Give us HDB FLat AT COST, Not 30yrs Mortgage Enslavement
-
the best situaiton for singapore is to set up an SME, with 1.5 billions spare from govt helping SME business, I am sure going to tap on it, float my business at IPO and people like you can come and buy and wait for ROI
-
actually how much does it cost for a 4 room and 5 room hdb flat now?
If both the husband and wife is drawing 2k each
while spending $100 each on mobile, $600 each on food expenses, 300 on entertainment and $200 each on transport.
2000-400(cpf)-100-600-300-200= $400
so with just $400 left each, can the couple still afford the house? and still have enough for any children?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
the best situaiton for singapore is to set up an SME, with 1.5 billions spare from govt helping SME business, I am sure going to tap on it, float my business at IPO and people like you can come and buy and wait for ROI
But angle, do you think that getting a slice of the 1.5 billions is easy? Do you really think that you're eligible for it? and IPO? do you know how long your business, number of staff, annual earning etc... etc... needs to be in order to fulfill the requirement? Do you know that for how long do you need to hold the shares?
it's just talk on paper if you know nuts... :D
-
Dear Fatum,
You are mixing a lot of issues into the thread.
First of all, you say your HDB flat is cheap. Good for you but I guess if we have not been making noise about HDB issues, you will be paying $240K to $290K for a new 4 room flat from HDB. If you don't believe, check out the prices of HDB in 2008 and 2009. Besides, whether the new HDB flat is cheap or not, depends on your income. As I can see that you are a graduate, naturally you don't feel the pinch of paying $200K for a new 4 room HDB flat. But please note that there are many people earning much lesser than you are.
HDB is a MONOPOLY in the new flat market. It is a government agency or stats board with an aim of providing affordable housing to Singaporeans, not a private entity that is profit orientated. As I have explained before, you cannot look at HDB alone but the whole set of socialist system that were set up when PAP took power in 1959.
You must look at HDB along with the Land Acquisition Act (back in the 1970s and 1980s). Take them together, you will realize that it is a modern Land reform or Land redistribution system. i.e. we empower the government to acquire land at cheap dirt price so that it could redistribute land in terms of cheap and affordable housing to the masses. In fact, prior to the government amending the act in 2007, it has acquired almost 80% of land in Singapore at dirt cheap prices. But the social contract is that the responsibility of providing cheap or even subsidized housing for the masses lies on the government of the day. PAP government cannot just have their cake and eat it. They are shirking off their responsibility slowly. In fact, if we look at the costing, they might even have made profits from HDB sales basically from the land costing they imposed on the HDB flats.
PAP's most important political capital of the early years is Land redistribution via Land Acquisition Act and HDB. Those people whose land are being acquired may grumble but they knew that the government did put their land for good use... HDB flats for many other Singaporeans. But now, with the change of policy direction to one of "HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY", this is no longer true. This is the crux of the matter.
Thus, you must look at things as a whole, not about the comparisons between countries blindly. Just like you complain about the high taxation of Canadia. You are only telling half of the truth. You are enjoying world class health care at dirt cheap prices because of the government subsidies. Your children will benefit from the lots of subsidies including education if you get married there. Not to mention the social welfare and security you enjoy when you retire or lose your jobs.You pay high taxes but in return, it is the social contract that the Canadian government will take care of you as well.
You may pay less tax in Singapore but when you lose your job, you are on your own. Health care prices are rising, not to mention the indirect taxes like COE, GST and high prices here (eg. increasing education cost). There are no free lunch in this world. You said that your friend bought a house for $480K but what lease? HDB is 99 years and it is a basic public housing. $480K is for a landed house? Of what size? In Singapore, you could well pay $480K for a 5 room HDB flat or executive flat in matured estate. HDB, lease hold without strata titles. That's the deal you are getting.
Sometimes, we will need to compare apple to apple, orange to orange. The only consolation right now is that the HDB loan rate is 2.6%. But you must also remember that CPF only pays 2.5% for Ordinary Account balances to citizens. This is fair play. However, you may still end up with a standard bank loans if you used up your entitlement of this favorable rate; especially so if you think you can buy and sell your HDB flats to earn money.
Canadian has pension for their old age because they pay high taxes and that is why they need worry about their retirement financing. i.e. they don't need to pay CPF. But in Singapore, CPF IS SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR RETIREMENT FUND! If you use almost all of your retirement funds in CPF for HDB mortgage as well as medisave, how are you going to survive? You won't have a retirement funding and this is why PAP say that you can sell or "monetize" your HDB flat for retirement. Do Canadians need to sell their house for retirement? ;)
I am against housing to be over priced which end up with people throwing all their retirement funds into the mortgage payment. If the Canadian needs a mortgage of 40 years to pay off their mortgage but that is their problem, not Singaporeans. Of course, their children can help to pay off the loans and they don't need to sell the house for retirement.
Besides, I believe Canadians have lots of choices for housing. They have huge land mass and they could choose to live at the country side or further away from the city area which houses could be very cheap. But Singaporeans do not have such luxury. HDB flats are the CHEAPEST housing available here and if this form of housing also become higher cost due to PAP's intention of implementing HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY, then Singaporeans will have no other better alternatives.
You should try to compare the CHEAPEST housing you can get in Canada and compare it with Singapore's HDB flats. This will be a more appropriate comparison.
Your assumption of exponential growth of housing needs is totally flawed. You are assuming people like you and me will not die one day. ;)
We are having an aging population. Without the influx of FT and PRs, the housing demand will increase initially but fall after the peak of the aging population has been crossed. So, please don't assume that housing needs will increase forever unless the ruling party keep increasing the population size by importing foreigners. And this is precisely part of the problem now; HDB resale market faces higher prices due to the huge increase in PRs.
A public housing policy coupled with a leasehold land will make sure that there will be no shortage of housing for Singaporeans unless the government of the day mismanage the population policy by importing excessive foreigners. This is the key point.
Goh Meng Seng
-
Originally posted by goh meng seng:
Dear Fatum,
You are mixing a lot of issues into the thread.
First of all, you say your HDB flat is cheap. Good for you but I guess if we have not been making noise about HDB issues, you will be paying $240K to $290K for a new 4 room flat from HDB. If you don't believe, check out the prices of HDB in 2008 and 2009. Besides, whether the new HDB flat is cheap or not, depends on your income. As I can see that you are a graduate, naturally you don't feel the pinch of paying $200K for a new 4 room HDB flat. But please note that there are many people earning much lesser than you are.
