An analysis of prices of completed HDB flats
-
An analysis of prices of completed HDB flats
OPINION
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said last week that HDB will ramp up its supply of build-to-order (BTO) flats from 8,000 to 9,000 units this year, and will make available 2,132 flats which are completed or nearly completed across the island for sale with immediate effect. (read article here)
This means more than 7,000 flats will be on sale for the next three months.
The sale of completed flats, left from earlier BTO exercises, SERS and repurchased flats, will come under a new scheme called Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) which will now replace the existing balloting exercise, quarterly sales, and half-yearly sales exercises.
Are these completed flats easily affordable by Singaporeans? Let us study the prices provided by HDB in some estates:
District 3-room prices 4-room prices
Ang Mo Kio $244,000 – $262,000 $253,000 – $394,000
Bukit Merah $262,000 – $287,000 $388,000 – $488,000
Jurong East $141,000 – $217,000 $250,000 – $327,000
Kallang $257,000 – $282,000 $287,000 – $438,000
Queenstown $302,000 – $308,000 $298,000 – $498,000
[Source: HDB InfoWeb]
The prices of five room flats are not included as most of them cost more than $400,000 with some in prime districts like Toa Payoh and Bishan fetching as high as $600,000.
Are buyers paying for value at such exorbitant prices for leasehold public housing? For a couple of thousand dollars more, they can easily buy a condominium in the surburbs.
An undiscerning reader may mistake these figures as prices for resale flats had we not indicated earlier that these are completed (leftover) flats put on sale by HDB.
Yet, these are indeed the prices of resale flats in the same estates not too long ago. Remember, these are prices of new flats. The buyers are paying the stipulated amount to HDB directly.
For readers who are more than 40 years old, they can attest to the fact that a new 3-room HDB flat in Ang Mo Kio cost between $40,000 and $60,000 in the mid 1980s. The value has now quadrupled.
While young couples can easily afford a 3-room or 4-room HDB flat 20 years ago and finish repaying the housing loan in less than 20 years, they are unlikely to do so at today’s prices.
The median wages simply cannot keep pace with the rate at which the prices of public housing is growing which is exacerbated by the relentless influx of foreigners in recent years.
Not surprisingly, an ERA report revealed last week that 40 per cent of the buyers of HDB flats are PRs and 86 per cent of the flats are transacted with COVs.
Single Singaporeans are hardest hit as they are allowed to purchase a HDB flat after 35 years of age by the time the prices may have risen beyond their means.
Though they have fulfilled their National Service obligations, they do not enjoy any housing subsidies from the government and has to compete with PRs in the open market for housing.
Even if they are able to afford the flats, they will have to slog hard for their entire lives to repay the loan unless they are high earners in the first place.
Mr Mah has continued to reassure Singaporeans that the government is “monitoring” the situation and will ensure that homes are affordable. If this is indeed so, how can the prices of new HDB flats be allowed to shoot up to such ridiculously high levels?
Is this HDB’s definition of “affordability”? Ability to pay the downpayment of 10 per cent of the valuation plus any COVs should not be equated to ability to pay for the flat for the rest of one’s life.
With HDB setting such prices for new flats, it is little wonder that sellers are asking for astronomical prices for theirs.
The difference in prices between a central district like Queenstown and one in the suburbs like Choa Chu Kang can be as high as $100,000. What are the exact land and construction costs?
HDB should reveal the figures publicly to allow Singaporeans to judge for themselves if they should be paying for the new flats at such prices.
Related articles:
>> 12,700 applications for 2,132 HDB flats
>> Number of applicants exceed number of flats
>> HDB to increase supply of flats
>> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past
>> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs
EDITORS’ NOTE:
If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!
Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview
source: http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/08/an-analysis-of-prices-of-completed-hdb-flats/
-
HDB debunks complaints from home buyers of not getting a flat despite repeated attempts
From our Correspondent
Beleaguered HDB, which has come under fire in recent weeks for poor planning leading to rapid inflation of HDB flat prices, has struck back at its critics through the state media.
In an article published on the Straits Times today, HDB seeks to debunk complaints from first-time home buyers that they could not get a flat despite repeated attempts. (read article here)
Using three case studies to support its case, HDB claimed that the buyers’ complaints do not quite match what was actually stated in their records.
The Sunday Times reported on Sept 20 that Mr Jayce Ng and Madam Jacelyn Yong had applied at least eight times, five for build-to-order (BTO) projects and half-yearly sales.
They claimed they were successful in only one application – for a five-room flat in Clementi two years ago and regretted not buying then.
According to HDB, the couple submitted 15 applications, out of which only four were for BTO projects, where couples have to wait typically three to four years.
Their other applications were for limited flats in mature estates. Records show they were offered a chance to select a flat seven times but did not do so.
Though there are some discrepancies in the accounts of the home buyers, it doesn’t hide the fact that the buyers did encounter genuine difficulties in getting a flat of their choice, whether it is 15 or 4 applications make little difference.
In an ideal situation, young Singapore couples should be able to get their desired flat after one or at most two applications.
Since a flat is a lifelong investment and they will be paying for the mortage loans for 20, 30 years or more, it is reasonable to expect them to be extremely cautious and selective of their units.
HDB should ensure there are sufficient flats available in mature estates at an easily affordable price to cater to the masses instead of blaming the buyers for being “unrealistic” and “picky”.
Being a government agency funded by taxpayers, it is natural that Singaporeans harbor a higher expectations for HDB, especially with its sterling performance and track record over the last few decades in providing affordable homes for Singaporeans.
In the past, young couples can get a flat of their choice easily at reasonably low prices. Many of them can afford to repay their mortage loans in less than 10 years.
It is inevitable that Singaporeans will compare the situation now with their parents and ask why they have to pay so much more for a flat which may not be located in the estate of their choice.
Though we cannot expect prices to remain the same as in the 1970s and 1980s, the rate of increase in prices should keep pace with the growth of the wages of ordinary Singaporeans.
If HDB finds that it can no longer meet the aspirations of Singaporeans, then perhaps it should relinquish its monopoly on public housing and allow boutique private developers to enter the market.
With a few competitors to choose from, prices will be fixed more or less at market rates and Singaporeans will have little to complain about.
HDB can never change public perception that HDB flats are supposed to be cheap and easily affordable.
It should do more to alleviate the concerns of Singaporeans either by increasing the supply of flats or making it more difficult for PRs to purchase resale flats to decrease the demand instead of quarreling with home buyers over such trivialities which will only make it appear unempathetic, petty and unreasonable.
Using a few cases will not alleviate public concerns that public housing is increasingly priced out of reach. What if the three cases are the exception rather than the norm?
HDB should come clean with the average number of attempts and the average waiting time needed by a first-time home buyer to get a flat of their choice time to give a more accurate and representive picture of the situation.
Related articles:
>> Mah Bow Tan dismissed complaints from home buyers as “ridiculous”
>> Number of applicants exceed number of flats
>> HDB to increase supply of flats
>> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past
>> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs
-
Mah Bow Tan on complaints from buyers they cannot get a flat: “It is ridiculous!”
From our Correspondent
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has lashed out at the rising number of complaints from Singaporeans, especially first-time home buyers that they are unable to get a flat after several attempts.
“Every time we get such emails we check – is it true? Why is it that after 12 times he still didn’t get a flat. It is ridiculous, surely something is wrong with the system,” said Mr Mah.
“So I have asked HDB to check and the sad part of it is – a lot of the times this is not entirely truthful. It’s not a matter of them not getting the flat, it’s a matter of getting it and not selecting it for one reason or the other.
“I would go further to say that if you (are) genuinely in (need of a flat) and you have not been able to succeed after three or four times, I’m prepared to look at it and find out what is going on.”
Mr Mah went on to assure Singaporeans that the supply of new flats under the BTO programme is more than adequate to meet the needs of younger couples.
However Mr Mah did not comment on the fact that in less than a week since the Sale of Balanced Flats is launched by HDB, 12,700 applications have been filed for only 2,132 available flats – about six times oversubscribed.
Neither did Mr Mah reply to the ERA report circulating around in cyberspace that 40 per cent of the buyers of resale flats are PRs.
