SDP proposes non-open market flats in housing policy

[yellowarse]

Not true. What SDP is effectively suggesting is to move close back to the cost-based housing policy that PAP had before Goh Chok Tong took over. I am sure Singaporeans welcome that.

Some Singaporeans will welcome that. Many will say: what happens to my '2 bites of the cherry'? My friends made a pile from their HDB flats, why can't I do the same. Existing HDB flat owners will say, what will happen to my current flat value, will it crash if all new flats are cheap NOM flats?

Many Singaporeans still think that it's their right to make money from HDB flats, because the previous generation has done so. Many Singaporeans owning resale flats are also worried about NOM scheme causing their flats to depreciate.

A major policy change has to be introduced judiciously without shocking the system. Also people have to be educated and their mindsets changed before they embrace a radical scheme.

NOM flats have to be build from scratch. I don't see how it can be implemented from existing flats. When the old flats go via enbloc, new flats can be built under NOM. As Fook Sing said, it's going to take generations.

Yes, NOM flats built from scratch. Right from the next ballot, if the scheme is implemented. Don't need to wait generations, don't need to wait for old flats to go en bloc.

 

[tanwahp]

A key feature of the plan is, in addition to NOM flats, a buffer stock of flats will be built so that those with high priority (families with young children, married couples who are expectant) will be able to get their flats quickly:

SDP Housing Plan

Time is always needed for new flats to be built. SDP should not tell people that their policy cuts down waiting time compared to PAP's system unless they have some others ideas to speed up construction. That will call for a construction policy paper, not a housing policy paper.

 

[tanwahp]

Some Singaporeans will welcome that. Many will say: what happens to my '2 bites of the cherry'? My friends made a pile from their HDB flats, why can't I do the same. Existing HDB flat owners will say, what will happen to my current flat value, will it crash if all new flats are cheap NOM flats?

Many Singaporeans still think that it's their right to make money from HDB flats, because the previous generation has done so. Many Singaporeans owning resale flats are also worried about NOM scheme causing their flats to depreciate.

You can assure Singaporeans that having NOM flats will cause OM prices to go up higher because government no longer has any need to protect those flat prices.

 

[yellowarse]

Time is always needed for new flats to be built. SDP should not tell people that their policy cuts down waiting time compared to PAP's system unless they have some others ideas to speed up construction. That will call for a construction policy paper, not a housing policy paper.

You misunderstand. The SDP recognises that time is needed to build flats. They also recommend that waiting times be cut down by maintaining a buffer stock. Of course all this takes time. Nowhere in the paper did it say that these measures will take place immediately.

Because this is not a construction policy paper, the SDP did not go into the details of construction or specific time lines. Read the excerpt below:

Building a buffer stock

The SDP proposes that we return to a system where a buffer stock of HDB flats is
maintained. This will mean that young people planning to get married and start a family will
no longer suffer the inconvenience and uncertainty of booking a flat well in advance of a
wedding.

We recognize the issues associated with a large stock of unoccupied flats. Oversupply will be
avoided by commitment to a policy to keep the buffer stock at a pre-determined level. Should
the stock be too high, no new flats will be built, and should the stock be too low, a suitable
quantity of new flats will be built. This level will be determined by experts in the public
service based on considerations such as population demographics.

The supply side will be affected by the eventual availability of second-hand NOM flats and a
buffer stock of NOM flats. However, second-hand NOM flats will not go on sale till at least
about 10 years (construction plus MOP) after their introduction. A buffer stock will take even
longer to build up due to the current backlog.

 

[yellowarse]