HDB is a MONOPOLY in the new flat market. It is a government agency or stats board with an aim of providing affordable housing to Singaporeans, not a private entity that is profit orientated. As I have explained before, you cannot look at HDB alone but the whole set of socialist system that were set up when PAP took power in 1959.
You must look at HDB along with the Land Acquisition Act (back in the 1970s and 1980s). Take them together, you will realize that it is a modern Land reform or Land redistribution system. i.e. we empower the government to acquire land at cheap dirt price so that it could redistribute land in terms of cheap and affordable housing to the masses. In fact, prior to the government amending the act in 2007, it has acquired almost 80% of land in Singapore at dirt cheap prices. But the social contract is that the responsibility of providing cheap or even subsidized housing for the masses lies on the government of the day. PAP government cannot just have their cake and eat it. They are shirking off their responsibility slowly. In fact, if we look at the costing, they might even have made profits from HDB sales basically from the land costing they imposed on the HDB flats.
PAP's most important political capital of the early years is Land redistribution via Land Acquisition Act and HDB. Those people whose land are being acquired may grumble but they knew that the government did put their land for good use... HDB flats for many other Singaporeans. But now, with the change of policy direction to one of "HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY", this is no longer true. This is the crux of the matter.
Thus, you must look at things as a whole, not about the comparisons between countries blindly. Just like you complain about the high taxation of Canadia. You are only telling half of the truth. You are enjoying world class health care at dirt cheap prices because of the government subsidies. Your children will benefit from the lots of subsidies including education if you get married there. Not to mention the social welfare and security you enjoy when you retire or lose your jobs.You pay high taxes but in return, it is the social contract that the Canadian government will take care of you as well.
You may pay less tax in Singapore but when you lose your job, you are on your own. Health care prices are rising, not to mention the indirect taxes like COE, GST and high prices here (eg. increasing education cost). There are no free lunch in this world. You said that your friend bought a house for $480K but what lease? HDB is 99 years and it is a basic public housing. $480K is for a landed house? Of what size? In Singapore, you could well pay $480K for a 5 room HDB flat or executive flat in matured estate. HDB, lease hold without strata titles. That's the deal you are getting.
Sometimes, we will need to compare apple to apple, orange to orange. The only consolation right now is that the HDB loan rate is 2.6%. But you must also remember that CPF only pays 2.5% for Ordinary Account balances to citizens. This is fair play. However, you may still end up with a standard bank loans if you used up your entitlement of this favorable rate; especially so if you think you can buy and sell your HDB flats to earn money.
Canadian has pension for their old age because they pay high taxes and that is why they need worry about their retirement financing. i.e. they don't need to pay CPF. But in Singapore, CPF IS SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR RETIREMENT FUND! If you use almost all of your retirement funds in CPF for HDB mortgage as well as medisave, how are you going to survive? You won't have a retirement funding and this is why PAP say that you can sell or "monetize" your HDB flat for retirement. Do Canadians need to sell their house for retirement? ;)
I am against housing to be over priced which end up with people throwing all their retirement funds into the mortgage payment. If the Canadian needs a mortgage of 40 years to pay off their mortgage but that is their problem, not Singaporeans. Of course, their children can help to pay off the loans and they don't need to sell the house for retirement.
Besides, I believe Canadians have lots of choices for housing. They have huge land mass and they could choose to live at the country side or further away from the city area which houses could be very cheap. But Singaporeans do not have such luxury. HDB flats are the CHEAPEST housing available here and if this form of housing also become higher cost due to PAP's intention of implementing HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY, then Singaporeans will have no other better alternatives.
You should try to compare the CHEAPEST housing you can get in Canada and compare it with Singapore's HDB flats. This will be a more appropriate comparison.
Your assumption of exponential growth of housing needs is totally flawed. You are assuming people like you and me will not die one day. ;)
We are having an aging population. Without the influx of FT and PRs, the housing demand will increase initially but fall after the peak of the aging population has been crossed. So, please don't assume that housing needs will increase forever unless the ruling party keep increasing the population size by importing foreigners. And this is precisely part of the problem now; HDB resale market faces higher prices due to the huge increase in PRs.
A public housing policy coupled with a leasehold land will make sure that there will be no shortage of housing for Singaporeans unless the government of the day mismanage the population policy by importing excessive foreigners. This is the key point.
Goh Meng Seng
Mr Goh,
I see you've grafted large bits from the featurette at your party's website, did you write that as well ?
As to country-to-country comparisions, would your eyes let you see, what your doesn't doesn't want to see ? True, high taxation brought about so called "free" health care, but socialist medicine there is not what it appears to be. Older forumers remember the time when I fell sick there, and delirious with fever, made my way down to a clinic there and was told the doc couldn't see me cos he has met his union-dictated quota of patients for the day. Or would you read about canadians who travel to other countries for "non-life-threatening, but certainly very debilating conditions" like a hip replacement ?
But don't you find it ironic that someone who's never lived and worked there is trying to tell me that the place I have lived for half a decade is indeed much better than I thought ? You find it amusing? My personal decision to return wasn't that simplistic of course, as some of the friends I've made here in the forum would know, but that is my personal business. True, there's a social safety net that I've seen most often go to the lazy, parasitic bums of that society, thanks to high taxation, but, since you also acknowledge that Singapore's taxes are much lower, why should you harbor the sense of entitlements for such things too ? Apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Is it reasonable to expect to have your cake and eat it too, in this case ?
And, do you think it's realistic to compare what you can get for the same amount of money in a land scarce place like Singapore to a land rich country like canada or australia where they can just build upon the urban sprawl and extend the suburbs ever outwards ? The landed property I live in currently (my parents, not mine), costs more than 2 million now, that same amount of money can get me a landed four times as large in vancouver, but it would hardly get me my cousin's apartment in NYC, nor, I think, a house in hong kong or shanghai. Heck, but it would buy me an entire estate complete with a plantation just across the causeway ! On the other hand, the baseline housing unit may be an attap shack in malaysia, the smallest HDB in Singapore, and a shanty tenement in hong kong, a cottage in the canadian midwest, and a highrise apartment in toronto, Do you think it is reasonable to expect compare categories of properties like this as a value guage ? Apples to apples ? I think not.