Mr Mah also pin the blame on some applicants who did not book their flags:
“(There are) those who have a less urgent need or actually have a place to stay but are just trying their luck and are hoping that they get a good balloting number and a flat of their choice. In fact, many of those who reject say their preferred flat has been taken up. In such cases, we cannot cater for them.”
HDB’s advice to flat buyers is: plan ahead for the purchase and also know the trade-offs between wanting a flat in a mature or non-mature estate.
Despite record high prices for both new and resale flats, HDB has continued to insist that they are “affordable”. It now urges buyers to be “realistic” and exercise prudence, and buy a flat they can afford.
Perhaps HDB should first explain it has not increased the supply of flats in the face of an increasing population due to the relentless influx of foreigners over the last few years.
Is it realistic to expect home buyers to predict that the prices will shoot up so quickly in such a short span of time and “plan ahead” for their purchase?
-
Mah Bow Tan: Make meaningful comparisons
A Forum letter from Mr Ng Kok Lim
I refer to the report “Mah: Make meaningful comparisons” dated 2 Oct 2009. (read article here)
Mr Mah reportedly said that it is “not meaningful” to compare prices of flats today with those 20 years ago because that would mean going back 20 years.
But MM Lee said in a speech on 12 Sept 1965: “Over 100 years ago, this was a mud flat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city”. Is Mr Mah going to tell MM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back 100 years?
In his 2006 National Day message, PM Lee said that “many years ago, Singapore was just a fishing village …” Is Mr Mah going to tell PM Lee that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to a fishing village?
In the Straits Times report “How much is a burger worth” dated 26 Sept 2009, MP Seah Kian Peng was reported to have said that the key consideration in deciding how affordable or less affordable goods have become in Singapore is to see if life is better now compared to that in the past. Is Mr Mah going to tell MP Seah that his comparison is “not meaningful” and that he is trying to bring Singapore back to life in the past?
So Mr Mah is not being very meaningful when he says that it is “not meaningful” to compare with the past. Because everyone compares with the past, even our leaders do so. While our leaders readily compare with the past to show progress and achievement, comparisons that show price increases or deteriorating levels of affordability is deemed “not meaningful”.
Mr Mah brushes off “all sorts of arguments” about prices being too high today, not with sound counter arguments, but by simply saying that this is part and parcel of our system. In that case, he and the HDB might as well not give any explanations to the public. They can just answer any query from citizens with the phrase “this is part of our system”. No further explanations needed. Wouldn’t that be eaiser?
Mr Mah says that our HDB can be monetised by selling it or leasing it back to the HDB for retirement funds. But what is the point of paying for an HDB all our lives only to give it up at the end of the day?
Mr Mah says that our HDB remains affordable because it does not exceed the 30% international benchmark. But he and the HDB always insist on saying that our HDB is heavily subsidised. How can the HDB flat be simultaneously heavily subsidised and priced according to the international benchmark? That would mean that everywhere in the world that adopts the international benchmark enjoys heavily subsidised housing.
Thank you
Ng Kok LimSource: http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/10/09/mah-bow-tan-make-meaningful-comparisons/
-
Press censorship on important HDB issues
By David See Leong Kit
HDB’s response “Why we peg to market rates: HDB” ( TODAY Sept 25) to my earlier letter has necessitated my right of reply. (read letter here)
Instead of merely accusing me of being “misleading and illogical”, HDB is expected to be transparent in disclosing fully the actual breakeven cost of new flats in all its projects. After all, these are public housing developed with public funds.
These exasperasting remarks of a couple wanting to start a family sums up the genuine frustrations of young Singaporeans at the sky-high prices of public housing: “How to live in cheaper Woodlands when work is in Shenton Way and parents are in Tanah Merah? The Government must come up with more practical solutions !”
Let me now summarise these two main issues:
(1) Root cause behind high prices of new and resale flats.In the 1970s, at HDB Marine Parade Estate, prices of 3-room, 4-room and 5-room new flats were $17,000, $20,000 and $35,000 respectively.
In 1990, 5-room new flats cost around $70,000. Such prices then reflected a “cost-based” pricing approach.
But, following the 1994 property bull run, HDB switched to a “market-based” pricing approach. It confirmed that “the prices of new HDB flats are based on the market prices of resale HDB flats, and not their costs of construction”.
In 2000, the total breakeven cost (comprising construction cost, land cost and other related costs) of a 5-room new flat was an estimated $120,000.
However, under the market-based pricing approach, HDB will first look at the prevailing market price of, say $260,000 of a 5-room resale flat. It will then pick a slightly lower figure of, say $200,000 as the selling price of the new flat — regardless of its actual breakeven cost of $120,000.
HDB will then proclaim the new flat buyer is getting a so-called “market subsidy” of $60,000, the difference between resale flat market price and new flat selling price. There is really no “cash subsidy” given to the buyer, and HDB is actually making a profit of $80,000 for each flat sold.
The losses reported in HDB financial statements could well come from “transfer pricing” accounting between HDB, Singapore Land Authority and Ministry of Finance.
HDB’s “market-based” pricing approach is the root cause of prices of new flats and resale flats chasing each other in a never-ending upward trend.
A plate of chicken rice cost $3 in HDB coffeshops and $20 at hotel coffeehouses. It is both illogical and ridulous for HDB to proclaim that every person eating chicken rice in HDB coffeeshops is getting a “market subsidy” of $17 per plate!
(2) Are HDB new and resale flats really affordable?
It is misleading for HDB to merely state “first-time flat buyers use 17 to 29 per cent of household income for their loans, below the international benchmark of 30 per cent” without disclosing the assumptions used.
HDB has since confirmed to me that a 30-year loan period was assumed.
Of course, if you stretch a home loan to as long as 30 years, even private property will become “instantly affordable”.
For a couple with combined $8,000 monthly income, a HDB loan of $500,000 at 2.6 per cent interest and monthly loan instalment of $2,000 may appear affordable. But at the end of the 30 year loan period, they would have coughed up some $800,000 in total capital and interest repayments.
A sensible home loan period would be around 15 to 20 years.
EDITORS’ NOTE: Mr See’s follow-up reply was not published by the mainstream media.
-
Why peg prices of new HDB flats to market rates?
By Ng Kok Lim
I refer to your letter “Why we peg to market rates” to Today dated 25 Sept 2009. (read letter here)
You wrote that the HDB incurred an average deficit of $1,045 million a year on home ownership programmes. However, if we refer to Page120 of HDB’s 2008 annual report, $625,102 was spent on “upgrading, improvements and demolition”.Surely upgrading doesn’t count as home ownership but perhaps home improvement instead? It gives the false impression that the HDB is subsidising new homes at a cost of $1,045 million when in actual fact the amount is much less.
On the same page is another $783,757 item called “provision for loss for properties under development / for sale”.Presumably, HDB foresees the price of unsold HDB flats to fall short of construction costs by $783,757. But by claiming to price HDB flats at market levels, its hard to imagine how HDB can foresee prices of unsold HDB flats to dip below costs by so much.
If we put these two items aside, HDB actually made a profit of $363,859 instead.
Instead of repeating its market pricing rationale yet again, it would be more helpful if HDB can address the issue of positive feedback between resale flat price and new flat price.As market price of resale flats soar, so too does the price of new HDB flats since the latter are pegged to market prices. But the increasing price of new flats makes them less attractive to buyers and does nothing to abate the demand for resale flats and so demand for resale flats continues and the whole cycle repeats itself.
The price of many resale flats have jumped by $100,000 in a matter of one, two years.Can HDB explain why the $30,000 government subsidy is considered ’significant’ compared to a typical $100,000 rise in flat prices? HDB claims that market pricing allows all to receive similar subsidies regardless of market movements. But the $30,000 subsidy is not even enough to make up for the loss incurred by a would be buyer when the market goes up by $100,000.
HDB claims it is illogical for Mr See to attribute property price increases to the HDB because the recent asset appreciation is not unique to Singapore.This is like saying that the banks in Singapore are not responsible for losses arising out of the recent Lehmann Brothers collapse since similar losses have occurred elsewhere too. But banks here are being ordered to put their houses in order. Surely there is something that the HDB can do as well?
