PAP Government’s Response Does Not Address Singapore’sFundamental Public Housing Problem

The point about Singapore’s HDB public flats is that HDB public flats are over-priced, and (1) because Singaporeans are earning depressed wages, they are therefore unable to save enough for day-to-day living and (2) because they have to use their CPF pension funds to pay for HDB public flats, they cannot save enough for retirement.

Second, Singaporeans are paying market value for the land which the HDB flat sits on, which means they are paying “private” market prices for a supposedly “public” good, and are therefore over-paying.

Third, the PAP government encouraged Singaporeans to trade their HDB public flats on the open market, therefore causing buyers to over-pay on the resale flats, and not be able to save enough for retirement.

Therefore, the two problems with the HDB public flats are that (1) the PAP government made Singaporeans pay “private” prices for land and caused Singaporeans to lose money to the PAP government, and (2) the PAP encouraged Singaporeans to trade their flats and caused buyers to lose money from their CPF.

These are the two main problems with the HDB flats. But the PAP government’s “Factually” website chooses not to address this at all.

In their latest “Factually” clarification, all they did was to explain what a 99-year-old lease like. Do they not think Singaporeans understand a simple concept about the 99-year-lease?

Of course, we do!

What Singaporeans are angry about is, (1) if Singaporeans do not own the HDB public flats in perpetuity, then why are they paying overpriced “private” prices for the flats, and (2) if Singaporeans do not own the land that the HDB public flats sit on, then why are they paying overpriced “private” prices for the flats?

The PAP government conveniently omits mention of this, and does not address these issues at all.

Essentially, it is the PAP that created these two problems of the HDB flats. The PAP is the one which included land costs into HDB flats in 1985, and sold it to Singaporeans at “private” market prices. And it is the PAP that convinced Singaporeans to use their CPF to trade their HDB flats on the open market, and thereby causing them not to save enough inside their CPF pension funds.

Therefore, Singaporeans are overpaying on their HDB flats and would be unable to save enough inside their CPF funds to retire, and this blame lies squarely on the PAP.

It is the PAP which created the problem with the HDB public flats today.

But the PAP does not even have the guts or the basic courtesy to admit to their mistakes and wrongdoings. They do not have the basic courtesy and responsibility to admit that they created this problem.

And they hope to brush the problem away, first with a VERS with no details, and now, by not admitting to the issue.

Also, as a friend mentioned to me, based on the PAP government’s latest illustration, for an elderly couple who pass on their 99-year-old HDB flat to their children, they would not be able to sell their flat lease back to the government and reclaim their pension funds – under the Lease Buyback Scheme that the PAP introduced.

And also, based on the PAP government’s latest illustration, there would be 9 people staying in the flat at one time. First, can 9 people squeeze inside a HDB flat? And second, the elderly couple would not be able to rent the HDB flat out to earn money for retirement – wasn’t this another suggestion by the PAP government?

So now, the PAP’s way of convincing people that there are no problems with the HDB is by telling people that their HDB flats can be passed on, when this will prevent them from recouping their pension funds, from the schemes that the PAP introduced?

Does the PAP want to make up their minds?

First, the PAP makes Singaporeans lose their CPF pension funds by making Singaporeans pay market prices for the land, then second, they make Singaporeans use their CPF to pay for overpriced resale flats, and then they said that Singaporeans could sell their flat leases to get back some pension funds, and then said they could rent out their rooms to earn some pension monies. But now, they say 9 people can stay in one flat, which means they cannot sell their flat leases or rent out their rooms, to recoup their losses at all.

And what happens when their children have to return the HDB flat after 99 years, when the flat value becomes zero, and the HDB flat has to be returned to the PAP government? The children and grandchildren would have to pay for new flats, and we will be facing all the same problems we are facing all over again today.

So, what exactly does the PAP want? And what exactly is their solution for the HDB. Are they now admitting they do not have a solution for Singaporeans? The PAP can draw whatever cute cartoons they want, but cute cartoons are not going to solve the HDB and CPF crisis facing Singaporeans today.

It is highly irresponsible for the PAP to not address the real issues of the HDB flats. By next year, the PAP would have stayed in power for 60 years. But after staying in power for 60 years, the PAP has created problems to not only Singaporeans’ CPF, but also to their HDB.