Next, let's examine costs. After so much chest thumping about the High HDB Prices. What then, in your opinion. is an "affordable" price for a public housing unit then ? for a 3 room ? 4 room, 5 room, EC unit ? True enough, I concede that for some people, the prospect of paying $200+k for a brand new 4 room HDB flat is a daunting prospect, but can you put a figure on universal affordability, and not fob it off as "affordability being relative" ? So what do you think is an acceptable price for you, for, say, a 4 room brand new HDB flat ? Would I hear the same gripe from you, as I'd expect from some other forumers who've been participating in this thread here, even if the price was say, 150k ? or even 100k ? 50k ? 10k. Let's keep in mind that we are looking at brick and mortar buildings to be built after the sand ban from the neighbouring countries here, not paper leng chus people burn for their ancestors eh.
And at the risk of sounding snobbish, there ARE much cheaper, smaller sized BTO flats on offer right now, some of them costing considerably less than $100k. Or has our expectations of public housing evolved from a "roof over our heads" to the stage where a certain miminum unit size is seen to be an entitlement ? In the early days of the HDB slum clearing and rural resettlement was the key goal, so masses of spartan, 1 to 3 room units were built. I was chatting with my father-in-law the other day, the gentleman's first HDB unit was a 1 bedroom unit at old airport road, and that's where my fiance was made. How times have changed, isn't it ? How did we end up at the stage where even young couples starting out are determined to squeeze into a 4 or 5 room flat, even when their personal finances clearly doesn't allow it. And when their personal financial situation becomes the fault of someone else other than themselves, don't you think there is something clearly wrong with the attitudes of such people ? Don't you, as a politician and a concerned citizen, feel something is wrong ? Or would it be just a political opportunity ? Public policies cannot rectify individual's lack of fiscal responsibility after all.
So onto the CPF. And you're right, the CPF is our retirement fund, it is our money. So what's wrong with the idea of using our money to pay for our flats ?
Let's use a simple analogy here.
I earn $1, twenty cents go into a kitty that I won't see for thirty years. if I am allowed to take out 10 cents for every dollar I earn to pay for a place, why not ? Does it not make sense to pay for the house out from the kitty, so I'll have more current income, instead of being left with 70 cents instead of 80 cents ?
But aha ! Remember Mr Goh, that we have three CPF accounts ? one medisave, one special account, and one ordinary account ? The special account's interest rate is higher than the interest rate of the ordinary account. That is meant for old age and retirement purposes. You can, if you so choose, transfer money to the special account whenever you want, you can also, if you so choose, leave whatever money you have in your ordinary account alone, so you can have a much fatter retirement and not have to "monetize" your flat. It is not a hard and fast rule that you must pay it out from your ordinary account Mr Goh. the conditions and rulings are all in the open domain, feel free.
If you don't like your CPF ordinary account to be touched at all then of course you can pay it out from current earnings ! If not the CPF, and not current earnings, where else do you expect the mortgage payment to come from ? Mortgage payment is not an exclusively singaporean phenomenon, the only difference is that we can have the option of not having to pay it from our gross paychecks.
So what's really the problem here ?
-
Fatum,
I am simply stating the facts. You may have your own experiences in Canada but others have thiers. But facts remain as facts, just like any fact sheet.
You may see social safety net goes to the lazy, but there are people who really benefit from it as well, don't you agree? The cup is either half empty or half full. If such a system is so bad, I guess Canadians are more stupid than Singaporeans and they would have voted out the government and put in someone who could change it to their delights, don't you agree?
You are mixing up the points again. A government has its social responsibilities, no matter how much tax they impose. And for that matter, it depends on what kinds of laws have been passed. For example, Canadian government puts up higher taxes but its social contract is to provide state welfare to a certain extend. As for Singapore, we allow the government to accumulate massive land (80% or more) under a scheme which cost them really peanuts, but the social contract is that the government, in return for such privilege of paying peanuts for the land they acquired, would have to redistribute the land in terms of cheap and basic housing for the masses. Mind you, this has nothing to do with taxes. And the entitlement for Singaporeans is solely based on this socialist scheme of the past.
I am less fortunate than you are. I spend my younger days in a one room flat with 9 other family members. But that is alright for me. However, as many have said, last time policeman wear shorts. ;) Besides, if we are to boast that we have evolved from the third world country to the first, don't you think we deserve better living standards and houses? If many people still stuck with a one room flat, you should be the first one to worry for Singapore.
As I have said. My father's generation only pay less than 10 or 15 years of mortgage to own a decent 4 room flat. I pay 20 years, why should my children and future generation pay 30 years or more? And mind you, my father's generation normally pay up the mortgage with one single wage, unlike modern days, it would take two income to pay that 30 years mortgage! It means that HDB prices had outstripped salary growth between generations. Make no mistake about this. No amount of funky statistics could hide that fact.
I think you should be the Minister of National Development instead or even replace the Prime Minister! Both MBT and PM Lee have stated categorically that it is a plan for Singaporeans to retire by "monetizing" their HDB flats but you still claim that we could have sufficient fundsin CPF for retirement! The truth is, overwhelming percentage of Singaporeans do not have the minimum amount of funds stated by CPF left in their accounts by the time they reach the age of retirement! And this is happening NOW. If this HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY is going to carry on for the next 10 or 20 years, I guess 80% of Singaporeans won't have enough retirement funds in CPF but would have no choice but monetize their HDB flats. That little amount in their Special Account won't be enough for their retirement dude!
Whether you pay your mortgage from CPF or cash, it does make a great difference. In order for PAP to carry out their HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY back in the early 1990s, they have to "liberalize" CPF for resale market. It is ok actually when the CPF contribution is still around 40%, down from 50% in 1980s. When people use CPF money to pay for things like Healthcare or housing, they do not feel the pinch. But most people over look the fact that with declining CPF contributions initiate by the PAP government, they would not have enough savings for retirement. That is the crux of the problem.
If you read the 1981 newspaper report, most Singaporeans utilize about 30% of their salary through CPF to buy flats. But they could still have 20% saved because total CPF contribution is 50%. However, now OA is emptied. The low interest rate for the OA account is one of the primary reason why Singaporeans prefer to use it for mortgage payment. Nothing wrong with that. The only thing wrong is that when the price of HDB continues to increase until people need to use up to 30 years to pay for their flats. The whole 30 years of productive life. If I use 20 years, I could still save 10 years in the Ordinary account. But 30 years? Hardly anything will be left in the OA when I retire.
The worst thing is that PAP government keeps repeating that using all OA to pay 30 years mortgage is "AFFORDABLE". That is obviously flawed. PAP government has cultivated this wrong sense of AFFORDABILITY. So again, problem lies with PAP. If PAP is to set the rule that you could only use all your OA to pay your mortgage for 20 years, then it will force people to make choices. Then you will see more people buying smaller flats. Of course, they will definitely unhappy as they will see that their standard of living has actually deteriorated as compared to their parents' generation!