HDB should explain what being below the international benchmark of 30% means in terms of how much one gets to keep in one’s pockets. For example, HDB has demonstrated that a 3-room flat costing $150,000 and sold to a household with income of $2,000 only requires a monthly instalment of $460 and a resulting ratio of 23%.But for a typical family of four with a monthly sustenance need of $500 each perhaps, the total cash required is already $2,000. Where is the family going to find money for the $460 monthly instalment? So the 23% ratio is meaningless as far as one’s own pockets is concerned.
-
A reply to Ms Mabel Tan’s letter: “How family’s fortunes have grown over the years”
I refer to the letter “How family’s fortunes have grown over the years” by Ms Mabel Tan dated 26 Sept 2009. (read letter here)
Ms Tan’s bemusement is understandable. She is bemused because she and her family are totally unencumbered by the recent sharp increases in property prices. Like the person watching a fire from the safety of the opposite bank of a river, she feels neither anxiety nor pain.
She shares with us her good example of being able to stay with her in-laws for 8 years and so she expects everyone else to be able to do so. But I know of a colleague whose husband slept in the living room of his parents’ flat before their marriage because his family was too big.
Does Ms Tan expect my colleague to sleep in the living room of her parents-in-laws’ flat? Ms Tan shouldn’t have moved out after 8 years but should have continued to stay with her in-laws to uphold the example she had been setting.
Ms Tan claims that her family’s fortunes have ‘grown’ over the years, but she provides no details as to how it has actually grown. Let’s see, there is no doubt that from a one-room flat to a four-room flat, Ms Tan’s parents have benefitted from asset inflation. But has Ms Tan’s extended family benefitted as a whole?
Let’s say for simplicity’s sake, Ms Tan’s parents’ flat appreciated from $30,000 to $300,000, that’s a cool $270,000 that Ms Tan’s parents pocketed over the years without doing anything. But what about Ms Tan and her siblings?
If the price had stayed at $30,000, Ms Tan and her siblings would have been able to snap up units at $30,000 each only. But because of asset inflation, Ms Tan and her siblings now have to fork out $300,000 each.
In fact, Ms Tan and her two siblings would have to fork out a total of $900,000 instead of $90,000. Collectively, they would have paid $810,000 more. The extra burden of $810,000 that Ms Tan’s generation has to bear far outweighs the gain of $270,000 that her parents pocketed.
So that is the truth behind the fallacy of asset appreciation. We can of course adjust all prices for inflation but what this simple example illustrates is this: the so-called gain from asset appreciation of one generation will be borne by the future generation. It becomes a debt for the future generation to bear. Unless salaries can keep up, that debt will keep increasing and increasing until it becomes totally unbearable.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim
-
A letter from Ng Kok Lim: HDB’s affordability benchmark is not reasonable
I refer to the HDB’s letter “Within a family’s reach” to the Straits Times dated 12 Sept 2009.The HDB claims that one of its key responsibilities is to sustain flat values over the long term. The first of HDB’s four mission statements is to “provide affordable homes of quality and value”. There is nothing in that statement that says that it is HDB’s responsibilty to sustain flat values over the long term. In fact, none of the four mission statements or even the vision statement remotely suggests that it is the HDB’s duty to sustain flat prices over the long term. So where did HDB get its mission of sustaining flat prices over the long term?Next, sustaining flat prices over the long term is different from letting it rise faster than salary increases because clearly, salary increases hasn’t been keeping up with increases in flat prices.The notion of generous housing subsidies is unconvincing. In the span of months, HDB prices shot up by $100,000 easily across the island. Can the $30,000 HDB subsidy make up for $100,000 increase in flat prices?AffordabilityThe HDB claims that it is reasonable for a couple earning $4,000 to pay for a flat costing $300,000 with a monthly instalment of $920 + $81 = $1,001. Let’s see if this sum is truly reasonable by taking into consideration the daily as well as retirement needs of a family of four.Suppose each member in a family of four requires $500 for basic sustenance. That will take $2,000 away from the monthly income. Take $1,001 HDB housing loan away from the remaining sum of $2,000 and we are left with $999. If both husband and wife were to set aside $500 each for retirement purposes, they would have perpetually nothing left for utilities, education and all other purposes. Is this HDB’s so called “affordable”? Seems like HDB’s so called “below the international benchmark of 30%” means having absolutely nothing left over for spending. No wonder Singaporeans have little to spend or if they spend, have insufficient funds for retirement.Only new flats countHDB says that the figures quoted by me is not reflective of Singapore’s situation. According to the HDB, the true figure should only be based on the price of new HDB flats. In other words, HDB is saying is that housing affordability in Singapore should solely be judged by the price of new HDB flats only, the prices of resale flats and condominiums don’t count. Is this a reasonable assumption?According to the HDB website, there were 16,630 resale flat transactions in the first half of the year. Assuming the same number will be transacted in the later half of the year, the total number of resale flats to be bought this year would amount to 33,260 units. This is more than four times the number of new flats that will be built this year. In other words, HDB’s definition is only confined to less than 20% of Singaporeans’ needs for HDB flats. Yet HDB is claiming that that this 20% reflects the true housing affordability in Singapore. This is akin to picking out the poorest 20% of Singaporeans and saying that that they represent the general income situation in Singapore.While no one is disputing that DSR is simple, no one can appreciate where Singapore stands unless Singapore is ranked against other developed countries using the DSR. Also, HDB shouldn’t only compare the DSR of the cheapest 20% of Singapore’s houses against the DSR of all houses in other countries.. That simply wouldn’t be comparing apple to apple. If HDB is bent on comparing so-called new HDB flats only, then comparison should be made against similarly “subsidised” housing in other countries.Flat supplyHDB claims that it is responsive to rising demand due to immigration and new marriages. But it still hasn’t shown us how the 8,000 new flats to be built this year is sufficient for Singaporeans when the number of resale flats bought in the first half of this year is already 16,630.Having admitted that the HDB cannot build sufficient flats where and when citizens want them, the HDB should then refrain from always saying that resale flat prices are determined by “willing buyer, willing seller” since the willingness of buyers will always be constrained by the inability of the HDB to build new flats where and when citizens want them.The HDB says there are plenty of resale flats available in mature estates which are affordable. This is again another myth. Are there hundreds of thousands of empty resale flats waiting for people to buy and occupy? Obviously not. For every resale flat that is sold, another house has to be provided for unless the occupant is emigrating from Singapore. So the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of HDB flats in Singapore doesn’t mean that there are hundreds of thousands of HDB flats available for people’s choosing. Just like there are 400,000 cars in Singapore doesn’t mean that there are 400,000 second hand cars available for people to choose and buy from.[[EDITORS' NOTE: This letter was submitted to us by Mr Ng Kok Lim who had two letters published earlier by the Straits Times Forum on rising prices of HDB flats. Please feel free to send us your letters at [email protected]]
I refer to the HDB’s letter “Within a family’s reach” to the Straits Times dated 12 Sept 2009. (read letter here)
The HDB claims that one of its key responsibilities is to sustain flat values over the long term. The first of HDB’s four mission statements is to “provide affordable homes of quality and value”.
There is nothing in that statement that says that it is HDB’s responsibilty to sustain flat values over the long term. In fact, none of the four mission statements or even the vision statement remotely suggests that it is the HDB’s duty to sustain flat prices over the long term. So where did HDB get its mission of sustaining flat prices over the long term?
Next, sustaining flat prices over the long term is different from letting it rise faster than salary increases because clearly, salary increases hasn’t been keeping up with increases in flat prices.
The notion of generous housing subsidies is unconvincing. In the span of months, HDB prices shot up by $100,000 easily across the island. Can the $30,000 HDB subsidy make up for $100,000 increase in flat prices?
Affordability
The HDB claims that it is reasonable for a couple earning $4,000 to pay for a flat costing $300,000 with a monthly instalment of $920 + $81 = $1,001. Let’s see if this sum is truly reasonable by taking into consideration the daily as well as retirement needs of a family of four.
