This is Part One of The Online Citizen’s (TOC) response to recent remarks made in Parliament by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in relation to the issue of homelessness in Singapore.
The minister’s remarks were carried in a report by Channelnewsasia, on 27 April 2010.
First of all, some background on homelessness in Singapore:
Homelessness, potential homelessness, and the availability of public rental flats, are serious concerns. The Prime Minister, various ministers and Members of Parliament have raised these issues. The Minister for National Development spoke of it in on 5 March 2010 (Source). The Prime Minister and MCYS minister weighed in on these issues on 27 March 2010 (Source). People’s Action Party (PAP) Members of Parliament have also voiced their concerns in Parliament. And during the March 2010 sitting of Parliament, opposition MP, Mr Low Thia Khiang, urged the government “to support the housing of homeless families” (Source).
On 6 February 2010, Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, made these remarks.
“Yes, there are more applicants than there are people giving up their rental flats. 300 new applicants join the rental queue every month, the number of people returning flats is less than half of that. Over and above that, there are over 500 appeals from MPs each month, from those who do not qualify for rental housing, who are not registered in the queue at the moment. I am sure all of you would know that this is probably the largest item on the agenda, as far as MPS is concerned .” (Source) [TOC note: “MPS” refers to “Meet-The-People Sessions” which MPs conduct in their constituencies.]
Mr Mah also said:
“Going forward, HDB will accelerate its rental flat building programme. So that, by 2012, we will increase the stock of HDB rental flats to 50,000 units, from the current 42,000 – an increase of 20%.”
What was the reason for the increase? A Straits Times report in January 2010 provides us with a few clues. Among other things, the report says:
“[the] number of homeless folk picked up by welfare officers driving around Singapore’s housing estates, beaches and streets has doubled in the past two years.”
It is also worth noting, according to a Straits Times report in February 2010, “HDB tightens rental rules”, that the “Housing Board has tightened criteria governing who is eligible for its heavily subsidised rental flats.”
Clearly homelessness and potential homelessness are growing problems in Singapore. Yet, there is a dearth of statistics and information about the issue. In a bid to fill the gap, the Online Citizen ran a one-week special focus on homelessness and wrote several stories about homeless people and homeless communities. We spent countless hours with our interviewees. We raised numerous questions through our stories – questions which focused attention on MCYS, NParks and HDB policies. We wanted our readers to better understand the plight of homeless Singaporeans. More importantly, we hoped that our stories would compel our government to rethink some of its rules and extend a helping hand to a segment of society that has fallen through the cracks.
There is little doubt that it is difficult getting a rental flat from the HDB. The waiting list is long (applicants have to wait up to 30 months to qualify) and applicants have to meet some extremely strict criteria. The Minister for National Development has indicated that he plans to boost the availability of such flats by 20%, to 50,000 units. But such a move needs to be accompanied by a revision in policy. Genuinely homeless people should not be excluded from applying for rental flats simply because of “technical issues”.
It is simplistic for the MCYS minister to pick on one story reported by Al Jazeera, and use that to discredit everything else that’s been reported about homelessness in Singapore.
We will now examine the MCYS minister’s remarks in Parliament, as reported by Channelnewsasia.
About Al Jazeera:
Referring to Al Jazeera’s report on the homeless couple, the minister said it was “a clear example where a foreign media has failed to ascertain the facts.”
What were not disclosed in the Channelnewsasia report are the following, from what TOC understands:
- Al Jazeera approached MCYS for comments in March 2010.
- Specifically, Al Jazeera informed MCYS that it was seeking the ministry’s views on the issue of homelessness in Singapore.
- MCYS declined Al Jazeera’s request and instead referred it to earlier statements which it had issued.
Why did MCYS decline Al Jazeera’s request for an interview? Is it fair of the minister to now accuse the station of failing “to ascertain the facts”?
[Al Jazeera has since responded to the minister's accusations. Please click here.)
We also note that Asia Calling, a programme on a Jakarta-based radio station, had approached the MCYS minister for comment for its report on the issue of homelessness in Singapore. According to Asia Calling’s eventual report, “Singapore homelessness”, it “requested an interview with the Minister of Community Development, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, but his spokesperson said he was out of the country and unavailable for comment.”
“Some irresponsible websites”
According to Channelnewsasia, the MCYS minister said: “Some irresponsible websites have also caused these falsehoods to circulate widely on the internet.”
