Don’t you think the HDB wayang should stop?

I refer to the article “Factually and legally wrong’ to say HDB flat buyers not owners but renting: Lawrence Wong” (Channel NewsAsia, Sep 4).

It states that “The claims that HDB flat buyers do not own their flats and are renting them is “factually and legally wrong”, said Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong.

There is also no basis to such a claim, he said at the HDB’s Peak Forum for building professionals on Tuesday (Sep 4).

Mr Wong added that all buyers of leasehold properties, private or public, enjoy ownership rights over their properties during the period of lease.
They can also sell their properties and benefit from any upside, or rent it out if they choose to, he said, adding that it’s “important to set the record straight”.

“Since the beginning of the Government land sales programme in 1967, all sites for private residential land have been sold on leases not more than 99 years.

“We have limited space and we need to recycle land to create housing for future generations,” Mr Wong said.”

My friends said “aiyah, this one really talking cock lah!

Same person last year say 99-year lease end HDB become 0 value hor!

HDB same like private property meh!

Can enbloc make money or not?

Can extend lease like so many private property projects meh?

Can after fully paid already – mortgage to bank get loan meh?

Can rent out the whole flat like private one, without all the HDB conditions meh?

Even keep certain type of dogs also cannot hor!

Aiyah, one moment say have enough land for 6.9 and then 10 million people – now say not enough land hor!

Never say the obvious or answer the obvious question all sinkies asking – why keep saying buy buy asset enhancement for so long har!”

 

Leong Sze Hian

 

 

Sponsored Content

31 Responses to “Don’t you think the HDB wayang should stop?”

  • oxygen:

    HDB ALSO COLLECT RESALE REVENUE via resale levy, does that also prove that it is UNDISCLOSED SILENT OWNER by same law logic.

    But if you lose money on resale, HDB IS SILENT? In other words, don’t call us, we call you!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Oi Oi Oi, PEASANTS, if HDB tells you about “subsidy”, MAKE SURE you open your eyes…….BIG..BIG…. hor.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IF the claims that HDB flat buyers do not own their flats and are renting them is “factually and legally wrong” as Lawrence Wong asserted, the implicit UNSPOKEN DEFAULT IS HDB BUYERS ARE THE OWNERS of their flat LEGALLY.

    WHICH CASE LAW PRECEDENT DID THE LEARNED MINISTER CITED OR IS RELYING UPON to sustain his “LEGAL” PRESUMPTION?

    Or was that merely his speculative conjecture NOT FOUND IN FACT AND IN LAW?

    M.Ravi have debunked him and INVITED HIS PARTICIPATION in a public debate. Is he accepting the offer?

    MINLAW IS VERY KUAI KUAI – it is maintaining a MORGUE SILENCE in this controversy till NOW.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • opposition dude:

    Let the PAP continue to say we “own” our flats, don’t waste time arguing with them.

    At stake here is the continued fall in resale flats over 40 years of age. This will only be worsened come the 2020s when those flats built in the 1980s hit 40. Which also means the merdeka generation will also see the value of their flats fall just like the pioneer generation are now.

    The PAP is silly enough to believe in their own HIP2 and VERS nonsense. They have absolutely nothing for the flats’ whose resale values are dropping already. They actually expect the current owners to wait until their flats hit 60 years before HIP2 commences!

    Why isn’t there any scheme to make those old flats’ values rise PAP? Didn’t you guys always say the value of our flats will appreciate? Why aren’t you helping the pioneer generation whose flats’ values are dropping but expect them to wait until their flats turn 60?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • LIONS:

    seriously,what can we,singaporeans,say?

    it is the govt’s duty toENSURE EVERY BONA FIDE SINGAPOREAN IS ABLE TO OWN A HDB;IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE GAHMEN TO HELP NON-SGS/FTs/PRs own HDBs just to profiteer from the ownership???

    CAN KHAW BOON WAN AND LAWRENCE WONG CONFIRM THIS?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • HarderTruths:

    Because HDB is the single most important money making scam of the pappy government – that is why.

    The citizen’s whole life savings are invested in the pigeonhole. The government has a way to make people work for life to finance their lifestyles while making 70% of citizens believe they own something of value.

    In no other country has slavery become such a way of life that it is regarded as a basic virtue.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Bapak:

    With 70% stupid Sinkies believing everything they said, they will not stop.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    NOW TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE REALITY OF RESALE LEVY AND HDB ownership tests as proferred by Shakespeare Wong and Present Tense. This is how it works of hypothetical case applying current HDB’s resale levy rules.

    “A” bought a new BTO DIRECT from HDB in 2007, sold it for a tidy paper profit of $200K when his family upgraded to a private condo in 2014. Because “A” bought a new private condo instead of an upgraded new HDB executive DIRECT from HDB, he NEED NOT PAY ANY RESALE LEVY on his flat bought in 2007.

    But unfortunately for “A”, he and his wife both got retrenched in 2016 displaced by cheaper FTs and unable to find an employment decent enough to sustain his private mortgage much longer along with living expenses.