Suppose each member in a family of four requires $500 for basic sustenance. That will take $2,000 away from the monthly income. Take $1,001 HDB housing loan away from the remaining sum of $2,000 and we are left with $999. If both husband and wife were to set aside $500 each for retirement purposes, they would have perpetually nothing left for utilities, education and all other purposes.
Is this HDB’s so called “affordable”? Seems like HDB’s so called “below the international benchmark of 30%” means having absolutely nothing left over for spending. No wonder Singaporeans have little to spend or if they spend, have insufficient funds for retirement.
Only new flats count
HDB says that the figures quoted by me is not reflective of Singapore’s situation. According to the HDB, the true figure should only be based on the price of new HDB flats.
In other words, HDB is saying is that housing affordability in Singapore should solely be judged by the price of new HDB flats only, the prices of resale flats and condominiums don’t count. Is this a reasonable assumption?
According to the HDB website, there were 16,630 resale flat transactions in the first half of the year. Assuming the same number will be transacted in the later half of the year, the total number of resale flats to be bought this year would amount to 33,260 units.
This is more than four times the number of new flats that will be built this year. In other words, HDB’s definition is only confined to less than 20% of Singaporeans’ needs for HDB flats. Yet HDB is claiming that that this 20% reflects the true housing affordability in Singapore. This is akin to picking out the poorest 20% of Singaporeans and saying that that they represent the general income situation in Singapore.
While no one is disputing that DSR is simple, no one can appreciate where Singapore stands unless Singapore is ranked against other developed countries using the DSR. Also, HDB shouldn’t only compare the DSR of the cheapest 20% of Singapore’s houses against the DSR of all houses in other countries.. That simply wouldn’t be comparing apple to apple. If HDB is bent on comparing so-called new HDB flats only, then comparison should be made against similarly “subsidised” housing in other countries.
Flat supply
HDB claims that it is responsive to rising demand due to immigration and new marriages. But it still hasn’t shown us how the 8,000 new flats to be built this year is sufficient for Singaporeans when the number of resale flats bought in the first half of this year is already 16,630.
Having admitted that the HDB cannot build sufficient flats where and when citizens want them, the HDB should then refrain from always saying that resale flat prices are determined by “willing buyer, willing seller” since the willingness of buyers will always be constrained by the inability of the HDB to build new flats where and when citizens want them.
The HDB says there are plenty of resale flats available in mature estates which are affordable. This is again another myth. Are there hundreds of thousands of empty resale flats waiting for people to buy and occupy? Obviously not.
For every resale flat that is sold, another house has to be provided for unless the occupant is emigrating from Singapore. So the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of HDB flats in Singapore doesn’t mean that there are hundreds of thousands of HDB flats available for people’s choosing. Just like there are 400,000 cars in Singapore doesn’t mean that there are 400,000 second hand cars available for people to choose and buy from.
Ng Kok Lim
-
A letter from Ng Kok Lim: Home ownership becoming a liability rather than an asset
[EDITORS' NOTE: This letter was submitted to us by Mr Ng Kok Lim who had two letters published earlier by the Straits Times Forum on rising prices of HDB flats. Please feel free to send us your letters at [email protected]]
I refer to the letter “People should be free to decide what a flat is worth: HDB” to the Straits Times dated 14th Sept 2009.HDB claims to be responsible for sustaining flat prices over the long term. Looking at resale flat prices from 1990 to the present, sustenance of flat prices hardly needs worrying about as increases in flat prices have far outstripped increases in peoples’ incomes. Conversely, shouldn’t it be HDB’s responsibility instead to ensure that increases in flat prices do not outstrip the people’s capactity to pay for them?The title of the letter itself suggests a misconception surrounding the myth of “willing buyer, willing seller” so often perpetuated by the HDB. The fact that HDB is claiming to be responsible for sustaining flat prices means that it has the means to influence the overall price level of HDB flats. That is the crux of the issue. While people are free to decide how much to price their flats, their decision cannot deviate significantly from market conditions that are largely controlled by the HDB itself, through such mechanisms as controlling the amount of land that it releases to the public and the number of new flats that it builds. Ask ourselves, how can we sell our flats at a premium when the govt is building one exactly the same right next door to be sold at cost? It is because the govt isn’t building them or isn’t pricing them at cost or is choosing to release the land for private condominimums for example that resellers are able to command the premium that they are getting.The situation is not unlike the case of a sole importer monopolising the rice trade. If he opens up all his warehouses and distributes the rice to all the shop keepers, there will be plenty of rice for everyone and no one will have to pay a premium for rice. But the moment the importer restricts his supply of rice such that supply barely meets demand, people will start to fight over rice and the shop keepers will now be able to command a high price for rice. That is exactly what is happening to our HDB resale market. By not supplying enough new flats, the HDB creates the conditions for the resale market to heat up.The HDB claims that the total number of bookings for HDB flats with grants amounts to 13,000 to 15,000 units each year, which far exceeds the 8,000 new flats HDB is building this year. So isn’t this clear evidence that the HDB is not building enough new flats to satisfy demand?The HDB claims to have enabled 80% of the population to own their own homes. But going by the exhorbitant price people have to pay for house ownership, house ownership becomes a terrible liability rather than a proud asset that the people can be proud of.I refer to the letter “People should be free to decide what a flat is worth: HDB” to the Straits Times dated 14th Sept 2009. (read letter http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=4619)
HDB claims to be responsible for sustaining flat prices over the long term. Looking at resale flat prices from 1990 to the present, sustenance of flat prices hardly needs worrying about as increases in flat prices have far outstripped increases in peoples’ incomes. Conversely, shouldn’t it be HDB’s responsibility instead to ensure that increases in flat prices do not outstrip the people’s capactity to pay for them?
The title of the letter itself suggests a misconception surrounding the myth of “willing buyer, willing seller” so often perpetuated by the HDB.
The fact that HDB is claiming to be responsible for sustaining flat prices means that it has the means to influence the overall price level of HDB flats. That is the crux of the issue.
While people are free to decide how much to price their flats, their decision cannot deviate significantly from market conditions that are largely controlled by the HDB itself, through such mechanisms as controlling the amount of land that it releases to the public and the number of new flats that it builds.
Ask ourselves, how can we sell our flats at a premium when the govt is building one exactly the same right next door to be sold at cost? It is because the govt isn’t building them or isn’t pricing them at cost or is choosing to release the land for private condominimums for example that resellers are able to command the premium that they are getting.
The situation is not unlike the case of a sole importer monopolising the rice trade. If he opens up all his warehouses and distributes the rice to all the shop keepers, there will be plenty of rice for everyone and no one will have to pay a premium for rice. But the moment the importer restricts his supply of rice such that supply barely meets demand, people will start to fight over rice and the shop keepers will now be able to command a high price for rice.
That is exactly what is happening to our HDB resale market. By not supplying enough new flats, the HDB creates the conditions for the resale market to heat up.
The HDB claims that the total number of bookings for HDB flats with grants amounts to 13,000 to 15,000 units each year, which far exceeds the 8,000 new flats HDB is building this year. So isn’t this clear evidence that the HDB is not building enough new flats to satisfy demand?
The HDB claims to have enabled 80% of the population to own their own homes. But going by the exhorbitant price people have to pay for house ownership, house ownership becomes a terrible liability rather than a proud asset that the people can be proud of.
Ng Kok Lim
-
HDB responds to couples’ claims
THE HDB has addressed some recent media reports and readers’ letters concerning first-time home buyers complaining that they could not get a flat despite repeated attempts.
CASE 1
The Sunday Times reported on Sept 20 that Mr Jayce Ng and Madam Jacelyn Yong had applied at least eight times, five for build-to-order (BTO) projects and half-yearly sales.
They claimed they were successful in only one application – for a five-room flat in Clementi two years ago and regretted not buying then.
HDB’s response:
The couple submitted 15 applications, out of which only four were for BTO projects, where couples have to wait typically three to four years.
Their other applications were for limited flats in mature estates. Records show they were offered a chance to select a flat seven times but did not do so.
The couple’s response:
Mr Ng said he does not remember being offered as many as seven times.
In some cases, he said he chose not to select a flat because the ones left over were on the second floor.
