- Joined
- Mar 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,160
- Points
- 0
Open-door immigration & high cost of homes
Posted by Ng E-Jay on November 1, 2010
By See Leong Kit
(Letter was rejected for publication by mainstream press.)
I refer to your report “Cut ties to Singapore and lose your right to own land” (TODAY Oct 20).
As a 60-something educated Singaporean, I empathise with the rightful concerns of younger Singaporeans over the two related issues of immigration and non-citizens (foreigners, permanent residents) being allowed to purchase property here.
If cars here get too ridiculously costly, Singaporeans can at least fall back on public transport. However, home ownership (roof over one’s head) is central to The Singapore Dream.
The PAP Government need to manage such issues carefully because of their long-term consequences. Otherwise, our children, nephews and nieces will ask these searching questions:
Why bother to study hard or work hard when making big bucks through property speculation and casino gambling seem so easy?
Why sacrifice two years in National Service to defend Singapore when a HDB resale flat may soon cost over a million dollars and out of reach, never mind the private condo dream home?
How to treat Singapore as Home (in both physical and emotional sense)? Is the national song title “Count On Me, Singapore” or “Count Money, Singapore”?
Firstly, the issue of immigration. Most educated Singaporeans can readily accept its underlying rationale.
However, the peeve arose from its misguided implementation — the opening of the flood-gates and frantic pace that led to our population nearly doubling from 3 million to 5 million within the past few years. Clearly, hardly any forethought on the inevitable strain on our housing market, transport system, schools and university enrolment.
Secondly, the impact on our property market. It being largely sentiment-driven, even a few super-rich non-citizens paying sky-high prices will help push up prices sufficiently to cause home-ownership misery for many middle-income Singaporeans and even more so for the less well-off. A Singapore PR from China recently paid a whopping $36 million for a 99-year leasehold Sentosa bungalow.
Remember how the US sub-prime mortgage crisis led to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis that brought recession to Singapore and job losses for Singaporeans? And how once-mighty economic power Japan is still reeling from two decades of economic stagnation from its stock and property bubbles?
Even Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang could say “Housing is currently the greatest concern of our people. Many find it unnerving that property prices have kept rising and years of hard-earned savings cannot even cover a down payment.”
Minister Mah Bow Tan recently said that as a cosmopolitan city, it was important for Singapore to let non-citizens buy properties here. If so, why not blindly follow other cosmopolitan cities in allowing the sale of Playboy magazine here?
He has forgotten our basic constraint — Singapore is a very tiny island and unlike other cosmopolitan cities such as New York, London, Sydney with their huge surrounding hinterland.
How do Chinese actress Vicki Zhao and her property tycoon husband Huang Youlong, both Singapore Permanent Residents in their 30s, really fit the description of “foreign talents contributing to our economy and creating jobs for Singaporeans”? They own an Orchard Road luxurious condominium, and clearly stated both have no intention to take up Singapore citizenship. Is this not treating Singapore merely as a “stepping stone”? Has our political flirtation with China gone over-board?
Not surprisingly, Singapore is a choice destination for many immigrants — English-speaking, safe with law and order, many international schools, high-paying jobs available, wide choice of accommodation, etc. We are even one up on Hong Kong with its permanently polluted air.
A recent survey also revealed that Singapore is home to the largest proportion of high-earning expatriates compared to 24 other countries. 45% of expatriates living and working here are earning more than US$200,000 (S$265,000) annually, compared to the worldwide average of 21%. In contrast, less than 10% of employed Singapore households earn S$265,000 or more.
So, if the “non-citizen guests” are enjoying the good life here, why do this “host country” need to bend backwards with such overly generous privileges as allowing Foreigners & Singapore PRs to directly purchase property (both private and HDB) in our tiny land-scarce island? With their handsome salaries, they can always rent accommodation. If they want to invest in our property market, they can always do so through the indirect route of REITs and shares of listed property companies.
Here is a workable action plan for Minister Mah to walk the talk on “Singaporeans Come First”:
Only Singapore citizens can own Singapore property (whether landed homes, private condos or HDB resale flats). Foreigners and Singapore PRs can always rent accommodation from the wide variety available to suit different budgets.
National Development and Housing Board officials to monitor closely both private and HDB property markets to plug speculation loopholes so as to develop an “orderly” market of sustainable moderate prices. Whereas a “speculative” market will lead to sky-rocketing prices and rising public anger.
With moderate prices, older Singaporeans with sufficient savings can then afford to buy a second property to generate rental income for their retirement. The resultant moderate rental levels will also benefit non-citizens as tenants. So this a win-win situation for both citizens and non-citizens.