You have to question, for a prime minister who had bought freehold private property at Nassim Jade, would he understand how it feels like for Singaporeans to live in 99-year leasehold public housing? Would he be able to have enough understanding of Singaporeans’ plight when he does not stay in public housing?

The same goes for all the other PAP members of parliament – would they understand the worries that Singaporeans have living in HDB public flats when these MPs stay in private property or landed property? And would the prime minister who earns as much as S$2.7 million a year, or more, understand the pain that Singaporeans have, when in a year, he can buy as many as 8 to 10 HDB flats, or more, while the average Singaporean would have to work for 8 to 10 years, or more, to be able to earn enough to buy a HDB flat?

Next year, the PAP wants to “celebrate” Singapore’s 200th birthday. Didn’t they just “celebrate” Singapore’s 50th birthday just 3 years ago, in 2015? They said then that Singapore was just a fishing village 50 years ago. But so now, Singapore wasn’t a fishing village in 1965?

The PAP has the cheek to “celebrate” Singapore’s 200th birthday, and hold elections next year, and yet still expect to win? When they have created all these problems with the CPF and HDB? Do you want to let them?

Singaporeans have overpaid on their HDB flats for way too much. And the PAP has overstayed their rule for far too long.


Roy Ngerng



Sponsored Content

16 Responses to “PAP Government’s Response Does Not Address Singapore’sFundamental Public Housing Problem”

  • MikeB:

    The 70% brainwashed voters created this overpriced, overpaid and most expensive public housing that the Low and middle income citizens have to suffer with lesser in their CPF for retirement. Don’t blame the PAP For brainwashing, the people who voted for them should be blame for making us suffer the consequences of their stupidity. Their GOD is the PAP, period. They believe in their PAP so much that they have SOLD they children future to the PAP.

    GD Star Rating
  • HDB concrete Slum/Ghetto/Scam:

    How come I see no difference leh? There’s as much HDB dwellers driving BMW, Merc and Audi as those staying in private. And some of theses HDB dwellers also got two properties like condos. SO what’s the buzz??? GREED plus too STUPID to know they’re stupid?

    GD Star Rating
  • RDB:

    Dictators voted in by dumb ass voter endlessly has brought this about. Blame the jackasses brain washed no brains 70% in 2015 who did it again.

    GD Star Rating
  • MikeB:

    In the near future, I see that there will be more young married couples staying in their parents house with their siblings and save their CPF money instead of buying their own HDB. Since some survey showed that up to 6 out of 10 young people will eventually migrate for better pastures. These young people already know the meaning of quality lifestyle living. These people will leave Singapore and take their hard earn CPF to their adopted country and buy freehold properties instead. That means soon we will have a few true blue Singaporeans left here and a lot more new citizens.

    GD Star Rating
  • HDB Concrete Slum/Ghetto/Scam:

    Actually all the KPKB over HDB is BOTTOM LINE: Cannot Enbloc.
    This issue only started in 2017. So PAP is not wrong. All along there is no issue. So you want enbloc your HDB? Greedy Pigs.TKK.

    GD Star Rating
  • N.Jungne:

    Thanks Roy, good write and now they are doing the same to hawkers and Hawker centers. Kick them out, before more damages are done.

    GD Star Rating
  • LIONS:

    Housing issues are more than PRIVATE MARKET HOME PRICES.



    GD Star Rating
  • LIONS:

    And,btw,what farking stoopid 4G they boasting about?
    When you buy 4G phone,its better n higher grade.
    In $inCity,you pay more for 3G N 4G LEEder$ who screw up as compared to much CHEAPER 1G?

    GD Star Rating
  • Bapak:

    Why Sinkies keep voting them? A nation of full of fools.

    GD Star Rating
  • rukidding:

    “On the spot” !

    Well done Roy,….clap ! clap !

    Yes,…Roy “saw through Pappy’s plot” !!!

    That is why Pappy had to “chase him away” using “underhand” tactics !

    Don’t worry ROY,…GOD will help you “Punished” them !

    GOD is GREAT !