CASE 2
Home buyer Soh Say Kiat wrote to The Sunday Times Forum Page on Sept27 saying that he and his wife married in 2001, but had yet to hold their customary wedding.
They said ‘we have been unsuccessful in our numerous attempts – around 18 times since 2001 – to get an HDB flat’ which they put down to ‘rotten luck’.
HDB’s response:
Records from 2002 showed the couple made 12 applications.
Out of these, only two were for BTO projects, the rest were for popular flats in mature estates.
The HDB says the couple was offered a chance to select flats three times but they did not take it up.
It pointed out that Mr Soh was offered a BTO flat in Sengkang in 2003. If he had accepted, he would have got his flat in 2006.
The couple’s response:
Mr Soh said he could not remember all three offers, but recalled that he gave up one offer because the flats were on the second floor.
He admitted they were picky about location when they started applying for homes, but say they will try for BTO flats on offer now.
CASE 3
A home buyer sent an e-mail to the Prime Minister’s Office on Sept 21 saying: ‘I have been married since 2007, and to date, unable to secure a HDB flat after numerous balloting exercise at least 10 times over the years.
‘This has greatly affected first-timer applicants especially like myself where I could not live a normal life.’
HDB’s response:
The couple applied eight times, not 10, and only one application was for a BTO flat, where there is a much higher chance of success.
They had four chances to select a flat but did not do so, including an option to take up a BTO flat in 2005, which would have been completed last year.
-
Where are the cheap HDB flats?
By Fiona Chan from Straits Times
Prices of resale HDB flats hit another all-time high in the third quarter, amid a growing chorus of unhappy buyers complaining that home values are rising out of their reach.
Despite the rising prices and disgruntled home-seekers, pundits say there are still affordable homes to be had – if only buyers are less choosy and look a bit harder.
Where, then, are these cheap flats to be found?
The Sunday Times went in search of resale flats that were recently sold for up to $200,000 – which can comfortably buy a built-to-order three-room flat in new towns such as Punggol.
The good news is that resale flats for below $200,000 definitely exist.
The bad news: Almost all of them are three-room flats or smaller, at least 20 years old and often more than 30, and largely tucked away in the corners of the island such as Woodlands and Jurong West.
Even then, the number of flats that can be had for a budget of $200,000 appears to be shrinking.
In the third quarter of this year, between July and last month, fewer than 140 three-room flats were sold for $200,000 or lower, compared to more than 220 in the second quarter and more than 280 in the first quarter of this year, according to data from the HDB website.
Four-room flats below $200,000 are virtually impossible to find. Even when you up the budget to $300,000, it is slim pickings.
‘In the past, you could easily get some of the four-room flats for below $250,000, whereas now, most are above $300,000,’ said Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive of real estate agency PropNex.
ERA Asia-Pacific’s associate director Eugene Lim illustrated it more starkly: In 2003, $200,000 could have bought a four-room flat in almost any area, including popular towns like Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Serangoon or Toa Payoh, he said.
This year, $200,000 will get you only a three-room flat in Geylang, Hougang, Jurong West, Kallang, Woodlands or Yishun.
Similarly, a budget of $300,000 would have been sufficient to bag a five-room flat in most towns in 2003, said Mr Lim.
Now, the only five-room flats you can get for that amount are in Jurong West and Woodlands, he said. In mature estates such as Toa Payoh, Marine Parade, Queenstown and Clementi, $300,000 will buy only a three-room flat.
Part of the reason for this is the rising cash-over-valuation (COV) portion, which sellers of in-demand flats can ask for in cash above the property’s valuation. For three-room flats in popular areas, this can go up to $50,000, while owners of flats in the outlying areas still ask for at least $10,000 in COV, said Mr Aaron Hong, a senior division director at Dennis Wee Realty.
