Pte selling of freehold sites as leasehold: a dis-amenity to Singaporean home owners.

Permit for individuals (natural/ legal 'person') to sell free hold sites as leasehold only serves to worsen wealth divide and distract the judiciary from more important tasks.

There are rules in Singapore for everything from the race of a GRC minority candidate (pre-specified as either Malay/ Indian and not interchangeable) to the minimum 6 months rental period for residential units so that neighbours are not inconvenienced/distressed seeing short stay strangers loitering around.

Likewise, it is a social good that freehold properties should be freely available on the open market rather than be horded by for profit companies. In the event of an enblock, who should grant permission to rebuild and at what lease period???!!! Would it be considered like a 99yr rental period whereby the lessors are at the total mercy of freehold title landlords who can agree/ disagree based on whim and fancy? What protection does the layman home owner have against cooperate greed???!!!

Would the freehold title owner then also have the puppet-master ability to control market sentiment regarding the said leasehold just by making malicious announcements that management was against extending the lease only to reverse the announcement : as a puppet master directs as he wants his puppet to do.

For all the legal inconvenience foreseeable, the gahmen should charge developers involved in such rent-seeking scheme a high levy and an annual capital gains tax/ better still, BAN THE PRACTISE ALTOGETHER.

Allowing such schemes to prevail might temporarily depress property prices as leaseholds costs slightly less, however, the shortage of freehold properties in the long run will make freehold properties out of reach of the average citizen even if it reaps great rewards for (e.g. Far East share holders): many of who may be foreign investors to profit by unleashing misery on unsuspecting Singaporean home buyers.

If the gahmen indeed serves the interest of 'natural person' citizens, it should overrule this nasty corporate manipulation of the residential housing market before it is too late (and probably the commercial property market too).

StraitsTimes. Published on Jul 09, 2014
Act against selling of freehold sites as leasehold
PRIVATE property developers should not be allowed to develop freehold land to sell as leasehold residential units ("Homes sold as leasehold tenures on freehold sites"; June 14).
This prevents a much larger number of ordinary folk from ever owning freehold properties.
It will also unfairly concentrate ownership of freehold properties in the hands of a few big developers and perpetuate wealth in a few families.
In time, the price of existing freehold properties would likely be driven much higher than the current premium.
If a developer can parcel out its freehold land as leasehold, then it would be only fair to allow individuals who own freehold properties, especially landed properties, to sell them as leasehold as well.
But I can see many obstacles to this.
One concession to those who wish to develop freehold land into leasehold residential properties could be for the Government to allow only two leases of 100 years each. At the end of this period, the land reverts back to the Government.
Only the Government should be allowed to develop freehold land to sell as leasehold tenures.
Land in Singapore is too scarce for large quantities to be hoarded in perpetuity by a few private vehicles.
The appropriate authorities should act soon to stop this unhealthy development.
Leong Chee-Hong
Copyright © 2014 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.
Act against selling of freehold sites as leasehold

Click to expand...

PAP in cahoots with foreigners to sell-out the Singaporean dream.

PAP in cahoots with foreigners to sell-out the Singaporean dream.

PowerPeople said:

Re (A1): Pte selling of freehold sites as leasehold: a dis-amenity to Singaporean home owners.
This one you also complain.
Pay 10-20% more only.
There are enough freeholds homes to choose.

Click to expand...

FH has already begun getting fewer by the day and the wealth divide is worsening. Also, $inkies are becoming the slaves/puppets to many of these foreigner owned companies (PAP foreigner friends???) who have the POWER to dictate your property value just by making malicious public announcements: e.g. that the lease will NOT be renewed (i.e. announcemenmts that will totally demolish any enbloc value/hope, just like GCT abused his moral authority by attempting to turn opposition held districts into slums by vetoing gahmen run upgrading projects in opposition held districts).

PAP so good at pretending to protect Singaporean rights and spent a billion on the Brian Rich man pioneer package (world cup) advertisement (appears during EVERY MEDIACORPSE programme) that now I either hate pioneers or hate the world cup altogether. So why hold hands with foreign companies and share holders to manipulate and decrease Singaporeans rights???!!!

BTW: foreigner has to jump hoops to buy Singapore landed property to put $inkies first, so manipulate freehold title is okay, just because most $inkies are too stupid/ stressed-out to voice complain???!!!

Selling freehold properties with only leasehold titles allows private developers to a

Selling freehold properties with only leasehold titles allows private developers to adopt LOANSHARKING role.

MYOBAdvise said:

Re (A1): Pte selling of freehold sites as leasehold: a dis-amenity to Singaporean home own
The rule only transfer wealth from state to developers or companies. I dont see individual living 10 x 99 years to keep passing it on...

Click to expand...

The rule allow companies to obtain gahmen like rights to manipulate the market by retaining freehold title whilst reissuing a lease hold one . Gahmen are elected so there is 5yrly check and balance. But for pte developers to have such rights, there are only 2 possibilities:
1) PAP is in bed with enemy, overlooked this anormaly because palms greased.
2) PAP neglected protecting Singaporean's rights because PAP sleeping on the job.

Singaporean's loss is the gain of shareholders in these MNC companies, many of these shareholders possibly foreigners/ foreigner pension funds etc. In the case of (1): politicians with greased palms obviously receive $$$bribes.

I do hope that only the 2nd possibility is valid, cos if it is the reason of the first instance, than that proves that $inkie politicians are not just stupid, but also corrupt to say the least.

Even money changers cannot give out loans (they are not registered $ lenders) so why are Singapore licensed private developers being encouraged to take on loan sharking roles???!!!