Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retirement

[Goh Meng Seng]

We refer to the interview of Minister Mah Bow Tan entitled “Mah Bow Tan on the frontline talking about HDB prices, COV and Elections” published in Lianhe Zaobao on 8th May 2010. On behalf of National Solidarity Party, I would like to make the following response:

We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly.

This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.

But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not.

Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.”

First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment!

Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”!

Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?

The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”!

We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

政府应该以成本价售新组屋而不是叫人民卖屋养老！

谨《联合早报》于2010年5月8日刊登之“谈屋价 谈溢价 谈大选 马宝山上火线”，我代表国民团结党作以下回应：

我们想提醒马宝山部长，建屋局居者有其屋计划的成功是建立在许许多多先辈们的牺牲和贡献上。如果没有土地征收法令赋予执政党权力，以超低价格向我们先辈们征收超过八成的土地，新加坡就没能发展得如此迅速，建屋局也不可能这么顺利执行居者有其屋计划。

这是我国开国以来的一大重要土地改革计划。只有在这大前提下，我们才能很好的去谈建屋局的角色和制定新组屋价格的机制。建屋局在头二十年里，履行了它在这土地改革计划的任务，那就是把征收回来的土地，建好组屋以成本价或甚至成本津贴价格，把土地重新分配给广大民众。这也就是建屋局的基本职责。那一些土地被强行征收的国人，大多数也没抗议，因他们了解这是为国家广大民众利益而做出牺牲。这就是人民和执政党的社会契约。当然，组屋的地契也只有99年。这为整个体系提供了稳定性，确保世世代代的新加坡人都能拥有房屋过一辈子。这就是整个土地改革、分配和住屋政策的基本概念。

马部长现在说“在售卖新组屋时，政府也不能以成本价出售，因为这意味屋主往后在售屋时也不能以市场价格销售。”我们不明白马部长的言论有何根据。我们的父辈曾经在90年代以前以低于成本价购得政府组屋，而如今他们也能够在公开市场上销售。这难道不是行动党政府的政策吗？政府以成本价出售新组屋仅是它履行那社会契约的承诺，这跟国人能不能在公开市场上销售他们的组屋根本是两码事！

马部长还说“居者有其屋政策对新加坡最有利，因为它最终能让屋主在退休年龄时卖屋赚取利润，以房养老。以成本价售屋是无法达成这个目的。”

第一， 一个家不是单纯的“投资”项目。人们只有把房地产当投资，而不是一个家。唯有人们在拥有第二间房子时，那才算是房地产投资！
第二， 如果国人无须面对超高屋价而须动用公积金负担起30年的房屋贷款的话，他们也无须面对被逼“卖屋养老”了！马部长的这番话根本是本末倒置的。
第三， 我们从来没有听过那一个先进国家或世界级的政府会叫他们的人民“卖屋养老”的！
第四， 马部长能担保每一代人都能在退休时能把屋子卖得好价钱吗？在一个迅速老化的国家里，这“卖屋养老”的计划真的行得通？从经济学的角度来看，这种计划根本是行不通的！在一个迅速老化的社会里，在未来的二、三十年里，老年人肯定比年轻人来得多。如果依马部长的计划，每个老人都须“卖屋养老”，那么卖屋子的人（老人）肯定比买屋子的人（年轻人）多！在这种情况之下，屋子的价钱怎么能好？

说穿了，问题的症结就在于新组屋的价格的升幅在过去30年里已经超过了人民的收入增长。我们父辈能以10年或15年付清他们的的房屋贷款，而如今我们却要我们的年轻一辈与下一代以30年房贷来购买组屋！如果他们30岁结婚买组屋，他们要等到60岁才能付完房贷。到时公积金里所剩无几，所以他们才需“卖屋养老”了！

我们在此呼吁马宝山部长与行动党，认真看待他们应负起的社会契约责任，而不是以似是而非的论调来推卸这责任。我们不期望执政党去干预组屋的公开市场。但我们希望建屋局履行它原本的职责，公布组屋建筑价格，把新组屋以成本价售予第一次购买组屋的国人。