Our question to the minister is this:
Will the minister – and indeed, the government – give a public assurance and undertaking that all government ministries, departments and agencies will from now on provide information to members of the public and the media whenever it is requested?
MCYS cannot refuse to engage a media outlet, and then claim that that media outlet “failed to ascertain facts”.
TOC emailed NParks, MCYS minister
In January this year, some homeless people at Changi Beach Park told TOC they were harassed by NParks and MCYS officers. On the 27th of January, we emailed the Chief Executive Officer of NParks, Mr Ng Lang and the Chairman of the Board, Mrs Christina Ong, about the matter and sought clarification on the rules regarding the use of public parks in Singapore.
TOC also copied the email to Dr Balakrishnan.
We have yet to receive a response from either Mr Ng, or Mrs Ong, or Dr Balakrishnan.
[Additional note: The Online Citizen had also emailed Ms Kee Lay Cheng, HDB’s Deputy Director at its Properties and Land Department, to ask about Block 29 at Havelock Road on 24 January. We received an automated reply which promised to forward our email “to the respective department to attend to it and reply direct to you.”]
We have yet to hear from Ms Kee.
How does the minister expect TOC, or any media organization or websites, to “ascertain facts” when attempts to engage the relevant authorities are met with silence? The government has rarely, if ever, given us “their side of the story”.
Government ministries cannot decline requests for interviews or information, and then turn around and accuse the media of “not ascertaining the facts” and disparage websites for being “irresponsible”.
What is the point of listing the contact details of government ministers and officers on this government website if answers to queries are not forthcoming?
“[Setting] the record straight”
According to Channelnewsasia, the MCYS minister said:
“Now that the facts are out, let us see whether those who have been propagating these falsehoods have the courage and the honesty to set the record straight.”
The minister was referring to the Al Jazeera report on the homeless couple.
Since January this year, TOC has spent many hours with the couple in question. We have approached various organisations, including MCYS, to try to help them find a home. We have done this in the belief that the government would be able to assist the couple.
We are thus shocked that the MCYS minister chose to castigate the couple in Parliament, without having ever spoken to them himself. What is also notable is that Channelnewsasia made no attempt whatsoever to contact the couple to seek their response to the minister’s statements. Perhaps CNA should have “ascertain[ed] the facts” before reporting on the case?
If they did, they would have realized that “the man in the video” bought and sold his three flats over a period of 20 years. The so-called “tidy profit” was derived by totaling up proceeds accumulated over two decades. “The man in the video” lost his third flat as a result of a divorce. He is a single father struggling to support three children. He is not sitting on a sudden windfall.
The woman in the video is technically co-owner of an HDB flat. She is also a divorcee. Neither CNA nor the minister mentions this, but is it logical to expect a divorced couple to live under the same roof?
Since the minister’s statements in Parliament, TOC has met up with the couple. We showed them a copy of the CNA report. We will have more on their story, as well as their response to the MCYS minister’s assertions, in a separate story tomorrow.
In October 2009, the Straits Times published an article, “Tell me, if someone needs help”. The following is an excerpt:
“Of late there has been an increase of such videos and blog postings. Although they may prove to be red herrings, Dr Balakrishnan still wants people to highlight cases they believe to have slipped through the cracks of the social safety system”
‘This just means we have more eyes and ears. Do your homework, but by all means bring them to my attention. I will investigate. My first and paramount duty is to identify and help those who are needy.’”
This is what TOC has tried to do. Yet, instead of fulfilling his “paramount duty”, the minister has chosen to humiliate a homeless couple in public.
Finally, how could MCYS have failed to notice the many tented communities spread out across Singapore? Some campers tell TOC they’ve been homeless for months. How is it that despite repeated appeals to HDB and MCYS, these homeless people were not given shelter until after their stories were reported?
Did these people suddenly and rather inexplicably qualify for housing? Why then were their previous applications rejected?
We welcome the minister’s response.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
chey… i read the whole article- only to find TOC complaints about how mcys never respond to their emails. while that does not make for gd customer service, it doesn’t mean that VB lied.
what i am more interested in is about the actual circumstances of the couple. people on one side have always talked abt the homeless and the other side talks about opportunists milking the system.
since AJ/TOC have chose to highlight this couple as case in point, it will be interesting if the govt can make the opportunist argument in this case.
When two sides make different arguments of homelessness vs being opportunistic, many singaporeans don’t really know for sure- it all just depends on who u like to believe more.
since AJ/TOC highlighed this case, and mcys is responding directly to it, it will be good to see two side of the same story, letting people to judge, for once, on facts rather than who they are incline to believe.
