A Fundamental Problem With The HDB Lease Scheme

While details of the newly announced housing polices are being worked out, the Government will reach out to Singaporeans to gather feedback and understand their concerns to fine-tune the policies, said National Development Minister Lawrence Wong on Tuesday evening (Aug 21).

PAP minister Wong said the Government understands that Singaporeans are worried and unsure about what to expect, and have raised questions about the future of public housing, particularly as the building stock gets older and approaches the end of their leases.

However there was no analysis on the Lease buyback schemes.

The two fundamental problems with the lease and buyback scheme are numerous:

1) Lease refers to Land building or both? If it refers to one of the components like land then tecnically speakign the value of the
building should not depreciate as it is the land which is on a 99 year old lease . However the problem lies when both are intertwined with each other. They cannot exist on their own without logical fallacies. If HDB forms state the building (flat) is also on a lease) ,common sense tells u that u only the HDB flats on a lease, not the building. However this is not possible due to the nature of both entitities, u dont anything with regards to property ownership. As one cannot own a land on ownership and a building on a lease at the same time under your name. Only land under your name and building on someone else name is possible

2) The buyback schemes are assumed to be taking the overall lease value in question. But HDB has not been transparent on its pricing of HDB flats. DO HDB flats include Land pricing , building pricing or both? again a logical fallacy is present here.I f the govt bus back
the remainign lease value of the property , it didnt state land or differentiate between the two components. In law definitions, “land” and “building” are 2 different things

It remains to be seen how Vers is different from the other Lease byback schemes as no details were mentioned.The lack of transparency in Singapore are the major causes of such fundamental problems and perhaps Singaporeans should educate themselves on such matters so that they can make better decisions in the future.

 

Internet

 

 

Sponsored Content

27 Responses to “A Fundamental Problem With The HDB Lease Scheme”

  • PC Ong:

    Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ INTERNET IS WRONG – the building is chattel, can be leased whilst the LAND defined as property in law, is PAPpy-owned.

    Property case law speaks of the language of “attachments” to law meaning that all moveable attachments -be that building, power street lighting pole, car parks can be separately dealt with at law from the LAND. That is why they levy car park charges whilst they leased you the HDB dwelling – these are separate entity of items.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Ooops typo error there

    oxygen: Property case law speaks of the language of “attachments” to law meaning that all moveable attachments

    should be read as

    oxygen: Property case law speaks of the language of “attachments” to LAND meaning that all moveable attachments

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • opposition dude:

    Ha ha so now Lawrence wants to continue the wayang by “reaching out to Singaporeans to gather feedback and understand their concerns to fine-tune the policies” is it? Since when have PAP fine tuned anything ha ha ha!

    It just goes to show how stupid Singaporeans can be. Your flat value is already dropping like siao and will get worse as the years pass and you actually expect PAP to help make the resale value of your flat high high again ah?

    You can’t quite see through the smokescreen that PAP have got no idea how to solve this problem ah? You think HIP2 and VERS will help reverse the falling value of your flat ah?

    Look at it this way, would you be willing to buy a 60+ year old flat after HIP2 when there are only 39 years left of its lease? Are you dead sure that the HIP2 flat you are buying will increase in value up to 99 years?

    Still don’t want to accept the reality that your flats’ values are plummetting is it? Ok lah, then that one is your pasar liao. Who ask you to have so much faith in PAP?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • No more Mandate:

    Lesson learnt, no more Mandate.!

    Next better one, please. Too expensive for rubbish.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • COCK ONG:

    Please don’t talk cock. I ask you if renovating your own HDB apartment [flat] need to consider to submit plans for approval or not? HDB? BCA? FSSD?

    KNN don’t try to bluff lah.

    PC Ong:
    Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Thieves Are Thieves:

    Evil PAP wants your money, simple as that.
    You are just economic digits to the PAP to milk, to enrich themselves obscenely.