吴明盛
国民团结党秘书长启

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

The Chinese daily Zaobao published our press release as follows:

http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp100511_018.shtml

团结党吁政府以成本价出售新组屋

（2010-05-11）



　　国民团结党呼吁政府在组屋政策上履行同民众这些年来达成的社会契约，以新组屋的成本价卖给第一次购买组屋的国人。

　　团结党秘书长吴明盛昨天针对国家发展部长马宝山日前接受本报专访的报道作出反应，指政府的“居者有其屋”计划之所以成功，少不了先辈们的牺牲和贡献，包括对土地征收法的授权。双方也为了让民众能拥有房子过活这个维持国家稳定的广大利益着想，以此达成了某种社会契约。

　　因此，他认为政府以成本价出售新组屋，仅是它履行这项社会契约的承诺。

　　“马部长现在说‘在售卖新组屋时，政府也不能以成本价出售，因为这意味屋主往后在售屋时也不能以市场价格销售。’我们不明白马部长的言论有何根据。我们的父辈曾经在90年代以前以低于成本价购得政府组屋，如今他们也能在公开市场上出售。这难道不是行动党政府的政策吗？”

　　吴明盛也就马宝山所说的以成本价售屋就无法达成以房养老的目的，提出他难以认同的理由。

　　他认为，只要屋价不是那么高，国人就无须动用大部分公积金支付房屋贷款而得“卖屋养老”。他也认为这个“卖屋养老”的计划在一个日益老龄化的社会中，根本行不通。

　　“在未来二三十年里，老年人肯定比年轻人来得多。如果依马部长的计划，每个老人都须‘卖屋养老’，那么卖屋子的人（老人）肯定比买屋子的人（年轻人）多！在这种情况下，屋子的价钱怎么能好？”

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

You sell flat to contest election, so Mah Bow Tan says might as well sell flat for retirement!

Anyway, it's not uncommon in the west (e.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia etc.) that retirees sell their homes for retirement.

However, they have cheap senior-rate subsidised retirement flats in certain retirees' districts. The retirees could comfortably afford these even if age 120 is taken as benchmark for depletion of capital raised from selling their homes and social security and/or pension plan benefits and payouts.

Some of these I've seen, were built in prime city areas to facilitate the convenience of old folks living alone and not able to drive anymore. Still the same senior-rate subsidised rental. In Singapore, of course, such lands would be considered too profitable to be wasted on old folks.

Singapore has contemplated this too. However, Mah's colleague Khaw Boon Wan recommended retirement villages in Johor. Some Singaporeans are even more innovative than Khaw. They take premature semi-retirements by setting up their own seaside semi-retirement resorts.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Singapore does not have such cheap alternatives for elderly people. Besides, for ageing population, that would mean over building of flats.

Goh Meng Seng

You sell flat to contest election, so Mah Bow Tan says might as well sell flat for retirement!

Anyway, it's not uncommon in the west (e.g. USA, Canada, UK, Australia etc.) that retirees sell their homes for retirement.

However, they have cheap senior-rate subsidised retirement flats in certain retirees' districts. The retirees could comfortably afford these even if age 120 is taken as benchmark for depletion of capital raised from selling their homes and social security and/or pension plan benefits and payouts.

Some of these I've seen, were built in prime city areas to facilitate the convenience of old folks living alone and not able to drive anymore. Still the same senior-rate subsidised rental. In Singapore, of course, such lands would be considered too profitable to be wasted on old folks.

Singapore has contemplated this too. However, Mah's colleague Khaw Boon Wan recommended retirement villages in Johor. Some Singaporeans are even more innovative than Khaw. They take premature semi-retirements by setting up their own seaside semi-retirement resorts.

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Singapore does not have such cheap alternatives for elderly people. Besides, for ageing population, that would mean over building of flats.

So how? Go live in Johor for retirement? Every now and then, Malaysia police come knock on your door remind you to go customs chop passport?

 

[manokie]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Singapore does not have such cheap alternatives for elderly people. Besides, for ageing population, that would mean over building of flats.

Goh Meng Seng

GMS, you need to improve your spoken english

It's a pain to see u on TV because u can't talk very well or put your point forward clearly
But thanks for the good work on the opposition side

 

[bryanlim1972]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

GMS - high HDB prices are a catch-22 situation.

current gov's plan for the next gen of retirees is the lease sell back scheme, and that's premised on increasing ppty prices.

if they price HDBs at costs, it is likely to dampen the rate of price increase, throwing a spanner into their best laid plans.

existing home owners will suffer too. would the PAP be willing/able to sacrifice such a large voting block?

