Tag: Public Housing

  • SDP: Here’s How You Resolve The HDB 99-Year Lease Problem

    SDP: Here’s How You Resolve The HDB 99-Year Lease Problem

    Singaporeans have been concerned about the recent announcement by Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong that the value of older HDB flats will decline and, eventually, be worth nothing at the end of their 99-year lease.

    HDB owners go into heavy debt and spend their retirement savings paying off this debt only to find that their flats decrease in value and have to be returned to the government at the end of the lease.

    This doesn’t make sense.

    To overcome this problem, the SDP has proposed the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme for flats. Under this scheme, HDB will base flat prices solely on labour, materials and administrative costs. They will not contain a land cost component as State land does not cost the government any money.

    Currently, the HDB factors in the cost of land which jacks up the prices of the flats making them unaffordable for Singaporeans.

    Excluding the cost of State land will substantially reduce prices for HDB flats. We estimate that the prices for NOM flats will be effectively halved or more, ranging from $70,000 for 2-room flats to $240,000 for 5-room ones.

    But as the name suggests, NOM flats may not be sold on the open market. Owners wanting to sell their flats will have to sell them back to the HDB at a price that will be the original purchase price less the consumed lease.

    Current HDB owners will have the option of converting their flats to NOM ones. When they do this, the government will refund the amount of money based on the original purchase price from the HDB and the price of the same type of NOM flat, subject to a cap.

    The difference between the current system and the SDP’s NOM scheme is that Singaporeans won’t have to spend so much of their CPF savings and income to buy their homes. This will leave them enough funds for retirement and other pursuits.

    Buyers who choose to stay with the current system can continue to buy and sell their flats on the open market. They are, however, subject to the vagaries of the market and face the prospect of depleting their retirement funds by buying hugely over-priced flats.

    Experts have reacted positively to the SDP’s proposal (see here, here, and here).

    The current system ties up the people’s wealth in government property which, ultimately, becomes zero in value. It increases debt while reducing consumer spending and investment. This is not good for the overall economy.

    The SDP believes that housing, in particular public housing, should not be a tradeable commodity. Our flats are our homes where our loved ones live in security and comfort, not profit-making ventures. The NOM scheme is consistent with this principle.

    More important, it frees Singaporeans from the crushing debt burden and overcomes the unthinkable problem that our expensive flats for which we spend a lifetime paying become worthless at the end of 99 years.

    For more information on this subject, please read our alternative housing policy Housing A Nation: Holistic Policies for Affordable Homes here.

     

    Source: http://yoursdp.org

  • Singapore Homes Seriously Unaffordable

    Singapore Homes Seriously Unaffordable

    Singapore’s market cooling measures have been effective in reducing the prices of HDB flats and private homes over the past few years, but housing costs here are still seen as too high, revealed findings published by a global report last month.

    According to the 12th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Singapore has a “seriously unaffordable” rating of 5.0, no change from last year’s survey.

    The report used the median multiple indicator, which is the median house price divided by gross annual median household income, to rate housing affordability across 367 cities in nine countries.

    A grade of 3.0 and below is considered affordable, 3.1 to 4.0 (moderately unaffordable), 4.1 to 5.0 (seriously unaffordable) and 5.1 and over (severely unaffordable).

    Despite being seen as expensive, the report noted that “Singapore has been far more successful in controlling housing affordability than in markets that have followed the British urban containment model”.

    Specifically, the HDB was recognized for ramping up the supply of new flats and reducing new home prices.

    “One strategy has been to increase what are effectively “across the board” subsidies for all new houses (not counting special grants, such as for first home buyers).

    “Should the present policy continue, it is likely that resale house prices will rise slower or even fall in the future, improving Singapore’s housing affordability,” said Demographia.

    Eligible first-time buyers of new HDB flats currently enjoy up to $80,000 in housing grants, comprising up to $40,000 in Special CPF Housing Grants and up to $40,000 in Additional CPF Housing Grants.

    Meanwhile, Hong Kong has the least affordable housing in the world, with a median multiple of 19.0. This rating is also the highest recorded in the 12 years of the Demographia Survey.

     

    Source: www.propertyguru.com.sg

  • HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

    HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

    It’s difficult for a heartland born-and-bred Singaporean like me to imagine, but there are apparently people in Singapore who have never lived in, or even stepped into, a Housing Board flat.