    “A” is forced to downgrade severely applying for a 3-rm HDB BTOs at Yishun. This time the DEVIL OF HDB RESALE LEVY caught up with him. Why? HDB will say that “A” is ‘ENJOYING” TWO OPPORTUNITY OF SUBSIDY in this BTO application, directly from HDB.

    Under the prevailing rules, HDB is CORRECT of its resale levy application. “A” got two bites at the cherry, and should not get away with resale levy EVEN THOUGH HE SOLD HIS FIRST FLAT IN 2014 AND GOT HIS SECOND BTO SELECTED IN 2018 – 4 YEARS APART DURING WHEN HE RESIDES IN THAT PRIVATE CONDO.

    Now you might ask me this – why am I winching about this equity of treatment of Mr. “A”?

    THE ANSWER IS VERY SIMPLE. THE RESALE LEVY THAT “A” has to pay PROVE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT THAT AT NO TIME “A” HAS NEVER OWN ANY HDB FLAT.

    Where is my proof of this “nonsensical” claim that “A” has NEVER OWNS A HDB FLAT?.Well the answer is right under your nose and mine.

    How and Where?

    Here you go – in the absence of stay in HDB accommodation from 2014 to 2018, Mr. “A” owes HDB A CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RESALE LEVY (if he apply for another BTOs after the first time in 2007). And he paid up correctly. If “A” owns the first BTOs he bought in 2007, he would owes NOBODY, HDB INCLUDED, of any contingent liability once he left to go to private condo housing (presumably never to return). That “A” owes and accepted that he owes that CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RESALE LEVY to HDB means that he recognised or forced to recognize explicitly and in financially, HDB IS THE OWNER. He is only the lessee. The title of ownership NEVER PASS on to him and he NEVER PASS THE SAME TITLE TO HIS BUYER WHEN “A” sold to whoever bought it.

    If there is a contingent liability to be paid, Mr. A is most likely to owe this resale levy to the next buyer of his flat in 2014 – NOT HDB who is NOT a party to the financial transaction of sell/buy between “A” and whoever bought from “A”.

    HDB THEREFORE OWNS THE FLAT WHICH NEVER WAS “A”.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    THAT HDB ACTUALLY AND GLEEFULLY DEMANDS AND COLLECTS the resale levy from “A” after 4 years gap of absence proves beyond all reasonable doubts that HDB is the owner of the flat (sold to “A” in 2007 in my hypothetical example) from 2007 till “A” return to buy another BTO in 2018.

    THE LEGAL AND FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP that apparently subsist despite “A” absence of any financial or otherwise linkage to HDB in 2014 to 2018 must evidence that in the directing mind and will of HDB, it is the real owner and any lessee – past (“A”) and future has some kind of fiduciary relationship with HDB (HDB as an beneficiary) and past and future lessee are mere trustee (holding a lease in trust). In fact and in law, a lease is one which the leasor leased out an asset for the use of the lessee for a commercial charge and the lessee has duty of care to return the leased equipment back to the leasor in good use at the end of the lease.

    That is why the HDB is a lease, NOT an ownership of the HDB purchaser. If “A” was ever an owner, then HDB have severed all links to “A” once “A” has bought and paid for his purchase in full because title have passed on to “A”. In fact and in law, nobody still owns or have a continuiing transactional relationship with the buyer once the transaction is financially settled and no seller still owns or have any rights in the subject-matter sold to any buyer.

    THAT HDB DEMANDS AND GOT ITS RESALE LEVY – after such a long break of financial/legal connection between it and “A” – proves the transaction of 2007 is only a transitional lease arrangement. HDB is at all times the owner and still retains rights to demand and exact a resale levy in all times in the future means all first-time HDB purchasers NEVER FOR ONE MOMENT OWNS the flat they paid for – EXACTLY LIKE THE LAND THEY PAID FOR but the title belongs to the original seller (HDB).

    AND FOR SUBSEQUENT BUYERS FROM “A” and thereafter, they are commanded to surrender the lease to its proper real owner at lease expiry after a total time lapse of 99 years. THEY TOO NEVER OWN the flat they paid for. They paid to “A” who left but must surrender the lease to HDB who received no monetary consideration in that buy/sell transaction (between the buyer and seller “A”) HDB is the UNDISCLOSED SILENT OWNER AT ALL TIMES.

    MINISTER INDRANEE SAID THAT WHOEVER KEPT THE PROFIT (including the resale levy therein) is owner.

    For PAPpys to renounce its own assertion that collecting profit (which must include resale levy) proves “ownership” is two opposing interpretations for one law favoring one preferred party.

    ANY TALK OF HDB PURCHASER IS OWNER IS POLITICAL FART OF FICTION.

    ANYONE DISAGREE STILL?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IN MY ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE ABOVE, “A” have almost a life-long CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF A HDB RESALE LEVY past the date he bought and sold his first HDB BTOs. If “A” ever owns it, when does his obligations ends after full financial settlement? Will it be ever or more likely NEVER? In both instance, he has no title of ownership in fact of reality and in law. Whatever rights he acquired in 2007 and thereafter till 2014, it is ENCUMBERED TO ANOTHER SUPERIOR ENTITY – HDB – which he would never be in this disadvantaged and handicapped deprivation if he owns that flat.