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

GMS, you need to improve your spoken english

It's a pain to see u on TV because u can't talk very well or put your point forward clearly
But thanks for the good work on the opposition side

Yes, it was quite a pain. I've volunteered to be GMS English tutor. His grasp of polysyllablic diction must improve, otherwise he sounds like speaking pidgin or worse, struggling like failing to remember words or phrases.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Minister Mah : "ccb, you again ! get off my back, will you ?"

 

[longbow]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Aiyoh seems you cannot understand that if you pull underpinnings from HDB market whole property market will collapse.

And by the way, how much do you think it COST to buy a 4 rm HDB??? Yes I am talking about the thousands of BTO being released on an almost weekly basis? About $150K is building cost. So even if they gave the land for free (below cost since land has a mkt value) a flat still cost $150K. Then there is the infra of roads, sewerage, etc. All that can add a couple more thousand to the final price.

If you look at current flats for sale at $210K or so. You throw in a subsidy of $30K and you are close to $180K.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Longbow,

Construction cost of a 4 room flat is estimated to be $120K and this includes the cost of building the carpark, waste collection station etc. Throw in land cost, well, that is about $150k.

You are taking the "lowest" price of 4 room flat in the BTO. $210K refers to the lowest price, most probably a second floor unit. The range is $210K to $265K.

How much money HDB make? Go figure out.

Goh Meng Seng

Aiyoh seems you cannot understand that if you pull underpinnings from HDB market whole property market will collapse.

And by the way, how much do you think it COST to buy a 4 rm HDB??? Yes I am talking about the thousands of BTO being released on an almost weekly basis? About $150K is building cost. So even if they gave the land for free (below cost since land has a mkt value) a flat still cost $150K. Then there is the infra of roads, sewerage, etc. All that can add a couple more thousand to the final price.

If you look at current flats for sale at $210K or so. You throw in a subsidy of $30K and you are close to $180K.

 

[po2wq]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

... Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.” ...

sg hv cpf 4 wat? ... ppl hv cpf 4 retirement ... sg cpf is not 4 retirement? ...

so pathetic hv 2 sel flat 4 retirement? ... sel oredi, stay where? ... tel ppl 2 invest in layman bonds lagi betta! ... :o

 

[longbow]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Must not forget that there is grant involved. I have seen the figures - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build-To-Order_(HDB)

Cost to build for 4 rm flat is a bit higher than $120K more like $150K. So lets use $240k as selling price. That is a $90K premium but if you factor 30 year it comes to $350 a month in payment for those that can afford it. If you are borderline then choose the bottom floors for $210K (or even better chose a 3rm flat) and then apply for the $30K grant and that would bring you close to cost price.

Better method would be to price flats at market value like now - no repercusions to the market (a good thing) but introduce more grants for the needy. more studios and 2 rm flats for those that want to downgrade (makes sense right, elderly couple do not need 3 bed rooms and 1 room could be just right and more supply). Use the pte mickey mouse condo designs for inspiration.

HDB should look into building retirement flats and city plan it with convenient shuttle, community centres and hospitals nearby. The community centres should be tendered out not based on how much an organization can pay for rent but on how enriching the program is - perhaps a religious group could help run some of these centers.

The crux of the problem is not price of new HDB flat. There is no issue with affordability. But the problem is where the profits go. If the Gov uses the profits to subsidies poorer Singaporeans and or help senior retirement centres (free shuttle, activities) then it is fine. All 1st world Govs do that. But if the money goes to fund bloated bureaucracy or some surplus fund then there is a problem.

Longbow,

Construction cost of a 4 room flat is estimated to be $120K and this includes the cost of building the carpark, waste collection station etc. Throw in land cost, well, that is about $150k.

You are taking the "lowest" price of 4 room flat in the BTO. $210K refers to the lowest price, most probably a second floor unit. The range is $210K to $265K.

How much money HDB make? Go figure out.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[cass888]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

Dear Mr Secretary General

Are you forgetting that 80% of Singaporeans own their HDB flats?