    When I was discussing property purchases with a group of friends, one of my girlfriends confessed she would not buy a HDB flat because she wouldn’t feel safe in one. She grew up in private property and her first purchase was a condominium.

    I got to thinking about this issue, following reports that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan wants to make it easier for all couples, including high-earning ones, to own and live in a HDB built-to-order (BTO) flat.

    In a live radio talk show on Chinese-language station Capital 95.8FM, he is reported to have said: “If you ask for my personal opinion … I generally prefer to give every Singaporean couple a chance of living in HDB.

    “You may come from, say, an upper-income group. You do not need an HDB flat. But I feel that it’s good for … almost all Singaporeans to have a chance of living in HDB for five years, and interact with the community.”

    He added: “It’s part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life. It’s just like males go for National Service … If we can give them this opportunity of staying in HDB towns, I think there are more positives than negatives.”

    His remarks were made in the context of raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, which he said could happen by Sept.

    Now, a married couple with a joint monthly income of up to $10,000 can buy a subsidised, new HDB flat. It was raised from $8,000 in 2011.

    This isn’t the first time Mr Khaw made such a comment. In an exclusive interview with The Straits Times in April 2013, he had broached the idea of scrapping the income ceiling to allow even couples with very high incomes to own HDB flats, as living in HDB flats would give people more chances to interact with others of different races and incomes. But the lower-income households ones would still get bigger housing grants.

    Mr Khaw said then: “If a rich man’s kid wants to apply for a BTO flat, provided he stays the five-year minimum occupation period, there’s nothing wrong with that to me”.

    My reaction both times was bemusement.

    For most Singaporeans, HDB living is part and parcel of being Singaporean. Most live in HDB estates. Those of us who grew up in one, and moved on to private property, will probably always hanker after the bustle of HDB life.

    You see all the BMW-driving businessmen in long-sleeved shirts wiping away beads of sweat as they wolf down their bak chor mee or mee goreng at their favourite HDB coffeeshop and hawker centre, and you see the looks of blissful content on the well-dressed women as they buy their cheap laundry baskets or pick up kitchen utensils at the household sundry shop, and you know you can take the boy or girl out of the HDB estate, but you can’t take the HDB out of the boy or girl.

    So the idea that a special policy is needed to encourage people to live in and interact with HDB residents will appear slightly surreal to some. On my Facebook, a friend commented that she felt insulted, as though HDB residents were creatures in a zoo that the rich are being encouraged to visit to see.

    I empathise with that comment. It’s like having a special policy to encourage those who live with a permanent bubble around their heads to take their heads out of the bubble and breathe normal air like the rest of us.

    Breathing normal air is the default, and should be so. But I can see that if segments of our population have become so used to living in that bubble of air, it would take concerted policy action to persuade them to try normal air for a change.

    The truth is that Singapore society is stratifying. Whereas many of today’s middle-aged professionals grew up in HDB flats, it’s probably the case that more of today’s 20-something year old professionals and managers grew up in private housing. So the idea of having them live in and experience HDB life, isn’t a bad one. From the point of view of social cohesion, it makes sense.

    In Singapore, public housing caters to the majority of the population – 80 per cent of Singapore resident households live in HDB flats. The idea is precisely that we would all grow up in mixed neighbourhoods that jumble up people of different races, different income groups, and different socioeconomic status.

    So it makes sense to encourage the small minority who never had a chance to do that when they were growing up, and encourage them to do so in their young adulthood.

    I often wonder how many of today’s young Administrative Service civil servants, and the smart youngsters who enter the banks, the legal profession, and even the media, have lived in HDB flats, and if they have empathy for the average Singaporean who does. These people are future leaders and decision-makers.

    If too many of them come from privileged families, they would never have experienced poverty, or suffered from want or anxiety over money problems. But if they had a friend in school or in their neighbourhood who did, and were close enough a confidant to share vicariously in the friend’s struggles, their worldview will be more rounded than the wealthy child who lives with, plays with and goes to school with only other wealthy children.

    If raising the income ceiling to allow more young couples to live in HDB flats can help reduce the social gap that can exist between the privileged and the masses, then there are reasons to do so.

    I know some readers will argue that HDB flats should be reserved for the lower-income. Let the high-income earners who want to live in HDB estates buy flats on the resale market.

    But the fact is that, with 80 per cent living in HDB estates, HDB flat owners already include the high-income. Increasingly, the subsidised HDB flat is being viewed as the birthright of every Singaporean couple. The HDB gravy train gives them a ticket to an affordable first home – and a firm step up the ladder of financial success, if they are lucky enough enough to make hundreds of thousands of dollars subsequently by selling it on the open market.