Examples below,
[tip of the ice berg]
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/09/handicapped-resident-applies-for-aid-with-mp-but-faces-difficulties/
http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?t=29884
http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/09/30/town-council-took-unemployed-man-to-court-for-sc-arrears/
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:KtbtmUnRnvYJ:forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/showthread.php%3Fp%3D45298163+site:forums.hardwarezone.com.sg+——————————————————————————–+%27HWZ%27+DELETE+THREAD+ABOUT+%27REACH%27+SHUTTING+DOWN+A+THREAD+MEANT+TO+HELP+THE+HANDICAP%3F&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg
how do you make people homeless?
you raise the Hurdle of how to get a home.
what is the Hurdle?
it is the price of a basic home.
who has control of pricing? the person to sets the price, or the person who draws up the formula to calculate the price. as much as he likes to push the blame onto the components of the formula he created (e.g. it’s based on market price), ultimately, the formula was created by that person. that person could have used “addition”, “subtraction”, “multiplication” or some other mathematical formula to calculate, and if the price comes out high, the fault lies entirely with him and his formula, not the constituents of the formula (e.g. what the current market price is).
is it correctable?
yes, by changing the formula, if necessary.
how are they trying to correct it now?
by giving less product instead – calling a 1 room flat a “2 room flat”, or calling a 3 room flat a “4 room flat”. i.e. shrinking the whole thing. everyone in the property circle knows it is literally a Trick used, and this trick works only on newbies.
how do they disguise this kind of manipulation?
by publishing prices of the entire thing, without mentioning the shrinking.
Are we then fully subject to all these changes, which have only taken place over the course of this current government’s one term in power?
Possibly – because in Singapore, there is enough system entrenched such that the typical democratic way of having the people’s ideas transformed into government ideas does not quite work.
Enjoy the Singapore System.
The crux of the issue is being open and transparent. If the Minister is of the view that Aljazeera has not ascertained the facts, then MCYS’s corp communications or some responsible officer should have clarified the facts with Aljazeera.
To ignore people’s request to talk and then turn around to accuse them of not doing due diligence is hypocrisy at best and an integrity issue at worst.
The homeless issue will not be solved by sweeping it under the carpet. Singaporeans have a right to know what is happening in their own country which is rich enough to lose a few BILLIONS on US banks and Shin Corp but cannot provide sufficient safety nets to give citizens with genuine needs a roof over their heads.
Majullah Singapura.
VB DID lie. He accused AJ/TOC of failing to ascertain the facts, when they actually did try to ask for the government’s side of the story.
Unless you count AJ/TOC asking for the government’s response, but being met with silence, as “failing to ascertain the facts”. Like that the government win lor (like it always does).
On that count alone, a big FAIL to MCYS and all the officials involved.
Mr Mah also said:
“Going forward, HDB will accelerate its rental flat building programme. So that, by 2012, we will increase the stock of HDB rental flats to 50,000 units, from the current 42,000 – an increase of 20%.”
Is the admission NOT LIVING PROOF of increasing desperation for rental accomodation ASSESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BE OF GENUINE NEEDS way beyond the drama played out on the political platform by Vivian Balakrishnan?
Come on, more than 50,000 families in desperation and long queue waiting at the application door already squeezed out and bottlenecked by even more stringent HDB eligibility criteria. Those who fell out of the stringency net living on the beach such a BIG SURPRISE to the blind-eyed of reality unique to VB?
Whatever his problems with his bosses, Dr. VB has show his lack of mettle when he answer Dr. Lily Neo about the $290 PA from $260 on “Tell me, is $10 a day enough for 3 meals after paying for utilities”?
Fact is that though I don’t like to put it this way, despite being an Eye Specialist, he seems blind-sided” to citizens in dismal situations. because he obviously as mCys Minister, has not gone out and walk his talk. Just like every other PAP minister! Didn’t the keep quoting the late & former Indonesian President Gus Dar about Singapore being only “A little red dot”
Is such a tiny place still too big for him and them to transverse around in air-condition limousines? Talk IS cheap!
In short, the sum of their parts HAVE NOT made up to a proper and respectable whole! This IS the perfect fallacy of LKY about hyper-pay for hyper talents!
Oh yeh, WHAT GOOD are Civil Servants who serve with little or without hearts?
Actions speaks LOUDER than words!!!! And they show the truth too! What is there to argue about in circulating circumventing face saving To-and-Fro “chatter”? Since:
“A wise head makes a closed mouth”.