    Since property rights are always defined of vacant possession of no encumbrances – the resale levy is a permanent encumbrance – Mr.”A” in fact and in law was NEVER THE OWNER in the dictum of ratio decidendi found in Bridges v Hawkesworth case law.

    Thereafter subsequent buyers in the resale market for the same said flat cannot acquire a better title than “A”. Why?

    Why? the memo dat rule of law. Go Google “memo dat” and you will see this explanation.

    Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning “no one gives what he doesn’t have” is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title.

    Since “A” never was a owner with unencumbered rights to vacant possession (before and after 2007) all subsequent buyers of his sold BTOs has no better title than “A” which in HDB documentation says he is a lessee only.

    PAPpy Ministers made public statement of ownership to the contrary BUT THEIR UTTERANCE HAS NO LEGAL LIABILITY OR ATTRACT LEGAL ENTANGLEMENT EVEN IF IT WAS ACCIDENTALLY INCORRECT OR INTENTIONALLY FALSE.

    M. Ravi invites them to a public debate. I doubt any Minister will step forward. In a courtroom of formal challenge, i doubt Ravi would have any difficulty in shredding PAPpy’s claims of ownership in a few minutes on the courtroom floor – THE RESALE LEVY ENTANGLEMENT AND THE BANKER’S INABILITY TO REPOSSES HDB FAILED MORTGAGE ARE SUFFICIENT AMMUNITION to expend of a quick demolition job.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP has the mandate:

    Stinkies have the choice to vote but being gutless they continue to vote for PAP. Why KPKB now?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • DOOMERANG:

    PAP MUST PERISHED

    JUST LIKE UMNO

    BOTH ARE STOCKS OF SCUMS

    IN STAGNANT POND..
    PERIOD

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IT DOESN’T GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT OF A HOAX OF SUBSIDIZED HOME OWNERSHIP fiction. Mr. “A” is a walking dead (rich or broke thereafter) after he sold his “subsidized” HDB for $200K profit, hanged by a CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RESALE LEVY as a lessee. Buyer B to Z, constantly bombarded in PAPpy News Publishing and sweetheart deals from the white doggies that HDB is such an everlasting appreciating asset, thought he bought a bargain of a gem of home ownership from previous “owner” Mr. “A”. Buyer “B” actually bought a DUD from “A” – without knowing or awareness of “A” CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF RESALE LEVY – not that this matters to him in financial terms of agreed transacted price he paid.

    So what is the “contractual bargain” in contract law application as agreed between “A” and “B”. “B” labored on the erroneous presumption that he bought over ownership of the flat sold by “A”?”A” as a first-time buyer of HDB BTO of course knows he has a CONTINGENT LIABILITY of resale levy but kept silent to the buyer thinking it is none of the buyer’s business to know. WRONG legally! Why? “A” only owns a lease (liability) on an asset of HDB flat actually owned by HDB who dictated the terms of resale levy to approve the transfer of occupation rights of a substituted lease. “B”, therefore BOUGHT A LEASE, not ownership of a HDB flat. B DOES NOT KNOW OF THIS FACT UNTIL 20 TO 30 YEARS LATER AFTER FULLY PAID UP then he gets his LEASING CONTRACT given to him WHICH THEN REVEALED HE IS LESSEE and HDB is LEASOR.

    “B”, therefore got DUPED into a purchase of something different from his “contractual bargain” but decades too late. Should “B” be angry with “A” who might have committed suicide in desperate poverty already?

    “B” could be forgiven if he thinks seller “A” was a “FRAUDSTER” defrauding him in that fateful sale in 2014. “A” of course, tragically gone to TERN SUA never to return to defend his “ill-reputation” – much deserved or undeserving of that. In the spiritual world, “A” might shout back angrily this – I AM NOT A FRAUDSTER, YOU FIACKING IDIOT! I BOUGHT THAT FLAT FROM HDB AND YOUR LEASE AGREEMENT SAID EXACTLY THAT! You bloody swine!

    If both “A” and “B” is right of fact and of law, and HDB is the first original seller/leasor, DOES THE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS MAKE HDB a Highly Deceptive Bureau of a “FRAUDSTER” business?

    If HDB is NOT a DELIBERATE INTENTIONAL “fraudster” selling a lease (liability) to “A” pretending all along it is selling “ownership” of an asset of ‘SUBSIDIZED PUBLIC HOUSING’, it must at least been a cunning misleading “LIAR”.

    The SHAKESPEARES, WHITE MAGGOTS AND PAPPY NEWS NOW TOUTING home “ownership” is THE MOTHER OF ALL LIARS???

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Mr. “A”, OF COURSE – as explained in the preceding comment – also DOES NOT GET to see his official lease documentation until he has fully paid up his mortgage. That could be 20 to 30 years later. That formal lease document will specify that he is the lessee and HDB is the leasor BUT SILENT on who is the OWNER.

    Imagine the utter confusion in that price bargaining process if “A” tells buyer “B” this – I am selling you a beautiful newly renovated flat that is just 4 years old for such a bargain basement price, my career flew to high heaven, have lots of money to throw and spend, so I am very generous to you this lucky guy. You won’t get to “OWN” a 4 yr old flat at Pinnacle-upon-Duxton for $850K only. Nobody will give you such a bargain deal!” So “A”, in this hypothetical illumination, actually thought (mistakenly) he also “OWN” a Pinnacle-upon-Duxton flat without thinking about the legal implication of law definition in Parker v British Airways Board on what is possession and what is really ownership.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/SydLawRw/1983/12.html?context=1;query=Parker%20v%20British%20Airways;mask_path=

    Mr. “A” was, perhaps, a brilliant software engineer but unfortunately displaced by cheaper DUD FTs from India-LAND, and he is not expected to know the law definition of “ownership” found in Bridges v Hawkesworth law of 1851 STRONGLY REAFFIRMED IN PARKER v British Airway Board decision in 1983.

    If “A” is a little bit smarter of a high flier software engineer trotting the globe working for a global IT giant, he should have REALIZE THIS FACT – POSSESSION OF OCCUPATION USE IS NOT OWNERSHIP. Mr. “A” flew 2 times a week and at each destination, he has complete possession and exclusive use of his hotel room (unless he invited some sexy birds to add company, excitement and colour to his “home-grown but faithful” taste).

    HE DOES NOT OWN THE HOTEL WHICH HE CHECKED IN even though he has exclusive privacy and occupation use just like his Pinnacle-upon-Duxton flat sold subsequently to Mr. “B”!!

    So those Shakespeares, maggots fat worms and PAPpys News touting “ownership” of flats by peasants who bought them is G-string of factual irrelevance and actually NUDITY OF ALL DAMAGING LEGALITY TRUTHS.

    The “factually and legally” claims are just fart-knocking of smelly gas emission of legal truths. The Committee of Fake News Gas Emission should be invite to give substantiation of

    - why (LEGALLY) PEASANTS ARE FLAT-OWNERS when the lease documents said EXPLICITLY they are lessee and HDB is leasor

    - why the fart-knockers in the political atmosphere is right and detractors are all fake news publishing.

    Any takers?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • NewLiesCoverUpOldLies:

    Not only HDB wayang should stop, but wayanging on every damn thing in our sinking country should stop!
    Smoke screening & whitewashing every thing to bluff us sgs.
    Hope most of the 70%s have woken up n stop their wayanging as well or we all die together if PAP wins again next GE!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    WHEN PAPPY SHAKESPEARES SPOKE PUBLICLY – without legal liability of course of free speech even of fake news dissemination – of peasants actually retaining the profits from the sale of flats in the resale market as “evidence” of home ownership, these DUMBFARKED LOT actually opened up A CAN OF WORMS of LEGAL TRUTH CONCEALMENT.

    My informed sources are ALWAYS RELIABLE – there are a lot of financially desperate cases in which premature-retired EX-PMETs trapped in circumstance beyond rescue of failed HDB mortgage. Jobless or reduced to taking far lower income roles, they can’t feed their family from hand-to-mouth and still sustaining an inflated HDB mortgage. So what did they do in financial desperation? Begged their newly employed sons/daughters just starting out to add a name onto their parents’ lease contract to access their CPF to fund the outstanding loan i.e. hanged their children future housing liability. Eastern values of filial piety, right? Another fart of fiction.

    In future – under HDB’s regulation, this son/daughter becomes part “owner” of their parents’ flat – should he/she found a life-time spouse and establish his/her own family household, HDB IS GOING TO SLAM HIS/HER HEAD DOWN TO THE FLOOR of another RESALE LEVY if this son/daughter apply for a new BTOs under his/her own name together with his/her spouse.

    So the lunacy of windy happy contradiction is that HDB collects/extracts a resale levy on the new BTO purchase (which has nothing to do with his/her ex-PMETs parents) BUT DENIED OWNERSHIP of his/her parents’ flat. I THOUGHT PAPpys shakespeares said publicly that retaining profits proves ownership no longer apply to them of PAPpy law? And why HDB demand and got it of resale levy of the son/daughters new BTOs purchase?

    HDB claims that this son/daughter is a SECOND-TIMER of “enjoying” a subsidized flat. His/her name was “co-owner” of his/her parent’s mortgage even if this new couple withdrew the name from there.

    THE GHOST OF LIES UNEXPLAINED OR INEXPLICABLE is HDB’s presumption that it SOLD THE FLAT TO THE EX-PMETS 30 years ago was SOLD AGAIN of the SAME FLAT to their son/daughter when the latter add his/her name to insolvent mortgage!

    The reality? This son/daughter have NEVER APPLIED FOR A BTO prior, and this is the first time they apply under their own name exclusively.

    THE FART OF FICTION? Can HDB sells a flat to this ex-PMET couple 30 years ago and then sell the SAME FLAT (already sold) again to their son/daughter IF OWNERSHIP ( having changed hands according to PAPpys Shakespeares at least) 20 years AFTER THAT as “new” to their son/daughter ADDING NAME.

    to be continued.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Malaysia boleh Singapore bodoh:

    I am waiting for the HDB resale market to crash to downgrade from private property to HDB. Many HDB owners are still in denial. They do not want to accept what Lawrence Wong said that at the end of the lease HDB flat is worth zero. To convince themselves that HDB flats are indeed depreciating, HDB owners should approach HDB to say they are considering its Lease Buyback Scheme. Tell HDB you want to sell back (“return”) HALF of the remaining lease of the flat. Ask for the price. (Note HDB buys back lease at market value.) Double this figure to get the actual fair market value of the flat. This will definitely be much less than the price of a new HDB flat of the same size with a full 99-year lease. This will prove once and for all (directly from HDB) that an HDB flat is DEPRECIATING asset.