    But opening up the floodgates this way will inevitably lead to demands from other groups to be given the same access to HDB subsidised flats. Mature couples who missed out on buying HDB flats earlier will also want to be allowed to buy subsidised flats. And singles will demand more leeway to benefit from housing subsidies too.

    The arguments about the social benefits of having every Singaporean experience HDB living applies equally to them.

     

    Source: http://business.asiaone.com

  • Is PAP the solution or the problem?

    0% of the population voted for PAP during 2011 elections. The PAP vaingloriously considers this achievement as an indication that they have gotten a HUGE majority of support from the citizens as compared to other democratic nations. As we know, this figure belies the actual truth. Taking into consideration that the climate of fear still plays a crucial role in punching up the percentage, Im pretty sure their think-tank have its own analysis as to what the actual support is.

    We had seen how support for PAP has been sliding south at each general election. Again, I’m sure they conducted extensive research on why this is happening. While the frugal Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) was very fortunate to have a docile population whom he can twiddle with his imaginary hatchet, his prodigal son, Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) had to content with an electorate equipped with plethora of information from the emergence of the social media.

    Make no mistake. The PAP has absolute control over our print media. Those who think that our newspapers provide unbiased reporting, must have been living in ‘Batu Cave’ and have no other sources of information except receiving news via a subscription plan from SPH.

    Unable to control the outflow of information which has been fastidiously guarded during LKY’s term, the people are now beginning to realise that PAP is not the solution to the problems that the country is facing. In fact, they are the problem. Policies were passed down without extensive deliberations and they are reactive rather than proactive.

    Often times, when problems start to appear, it was not promptly addressed. They make it a habit of ignoring valid small feedbacks from the public as being inconsequential. Thus problems regularly get compounded.

    Now let’s examine a few bread and butter issues to ascertain the facts on whether im blowing hot air.

    Public housing – We have seen prices skyrocketing. The scholars from PAP were the one that peg new public housing prices to the open market. This is now almost irreversible as detaching it will only have dire consequences to existing owners. What’s the solution from PAP then? Except meaningless tweaking and more taxes implemented, PAP has offered no long term solution to this predicament. In fact, they are compounding it by bringing in more immigrants without building adequate supply.

    Public transport (SMRT) – Who’s the genius one who decided to privatize our public transportation? Although this process is still reversible, it will take insane amount of tax payers’ money to nationalise it again. The citizens are now at the mercy of these big organizations as and when they decide to increase the fares. What’s the solution from PAP to keep transportation cost down? Nothing except throwing in tax payer’s money to fund part of SBS and SMRT’s expenditure to keep cost from rising while tax payers were made to pay for their mistakes. For how long are we going to inject billions of public funds to feed these big organizations?

    Healthcare – Who’s the smart aleck who created this severe brain drain of doctors in Singapore when he capped the number of students allowed to take medicine at NUS? Singapore now has to attract doctors from all over to come and practice here, paying premium salaries to them. Inevitably, part of the cost is passed on to patients. We also heard many stories of how a family is burden with hospital bills amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars after a patient is diagnosed with terminal illness. Obviously our 3M has failed to provide adequate coverage to prevent such situation from happening. What’s the solution to these?

    COE – It is now a luxury to own a car in Singapore. At the present moment, Cat A and B quota premium is $85k and $93k respectively. The main purpose of implementing the COE system was to curb vehicle population growth. It had to a certain degree met its objectives albeit at the expense of the average citizen when COE prices shoot up to almost 30 times of the median income. It’s not rocket science to know that with an impending population increase and more affluent foreigners being converted into citizens, this regressive tax system will only impose a greater burden on the poor. Being a reactive government rather than proactive one, we can expect this problem will not be approaching any solution soon.

    It’s time that citizens think critically without prejudice on various issues that is affecting Singaporeans. Many of the problems were the result of bad decisions and policies. Achieving economic success alone is never a true measure of how successful a nation is. Citizen’s welfare and well-being should be placed in tandem with any economic progress.

    PAP has shown that its problem solving skills are limited to only imposing additional taxes on the citizens without any concrete solutions. It has failed the acid test and it is now time for a new holistic government to take it over for the next lap.

    Regards,
    Osman Sulaiman

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/notes/osman-sulaiman/is-pap-the-solution-or-the-problem/10151696941793372