Andrew Loh/
“The problem that the HDB face is they are just short of rental flats. In the whole of Singapore today, we have about 45,000 rental flats. But that’s not enough.
“It’s quite clear in my mind, we need to ramp up the building of rental flats as quickly as we can. Not just by a few thousand, actually we need to build by tens of thousands. And the earlier the better.” – Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for National Development (MND), 30 May, Today.
The revelation by Mr Khaw may be shocking to some, but perhaps not so to others. Mr Khaw’s predecessor at MND, Mr Mah Bow Tan, had previously pledged – in early 2011 – to build 7,500 more rental flats. Obviously this number is short of what is needed, given Mr Khaw’s revelation.
While more rental flats are welcome, especially by those in desperate need of them, and Mr Khaw should be applauded for tackling the problem head-on – something which his predecessor seemed to have been dragging his feet on – Mr Khaw should get right to the nub of the problem.
And what is it?
Mr Khaw should look into why so many are in need of such flats in the first place, and see if there are any ways to keep those who currently have flats to stay in them, instead of joining the rental queue. The numbers are not clear but one would suspect that at least a portion of these will include those who are defaulting or have defaulted on their HDB mortgage loans payment, and who may be forced by the HDB to put their flats up for sale. It would be good if Mr Khaw could reveal these numbers.
If HDB could work out a more compassionate payment plan for these, it could reduce the numbers for rental flats.
Also, the Town Councils Act was amended some years ago to empower town councils to repossess homes which have defaulted on service and conservancy charges. Again, these numbers are not disclosed, although it is suspected that there are not many whose flats have actually been put up for sale because of this.
Mr Khaw should also take a look at the qualifying criterias for such flats. Mr Mah’s adherence to strict rules was to prevent abuse of the system by those who do not really need these flats. However, by doing so, he had also allowed many to fall through the cracks. The presence of homeless communities spread out all over the major public parks in Singapore in 2009/2010 testified to this.
One of the things Mr Khaw and the HDB should seriously consider is to give families with children and the elderly priority in the queue. We have reported homeless families with children and the elderly (and even the sick) camped out in the parks. In a First World country like Singapore, it is unconscionable that such things should occur.
And since the government has promised to lower the number of foreigners into Singapore, perhaps Mr Khaw should also look into whether flats which were reserved for foreigners could be freed up for needy Singaporeans instead. Some flats which are acquired through the SERs or en bloc programme have been let out to foreigners, for example.
Lastly, the HDB and MND should be in constant communication with the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) as well. Often, there seem to be a disconnect between the ministries. Cases referred to MCYS, which then approach the HDB, seem to be treated like any other appeal for rental flats. This should be relooked. Obviously, if MCYS finds it urgent or important enough to speak up for such cases, the HDB should adopt a more compassionate and flexible stand on these.
At the end of the day, while building more flats is welcome, ultimately it is the affordability of public housing flats which is at the heart of the matter. Thus, Mr Khaw should look at this and come up with a solution, especially for the low-income and the needy.
The HDB must return to its original aim of providing affordable flats to Singaporeans simply because it is the humane thing to do. Mr Khaw’s revelation that “tens of thousands of rental flats needed” shows that perhaps the HDB has deviated somewhat from this goal.
Why else would so many such cheap and low-end flats be needed, if flats were truly affordable?
also, more, more, more reanted flats needed for newly wedding married young couple…. more, more, more rental flat..
more, more, more for standby…more, more, more…ok to be empty…
more, more, more for just married couple
more, more, more for the t, s passes
more, more, more for the poor
more, more, more for the PRs
more, more, more for temporary hse moving
more, more, more for the single
more, more, more, for single parent
more, more, more, for the old who sold the flat
more, more, more, more, more cheap and reasonable prices cater for all cases..
more, more, more for contagious disease eg SARS,
more, more, more and a buffer of 10% vacant.
more, more, more….more, more, more
alias, PAP can built more rented flat to cater all group and needs. Prices varies on the afforability of the tenants(with a base and cases).
For many years, young couple to get marry is to get the HDB’s approval
first..no more parents.
Property Assets are jsut a political advantage for PAP, and we are the fools.
Unfortunately HDB is just a paper asset. it looks good on paper.
