HDB legal counsel clarifies HDB ‘lessees’ are ‘owners’, but only according to PAP-enacted legislation

In 2014, I queried the HDB on the ‘ownership’ status of flat buyers.

HDB principal legal counsel replied and explained that this was according to the Housing and Development Act:

“In fact, the term “owner” has been defined in the H&D Act to include a person who has purchased a leasehold interest in the property.”

Any idiot would of course have known that a flat ‘lessee’ could not be the ‘owner’ at the same time, unless of course it was a case of own self rent to own self.

In a Parliament controlled by PAP for more than 5 decades, it has the ability to redefine anything under the sun, eg CPF = Government reserves = Citizens’ own money.

Email from HDB legal counsel below.

[email protected]<[email protected]
6/13/2014 4:41 PM
To: pipakh Cc: Christina Cynthia DASS

Dear Philip Ang,

We refer to your emails to SAE Cynthia Christina Dass dated 6 June 2014 and to CEO, HDB dated 8 June 2014 on the above query.

2 HDB “lessees” are “owners” of their flat. In the context of the Singapore Land Registration System, HDB flats are leasehold property, with a tenure of 99 years. Therefore, when HDB sells flats to the purchasers, we are selling this leasehold interest of 99 years to them, subject to the provisions in the Housing and Development Act (H&D) Act. In fact, the term “owner” has been defined in the H&D Act to include a person who has purchased a leasehold interest in the property.

3 For HDB flats, the document of title issued is a “Lease” instrument. Therefore, the parties in the Lease instrument are referred to as “Lessor” for the seller/developer and “Lessee” for the purchaser. Notwithstanding the use of the term “lessee”, the purchasers have ownership rights and do have the right to deal with the flat, eg. to sell or transfer the flat, subject to the terms of the lease, the H&D Act and HDB’s prevailing policies. The term “Lessee” does not detract from these rights.

4 We hope we have clarified your doubts.

Yours sincerely,

FARIDAH ERYANI PAIRIN
PRINCIPAL LEGAL COUNSEL
LEGAL GROUP

 

Phillip Ang

* The author blogs at LikeDatOsoCanMeh.

 

 

Sponsored Content

36 Responses to “HDB legal counsel clarifies HDB ‘lessees’ are ‘owners’, but only according to PAP-enacted legislation”

  • Knnbccb:

    Ownself fiack ownself
    Owner subject….
    ArseEnlargementSteam to @99 $0 to cPeeF not pupils $$$
    Crooks..
    Today ghost month last day..go down for your reunion with the biggest gangter

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP.GUARANTEE.WIN.GE2019/20:

    Dear Phillip Ang,
    You had crowdfund to sue our Great Leader PM Lee on the CPF thingy.

    As you had not sued us PAP, May I know where is the MONEY ?

    Can you please account to our readers here where the MONEY has gone to ?

    Please do not diam diam and hope that I will go away and not ask this question again.

    PAP.GUARANTEE.WIN 2019/20
    -PC Ong: GE19 or 20, it will be a comfortable victory for PAP.
    -PAP Huat ..
    Huat .. Huat .. Ministers are not paid enough..
    -Singaporeans must TIGHTEN belt, DOWNSIZE so that PAP ministers can UPSIZE their salaries and not suffer a drop in their living standard.
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of 9% GST so that minister will get paid > 500K and no longer mediocre
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of 30% water increase so that minister will get paid > 500K and no longer mediocre
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of importing more FT to displace their NUS/NTU graduate children so that they can be their own boss driving GRAB CAB.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    FARIDAH ERYANI PAIRIN DIDN’T TELL PHILLIP ANG that at the end of the lease, the “owner” have to – by statutory order – surrender the leasehold interest to ANOTHER GHOSTLY OWNER in hiding concealment until that expiry date arrive.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP.GUARANTEE.WIN.GE2019/20:

    To All Readers,
    Phillip Ang had shown his shady evil agenda with this revelation.

    He knew the answer since 2014 and why he still keeps on writing to forum questioning the HDB ownership issue ?

    This Phillip Ang guy had not been upfront and honest with Singaporeans.

