HDB for home stay?

[nightsafari]

At the end of the day, it's still not possible to satisfy every damned Sinkie.

Whether you like it or not, that is one of the defining characteristics of a democracy.

 

[JohnTan]

and rightly so. HDB is incredible compared to public housing in the rest of the world. As long as they keep doing what they're doing and keep it affordable.

HDB is still affordable and very desirable to sinkies. The affordability of HDB is pegged to a combination of cost of building, land costs and sinkies' median annual income.

Sinkies are welcome to move to HK and ballot for their version of HDB flats if they find PAP HDB flats too expensive and too small for their needs.

Tiny flats will make up a bigger part of next year’s batch of subsidised homes to be sold by Hong Kong’s Housing Authority, with some set to be as small as 186 sq ft – the equivalent of 1½ car parking spaces and the tiniest to be offered since the start of the Home Ownership Scheme in 1978.

The 320 small units, located in a development at the site of the former airport at Kai Tak, will be among the 8,926 subsidised flats to hit the market in the first quarter of next year, according to a source close to the Housing Authority.

About 30 per cent of the new batch will be smaller than 322 sq ft, the source said. Such flats are increasingly making up a bigger portion of the authority’s supply, accounting for 22 per cent in 2020 and 15 per cent in 2019.

 

[JohnTan]

Read my point 2 in the first post.

PAP already resolved point 2. Other than a minority of us from long ago, overwhelming majority of sinkies who own HDB flats do not own other residential private property.

 

[zhihau]

PAP already resolved point 2. Other than a minority of us from long ago, overwhelming majority of sinkies who own HDB flats do not own other residential private property.

It’s about ensuring and enforcing- holding multiple properties with a HDB in tow reduces the flat available for others. Would be good if HDB can run a check and maybe some MP should bring this up to Parliament.

 

[JohnTan]

It’s about ensuring and enforcing- holding multiple properties with a HDB in tow reduces the flat available for others. Would be good if HDB can run a check and maybe some MP should bring this up to Parliament.

It's easy enough to check on sinkies if they have multiple properties in Singapore. It's a lot harder to check on PRs who buy HDB flats here. If you have info on PRs owning properties back in their home country and HDB flat here, please inform your nearest RC. We'll investigate and take action against them.

 

[zhihau]

It's easy enough to check on sinkies if they have multiple properties in Singapore. It's a lot harder to check on PRs who buy HDB flats here. If you have info on PRs owning properties back in their home country and HDB flat here, please inform your nearest RC. We'll investigate and take action against them.

Thank you for the pointer.

 

[pvtpublic]

chinkland sells their apartments for 70 year lease. In Beijing and Shanghai, 70 year lease apartments. Housing costs range from around S$900 to S$1800 psf in Shanghai.

In Singapore, HDB resale flats are selling for about S$550 psf.

Oppies still think housing prices in Singapore is unrealistically high?

comparing the whole of Singapore to a Chinese Tier 1 city is incongruous

 

[winners]

It's easy enough to check on sinkies if they have multiple properties in Singapore. It's a lot harder to check on PRs who buy HDB flats here. If you have info on PRs owning properties back in their home country and HDB flat here, please inform your nearest RC. We'll investigate and take action against them.

It is perfectly legal for a Sinkie to have a HDB and private properties provided the HDB is acquired first before the others and only after the HDB's MOP with its loan fully paid or after 10 years from acquisition of the HDB. Those here are trying to advocate that all HDB owners are not allowed to have another private property and the government must put a stop to this. They are arguing this on the pretext that it is exactly this scenario that is causing today's BTO prices to continue to sky rocket. However, it is the HDB that sets the BTO prices, not current HDB owners. Furthermore, Sinkies are allowed only 2 times to buy new BTOs direct from the HDB and the second purchase even has to be an upgraded unit from their first unit. It is not like as if Sinkies are allowed unlimited times to purchase new BTOs direct from the HDB. So, their argument is totally invalid.

Their original intention is to petition the HDB to cap the BTO prices, but since this is not going to work, they are now targeting against those HDB owners with private properties. Sinkies are a selfish lot when they see their neighbors are more capable and prosperous than them. This is the hard truth. Every one starts with an equal opportunity in Singapore, so why can't they also strive to be like them instead of curtailing the others' progress?

