- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 5,494
- Points
- 0
Do any seniors here have any institutional knowledge regarding the inception and final abolishment of this act?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Rent Control Act; can we bring it back?
- Thread starter Unrepented
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 133
- Points
- 28
I am not a senior & I do not have any institutional knowledge.
However, I would like to share what I know:
1. Rent Control Act was passed as law just after the post-Occupation period, or during the Federation period (sorry I'm not sure on this) to ensure that property owners leasing living quarters in the city, especially shophouses, were not able to increase rental indiscriminately. This was to help families with living costs as the proportion of property owners was small compared to the proportion of renters.
2. As the economy developed & the city centre was re-built & re-developed, many shophouses were bulldozed to be cleared for high-rise buildings. Those shophouses that were prevented from being bulldozed were occupied by residential renters. They continued to pay low rental rates under the Rent Control Act to continue living in the shophouses. By this time, these residents were well into their late-60s & older, & were being economically disadvantaged as they were plying trades that were being replaced - traditional crafts artisans, trishaw riders, the back-lane barbers - all of whom were living in the shophouses. If I'm not mistaken, any resident then renting under the Rent Control Act can not be evicted from the place of residence because this particular Act was enacted to protect low-income renters.
3. Developers then were probably looking on in angst at the development opportunities that were being prevented by Rent Control; the government of the day, too, probably saw the futility of the Rent Control Act as the HDB was providing the housing solution; some Singaporean architects were mourning the loss of architectural & tropical street heritage that reflected a local cultural identity.
4. When Rent Control was abolished, the government tried to play good guy by re-housing some leasees. Many of Singapore's real pioneers lost their daily routine built around the shophouse rental residence & probably lived out the remainder of their days in some nursing home. Shophouse owners could suddenly increase their rental rates "as per" the prevailing market rate; many cashed in by selling the development rights. The government then designated some areas of shophouses as "heritage zones", so the shophouse is to be retained as a structure but the activity contained within the shophouse is to be based on the planning direction provided by the government. So today, we have a sanitised, shophoused Chinatown (amongst the other shophoused areas) that everybody is complaining about but many people do not know how & why.
5. With the abolishment of the Rent Control Act, the government of the day effectively killed the real local street culture that was left & went on the path of supporting property developments for economic growth. It could not evict the pioneer Singaporeans from the only residential shelter they knew; so they played the legal game by changing the rules & then let the property owners & developers decide the outcome. Very clever of the government of the day then; & also a reflection of the change in values, instead of protecting its citizens, the changed law placed the burden of guilt on a third party whose vision is blinkered by gains & digits. But all parties are guilty all the same.
If I have made a mistake(s) somewhere, I'm sorry, please forgive me & kindly correct me. I hope I have shed some light on this Act - very thoughtful for citizens - but in all honesty I am unable to see how it can be re-instituted by the current government.
Thank you.
However, I would like to share what I know:
1. Rent Control Act was passed as law just after the post-Occupation period, or during the Federation period (sorry I'm not sure on this) to ensure that property owners leasing living quarters in the city, especially shophouses, were not able to increase rental indiscriminately. This was to help families with living costs as the proportion of property owners was small compared to the proportion of renters.
2. As the economy developed & the city centre was re-built & re-developed, many shophouses were bulldozed to be cleared for high-rise buildings. Those shophouses that were prevented from being bulldozed were occupied by residential renters. They continued to pay low rental rates under the Rent Control Act to continue living in the shophouses. By this time, these residents were well into their late-60s & older, & were being economically disadvantaged as they were plying trades that were being replaced - traditional crafts artisans, trishaw riders, the back-lane barbers - all of whom were living in the shophouses. If I'm not mistaken, any resident then renting under the Rent Control Act can not be evicted from the place of residence because this particular Act was enacted to protect low-income renters.
3. Developers then were probably looking on in angst at the development opportunities that were being prevented by Rent Control; the government of the day, too, probably saw the futility of the Rent Control Act as the HDB was providing the housing solution; some Singaporean architects were mourning the loss of architectural & tropical street heritage that reflected a local cultural identity.
4. When Rent Control was abolished, the government tried to play good guy by re-housing some leasees. Many of Singapore's real pioneers lost their daily routine built around the shophouse rental residence & probably lived out the remainder of their days in some nursing home. Shophouse owners could suddenly increase their rental rates "as per" the prevailing market rate; many cashed in by selling the development rights. The government then designated some areas of shophouses as "heritage zones", so the shophouse is to be retained as a structure but the activity contained within the shophouse is to be based on the planning direction provided by the government. So today, we have a sanitised, shophoused Chinatown (amongst the other shophoused areas) that everybody is complaining about but many people do not know how & why.
5. With the abolishment of the Rent Control Act, the government of the day effectively killed the real local street culture that was left & went on the path of supporting property developments for economic growth. It could not evict the pioneer Singaporeans from the only residential shelter they knew; so they played the legal game by changing the rules & then let the property owners & developers decide the outcome. Very clever of the government of the day then; & also a reflection of the change in values, instead of protecting its citizens, the changed law placed the burden of guilt on a third party whose vision is blinkered by gains & digits. But all parties are guilty all the same.
If I have made a mistake(s) somewhere, I'm sorry, please forgive me & kindly correct me. I hope I have shed some light on this Act - very thoughtful for citizens - but in all honesty I am unable to see how it can be re-instituted by the current government.
Thank you.
Similar threads