    We PAP, since HDP inception, had already defined in HDB act that owner here refer to owner of the 99 year lease.

    We PAP, urge Singaporeans to guard against fake news stir up by opposition such as Phillip Ang.

    This guy must be lock up in IMH for good.

    PAP.GUARANTEE.WIN 2019/20
    -PC Ong: GE19 or 20, it will be a comfortable victory for PAP.
    -PAP Huat ..
    Huat .. Huat .. Ministers are not paid enough..
    -Singaporeans must TIGHTEN belt, DOWNSIZE so that PAP ministers can UPSIZE their salaries and not suffer a drop in their living standard.
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of 9% GST so that minister will get paid > 500K and no longer mediocre
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of 30% water increase so that minister will get paid > 500K and no longer mediocre
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of importing more FT to displace their NUS/NTU graduate children so that they can be their own boss driving GRAB CAB.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    OF COURSE, THE PEASANTS WHO BOUGHT HDB FLAT are NOT so savvy of PAPpy’s MISCHIEF RULE of its law definition of owner and ITS QUEER INTERPRETATION. They are not aware of the scam law definition, so how to query the Highly Deceptive Bureau?

    Here are some example of how “mischief rule” work in court judgment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischief_rule

    The way in which the mischief rule can produce more sensible outcomes than those that would result if the literal rule were applied is illustrated by the ruling in Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859. Under the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to “loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution”. The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the “street”. The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.

    Sometime mischief rule works out in way that produce WARPED OUTCOME of law logic. For example, a judge might rule that two or more persons walking in the same direction is TROUBLE-MAKER violating the illegal assembly law. Well, the truth is a lot of horny old uncles walk and hunt in packs from Paya Lebar MRT stations to Geylang chicken farms, how come policemen never arrest these horny uncles for illegal assembly law violations but arrest dissidents walking in pairs but not even discussing their mind thoughts?

    The law judgment is fiack of mischief rule violation – I have compelling apprehension that this is how a lot of peasants think. Why? The heads of those dissidents is sitting on the shoulders of those arrested dissident, not the fiacking prosecution, SO HOW THEY KNOW WHAT THE DISSIDENT’S MIND THINK OF (in the heads) of supposedly causing mischief of illegal assembly protests?

    In any case, there are a lot of holy divine souls walking from their place of worshipping and prayers from the church to MRT station. How come the police and judge don’t arrest all his holy pious souls and also charge them for illegal assembly since the judge did rule in the politically tainted case of dissidents that simply two person walking in the same direction is illegal assembly.

    THE PROSECUTION AND THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ALSO ARRESTED MOURNERS AT FUNERAL PROCESSIONS TOO – they are all guilty of illegal assembly law violations as well.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Bapak:

    It means to say, PAP always has the final say. They can choose any Indian and call it Malay and no one can dispute that (unless they are thrown out of government). This is the meaning here. And this is also how stupid are Sinkies.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Responded in STR:

    This was responded in STR by:
    Abedina Austin
    “Leasehold” is not the same as “lease”.

    “Leasehold” pertains and applies to land – land, landed property, and appartments sold together with the land that I they are bulit upon.

    “Lease” pertains and applies to leasing (long-term rental) of services, machinery farmland, industrial land, building, flat, room, etc.

    In the case of HDB flats, the “sale” of the flats does not include the sale of land and common shared spaces, such as car parks, playground, roads, lifts, corridors, parks, etc. (different from private condominiums).

    In the case of private flats with 99-year leasehold, the buyer gets the Strata Title. In the case of HDB flats 99-year lease, the lessee gets a Title Deed. The two are different and separate legal documents. They are not the same.

    In the case of private flats, the owner also owns a share of the land collectively owned by all owners of that Strata Title Land upon which their flats occupy.

    In the case of HDB flats, the Government owns the land. Even HDB does not own the land.