    Now that the Government clarified the lease issue on HDB flats the smart move for HDB owners is to sell back to HDB as much of the remaining lease of their flat as possible. Most of the proceeds are put back in CPF where it earns 2.5% per annum. CPF money stuck in HDB flat loses value every day as the flat depreciates constantly be worth zero at the end of the lease.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Continuiing from the preceding paragraph.

    SO IT BEGS THE QUESTION of factually and legally import of lunacy – how can the son/daughter again bought “ownership” of an existing flat HDB allegedly or pretentiously sold to their financially desperate ex-PMETs parents?

    In analogy, can anyone legally “sold” his advertised lamborghini twice to different buyers on two different days and received cash twice from two different buyers each does not know the other’s existence UNLESS THE SELLER IS DEFRAUDING one or both buyers of a scam fly-by-night transactions?

    BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING of factual and legal ILLOGICAL CLAIMS of HDB’s ASSERTED position – you add your name to an existing lease OF FAILING MORTGAGE SUSTAINABILITY, you “bought” a subsidized flat even though that was transacted 30 years ago between your parents and HDB. Of course, your parents when they gone to TERN SUA before you formed your own household unit to be eligible to apply for new BTO, ironically is NOT LIABLE for this HDB flat (when sold) BUT IN HDB’S LAW, they are the “owners”, aren’t they?

    The HDB resale levy is a lifelong albatross hanging on your neck even though your parents are long gone. In other words, the first time applicant/buyers (your departed parents) and the flat are BOTH LONG GONE but you are still the “owner” of that ghostly flat sold to another unknown (to you) buyer!!

    Can this former flat of your departed parents sold on and on and on to unsuspecting sequence of buyers and buyers in resale market WHEN IN HDB’S LAW OF FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY DETERMINATION, you are still the invisible ghostly “owner” by their law interpretation -SEEMINGLY OUTSIDE THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF BRIDGES V HAWKESWORTH AND PARKER V BRITISH AIRWAYS BOARD?

    THIS IS NOT A MAKE-UP HYPOTHETICAL FABRICATION – a lot of Sinkies are trapped in this situation of QUIRKY HDB AUTHORITARIAN DETERMINATION – seemingly outside the property law application.

    I am confident that those trapped in this lunatic legal entanglement must have gone to see their Members of Parliament and found themselves talking to a stupid wall of either no solution or don’t call us, we call you OF THIS DISTRESSED CIRCUMSTANCE.

    TO AVOID DOUBT, JUST WRITE TO YOUR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT and ask them to answer faithfully if the above exposition I illuminated above is QUITE COMMON OF OCCURRENCES OF INJUSTICE.

    HBD exacts and collects resale levy BUT DENIED OWNERSHIP. Peasants staying with in-laws perhaps still GHOSTLY “OWNS” flat ( resale levy life long albatross) they no longer physically stays there maybe and long sold by their departed parents)?

    SO HDB IS FRAUDSTER? Or PAPpy Shakespeare all consummated liars?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ NewLiesCoverOldLies

    THIS IS EXACTLY IT – PAPpys is perpetually 1% truth, 99% lies, fantasy & propaganda. HDB & PAPpy Shakespeare fart gases on land conservation and recycling for future generation.

    POPPYCOCK OF ANOTHER FART OF FICTION.

    Past Tense in his last book – ONE MAN’S VIEW OF THE WORLD – has this LITTLE CONFESSION on CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEA-LEVEL RISE. Lee-jiapore will be reduced to what is now Bukit Timah if sea level rise just a few metres.

    SO WHAT LAND RECYCLING HDB AND PAPpy Shakespeares are farting of air waves to peasants AFTER SILENTLY CONFISCATING THE LAND the peasants paid for in their HDB purchase? And they claim they subsidize peasants – WHAT MOCKERY OF LIES TELLING WITHOUT SHAME!

    NewLiesCoverUpOldLies: Not only HDB wayang should stop, but wayanging on every damn thing in our sinking country should stop!
    Smoke screening & whitewashing every thing to bluff us sgs.
    Hope most of the 70%s have woken up n stop their wayanging as well or we all die together if PAP wins again next GE!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • rukidding:

    So sad to know that these bunch of highly paid Ministers are so “off the mark” in their “thinking and understanding of Ordinary folks” worries.

    The issue is Not about “rental or ownership”….people only used the word “rental” as “an expression or an example”.

    Don’t know how Lawrence came to the conclusion that he must set the record straight and “differentiate between rental and lease”?????

    Again,…they are “acting blur” or are they “trying to throw smoke as diversion” ???

    Don’t they know that the real issue was about the “value of the flat” when it reaches 99 years ????

    I wonder how come we are paying these Ministers so high and obscene salary when they are simply “idiotic and stupid” to even understand layman’s worries ???

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Asd:

    Irresponable… Fill own pocket… Scholar ?? how can you tell people that it appreciate when it becomes zero ??? Ponzi ??? Getting millions to Ponzi the people paying them ?? Its clear that they are saying gamble and only the last person holding it loses it all….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ rukidding

    MATE, ON THE CONTRARY! In property law, it is EVERYTHING of a world of difference – never mind the linguistic convenience and/or the semantic of peasants.

    rukidding: The issue is Not about “rental or ownership”….people only used the word “rental” as “an expression or an example”.

    The owner has perpetually property until he or she relinguishes it by consent (sale or gift of will by operation of the law to another) or by violence (such as theft as in the case of land paid for by peasants but no title given for that payment in exchange or forcible acquisition by statutory law with or without fair compensation.) The renter or lessee is a holder of a liability of the place temporary let out to the tenant who is legally obliged to return to its proper owner in good condition at end of the lease period. He has no residual rights or property values once he/she departs of lease ending.

    One law professor compared a leasor-lessee relationship in commercial terms as one of bailor and bailee analogy. The bailor entrust his property or some asset values as collateral in the expectation that the bailee won’t jump bail resulting in forfeiture of his entrusted property held as security. And that, I believe, is essentially correct.

    OWNERSHIP/LEASE OR RENTAL are ALL LEGAL CONCEPTS, not merely linguistic or semantic differential concepts. The law rights as appertaining to a owner/leasor, lessee and a tenancy arrangement is entirely different from one another.

    SO BE CAREFUL when dealing with HDB because once you are defined as a owner (very dangerous word even though hypocritical of truth), you could be up for some asset stripping later of a HDB resale levy down the road but if you are merely a “permitted occupier” living with your parent etc, you have no such liability when you apply for a BTOs the first time round!

    HDB IS VERY CUNNING – playing the law application in both camps – their reply through PAPpy media says in the SAME PARAGRAPH that peasants are owners but the next line in exactly the same paragraph said peasants are lessee. The average peasants don’t know what the implications of these deceptive law language means because if we are really owner, how can HDB order peasants to return the dwelling to them at lease expiry? IT IS ALREADY OURS of legal “ownership” which we can only departs by consent or under violence against our will.

    HDB are therefore filthy fart-knockers playing the backsides of peasants at will knowing that 70% are too stupid to even begin to discover they are stupid to impossibility.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Mothershit is prostitute:

    Singaporeans are a laughing stock
    if they think A Lessee is the Owner of the property.

    If Hdb claims hdb Lessee is the owner of the hdb flat, then hdb cannot own our flat since there can be no two different owners concurrently.

    I am sending my kids overseas to be educated so that they can think and not become a laughing stock.

    When roti prata flipped too much, it becomes stale and leads to constipation when taken too much.
    Are they treating us as bloody fools?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Harder Truths

    BEAUTIFULLY SAID – and in fact the housing scam is a suction pump sucking up future retirement funds (CPF) early and entrapped them to perpetual locking up by m*sturbating CPF withdrawal rights rules at their will. AS one can sees it, it is imprisoning peasants’ retirement savings to mortality and perpetuity – which in common law and statutory law application – amounts to theft of private property. They even tell peasants CPF is not our money – impliedly it is legal of them to take our money by whatever means – fair, foul, cunning or chicanery, from our absolute possession and freedom of choice in use past our graveyard date. In such circumstances, what different is that from a burglar breaking into your home, forced opened your safe and help himself to bundles of cash, and when apprehended, give you a smirky thanks and telling you it is nothing illegal?

    In trustee law dating to more than 700 years history, THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEE.

    HarderTruths: Because HDB is the single most important money making scam of the pappy government – that is why.

    The citizen’s whole life savings are invested in the pigeonhole. The government has a way to make people work for life to finance their lifestyles while making 70% of citizens believe they own something of value.

    In no other country has slavery become such a way of life that it is regarded as a basic virtue.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • KelvinWang:

    Hdb wayang is nothing new e.g. eon ago – Spalling concrete due to natural carbonation of steel bars. Now can gurantee no spalling concrete?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    THIS LITTLE CANDID CONFESSION – unsolicited from me – of a senior citizen, a die-hard PAPpy pedigree variety, SPOKE ABSOLUTELY of the COMPLETE truth of who ACTUALLY “owns” the HDB flat.

    His ACTION of conduct AFTER having sold his flat in 2017 and thereafter his UNENFORCED EXCITED UTTERANCE in this TRE thread when his PAPpy-flavored safeguards was let down voluntarily, must be COMPLETE TRUTH-TELLING of facts and law.

    Read exactly what he said – without inducement or prompting from me! It is like death bed confession of truth telling in admissible evidence in the court of law.

    snr citizen: My flat was upgraded in 2012. I sold my flat in 2017 and surrendered my Title Deed to HDB.

    http://www.tremeritus.net/2018/08/23/vers-and-hip-ii-more-s*ake-oil-from-pap/

    This senior citizen’s own voluntary confession in TRE is NOT hearsay evidence from any unreliable sources but straight from his mouth and heart of honest truth telling.