But even excluding this, the valuations of HDB flats alone have skyrocketed in recent months.
In Tampines, the lowest valuation for a three-room flat is about $210,000 to $220,000, whereas the highest can go up to $290,000, Mr Hong said.
When you throw in the COV amount, which is a must-have in these property boom days, it is easy to see how a three-room resale flat can cross the $300,000 mark.
For the despairing, Mr Ismail has some advice: If your budget is low and you cannot afford to pay high COVs, forget resale and go for build-to-order flats, even if it means waiting a few years.
‘The key is to enter the property market first, in whatever way you can,’ he said. ‘By getting one foot in the door, you can build a foundation and then work towards the home you really want.’ – ST
-
从政治和ç»�济角度观察– 为何政府组屋必须ä¿�æŒ�高价ä½�（第二部分）
September 16, 2009 by admin
Filed under Chinese sectionComments Off
9月11日，2009年由admin ��� 由尤金�和�里米koh �表评论 Translated by Robin Chen
除了政治上的考虑外，政府也是出于ç»�济利益使建屋局 (HDB) ä»·æ ¼æŒ�ç»èµ°é«˜ã€‚å�¦åˆ™ï¼Œè°�å�ˆå°†å¦‚æ¤æ„šè ¢çš„æ�€é¹…å�–金蛋呢？
å‡ºå”®æ–°ç»„å±‹å¢žåŠ åˆ©æ¶¦
ç”±äºŽæ–°æ”¿åºœç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼ä¸Žé‚»è¿‘é‡�å”®å�•ä½�挂钩，é‡�å”®å�•ä½�上涨当然得出是促使新å�•ä½�ç»„å±‹å”®ä»·èµ°é«˜çš„ç»“è®ºï¼Œå› æ¤æ›´å¤šç›ˆåˆ©æ�¥è‡ªç»„屋出售。
æ�®æœ€è¿‘公布讯æ�¯ï¼ŒBBR控股公å�¸å·²ç»�从建屋å�‘展局（HDB）获得一个104.2百万新元的å�ˆå�Œï¼Œåœ¨ä¹‰é¡º4é‚»é‡Œå»ºé€ 7座å�•ä½�组屋。这项工程包括864ä½�户，幼儿ä¸å¿ƒï¼Œå±‹é¡¶èŠ±å›ï¼Œå…¬ç”¨è®¾æ–½å’Œåœ°é�¢å·¥ç¨‹ï¼Œä»¥å�Šä¸€äº›åº”急工程。 （亚洲新闻é�“，2009å¹´8月17日）
财务顾问�先生（Mr. Leong Sze Hian ）计算，建屋�展局�售出一已完�的��便�获超过$170,000的利润：
“由于那里将有864组屋å�•ä½�，æ¯�个å�•ä½�å¹³å�‡æˆ�本，包括社区设施，现场工程和应急工程在内，平å�‡æˆ�本约为$120602(104.2百万除于864个å�•ä½�）。
éš�ç�€æ¦œé¹…最新的建屋局新4房å¼�（榜鹅公寓BTO）å�•ä½�çš„å¹³å�‡å”®ä»·$293 000（$264 000-$322,000ä»·æ ¼ï¼‰ï¼Œè¿™æ˜¯å�¦æ„�味ç�€å»ºå±‹å±€æ¯�å�•ä½�å�¯ä»¥èµšå�–约$172,398利润，或约143%的盈利？“ [æº�代ç �：Hardwarezone]
建设组屋å�•ä½�çš„æˆ�本ä»�然是政府唯一知é�“的一个谜。ä¸�幸的是，建屋å�‘展局å�ªè¯´ç»„屋å�•ä½�属于补贴性质，但它从æ�¥æ²¡æœ‰è¯´æ¸…æ¥šå‡ºå”®ç»™æ–°åŠ å�¡äººçš„æˆ�æœ¬ä»·æ ¼ã€‚
ä¸�管æˆ�本实际数目如何，从今年所制定新组屋和é‡�å”®å�•ä½�的售价æ�¥çœ‹ï¼Œå»ºå±‹å�‘展局盈利å�¯èƒ½å¢žåŠ 。财产税和转售收费
è¿™äº›éƒ½æ˜¯æ”¿åºœé—´æŽ¥è‡ªç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼ä¸Šæ¶¨èŽ·å¾—çš„é¢�外税收。 æ–°åŠ å�¡å�„ç§�类型的产业，包括组屋，工厂å�ŠåŠžå…¬å®¤éƒ½å¾—缴税。
æ¯�一年所需è¦�ç¼´äº¤çš„äº§ä¸šç¨Žæ˜¯æ ¹æ�®èµ„产年估值或æ¯�年物业租金的4ï¼…æ�¥ä¼°ç®—。
如果å�–æ–¹å‡ºå”®çš„æ˜¯ç¬¬ä¸€æ¬¡èŽ·å¾—è¾…åŠ©æ´¥è´´æˆ–æ ¹æ�®å…¬ç§¯é‡‘è´æˆ¿æ´¥è´´è®¡åˆ’è´å¾—çš„å�•ä½�，他出售组屋å�•ä½�给买家的决定必须获得建屋局批准。
如果他è´ä¹°å�¦ä¸€èµ„助å�•ä½�或接管开å�‘商出售的行政公寓，或使用æ�ƒæœªæ»¡5年的行政公寓，他必须付转售å¾�收税。å�ªæœ‰2007å¹´11月20æ—¥å�Žè�½æˆ�的行政公寓项目，他æ‰�å…�交转售å¾�收税。
这转售å¾�æ”¶ç¨Žçš„ç¼´ä»˜æ˜¯æ ¹æ�®å»ºå±‹å±€ä¸�æ—¶å�˜æ›´çš„æ�¡è§„，政ç–和程åº�æ�¥å†³å®šã€‚
凡建屋�展局任命的售方和/或买方处��售组屋，有关建屋局的物业转让交易费用得按照房屋��展（物业转售交易费用）�规计算。
ä¸�用说，在楼市处于交易蓬勃的高峰期，建屋局将看到更多 “业务”å•†æœºï¼Œå› è€Œä»Žè½¬å”®å¾�收税å�Šè½¬è®©äº¤æ˜“费赚å�–更多盈利。
�引外国投资者
æ”¿åºœç»„å±‹çš„ä»·æ ¼æˆ�为æ��供了支æŒ�ç§�人产业领域的基础。
æ–°ç»„å±‹æ¥¼æˆ¿çš„ä»·æ ¼ä¸Žé‡�å”®å�•ä½�衔接挂钩时，这将影å“�大众市场ä½�æˆ¿çš„ä»·æ ¼ã€‚
组屋æ��高售价将让开å�‘商寻到需求上涨压力作借å�£ï¼ŒæŽ¨é«˜éƒŠåŒºå…¬å¯“çš„å”®ä»·ï¼Œå› ä¸ºå…¬å…±ç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼ä½ŽäºŽç§�人项目的房屋是ä¸�å�¯æ€�è®®çš„ã€‚è¿™æ— å¼‚å¼¹é«˜äº†æ–°åŠ å�¡ä¸å¤®å’Œä¸»è¦�市区的å°�åž‹äº§ä¸šçš„ä»·æ ¼ï¼Œä¸ºå»ºç«‹ä¸€ä¸ªè“¬å‹ƒçš„å�‘产业市场，å�¸å¼•æœ‰é’±å¤–国人投资è´ä¹°æ–°åŠ å�¡çš„房产。
一个充满活力和活跃的房产市场，将使政府通过æ��高å�°èŠ±ç¨Žå¢žåŠ 收入，æ¯�个产业都得å¾�收的消费税。
结论
å»ºå±‹å±€ç»„å±‹æ˜¯æ”¿åºœåœ¨æ–°åŠ å�¡å…¬å…±æˆ¿å±‹åž„æ–å¸‚åœºä¸Šç‹¬äº«çš„æ‘‡é’±æ ‘ã€‚åœ¨æ²¡æœ‰ä»»ä½•ç«žäº‰å¯¹æ‰‹çš„æƒ…å†µä¸‹ï¼Œå®ƒå�¯ä»¥éš�心所愿，自由制定和æ“�çºµä»·æ ¼ã€‚
虽然政府å�¯ä»¥ä¹Ÿå¾ˆå®¹æ˜“地é™�低政府组屋的售价，但它出于自己的ç»�济和政治利益需è¦�ï¼Œä»·æ ¼ç»§ç»ä»»ç”±å¸‚场力é‡�去决定。
ä¸�åƒ�1996å¹´ï¼Œæˆ¿åœ°äº§å¸‚åœºåœ¨æ¯«æ— é¢„è¦ä¸‹çª�然崩溃，政府æ¤åˆ»å°†å…ˆå�‘åˆ¶äººæ›´åŠ ç²¾å‡†çš„æŽ§åˆ¶ä»·æ ¼å…�收ä¸�规则的波动影å“�。
æ�®è‹±å›½çš‡å®¶ç‰¹è®¸æµ‹é‡�师å¦ä¼šï¼ˆè‹±å›½çš‡å®¶ç‰¹è®¸ï¼‰ä¼¦æ•¦æ€»éƒ¨ä»£è¡¨å’Œè§„范房地产专业人士以å�Šæµ‹é‡�师预测，由于ç»�济的ä¸�ç¨³å®šå’Œé«˜å¤±ä¸šé˜´å½±çš„ç¬¼ç½©ï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡çš„ä½�宅市场了2010年出现å��å¼¹å�¯èƒ½å½’于失败。（阅读文http://temasekreview.com/?p=12848）
如果这ç§�情况å�‘ç”Ÿæ—¶ï¼Œæ”¿åºœç»„å±‹çš„ä»·æ ¼å�¯èƒ½ä¼šå�œæ»žå’Œç¨�微下é™�，但ä»�然高于2007å¹´çš„æ°´å¹³ï¼ŒæœŸå¾…ä»·æ ¼ä¸‹é™�或崩溃的置业者会感到失望。