It cannot be mortgage or used as collateral because you do not own it, even though you are called a owner. The valuation of these flats are artificially manipulated. If you sell to cash in you need to pay more for your next flat so the difference you make is small.
If you ask me it would be better to live in a rental flat because your CPF nest egg would be more then if you finish your CPF paying off your HDB loan after 30 years and find out you still need to work to sustain yourself because your HDB flat will be just that an asset, minister say you can rent to make money but have they understood the problems of having a tenant it is easy to say.
I guess MBT was in keeping to LKY aspiration that Singaporeans should own their own homes. The reality today is that this aspiration has already been screwed.
What we now need is plenty of low cost rental flats for both Singaporeans and the FTs.
Maybe we can go back to those one-rooms designs when HDB started?
Even with these low cost designs rental will not be cheap. Currently a non-airconditioned room with no bath attached in say Hougang will cost some $700.00 per month for a couple. This is why many young couples still have to squeeze with their in-laws despite the irritations.! What a life that can be!
Singaporeans renting flat should be given some kind of tax relief or subsidy, as the existing high rate of CPF envisages their being able to purchase a home. CPF contribution is tax deductible.
the more competitive our society becomes…and the cost of living rises…the more people couldn’t keep up…and the more people….give up…the more tempting to cash out……and rent.
you create an alternative idea or option…your miscalculation may increase your social liability.
Rememdial measures should stick to the basics and what is equitable to correct the mess of high asset prices in the public housing sector policies created by ex-Minister Mah Bow Tan in past 10 years.
There are too many opposing self-interests in play. We should focus on HDB public housing. Private housing should be left to free market forces, with the exception of putting strict curbs on foreigners & PRs to buy landed properties in mainland Singapore including GCBs.
Minister Khaw HDB public housing should focus on the principle of being equitable, on:
1. Significant lowering in prices for 1st time Singaporeans buyers. Affordability measures should be (price to income ratio) same as in 1960s, 70s, 80s and early 90s.
2. An additional discount to NSmen 1st time buyer (restropectively 5 years back) as the government introduction of huge foreigners influx has disadvantaged their relative competitive value to employers.
3. Cheaper decent rental housing (3rms & 4 rms) to single parents caring for children.
4. Cheaper decent rental housing (1rm, 2rms) to the very poor.
5. Approve “Oldies” singles as 1st time buyers for smaller flats.
Time for policy makers to work on Singaporeans 1st principle to mitigate the adverse effects of past extreme capitalistic policies, globalization that strongly favor the very small percentage of very rich and very talented.
The reality is too many (students, young adults, parents, poor, etc) at the low and middle income are squeezed hard.
the prices of the HDB already in sky-rocket. With more rented flats cater for different cases based on the person income (esp. the poor, single parent). To increase the population, young couple can also rent a flat for their own privacy. Old couple can sold their flat and also rent a flat..
In long run, it balance the property prices.. just built more small studio flat,
in an aging population all old people should sell their flats, be cash rich.but sell to who? will there be enough young couple to buy up a flood of older flats in the market??if not, economy sinks because of over supply how? and if you restrict rental to the “needy group” only, will they not surface as alternative voices and rock the establishment?
who pays to build rental homes and maintain them? will rental be sufficient to defray the costs? and lastly, why be slave to your purchase home?
heck, why not build a nation of renters? high quality 5 bdrm flats and rent not more than $1k a month(one working person average CPF should be enough to cover that), can?
that would be base on justice and EQUALITY , at least to the common man. can the minister fulfill the the aspirations of..retirees or those who want out of the rat race?
Aiyo, with such high quality flats, who doesn’t want to rent? For many homeowners, disposing their asset and renting cheap from HDB is the best way to instant cash rich. Why even leave your asset to your ungrateful children? SELL ALL AND SELL OUT!
RENT RENT RENT for a more EQUAL SOCIETY lol
fu. wat happen they spent all their cash from the proceed of their flat on gambling?will you pay for their medical bills and rent?
Joke 1 June 2011
fu. wat happen they spent all their cash from the proceed of their flat on gambling?will you pay for their medical bills and rent?
……………..
it NOT your BUISNESS to chap…
who give YOU the right to control their cpf’s account when the inventer leekingyou GURANTEED withdrawals @ 55
~period~
can i tell you that i xtend your mortgage rates by tellin you 40 ears ago i sold you the hdb flat @ under market values?
so don’t come ere to act good/kind hear to act kind smaritian…
you aint mother Teresa
KBW’s admission that tens of thousands of rental flats are needed is proof that the MBT had been sleeping on the job despite his millions in pay.
Singapore needs a new public housing policy – to really meet the needs of Singaporeans. Tweaking at the edges of the current policy is no longer sufficient. Some of the changes have,I am sure, been brought up by others at different times. Nevertheless the following changes ought to be made:
1) LKY’s original idea of having a “house-owing” nation may not be so great after all. For a start, HDB “owners” are in reality “lessors”. In simple terms, the “owners” merely earn the right to occupy the flat for a fixed period of 99 years or whatever remained of the 99 years. The objective of making Singapore a nation of house (read HDB) owners is to make political control of the population easier. If you live in a HDB flat which is run and administered by a Government Ministry, then it becomes easier for the Government to subject you to greater control and scrutiny.
2) Mortgage payment amounts or rental paid ought to be pegged to wages. In enlightened countries, mortgage/rental are not to exceed a fixed percentage of salary (which could range from 20 to 35% or less). Many Singaporeans, I believe, has a higher wage/mortgage/rental ratio. When the pre-determined ratio is exceeded, a subsidy is given to the family. The subsidy takes into consideration wages, rental, morgage rate, number of children etc.
3) Housing affordability is directly related to a country’s immigration policy. Uncontrolled immigration, without taking into consideration a country’s housing stock is to automatically result in increased housing and rental cost. It is difficult to believe that our talented and well-paid Ministers cannot see this relationship. Or is it a cynical policy to grow the economy at all costs so that the government can have a better reason to increase their salaries: higher gdp equals higher salaries for Ministers?
4)Public housing ought to be reserved for Singaporeans. PRs can access public housing but a fixed number of years after obtaining their PR
5) To ensure that there is no undue competition for public housing stocks, economic expansion and increase in immigration should come after ensuring that existing infrastructure (including housing sotck) are able to cope with the increase in the import of foreign labour. The fact that tens of thousands
of rental flats are needed shows an astounding failure of planning and foresight on the part of the government in general and of the MND in particular.
6) Many contributors have complained about upgrading HDB precints during every general election. If a candidate for an election offers to pay to pave a voters flooring if the latter cast the vote for the candidate’s party, he/she will be charged for “bribery”. Why should housing upgrading on a national or constituent-wide scale be treated any differently? More to the point: are the upgrading necessary? Yes, it might improve slightly the quality of life to have rain shelters, a fresh coat of paint before it is really needed, a few meters of storeroom, slight enlargement of this and that, a slight re-design etc etc. Does these largely cosmetic upgrading do anything to ease the many elderly struggling to make ends meet by cleaning toilets, selling tissue papers. Does it help to create jobs for the PMETs retrenched because of cheaper talents imported from other countries to make Singapore “more competitive”? Does it provide shelter to the homeless people foced to surreptiously camp out on Singapore’s beaches and parks? If not, it is time for Singaporeans to rethink
To improve public housing policy, be transparent on the breakdown of costs and ensure citizens’ affordability at all time.
Why still no transparency?
Is there something that really matters?
The more it is hidden the more suspicious it gets.
When the bag of secrecy overloads, the beans just spill uncontrollably without having to pry. Naturally.
Who are these Rental Flats for, Singaporeans or Foreigners.
Do us a favour do a breakdown on the numbers that take up these flats between Singaporeans & Foreigners.
Be transparent for once.
People, I fully agree with what “mauhijinks” said.
Without oppositions we could never have our say. The PAP will insist they are right.
For those in Tampines who have voted for MBT, you must have a high tolerance level or you are masochistic.
Before GE , MBT says we must be careful not to build too many HDB, resulting in oversupply.
Now the HDB is in a building frenzy.
Tampines residents are crazy to vote for someone who has been sleeping on the job for past 10 years.
Hi,
I will like to share a story of my uncle who is currently staying at a rental flat by the government.
My 2 uncles and my granny has been renting this 3 room flat in yishun for over 30years and recently my granny has pass on and my 2 uncles was told by the government to move out of the places and get a 1 room flat as they do not meet the requirement to continue staying there. Previously when my granny is still around my uncle did request to change the main occupant(which is my granny) to his name but was told by the HDB officers that this is not require as it will be auto change if my granny pass on. And when my granny has pass on the HDB officers told another story that the rules and regulation has change and they are not allow to do so and ask them to move to a 1 room flat as the 3 rooms flat rental are only for 3 people occupying the flat. I just don’t understand why they insist them to move since the whole block still have a plenty of empty unit? Take the unit next to them, it has been vacant for almost 10 years but why they still refuse to let my 2 uncles stay on since they can still afford the rental and since they have been staying here for 30 over years? Both my uncles is an odd job worker, once they were given a opportunity to purchase the flat at a lower price range but due to their job they do not have any cpf contribution so they are not able to do so.
And the government mention that they are not allow to rent a 2 rooms unit, reason given was ‘oh rules and regulation change from time to time, is hard to predict’, what do they mean by this? One of my auntie is also staying in a 2 rooms rental unit with her husband and I don’t understand why both my uncle can’t. My uncle has try looking for their MP for help on this but yet again it was a disappointment because after the MP wrote in to appeal the result was still the same and ask my uncle to move out within the time frame given. If 2 person are not able to rent a 3 rooms rental unit and not even a 2 rooms rental unit so what are the rules and regulations and who are eligible to rent those rental unit? I just feel very frustrated and upset about this thing that has happen on my 2 uncles and they are also very lost as it seems like none are able to help them to resolve their problem and their doubts.
MBT and HDB forgot to take into account the effects of immigration on housing demand.
Tay Boon Nga in his Paper “Household Information and housing needs, 1991-2040″, collected in the book “Singapore Economy in the 21st Century : Issues and Strategies” published by McGrawHill 2002 pg 149-163, provides an extensive projection of the population and the household needs forecasted up to Y2040 with numerous tables (giving extensive breakdown and figures, with and without immigration projections)
The assumption was to reach 5.5 million in Y2040 which in today’s climate is an understatement ( The population has already reached 4.6 million by Y2007 and the present projected population has been revised to reach 6.5 million by Y2020)
The forecast has taken into consideration the government policy of the day (which has remained unchanged since the turn of the century: the same liberal immigration policy)
The table is presented here (abridged) and I have contrast it to what HDB has built for the projected years:
HDB built Projected (without immigration) / with immigration
Y1996-Y2000 158,621 168,883 / 228,133 units
Y2006-Y2010 75,380* 107,148 / 134,306 units
* I have augment the numbers with figures from HDB Annual Reports Y2006-Y2010
Noticed that the actual number of flats built is closer to the projected needs without taking into consideration the immigration effects of the government policy, which clearly under-estimated the actual needs and requirement in the housing market.
Another contributing factor is the decision to end the WIS (Work-in Selection) scheme and only build HDB flats through the BTO (Build-to-Order) Scheme.
BTO has an inherent lag in meeting real demand – it takes from 32 months up to 4 more years from successful application to completion – creating a lagging supply chasing after demand – therefore perpertuating an artificial higher demand and lower suppressed supply and that in turn lead to higher prices!
From the respective HDB Annual reports, from Y2002, the number of flats built/put up for sale started to decline sharply between Y2002-Y2003, average 10,000 flats were build per year, between Y2004-Y2005, only average 5,000 flats were build per year – From Y2006 onwards supply of flats remain extremely low at average 4,000 per year (drop in supply from previous years of average 10,000 -20,000 per year between Y1991-2005, to only average 4,000 between Y2006-Y2009). Could be that HDB stopped starting new built, and only continue on the work-in-progress to clear its “holding-stock” and since BTO is some kind of build-on-demand (with serious fulfillment time lag) it no doubt is exasperating the situation.
When in Y2006 HDB switched to the BTO scheme completely, not only did the BTO suppressed supply and created an artificially higher demand, MBT and HDB also forgotten completelty to take account the effects of the government liberal immigration policy – they shold have prepare to meet the demands with supply but they did not and stop – relying on BTO which does not factor into demand from immigrant(ion).
MBT and HDB failed miserably – in one misjudgement and (you may could it incompetence) they created the shortfall of ten of thousands of flats by this very misjudgement.