建议推出接近成本但不能转售组屋 民主党提住屋替代政策​ 周文龙 (2012-11-05)​ 　　组屋价格过去20年来不断攀升，高昂的组屋价格成了国人最关注的生活课题。新加坡民主党因此提议推出接近建造成本、但不能在公开市场转售的“非公开市场组屋”，以减低组屋价格，让更多人能拥有住屋。 　　民主党昨天提出替代住屋政策，通过推出非公开市场组屋计划、年轻家庭优先计划、让更多单亲父母拥有组屋，以及加强屋契回购计划等，来解决目前组屋价格太高和国人等候组屋时间太长等各方面问题。 　 　 　　这是民主党历经六个月研究的成果，也是该党自今年3月提出“替代医药政策”后所发表的第二份政策文件。 　 　 　　民主党秘书长徐顺全昨天在介绍该党替代住屋政策时，指出我国组屋转售价不断攀升，加上最近女皇镇一间公寓式组屋以百万元转售价转手，令不少国人担心他们负担不起组屋价格。 　　 　　他认为，目前组屋价格高涨的主要原因，是政府的新组屋定价机制是以市场为导向，与公开转售市场的组屋市价紧密挂钩。因此，他建议政府根据组屋建造成本价格，推出一系列非公开市场组屋。 　　​ 　　徐顺全指出，新组屋价格主要由土地价格和建造成本两大部分组成。他提议的非公开市场组屋价格，则不包含土地价格这部分。这将使到非公开市场组屋价格锐减，一间两房式组屋价格约7万元，而一间五房式组屋价格约24万元。 　 　 　　徐顺全解释，推出非公开市场组屋目的是保持廉价组屋价格，不让组屋成为国人的经济负担，以致他们留给退休用途的储蓄所剩无几。 　 　 　　他说：“很多人付出了大量公积金储蓄来购买组屋，使到他们剩下很少或根本没钱来作为他们的退休用途。在这情况下，这些退休人士该怎么办，他们要怎么生活下去呢？” 　　 　　民主党提出的非公开市场组屋，顾名思义，只供国人居住，无法在公开市场上出售。这类组屋在租凭方面也有严格限制。 　 　 　　民主党也建议，目前在公开市场购买组屋者，可选择把组屋转换成非公开市场组屋，政府可按他们购屋价和同等非公开市场组屋价格差额，把款项还回住户的公积金户口。 　　 　　替代住屋政策咨询团成员梁殷凯医生表示，这项计划除了要让组屋定价与公开市场屋价脱钩，同时也要改变国人把组屋视为投资工具的心理。 　　 　　他说：“我们要传达一个意识形态上的信息，那就是住房，特别是公共住房，是生活的基本需要……它不是一个投资项目，不是你购买后，放置一段时间，就能转售取得资本收益的物品。” 　　 　　至于非公开市场的较便宜组屋对公开市场的影响，咨询团另一成员、新加坡国立大学决策学系博士生陈伟荣提议，政府可继续建造可在公开市场组屋出售的新组屋，让国人能选择购买可转售但经济负担重的组屋，或不可转售但价格较低廉的非公开市场组屋。 　　 　　经济学会副会长杨南强出席了介绍会，对民主党研究报告表示赞赏。他接受记者访问时说：“我认为这是一份高质量报告，里头提出的建议和实行方法都相当彻底。政府机构或公众可借着报告作为基础，进行更深入的讨论。” 　　 　　谈到我国当前组屋价格持续高涨，杨南强表示，建屋发展局已尽力通过增加组屋供应来使组屋价格趋向稳定，但仍面对公开市场住宅价格的上涨压力。他认为推出不包含土地价格的非公开市场组屋，有助于解决这方面问题。 　 　 　　替代住屋政策是民主党针对我国政策所提出的政策文件之一。徐顺全表示，除了卫生保健和住屋，该党明年会陆续就人口与移民、经济和教育等提出替代性政策。 　 　 　　[email protected]

《联合早报》 （编辑：薛之白）​

<tbody>
</tbody>

​

 

[yellowarse]

GIC economist: SDP housing plan "excellent" <tbody> </tbody>

Added on: Monday Today Total comments: 0

Singapore Democrats Former GIC chief economist Mr Yeoh Lam Keong praised the SDP's alternative housing plan for Singapore as of "remarkably high quality and in-depth piece of research." Mr Yeoh made the remarks at the launch of Housing A Nation: Holistic Policies For Affordable Homes at the Quality Hotel yesterday. (Download the entire paperhere.) Mr Yeoh, who is also a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies and an adviser at the National University of Singapore and Singapore Management University, described the paper as "excellent". "Not only is the theory and methodology sound and rigorous, the empirical work seems well researched and remarkably detailed as well," he said. On the policy itself, Mr Yeoh said that the Non-Open Market (NOM) proposal is "coherently laid out and makes much sense in terms of the objective of potentially giving low-income and middle-class Singaporeans access to affordable, high-quality public housing." He added the SDP's principle to de-link HDB prices from the private cost of land is a "fundamentally sound one." He also highlighted the paper's discussion of the causes of asset price inflation and the dangers of an asset bubble in property, commenting that that these issues "are currently insufficiently tackled and highlighted by policy-makers." Mr Yeoh, who was Director of Economics and Strategy and Chief Economist at the GIC from 2000 to 2011, said that the paper "goes a long way" towards achieving its goal of outlining a holistic policy for affordable public housing in Singapore. "Considering the authors are approaching a complex, technically arcane area with not much available data, it discusses the main arguments and alternatives cogently, rigorously and very competently," the prominent economist pointed out. But Mr Yeoh also had a few suggestions to improve on the policy. First, he said, the NOM scheme was unnecessarily restrictive. He suggested allowing resale of NOM flats on the open market after a period of 10 years. The 10-year period should minimize any adverse impact on existing free-market prices of resale HDB flats. Furthermore, he added, HDB should allow singles to buy flats irrespective of age (currently at 35). He also wanted to see more emphasis on the need for a more extensive subsidised public rental market. Singapore needs to make such rental housing available to a large section of the population. Another well-regarded analyst, Mr Leong Sze Hian (pictured, right), also viewed the SDP plan positively, saying that the policy "may help to reduce much of the financial that so many Singaporeans face today." "I therefore suggest that the Government, stakeholders and Singaporeans engage with more ideas, feedback and suggestions, and to explore the possibility of refining and using some, if not all of the features in the SDP Housing Plan," Mr Leong urged. Mr Yeoh concurred, remarking that the policy "is a much needed kick start to a crucial national debate on affordable housing."