    HE SOLD HIS FLAT TO AN UNKNOWN OTHER IN 2017 AND SURRENDERED HIS TITLE DEED – NOT to this unknown other buyer – BUT TO HDB instead.

    HDB is NOT the buyer and not a party to this financial transaction. The very very very PAPpy-loyal SENIOR (Whoa!!!) CITIZEN received the proceeds of sale from the buyer, definitely, not HDB.

    SO NOW TRE READERS, PLEASE EDUCATE ME WHO IS THE UNDISCLOSED CONCEALED OWNER?

    Was it the very wise highly-informed intelligent “senior citizen” or was it HDB who collected back his title deed upon the sale??

    HDB ALSO PUBLICLY DEMAND THAT UPON LEASE EXPIRY, ALL HDB BUYING PEASANTS must surrender their “title deed” back to them.

    WHO IS THE OWNER?

    Maybe, Shakespeare Wong, Present Tense, Minlaw, all other PAPpy Shakespeares of the same tribal pedigree and the entire panel of law wisdom in that famous COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY OF FAKE NEWS PUBLISHING educate the daft 70% of peasants – mostly too stupid to even begin to discover they are stupid to impossibility – of the correct answer.

    A 5-yr old kid would give me a “better answer” I strongly suspect.

    Maybe, HDB, like CPF as told by a PAPpy pedigree in that political zoo and not denied inside by PAPpys is NOT ours and NEVER for one moment, was ours.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Mothershit is prostitute

    YES, PEASANTS ARE TREATED LIKE ABJECT MORONIC FOOLS INDEED – make no mistake about this.

    Mothershit is prostitute: Singaporeans are a laughing stock
    if they think A Lessee is the Owner of the property.

    If Hdb claims hdb Lessee is the owner of the hdb flat, then hdb cannot own our flat since there can be no two different owners concurrently.

    Are they treating us as bloody fools?

    Where is my proof? Ask your MP, those desperate ex-PMETs who add their son/daughter name to their unsustainable mortgage all got A BIG SURPRISED SLAP on their face. HDB rules unyieldingly enforced their own concluded determination that the son/daughter bought a “NEW” subsidized flat and if this filial son/daughter later apply for a new BTOs in their own name. He/she is deemed to be a “second-timer” BTO applicant. In layman language, the son/daughter bought a “NEW” BTO which their parents bought from HDB some 20 years ago!! In fictitious concoction of mythical “reality”, HDB’s brutality asserted that it is right of its own “factually and legally” determination that it sold as “NEW” to this ex-PMET and then some 20 yrs later AGAIN SOLD as “NEW” to the ex-PMET’s son/daughter. A subject-matter of value – be that a flat, a car, or a diamond ring can be SOLD TWICE as NEW TO UNSUSPECTING BUYER and not a scam in deception of fraud? Teach me law, thanks! The son/daughter were not told earlier of this flawed law interpretation when he/she add name to support their parent’s broken mortgage!

    Yet, we hear of PAPpy’s Shakespeares fart arrogantly of “factually and legally” speak in public domain. NOT ONE OF THEM – whilst talking “law” cited the landmark case law precedent of Bridges v Hawkesworth 1851. Why is this a landmark case of origination of property law? Read this weblink.

    and the reasoning of that case law decision is here.

    http://casebriefs.thefactoryi.com/blog/law/property/property-law-keyed-to-cribbet/finding/bridges-v-hawkesworth/2/

    BASICALLY – POSSESSION IS NOT OWNERSHIP. The judgement decision in this case law spelt out the law logic what is possession and what is ownership.

    In parallel, peasants for the 99-yr lease has possession and excluded use of the flat BUT THIS HAS NO FART OF FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY in any way substantiating ownership – exactly the way the defendant in Bridges v Hawkesworth law outcome. Mr. Hawkesworth had possession of the stack of cash for 3 years after he received from Mr. Bridges, the finder, who found it in the shop of Hawkesworth. The Queens Bench ruled Bridges has ownership.

    to be continued.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Mothershit is prostitute

    CONTINUIING FROM above…IF ANY PAPpys Shakespeares/actors & actresses WANTS TO TALK OF PROPERTY LAW AND OWNERSHIP, they cannot pretend that the decision rationale derived in Bridges v Hawkesworth “golden principles” do not apply or they pretend that Bridges v Hawkesworth law DID NOT EXIST in legal history UNLESS OF COURSE, THE PAPpys shakespeares all are consummated liars bluffing peasants and treating them like bloody fools as 70% of them really are.

    Take it from me, the landmark B & H decision in the year 1851 was tested in the next 167 years in different countries from UK, Australia, NZ, Canada and Hong Kong to my knowledge. Here are some examples.