    If HDB does not own the land, how can HDB flat lessees own the flats built upon that piece of land? This is the legal and factual aspect from which Minister Lawrence Wong cannot deny.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    FARIDAH ERYANI PAIRIN DIDN’T VOLUNTEER ON THIS DILEMMA – as HDB buyers, under the HDB Act, is also defined as “owner” – CAN ALL OF THEM LEGALLY REFUSED TO SURRENDER THE LEASE AT EXPIRY TO ANY OTHER PERSON, be that “other person” is another body incorporate or natural person?

    Why I ask that is because

    - the HDB flat can’t have two “owners” of exactly same overlapping rights IN EXACTLY THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER CONCURRENTLY in which one is ghostly of concealment and

    - any property belong to a lawful owner CAN ONLY BE transfer of legal rights to another either WITH CONSENT of or by VIOLENCE AGAINST that owner.

    I would think that the owners (peasants) are most likely inclined against resorting to violence or even resisting to violence to protect his legal interest. That being the case, the law says the owner is entitled to transact or deal in any manner as the owner deems fit in all matters of his owned property. That is to say, the owner may sold his interest a day before expiry to me for $1, give it to charity by lawful assignment of rights or any other.

    Note that by Singapore property law, assignment can only assign his property right BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION. This is fascinating because the owner can assigned his legal interest in HDB to another and when confronted with demand from HDB for the surrender of his leasehold (obligation), he just tell HDB this – you want my leasehold (obligation), I can offer you my smelly backside! The assignee just tell HDB that the owner has assigned only his right to him (but not the obligation). WTF you want?

    If the rights of the owner is violent extracted by another entity, IT IS THEFT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY in criminal law – no different from a burglar opening up the front door gate and drive away your lamborghini as his own private property – NEVER MIND WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

    That is why THE CROOKED MISCHIEF RULE APPLICATION of HDB in respect of its definition of “owner” is nothing but a scam of WINDY HAPPY CONTRADICTION – the peasants are suckers. If challenge in court, I am sure HDB would resort to common law rights exerting that it owns the LAND as the landlord and property owner, the lessee is only a tenant of a chattel leased out for 99- yrs.

    PEASANTS GOT SCAMMED YET AGAIN!

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

    ok. can we en-bloc our hdb? or would we face roadblock?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Murderers:

    The sinister move behind rewriting public housing leasing to ownership(you can’t sell if you dont own it) is to turn your four walls into a commodity/business for extreme profit for the Govt. That is fundamentally wrong and damaging to society period( don’t be deceived -much can be written on this subject).

    You are dealing with wickedness at a highest level. And they are making more changes to the law to further destroy your humanity.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Hum Gong Ganna Cheated:

    As Good as playing with words.

    But in reality you can do “F*off” with it.

    In reality, you paid for the land which has been priced into the sum, priced much more the Private landed Freehold land in terms of dollar per year but at the end of it, its going to be ZERO value.

    Unless it was priced below 100K, otherwise it not going to be acceptable and for those that bought 300 over Ks…. hum gong.

    600K/99years = $6,060 per year [NONSENSE].

    Freehold landed;

    Goodtime 1.2M/999 years = $1,202 per year

    OR

    2.4M/999 years = $2,402 per year

    [Free Parking, Free Planting etc...]

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Bluff Old Grandmother:

    “Context” is not Contract.

    Ask them dare dare put it in Black and White “OWNER” and stop using “Generality” words.

    As “insincere” as the GP consultation fees discount if you will to ask me.

    Bluff Old Grandmother from “MEDEKA” maybe can.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Why suffered in silence:

    Nowadays our gahmen could coin ambiguous or re interpret the actual meaning.Lessees are owners, an Indian a Malay.They continue to throw smoke screens and in denial of the truth.But heaven is watching and Pinky can have own agenda but heaven has theirs.Karma will strike those who profit at the expense of the citizens and abuse the citizens for own gain.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TheyWillNeverLiseOut:

    PAP as always, interpreting the laws to their own advantage.
    They must be using a different dictionary from all of us peasants.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Peter Tan:

    With absolute power, they can do anything, includinh 指鹿为马 – the Chinese saying: calling a deer a horse.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singlish definition of Lease:

    This is nothing new. In Chinese, there is a saying called 指鹿為馬,
    meaning to point to a deer and call it a horse.