<tbody>
</tbody>

 

[tanwahp]

But Mr Yeoh also had a few suggestions to improve on the policy. First, he said, the NOM scheme was unnecessarily restrictive. He suggested allowing resale of NOM flats on the open market after a period of 10 years.

The 10-year period should minimize any adverse impact on existing free-market prices of resale HDB flats.

Yeoh's quite strange. He felt that the idea is a good one but is proposing an idea that is very fundamentally different from SDP. Selling flats back to HDB and keeping prices down are core values of SDP's NOM proposal. If the flats are sold to open market in 10 years, it comes back to square one.

Did he understand what he was listening to in SDP's proposal?

 

[yellowarse]

Yeoh's quite strange. He felt that the idea is a good one but is proposing an idea that is very fundamentally different from SDP. Selling flats back to HDB and keeping prices down are core values of SDP's NOM proposal. If the flats are sold to open market in 10 years, it comes back to square one.

Did he understand what he was listening to in SDP's proposal?

You have raised a very good point. And I agree with you totally.

Yeoh understood the plan, but he's still stuck to the old paradigm - give people cheap flats by not charging land component, but help them enhance their asset and reap capital gains without destabilizing the market. So 10 years (normal property cycle is 7-10 years) would be a good moratorium on selling.

To me that's merely delaying the inevitable asset bubble by 10 years.

Whereas - you pointed out correctly - the SDP's plan is focussed on keeping flats cheap and affordable through decoupling housing from land costs and discouraging people from treating public housing as an investment asset.

 

[tanwahp]

Yeoh understood the plan, but he's still stuck to the old paradigm.

I shall rephrase. He understands the plan, but may not comprehend it.

 

[mojito]

I shall rephrase. He understands the plan, but may not comprehend it.

He wants to have the cake and eat it too.

I like SDP's plan. I think new homeowners would appreciate it (pun unintended).

 

[valiant20]

Quick question.. Is there sufficient land left in Singapore to create that buffer stock? With the ever increasing population.. :(

 

[yellowarse]

Quick question.. Is there sufficient land left in Singapore to create that buffer stock? With the ever increasing population.. :(

Quick answer: Yes, there's enough land.

It's a myth that we have no more land, which plays into the PAP's strategy of artificially jacking up land prices through controlling land release. The govt owns up to 90% of the land in Singapore. Lots of the land are held in stock, lying fallow, yet to be released for development. The PAP knows that releasing these parcels more liberally will stabilize prices, but affect their revenues from land pricing as well the prices of the multi-million homes belonging to the elite and ministers.

 

[wMulew]

The fucking morons who support this needs to get their brains check.

 

[mojito]

Having gone through the full report once, I have just 1 criticism:

Suggesting the possibilities of converting OM flats to NOM flats is a good start, but clearly what was proposed is open to abuse. If the OM flat has changed hands several times, the government is obliged to foot the bill for the foolhardiness of current OM flat owners. This is a moral hazard, which can lead to resale prices going higher. I suggest you relook this again, until then I shall henceforth refer to this as the "SDP housing put option".

 

[zhihau]

Quick question.. Is there sufficient land left in Singapore to create that buffer stock? With the ever increasing population.. :(

the country clubs must be preserved to maintain our image as garden city

 

[Char_Azn]

This pic summarize why this plan is stupid beyond imagination

 

[yellowarse]

Having gone through the full report once, I have just 1 criticism:

Suggesting the possibilities of converting OM flats to NOM flats is a good start, but clearly what was proposed is open to abuse. If the OM flat has changed hands several times, the government is obliged to foot the bill for the foolhardiness of current OM flat owners. This is a moral hazard, which can lead to resale prices going higher. I suggest you relook this again, until then I shall henceforth refer to this as the "SDP housing put option".

Only OM flats bought from HDB are allowed conversion. OM flats bought on the resale market will have to be sold on the resale market. The govt should not be subsidizing the capital gains of resale flat sellers.

 

[mojito]

.

Quoting from real estate agents and property consultants whose ricebowl depend on buying and selling of properties?
Goh Meng Seng???

Ho boy, you PAP peons are foolish beyond belief.

 

[mojito]

Only OM flats bought from HDB are allowed conversion. OM flats bought on the resale market will have to be sold on the resale market. The govt should not be subsidizing the capital gains of resale flat sellers.

Thanks for clarifying. Plus rep

 

[yellowarse]

Despite his reservations about class divisiveness, Yeoh Lam Keong actually called the SDP plan "the best housing policy plan I've seen".