PAP of course know the political cost of making people feel that their standards of living has dropped as compared to their parents and the myth about progress in terms of First World standards will automatically collapse. ;)
Goh Meng Seng
-
Originally posted by goh meng seng:
Dear Fatum,
You are mixing a lot of issues into the thread.
First of all, you say your HDB flat is cheap. Good for you but I guess if we have not been making noise about HDB issues, you will be paying $240K to $290K for a new 4 room flat from HDB. If you don't believe, check out the prices of HDB in 2008 and 2009. Besides, whether the new HDB flat is cheap or not, depends on your income. As I can see that you are a graduate, naturally you don't feel the pinch of paying $200K for a new 4 room HDB flat. But please note that there are many people earning much lesser than you are.
HDB is a MONOPOLY in the new flat market. It is a government agency or stats board with an aim of providing affordable housing to Singaporeans, not a private entity that is profit orientated. As I have explained before, you cannot look at HDB alone but the whole set of socialist system that were set up when PAP took power in 1959.
You must look at HDB along with the Land Acquisition Act (back in the 1970s and 1980s). Take them together, you will realize that it is a modern Land reform or Land redistribution system. i.e. we empower the government to acquire land at cheap dirt price so that it could redistribute land in terms of cheap and affordable housing to the masses. In fact, prior to the government amending the act in 2007, it has acquired almost 80% of land in Singapore at dirt cheap prices. But the social contract is that the responsibility of providing cheap or even subsidized housing for the masses lies on the government of the day. PAP government cannot just have their cake and eat it. They are shirking off their responsibility slowly. In fact, if we look at the costing, they might even have made profits from HDB sales basically from the land costing they imposed on the HDB flats.
PAP's most important political capital of the early years is Land redistribution via Land Acquisition Act and HDB. Those people whose land are being acquired may grumble but they knew that the government did put their land for good use... HDB flats for many other Singaporeans. But now, with the change of policy direction to one of "HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY", this is no longer true. This is the crux of the matter.
Thus, you must look at things as a whole, not about the comparisons between countries blindly. Just like you complain about the high taxation of Canadia. You are only telling half of the truth. You are enjoying world class health care at dirt cheap prices because of the government subsidies. Your children will benefit from the lots of subsidies including education if you get married there. Not to mention the social welfare and security you enjoy when you retire or lose your jobs.You pay high taxes but in return, it is the social contract that the Canadian government will take care of you as well.
You may pay less tax in Singapore but when you lose your job, you are on your own. Health care prices are rising, not to mention the indirect taxes like COE, GST and high prices here (eg. increasing education cost). There are no free lunch in this world. You said that your friend bought a house for $480K but what lease? HDB is 99 years and it is a basic public housing. $480K is for a landed house? Of what size? In Singapore, you could well pay $480K for a 5 room HDB flat or executive flat in matured estate. HDB, lease hold without strata titles. That's the deal you are getting.
Sometimes, we will need to compare apple to apple, orange to orange. The only consolation right now is that the HDB loan rate is 2.6%. But you must also remember that CPF only pays 2.5% for Ordinary Account balances to citizens. This is fair play. However, you may still end up with a standard bank loans if you used up your entitlement of this favorable rate; especially so if you think you can buy and sell your HDB flats to earn money.
Canadian has pension for their old age because they pay high taxes and that is why they need worry about their retirement financing. i.e. they don't need to pay CPF. But in Singapore, CPF IS SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR RETIREMENT FUND! If you use almost all of your retirement funds in CPF for HDB mortgage as well as medisave, how are you going to survive? You won't have a retirement funding and this is why PAP say that you can sell or "monetize" your HDB flat for retirement. Do Canadians need to sell their house for retirement? ;)
I am against housing to be over priced which end up with people throwing all their retirement funds into the mortgage payment. If the Canadian needs a mortgage of 40 years to pay off their mortgage but that is their problem, not Singaporeans. Of course, their children can help to pay off the loans and they don't need to sell the house for retirement.
Besides, I believe Canadians have lots of choices for housing. They have huge land mass and they could choose to live at the country side or further away from the city area which houses could be very cheap. But Singaporeans do not have such luxury. HDB flats are the CHEAPEST housing available here and if this form of housing also become higher cost due to PAP's intention of implementing HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY, then Singaporeans will have no other better alternatives.
You should try to compare the CHEAPEST housing you can get in Canada and compare it with Singapore's HDB flats. This will be a more appropriate comparison.
Your assumption of exponential growth of housing needs is totally flawed. You are assuming people like you and me will not die one day. ;)
We are having an aging population. Without the influx of FT and PRs, the housing demand will increase initially but fall after the peak of the aging population has been crossed. So, please don't assume that housing needs will increase forever unless the ruling party keep increasing the population size by importing foreigners. And this is precisely part of the problem now; HDB resale market faces higher prices due to the huge increase in PRs.
A public housing policy coupled with a leasehold land will make sure that there will be no shortage of housing for Singaporeans unless the government of the day mismanage the population policy by importing excessive foreigners. This is the key point.
Goh Meng Seng
I don't really see the problem other than Singaporeans wanting to swallow more than they could take it. If they can't afford $200k for a 4-rm flat, there are always 2-rm and 3-rm flats.
And if Canadians have a choice to live at the countryside or further away from the city-area, Singaporean could do, just across the causeway, further away from the city-state of Singapore. As Fatum said, this is clearly not comparing apples with apples. And also, the strong self slapping of saying that if Canadians needing 40 years to pay off their mortgages, it is their problem. Yet you are telling us to compare housing here and Canada? It's like huh??? If it's our internal problem, it's our problem. Why compare? Seriously, there are many intangible comparisons between lives in different countries, and it is really really myopic to compare only on specific aspects. And this type of myopic views is rather abundant around...
While I do agree that housing prices are increasing at an rather alarming rate, we would also need to consider that wages as well as prices of raw materials are increasing too. It's rather contradictory to want to raise wages for our workers, yet keep the costs of building new flats low. You can't have your cake and eat it as well here.
As for the point of an aging population ensuring that housing needs won't increase forever, doesn't this point us to the fact that we need to address this particular problem of an aging population instead of focussing solely on the housing issue?
Do take note too that housing prices only started shooting up within the last few years or so after staying rather constant for a long time.
