Confused/ Bizarre TOC Story

[scroobal]

Is this article poorly written or is this family's story totally bizarre. Daughter married and living in Australia. Husband working and living in Malaysia. Property in Malaysia. Mother and son income status not known. Then we have the mother's husband.





[h=2]HDB SERS: Family loses flat of 16 years over technicality[/h] Posted by theonlinecitizen on September 12, 2011 25 Comments

by Leong Sze Hian, Lee Mei Hwee and Alex Lew

Mrs Tay (not her real name) has been the owner, together with her daughter, of a 3-room HDB flat for 16 years.
In 2005, she and her daughter were asked to select a replacement flat under the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).
Although her husband, a Malaysian working in Malaysia was not staying with her, she casually asked the HDB SERS officers whether he needs to be listed as an occupier.
She was advised that although it was not necessary, she may like to include him as he would occasionally come to stay with them, even though he did not even have a long-term visit pass.
In January this year, her new replacement flat was ready and they went to collect their keys.
During the keys collection, she casually enquired as to whether she should take her daughter’s name out, leaving herself and her son as the flat owners, because her daughter is married and living in Australia.
She was advised to fill a new form, to take her daughter’s name out, as she may want to buy her own flat in the future.
So, whilst completing the new form, they answered ‘yes’ truthfully to the question that her Malaysian husband had bought a property in Malaysia after the SERS announcement in 2005.
They were then told that they had breached the condition that no listed occupier are allowed to buy a private property in Singapore or a foreign country.
They have no flat now, and were compensated with $192,000 for having given up her flat under SERS.
A 3-room resale flat in her area now cost more than $400,000.
They have appealed to their Member of Parliament and HDB over the last six months or so, but to no avail.
Their last letter of appeal to HDB in July, ended with the following sentence:-

“We (my son, my husband and myself) can and want to serve and contribute to Singapore for many more years. This is our home, we love what we are doing, which is beneficial to society. So, please look into our request favourably, and grant us the home which we are about to lose”.
​

Even at the new flat keys collection, the Malaysian husband is also not absolutely required to be listed as an occupier, as the flat’s owners are Mrs Tay and her son.
There was also some confusion as Mrs Tay’s daughter wrote that in a letter from the HDB on the SERS replacement flat, it was advised that owners of private property were not eligible for a HDB loan. So, one may have been confused into thinking that it was alright to own a private property to get a SERS flat, but not a HDB loan only.
In fact, owners of a HDB flat for more than five years have been allowed to own private property at the same time provided they stay in the HDB flat. So, since this was the rule at the time of the SERS in 2005, wouldn’t it be confusing as some may not realize that a new condition on private property ownership was imposed.
If you take a person’s flat away and give him/her a new replacement, is it fair to impose this new condition, which would not be there had he/she continued to own the flat, if not for being “forced” to En-Bloc?
Her husband has given up his ownership of the Malaysian property to appeal to the HDB, but has been rejected.

 

[Glaringly]

If I read it and taking out the "foreign elements" and replace with Singaporean and owner of Singapore private property.

The article seems to imply there's a new rule being applied. And that means, though it is an forced en-bloc you may end up not eligible for a replacement.

 

[kingrant]

There are actually the woman, her husband, her son and daughter.

All would have been simple and free of encumberance if the woman had just registered herself with her son, and not mentioned the husband and daughter at all.

Even if they came back to "occupy" as short long-term stayers or long short-term stayers, just keep quiet and who will know?

That's the trouble - trying to be kiasu and covering all bases, and then don't know how to tell white lies or siam. Or she got wrong advice.

The HDB didnt seem to be in the wrong, as it was merely following all the rules. In the end, the husband also stupid - went and sold the Malaysian property for fuck?

 

[wikiphile]

There are actually the woman, her husband, her son and daughter.

All would have been simple and free of encumberance if the woman had just registered herself with her son, and not mentioned the husband and daughter at all.

Even if they came back to "occupy" as short long-term stayers or long short-term stayers, just keep quiet and who will know?

That's the trouble - trying to be kiasu and covering all bases, and then don't know how to tell white lies or siam. Or she got wrong advice.

The HDB didnt seem to be in the wrong, as it was merely following all the rules. In the end, the husband also stupid - went and sold the Malaysian property for fuck?

This whole situation is pretty complex, reading the comments on TOC the commentors are more interested in fucking HDB rather than ascertaining facts. The PAP deserves to be blamed though, for the past 52 years they have never bothered to explain what they do properly to the populace, right or wrong. And today they find themselves on the recieving end in the social media arena.

 

[refulgence]

A classic example of how ignorant sinkies screw themselves up.