    Apparently, this actually happened in during the old Chinese Qin empire.
    After Emperor Qin died, one of his highest-ranking eunuch, named ZaoGao 赵高 had ideas on political power for himself, but he did not know who was on his side or who wasn’t or who would obey him or who would defy him.

    So, he called for an assembly of all the court officials, and brought a deer into the hall for everyone to see. Then, in front of everyone, he pointed to the animal and blatantly announced that it is a horse.

    Everyone was befuddled. Some were silently bemused. Others were confused, while some protested openly. The young Emperor who was supposed to take over the throne kept quiet as he did not want to appear stupid and thought that this elderly eunuch should be very knowledgeable.

    Then, the Eunuch asked the audience again, who thinks this is a horse and who thinks this is a deer. Then he noted down the group that agreed with him and those that think it is a deer and those that kept silent.

    Once he got everyone’s decision, he immediately ordered the guards to arrest all those who disagreed with him as well as all those who kept silent, and had them all executed.

    Subsequently, the Eunuch had all the full obedience of all remaining officials without question. No one dared to question or oppose the Eunuch anymore because they realized the Eunuch had full power over the young Emperor too.

    This is the same thing here with blatantly calling a Lease as Ownership.
    It is completely false, just as an Indian is obviously not Malay, but with they try to force the re-definition so that they hold onto power.

    Lies will never defeat Truth. This is the way of this Universe.
    The dynasty will fall soon when Lies are propagated as Truth and when black is turned topsy-turvy and said to be white.

    Note that the great Qin dynasty disintegrated only a few short years later, which occurred after the death of the founder Qin Emperor.

    The historical warnings were always there, but humans think their intellect is very good and can bend universal truth with clever trickery of words and devious manipulations, but ultimately, karmic energy will smite even the greatest of empires. How much more this little red dot with a PAP that thinks they are high and mighty. It is all laughable stupidity on the part of PAP.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • HarderTruths:

    Malay = Indian
    Leesee = Owner
    Citizen = Slave
    FT = Master
    Pappies = Rich

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Responded in STR

    MATE, YOU BANKED IN THE JACKPOT OF THE REAL MONEY AND THE LAW in that illumination below, I keep telling ONE AND ALL, the lease of HDB is only leasing to peasants of what property law called a “chattel” – literally a pigeonhole for rent of 99-yrs paid in advance. The lessee in a lease have exclusive possession and use of the premises under the lease BUT POSSESSION IS NOT OWNERSHIP. Any idiots would know that you checked into a hotel, the room you paid for is your exclusive possession BUT WHEN YOU CHECKED OUT, YOU DON’T OWN THAT HOTEL ROOM! PAPpys LIE WHOLESALE AND WITHOUT BATTING AN EYELID when they claim with slippery tongues that HDB buyers have exclusive possession and use in that lease period as proof of ownership.

    BUT WHAT IS REALITY?

    At end of the 99-yr lease, you have to surrender the premises back to HDB at its command – EXACTLY LIKE THE HOTEL ACCOMMODATION OF MY ILLUMINATION. No hotel quests “own” the room where they stayed of exclusive privacy.

    PAPpys denied 99-yr rental advance reality of this scam of lease = owner deception – asserting it is wrong “FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY” – another layer of BULLSH*T. They did NOT cite even ONE CASE LAW PRECEDENT to support their FAKE NEWS ASSERTION.

    If they did, their fart of fiction will implode from that point.

    Responded in STR: This was responded in STR by:
    Abedina Austin
    “Leasehold” is not the same as “lease”.

    “Leasehold” pertains and applies to land – land, landed property, and appartments sold together with the land that I they are bulit upon.

    “Lease” pertains and applies to leasing (long-term rental) of services, machinery farmland, industrial land, building, flat, room, etc.

    In the case of HDB flats, the “sale” of the flats does not include the sale of land and common shared spaces, such as car parks, playground, roads, lifts, corridors, parks, etc. (different from private condominiums).