The incumbent is taking some reactive steps to increase the supply by having two new BTOs per month. That's near to 1k+ more flats per month into the market. It is a fact that government policies are usually formulated as a reaction, not a prediction. This means these new policies will usually not see immediate results. I don't see the point of condemnation before the full impact of these new BTOs are out. Houses and flats do not pop up in a day you know? To me, increasing the supply in this manner would in the long run flood the market with more flats... and basic economic theory would tell us that this would dampen prices... I would really question the maturity, thoughts and foresight of the opposition if condemnation starts immediately...
To me, the primary focus on monetary issues and creature comforts is so high that at times, issues like birth rate and education are at times given less attention than it should have.
Anyway, just treat this as some musings from a late twenties Singaporean who served NS.
-
Hi Mr Goh Meng Seng,
Glad that you come here to share your views with us especially the statement
"we empower the government to acquire land at cheap dirt price so that it could redistribute land in terms of cheap and affordable housing to the masses".
Can you share with us further your views on the issue " should the government sell 3 and 4 room flat at a low price for new buyers and should the re-sale flat price be allowed to rise on double digits every year ?"
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I don't really see the problem other than Singaporeans wanting to swallow more than they could take it. If they can't afford $200k for a 4-rm flat, there are always 2-rm and 3-rm flats.
And if Canadians have a choice to live at the countryside or further away from the city-area, Singaporean could do, just across the causeway, further away from the city-state of Singapore. As Fatum said, this is clearly not comparing apples with apples. And also, the strong self slapping of saying that if Canadians needing 40 years to pay off their mortgages, it is their problem. Yet you are telling us to compare housing here and Canada? It's like huh??? If it's our internal problem, it's our problem. Why compare? Seriously, there are many intangible comparisons between lives in different countries, and it is really really myopic to compare only on specific aspects. And this type of myopic views is rather abundant around...
While I do agree that housing prices are increasing at an rather alarming rate, we would also need to consider that wages as well as prices of raw materials are increasing too. It's rather contradictory to want to raise wages for our workers, yet keep the costs of building new flats low. You can't have your cake and eat it as well here.
As for the point of an aging population ensuring that housing needs won't increase forever, doesn't this point us to the fact that we need to address this particular problem of an aging population instead of focussing solely on the housing issue?
Do take note too that housing prices only started shooting up within the last few years or so after staying rather constant for a long time.
The incumbent is taking some reactive steps to increase the supply by having two new BTOs per month. That's near to 1k+ more flats per month into the market. It is a fact that government policies are usually formulated as a reaction, not a prediction. This means these new policies will usually not see immediate results. I don't see the point of condemnation before the full impact of these new BTOs are out. Houses and flats do not pop up in a day you know? To me, increasing the supply in this manner would in the long run flood the market with more flats... and basic economic theory would tell us that this would dampen prices... I would really question the maturity, thoughts and foresight of the opposition if condemnation starts immediately...
To me, the primary focus on monetary issues and creature comforts is so high that at times, issues like birth rate and education are at times given less attention than it should have.
Anyway, just treat this as some musings from a late twenties Singaporean who served NS.
The reason why young couples cannot get the 4-rm flat , is BECAUSE the unit cost $200K+++
Now, if the price is $100+++, it will be attainable. No young couple will need to live in a 2-3rm flat, and their children won't need to grow up in one either.
Think out of the box brother Eagle.
Canadians pay 40 years of mortgage, but they still get the RETIREMENT benefit and Health care coverage.
Singaporeans pay 30 years mortgage, but NO money for retirement. Old age illness , die better.
OK ?
Also, while I agree we cannot expect the "materials" to be cheaper due to inflation. What about the LAND cost ?
According to MBT, they are charging buyers LAND cost too. That just sound WRONG. What portion this land cost goes to the overall cost ? 50% , 70% ?
It is time Singaporeans stop believing the HDB lease as an "investment" and expect appreciation.
Why must the lease value appreciate ? It has an "expiry" date at 99 years. Why are lease value expected to INCREASE after half the lease is done ?
Why is it that COE doesn't work the same way ?
Perhaps GREED has blinded our eyes from the truth. And our gahmen is riding on this GREED to rob us of our money.
Only when we realize what a 99 year lease truly means, will we see that the units are indeed OVERPRICED.
While I agree that flats cannot be built overnight. However, any Inventory Management specialist will tell you this.
KEEP BUFFER STOCKS. The longer the lead time, the higher the buffer stocks.
And buffer stocks must be of equivalent quality as the incoming/depleted stocks. Unsold stocks of a different range/class/category are NOT buffer stocks.
Forcasted demand is a VERY important factor for ALL inventory planners to consider.
Obviously, our dear million lollar MBT has failed in his inventory management and has been operating as an ISOLATED ministry.
This simply will not do.
-
Originally posted by goh meng seng:
Fatum,
I am simply stating the facts. You may have your own experiences in Canada but others have thiers. But facts remain as facts, just like any fact sheet.
You may see social safety net goes to the lazy, but there are people who really benefit from it as well, don't you agree? The cup is either half empty or half full. If such a system is so bad, I guess Canadians are more stupid than Singaporeans and they would have voted out the government and put in someone who could change it to their delights, don't you agree?
You are mixing up the points again. A government has its social responsibilities, no matter how much tax they impose. And for that matter, it depends on what kinds of laws have been passed. For example, Canadian government puts up higher taxes but its social contract is to provide state welfare to a certain extend. As for Singapore, we allow the government to accumulate massive land (80% or more) under a scheme which cost them really peanuts, but the social contract is that the government, in return for such privilege of paying peanuts for the land they acquired, would have to redistribute the land in terms of cheap and basic housing for the masses. Mind you, this has nothing to do with taxes. And the entitlement for Singaporeans is solely based on this socialist scheme of the past.
I am less fortunate than you are. I spend my younger days in a one room flat with 9 other family members. But that is alright for me. However, as many have said, last time policeman wear shorts. ;) Besides, if we are to boast that we have evolved from the third world country to the first, don't you think we deserve better living standards and houses? If many people still stuck with a one room flat, you should be the first one to worry for Singapore.
As I have said. My father's generation only pay less than 10 or 15 years of mortgage to own a decent 4 room flat. I pay 20 years, why should my children and future generation pay 30 years or more? And mind you, my father's generation normally pay up the mortgage with one single wage, unlike modern days, it would take two income to pay that 30 years mortgage! It means that HDB prices had outstripped salary growth between generations. Make no mistake about this. No amount of funky statistics could hide that fact.