Posted by Ng E-Jay on November 1, 2010
By See Leong Kit
(Letter was rejected for publication by mainstream press.)
I refer to your report “Cut ties to Singapore and lose your right to own land” (TODAY Oct 20).
As a 60-something educated Singaporean, I empathise with the rightful concerns of younger Singaporeans over the two related issues of immigration and non-citizens (foreigners, permanent residents) being allowed to purchase property here.
If cars here get too ridiculously costly, Singaporeans can at least fall back on public transport. However, home ownership (roof over one’s head) is central to The Singapore Dream.
The PAP Government need to manage such issues carefully because of their long-term consequences. Otherwise, our children, nephews and nieces will ask these searching questions:
Why bother to study hard or work hard when making big bucks through property speculation and casino gambling seem so easy?
Why sacrifice two years in National Service to defend Singapore when a HDB resale flat may soon cost over a million dollars and out of reach, never mind the private condo dream home?
How to treat Singapore as Home (in both physical and emotional sense)? Is the national song title “Count On Me, Singapore” or “Count Money, Singapore”?
Firstly, the issue of immigration. Most educated Singaporeans can readily accept its underlying rationale.
However, the peeve arose from its misguided implementation — the opening of the flood-gates and frantic pace that led to our population nearly doubling from 3 million to 5 million within the past few years. Clearly, hardly any forethought on the inevitable strain on our housing market, transport system, schools and university enrolment.
Secondly, the impact on our property market. It being largely sentiment-driven, even a few super-rich non-citizens paying sky-high prices will help push up prices sufficiently to cause home-ownership misery for many middle-income Singaporeans and even more so for the less well-off. A Singapore PR from China recently paid a whopping $36 million for a 99-year leasehold Sentosa bungalow.
Remember how the US sub-prime mortgage crisis led to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis that brought recession to Singapore and job losses for Singaporeans? And how once-mighty economic power Japan is still reeling from two decades of economic stagnation from its stock and property bubbles?
Even Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang could say “Housing is currently the greatest concern of our people. Many find it unnerving that property prices have kept rising and years of hard-earned savings cannot even cover a down payment.”
Minister Mah Bow Tan recently said that as a cosmopolitan city, it was important for Singapore to let non-citizens buy properties here. If so, why not blindly follow other cosmopolitan cities in allowing the sale of Playboy magazine here?
He has forgotten our basic constraint — Singapore is a very tiny island and unlike other cosmopolitan cities such as New York, London, Sydney with their huge surrounding hinterland.
How do Chinese actress Vicki Zhao and her property tycoon husband Huang Youlong, both Singapore Permanent Residents in their 30s, really fit the description of “foreign talents contributing to our economy and creating jobs for Singaporeans”? They own an Orchard Road luxurious condominium, and clearly stated both have no intention to take up Singapore citizenship. Is this not treating Singapore merely as a “stepping stone”? Has our political flirtation with China gone over-board?
Not surprisingly, Singapore is a choice destination for many immigrants — English-speaking, safe with law and order, many international schools, high-paying jobs available, wide choice of accommodation, etc. We are even one up on Hong Kong with its permanently polluted air.
A recent survey also revealed that Singapore is home to the largest proportion of high-earning expatriates compared to 24 other countries. 45% of expatriates living and working here are earning more than US$200,000 (S$265,000) annually, compared to the worldwide average of 21%. In contrast, less than 10% of employed Singapore households earn S$265,000 or more.
So, if the “non-citizen guests” are enjoying the good life here, why do this “host country” need to bend backwards with such overly generous privileges as allowing Foreigners & Singapore PRs to directly purchase property (both private and HDB) in our tiny land-scarce island? With their handsome salaries, they can always rent accommodation. If they want to invest in our property market, they can always do so through the indirect route of REITs and shares of listed property companies.
Here is a workable action plan for Minister Mah to walk the talk on “Singaporeans Come First”:
Only Singapore citizens can own Singapore property (whether landed homes, private condos or HDB resale flats). Foreigners and Singapore PRs can always rent accommodation from the wide variety available to suit different budgets.
National Development and Housing Board officials to monitor closely both private and HDB property markets to plug speculation loopholes so as to develop an “orderly” market of sustainable moderate prices. Whereas a “speculative” market will lead to sky-rocketing prices and rising public anger.
With moderate prices, older Singaporeans with sufficient savings can then afford to buy a second property to generate rental income for their retirement. The resultant moderate rental levels will also benefit non-citizens as tenants. So this a win-win situation for both citizens and non-citizens.