Are you forgetting that if Minister Mah implements what you suggest, 80% of Singaporeans will be disenfranchised by the reduction in the value of their homes?

Come out clean and tell the 80% that you do not care about what they think.

We refer to the interview of Minister Mah Bow Tan entitled “Mah Bow Tan on the frontline talking about HDB prices, COV and Elections” published in Lianhe Zaobao on 8th May 2010. On behalf of National Solidarity Party, I would like to make the following response:

We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly.

This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.

But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not.

Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.”

First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment!

Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”!

Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?

The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”!

We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

 

[pocoyo]

Re: 政府应该以成本价售新组屋而不是叫人民卖屋养老！

谨《联合早报》于2010年5月8日刊登之“谈屋价 谈溢价 谈大选 马宝山上火线”，我代表国民团结党作以下回应：

我们想提醒马宝山部长，建屋局居者有其屋计划的成功是建立在许许多多先辈们的牺牲和贡献上。如果没有土地征收法令赋予执政党权力，以超低价格向我们先辈们征收超过八成的土地，新加坡就没能发展得如此迅速，建屋局也不可能这么顺利执行居者有其屋计划。

这是我国开国以来的一大重要土地改革计划。只有在这大前提下，我们才能很好的去谈建屋局的角色和制定新组屋价格的机制。建屋局在头二十年里，履行了它在这土地改革计划的任务，那就是把征收回来的土地，建好组屋以成本价或甚至成本津贴价格，把土地重新分配给广大民众。这也就是建屋局的基本职责。那一些土地被强行征收的国人，大多数也没抗议，因他们了解这是为国家广大民众利益而做出牺牲。这就是人民和执政党的社会契约。当然，组屋的地契也只有99年。这为整个体系提供了稳定性，确保世世代代的新加坡人都能拥有房屋过一辈子。这就是整个土地改革、分配和住屋政策的基本概念。

马部长现在说“在售卖新组屋时，政府也不能以成本价出售，因为这意味屋主往后在售屋时也不能以市场价格销售。”我们不明白马部长的言论有何根据。我们的父辈曾经在90年代以前以低于成本价购得政府组屋，而如今他们也能够在公开市场上销售。这难道不是行动党政府的政策吗？政府以成本价出售新组屋仅是它履行那社会契约的承诺，这跟国人能不能在公开市场上销售他们的组屋根本是两码事！

马部长还说“居者有其屋政策对新加坡最有利，因为它最终能让屋主在退休年龄时卖屋赚取利润，以房养老。以成本价售屋是无法达成这个目的。”

第一， 一个家不是单纯的“投资”项目。人们只有把房地产当投资，而不是一个家。唯有人们在拥有第二间房子时，那才算是房地产投资！
第二， 如果国人无须面对超高屋价而须动用公积金负担起30年的房屋贷款的话，他们也无须面对被逼“卖屋养老”了！马部长的这番话根本是本末倒置的。
第三， 我们从来没有听过那一个先进国家或世界级的政府会叫他们的人民“卖屋养老”的！
第四， 马部长能担保每一代人都能在退休时能把屋子卖得好价钱吗？在一个迅速老化的国家里，这“卖屋养老”的计划真的行得通？从经济学的角度来看，这种计划根本是行不通的！在一个迅速老化的社会里，在未来的二、三十年里，老年人肯定比年轻人来得多。如果依马部长的计划，每个老人都须“卖屋养老”，那么卖屋子的人（老人）肯定比买屋子的人（年轻人）多！在这种情况之下，屋子的价钱怎么能好？

说穿了，问题的症结就在于新组屋的价格的升幅在过去30年里已经超过了人民的收入增长。我们父辈能以10年或15年付清他们的的房屋贷款，而如今我们却要我们的年轻一辈与下一代以30年房贷来购买组屋！如果他们30岁结婚买组屋，他们要等到60岁才能付完房贷。到时公积金里所剩无几，所以他们才需“卖屋养老”了！

我们在此呼吁马宝山部长与行动党，认真看待他们应负起的社会契约责任，而不是以似是而非的论调来推卸这责任。我们不期望执政党去干预组屋的公开市场。但我们希望建屋局履行它原本的职责，公布组屋建筑价格，把新组屋以成本价售予第一次购买组屋的国人。

吴明盛
国民团结党秘书长启

好一个死缠烂打，打蛇随棍上！！！

 

[pocoyo]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

We refer to the interview of Minister Mah Bow Tan entitled “Mah Bow Tan on the frontline talking about HDB prices, COV and Elections” published in Lianhe Zaobao on 8th May 2010. On behalf of National Solidarity Party, I would like to make the following response:

We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly.