“Foolish tongues talk by the dozen”.
This MCYS mintister is trying to defend himself and push the blame on the homeless victims, that is outrageous. He did not the solve the problem that is homelessness of this victims instead dig out their past misdeed (profiting from 3 hdb flats sales, is this a crime, I thought MBT promote this program ‘monetise your hdb asset when you are in need of money’. He is just carrying out MBT proud material-centred program.
To maintain 50,000 rental flats for Singaporeans are tell-tales sign that many low income families could not even afford to buy a studio hdb flat with todays’ sky-rocketing price tag on new hdb flats.
Our rich fat government have failed miserably on this count and still think that hdb new flats are still affordable with their hdb flats pricing peg on resale market price just to convert singaporeans cpf into hdb flats payments to make a handsome profits out of cpf funds of the people leaving them with meagre sum for their retirement needs.
@ RW
“what i am more interested in is about the actual circumstances of the couple..”
The one sample of this couple can easily be manipulated by those who withhold information and then played it out on the political stage to full blast of drama even to the degree of embarassing William Shakespeare of his literary drama qualities.
That drama cannot possibly condom the tragic truth of increasing homelessness among a growing pol of economically- stricken Singaporeans and what that signals of our dire WIDER economic woes and frightening social consequences of societal disintegration that followed failed economic management and social policies.
AJ and TOC present the ugly, if politically unpalatable, truth. If their publishings are irrelevant scant of truth, VB should not, in the quality of his political judgment, be distracted or flabbergasted by it and expressedly so. That he took such strong exception AFTER HAVING DENIED INFORMATION ACCESS AND REFUSAL TO PUBLIC MEDIA INTERVIEWS, must leave the informed mind this question – IS THERE SOMETHING AWEFUL IN NEED OF CONCEALMENT – the facade of truth having been publicly exposed???
Wah never respond = something to hide = guilty. If never respond = anyhow can report. If got respond = then we write more accurately and even take the trouble to check out the facts.
Without TOC, i would have not realise the serious problems of homelessness in Singapore. Without TOC, do you think Dr Bala will ever bring this issue up to the media? Dr Bala, if you are wise enough, you will know that you can’t defeat the facts and you shld try to STFU. A simple apology would also suffice.
Joseph Teo,
-
With comments like yours, the accusation of ‘irresponsible websites’ does not apply to TOC. I believe you have adequately covered the areas that give rise to an increase in ill-feelings among Singaporeans toward their government.
-
The only irresponsible news medium is the mainstream one. Has it contacted TOC or any of the other irresponsible websites to discern whether VB’s accusation is irresponsible in the first place?
-
Now that we know we have only heard half-truth, which can also be translated to mean half-lies, then it can also be said that the MSM did not bother to verify VB’s comments but went ahead to publish them as if they are the absolute truth.
-
Even now, it is still attempting to cover-up for the blundering VB by continuing to carry reports from his ministry, debunking AJ’s replies to his comments. It is all so one-sided but that is not the worst yet.
-
The MSM always write their reports in such a way that it does not give its readers room to think. It always takes upon itself to do all the thinking, and afterward to tell the people what they think the people should hear and the conclusion they should derive at.
-
Who is being irresponsible?
-
Let the minister take up AJ’s challenge so that Singaporeans can see and hear for ourselves, and then conclude for ourselves, who the irresponsible ones are and who is more trustworthy.
-
VB had put up a challenge to these websites, it is only fair that he sees the challenge through, if not, then his reputation, his integrity and all that he stands for are nothing but what majority here think they are.
-
One more thing, VB. Please do go running to your PM, SM or MM. Please carry your own balls and show us you have the fight in you.
Oops! – should read ….”please DON’T go running to your PM, SM & MM……..’
I suspect that there is some government policy against replying to comments from netcitizens. I noticed that many TOC emails to gahment ministries and gahment agencies CEOs have gone unanswered.
Yet VB now accuses attack these websites for not verifying their reports. How to verify if you guys just keep ignoring the email queries ?
why should comments from net citizens be ignored anyway ? I am sure they read them but why ignore these comments ?
The government is just reactionary and not proactive. It is nothing to be ashamed of having homelessness in Singapore. Go to any developed countries, Japan, Australia and USA, you will find them sleeping rough in the parks, under a bridge or outside a office building. This is part of any big city scene. Grow up Singapore!