    All the talks are just wayangs and falsehoods to hookwink naive dafts.
    If you are the owner of your HDB, then the contracts should be amended. PAP can do that anytime, why they won’t?

    Many countries extend the lease of their public housings unconditionally.
    If PAP is sincere, then this should be the direction that they should look at.
    But they haven’t.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ PC Ong

    IS THIS THE PINNACLE OF YOUR USUAL FART OF FICTION? If peasants have all rights of ownership of the building including reselling, WHY IS ATTEMPTS BY SOMEONE TO EN-BLOC it failed of statutory obstruction?

    And if it does not matter to PAPpys that govt owns the land, why not give it back to peasants who paid for the land? LAND is defined in property law as “real property”, how come peasants pay the property tax since buildings are mere chattel (not property) by law definition?

    PC Ong: Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    Read what @Cock Ong has of rebuff to your fake news misinformation.

    COCK ONG: Please don’t talk cock. I ask you if renovating your own HDB apartment [flat] need to consider to submit plans for approval or not? HDB? BCA? FSSD?

    KNN don’t try to bluff lah.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Think:

    You guys are missing the real point of this contentious issue. You are being led into an argument away from its true purpose or intention.

    Think harder

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Migrated to australia in 90s:

    the writer bring up valid points… when pap talk about ownership what are they referring to ? land , structure or both?
    Land can be owned. property can be owned. Provided both is bought by the owner and not under any lease .

    u cannot own somethign like HDB when it sits on land u dont own.. that is why HDB is a lease it sit on land not owned by the HDB buyer.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Reality hurts:

    PC Ong:
    Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    You are absolutely right. There is really no point “splitting hair” between “lease” or “ownership” or between owning the land or not.

    The REAL ISSUE on HDB flat is the VALUE of the flat from the time its “sold” (actually “buying the right to use” the flat space which can be transferred before the lease expires) HDB to Singaporeans until the lease expires after 99-years.

    Over the last few decades when the flat is sold by HDB it is OVER-PRICED because it included the cost of land. HDB flats are built on State Land which is free to the Government because it already owns it. HDB buys it from SLA. But SLA did not have to buy it. It has always owned it. So its cost to SLA is zero.

    Lawrence Wong is right when he said that at the end of the 99-year lease HDB flat’s value is ZERO (because it has to be returned to HDB with no compensation). It is no longer useful for the flat owner, i.e., it has no value (worthless). Therefore, HDB is basically a DEPRECIATING asset which appreciated because of an unsustainable “property bubble”. The era of “easy money” through HDB “property bubble” is over. Singaporeans should accept this.

    HDB flat price cannot double AGAIN within the next 14 years because wages have been stagnant for over a decade. At the current high price, it already takes 30 years (working life) to pay for a new flat from HDB.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Reality hurts

    MATE, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ON THIS ONE. PAPpys are prevaricating and you got deluded.

    Reality hurts: You are absolutely right. There is really no point “splitting hair” between “lease” or “ownership” or between owning the land or not.

    PAPpy Wong denied that the 99-yr lease is prepayment in advance rental and that peasants owns the HDB purchase when in year past, he publicly asserted that it is a lease of DIMINISHING VALUE to zero of eventuality at expiry. PAPpy Wong is in WINDY HAPPY CONTRADICTION of living in a bubble fiction of his own semantics prevarication of claiming both truth and falsity of his contradictory stance.

    His latest pronouncement claims it is not a rental advance. Smart of hiding in brevity, PAPpy Wong WAS SILENT ON CITATION OF ANY CASE LAW PRECEDENT in support of his stance. My assertion is that he can’t find one.

    If he cites landmark case law like Bridges v Hawkesworth, he is going to find the informed part of social media slapping him on both side of his face.

    Neither did @ PC Ong cite any case law precedent, so it is easy for him/her to continue journey of fart of fiction, leaving peasants confused.

    @ Reality hurts, can you cite one case law precedent – just one will do – with full weblink of the case history and its determination for me (and other TRE readers) to read of its ratio decidendi (law rationale) supporting your claimed position? IF YOU CAN’T THEN YOU MUST BE DOUBLE CAREFUL NOT TO BE MISLED BY FAKE NEWS in the social media and abet by windy happy contradictions from officialdom on ownership question.

    I have one case law – Kien v Stuckley Gilb. Rep. 155 1 E.R. 156 which the House of Lords declined to enforce a contract it deems to be bornt out of unconscionable conduct. This is a year 1722 case law decision – in that case, land was raised to an extravagant price…..in circumstances the Court of Equity thought to be upon such hard and unequal terms ….that ought NOT to be aided or carried to execution by a Court of Equity.

    So land value is CRITICAL AND PARAMOUNT to what peasants paid for their HDB purchase BUT DENIED OF ITS OWNERSHIP – the result is that peasants paid for what it didn’t get of ownership of land and its land value.

    Do you endorse the legalised theft of land in commercial reality in any property transaction whatever and where-ever that may be? In layman terms, would you pay for the costs of a brand new top range lamborghini for what I will give you of a rusty old bicycle?

    Remember is price is what you pay and value is what you get. Are U that STUPID?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • IB Ong:

    If HDB flat belong to us, why need “check if you are eligible to buy an HDB resale flat in a particular block or neighbourhood under the EIP and SPR quota.” ????

    Why HDB “owner” must follow rules set by HDB the ‘land-lord’?

    Why building “owners” cannot set their “own” rules for their “own” buildings?

    https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/residential/buying-a-flat/resale/ethnic-integration-policy-and-spr-quota

    PC Ong:
    Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Kick Them All Out:

    Some sinkie dumbos are still wet in their ears?
    Not born yet then history happened?

    Low TK at one point in time, some years ago, already raised the question of HDB pricing including the land price in parliament, which was confirmed by then Mah BT, who claimed that singapore’s only asset cannot be sold “cheaply”. That was the period when the dead man boasted about asset enhancement.

    So those educated dafts who do not know the historical events should start doing the research before posing questions and sowing confusions, which the thieves would love, as if their are doing their GP exam questions in high school.

    What we are dealing here is real government theft using fleeting shady policy decisions to shift wealth away from citizens.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • New Government Can:

    opposition dude:
    Ha ha so now Lawrence wants to continue the wayang by “reaching out to Singaporeans to gather feedback and understand their concerns to fine-tune the policies” is it? Since when have PAP fine tuned anything ha ha ha!

    It just goes to show how stupid Singaporeans can be. Your flat value is already dropping like siao and will get worse as the years pass and you actually expect PAP to help make the resale value of your flat high high again ah?

    You can’t quite see through the smokescreen that PAP have got no idea how to solve this problem ah? You think HIP2 and VERS will help reverse the falling value of your flat ah?

    Look at it this way, would you be willing to buy a 60+ year old flat after HIP2 when there are only 39 years left of its lease? Are you dead sure that the HIP2 flat you are buying will increase in value up to 99 years?

    Still don’t want to accept the reality that your flats’ values are plummetting is it? Ok lah, then that one is your pasar liao. Who ask you to have so much faith in PAP?

    New government can bring about changes. Always remember this.

    Your HDB has value, because the land has value.
    You should get your fair share of that value because you paid for that land.

    Greedy PAP will diminish your HDB value, so they could appropriate them cheaply, then recycle them at ever increasing prices, reaping obscene profits, yet forcing you into poverty, taking away all those retirement savings that you poured into your home, working diligently through your life, because you once believed and trusted what they promised, that HDB is an asset and that prosperity will come with asset enhancement.

    New government can unlock your fair share of profit for retirement.
    Just read what SDP can do and their proposal.