This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.

But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not.

Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.”

First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment!

Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”!

Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?

The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”!

We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

All along, I notice most chinese speaking elites in SG, will not bother to be involved in Politics. I mean in the past 30 to 40 years as what I know.

As for those involved, are mostly in the PAP wards. The famous one is like Ong Teng Cheong. The less famous one are like Seng Han Thong and Chan Soo Sen as I believe these two are also chinese speakers by origin.

Every now and then, I was wondering why they are not many chinese speaking elites involved in local politics. Because as you notice, PAP is largely formed and lead by english speaking elites. In fact, I suspect this is the main reason why PAP are arrogant by nature.

In my impression, english speaking elites that gone through pure western education mostly do not believe in the well being of common people which are a bunch of lesser mortal in their views. Because they always feel that they are more superior.

In contrast, I believe most chinese speaking elites by nature would be more down to earth due to the kind of education and values that are implanted in them.

It is until recent years that I see one of this example that has stepped into the Parliament successfully is Low Thia Khiang.

I will hope Goh Meng Seng would be the next one. Because I strongly believe we need more of such character to enter the Parliament to dilute the arrogance of the PAP.

Regards.

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

We refer to the interview of Minister Mah Bow Tan entitled “Mah Bow Tan on the frontline talking about HDB prices, COV and Elections” published in Lianhe Zaobao on 8th May 2010. On behalf of National Solidarity Party, I would like to make the following response:

We wish to remind Minister Mah Bow Tan that the success of HDB House Ownership scheme is built upon the sacrifices of our forefathers. Without the Land Acquisition Act which empowers and allows the ruling party to acquire almost 80% of land from our forefathers, Singapore would not be able to develop so rapidly and HDB would not be able to execute the House Ownership smoothly.

This is one of the most important land reforms since independence. We could only examine the role of HDB and the pricing mechanism for new HDB flats properly under this context. In its first 20 years, HDB has fulfilled its role under this land reform plan, i.e. utilize the acquired land to build HDB flats and sell them at cheap prices or even under cost to the people, in doing so, redistribute land to the people. This is the fundamental role of HDB. Most people who had their land forcefully acquired did not protest because they knew that they were making sacrifices for the people and the Nation. This is the social contract between the people and the ruling party. The HDB flats has only a 99-year lease and it provides stability to the whole system. It ensures future generations of Singaporeans will have a roof over their heads throughout their life span. This is the basic concept of land reform, distribution and public housing policy.

Goh, I can tell you 100% that people who were forced to sell definitely did protest, but in S'pore any protest against S'pore policies fall on deaf years. They sold not to make sacrifices for the people and the nation. They sold because the PAP bullied and make them sell it thru this law. The Land Acquisition Act is nothing more than legalised theft of real property by the PAP. Its pathetic that you would even condone something like this. Its one thing for the property to be acquired at market cost, but the Act required them to be sold at book value, which in many cases was less than 10cents on the dollar. The ACt started the slippery slope to gradual reduction in personal rights and liberties. Don't sugar coat this.

But now Minister Mah says, “The government cannot sell the new HDB flats at cost because this would mean that flat owners will not be able to sell it at market prices in future.” We do not understand on what basis does Minister Mah make such an assertion. Prior to 1990s, our father’s generation bought their HDB flats at cost or even under cost and now they can still sell their flats in the resale market at market prices. Isn’t this PAP’s policy? The government selling new HDB flats to Singaporeans at cost price has absolutely nothing to do with whether Singaporeans could sell off their flats in the open resale market or not.

Minister Mah also says, “The House Ownership Scheme is most beneficial to Singapore because it could ultimately allow house owners to sell their flats for a profit and use it for retirement. Selling flats at cost price would not achieve such aim.”

