TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent Beleaguered HDB, which has come under fire in recent weeks for poor planning leading to rapid inflation of HDB flat prices, has struck back at its critics through the state media. In an article published on the Straits Times today, HDB seeks to debunk complaints from first-time home buyers that they could not get a flat despite repeated attempts. (read article here) Using three case studies to support its case, HDB claimed that the buyers' complaints do not quite match what was actually stated in their records. The Sunday Times reported on Sept 20 that Mr Jayce Ng and Madam Jacelyn Yong had applied at least eight times, five for build-to-order (BTO) projects and half-yearly sales. They claimed they were successful in only one application - for a five-room flat in Clementi two years ago and regretted not buying then. According to HDB, the couple submitted 15 applications, out of which only four were for BTO projects, where couples have to wait typically three to four years. Their other applications were for limited flats in mature estates. Records show they were offered a chance to select a flat seven times but did not do so. Though there are some discrepancies in the accounts of the home buyers, it doesn't hide the fact that the buyers did encounter genuine difficulties in getting a flat of their choice, whether it is 15 or 4 applications make little difference. In an ideal situation, young Singapore couples should be able to get their desired flat after one or at most two applications. Since a flat is a lifelong investment and they will be paying for the mortage loans for 20, 30 years or more, it is reasonable to expect them to be extremely cautious and selective of their units. HDB should ensure there are sufficient flats available in mature estates at an easily affordable price to cater to the masses instead of blaming the buyers for being "unrealistic" and "picky". Being a government agency funded by taxpayers, it is natural that Singaporeans harbor a higher expectations for HDB, especially with its sterling performance and track record over the last few decades in providing affordable homes for Singaporeans. In the past, young couples can get a flat of their choice easily at reasonably low prices. Many of them can afford to repay their mortage loans in less than 10 years. It is inevitable that Singaporeans will compare the situation now with their parents and ask why they have to pay so much more for a flat which may not be located in the estate of their choice. Though we cannot expect prices to remain the same as in the 1970s and 1980s, the rate of increase in prices should keep pace with the growth of the wages of ordinary Singaporeans. If HDB finds that it can no longer meet the aspirations of Singaporeans, then perhaps it should relinquish its monopoly on public housing and allow boutique private developers to enter the market. With a few competitors to choose from, prices will be fixed more or less at market rates and Singaporeans will have little to complain about. HDB can never change public perception that HDB flats are supposed to be cheap and easily affordable. It should do more to alleviate the concerns of Singaporeans either by increasing the supply of flats or making it more difficult for PRs to purchase resale flats to decrease the demand instead of quarreling with home buyers over such trivialities which will only make it appear unempathetic, petty and unreasonable. Using a few cases will not alleviate public concerns that public housing is increasingly priced out of reach. What if the three cases are the exception rather than the norm? HDB should come clean with the average number of attempts and the average waiting time needed by a first-time home buyer to get a flat of their choice time to give a more accurate and representive picture of the situation.   Related articles: >> Mah Bow Tan dismissed complaints from home buyers as "ridiculous" >> Number of applicants exceed number of flats >> HDB to increase supply of flats >> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past >> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs  Read More →

OPINION National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said last week that HDB will ramp up its supply of build-to-order (BTO) flats from 8,000 to 9,000 units this year, and will make available 2,132 flats which are completed or nearly completed across the island for sale with immediate effect. (read article here) This means more than 7,000 flats will be on sale for the next three months. The sale of completed flats, left from earlier BTO exercises, SERS and repurchased flats, will come under a new scheme called Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) which will now replace the existing balloting exercise, quarterly sales, and half-yearly sales exercises. Are these completed flats easily affordable by Singaporeans? Let us study the prices provided by HDB in some estates: District                             3-room prices                              4-room prices Ang Mo Kio                    $244,000 - $262,000              $253,000 - $394,000 Bukit Merah                    $262,000 - $287,000             $388,000 - $488,000 Jurong East                     $141,000 - $217,000               $250,000 - $327,000 Kallang                               $257,000 - $282,000              $287,000 - $438,000 Queenstown                     $302,000 - $308,000              $298,000 - $498,000 [Source: HDB InfoWeb] The prices of five room flats are not included as most of them cost more than $400,000 with some in prime districts like Toa Payoh and Bishan fetching as high as $600,000. Are buyers paying for value at such exorbitant prices for leasehold public housing? For a couple of thousand dollars more, they can easily buy a condominium in the surburbs. An undiscerning reader may mistake these figures as prices for resale flats had we not indicated earlier that these are completed (leftover) flats put on sale by HDB. Yet, these are indeed the prices of resale flats in the same estates not too long ago. Remember, these are prices of new flats. The buyers are paying the stipulated amount to HDB directly. For readers who are more than 40 years old, they can attest to the fact that a new 3-room HDB flat in Ang Mo Kio cost between $40,000 and $60,000 in the mid 1980s. The value has now quadrupled. While young couples can easily afford a 3-room or 4-room HDB flat 20 years