By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “HDB residents happy where they live – over 95% surveyed satisfied with their flats and neighbourhood” (Asiaone, 18 February).
I believe the statistic for the number of foreigners staying in HDB flats has been made available for the first time ever. I surmised this from this statement in the report:
“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008.”
“This figure makes up 96 per cent of the total population in HDB flats, of which 88 per cent were citizens, and 8 per cent were permanent residents. The remaining four per cent were foreigners.”
So, does it mean that we have 121,667 foreigners staying in HDB flats, which makes up 4 per cent of the total HDB population (as calculated by taking 2.92 million to be 96 per cent)?
Given the acute shortage of rental housing for Singaporeans, with a queue of over 4,000 applicants and waiting periods of up to two years, how many foreigners are staying in flats which may be indirectly rented out by the HDB through managing agents like EM Services?
Are there any countries in the world whereby one in eight people in public housing are not citizens, since 12 per cent are non-citizens (8 per cent PRs and 4 per cent foreigners)?
The article also states:
“86 per cent – especially those who live in newer flats (less than 5 years) and older flats (21 years and above) – feel that their HDB flats are worth the money they spent mainly because of the appreciation in flat value, good location, proximity to facilities, and affordability.
“For residents of older flats, the main reasons given were the location of their flats, flat prices that had either already appreciated or were expected to have a good resale value in the future.”
This statement seems to be somewhat odd, as it conveniently ignores the bulk of flat owners who live in flats ranging from six to 20 years old.
As the statement suggests, those who live in older flats of over 21 years surely feel that their flats are worth what they spent because HDB flat prices were very low and affordable more than 20 years ago.
Similarly, the newer flats of less than five years may be those which have not met the 5-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). These flats had been offered at much lower prices than resale flats, which have seen huge price spikes in only the last two years or so.
Surely, those who went through the 13-year bear market (1996 to 2009) waiting for the HDB Resale Price Index to recover its price level may not be so happy when asked whether their flats were value for money, had appreciated in value, or were affordable. If we factor in the interest payments on housing loans, flats bought from as long as about 15 years ago may still not be making any money at all.
So, are we perhaps telling only ‘half the story’ about value for money and affordability?
Several media reports said that we should not blame others for rising flat prices, because only five percent of flats are owned by PRs and only 20 per cent of resale flats last year were purchased by PRs. Perhaps what we need are not just the statistics on ownership, but on rental as well. How many flats are also rented to PRs and foreigners? Perhaps there’s another case of telling ‘half the story’ here?
Did the survey cover any of the 60,000 flat dwellers who were given financial counselling by the HDB for difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, or the 30,770 flat-owners in arrears over three months as of September 2009, or the estimated about 60 flats repossessed by the HDB every month, or the unknown number of HDB bank loans in arrears or foreclosed? Perhaps another case of ‘half the story’ here too?
With regards to the statement:
“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008”.
It omits to mention what was the increase in the foreigner HDB resident population over the five years. It is inconsistent to on the one hand give the break-down of the resident population by citizens, PRs and foreigners, but omit foreigners in the rate of increase over the five years.
What we need is the rate of increase in the five years, broken down into Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, in order to have the ‘full story’.
The HDB press release said: “The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.”
However, for the purpose of a rough comparison for discussion’s sake, according to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) Household Expenditure Survey released in December 2009, the average monthly household income for HDB flats’ dwellers grew from $4,202 in 2002/3 to $5,503 in 2007/08.
The DOS data for all households, including private housing, had the average monthly household income of the 41st – 60th quintile at $5,480. For their data, the DOS uses HDB flats’ average income as well as the average income of the median total population – the average income of the segment of households that separates the higher and the lower halves of the total population sample.
The problem with such a comparison is that the HDB uses just the average income. This figure is skewed upwards by the high incomes earned by wealthier households – which is a significant distortion given Singapore’s income inequality (BusinessWeek ranked Singapore the second most unequal country in a list of the 11 most unequal advanced economies in the world – our score was 42.5, with 0 being complete equality and 100 being complete inequality).
So, the question is why can’t the HDB use median income as well? This would be more reflective of the income of the average household, like data provided by the DOS.
This is not the first time that the HDB Survey data seems to be out of sync with the DOS data. In 2003, according to the DOS Household Survey, while the household income of those living in private homes grew, those in public flats fell by 0.4 per cent per annum, from $3,860 in 1998 to $3,790 in 2003.
Since about 85 per cent of the population live in public flats, does this mean that the majority of Singaporeans were worse off?
In contrast, according to the HDB Household Survey of the same year, “average household income of HDB flat dwellers rose from $3,719 to $4,238 a month.”
How is it possible that the DOS Household Survey differs so markedly from the HDB Household Survey for apparently the same period, for such a crucial statistic?
I tried searching the HDB web site and the internet for the HDB Sample Household Survey Report, but could not find it.
Instead of just a press release fill with HDB’s selective findings and conclusions, may I suggest that the full report be made available to the public so that we may try to figure out the whole story?