I think you should be the Minister of National Development instead or even replace the Prime Minister! Both MBT and PM Lee have stated categorically that it is a plan for Singaporeans to retire by "monetizing" their HDB flats but you still claim that we could have sufficient fundsin CPF for retirement! The truth is, overwhelming percentage of Singaporeans do not have the minimum amount of funds stated by CPF left in their accounts by the time they reach the age of retirement! And this is happening NOW. If this HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY is going to carry on for the next 10 or 20 years, I guess 80% of Singaporeans won't have enough retirement funds in CPF but would have no choice but monetize their HDB flats. That little amount in their Special Account won't be enough for their retirement dude!
Whether you pay your mortgage from CPF or cash, it does make a great difference. In order for PAP to carry out their HIGH HDB PRICE POLICY back in the early 1990s, they have to "liberalize" CPF for resale market. It is ok actually when the CPF contribution is still around 40%, down from 50% in 1980s. When people use CPF money to pay for things like Healthcare or housing, they do not feel the pinch. But most people over look the fact that with declining CPF contributions initiate by the PAP government, they would not have enough savings for retirement. That is the crux of the problem.
If you read the 1981 newspaper report, most Singaporeans utilize about 30% of their salary through CPF to buy flats. But they could still have 20% saved because total CPF contribution is 50%. However, now OA is emptied. The low interest rate for the OA account is one of the primary reason why Singaporeans prefer to use it for mortgage payment. Nothing wrong with that. The only thing wrong is that when the price of HDB continues to increase until people need to use up to 30 years to pay for their flats. The whole 30 years of productive life. If I use 20 years, I could still save 10 years in the Ordinary account. But 30 years? Hardly anything will be left in the OA when I retire.
The worst thing is that PAP government keeps repeating that using all OA to pay 30 years mortgage is "AFFORDABLE". That is obviously flawed. PAP government has cultivated this wrong sense of AFFORDABILITY. So again, problem lies with PAP. If PAP is to set the rule that you could only use all your OA to pay your mortgage for 20 years, then it will force people to make choices. Then you will see more people buying smaller flats. Of course, they will definitely unhappy as they will see that their standard of living has actually deteriorated as compared to their parents' generation!
PAP of course know the political cost of making people feel that their standards of living has dropped as compared to their parents and the myth about progress in terms of First World standards will automatically collapse. ;)
Goh Meng Seng
I totally agree with you that a goverment has social responsibilities. So, let's consider the alternative scenario, if HDB was struck from existence, and the land they got release for private developers. What, do you reckon, would be the percentage of home ownership in Singapore, then ? What do you suppose the cost of the average home for Singaporeans would be then ? But let's not digress into such meaningless musings.
I ask again, the same two questions.
If you think 200+ k for a brand new 4 room HDB flat is too much to pay, what do you think is the affordable price for you ?
And, granted, the days of the "one room, basic room over their heads" days are over, what unit size do you suppose people can "expect as their entitlement" ? 4 rooms ? 5 rooms ? EA ?
And what income bracket would you use as your benchmark of affordibility ?
in 1981 I was barely out of diapers, I suppose during that time, policemen wore shorts, sand and construction materials were cheaper, so were banglas, wage and construction costs were different then as now. Coupled that with a population doubled that of 1981, do you expect the same prices for HDB flats now as the time when kway png was $2 a plate?
and of course, if you, say, took home 3k a month then and were able to comfortably pay off your 4 room flat on a single income back in the days when everything else was cheaper too, do you think it's reasonable to expect your children to take home 3k a month and do the same as you did ?
For sure, we have evolved from third world to the first, but do you seriously expect to pay third world prices for first world living ?
-
Does anyone have any idea what is the cost of an HDB unit ?
On Page 1 of this thread, the following was offered and which was also the subject of an earlier thread in 2009 :-
Will HDB flats be sold at the real COST OF BUILDING HDB Flats at the prices from the following articles ?
Both had reported the following:-
Channelnewsasiaarticlehdbcontract_com.mht that Singapore Exchange’s mainboard-listed BBR Holdings has secured a S$104.2-million contract from the Housing & Development Board (HDB) to build seven blocks of flats in Yishun Neighbourhood 4.
The work comprises 864 homes, a Child Care Centre, a roof garden, communal amenities and site works, as well as contingency works.
Since there will be 864 HDB flats, the average cost per flat, inclusive of communal amenities, site works and contingency works, is about $120,602 ($104.2 million divided by 864 flats).
With the latest HDB new 4-room flats at Punggol (Punggol Residences BTO) selling at an average price of $293,000 (price range of $264,000 to $322,000 divided by 2), does it mean that the HDB stands to make a profit of about $172,398 per flat, or a profit margin of about 143 per cent?
After Singapore was hit by three economic recessions - in 1987, 1997 and 2004 - each Economic Review Committee and their respective sub-committees had reported that the Singapore Government is taking too much private money through the CPF system.
This is from the 20 Percent forced contribution from Singaporean monthly wages and the prevailing approved rate from the Employers - which stands at 16 Percent.
The whopping monthly amount of 36 Percent paid monthly into the CPF fund - is accumulated throughout a Singaporean working life, which this Government can never fulfill its obligation to repay everyone when payout time occur; and this Government is resorting to a plethora of policy mechanism to whittle away its CPF debt to Singaporeans through the Medisave, Medishield, and now the CPF-Life Policies - as well as to delay the withdrawal date and reducing the withdrawal sums by increasing the balance needed supposedly for one's old age.
The ultimate Government policy in wiping its CPF debt to Singaporeans is through its HDB pricing mechanism to rob Singaporeans of its entire CPF savings - by arbitrarily pricing the HDB unit as high as the Singaporean can bear.
Considering that land has been "robbed" from private ownership through the Land Acquistion Act - in which land needed by the Government is acquired at below market rates - it is disingenious for the Government to claim that it has subsidised HDB prices by selling HDB homes at over 100 Percent of its construction cost.
It is interesting that the argument has now arrived to this point with an ingenious question of asking what should "affordability" be in pricing public housing ?
How does 'Fatum' proposed to measure "affordability" to Singaporeans - can there be common ground that is agreeable by all parties - some kind of perimeters that define what "affordability" should be ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
The reason why young couples cannot get the 4-rm flat , is BECAUSE the unit cost $200K+++
Now, if the price is $100+++, it will be attainable. No young couple will need to live in a 2-3rm flat, and their children won't need to grow up in one either.
Think out of the box brother Eagle.
Canadians pay 40 years of mortgage, but they still get the RETIREMENT benefit and Health care coverage.
Singaporeans pay 30 years mortgage, but NO money for retirement. Old age illness , die better.
OK ?
Also, while I agree we cannot expect the "materials" to be cheaper due to inflation. What about the LAND cost ?
According to MBT, they are charging buyers LAND cost too. That just sound WRONG. What portion this land cost goes to the overall cost ? 50% , 70% ?
It is time Singaporeans stop believing the HDB lease as an "investment" and expect appreciation.
Why must the lease value appreciate ? It has an "expiry" date at 99 years. Why are lease value expected to INCREASE after half the lease is done ?
Why is it that COE doesn't work the same way ?
Perhaps GREED has blinded our eyes from the truth. And our gahmen is riding on this GREED to rob us of our money.
Only when we realize what a 99 year lease truly means, will we see that the units are indeed OVERPRICED.
While I agree that flats cannot be built overnight. However, any Inventory Management specialist will tell you this.
KEEP BUFFER STOCKS. The longer the lead time, the higher the buffer stocks.
And buffer stocks must be of equivalent quality as the incoming/depleted stocks. Unsold stocks of a different range/class/category are NOT buffer stocks.
Forcasted demand is a VERY important factor for ALL inventory planners to consider.
Obviously, our dear million lollar MBT has failed in his inventory management and operating as an ISOLATED ministry.
This simply will not do.
The reason why young couples cannot get the 4-rm flat , is BECAUSE the unit cost $200K+++
Now, if the price is $100+++, it will be attainable. No young couple will need to live in a 2-3rm flat, and their children won't need to grow up in one either.
Just in 2005, a 4-rm flat costs $100k+. The run up to 2007 mania did not just affect Singapore, but worldwide.
Canadians pay 40 years of mortgage, but they still get the RETIREMENT benefit and Health care coverage.
Singaporeans pay 30 years mortgage, but NO money for retirement. Old age illness , die better.
Read carefully.
You just proved my point about myopic views.
Also, while I agree we cannot expect the "materials" to be cheaper due to inflation. What about the LAND cost ?
According to MBT, they are charging buyers LAND cost too. That just sound WRONG. What portion this land cost goes to the overall cost ? 50% , 70% ?
It is time Singaporeans stop believing the HDB lease as an "investment" and expect appreciation.
Why must the lease value appreciate ? It has an "expiry" date at 99 years. Why are lease value expected to INCREASE after half the lease is done ?
Why is it that COE doesn't work the same way ?
Perhaps GREED has blinded our eyes from the truth. And our gahmen is riding on this GREED to rob us of our money.
Only when we realize what a 99 year lease truly means, will we see that the units are indeed OVERPRICED.
Well said. I didn't disagree on this point.
While I agree that flats cannot be built overnight. However, any Inventory Management specialist will tell you this.
KEEP BUFFER STOCKS. The longer the lead time, the higher the buffer stocks.
And buffer stocks must be of equivalent quality as the incoming/depleted stocks. Unsold stocks of a different range/class/category are NOT buffer stocks.
Forcasted demand is a VERY important factor for ALL inventory planners to consider.
Obviously, our dear million lollar MBT has failed in his inventory management and operating as an ISOLATED ministry.
While I won't deny that his inventory management has failed, my stand still remains that government policies are usually reactive instead of proactive.
And if his planning goes wrong, and there's an over supply of flats, leading to say a 4-rm flats selling for $80k at the extreme, new buyers will be happy, but retirees looking to downgrade to get extra cash will be extremely unhappy. Aging population mah.... must make older voters happy leh...
-
Originally posted by eagle:
And if his planning goes wrong, and there's an over supply of flats, leading to say a 4-rm flats selling for $80k at the extreme, new buyers will be happy, but retirees looking to downgrade to get extra cash will be extremely unhappy. Aging population mah.... must make older voters happy leh...
Retirees downgrading to get extra cash ?
Now, if only the retirees or future retirees didn't have to sock so much money away into the HDB unit, will they be looking at the equity as a source of income ? NO. To them, it's their home. A place to live and die in.
Because we are forced to put so much of our income into the flat, we become nervous about the value.
However, if the price was low to begin with, and we can afford to invest in other forms of income for retirement, will we care to sell our home so that we don't starve or conduct harakiri when illness strike ? So what even if the house value depreciate, but our main source of retirement funds comes from somewhere else? The flat is still a roof over our heads, even if the depreciation is taken as a form of "rent".
-
KEEP BUFFER STOCKS. The longer the lead time, the higher the buffer stocks.
And buffer stocks must be of equivalent quality as the incoming/depleted stocks. Unsold stocks of a different range/class/category are NOT buffer stocks.
Forcasted demand is a VERY important factor for ALL inventory planners to consider.
Obviously, our dear million lollar MBT has failed in his inventory management and operating as an ISOLATED ministry.
I am not sure I considered HDB has inventory planners. What we have to call them was Inventory manipulator....given the fact that there are building flats on BTO progam. The one occasion where newspaper report BTO was 50 times over subscribed....that clearly need to review the entired program of BTO.
-
repeated post.........
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Retirees downgrading to get extra cash ?
Now, if only the retirees or future retirees didn't have to sock so much money away into the HDB unit, will they be looking at the equity as a source of income ? NO. To them, it's their home. A place to live and die in.
Because we are forced to put so much of our income into the flat, we become nervous about the value.
However, if the price was low to begin with, and we can afford to invest in other forms of income during retirement, will we care to sell our home so that we don't starve or conduct harakiri when illness strike ? So what even if the house value depreciate, but our main source of retirement funds comes from somewhere else? The flat is still a roof over our heads, even if the depreciation is taken as a form of "rent".
The downgrading comes when you are older because your children would have moved out, and you don't need such a big space.
On average using historical data spanning years, property prices grow at an annual compounded rate of 6+%. Putting the $$ into the flat allows it to be grown over the long run at 6+%, while at the same time providing a large enough space for a family. As you get older, you can cash out by downgrading when your children has moved out and start their own family cluster.
Also, your post is really amazing... Let's see:
However, if the price was low to begin with, and we can afford to invest in other forms of income during retirement,
We can afford to invest in other forms of income way before retirement. Why must wait till during retirement?
will we care to sell our home so that we don't starve or conduct harakiri when illness strike
If you invest for other income sources, the probability of starving is low.
Get a term insurance with rider packages, and you don't need to conduct harakiri.Planning starts young.... I started at 25 and I consider myself late in starting. You want to start during retirement???
So what even if the house value depreciate, but our main source of retirement funds comes from somewhere else? The flat is still a roof over our heads, even if the depreciation is taken as a form of "rent".