 

[nightsafari]

It is perfectly legal for a Sinkie to have a HDB and private properties provided the HDB is acquired first before the others. Those here are trying to advocate that all HDB owners are not allowed to have another private property and the government should put a stop to this. They are arguing this on the pretext that it is exactly this scenario that is causing today's BTO prices to continue to sky rocket. However, it is the HDB that sets the BTO prices, not current HDB owners. So, their argument is totally invalid. Their original intention is to petition the HDB to cap the BTO prices, but since this is not going to work, they are now targeting against those HDB owners with private properties.

I see. I'm not advocating that people not be allowed to have more private properties. They can buy as much as they want. But allow the less fortunate more supply of HDB for more affordability.

Sinkies are a selfish lot when they see their neighbors are more capable and prosperous than them. Every one starts with an equal opportunity in Singapore, so why can't they also strive to be like them instead of curtailing the others' progress?

Selfish is an interesting word you use. Don't you really mean envious? If you are successful enough to have multiple properties, what do you need to to hold on to your HDB for? Why not release it into the market so that the less fortunate may benefit? You will have realized your gains and will continue to prosper with your private ones. Or is it more selfish to hold on to every single property and watch the less fortunate priced out of a home?

And no, not everyone starts with equal opportunity. Even with the same efforts, results can vary. As before, luck, education, family background all play a part. Maybe missing an arm or a leg? Born with handicaps? Do you then demand they work as hard as you?

But you are right in one respect. Sinkies are really a disgusting selfish lot.

 

[winners]

I see. I'm not advocating that people not be allowed to have more private properties. They can buy as much as they want. But allow the less fortunate more supply of HDB for more affordability.

This is the job of the HDB to supply more BTOs, not at the expense of the current HDB owners.

Selfish is an interesting word you use. Don't you really mean envious? If you are successful enough to have multiple properties, what do you need to to hold on to your HDB for? Why not release it into the market so that the less fortunate may benefit? You will have realized your gains and will continue to prosper with your private ones. Or is it more selfish to hold on to every single property and watch the less fortunate priced out of a home?

You are now contradicting yourself to your first point above. You are now hinting that it is wrong to have a HDB and another private property. On the same analogy, I started with a HDB with my hard earn effort and money, but why can't I retain it when I'm richer at a later stage? There's no logic in your argument because I've already said: current HDB owners don't set the prices of BTOs. Get it? Take your grievances to the HDB, not against current HDB owners with another private property.

And no, not everyone starts with equal opportunity. Even with the same efforts, results can vary. As before, luck, education, family background all play a part. Maybe missing an arm or a leg? Born with handicaps? Do you then demand they work as hard as you?

But you are right in one respect. Sinkies are really a disgusting selfish lot.

My interpretation of equal opportunity means same cost of education and job opportunities. I've said before that for those genuinely in need (eg: handicapped), they have other avenues to seek for help, eg: social welfare, charity organization, etc. You don't expect these people to be owning a HDB when they already have difficulties to maintain their own basic needs. How absurd can you be?

Sinkies are selfish because they just cannot accept the fact and will be very jealous (and envious as you've said) when their neighbors are doing better than them. I've already elaborated a live example of such a case before. And some of those here who are against HDB owners with private properties and advocating the HDB to take actions against such owners are the best examples. Need I say more? Just because my neighbor is driving a BMW whilst I'm riding a HONDA motorcycle, can I force my neighbor to give up his BMW so that CAT B COEs can be less costly because I too have always yearned to own a CAT B vehicle.

 

[nightsafari]

This is the job of the HDB to supply more BTOs, not at the expense of the current HDB owners.

Yes it is their job. Which is the original point.

You are now contradicting yourself to your first point above. You are now hinting that it is wrong to have a HDB and another private property. On the same analogy, I started with a HDB with my hard earn effort and money, but why can't I retain it when I'm richer at a later stage? There's no logic in your argument because I've already said: current HDB owners don't set the prices of BTOs. Get it? Take your grievances to the HDB, not against current HDB owners with another private property.