ago and finish repaying the housing loan in less than 20 years, they are unlikely to do so at today's prices. The median wages simply cannot keep pace with the rate at which the prices of public housing is growing which is exacerbated by the relentless influx of foreigners in recent years. Not surprisingly, an ERA report revealed last week that 40 per cent of the buyers of HDB flats are PRs and 86 per cent of the flats are transacted with COVs. Single Singaporeans are hardest hit as they are allowed to purchase a HDB flat after 35 years of age by the time the prices may have risen beyond their means. Though they have fulfilled their National Service obligations, they do not enjoy any housing subsidies from the government and has to compete with PRs in the open market for housing. Even if they are able to afford the flats, they will have to slog hard for their entire lives to repay the loan unless they are high earners in the first place. Mr Mah has continued to reassure Singaporeans that the government is "monitoring" the situation and will ensure that homes are affordable. If this is indeed so, how can the prices of new HDB flats be allowed to shoot up to such ridiculously high levels? Is this HDB's definition of "affordability"? Ability to pay the downpayment of 10 per cent of the valuation plus any COVs should not be equated to ability to pay for the flat for the rest of one's life. With HDB setting such prices for new flats, it is little wonder that sellers are asking for astronomical prices for theirs. The difference in prices between a central district like Queenstown and one in the suburbs like Choa Chu Kang can be as high as $100,000. What are the exact land and construction costs? HDB should reveal the figures publicly to allow Singaporeans to judge for themselves if they should be paying for the new flats at such prices.   Related articles: >> 12,700 applications for 2,132 HDB flats >> Number of applicants exceed number of flats >> HDB to increase supply of flats >> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past >> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs   EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →

From our Correspondent The Attorney-General's Chambers is considering whether to appeal against the acquittal of five opposition leaders and supporters charged with taking part in a "procession" in September 2007. [Read the entire judgement in PDF format here] The SDP leaders were Mr Gandhi Ambalam, chairman; Mr John Tan, assistant secretary-general; and Ms Chee Siok Chin, central executive committee member. The supporters were Mr Yap Keng Ho and Mr Chong Kai Xiong. District Judge John Ng, in a written judgment, said he acquitted the five on the sole ground that he did not consider what they had done a ‘procession’.  The walk by the SDP five was held to mark the first anniversary of a similar protest planned for September 2006, when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings were held in Singapore. The five who were wearing T-shirts with the words ‘Democracy Now’ and ‘Freedom Now’ with a picture of a lighted candle, had walked from the Speakers’ Corner along North Bridge Road to Parliament House and then along Bras Basah Road to the Istana and then along Orchard Road to the Queenstown Remand Prison on 16 Sep 07. Judge Ng concluded: “I am fortified in my views when I consider that the principal [Miscellaneous Offences] Act and the Rules were meant to relate to offences against public order, nuisance and property. The WALK which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians.” According to the verdict passed by the esteemed Judge Ng, does it mean that the five Singaporeans are CHARGED by the Attorney-General Chambers for merely "walking" in the streets? From the police investigations of the five to their formal charging in court, trial and eventually acquittal two days ago, how much public resources, monies and time had been spent on the case which spanned over two years? Why is there a need to investigate and charge the five for "walking" in a public place? Is it a criminal offence to wear T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Democracy"? The five did not hold any placards, shout slogans or harrass the passer-bys. Even if they are convicted of the "offence", they will at most fork out $1,000 per head. Is it a guarantee that they will not repeat the same "offence" again? It appears that the chief purpose of hauling the SDP five to court is to send a strong message to Singaporeans that such "processions" are not allowed by the law. In this case, as Judge Ng pointed out, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that the five are in a "procession". They are simply "walking" from one point to another in a public place. The police and prosecutors are paid for by Singaporeans. Taxpayers therefore have the right to put their actions and work under intense scrutiny. In other developed countries, the case will not even be investigated by the police in the first place. Instead of wasting precious public resources to investigate and prosecute peaceful, law-abiding citizens walking around in a public place without causing disorder or nuisance to others, why not spent it on real offences such as the hanging of national emblems of other countries in HDB estates which clearly an offence under the National Emblem Act? The ruling party should come to the realization that its tried and practiced method of harrassing and intimidating the opposition via the police and smearing their names through the state media no longer works. Unlike 20 years ago, with the advent of the internet and the alternative media, Singaporeans are becoming more discerning, educated and sophisticated. There will come a time when they will simply lose all credibility by their relentless hounding of the opposition just like what has happened across the causeway. 10 years ago, the government can easily justified the use of force to crack down on street protests. Now, thanks to the internet, public opinion is firmly against the government. In an online poll conducted by The Malaysian Insider, over 60 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the police using force to stop a major anti-ISA protest in the heart of Kuala Lumpur a few months back. The world is changing, so is the mindset of young Singaporeans, but the ruling party is still stuck in the old, rigid world view of the 1960s. This will be the seeds of their eventual decline and downfall.  Read More →