As I said, planning starts young.
If retirement funds is a major major concern, you can always start saving very young. $300 a month saved on compound interest of 4% gives you 200k in 30 years, or 300k in 38 years supposed start work at 25 and retirement at 63.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
KEEP BUFFER STOCKS. The longer the lead time, the higher the buffer stocks.
And buffer stocks must be of equivalent quality as the incoming/depleted stocks. Unsold stocks of a different range/class/category are NOT buffer stocks.
Forcasted demand is a VERY important factor for ALL inventory planners to consider.
Obviously, our dear million lollar MBT has failed in his inventory management and operating as an ISOLATED ministry.
I am not sure I considered HDB has inventory planners. What we have to call them was Inventory manipulator....given the fact that there are building flats on BTO progam. The one occasion where newspaper report BTO was 50 times over subscribed....that clearly need to review the entired program of BTO.
Why in the world they need to "manipulate" a shortage for the purpose of keeping the sales price high is beyond me.
What kind of nationaly policy is that, and who does it really serve ?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
The downgrading comes when you are older because your children would have moved out, and you don't need such a big space.
On average using historical data spanning years, property prices grow at an annual compounded rate of 6+%. Putting the $$ into the flat allows it to be grown over the long run at 6+%, while at the same time providing a large enough space for a family. As you get older, you can cash out by downgrading when your children has moved out and start their own family cluster.
Also, your post is really amazing... Let's see:
We can afford to invest in other forms of income way before retirement. Why must wait till during retirement?
If you invest for other income sources, the probability of starving is low.
Get a term insurance with rider packages, and you don't need to conduct harakiri.Planning starts young.... I started at 25 and I consider myself late in starting. You want to start during retirement???
As I said, planning starts young.
If retirement funds is a major major concern, you can always start saving very young. $300 a month saved on compound interest of 4% gives you 200k in 30 years, or 300k in 38 years supposed start work at 25 and retirement at 63.
LOL.. yes you are right. my bad. I mean. FOR retirement, not DURING retirement.
I have edited the error.
-
Next, HDB is paid primarily with our CPF funds. One should buy according to what one can afford without much sweat.
So if we are just using CPF funds to pay the mortgage which we cannot even see till retirement, the cashflow we have from our take home income remains roughly the same.
That's the place where we should withdraw the cash for investing in other income sources.Even without buying the HDB, that cashflow remains the same. The only difference is that your CPF funds would be larger.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Next, HDB is paid primarily with our CPF funds. One should buy according to what one can afford without much sweat.
So if we are just using CPF funds to pay the mortgage which we cannot even see till retirement, the cashflow we have from our take home income remains roughly the same.
That's the place where we should withdraw the cash for investing in other income sources.Even without buying the HDB, that cashflow remains the same. The only difference is that your CPF funds would be larger.
basically, make full use of your CPF and cashflow is the most ideal way of making life richer, invest on properties, die die also invest on it, you will not loose out, you dun hv to think so much on stock and shares, just put it into properties, by and large, it will go up and go up tremedously.On the other hand, not bearing those rebates put into CPF and medisave, if you are in business or as freelancer, 4% interest rate at CPF is not attractive enuf, you can make more with what you put into CPF, especially on an emerging Asia Market now. So, for me, i dun hv CPF
-
With all due respect to fatum and eagle, you are looking at this issue through the eyes of a university graduate who earns a relatively higher salary than the majority of the people and with a potential to earn higher salaries in the future.
It is easy to tell Singaporeans to be less choosy, buy what you can afford, save more / spend less, invest your money to grow your money, look for opportunities etc. But you are all speaking in general, for people like yourselves - young and mobile, university educated, have a decent job, with little or no family obligations yet. But is this the norm for the majority of Singaporeans?
The opponents to this housing issue as far as I can see are older 30 - 40 somethings people who have gone through a few of the economic cycles of the past 10 - 20 years eg GMS.
For eagle and fatum, you all have been relatively blessed because you have not experienced the hardships that some older people might have faced in recent years - unemployment with a family of 4 to feed and a HDB mortgage to pay off, ill health needing immediate medical attention which costs lots of money, increasing costs of living which your salaries are unable to keep pace with etc.
Your views may be right - but it might only be applicable to a certain segment of society.
If you haven't experienced what it is like to lose your job in a recession suddenly or get massive pay cuts to your salary or retrenched after working for 10 years in a company or have no money to feed your kids or have to use up all your savings to pay off expensive hospital bills for a sick loved one, then you haven't seen many things yet.
Having no money to buy food and experiencing real hunger is one of the worst things in life.
Really.
-
why not make it to 99 yrs loan/instalement
cos it is 99 yrs lease only
like that fair and "affordable"
-
No helicopter view by these pple. Can they promise there will not be any changes for situation to turn negative? Many singaporeans of the same category are doing the same. singapore has no hope!
-
Originally posted by charlize:
With all due respect to fatum and eagle, you are looking at this issue through the eyes of a university graduate who earns a relatively higher salary than the majority of the people and with a potential to earn higher salaries in the future.
It is easy to tell Singaporeans to be less choosy, buy what you can afford, save more / spend less, invest your money to grow your money, look for opportunities etc. But you are all speaking in general, for people like yourselves - young and mobile, university educated, have a decent job, with little or no family obligations yet. But is this the norm for the majority of Singaporeans?
The opponents to this housing issue as far as I can see are older 30 - 40 somethings people who have gone through a few of the economic cycles of the past 10 - 20 years eg GMS.
For eagle and fatum, you all have been relatively blessed because you have not experienced the hardships that some older people might have faced in recent years - unemployment with a family of 4 to feed and a HDB mortgage to pay off, ill health needing immediate medical attention which costs lots of money, increasing costs of living which your salaries are unable to keep pace with etc.
Your views may be right - but it might only be applicable to a certain segment of society.
If you haven't experienced what it is like to lose your job in a recession suddenly or get massive pay cuts to your salary or retrenched after working for 10 years in a company or have no money to feed your kids or have to use up all your savings to pay off expensive hospital bills for a sick loved one, then you haven't seen many things yet.
Having no money to buy food and experiencing real hunger is one of the worst things in life.
Really.
That's true on the parts of pple unemployed, I don't deny.
But hor, my dad O level education, go work, then self took A levels, now also can earn enough to support family through his hard work. And we stay in HDB.
Then again hor, my cousin's dad, also O level education, never earn as much. They also stay in HDB.
Hmmm... Same O level education, almost same age, both got families, explain the diff? Luck? Fate?