to share my point of view. What I hope for is affordable housing for all singaporean families that can be paid within 10 years. We don’t need the asset appreciation bubble in public housing. Just sell us an ok affordable roof over our heads. If singaporeans can afford and want properties that can appreciate like an investment, they can go buy private housing and compete in the open market of landed properties with foreigners. For the ambitious but once poor singaporean who has made it, they could either sell the flat back to HDB or to fellow singaporeans, then go buy their dream condo in the heart of city. For the rest, who find easy contentment with just a roof and a job, we can spend time with our family and do the things we want. Maybe do amateur research and invent something in our free time, persue our interest be it sports or academic fancies.

With lower public housing cost, and shorter repayment period, we can save enough for our retirement instead of relying on asset appreciation created from influx of FT/FWs and passing the bubble to the next generation who will find it farther and farther from their reach. We don’t need to be doing downgrading to release the housing equity for our retirement, its stupid.

shorter repayment => adequate retirement fund => no need to sell to downgrade for retirement => reasonable priced public housing for coming generations (no bubble) => sustainable living for all and future

I read somewhere about maslow’s law of evolution(?). I think housing security is an integral part of a society’s evolution. We have evolved from single-cell organism to an amphibian but I have a nagging feeling that we are somehow stuck at the amphibian stage. And if we don’t find a sustainable model for our housing soon, our society could very well be rolling backwards…. nevermind our hopes of progressing to the primate stage.

We help ourselves. Don’t expect others to help

Tom Wright painted a bleak picture of Singapore’s property sector going forward at The Wall Street Journal. His article ended with the following:
“I’m yet to see the light at the end of the tunnel [for Singapore],” says Mr. Tan, the high-end broker.
We would expect people to continue to dig the dirt and tell it to [...]



Our skin isn’t as thick as it should be

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) organised a seminar on March 4 to discuss Singapore’s political blogosphere.  Tan Tarn How, Senior Research Fellow and Research Assistant Tan Simin presented their paper on trends observed in the blogosphere.  As reported in the TOC, the researchers identified the following limitations:

The online-offline firewall, while somewhat alleviated by offline [...]



Singapore and Lee Kuan Yew – The answer to the African problem?

Recently, I followed a thread “Democracy and Economic Growth” which started in PoliticsForum.org.   Apparently, members there often question the role of democracy in a developing nation. “During the wave of democratization in Africa during the 90s, many people had renewed hope for the continent, immediately equating newly established democracies to economic growth. Are these democracies [...]



Tell Singapore government: Ask them a question or give a suggestion

We informed people about the “Tell Singapore Government” subsite and have received some interesting reaction at some forums.
See: 3in1 Kopitiam, Sam’s Alfresco Coffee, Singapore Kopitiam, SgForums
Our responses to some of the comments are listed below. If we are not answering some other specific questions, that is because we do not know how.
 

Petitions

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I don’t know

Our Singapore

As seen by people

• 
  

• Purpose

To observe, analyse, present our position, and call for action. Read our articles, give your views, and learn together with us.