 

[da dick]

The HDB didnt seem to be in the wrong, as it was merely following all the rules. In the end, the husband also stupid - went and sold the Malaysian property for fuck?

ya loh. sell property just to get a overpriced HDB flat. nonsense. if they have money to buy other property n send daughter overseas, then they can afford to just rent a small condo for the mother and son. that might be a lot more cheaper in the long run.

 

[mojito]

Ok, I read it two or three times and several things registered:
- Mrs Tay and her husband collectively own the HDB flat and the Malaysian property
- Through an en-bloc exercise, she is no longer eligible for a replacement flat because some unknown rule essentially barred her from owning a foreign property and a HDB flat simultaneously

Qn1: Should people with investment property locally or overseas be barred from owning public housing in SG?

Qn2: Should it be assumed that ownership of another property means a replacement will not be necessary in the event of an en-bloc?

Qn3: Should Singaporeans living overseas (her daughter) be entitled to own a HDB flat when she does not reside in SG?

Qn4: Is the compensation for en-bloc reasonable?


My take?
They are simply unhappy with the enbloc compensation.
Screw the property flippers. HDB flats are public goods. If you own private properties beyond the HDB flat, you are unlikely to need public housing.
HDB should clarify the rules to the public, and communicate it to all buyers of the HDB properties if not already done so on small print.

 

[Fook Seng]

Ok, I read it two or three times and several things registered:
- Mrs Tay and her husband collectively own the HDB flat and the Malaysian property
- Through an en-bloc exercise, she is no longer eligible for a replacement flat because some unknown rule essentially barred her from owning a foreign property and a HDB flat simultaneously

Qn1: Should people with investment property locally or overseas be barred from owning public housing in SG?

Qn2: Should it be assumed that ownership of another property means a replacement will not be necessary in the event of an en-bloc?

Qn3: Should Singaporeans living overseas (her daughter) be entitled to own a HDB flat when she does not reside in SG?

Qn4: Is the compensation for en-bloc reasonable?

My take?
They are simply unhappy with the enbloc compensation.
Screw the property flippers. HDB flats are public goods. If you own private properties beyond the HDB flat, you are unlikely to need public housing.
HDB should clarify the rules to the public, and communicate it to all buyers of the HDB properties if not already done so on small print.

The question to Qn1 to 3 shouldn't be Should. It should be Why.

 

[kingrant]

It wasnt stated that her husband was also the co-owner. Acc to the post, in the very first sentence, Mrs Tay and her daughter owned and lived in the flat for 16 years. So only the husband cannot own a HDB in his name or joint names. Her mistake was to list the husband's name as an occupier and that tied the HDB's hands. If she had not listed him, she would be happily getting her keys now. Anyhow, I think it was obvious that she wanted the cake and eat it too. But not smart enough to avoid being painted into a corner herself.

As the law stands now, it is unfair law because those already owned HDB flats were not told to relinquish their private properties, whereas those owning private props are barred from buying HDB. To be equitable, those presently owning HDB flats shoud also give up their private props.

Ok, I read it two or three times and several things registered:
- Mrs Tay and her husband collectively own the HDB flat and the Malaysian property
- Through an en-bloc exercise, she is no longer eligible for a replacement flat because some unknown rule essentially barred her from owning a foreign property and a HDB flat simultaneously

Qn1: Should people with investment property locally or overseas be barred from owning public housing in SG?

Qn2: Should it be assumed that ownership of another property means a replacement will not be necessary in the event of an en-bloc?

Qn3: Should Singaporeans living overseas (her daughter) be entitled to own a HDB flat when she does not reside in SG?

Qn4: Is the compensation for en-bloc reasonable?


My take?
They are simply unhappy with the enbloc compensation.
Screw the property flippers. HDB flats are public goods. If you own private properties beyond the HDB flat, you are unlikely to need public housing.
HDB should clarify the rules to the public, and communicate it to all buyers of the HDB properties if not already done so on small print.

 

[scroobal]

The authors behind this article need to be shot.

There has to be more to this story. You cannot deny someone a replacement flat for a mandatory en-bloc.

 

[Fook Seng]

The new policy is a very dangerous policy maintain over a long time as it limits the investment choices of HDB home-owners. Although it alleviates the problem of flat shortage, it can bring incalculable damage to the economy by removing a significant investment segment from the market. Also what will be the impact on the risk-taking attitude of our people?

 

[refulgence]

The new policy is a very dangerous policy maintain over a long time as it limits the investment choices of HDB home-owners. Although it alleviates the problem of flat shortage, it can bring incalculable damage to the economy by removing a significant investment segment from the market. Also what will be the impact on the risk-taking attitude of our people?

The policy was implemented by MBT's administration without due consideration of important ramifications.

