By Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “HDB residents happy where they live – over 95% surveyed satisfied with their flats and neighbourhood” (Asiaone, 18 February).
I believe the statistic for the number of foreigners staying in HDB flats has been made available for the first time ever. I surmised this from this statement in the report:
“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008.”
“This figure makes up 96 per cent of the total population in HDB flats, of which 88 per cent were citizens, and 8 per cent were permanent residents. The remaining four per cent were foreigners.”
So, does it mean that we have 121,667 foreigners staying in HDB flats, which makes up 4 per cent of the total HDB population (as calculated by taking 2.92 million to be 96 per cent)?
Given the acute shortage of rental housing for Singaporeans, with a queue of over 4,000 applicants and waiting periods of up to two years, how many foreigners are staying in flats which may be indirectly rented out by the HDB through managing agents like EM Services?
Are there any countries in the world whereby one in eight people in public housing are not citizens, since 12 per cent are non-citizens (8 per cent PRs and 4 per cent foreigners)?
The article also states:
“86 per cent – especially those who live in newer flats (less than 5 years) and older flats (21 years and above) – feel that their HDB flats are worth the money they spent mainly because of the appreciation in flat value, good location, proximity to facilities, and affordability.
“For residents of older flats, the main reasons given were the location of their flats, flat prices that had either already appreciated or were expected to have a good resale value in the future.”
This statement seems to be somewhat odd, as it conveniently ignores the bulk of flat owners who live in flats ranging from six to 20 years old.
As the statement suggests, those who live in older flats of over 21 years surely feel that their flats are worth what they spent because HDB flat prices were very low and affordable more than 20 years ago.
Similarly, the newer flats of less than five years may be those which have not met the 5-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP). These flats had been offered at much lower prices than resale flats, which have seen huge price spikes in only the last two years or so.
Surely, those who went through the 13-year bear market (1996 to 2009) waiting for the HDB Resale Price Index to recover its price level may not be so happy when asked whether their flats were value for money, had appreciated in value, or were affordable. If we factor in the interest payments on housing loans, flats bought from as long as about 15 years ago may still not be making any money at all.
So, are we perhaps telling only ‘half the story’ about value for money and affordability?
Several media reports said that we should not blame others for rising flat prices, because only five percent of flats are owned by PRs and only 20 per cent of resale flats last year were purchased by PRs. Perhaps what we need are not just the statistics on ownership, but on rental as well. How many flats are also rented to PRs and foreigners? Perhaps there’s another case of telling ‘half the story’ here?
Did the survey cover any of the 60,000 flat dwellers who were given financial counselling by the HDB for difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, or the 30,770 flat-owners in arrears over three months as of September 2009, or the estimated about 60 flats repossessed by the HDB every month, or the unknown number of HDB bank loans in arrears or foreclosed? Perhaps another case of ‘half the story’ here too?
With regards to the statement:
“The survey also showed that the HDB resident population, comprising Singapore citizens and permanent residents, increased by 2.7 per cent over 5 years to 2.92 million in 2008”.
It omits to mention what was the increase in the foreigner HDB resident population over the five years. It is inconsistent to on the one hand give the break-down of the resident population by citizens, PRs and foreigners, but omit foreigners in the rate of increase over the five years.
What we need is the rate of increase in the five years, broken down into Singaporeans, PRs and foreigners, in order to have the ‘full story’.
The HDB press release said: “The average household income from work had also risen from $4,238 in 2003 to $5,680 in 2008, reflecting the growing affluence of HDB households.”
However, for the purpose of a rough comparison for discussion’s sake, according to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) Household Expenditure Survey released in December 2009, the average monthly household income for HDB flats’ dwellers grew from $4,202 in 2002/3 to $5,503 in 2007/08.
The DOS data for all households, including private housing, had the average monthly household income of the 41st – 60th quintile at $5,480. For their data, the DOS uses HDB flats’ average income as well as the average income of the median total population – the average income of the segment of households that separates the higher and the lower halves of the total population sample.
The problem with such a comparison is that the HDB uses just the average income. This figure is skewed upwards by the high incomes earned by wealthier households – which is a significant distortion given Singapore’s income inequality (BusinessWeek ranked Singapore the second most unequal country in a list of the 11 most unequal advanced economies in the world – our score was 42.5, with 0 being complete equality and 100 being complete inequality).
So, the question is why can’t the HDB use median income as well? This would be more reflective of the income of the average household, like data provided by the DOS.
This is not the first time that the HDB Survey data seems to be out of sync with the DOS data. In 2003, according to the DOS Household Survey, while the household income of those living in private homes grew, those in public flats fell by 0.4 per cent per annum, from $3,860 in 1998 to $3,790 in 2003.
Since about 85 per cent of the population live in public flats, does this mean that the majority of Singaporeans were worse off?
In contrast, according to the HDB Household Survey of the same year, “average household income of HDB flat dwellers rose from $3,719 to $4,238 a month.”
How is it possible that the DOS Household Survey differs so markedly from the HDB Household Survey for apparently the same period, for such a crucial statistic?
I tried searching the HDB web site and the internet for the HDB Sample Household Survey Report, but could not find it.
Instead of just a press release fill with HDB’s selective findings and conclusions, may I suggest that the full report be made available to the public so that we may try to figure out the whole story?
________________________
Photo by Joshua Chiang
http://business.asiaone.com/print/Business/News/Story/A1Story20100218-199359.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1038222/1/.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_491794.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_491802.html
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10296p.nsf/PressReleases/C982024B92F84092482576CD0083862D?OpenDocument
____________________________________________________________________
Is it the policies that indirectly or directly led to exploitations of opportunities ?