鉴于建屋局转售å�•ä½�å’Œå¤§ä¼—å¸‚åœºå…±ç®¡å…¬å¯“ä»·æ ¼ä¹‹é—´çš„å·®è·�æ—¥æ¸�缩å°�，对那些有能力é¢�外多拨出10万左å�³æ¬¾é¡¹æˆ–è´ç½®ç§�人产业的买家，届时å�¯èƒ½éœ€è¦�æ›´åŠ å°�心谨慎。
-
从政治和ç»�济角度观察– 为何政府组屋必须ä¿�æŒ�高价ä½�（第一部分）
September 12, 2009 by admin
Filed under Chinese sectionComments Off
Translated by Robin Chen
由尤金�和�里米Koh
国家å�‘展部长马å®�山最近è¯�å®žäº†è®¸å¤šæ–°åŠ å�¡äººä¸¥é‡�çš„æ��惧-尽管未æ�¥ç»�济å‰�景ä¾�æ—§ä¸�明朗，转售组屋 (resale flats) çš„ä»·æ ¼ä¸�但创下了新高，并将æŒ�ç»æ‰¶æ‘‡ç›´ä¸Šã€‚
马å®�山没有é€�露任何有关政府冷å�´æ¥¼å¸‚å’Œé™�温的举措，令人信æœ�的掀开ä¿�è¯�组屋处于人人“ä¹°å¾—èµ·”ä»·ä½�的毯底秘密。
其实政府很容易大幅度é™�低售价。å�•é� ä¸€å¹´å†…å»ºé€ æ›´å¤šçš„æ–°å�•ä½�，å�–消现金超è´ä¼°å€¼ï¼ˆCOVs）的天文数å—，并é™�é‡�永久居民一年内è´ä¹°ç»„屋å�•ä½�ï¼Œæ”¿åºœç»„å±‹çš„ä»·æ ¼å°†ç«‹å�³ä¸‹é™�到人人负担得起和稳定的水平。
è™½ç„¶ç§Ÿå±‹ä»·æ ¼çš„ä¸‹é™�å°†ä½¿è®¸å¤šæ–°åŠ å�¡äººå�—益.但他们ä¸�æ„¿æ„�采å�–适当措施迅速先å�‘制人阻æ¢æˆ¿åœ°äº§æ³¡æ²«çš„å½¢æˆ�,å› ä¸ºè¿™ä¸�符å�ˆæ”¿åºœåœ¨æ”¿æ²»å’Œç»�济上的利益。
油价崩溃,导致�稳定的政治产生�机
在7月间å�¬å¼€çš„国会,回ç”议员有关建屋局应采å�–实施é™�åˆ¶è½¬å”®ä»·æ ¼ä¸Šå�‡ä¸Šé™�çš„æ��问时,国家å�‘展部高级政务符部长指出，组屋ä»�然维æŒ�åœ¨æ–°åŠ å�¡äººè´Ÿæ‹…å¾—èµ·çš„ä»·ä½�。
她说： “’ç»„å±‹ä»·åº”ä½“çŽ°æ–°åŠ å�¡äººçš„财富，尤其是那些上世纪90年代ä¸æœŸåœ¨å¸‚场处高峰阶段买了负资产的人，物价稳æ¥å¢žé•¿å°±“ä¸�是一个å��主æ„�””。在过去10å¹´å�´ä½œæ ‹æ—¶ä»£ï¼Œè®¤ä¸ºç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼ä¸Šå�‡å°†ä¸ºæ–°åŠ å�¡äººåˆ›é€ 财富的错误观念一直延ç»è‡³ä»Šã€‚
人民行动党从æ�¥ä¸�æ��é†’æ–°åŠ å�¡äººï¼Œå�´å·§å¦™åœ°åˆ©ç”¨æœ‰äº‰è®®çš„办公室“纪录”ï¼ŒæŽ©ç›–èµ„äº§ä»·æ ¼é£˜å�‡ä¸‹äººæ°‘生活在高价自置居所的的统治。
1995年任总ç�†çš„å�´ä½œæ ‹åœ¨æŽ¥è§�金å�‰å±…民时说é�“：
“æˆ‘ä»¬ä¸ºä½ çš„èµ„äº§å¢žå€¼äº†å¤šå°‘ï¼Ÿåœ¨ç§Ÿå±‹æ��å�‡åˆ�期，公开市场上低于$ 80,000的三房å¼�å�•ä½�，今天我被告知，房屋代ç�†äººå�¯å‡ºä»·160 000å…ƒä»¥ä¸Šï¼Œä½ çš„èµ„äº§åœ¨3年内已翻了一å€�ã€‚ä½ ä»¬å¤§å®¶å�šå‡ºäº†æ£ç¡®çš„选择，强烈支æŒ�组屋翻新æ��å�‡è®¡åˆ’并å�‚åŠ äº†è¡¨å†³ã€‚“
[æº�代ç �：http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/tmp/gct19950115.pdf]
è®¸å¤šæ–°åŠ å�¡äººä¿¡ä»»æ”¿åºœå’ŒæŽ¥å�—äº†ç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼æ— æƒ…çš„ä¸Šå�‡ï¼Œä½†æ²¡æœ‰æ„�识到除é�žä»–们移居或é™�级ä½�è¿›å°�å�•ä½�。他们也从未ç�†è§£é€šè´§è†¨èƒ€å¸‚场和利用租屋å�•ä½�的价值。
如果政府å…�è®¸ç»„å±‹çš„ä»·æ ¼ä¸‹è·Œï¼Œç”šè‡³å�ªè¦�略低百分之5，任何在过去2年以高价买了å�•ä½�çš„æ–°åŠ å�¡äººå°†èƒŒä¸Šè´Ÿèµ„äº§çš„åŒ…è¢±ã€‚æœ¬è´¨ä¸Šå±žäºŽåŠŸåˆ©ä¸»ä¹‰çš„ç¤¾ä¼šï¼Œæ–°åŠ å�¡äººå¿…å°†å¯¹ä»·æ ¼çš„ä¸‹é™�导致他们æ�Ÿå¤±ï¼Œå½’咎于政府所采å�–的市场é™�温措施。
é�¢ä¸´å¤§é€‰ï¼Œäººæ°‘行动党在这个é‡�è¦�的阶段，ä¸�èƒ½å› æ”¿åºœå…�è®¸ç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼çš„ä¸‹é™�ï¼Œé€ æˆ�选民ä¸�满情绪的å��弹和动乱，而最终失去关键的一票。
å¿…é¡»è¯±å¯¼æ–°åŠ å�¡äººç›¸ä¿¡æœªæ�¥æ”¿åºœç»„å±‹çš„ä»·æ ¼ï¼Œå› æŒ�ç»ä¸�æ–上å�‡æ‰€å¸¦æ�¥å·¨å¤§çš„财富，是由于人民行动党和政府的本事。作为“大棒”å�‡çº§ä½¿ç”¨äº‰å�–选票
éš�ç�€å�´ä½œæ ‹å…ˆç”Ÿ14å¹´å‰�在金å�‰åŒºçš„讲è¯�ï¼Œèµ„äº§ä»·å€¼æ˜¯å› äº§ä¸šæ��å�‡å’Œç¿»æ–°ä½¿å¾—åœ¨è½¬å”®æ”¿åºœç»„å±‹ä»·æ ¼æ—¶å¢žç›Šã€‚
自20世纪90年代，资产��长期以�是�一届大选的议题，�分方便用���选民投票支�人民行动党。
1997年，总ç�†å�´ä½œæ ‹æ‰¿è¯ºç»™ä¸Žé�™å±±åŒºå±…æ°‘å�•ä½�设施的æ��å�‡ï¼Œç»ˆäºŽäººæ°‘行动党犹若布袋里装了很多好å�ƒä¸œè¥¿çš„选举选获胜ç�ƒé˜Ÿã€‚
2006年选举时刻，å�Œæ ·çš„胡è��å�œåœ¨æ³¢ä¸œå·´è¥¿å’Œå�Žæ¸¯çš„å±…æ°‘é�¢å‰�摇æ�¥æ™ƒåŽ»ã€‚ä¸�幸的是，虽然该区居民åƒ�å±…ä½�åœ¨åˆ«å¤„çš„æ–°åŠ å�¡äººä¸€æ ·éœ€è¦�支付税收，他们并没有上钩，è€�化租屋æ��å�‡è®¡åˆ’失去诱惑力。
è¿™ç§�“猪肉桶”的政ç–是行动党推出的独特å“�牌，近其所能以å�•ä½�é‡�å”®çš„ä»·æ ¼å¼•è¯±é€‰æ°‘ç¡®ä¿�其政治霸æ�ƒã€‚å€˜è‹¥å±…æ°‘æ— æ³•ä»Žä»–ä»¬å‡ºå”®çš„ç»„å±‹èŽ·å¾—ä¸°åŽšçš„åˆ©æ¶¦ï¼Œå®ƒå¿…å°†å¤±æ•ˆã€‚
虽然åƒ�烧烤炉的公共å›åœ°ï¼Œæ¸¸æ³³æ± 和街头似的足ç�ƒåœºçœ‹ä¼¼æ˜¯é‡�å”®å�•ä½�的出售时ä¸�å�¯æˆ–缺的设施（以å�Žæ¸¯å’Œæ³¢ä¸œå·´è¥¿é‡�å”®å�•ä½�çš„ä»·æ ¼ä¸Žé‚»è¿‘åŒºåŸŸçš„ç»„å±‹ç›¸æ¯”ï¼‰ï¼Œç»„å±‹æ��å�‡è®¡åˆ’æ— ç–‘ä»�然å�¯ä»¥æˆ�为人民行动党一个有用的心ç�†å·¥å…·ï¼Œå�¯ä»¥å¨�èƒ�å’Œèƒ�迫选民投自己一票。
å‡ ä¹Žå°†æ¯•ç”Ÿç§¯è“„éƒ½è´ç½®æ”¿åºœç»„å±‹çš„æ–°åŠ å�¡äººï¼Œä»–们最终看到作为财产的组屋å�‡å€¼è¢«å‰¥å¤ºï¼Œå¹¶ä¸”大幅度下é™�ï¼Œæ”¿åºœè§£é‡Šè¿™å¥‡æ€ªçš„çŽ°è±¡ä¸ºæ–°åŠ å�¡äººè™½ç„¶æ™®é��希望看到国会有更多å��对的声音，但他们更喜欢å�¬åˆ°é‚£äº›å��对之声æ�¥è‡ªå…¶ä»–地方，而ä¸�是他们所在的选区。
æ–°åŠ å�¡äººä¸€æ—¦é«˜ä»·ä¹°äº†å�•ä½�å°±å°†æ›´åŠ å�—åˆ¶äºŽäººæ°‘è¡ŒåŠ¨å…šï¼Œå› ä¸ºä»–ä»¬ä¸�èƒ½æ‰¿æ‹…å› å��对派å�–胜，而è¿�怒人民行动党使自己资产å�¯èƒ½é�å�—贬值的风险，从而å‡�少政府给与社区租屋资助金的补贴
è™½ç„¶å±…æ°‘æ— æ³•æ˜Žç¡®å�•ä½�的实际价值，除é�žå®ƒä»¬å‡ºå”®å’Œ“å�‡çº§”到更昂贵的å�•ä½�，从而å�ªæœ‰å¢žåŠ 他们的债务负担，误解继ç»æ·±æ·±æ‰Žæ ¹äºŽä»–们的潜æ„�识之丗组屋å�•ä½�çš„ä¸Šæ¶¨ä»·æ ¼ä¼šä¸ºä»–ä»¬åˆ›é€ è´¢å¯Œã€‚
作为没有财富和政府资æº�çš„å��对党，纯从以ç»�æµŽå› ç´ è€ƒè™‘çš„æ–°åŠ å�¡äººå¿…将讨厌投他们一票。
以往多次的选举分æž�表明，å��å¯¹æ´¾å¿ å®žæ”¯æŒ�者ä¸�论其组屋选区å�‡çº§ä¸Žå�¦å�ªå� 20至25％的选民。
尚未决定的ä¸é—´é€‰æ°‘约å� 35至40％，虽然他们没有预设的政治立场，甚至ä¸�能åƒ�äººæ°‘è¡ŒåŠ¨å…šä¸€æ ·ï¼Œäº§ä¸šå�‡çº§æ˜¯å¯¼è‡´ä»–们投票选举人民行动党的最主è¦�å› ç´ ã€‚æ¯«æ— ç–‘é—®ï¼Œè¿™è§£é‡Šäº†ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆå��对派è¦�夺超过50％的选票，在集选区尤其是艰巨困难。