    In the case of private flats with 99-year leasehold, the buyer gets the Strata Title. In the case of HDB flats 99-year lease, the lessee gets a Title Deed. The two are different and separate legal documents. They are not the same.

    In the case of private flats, the owner also owns a share of the land collectively owned by all owners of that Strata Title Land upon which their flats occupy.

    In the case of HDB flats, the Government owns the land. Even HDB does not own the land.

    If HDB does not own the land, how can HDB flat lessees own the flats built upon that piece of land? This is the legal and factual aspect from which Minister Lawrence Wong cannot deny.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ PHILLIP ANG,

    FARIDAH ERYANI PAIRIN WAS RESPONDING TO YOU in an official to one single private inquiry. It is NOT in the public domain of her election but yours only. If you have NOT circulate and publish this – only a few informed and those in the legal profession would be smacked right in the face of this sorry discovery of lightning strike that lessee of HDBs are also owners.

    This is PERVERSE play of mischief rule in statutory law construction disregarding universal common law concepts of property law. How could any lessee be concurrently an owner of some “property” or “chattel” which is also owned by an UNDISCLOSED CONCEALED OTHER OR OTHERS in waiting of ambush of legal rights to the EXACTLY THAT SAME IDENTICAL SUBJECT-MATTER OF VALUE?

    THE STATUTORY LAW SO CONSTRUCTED IS A SCAM AND A DECEPTION!

    Why? Can the HDB lessee be an owner SUBJECT TO THE COMMAND of another to submit its will and value to HDB when he supposedly owns the ABSOLUTE property right in that dwelling as its “owner” as defined in LEE-jiapore property law? Remember the HDB buyer must surrender all his/her rights to HDB at lease expiry and SURRENDER SPECIFICALLY TO HDB and no other!!

    It begs the question of WHEN is the buyer of HDB flat is a “owner” of absolute property rights? At end of financial settlement? Or Never in reality since it must be surrendered at lease expiry?

    How come a financially-distressed owners not sell part of his equity to his/her own children to access their kid’s CPF to rescue the failing mortgage WITHOUT HDB DICTATING TERMS that by so doing, their children became “owner” of a subsidized flat and must pay HDB resale levy when they apply for a BTO under their own name later BY WITHDRAWING from their parent’s lease? Who says HDB can factually (forget legally for the moment) in such a circumstances “SOLD” the same flat as NEW BTO to the distressed elderly couple say in 1990 as proud “owner”, then “sold” again the same flat as NEW BTOs to their children in 2012 for example. WHERE ON FIACKING EARTH, can a property developer including HDB sold the same flat TWICE as “new” BTOs to DIFFERENT BUYERS at DIFFERENT TIME – except in presumption under circumstances of a scam and fraud?

    If PAPpys still asserts that HDB buyers are owners of their dwelling, how come it does NOT release title deed to buyer so they can equity fund part of the next mortgage using his equity in HDB as collateral?

    As Ravi pointed out, banks cannot possess HDB from failed mortgagor – again proving that HDB buyers own their flat is a STATUTORY LIE OF FICTION.

    IN THE FACE OF THIS PUBLIC FURORE AND INFERNO of ownership controversy, why HDB won’t accept Ravi debate invitation?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IN THE FACE OF THIS INFERNO OF PUBLIC DISQUIET, when will the Head of Legal in MND, HDB, MinLaw comes out to put its OFFICIAL stance on property law definition in LEE-jiapore in the witness box for public cross-examination.

    Which one among them DARES TO CITE what relevant case law precedents which supports their assertions (if they all still insist IMPLIEDLY by pretended silence till now) that HDB buyers are “owners” of their flat.

    REMEMBER THIS IRREFUTABLE FACT AND LAW – the one who owns the land IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OWNER. Any moveable subject matter CALLED chattel in law parlance sitting on top of the land DO SO ONLY WITH THE CONSENT AND AT THE COMPLETE WILL OF THE LAND OWNER.

    WHY?

    All chattel are in fact and in law TRESPASSING on the land owned by another landlord – unless the owner of chattel also owns the land beneath that.