    GD Star Rating
  • Rabble-rouser:

    NO WAY OUT! And that’s the dire situation facing 80% of the voters who “owned” & lived in HDB flats. Keep voting for the PAP, the Status Quo remains the same & the outcome becomes predictable & terminal (genocidal).
    There comes a time for a change & a change in the direction on S’pore’s property-centric view of the world. We’re living in uncertain times – the weather is becoming unpredictable; there are business disruptions everywhere as the long-term business expectations no longer holds water; & situations changes so fast that it is suicidal to put oneself in a long-term debt commitment. S’poreans’ obsession with properties needs to reassessed because high priced properties are becoming incongruent with the future of ageing demographics; automation & robotics (shrinking jobs creation); wealth polarisation between haves & have-nots & a return to financial discipline (capital budgeting) & market risk assessment (interest rates).
    In economic & business terms, the business cycles are getting shorter; the business opportunities in terms of exploitation – discontinuous (terminal) & exceptionally short-term in nature & the risk factor – very high as many new start-ups will be viewed with a more critical eye & capital harder to source. And S’pore economy is caught up with many such poor “high-tech” investments which any sharp investor knows have no business fundamentals nor any longevity. Look at Bike sharing apps, ride share apps & now food delivery apps – the disruptions are rapid & unpredictable (supply chains being caught high & dry by defaults & unrecoverable debts). A eroding & declining economy can’t coexists with a highly priced property market. S’pore isn’t like San Francisco or Seattle where a bouyant high-tech industry & start-ups fuelled their property markets. Think Andy Xie!
    Anyone with a discerning eye knows that S’pore properties including the depreciating HDB flats can’t keep private property prices going up. The PAP is running a high inflationary environment with cost-push increases, operating an exceptionally high cost Crony Capitalist eco-system & their manipulating/controlling the demand & supply of land keeping prices high. Tell me that it isn’t a greater fool game when the music finally stops?

    GD Star Rating
  • HarderTruths:

    A crook will continue to rob as long there is no fear of being caught or punished.

    So don’t waste your breath unless you can punish them.

    GD Star Rating
  • nicotineeyes:

    HDB…HellDontBuy. It was designed to get the people ‘off the land’ & into LIVE 1:1 scale living “coumbarium”to live out our lives with nothing left forever; including our CPF. REMEMBER Bukit Ho Swee Fire…EVERYTHING is a lie.Its land banking 101 to take everything back eventually. Look around carefully & you will see HDB flats owners of matured estates being SERS to newer plots within matured estates & the old existing vacant blocks are lease to FTs. Upgrading is paying for their lack of foresight & mediocre planning & cost is often passed to the ‘owners’ to pay for it by directly taking it from their CPF. THEY WILL PAY NOTHING. Just like in Tiong Bahru, they have taken back flats from the elderly & offered them the taller blocks behind & refurbished the windows & doors of the taken flats in exchange for FTs to rent. Matured estates flats are most at risk of being taken for this purpose, for their population expansion plans & give options for locals to stupidly buy again in far away estates just to stay & start the process all over again plus being far away,locals would have no choice but to depend on public transport & MRT to increasingly; pay to get to work till their dying days. FTs will stay close to city. Local True Blue Singaporeans;far, far away like peasants. This is a cruel country run by a mathematical clown.

    GD Star Rating
  • opposition dude:

    This HIP2 and VERS nonsense that they have conjured up will either be “enhanced” or “tweaked” when the schemes fail, we have seen it all before. The flats built in 1967 in Toa Payoh will be undergoing HIP2 in less than 10 years but common sense would tell you that there won’t be too many buyers wanting a flat with only 39 years of lease left come 2027.

    After all, if you were to buy the flat and live in it for a decade who would want to buy a 70 year old flat from you with 29 years of lease left?

    Overpaying for public housing is one thing, Singaporeans have never got the guts to even have a coalition government, much less make PAP an opposition party. And with PAP having the super majority in parliament time and again Singaporeans love grumbling about expensive flats and high cost of living. But as usual, all got no balls but love to whine like little children.