å¦‚æžœä»–ä»¬ï¼ˆé€‰æ°‘ï¼‰æ˜¯è‡ªæ”¿åºœåŠ ä»¥æŽ§åˆ¶çš„å�ˆç�†çš„ä½Žæ°´å¹³ä»·æ ¼ä¹°æ�¥çš„，组屋å�‡çº§ä¸�会永远æˆ�为一个议题。由于他们ä¸�ä¼šèµšé’±ï¼Œæ— è®ºå¦‚ä½•ï¼Œï¼ˆè¿™åº”å½“æ˜¯å�—èµ„åŠ©çš„å…¬å…±æˆ¿å±‹çš„æƒ…å†µï¼‰ä¹Ÿæ— å…³ç´§è¦�，å�ªè¦�区内和附近区域有足够的设施。
è®©å…¬æ°‘å¯¹æ”¿æ²»å†·æ¼ å’Œæ— èƒ½ä¸ºåŠ›
一个é‡�è¦�çš„å› ç´ ï¼Œä½†å¾€å¾€è¢«å¿½è§†çš„åŽŸå› æ˜¯ç»„å±‹ä¿�æŒ�ç¨³å®šçš„é«˜ä»·æ ¼ï¼Œæ˜¯ç»´æŒ�公民æœ�从，麻木ä¸�ä»�，对政治ä¸�感兴趣。
人民行动党是一个专制的政党，ä¸�容å¿�任何政治异议或å��对其统治，也没有å�—åˆ°ä¸¥æ ¼çš„å…¬å…±å®¡æŸ¥å¾—ä¸�舒æœ�感觉。
当作家林å®�éŸ³ä¸€å¦‚æ—¢å¾€çš„å¤šåŠ è¯¢é—®ï¼Œå¥¹ç«‹å�³è¢«æ€»ç�†å�´ä½œæ ‹å‘Šè¯«åŽ»“å�‚与政治或é—嘴”。
让国人远离政治的唯一方法，就是迫使他们为改善物质生活去努力赚å�–金钱，为了养家糊å�£ï¼Œåˆ«æ— 选择。
æ”¿åºœç»„å±‹çš„ä»·æ ¼å®¹è®¸åœ¨æ–°åŠ å�¡äººä»�然å�¯ä»¥è´Ÿæ‹…得起的情况下é€�æ¥æ��高，唯有如æ¤ï¼Œä»–们将一生ä¸�å¾—ä¸�åŸ‹å¤´å¿ è¯šä¸ºåˆ°æœŸçš„æŠµå�¿æŠ¼æ�ƒè´·æ¬¾å¿™ç¢Œå·¥ä½œã€‚
éš�ç�€äººä»¬ä¸ºäº†æ”¯ä»˜æœ‰æ�ƒç§Ÿèµ�自己拥有的溢价政府组屋å�•ä½�，ä¸�å¾—ä¸�花费ç»�å¤§éƒ¨åˆ†æ—¶é—´åŽ»èµšé’±ã€‚ä»–ä»¬æ— æš‡å¯¹æ”¿æ²»äº§ç”Ÿå…´è¶£ã€‚
由于立场ä¸�ç¨³å®šï¼Œå¤§å¤šæ•°æ–°åŠ å�¡äººä¸�å�¯èƒ½å†’é™©æ‰“ç ´é¥ç¢—åŠ å…¥å��å¯¹è¡Œåˆ—ï¼Œå› ä¸ºæ”¿åºœæ˜¯æ–°åŠ å�¡æœ€å¤§çš„雇主，甚至有æ„�与政府
-
i wonder who will read finish... at first i tot it is just a table on how much hdb flats cost nowadays...
-
PR giving out flyers offering to pay “higher price” for HDB flats
From our Correspondent
Below is a scanned copy of a flyer emailed to us by a reader:
Dear admin,
I live in a HDB flat & I received this piece of note slipped under the door recently.
I couldn’t paste it on your webpage so I decided to email it to you instead as you may be interested in it.
I’ve erased the telephone number course I don’t want the person to receive any prank call. I believe this is no fault of the PRs or foreigners but rather the problem lies with the government policies.
The question is, how can we ever hope to have affordable HDB flats when we have foreigners who are distributing flyers saying they are “willing to give higher price..” to buy the same HDB flats we are living in??
EDITORS’ NOTE:
With the Singapore government being the largest landlord and property developer at the same time, there is no free market in Singapore as it is able to fix the housing prices as it wishes due to its complete monopoly.
The prices of HDB flats are rising due to the following artificial factors created by the government:
1. Constant and ready demand for HDB flats as they are a basic necessity in Singapore. If Singaporeans and PRs do not purchase HDB flats, they will have no where to stay unless they opt for rental.
2. Increasing demand by allowing an increasing number of foreigners to become PRs and to purchase flats. As PRs usually hold a decent-paying job, they will have few problems paying for a resale flat. Besides, since some may not settle down in Singapore, they do not mind paying more now as they can always sell them at a profit later on when they leave.
3. Limiting supply by capping the number of new flats built: With few completed subsidized flats in the market, Singaporeans will have no choice but to compete for flats with the PRs in the resale market thereby causing the prices to go up. The number of flats built in the last few years are considerably less than that in the 1990s. (HDB Infoweb)
4. Complete monopoly over the public housing sector: With virtually no competitors, HDB is able to sell its flats at any prices as it wishes as there is no pressure on them to bring down the prices.
5. Since there are PRs like the above couple who are willing to “spoil the market” to secure a flat in their desired location, sellers will naturally jack up the COVs to make a “killing”. This will eventually lead to higher COVs in the long run. Already we are seeing ridiculously high COVs like the $70,000 paid for a 3-room resale flat in Toa Payoh (Lianhe Wanbao, 14 September 2009)
-
There is no such thing as free markets idiots. Cause the demand and supply can be manipulated in a free price market.
-
In order to prevent speculation, new flats should be priced at subsidized cost price and only allowed to first time buyers. PRs should then buy the resale flats... and HDB can earn all they want from the foreigners.
This in turn will encourage foreigners to take up citizenship in singapore.
Why cant they get this simple logic into their brains?