Where's the contradiction? and I'm not hinting at anything. It's all plainly stated. It's a question. Answer it or not, up to you. It's not an argument it's a question. What grievances do I have??? I've not stated that HDB owners set the prices. This entire paragraph doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you're drawing conclusions about points that I haven't made.

My interpretation of equal opportunity means same cost of education and job opportunities. I've said before that for those genuinely in need (eg: handicapped), they have other avenues to seek for help, eg: social welfare, charity organization, etc. You don't expect these people to be owning a HDB when they already have difficulties to maintain their own basic needs. How absurd you can be?

I leave it to other readers to decide how absurd anything written here is.

 

[winners]

Yes it is their job. Which is the original point.


Where's the contradiction? and I'm not hinting at anything. It's all plainly stated. It's a question. Answer it or not, up to you. It's not an argument it's a question. What grievances do I have??? I've not stated that HDB owners set the prices. This entire paragraph doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you're drawing conclusions about points that I haven't made.

I leave it to other readers to decide how absurd anything written here is.

When you refused to accept what you've said and meant, there's nothing much more I can do. It's clearly highlighted by me in bold. Just don't target against those current HDB owners with private properties since you've also agreed that "it is their job". Why then does the need to bring in about HDB owners having to give up their units when they do acquire private property at a later stage? Explain to me? It is totally unrelated and uncalled for.

To tell the HDB to build more flats and whether they will abide to this are 2 different matters, unless you are the government of the day.

 

[nightsafari]

When you refused to accept what you've said and meant, there' nothing much more I can do. It's clearly in black and white.

Wait a second. I don't refuse to accept anything you have said. I have presented points to consider. Counterpoints to your points sometimes. I may not agree with you, but I am here to listen to what you have to say. Even if we disagree, I'm still happy to hear your view. And even if you don't agree, I am willing to accept your view.

Just don't target against those current HDB owners with private properties since you've also agreed that "it is their job". Why then does the need to bring in about HDB owners having to give up their units when they do acquire private property at a later stage? Explain to me? It is totally unrelated.

Targeting? Please rest assured asking you to consider something is not the same as demanding you do as I say.

To clarify this point to be sure, I am not demanding that you give up anything. I am asking you to consider that HDB should keep it's policy in line with it's original creation. That housing should be for everyone. That is the main point. One of the additional points I am putting up for discussion is to consider encouraging holders of multiple properties to have incentives to return the HDB to the open market to improve supply. This is an additional point. Agree or disagree as you see fit.

So I am also asking you to consider a social conscience. That everything is not just about your personal achievement, but rather the well being of your whole society as well. I will say that personal achievement is the 1st step. If you are in a position to hold multiple properties, consider that your single cheapest, lousiest property can serve it's best use being returned to the open market. Again, feel free to disagree. If you feel that you should hold on to everything that is your choice.

This is a forum, not a courtroom. I've presented some ideas that I've clarified above, but they are just ideas for discussion.

Since I'm here, I also ask that you consider the welfare of the less fortunate to be everyone's problem. Not just special interest groups like charities. Again, please feel free to disagree.

Thank you for listening.

 

[zhihau]

It is perfectly legal for a Sinkie to have a HDB and private properties provided the HDB is acquired first before the others and only after the HDB's MOP with its loan fully paid or after 10 years from acquisition of the HDB.

So is HDB for Home Stay?

 

[winners]

To clarify this point to be sure, I am not demanding that you give up anything. I am asking you to consider that HDB should keep it's policy in line with it's original creation. That housing should be for everyone. That is the main point. One of the additional points I am putting up for discussion is to consider encouraging holders of multiple properties to have incentives to return the HDB to the open market to improve supply. This is an additional point. Agree or disagree as you see fit.

I agree with you on this. That's why I've said before, take your unhappiness and grievances about rising new HDB prices directly to the HDB. They are the ones who built new flats, they are the ones who set their prices, not current HDB owners.

Whether or not one with multiple private properties is willing to let go of his HDB is at their discretion. Some like me, had worked hard to earn for my first HDB and will definitely not be encouraged to do as such because I didn't steal for being richer today. Besides, by releasing it to the resale market, will it really helps to alleviate ever rising resale HDB prices? I very much doubt so. Land is scarce is Singapore and there is only so much they can build. That is also why HDB blocks are getting up to 50 storeys today (or even higher in the future), which was never imagined 30 years ago.