    Of particular notation is that it was again tested in 1982 and reaffirmed of its solid law principles in a British Airway case. Here you go

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/SydLawRw/1983/12.html?context=1;query=Bridges%20Hawkesworth;mask_path=

    or found here

    1982 1QB 1004 at p.1018

    and tested in Australian Federal Court in 2009

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2009/24.html?context=1;query=Bridges%20Hawkesworth;mask_path=

    and in New Zealand in 1950

    Helson v McKenzies (Cuba Street) Limited NZCA [1950] NZGazLawRp 70; [1950] NZLR 878; (1950) 1 NZLRLC 599; (1950) 52 GLR 388 (27 July 1950)

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/nz/cases/NZGazLawRp/1950/70.html?context=1;query=Bridges%20Hawkesworth;mask_path

    AND in Hong Kong in 1994

    AG for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324

    also in Hong Kong in 1987

    Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd [1987] AC 114

    THIS IS NOT FAKE MAKE BELIEVE OF FAKE NEWS PUBLICATION – its rigorous cannon of law construction on what is “possession” and what is “ownership” in Bridges v Hawkesworth, STRONGLY REAFFIRMED, in Parkers v British Airways Board test case means that ONE CANNOT RATIONALLY TALK ABOUT “FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY” but cleverly or stupidly by-passing the law found in the above case laws proven in UK, Australia, NZ, Canada and Hong Kong.

    IT CANNOT BE ALL THE LAW JUDGES IN THESE COUNTRIES ARE LUNATICS, STUPID OR BOTH LUNATICS AND STUPID compared to PAPpys shakespeares of stand-up comedians or consummated liars as some in the public mind have compelling apprehensions that they really are of this habitual nature in their tribe.

    M. Ravi invites debate. PAPpys all went MUTE and SILENT. Are they shy of talking about Bridges v Hawkesworth law publicly?

    WHAT HAS THE HEAD OF LEGAL in HDB or MND or the CEO of HDB say of “factually and legally” speak of this ownership/leasing controversy? ALL DIAM DIAM DIAM.??

    Oi Oi Oi, we pay your salaries!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    AND ONE MORE TIME OF TRUTH SEARCH – some 30% of us didn’t vote for your tribe…but Oi Oi Oi, did the other 70% ALSO FORGOT TO PAY YOUR SALARIES?

    MinLAW and the glamorous law genius star-studded Enquiry Committee into Fake News Publishing also DIAM DIAM DIAM till now.

    Why, huh?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • give them what they want:

    singaporean should all sell their HDB flats en-mass. Call the country quits and move on to australia or neighboring countries. let them have all the ah-nehs and all the immigrants they so wanted. let see who are they ruler to ; who are their subjects of interest. it is no longer our country but belong to masterbating seah kian peng; why bother to busy yourself with these lots of traitors. leave and have a better life elsewhere. sell HDB while it still have Lawrence bullshit theory , take money leave for a better country .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • clown pap + gang S$m liars:

    give them what they want:
    singaporean should all sell their HDB flats en-mass. Call the country quits and move on to australia or neighboring countries. let them have all the ah-nehs and all the immigrants they so wanted. let see who are they ruler to ; who are their subjects of interest. it is no longer our country but belong to masterbating seah kian peng; why bother to busy yourself with these lots of traitors. leave and have a better life elsewhere. sell HDB while it still have Lawrence bullshit theory , take money leave for a better country .

    agree bro, up to a point. as soon as more than one HDB unit is for sale, the market dries up. NO buyers since all trying to cash out to migrate.

    we have been trying to migrate now for some time. should have done so 30 years ago. now being old, and jobless, nowhere to go. although clown being clown has ceca, it is stupidity for Singaporeans to migrate to ah neh land, even if ah neh land allows.

    so what to do?

    keep the over priced HDB rental, continue to help Pakatan Singapura toppled clown pap. this is the least we can do before we up the lorry. we hope it takes place soon, this toppling of clown pap. otherwise we up the lorry and the clown S$m gang still abusing power for S$m. then our lives as Singaporeans have been a pure waste of time, since nothing good is done for future generations of local born. WE hope we can up the lorry with satisfaction knowing clown and S$m gang are toppled and being investigated for their S$m lies.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
Member Services
Members LoginSelf-ClassifiedsSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement

Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement


Most Recent Comments
  • Fooly Insured: Never once thought highly – or even at all – of this laggard ex-honcho (of an even more...
  • LKY assented: “it is much safer to be feared than loved because …love is preserved by the link of...
  • opposition dude: “PAP seems to realize that this is an extremely stupid move as it will attract extremely bad...
  • Bapak: There was this story about a Sinkies diver by strong under water current was drifted to Malaysia. He was found...
  • Anon: @Forming legal insights: The predicament is a result of believing in the first instance that ‘facts’ are...
  • GE is payback time: PAP got 70% in 2015 because many voters wanted to thank LKY passed away in 2015. PAP was actually...
  • Announce New PM after GE!: Residents of Tanjong Pagar GRC will be voting at last! Ah Chan and Indra are ‘not...
  • GE is payback time: AHTC Residents Are&# 032;Angry!: Why make Residents pay for lawyers’ fees on...
  • No end to their $faces: Next they’ll make all hawkers go for certification… No cert no licence?
  • Currying favour with Dr M: Theyre wining and dining Dr M all the way. Hosting a breakfast and luncheon banquet in his...
  • HarderTruths: ST Lim You got it right first time – congratulations. Yes – the 70% shitheads will surely...
Announcements
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic
Advertisements