How possible is it that PRs who bought a flat or condo years ago cash in after finding greener pastures or lost their jobs here?
Can PAP comment on this possibility?
Can HDB reveal all PR flats sold and map to the PRs who left and gone home?
What is the Effect of allowing PRs to buy and sell public housing?
What is the Effect of granting citizenship in such huge numbers and ease (comparatively)?
In the recession , how many old their flats to cash in by leaving or downgrade?
Goh Meng Seng did a follow up with HDB Sample Survey 2008.
No clarity yet but more questions on HDB Survey
Last week, I wrote about how the HDB Sample Survey 2008 was misleading and contained serious statistical issues. Leong Sze Hian did an independent analysis and came to a similar conclusion.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/hdb-95-per-cent-happy-with-their-flats-%e2%80%93-really-or-just-half-the-story/
What I had written was even featured in the Reach forum. An anonymous poster posted the entire thread from TOC into the Reach discussion thread on HDB.
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/YourDiscussionCorner/tabid/117/ptid/414/page/59/totrecs/591/threadid/2427/forumtype/posts/Default.aspx
It is strange that up till now there isn’t any reactions to what I have written. The formidable PAP Internet team which is supposed to “counter” unfavourable, untrue articles by the Opposition did not show up. Instead among the people who commented, there was almost universal agreement that there was something “fishy” about the statistics.
As I had previously written, I do not understand the results of the press release. In particular, the following seems to contradict the daily experience of those that live in the HDB heartlands.
96.4% of all HDB households surveyed said they were satisfied with their flats, while 95.1% were satisfied with their neighbourhood.
I therefore wrote the following email to HDB to ask them for the survey form and the methodology of the survey.
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I have read with interest about your recent release on HDB Sample Survery 2008. I would like to have a copy of the survey questionnaire and understand more about the survey methodology applied in this survery.
I am particularly interested on how the 94% of HDB dwellers satisfaction rate was derived from the survey. I would like to know the sample size and the sampling methodology used in this survey.
I would appreciate if you could send me the survey questionnaire and necessary information as soon as possible. Thank you.
Goh Meng Seng
I received the following reply:
Dear Mr Goh,
HDB SAMPLE SURVEY 2008
We thank you for your interest in HDB’s SHS 2008 and your enquiries on the survey.
2. Close to 8,000 households across the island were sucessfully surveyed, yielding an overall sampling error of +1.2% at 95% confidence level. A set of weight was used to generalise the survey data to the population level, so that the findings reported are representative of all HDB households. A dual-modal data collection method was used, encompassing Internet survey (e-survey) as well as the conventional face-to-face survey at residents’ home.
3. Residents’ satisfaction was measured on a 4-point scale, ranging from “Very Satisfied”, “Satisfied”, “Dissatisfied” to “Very Dissatisfied”. The proportion of households who were satisfied consists of those who indicated either they were “Very Satisfied” or “Satisfied”.
4. We are unable to forward you a copy of the survey questionnaire. However, you can look forward to more details in our monographs, available for purchase at end Mar/early Apr 2010.
Yours sincerely,
GOH LI PING
SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
RESEARCH & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
While polite, the reply unfortunately does not provide any of meaningful answers. It did not answer some fundamental question on the sampling methodology applied when the face to face interviews were carried out. It does raise some doubts technically but I will confirm and comment on my doubts after I get more information and clarity once I get hold of the monographs. On the other hand, the email raises 3 additional questions:
1) The survey was conducted in 2008. It is very surprising to read that the results will not be ready until Mar/Arp 2010. This is very unusual as the normal time to complete a survey of this size is about 3 to 6 month, or at most 1 year. If this data is still not ready, then what data has Mr Mah been using to make policy? The HDB website shows that the most recent data release is 2003. Was Mr Mah using vintage 2003 data to make policy decisions?
2) It is very strange that HDB has refused to release the questionnaire. This is a basic requirement in all research so that those reading the numbers can understand how the numbers were derived. The Singapore Department of Statistics releases all questionnaires from their surveys. Questionnaires cannot be classified as being Confidential or Secret. They belong in the public domain since to use them to gather information, you have to show them to the public. This is especially so when it is claimed that internet survey was carried out.
3) The 4 point scale is a non-standard method to generate a satisfaction score. The more standard scale is to use a 5 point scale or a 10 point scale. It is unknown why HDB chose to use such an unorthodox scale. A known research problem with such a scale is that it tends to give inflated results. This is because respondents who are indifferent (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) are not given a choice. When forced the tendency of such indifferent respondents is to give a 3 rating, inflating the results.
Mar/early April is round the corner. I will wait for the monographs to come out and do a more detailed analysis of the findings.
Goh Meng Seng
We owe Mr Goh a debt of gratitude for speaking up for us, the less vocal.
His comments and analysis all makes logical sense.
Mr Goh, i support your effort investigating this and hope you push for clear answers relentlessly.
You will get my vote if there is no walkover.
HDB housing are becoming smaller and smaller… soon we will be living like the japanese……… are we going to be happy?
from 104 sqm for a typical 4 room flat………… now the new four room flat is reduced to 90 sqm….
in terms of the human psychology….. living in cram places is not happy……….
have they done a study on old estates owners versus new estates owners? for example… children who had previously lived with their parents in old estates and now getting their new smaller flat…
It is very possible that this “survey” was actually some term project paper of students.
The “unorthodox scale” could be the result of students unfamiliar with standard survey formats.
Ever heard of the White washed Tomb? This is what some folks rooted for for 5 painful decades! REFORMASI! REFORMASI! REFORMASI!
Hmmmm…. Its better to tell the whole truth than half the truth and pretending its the whole truth… got it? Hmmm…..