    The time has come for sweeping changes.
    Take back your CPF and HDB.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • concerned about the confusion:

    //Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion.//

    alamak, oppo does not have the continuous advantage of 50+ yrs of ownself-check-ownself power to tax and rent-seek you lar (e.g from transport to water to povident fund to public housing lar).

    we are more concerned about the confusion from the white idiots who are still the policy makers and many people may make decision from what the white idiots say then from the oppo lar.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • the policy makers:

    //the writer bring up valid points… when pap talk about ownership what are they referring to ? land , structure or both?//

    aiyoh. the white idiots would refer to anything they want to refer lar (under ownself-check-ownself system). when selected = elected and 4 = 5, this shows that the high idiots of the country are no different from primary school ah beng and ah seng lar in their ‘childish’ antics lar but of much greater concern as the white idiots are the policy makers.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • waste of time zzz:

    simple question…

    if we do not own the land, why do HDB mark up the flat with the land price and make us pay for it?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Reality hurts.:

    oxygen:
    @ Reality hurts

    MATE, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ON THIS ONE. PAPpys are prevaricating and you got deluded.

    PAPpy Wong denied that the 99-yr lease is prepayment in advance rental and that peasants owns the HDB purchase when in year past, he publicly asserted that it is a lease of DIMINISHING VALUE to zero of eventuality at expiry. PAPpy Wong is in WINDY HAPPY CONTRADICTION of living in a bubble fiction of his own semantics prevarication of claiming both truth and falsity of his contradictory stance.

    His latest pronouncement claims it is not a rental advance. Smart of hiding in brevity, PAPpy Wong WAS SILENT ON CITATION OF ANY CASE LAW PRECEDENT in support of his stance. My assertion is that he can’t find one.

    If he cites landmark case law like Bridges v Hawkesworth, he is going to find the informed part of social media slapping him on both side of his face.

    Neither did @ PC Ong cite any case law precedent, so it is easy for him/her to continue journey of fart of fiction, leaving peasants confused.

    @ Reality hurts, can you cite one case law precedent – just one will do – with full weblink of the case history and its determination for me (and other TRE readers) to read of its ratio decidendi (law rationale) supporting your claimed position? IF YOU CAN’T THEN YOU MUST BE DOUBLE CAREFUL NOT TO BE MISLED BY FAKE NEWS in the social media and abet by windy happy contradictions from officialdom on ownership question.

    I have one case law – Kien v Stuckley Gilb. Rep. 155 1 E.R. 156 which the House of Lords declined to enforce a contract it deems to be bornt out of unconscionable conduct. This is a year 1722 case law decision – in that case, land was raised to an extravagant price…..in circumstances the Court of Equity thought to be upon such hard and unequal terms ….that ought NOT to be aided or carried to execution by a Court of Equity.

    So land value is CRITICAL AND PARAMOUNT to what peasants paid for their HDB purchase BUT DENIED OF ITS OWNERSHIP – the result is that peasants paid for what it didn’t get of ownership of land and its land value.

    Do you endorse the legalised theft of land in commercial reality in any property transaction whatever and where-ever that may be? In layman terms, would you pay for the costs of a brand new top range lamborghini for what I will give you of a rusty old bicycle?

    Remember is price is what you pay and value is what you get. Are U that STUPID?

    You are falling for the red-herring of discussing lease vs ownership and/ or trying to show off with “lawyer talk”. “Are U that STUPID?” Look at the HDB issue from the point of view of an economist…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ waste of time zzz

    EXACTLY! Right on the dot.

    waste of time zzz: simple question…

    if we do not own the land, why do HDB mark up the flat with the land price and make us pay for it?

    @ New Government Can

    UPSOLUTELY, UPSOLUTELY AND UPSOLUTELY AGAIN. VTO the PAPpys and get back what belongs to and paid for by the peasants.

    New Government Can: New government can bring about changes. Always remember this.

    Your HDB has value, because the land has value.
    You should get your fair share of that value because you paid for that land.