    Anytime the landlord takes back the land at end of lease expiry, the owners of chattel have lost all rights to park his anus (chattel) on the land now refused and denied of further subletting use to any other.

    In this reality of common law doctrine of property law applications in all COMMONWEALTH JURISDICTION INCLUDING USA, who has property rights of ownership WHEN THE OWNER OF LAND HAS THE FINAL OUTCOME COMMAND on when the structures above that including buildings housing individual units of sold HDB must be demolished?

    HDB flat buyers still owner (instead of lessee with liability to return the building/flats to landowner and landord’s command) of their flats they bought?

    OR IS THAT ANOTHER FART OF FICTION FROM PAPpy SHAKESPEARES talking cawked – both factually and legally?

    YOU TELL ME!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Oi Oi Oi, the 4Gs waiting to take the throne ALL SWITCHED ON THEIR RESET BUTTON – it is now DIAM DIAM DIAM – in the face of this public controversy of home ownership.

    Are they fit to lead this nation on transformational change from a rule by scams and dictatorship to one that is a rule of law?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Kick Them Out Get Back Wealth:

    PAP.GUARANTEE.WIN.GE2019/20:
    To All Readers,
    Phillip Ang had shown his shady evil agenda with this revelation.

    He knew the answer since 2014 and why he still keeps on writing to forum questioning the HDB ownership issue ?

    This Phillip Ang guy had not been upfront and honest with Singaporeans.

    We PAP, since HDP inception, had already defined in HDB act that owner here refer to owner of the 99 year lease.

    We PAP, urge Singaporeans to guard against fake news stir up by opposition such as Phillip Ang.

    This guy must be lock up in IMH for good.

    PAP.GUARANTEE.WIN 2019/20
    -PC Ong: GE19 or 20, it will be a comfortable victory for PAP.
    -PAP Huat ..
    Huat .. Huat .. Ministers are not paid enough..
    -Singaporeans must TIGHTEN belt, DOWNSIZE so that PAP ministers can UPSIZE their salaries and not suffer a drop in their living standard.
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of 9% GST so that minister will get paid > 500K and no longer mediocre
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of 30% water increase so that minister will get paid > 500K and no longer mediocre
    -Singaporeans vote PAP in support of importing more FT to displace their NUS/NTU graduate children so that they can be their own boss driving GRAB CAB.

    There is a better, more transparent and efficient option, that is to kick out the PAP government. The change and things will set themselves right after that.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • World Class Thieves:

    Just the same way the Oxley house fiasco was treated.
    They could do and say whatever they like.
    Just the same as the fake Malay president.
    PAP will do whatever they like to keep themselves in power.
    They claimed massive foreign influx created jobs for sinkies.
    You be your own judge. Wilful ignorance is not going to save you.

    Only the real outcome counts, your hard earned savings are going to dust.
    You are made to pay like a an owner but without the benefits of ownership.
    PAP is going to take away your wealth conveniently in the end.
    Wayangs are cheap but actions are real.
    There is now no assurance that you will not be made homeless and forced into hardships when you are old.
    The social compact is clearly broken and renegaded.

    Nothing is going help unless there is a change of government.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • LIONS:

    HDB,like CPF,is ONE bigLEE $cam.

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

    Responded in STR:
    This was responded in STR by:
    Abedina Austin
    “Leasehold” is not the same as “lease”.

    “Leasehold” pertains and applies to land – land, landed property, and appartments sold together with the land that I they are bulit upon.

    “Lease” pertains and applies to leasing (long-term rental) of services, machinery farmland, industrial land, building, flat, room, etc.

    In the case of HDB flats, the “sale” of the flats does not include the sale of land and common shared spaces, such as car parks, playground, roads, lifts, corridors, parks, etc. (different from private condominiums).

    In the case of private flats with 99-year leasehold, the buyer gets the Strata Title. In the case of HDB flats 99-year lease, the lessee gets a Title Deed. The two are different and separate legal documents. They are not the same.

    In the case of private flats, the owner also owns a share of the land collectively owned by all owners of that Strata Title Land upon which their flats occupy.

    In the case of HDB flats, the Government owns the land. Even HDB does not own the land.