Hurdles, All said and done, anonymous, Overseas Singapore, Panzer, They don’t help the Poor, Anhui, Rovk, Joseph Teo, J, Vicious Bustard, Spiegel.
-
What a list!
-
Can VB please read the comments posted by these passionate Singaporeans? How can he ever derive at calling any of these, ‘irresponsible’. These are extremely passionate Singaporeans, each caring for the welfare of their country and their countrymen and women.
-
If they are being ’irresponsible’ it is only because they have an attachment to this land and to the larger family of Singaporeans they care about.
-
Does VB belong to this group of caring Singaporeans. No, he does not. If he did, he would have felt the same pain any of these have felt. He would have been moved to help his fellow Singaporeans who have been left in the lurch, to help them move off their life of dismay and homelessness.
-
Most of all, he would have realized, as a human being ought to, that there are people out there, in every society, who will make lousy decision for themselves and then having to struggle to overcome the outcome of their bad decisions.
-
Does VB think these people deserve a helping hand, a second chance. No he does not. He holds them up as shining examples to educate the rest of the citizenry, that they had better make the right decisions for themselves, if not they too will be held in his high esteem as born-losers and deserving of public ridicule – on the National stage.
To Trvor Yee,
what is the salary of the ministers in Japan, USA and Australia. If we pay a million bucks a month to my ministers , I expect a jacuzzi in every HDB flat. They claim that they are the best brains in Singapore
it’s sad to see homeless folks around in singapore.
thanks for making the clarifications and having the diligence to provide the relevant and necessary information.
I read the below,
http://zh.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/394784?page=1
and then went to MCYS website,BUT I COULD NOT FIND ANY LINKS ABOUT
SENDING FOOD TO THE POOR WHO CANT AFFORD TO BUY FOOD’.
SO WHAT COCK TALKING MCYS MINISTER DR. VIVIAN BALAKRISHNAN????????????
”……..If you were a poor person, anywhere on this planet, Singapore is the one place ………, where you will have food on the table. Even if you can’t afford it, we will have meals delivered to you.”
Another case of profiting from a problem created by papayas. Think … who make people homeless.
@ doctorwho
Taking 1998 as the base year of post-Asian currency crisis as 100, the residential market index now is closer to around 280, up 180%. This is taken from URA statistics
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/Singapore/Price-History
In the same corresponding period, our GDP has only grown to $257 bln from $137.9 bln up 86%. Bear in mind that 46% of the GDP flowed out of Singapore as wealth accumulation attributable to foreign sources. In analytical terms, the gain in wealth using GDP as a surrogate measure for Singaporeans are only 59% ( 86% X 54%). If your wealth accumulation since 1998 is 59% and your housing costs increased by 180%. HOUSING COSTS ESCALATED BY A FACTOR OF 3 TIMES COMPARED TO INCOME BASE ACCUMULATION.
How can there be no homelessness when income is falling so fast behind housing price bubble escalating the costs of living tremendously?
And many of these homeless are NOT recent first-home buyers. SO MORE TO COME!! On top of that many of those who bought it within affordability might have recycled out of work and the newcomers with rising income have yet to face sudden death shock crisis of retrenchment and mortgage inability to sustain. I AM TRULY TERRIFIED AT THE PROSPECT FOR MANY YOUNG SINGAPORE YET UNTESTED OF GLOBALISATION SURVIVABILITY.
Instigating price bubbles of HDB housing gives a MIRAGE of wealth when compared to apparent shrinkage ( NOT ACTUAL) debt in comparison. Easy for Government to transfer money back to themselves via CPF deduction but the consequences of misery is postponed and passed subtly on to young uninitiated naive Singaporeans. This is wealth transfer insidiously done from the poor to the rich who has multiple investment properties. They just wait for manipulated price bubble to enrich themselves doing practically nothing.
We are living in a property price bubble and an artificially induced air-bag economy. The rich political class “get off my uncaring face” loves this to their graves.
If you live in your HDB and you are still paying mortgage then that HDB is a liability. The PAP tries to confuse the people or to control the people by claiming otherwise.
The people need to understand the difference between liability and asset. Confusing the two will make your life difficult.
This is one of the main reason why people is not procreating. How do the people have a peace of mind when their income is uncertain and that income have to be used to pay expenses that is certain?
If the PAP do not see the cause then I am afraid the homelessness, population decline and FT issues will continue in a vicious cycle!
@ Michael
I see a FT-led population explosion of experimental proportion in the making – the scale of homelessness escalating a few years down the track is already in forment but the Government either knowingly denying or grabbed by this “Alice-loss-in-wonderland” syndrome. It is scary. And where are all the tell-tale signs?
Current crop of homelessness rising to 50,000 bought their HDB much cheaper decades ago yet found a nightmare millstone round their neck as poverty pressure hit hard. Those who entered the housing markets in the last 12 months including so many FTs are mortgage to slavery with GUARANTEED prospects of career instability, risks of retenchment and sudden death inability to sustain their housing albatross.Newly-minted FT turned PRs don’t have big base to start off and paid blind hrough COV. I am waiting to see an implosion of homeless gypsies and HDB is already ( presumably aware of what is comming out of the disaster pipeline) tightening rental eligibility criteria. A TURMOIL OF HOMELESSNESS IN THE MAKING INCLUDING FTs WHO WON’T BE SO PEACEFUL AS SUBMISSIVE NATIVES SINGAPOREANS.
The citizenry is fast loaded with a series of ill-conceived policies from housing price bubble, FTs taking over jobs, crime-infested and prostitution-ridden IR projects, AGGRAVATED BY A SUDDEN MASSIVE UNEXPLAINED MIGRATION INFLUX CREATING A LOT OF ECONOMIC DISINTEGRATION, SOCIAL TURMOIL AND CITIZENRY’S RESENTMENT.
THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE SO FAR? In attempting to win votes, the Government responses is in rhetorical denial mostly or superficially placating through empty and often ridiculous symbolic gestures. All these suggest our government has lost direction, is very tired of fresh ideas or is borderline psychotic or all of these malaise.MSM blindfolding citizenry from reality and keeping them in mushroom darkness – political hegemony and their own self-interest overrides national survival threats.
We need a lot of fresh ideas away from political machinations of the past to survive this decade. I am fearful forward.
Yes, gentlemens, i see the same thing last year,a big bubble but who else sees it differently, anyone.? Care to comment.
ANONYMOUS
Well said. PAP is nailing their own coffins.
Hope we citizens can slowly transform the political landscape into one of true democracy, not what S’pore is heading now into great hardship for the poor and destitute citizens, the old senior folks.
The invasion of FTs and FWs really strained all the resources in S’pore’s infrastruCture. Yet PAPies are blinded to our pledge. They will never come face to face with the FTs in public places living in great comfort in their ivory tower. Do PAP government really care? Pack of lies!! Look how Vivian is lying through his skin.
CITIZENS OF SINGAPORE, we must VOTE RIGHT THIS COMING ELECTION TO CHANGE HISTORY. VOTE FOR OPPOSITION !!
@ eaglefly
“Yes, gentlemens, i see the same thing last year,a big bubble but who else sees it differently, anyone.? Care to comment..”
Here is my statistics and “big picture” economics analytics. See if you agree.
Taking 1998 as the base year of post-Asian currency crisis as 100, the residential market index now is closer to around 280, up 180%. This is taken from URA statistics
http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Asia/Singapore/Price-History
In the same corresponding period, our GDP has only grown to $257 bln from $137.9 bln up 86%. Bear in mind that 46% of the GDP flowed out of Singapore as wealth accumulation attributable to foreign sources. In analytical terms, the gain in wealth using GDP as a surrogate measure for Singaporeans are only 59% ( 86% X 54%). If your wealth accumulation since 1998 is 59% and your housing costs increased by 180%. HOUSING COSTS ESCALATED BY A FACTOR OF 3 TIMES COMPARED TO INCOME BASE ACCUMULATION.
If it is NOT BUBBLE but affordable, how come the exploding demand for rental housing?
Anyone disagreeing?
//anonymous
great py.
@ inverted_CPF
The property price bubble is fabricated by restricting supply and sudden flooding demand by opening the huge immigration floodgate.
It is an “air-bag” economy waiting for a crash. A lot will die except the multi-million salaried political class.
If you agree with my analysis, pass on the message to your friends, so that they won’t get trapped and badly hurt when the crunch come which must come some day.
Shanghai stock exchange tumbled very fast since the 1st qtr reported brilliant economic growth of 11.9%. Two rounds of monetary tightening underscored their Government’s fear of exploding bubble and air-bag economy.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=000001.SS&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Financial markets around the world is taking the shape of contagion implosion again.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/europe-pressured-as-bp-miners-slide-2010-05-04
This is very dangerous time to speculate in properties. The next tailspin of our economy could be nightmarish proportion.
I am fearful going forward.