    Greedy PAP will diminish your HDB value, so they could appropriate them cheaply, then recycle them at ever increasing prices, reaping obscene profits, yet forcing you into poverty, taking away all those retirement savings that you poured into your home, working diligently through your life, because you once believed and trusted what they promised, that HDB is an asset and that prosperity will come with asset enhancement.

    New government can unlock your fair share of profit for retirement.
    Just read what SDP can do and their proposal.

    The time has come for sweeping changes.
    Take back your CPF and HDB.

    @ Kick them all out is correct is SPOT ON. LAND BELONGS TO THE PEASANTS, IT IS PERMANENT AND INDESTRUCTIBLE BOTH IN FACT AND IN LAW APPLICATIONS.

    Kick Them All Out: Some sinkie dumbos are still wet in their ears?
    Not born yet then history happened?

    Low TK at one point in time, some years ago, already raised the question of HDB pricing including the land price in parliament, which was confirmed by then Mah BT, who claimed that singapore’s only asset cannot be sold “cheaply”. That was the period when the dead man boasted about asset enhancement.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • HarderTruths:

    ‘We will listen to whatever you have to say – then we will tel you how things are going to be done”

    BY ORDER

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Alamak! Aiyoyo! Adoi! BODOH!:

    waste of time zzz:
    simple question…

    if we do not own the land, why do HDB mark up the flat with the land price and make us pay for it?

    Why Sinkies can be so “BODOH (Stupid)?

    Whole life paid-through-the-nose such high price for land but yet don’t own the land!

    Why so stupid all can still “lan-lan” “boh-bian” accept it?

    Why, hah, why???

    Alamak! If like this Sinkies really no more hope, Lah!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Bobo:

    waste of time zzz:
    simple question…

    if we do not own the land, why do HDB mark up the flat with the land price and make us pay for it?

    Absolutely agreed with you. This is like teh talik. What PAP really wants is $$$$$ from the poor Singaporeans.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Reality hurts

    MATE, YOU REALLY FELL INTO THE DITCH and still sleeping, not knowing. Go Google “ownership” and “leasing” – are these LEGAL concept and application FIRST before determining its ECONOMIC value. Even accounting and tax applications recognise the LAW CONCEPTUALISATION first before determining “economic value” import. For the leasor, the accounting in its balance sheet is an “owned” asset – and for the lessee it is off-balance sheet item of a “owing” LIABILITY. The legal differentiation is also precisely IRAS allow depreciation charges for the leasor as owner of depreciating asset and lease payments from the lessee is allowable deduction as an operating expense just like wages, utilities or amortisation charges.

    WITHOUT THE LEGAL DEFINITION AND DELINEATION, HOW DO YOU DO YOUR ACCOUNTING OF “economic values” of economists mouth talk? That is precisely I said, you are DEAD WRONG of agreeing with the prevarications of @ PC Ong. His lunatic stance of semantic illusion of no difference between ownership and lease betrays his shallow pandering or utter ignorance or both. You fall for his deluded misinformation!!

    My reference to Kien v Suckley 1722 case law is NOT incidental or lawyer talk of your crude categorisation. I don’t need to get there unless it is relevant of illumination. In that case law example – which is 296 years old now – it is cited in law literature as good example of unconscionable conduct doctrine of equity law. Equity law, you may already know, deals with fairness/equity of law application to ameilorate some of the harshness and cruelty failure in common law and statutory law applications. The Chancery will never afford relief for a stupidity-driven bargain of equals – it is not its role. But in Kien v Suckley, the House of Lords refused to aid and abet the execution of a land purchase contract in circumstances which the law lords saw as rough and overreaching of unequal bargaining power positions.

    In that instance, the seller priced the land sold extravagantly equal to forty times its annual rent but later accede that it is worth only 15X in actuality.

    HDB is sole seller – it bargaining power is lop-sided in its favor, It can price land extravagantly, BUT AFTER SALE STILL KEEPS THE LAND.

    What RUBBISH “economic value” TO PEASANTS U talk about when land THEY PAID is “confiscated” at law?