First of all, a HOME is not an “investment”. People only use properties as investment when they do not use it as a HOME. It is only when people have their second house then they could consider it as a “tool” for investment!

Secondly, if Singaporeans do not need to suffer from high HDB prices and use their CPF to pay for a 30-year mortgage, they will not need to “sell flats for retirement”! Minister Mah is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Thirdly, we can hardly imagine any first world country or world-class government asking their people to “sell house for retirement”!

Fourthly, can Minister Mah guarantee that each and every generation of Singaporeans can sell their flats at good prices when they retire? Can such scheme work in a rapidly aging society? From the economic perspective, it is totally unsound. In a rapidly aging society, there will be more elderly people than youngsters for the next 20 to 30 years, meaning more sellers of HDB flats than buyers! How can prices be good in such a market situation?

The root of the problem lies with the fact that prices of new HDB flats have outstripped income growth for the past 30 years. Our last generation paid only a 10 or 15-year mortgage for their HDB flats but now, our present and future generations will have to pay a 30-year mortgage for their new HDB flats! If they are married at 30 years old, they can only finish paying up their mortgage by 60 years old. By then, there will be little money left in their CPF. This is why they need to “sell flats for retirement”!

We call upon Minister Mah and PAP to take their responsibilities as embedded in the social contract of land reform seriously and fulfill them, instead of trying to shrug it off by using all sorts of flawed reasoning and excuses. We do not expect the ruling party to meddle with the resale market but we hope that HDB could resume its original role by publishing the cost of all new HDB flats and selling them at cost price to first time Singaporean buyers.

Goh Meng Seng
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party

The HDB and PAP cannot reverse their sales practice. U know this and they know this. If you think the cost is $120K, you are overestimating this by a factor of 2. Considering the land cost is almost zero to them. If they sell a flat at a true cost of say $80k (That is my estimate), they will cause an overnight collapse in the resale market and those who have booked. Imagine people in the last few years who paid anywhere from $250K to $400K for their new flats and now the HDB is flooding the market with flats build at cost from $80K to $120K. Those who have booked the BTO will be trying to get out of their contract. But those people will see the value of their flats drop like crazy. If I am in the market for a flat, whether resale or not, I will wait a couple of years to get these cheap flats. It will cause a negative equity situation with people who paid $400K for their flats only 2 years ago, as the value will plummet.

Lets call the whole public housing program for what it is. One of the PAP's best cash cows and money maker. What is their incentive for eliminating this cash cow by selling at cost or even below it? The fact that HDB prices have outstripped income is a deliberate act by the HDB. In fact, the rise in HDB prices have a much larger negative reaction than just causing the average singaporean's housing costs to go up. It has contributed to the lack of competitiveness in our economy, and hence the PAP's excuse to let in all these FTs. Imagine if your flat was only $120K. Your mortgage will be so small, you and your wife can each take a $1000 a month job and still survive comfortably. How can an FT than compete with you when he has to pay an agent a fee to come to singapore and work for the same amount? Its not hard to see that a lower HDB flat price equates to a lower mortgage, equates to a lower monthly salary, equates to more MNCs staying here and a much healthier economy. Now, you see the consequences.

Yes, we can call on this moron Mah to do it (lower HDB prices), but he will not. In his heart, he wants to sit you down and explain the situation like I have, but he can't. If you and the other oppo party members win the election, your hands are tied too. Its a tough situation.

 

[theDoors]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

An equal "opportunity event", such as another Asian currency crisis in 97 is needed to have a levelling effect to bring prices of HDB prices down.

It will be political suicide if the incumbent decides to tinker with the prices now. The dreams and aspirations of the newly weds can go to hell for all they care.

 

[Papsmearer]

Re: Sell New HDB flats at cost instead of asking citizens to sell flats for retiremen

An equal "opportunity event", such as another Asian currency crisis in 97 is needed to have a levelling effect to bring prices of HDB prices down.

It will be political suicide if the incumbent decides to tinker with the prices now. The dreams and aspirations of the newly weds can go to hell for all they care.

Yes, that is true. SOme external event has to happen. Plus with some manipulation on the part of the govt. to start back at zero again by selling new flats at cost. Infact, a govt. subsidy of some sort could assuage the pain of those who paid too much for their flats, thru no fault of theirs.