- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
Aug 28, 2010
Why it's not right to privatise my HUDC
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
A RECENT dialogue on privatising the Hougang HUDC estate where I live, organised by the authorities and the adviser of my grassroots organisation, Mr Eric Low, has convinced me against the idea.
Dialogue participants were told that the only way for our 25-year-old estate to improve in future was through privatisation as HUDCs do not enjoy upgrading schemes like Housing Board flats.
However, subsequent upgrading costs following privatisation are borne by residents. While the existing policy helps residents attain the aspirations of living in a private estate, there is no guarantee of this once our estate is privatised.
For one thing, because there is limited space for any meaningful development to happen, a likelier long-term prospect is an en bloc sale, which will provide a chance for encashment but leave us with no sense of our memories and homes.
And what about the social cost of privatisation? The estate is now open to all, but privatisation will imprison us as a gated community.
This denies us easy access to our neighbouring estates, and draws a divide between us and the neighbouring blocks that we have been part of for so long. I am not a car owner, but I understand this would also cut us off from access to public carparks too.
Finally, the privatisation exercise is unfair because it is loaded in favour of approval.
The three-year cap on the cost of privatisation only encourages residents to vote for it before it is too late.
This was also brought up several times by adviser Eric Low, who I had hoped would remain neutral, but was not.
Justin Zhuang
Why it's not right to privatise my HUDC
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
A RECENT dialogue on privatising the Hougang HUDC estate where I live, organised by the authorities and the adviser of my grassroots organisation, Mr Eric Low, has convinced me against the idea.
Dialogue participants were told that the only way for our 25-year-old estate to improve in future was through privatisation as HUDCs do not enjoy upgrading schemes like Housing Board flats.
However, subsequent upgrading costs following privatisation are borne by residents. While the existing policy helps residents attain the aspirations of living in a private estate, there is no guarantee of this once our estate is privatised.
For one thing, because there is limited space for any meaningful development to happen, a likelier long-term prospect is an en bloc sale, which will provide a chance for encashment but leave us with no sense of our memories and homes.
And what about the social cost of privatisation? The estate is now open to all, but privatisation will imprison us as a gated community.
This denies us easy access to our neighbouring estates, and draws a divide between us and the neighbouring blocks that we have been part of for so long. I am not a car owner, but I understand this would also cut us off from access to public carparks too.
Finally, the privatisation exercise is unfair because it is loaded in favour of approval.
The three-year cap on the cost of privatisation only encourages residents to vote for it before it is too late.
This was also brought up several times by adviser Eric Low, who I had hoped would remain neutral, but was not.
Justin Zhuang