    Reality hurts.: You are falling for the red-herring of discussing lease vs ownership and/ or trying to show off with “lawyer talk”. “Are U that STUPID?” Look at the HDB issue from the point of view of an economist…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Idiots Galore:

    Key phrase—”as long as …we can ..reselling ….’
    That is exactly the nub of the problem; the end of the Ponzi game is nigh.
    After Lawless Wong reminded zombies 70% that 99=zero and only 4% can SERS, nobody wants to be the one holding the baby.
    It took 40 years and the GFC for Madoff Ponzi scheme to unravel; this HDB Ponzi will have far bigger effect for peasant-minded sinkies.
    It will come sooner than most think.
    Madoff stole from the rich; papiggies robbed the poor!

    PC Ong:
    Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • waste of time zzz:

    @PC ONG

    yes i understand that the land belongs to the govt.

    since you have said that you have the ownership of the building, can you do whatever you like to the building i.e. create more units at the void deck, do A&A of the building, relocate the common rubbish dump etc?

    please let us know how it goes. thanks.

    and sorry hor. owners of private properties possess the strata title/land title. do you even possess the strata title of your hdb flat? ownership is a binary thing you know? it is either yes or no. no such thing as “yes i own the 99 years lease and yet no i do not own the land” by your definition.

    PC Ong: Actually, it is very clear. Just that the opposition playing with words and trying to sow confusion. The land belongs to the govt. But the building (HDB flat) belongs to us. We have all the rights of ownership of the building, including reselling. But of course we can’t ask private developers to buy the land since we don’t own the land, unlike private property. Ultimately, as long as we can continue living in it and reselling it, it don’t matter that the govt owns the land.

    @Reality hurts

    can you please enlighten us with your economics theory?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Straight "A"s Marlboro Tan:

    waste of time zzz:
    @PC ONG

    yes i understand that the land belongs to the govt.

    since you have said that you have the ownership of the building, can you do whatever you like to the building i.e. create more units at the void deck, do A&A of the building, relocate the common rubbish dump etc?

    please let us know how it goes. thanks.

    and sorry hor. owners of private properties possess the strata title/land title. do you even possess the strata title of your hdb flat? ownership is a binary thing you know? it is either yes or no. no such thing as “yes i own the 99 years lease and yet no i do not own the land” by your definition.

    @Reality hurts

    can you please enlighten us with your economics theory?

    why is the strata/title kept with SLA/HDB if u ownt the property?
    all u have is a lease form.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available

Member Services
Members LoginSelf-ClassifiedsSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement

Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement


Most Recent Comments
  • Inter-generational INEQUITY: rukiddig: … And yes, yes,..I “benefitted” from it..I sold off my 70k ,5 room for...
  • Bystander: Holy God, what makes lau Goh think he could do a Mahathir with TCB as his junior partner. Wah say, he...
  • nihon: in china the chibai land, the mrts work and there is no electicity breakdown. chibai tiong land is classified...
  • nihon: that lawren wrong has the making of mabok tan. he is v good for the opposition. now, hdb is a wasting asset....
  • pap useless Ljs + useless Cbs: Bystander: Those defaulters who return home for jail are simply stupid. Why bother,...
  • HarderTruths: More election rules we may see: 1. Citizens weighing below 50kg can only vote for half a candidate. 2....
  • pap useless Ljs + useless Cbs: TUCK WAN: I am 65 years old. What I have seen is MP giving suggestions on how to...
  • oxygen: @ Rabble-rouser BRILLIANTLY SAID, that Credit Suisse report is full of logic holes indeed. When asset prices...
  • HarderTruths: SDP $G citizens do not care about this island or what you say – only their own comfort. That is...
  • oxygen: @ HDB land EVERY CASE LAW I READ on property rights says only LAND IS PROPERTY – anything else sitting...
  • Foo: Holly wood stuff.cp3o.pinokio
Announcements
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic
Advertisements