    If HDB does not own the land, how can HDB flat lessees own the flats built upon that piece of land? This is the legal and factual aspect from which Minister Lawrence Wong cannot deny.

    very well said. agree.

    clown pap must refund all the property tax paid for HDB rental.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • rukidding:

    So typical of this Gabblement…..always right ownself WIN law !

    Bloody sick of all these “wayangs” !!!

    So what if this letter was written by HDB legal counsel ???…who does she work for ???…the people?…or Pappy ???

    Who “feeds” her ???

    Maybe this issue should be “discussed in detail” by International Courts for further interpretations on whether their “assurance” is internationall recognised and accepted ???….or was it…suka write and suka say ????

    I am beginning to “imagine” that we are like “living under Cambodia Laws”….another , suka ownself write ownself benefitting laws .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • could also be the 'king':

    //HDB legal counsel clarifies HDB ‘lessees’ are ‘owners’, but only according to PAP-enacted legislation//

    semantics lar. one could be a lesser mortal & mediocre to the many white idiotic aristocrats but he could also be the ‘king’ in his family lar.

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

    @ Responded in STR
    @ oxygen

    wonderful answer!

    ownership is binary – either yes or no – as proven in the legal documents i.e. strata title vs title deed. no amount of rubbish statements by the establishment from the d**honourable son to the shitty times will change this fact. so please face the fact that “your” hdb will become 0 and return to the state at the end of 99 years.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Aziz Kassim:

    The sales is not sale but re-asigned. Meaning I transfer my lease rental to another party. It is not like in private property of transfer of ownership.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sperm:

    If peasants believe this nonsense definition, white trash deserves another landslide.

    This is why I say Singaporeans cannot get rid of pap. Only external forces can.

    Outside sg, pap is no longer that powerful.

    To attack pap, the best way is from External.

    Eg. If a foreigner attacks pap thru the Internet, what can pap do to him?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • pathetically so believing in t:

    //So typical of this Gabblement…..always right ownself WIN law !//

    like 4 = 5 and selected = elected

    the most ‘frightening’ part is there are many top idiots (so called experts & reputable people in the academics and industries) roped in to perpetuate the wayang of the white idiots to ‘smoke’ the so many daft sinkies who unfortunately are pathetically so believing in them.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TUCK WAN:

    Maybe will win next GE but I am
    certain a few slaps (GRC) lost.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Waste of time ZZZ

    IF PAPpy FARTY LEGISLATION is truthful of intention and meaning that peasants buyers of HDB flats are indeed “owners”, they are in THE RIGHT IRREFUTABLE SPOT of extinguish all controversy simply by doing these

    - publicly announcing through official media release that HDB is recollecting all lease documents and

    - issuing new TITLE DEED (not just the monkey lease agreement) which NOW SPECIFY EXPLICITLY therein that HDB is the SELLER (in place of leasor) and attaching the LEGAL IMPORT of Owner (in place of the lessee prior) and

    - the purchase consideration paid for INCLUDED SHARE OF THE LAND on which the building/Dwelling now sits on since PEASANTS HAVE BEEN PAYING PROPERTY TAX ALL ALONG.

    Heaven and SKY will fall on LEE-jiapore EXCLUSIVELY when this imaginative wish of mine happens. The weight of falling clouds will kill off all those sly sleazy and greedy unlimited PAPpy monkeys still surviving and skydiving from one tree branches to another.

    waste of time zzz: wonderful answer!

    ownership is binary – either yes or no – as proven in the legal documents i.e. strata title vs title deed. no amount of rubbish statements by the establishment from the d**honourable son to the shitty times will change this fact. so please face the fact that “your” hdb will become 0 and return to the state at the end of 99 years.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Smelly Jungle Tactics Cuming:

    I sense PAYPAY is going to delay next Erection as much as possible.

    Why?

    You have to ask?

    OK,

    Because they have nothing good to WAYANG!.. hahhahahhahahaha… cannot erection liao.

    The more they delay, the more cannot U-turn, more time for Lim Tean to form up.