 

[kingrant]

I would tend to agree. Based on principle of equity, what the family did until SERS is case a priori history and so should not be denied a replacement flat. New rules against private prop ownership should not apply retrospectively.

The authors behind this article need to be shot.

There has to be more to this story. You cannot deny someone a replacement flat for a mandatory en-bloc.

 

[kingrant]

I am actually taking umbrage at the fact that HDB owners can still buy private props but not conversely, private prop owners cannot buy HDB flats even if they accept to stay in them. This is not at all fair. MBT should be shot - twice.

The new policy is a very dangerous policy maintain over a long time as it limits the investment choices of HDB home-owners. Although it alleviates the problem of flat shortage, it can bring incalculable damage to the economy by removing a significant investment segment from the market. Also what will be the impact on the risk-taking attitude of our people?

 

[mojito]

It wasnt stated that her husband was also the co-owner. Acc to the post, in the very first sentence, Mrs Tay and her daughter owned and lived in the flat for 16 years. So only the husband cannot own a HDB in his name or joint names. Her mistake was to list the husband's name as an occupier and that tied the HDB's hands. If she had not listed him, she would be happily getting her keys now. Anyhow, I think it was obvious that she wanted the cake and eat it too. But not smart enough to avoid being painted into a corner herself.

As the law stands now, it is unfair law because those already owned HDB flats were not told to relinquish their private properties, whereas those owning private props are barred from buying HDB. To be equitable, those presently owning HDB flats shoud also give up their private props.

Yes, the outcome is inherently unfair because those presently owning HDB flats are not made to relinquish their private properties unless there is an en-bloc (in order to get a replacement unit).

Further to that,

1) There seems to be an implicit rule which implies the need to have at least one other joint owner to the HDB flat. Why can't there be only one owner? Is there some social outcome that is desired from this rule?

2) When the daughter's name was taken out and the husband's name included, the protagonist could not, or chose not to include her son as the co-owner. Is it because her son does not qualify for ownership under present rules, naming of the son as owner could not be applied retrospectively, or that he would like to retain the option to buy another HDB unit on his own in the future?

3) Did the MP refuse to entertain her appeals or her MP's appeals were met with rejections from HDB? Surely HDB would give proper response to a PAP MP citing reasons for refusal.

This episode does illustrate the fact that HDB ownership comes with byzantine rules involving multiple considerations over time, and the red tape ought to be simplified to avoid contentions and close loopholes. It also shows that buying a HDB flat is not merely a simple commercial transaction between the buyer and the government agency which often people assume. Often there are embedded conditions for ownership imposed by the agency to promote social goals.

 

[mojito]

Their last letter of appeal to HDB in July, ended with the following sentence:-

“We (my son, my husband and myself) can and want to serve and contribute to Singapore for many more years. This is our home, we love what we are doing, which is beneficial to society. So, please look into our request favourably, and grant us the home which we are about to lose”.
​

On a lighter note, this sounds like a prayer to some deity for deliverance.

 

[steffychun]

TOC is shit, but TRE is the shittiest

 

[mojito]

The new policy is a very dangerous policy maintain over a long time as it limits the investment choices of HDB home-owners. Although it alleviates the problem of flat shortage, it can bring incalculable damage to the economy by removing a significant investment segment from the market. Also what will be the impact on the risk-taking attitude of our people?

I am unclear on the specifics of the new policy so it is difficult for me to comment. However, I will make the case that HDB residents have many investment choices beyond leveraged asset purchases (i.e. housing). Furthermore, there are socially beneficial risk-taking activities (such as entrepreneurship and comedy) and socially undesirable ones (such as speculation and unprotected sex).

'Investments' into housing assets will spur demand for new real estate developments beyond the demand from people who actually need to use it. This can only cause problems later.

 

[mojito]

The authors behind this article need to be shot.

There has to be more to this story. You cannot deny someone a replacement flat for a mandatory en-bloc.

Perhaps there are good reasons for information to be withheld, in order to advance the case or to bait a weak response from HDB.

Besides, I would give the TOC crew a thumbs up for trying. Under the impression that they are undertaking this case pro bono. As (mostly) unpaid bloggers and journalists on a voluntary cause, I wouldn't expect high levels of journalistic professionalism. They do alright I think.

 

[kingrant]

To be fair, all involved in SERS ought to be able to get their replacement flats without having to jump through loops and hoops again. People who have lived in flats for a long time def would have moved on, got married, divorced, prospered or made other investments, so applying the rules as if they are a new family application is not fair. Is HDB meaning that they expect you to be at a standstill in yr life until SERS? This is SERS replacement policy and so HDB ought to be shot thrice. If govt takes away one flat they should give you back one. The family should be just given their replacement flat with no questions asked.