So I am also asking you to consider a social conscience. That everything is not just about your personal achievement, but rather the well being of your whole society as well. I will say that personal achievement is the 1st step. If you are in a position to hold multiple properties, consider that your single cheapest, lousiest property can serve it's best use being returned to the open market. Again, feel free to disagree. If you feel that you should hold on to everything that is your choice.

By returning to the resale market is not a feasible nor definite solution to curb rising HDB prices. The main topic of discussion here is to curb rising new HDB prices and the only solution is for the HDB to act on it. Even if you were to suggest that HDB will buy back from owners (with private properties), @JohnTan had already said that HDB is most reluctant to spend the monies to repurchase at prevailing market prices, because they know very well that come 99 years later, they have every right to acquire back the HDB without any compensation whatsoever.

This is a forum, not a courtroom. I've presented some ideas that I've clarified above, but they are just ideas for discussion.

Since I'm here, I also ask that you consider the welfare of the less fortunate to be everyone's problem. Not just special interest groups like charities. Again, please feel free to disagree.

No doubt this is a forum. But I find that your ideas, particularly to encourage HDB owners with private properties to relinquish their HDB back to the resale market will not deter rising HDB prices. Furthermore, the primary concern here is rising new BTO prices. This is the responsibility of the HDB, not HDB owners. I would propose that HDB be split into 2 entities: one for serving the richer with better quality housing needs and facilities, whilst the other providing just the basic bare-bone HDBs to the less abled. Isn't this the best resolver to the argument in this thread? But I can assure you that there will be complaints again because the people will say why this discrimination? I am also a Sinkie and I pay taxes as well.

Thank you for listening.

In the end, we all strive to make Singapore a better living place. but do consider not at the expense of the richer, which Winnie is trying to impose in China presently, but I believe it will eventually fail miserably.

 

[winners]

So is HDB for Home Stay?

Eventually, it still belongs to the owner and he has every right to keep it for his children in the future. Why can't he monetized it to earn some income during this interim period? What is wrong with this?

 

[zhihau]

Eventually, it still belongs to the owner and he has every right to keep it for his children in the future. Why can't he monetized it to earn some income during this interim period? What is wrong with this?

Read post 1.

 

[winners]

Read post 1.

Don't dream because HDB will never agree to buy back at the current value as they don't need to. Why? They know that at the end of the 99-year lease, they will be able to have them back for free. And you expect the HDB to be your instant ATM where I had paid S$250k 25 years ago, but I can now sell it back to the HDB at S$600k today? The government is not a fool. They also do not entirely close an eye on this as HDB grants are provided for new HDB applicants with selected conditions. These HDB grants are fully given to them eventually if they will comply to the terms and conditions set out by the HDB.

 

[zhihau]

Don't dream because HDB will never agree to buy back at the current value as they don't need to. Why? They know that at the end of the 99-year lease, they will be able to have them back for free. And you expect the HDB to be your instant ATM where I had paid S$250k 25 years ago, but I can now sell it back to the HDB at S$600k today? The government is not a fool. They also do not entirely close an eye on this as HDB grants are provided for new HDB applicants with selected conditions. These HDB grants are fully given to them eventually if they will comply to the terms and conditions set out by the HDB.

Hence HDB dug themselves a hole, made worse with the asset enhancement scheme. Therefore the need for cooling measures?

 

[JohnTan]

@JohnTan had already said that HDB is most reluctant to spend the monies to repurchase at prevailing market prices, because they know very well that come 99 years later, they have every right to acquire back the HDB without any compensation whatsoever.

I also mentioned that HDB simply doesn't have the money to do so, without taking on huge amounts of debt. In the US, there is a listed company called Zillow, which took on huge amounts of debt to buy residential property from their owners, fix them up and then resell them. It takes time to sell the new property, and there is always a business risk that Zillow might be unable to sell the property or forced to sell at a loss if the property market sours. It's just not good business sense for HDB to take on huge amounts of debt to follow a similar business model.