    Maybe end up play Tarro-rism, curfew, machine guns, all the Tarrorist tactics CUM out frighten people or maybe send his wife without cementing cum out, even worse….

    You think PayPay will peaceful handover? With Billions$ and smelly rats deadbodies we talking about…difficult.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Waste of Time ZZZ

    OH, A LITTLE CLEVER THINKING will discover that hoax of land preservation reserved for future generation is ANOTHER CREATIVE FART OF FICTION – it is A NEW LIE to cover up an OLD LIE.

    The OLD LIE is that the peasants paid a fortune for the land but in that deception got no strata title or legal interest in that land. So the legal interest is STOLEN by PAPpys chicanery.

    And what is the NEW LIE? This one is accomplished BY DEFAULT OF DUMBFARKED PEASANTS (there are 70% of these around) COMPLICITING. How?

    If the peasants bought this poisonous mud crab in the sewage cesspool that land confiscation is for the benefit of future generations (whose needs are unknown now but PAPpys pretends to know), these DUMBFARKED PEASANTS “LEGITIMIZE” this hoax and theft of land paid for by peasants but denied of legal interest rights therein.

    Once that is set in concrete of FAKE NEWS acknowledgement and the acceptance of its scam as truths, PAPpys NO LONGER NEEDS TO JUSTIFY ITS THEFT OF LAND to future generations. PAPpys only NEEDS TO STEAL from the first generation of 99-yr lease, IT IS THEIRS FOR KEEP FOREVER.

    Future generations which PAPpys pretends to “protect” their interest will have no rights in the land as it was NOT theirs to begin with and it is surrendered by our generation of 99-yr lease allegedly “for their benefit”

    In Chinese wisdom analogy – it is a thief chased by law enforcement shouting thief in front to confused spectators of peasants.

    And what is the reality?

    First – Past Tense said with climate change and rising sea level, the land size of Lee-jiapore could be reduced to no more than what is Bukit Timah today. What benefit of land confiscation and preservation for future generation of those low-lying areas like Punggol, East Coast, Changi, Jurong etc etc. The land size might have reduced economic usable land, no jobs around, and most locals and all foreigners would have long left the sinking land.

    And even if we build water dykes to prevent sea water from coming in, there might be no industry and commerce because no banks or factories can operating efficient in constant flood environment.

    And foreign PRs either fled our shores and won’t buy any flat since it is a lease arrangement of liability and the real asset (land) confiscated quietly by the seller. Who wants to be a sucker seeing locals are fleeced like sheep shaved of its wool to face cool winters and hungry.

    THERE MIGHT BE NO DEMAND FOR LAND.

    PAPpys claim of land conservation and recycling is another fairytale hoax of MOTHER OF ALL SCAMS AND LIES TO COVER UP AN EXISTING LIE OF LAND CONFISCATION.

    LET NOBODY BELIEVES THEM.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    s377a PENAL CODE AND HDB ACT are both ARCHAIC STATUTORY LAW – the former criminalise fart-knocking (and refusing of revocation) but the State now decriminalize it, even ironically, glamorize it with security support at HLP Pink Dot festivity and the latter is a fart of fiction that peasants who bought HDB flats are BOTH OWNER AND LESSEE at the same time of the subject-matter when in reality of factually and legally a nullity of binary impossibility.

    Unless one fervently believes that HDB is ‘BI-SEXUAL” of preference, it is stupid of any PAPpy Shakespeares to quote back to peasants this crap of….it is in the law”. IT IS FAKE NEWS. Or law interpretation applying the mischief rule to WARPED OUTCOME of stealing land paid for by peasants but denied of the same in legal documentation in subsequent of ownself-write-and-ownself-interprete-own-law – that is a mockery of rule of property law anywhere else in the world?

    What law? Another chapter of s.377a hallucination of pretension of illegality having decriminalize it of morality pretension or otherwise?

    Hitler legalized extermination of a chosen race, those who defied his “lawful order” were summarily executed by the same moral-sanctioned legal law for treason against his State.

    Who says law is moral or justice? Or law is a wicked devil depending on who the law architect and its engineers taking instructions?

    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