    GD Star Rating
  • oxygen:

    ROY IS WRONG ON TWO COUNTS – consumers of public housing DO NOT OWN their public housing flat at common law. They are mere leesee with no transfer of property rights, HDB is at all times the owner and leasor. A leasor/lessee arrangement is exactly like a balor/bailee relationship in commercial reality. So Roy is wrong to say

    Roy:What Singaporeans are angry about is, (1) if Singaporeans do not own the HDB public flats in perpetuity…

    Roy is also wrong of this point

    Roy: So now, the PAP’s way of convincing people that there are no problems with the HDB is by telling people that their HDB flats can be passed on…

    If the lessee have 4 children, who does this flat is passed on to? Some might be never married and ineligible and others might be doing so well that they don’t want to stay in the deceased parents’ flat.

    The rights of the deceased lessee is NOT TRANSFERABLE IN FACT via “passing on”.

    If otherwise, it can be retained by the children of deceased former lessee to derived rental income for the residual of lease to 99-yr expiry. Or the residual lease can be sold to an investor entity to derived rental income so the original lessee gets the full value of his/her purchase costs. BUT THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE EITHER.

    If the original lessee only occupied the public housing for 50 years and the residual have no marketable value in resale, the residual yet unconsumed lease of 49 years will vaporize to nothing – HDB THE OWNER WILL TAKE IT BACK WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

    SO ROY, WHERE IS THE SUCCESSION RIGHTS in HDB leasing arrangement with peasants?

    I SEE NONE!!

    GD Star Rating
  • oxygen:

    Roy, M. Ravi and Lim Tean invited PAPPys to public debate on “WHO” owns the public housing flat – no PAPpy accept their invitations. IT IS TELLING as it is also evident that in reality found in your HDB legal documentation (note I didn’t use the word “title deed” because it isn’t one). The Bridges v Hawkesworth case law aka common law doctrine utterly refutes PAPpy’s proposition that peasants owns the HDB dwelling. IT NEVER WAS for even one brief moment of time in passing – forget about your “acknowledgement” of presumed ownership, MUCH LESS OF OWNERSHIP in perpetuity myth.

    The Bridges v Hawkesworth law on property ownership definition is tested for over 160 years in UK, Canada, USA, Australia, Hong Kong and not defeated. The most recent ones include Parkers v British Airway Board. Of course PAPpys SHTUM SHTUM SHTUM on all these legal precedents.

    My take is that M. Ravi and Lim Tean challenge is right – never mind PAPpys wants to deny truths from heaven to hell but who in the PAPpypolitics is going to debate them with staggering weight of common law grounds weighing heavily against PAPpys fake HDB legal ownership claims?

    The first principle of politics says if you must lie, be brief and if you are caught pants down of reality exposure – DIAM DIAM DIAM is your only option because bald face denial adds fuels to the fire.

    Nobody lease or have a need to lease a property or chattel from another IF HE IS THE REAL OWNER with absolute property and use rights attached. When peasants paid through their ar*es for what the legal documentation assert to be a leasor/lesee transaction, IT MEANS THE PEASANTS DO NOT OWN that property or chattel. Someone else owns it and it that leasor is in evidence of written legal document the legal owner. The logic is that simple of reality.

    GD Star Rating

Leave a Reply

 characters available

Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement

Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement

Most Recent Comments
  • Chill, man: @ Have Guts, Sink Their Ships ?: How astonishing that the ostensibly elite of all aristocrats fail to...
  • rukidding: Our BEST HOPE for PEACE is to get our “Satay Macik” from Istana to “served” some...
  • Change We Must: They re intruding the cleaners privacy, who would want to work there?
  • Change We Must: DR M going around the world to ask for money lah! Singapore is skeptical about the loan so old fox...
  • rukidding: Go ahead,….please , be the FIRST again.! “start” the “ball rolling” with the...
  • Change We Must: Yes, we have to be united as one people.
  • Change We Must: I don’t know what the writer is talking? Our territory is hijacked by Malaya. If you are...
  • Change We Must: In this kind of crisis, we have to be united to protect our country put the difference in political...
  • apek: Wanna fight ? Then fight la… Like a little brother talk here talk there swing your arms here and there...
  • LIONS: From Ah Long to Kee-chiu is like from toilet bowl into SHIT-HOLE. Now,he is too shy to kee-chiu,he shake head...
  • What ?: @ We should not talk like the bodoh people up there. They can survive only with special privileges. bmagine...
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic