Connect with us

Current Affairs

HDB – providing homes or a monopolistic business model

Ash Tong compares prices of some HDB flats.

Published

on

Ash Tong / Guest Writer

I have always taken great discomfort, when MSM and biased marketing talk always refer to the pricing of new flats as “Discount to the market” or “Cheaper than comparative condominiums in the area’.

The Ang Mo Kio and Bishan projects are priced at above $400,000 for a new 4 room flat, applicant for these projects are subjected to the $8,000-income cap. A simple break down of the math.

Gross Income: $8000

CPF: $1600

CPF into OA for housing needs: $1082.56

Nett Cash: $6400

4 room Natura Loft project in Bishan: 465k

Monthly installment based on 30 years 2.6% calculation: $1861.38

Hence each family would have to top up $778.82 into their CPF for their housing each month, which makes up to 12 per cent of their disposable income. If you change the calculations for a 20-year repayment, the percentage of their disposable income used to top their CPF moves into the 20 per cent range.

Ideally, all applicants for these projects would have a perfect gross income of 8k, and the flats would be affordable. However, often couples with incomes below 8k, might be unsuitably stretched, by buying such flats.

As a side note, it should be no surprise that this project was awarded to the highest tender.

CPF housing grant for family living within 2km are only eligible for DBSS projects, and additional housing grants are only eligible for families who earn below a $4,000 gross income. Given the number of DBSS projects that have been released in the past year, it defeats the purpose of encouraging families to stay at close proximity as it comes with a huge price because these projects cost 400k and upwards. I do not recall any Non-DBSS projects in mature estates released in the past year.

The additional housing grants equates to lip service as no sane couple could afford a DBSS project with a 4k gross income.

All other new flats are not eligible for any grants as they are sold, “at a great discount”. The argument would not hold, when we look deeper into the figures; e.g. a new Toa Payoh Central Horizon flat cost up to 550k for a new 5 room flat, using the PSM or PSF to compare with resale flats will show that these flats are not priced at discount at all.

Now lets not be choosy as Singaporeans, HDB is trying their best to give us a home.

So we turn to non-mature estates like Punggol. Yet again, we’re subjected to manipulated pricing.

I refer to the latest BTO project, Punggol Arcadia offered by HDB.

In a similar location just across the street, Coralinus/Treelodge@ponggol BTO project, indicative prices taken from October Half yearly Sale:

In another location with similar proximity to Ponggol MRT, released May2008:

 

These 3 projects all hold the same proximity to Ponggol MRT station, and are all touted as premium projects. However we should question why the indicative price range has risen from between 7 per cent to 14 per cent? The internal floor area has all but gone up by less than 2 per cent comparatively. I have only drawn the comparison for 4 room flats, but similar directional trend can be noticed in 3 and 5 room offerings as well.

According to news reports, commodities have gone down, demand for construction might slowdown hence might require government reversal in placing some infrastructure projects on hold; so why the increase in prices for such flats?

Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, once said something along these lines. “Instead of building in sync with population growth, which resulted in several excess of flats, we shall now build in sync with demand, hence the BTO model.”

Doesn’t that mean demand will always exceed supply; hence the price floors/equilibrium prices for new flats will be artificial?

Can these directives by HDB be considered duress?

Quoted from their press release:

The above measures will encourage applicants to consider their options carefully before participating in a HDB sale exercise. They will also help to minimize non-selection of HDB flats by applicants who repeatedly participate in sales exercises and thus divert HDB’s time and resources from those with urgent housing needs.”

This press release was in reference, to the change of rules for balloting of flats. However in the latest October half yearly sale, a 20-year old Bedok flat was also offered in the ballot. Half yearly sales do not allow applicants to choose the indicative area they prefer, nor do they allocate married child priority since applicants are unable to indicate the areas they prefer.

So one does wonder, if the applicant whose family nucleus is in the west, is invited to select a flat and this particular Bedok flat is the last choice available, does one fault him for non-selection?

We are made to pay even for the basic automated electronic process of balloting, yet HDB’s stand seems to infer that if we need a house we should take what they offer. As mentioned, we do not pay a discount, and HDB does make a profit from selling the flats, so why should we be penalized for being selective when we buy our flats?

A home to an ordinary Singaporean like me should be a nest of warmth where I return to my family every night, yet it seems to have been turned into a monopolistic business model, with minimal sense of ownership given.

I do also wonder what HDB’s urgent housing needs refer to, as all I see is an unnecessary spate of DBSS and overpriced projects.

——

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending